Justices Hint They’ll Pass Up 2 Abortion Law Cases

Long-awaited arguments before the Supreme Court over state efforts to regulate abortions developed into a discussion of technicalities today and the justices indicated they may decline to resolve the disputes.

The cases involve attempts by Pennsylvania and Illinois to expand, by threat of criminal sanctions, their regulatory powers over doctors who perform abortions.

At one point during public argument sessions, Justice Thurgood Marshall pointed to procedural problems in the Illinois case and exclaimed, “What is before us is exactly nothing.”

In both cases, almost all questions from the justices centered on procedural matters and not on the underlying--and always divisive--constitutional issues.

The cases have been closely watched by anti-abortion and pro-choice forces since the court last spring agreed to review them.

‘73 Decision Opposed

The Reagan Administration last July urged the justices to use the cases to overturn their landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion--a bold move widely viewed as having no chance of succeeding.

Lower courts, relying on the 1973 ruling, said the Pennsylvania and Illinois regulations represented too much interference with women’s constitutional right to end their pregnancies.

The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals last year struck down five provisions of Pennsylvania’s 1982 abortion control law. Among them was a requirement that doctors obtain the “informed consent” of women seeking abortions after telling them about “detrimental physical and psychological effects which are not accurately foreseeable” and about medical assistance benefits available for prenatal care and childbirth.

The law also required that doctors file various reports for the public record about each abortion they perform.

‘Regard’ for the Right

Pennsylvania Deputy Atty. Gen. Andrew S. Gordon said the regulations “showed a proper regard” for the right to an abortion.

But Philadelphia lawyer Kathryn Kolbert, representing the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, attacked the regulations.

She said the requirement of reports available as a public record could spark “increased levels of violence” against abortion clinics and “increased levels of harassment for women seeking abortions.”

In their questions, the justices seemed more interested in debating whether they should rule in the Pennsylvania case before any “final decision” has been reached by a lower court.

Not one justice asked a question about the Illinois law, which required doctors who abort fetuses that might be able to live outside the womb to use the same life-saving diligence required during childbirth.

Instead, the court aggressively questioned Chicago lawyer Dennis J. Horan, who is representing two doctors affiliated with an anti-abortion group, about his client’s right to speak for Illinois. The State of Illinois is not appealing the lower court decision.