Justice Dept. Won’t Argue Abortion Case

The Justice Department refused Friday to seek permission to make an oral argument during the Supreme Court’s consideration of a Minnesota law restricting abortions for teen-agers.

The decision to forgo oral argument appears to signal that the department will not use the Minnesota case as the occasion to renew its argument that the landmark 1973 abortion-rights decision be overturned.

Justice Department spokesman Daniel Eramian said the Bush Administration still has as a legal goal the overturning of that decision, Roe vs. Wade.

Eramian said, however, that “it’s premature” to say if the brief that Solicitor General Kenneth Starr still plans to file in the Minnesota case will address that issue.

Eramian said the department intends to join the attorney general of Minnesota in defending the law, which requires teen-agers to obtain the permission of parents--even those not a part of their lives--to get an abortion.

But the Minnesota case may not present the best opportunity for the Justice Department to continue its argument that the high court should overturn Roe vs. Wade, said a department source who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The solicitor general, often called the 10th justice in legal circles, must be careful to preserve his special relationship with the high court by not pressing legal arguments that have been freshly rebuffed by the justices, the source said.

It could be insulting to the justices if the Justice Department quickly returns to the Supreme Court to raise the same legal point that the court rejected in July when the justices refused to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the source said.

Missouri Case

The Justice Department specifically urged the high court to use a Missouri case to overturn the 1973 precedent, a request made in oral argument by former Solicitor General Charles Fried.

The high court in that case held that the Missouri law did not run afoul of Roe vs. Wade, and therefore the 1973 precedent was left intact even though the statute prohibited abortions in state facilities or in hospitals on state land.

Because it involves a law restricting the rights of teen-agers, Hodgson vs. Minnesota does not deal as squarely as the Missouri case with the fundamental issue of a woman’s constitutional right to abortion.

The fact that the Minnesota attorney general is not seeking to overturn Roe vs. Wade in his argument before the court may also be a factor in the Justice Department’s reasoning.

The abortion-rights issue is a politically vexing one for President Bush, who has shifted his stance from pro-choice to anti-abortion in the last decade.