Reversal of ’73 Abortion Decision Seen as Unlikely

The Supreme Court’s ruling Wednesday invalidating a series of restrictions on abortion drew widespread praise from abortion-rights groups as a clear signal that the court will make no retreat on the emotion-charged issue.

The decision, they said, shows that a majority of the justices on the court is solidly opposed to demands by the Reagan Administration and other abortion foes that it reverse its landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion.

Spokesmen for anti-abortion forces and the Administration conceded that they had suffered defeat--and that there is little immediate likelihood that the 1973 ruling would be reversed.

The narrow 5-4 decision and the apparent shift in position on the issue by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger seemed neither to encourage abortion opponents nor to discourage pro-choice advocates. Burger had joined the majority in the 1973 ruling, known as Roe vs. Wade, but said Wednesday that he believes the decision should be reconsidered.

‘States Should Be Warned’

“Roe vs. Wade is not hanging by a slender thread,” said Lynn M. Paltrow, counsel to the Reproductive Freedom Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. “It was reaffirmed in very strong terms--and the states should be warned that they cannot interfere with a woman’s freedom of choice under the guise of neutral and beneficial laws.”

Similarly, Patricia Ireland of the National Organization for Women said the ruling shows that no one “has the right to intimidate women who are making the decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy.”

‘Slap in the Face’

Marcia Niemann of the National Abortion Rights Action League characterized the ruling as a “direct slap in the face” for the Administration.

On the other side, Solicitor General Charles Fried, who filed a “friend of the court” brief for the Administration urging that the 1973 decision be overturned, acknowledged that the ruling was “a defeat”--and said it would be “slightly futile” to intervene in another such case in the immediate future.

“I can’t help but think that the more deeply the justices think about the matter, the more likely they are eventually to come to our conclusion,” Fried said at a news conference.

“I think there is such a thing as making a pest of yourself,” he said. “I have no inclination to be a nag.”

Hoping for Retirement

Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), who has led abortion foes in Congress, said that “what all of us in the pro-life movement are hoping is that one of these justices who support abortion will retire.”

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee, called the ruling “shocking,” saying it showed that the current court “insists on unrestricted abortion throughout pregnancy.”

The court’s refusal to permit state authorities to require women to be told that public and private agencies will assist them if they decide against abortion “demonstrates that the court is zealously biased toward abortion--not ‘choice,’ ” Johnson said.