Controversy over the future of abortion rights was a predominant
theme this past weekend, as supporters on both sides of the issue
rallied across the country to mark the 32nd anniversary of the
passing of Roe v. Wade.
On Jan. 22, 1972, the Supreme Court ruled in the highly
controversial case to legalize abortion, saying a woman’s
right to privacy, as protected by the 14th Amendment, encompasses
her choice to have an abortion until the point when the fetus can
live outside the womb.
President Bush’s second-term inauguration, coupled with
the illness of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States William H. Rehnquist, has led supporters and opponents of
abortion rights to speculate on the changes the upcoming four years
may bring to the ruling.
The conservative bent of the Bush administration leads some to
think that retiring justices could be replaced with more
conservative appointees, who may have an interest in overturning
cases such as Roe v. Wade.
In recognition of the 32nd anniversary of the case,
abortion-rights and anti-abortion activists converged in cities
around the nation to make their respective sides known, rallying in
San Francisco on Saturday and Washington, D.C., on Monday.
“This movement will not fail,” Bush told protesters
at an anti-abortion rally in Washington.
“There’s no question the administration is strongly
pro-life,” said Mary Vanis, president of the board of
directors of the Right to Life League of Southern California.
“The temper of the nation directed by this administration
has allowed people to feel freer to express their beliefs that
abortion is wrong,” Vanis said.
The Bush administration’s conservative leanings could have
a direct impact on future judicial decisions if it is given the
opportunity to fill positions in the Supreme Court within the next
four years.
As Rehnquist battles thyroid cancer and several members of the
Supreme Court are over the age of 71, the possibility of one or
more justices retiring within the next four years is high. Open
slots in the court left by retiring judges are filled by
presidential appointment.
Because Rehnquist is an abortion-rights foe, David
O’Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life
Committee, told the Associated Press he was cautiously optimistic
that the confluence of election results and Rehnquist’s
likely retirement would move the high court toward a stronger
anti-abortion stance.
But some constitutional history experts disagree.
“Rehnquist has always been among the judges who always
wanted to get rid of Roe v. Wade,” said Clyde Spillenger,
professor of law at the UCLA School of Law. “Replacing him
with another conservative is not going to make the overruling of
Roe v. Wade more likely.”
“If other justices … somehow leave the court during
Bush’s second term, it is at least conceivable that (Bush)
could appoint justices that would point the court back”
toward anti-abortion measures, Spillenger said.
Rehnquist was one of only two justices to dissent on the Roe v.
Wade ruling.
Supreme Court decisions can be overturned by judicial overruling
of one of the court’s previous cases, as in the Dred Scott
case in 1857, or by an action along the lines of a constitutional
amendment, Spillenger said.
Although theoretically an overturning of Roe v. Wade is
possible, he said, the strong abortion-rights element in national
politics makes it unlikely.
What will ultimately “chip away at the right to
choose” are decisions made in cases following Roe v. Wade,
such as the ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,
Spillenger said.
That case imposed constraints on how late into a woman’s
pregnancy she could legally have an abortion.
Spillenger also said while it is possible that lawmakers will
introduce federal legislation to diminish the right to choose, it
is not very probable that such legislation would pass.
With reports from Bruin wire services.