Three decades after the landmark court decision that outlined
abortion rights for the entire nation, activists from coast to
coast are using today to commemorate the occasion and to fight the
possible repeal of those rights.
After the U.S. Supreme Court heard Roe v. Wade in 1973,
anti-abortion laws throughout the country were negated, ending
state discretion in determining whether a woman could terminate her
pregnancy beyond the scope of protecting her health.
The ruling has been brought up several times over the last 30
years, enduring several challenges to its constitutional validity
but ultimately surviving, albeit with some revisions.
But the current political climate could change what the ruling
has established. Many abortion rights activists fear that the
combination of a Republican-controlled Congress and White House
could lead to the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision.
In Los Angeles, Voices for Planned Parenthood is hosting a
candlelight vigil and demonstration to commemorate the case’s
anniversary at the Federal Building on Wilshire Boulevard. Public
officials Bill Lockyer, California attorney general, and
Congresswoman Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, are scheduled to attend
and speak at the ceremony.
Lockyer has a background of support for abortion rights, and his
office said it shares the concern about an overturn of Roe v.
Wade.
“At this particular time there is a concerted effort by
the Bush administration to retreat from the Roe decision and access
to reproductive services,” said Nathan Barankin, a press aide
for Lockyer.
“We’re perhaps as few as one or two votes away on
the Supreme Court from having the decision potentially
reversed,” he continued.
As it stands, the court is divided 5-4 on the abortion issue,
and the several cases that addressed abortion rights over the last
30 years have fallen along identical voting tallies.
But the court’s makeup could change soon: with two
justices in their seventies ““ Sandra Day O’Connor and
Chief Justice William Rehnquist ““ and the 82-year-old John
Paul Stevens presiding over the court, many expect retirement
announcements soon. If that becomes the case, President Bush will
appoint their successors.
These appointments, many say, could turn the tide in the
court’s upholding of abortion rights.
“With George Bush looking at potential justices who are
not only very conservative, but very young ““ high 30s, young
40s ““ we’re talking about a justice who would be
carrying out that philosophy for another 30 to 45 years, which is
literally generations,” said Kim Gandy, president of the
National Organization for Women.
Some students are concerned for the fate of abortion rights but
are not sure if the White House and Congress, through judicial
appointments, would do something to drastically change previous
court rulings.
“It would be ridiculous if it was repealed,” said
Emily Ng, a staff writer for FEM, UCLA’s feminist
newsmagazine. “It’s important for people to stay on
their toes.”
In the past, states have attempted to enforce statutes that
conflicted with the court’s judgement that the constitutional
right to privacy applied to a woman’s discretion to terminate
her pregnancy.
The Georgia-based Doe v. Bolton in 1973 was the first of the
post-Roe cases. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for the majority that
a woman has the right to an abortion in her third trimester if a
doctor declares it necessary for her health.
In 1992, the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case came closest of
all to reversing Roe v. Wade. In a 5-4 ruling, the court determined
that the trimester breakdown of a pregnancy was no longer valid and
opted for a roughly-defined line of “viability” to
determine the point at which a state’s obligation toward a
fetus became “compelling.”
In that case, Rehnquist led the dissenters in arguing that Roe
v. Wade was unconstitutional to begin with and there was no reason
to uphold it.
With reports from Menaka Fernando, Daily Bruin Reporter, and
Daily Bruin wire services.