Few States Poised to Pass Strict New Abortion Laws

Devout, conservative and heavily Republican, Utah lawmakers figured to be out front in the anti-abortion stampede that many activists not long ago were predicting might sweep through state legislatures this year.

But by the time lawmakers recessed a few days ago, Republican Gov. Norman H. Bangerter, a staunch abortion foe himself, had talked them out of taking up a bill to outlaw most abortions. The reason: money.

Such legislation would surely trigger legal challenges that could cost the state as much as $1 million, Bangerter estimated. But if a similar law passed elsewhere, he argued, then Utah could wait patiently--and cheaply--while another state paid the legal bills. “We felt like we didn’t need to be the leaders in this,” explained Francine Giani, Bangerter’s press secretary.

True to predictions, last summer’s landmark Supreme Court ruling that chipped away at abortion rights led to a flood of emotional debates in statehouses throughout the country. Like Utah, however, few states seem poised to enact significant new curbs on the controversial procedure.

Abortion opponents suffered the latest round of setbacks on Friday in Michigan and Indiana, two states where anti-abortion sentiment appeared to run deep throughout the Legislatures.

In Lansing, Gov. James J. Blanchard, a Democrat, vetoed legislation that would have required pregnant teen-agers to obtain parental consent before undergoing an abortion. Strategists for the abortion rights movement said opponents couldn’t muster the strength to override Blanchard’s veto.

And in Indianapolis, the state Senate for the second time in a week narrowly defeated a House-passed bill that would have banned abortions in public hospitals.

The reasons for setbacks to the anti-abortion forces are many. Frugality is the byword in Utah. Elsewhere the obstacles range from legal roadblocks to a revitalized abortion rights movement to a stark reality of election year politics: When the going gets tough, even the toughest-sounding of politicians will try to run for cover.

“Basically, politicians just don’t want to deal with anything that might possibly hurt them,” said Sylvia Sullivan, president of Alabama Citizens for Life, an anti-abortion group. “They don’t necessarily think it will lose an election for them, but the whole thing’s just a hassle.”

In upholding a Missouri statute last July, the Supreme Court preserved a woman’s basic right to have an abortion but significantly broadened state powers to regulate the procedure. Two other cases now pending before the Court could further restrict abortions.

Despite the opening made in the Missouri case, the renewed abortion debate has produced far more heat than light and the big winner so far has been the status quo. Only the Pennsylvania and South Carolina Legislatures have passed new restrictions. The South Carolina bill is still awaiting approval of Gov. Carroll A. Campbell Jr., who is likely to sign it. The Pennsylvania legislation was signed by Gov. Robert P. Casey, but its implementation was blocked by a federal court injunction.

Movement on restrictive legislation has slowed or stalled even in states like Missouri, Alabama, Utah and Minnesota, where abortion opponents felt before the year began that they had some of their best shots. Interpretations of the phenomenon are as far apart as feelings about abortion itself.

Abortion rights advocates insist that even many lawmakers who claimed to abhor abortion fear a political backlash. “They are political people and they see how the polls are running on this issue,” said Barbara Drake, a lobbyist in Alabama for the National Mobilization for Women’s Lives.

On the other hand, Burke Balch, the state legislative coordinator for the National Right to Life Committee, said his organization never expected a wave of abortion curbs to flood from statehouses in the wake of the Missouri ruling. Most such predictions, Balch said, were made by abortion rights proponents trying to mobilize their supporters and create unrealistic expectations for the anti-abortion movement.

“This is not something that’s going to be settled this year or next year or even in 1992,” Balch said. “This is is one of the major, fundamentally divisive issues not just in our time but in all of American history. This isn’t going to go away with a few votes here or there.”

Rather than push for all-out abortion bans, which they acknowledge might turn off many legislators as well as run afoul of the courts, opponents in many states have adopted a piecemeal approach. Balch said the strategy is designed to appeal to people who may support abortion rights as a general concept but have trouble accepting significant aspects of it.

In California, for example, the National Right to Life Council and other anti-abortion groups have shelved efforts to secure major new restrictions on abortions in favor of proposing bills that highlight and ban what they consider the most egregious abortions, including those done to choose the sex of a child.

Other states are considering bills requiring parental consent for teen-agers before an abortion can be performed. Other legislation severely regulates the practices of abortion clinics and hospitals, while another measure introduced in several states would ban abortion as a method of birth control. Abortion rights advocates say the birth control idea could theoretically cover 90% of all abortions performed in the country and is tantamount to a back-door method of virtually outlawing the procedure.

Despite the gaping philosophical, moral and political chasm separating abortion rights backers and critics, both sides see eye-to-eye on one thing this year: key politicians in several states seem to be going through unusual contortions to avoid dealing with the issue.

In Missouri, long a legislative hotbed of anti-abortion sentiment, state House Speaker Bob Griffin has consigned all abortion-related legislation to two committees controlled by abortions rights advocates. Though Griffin has backed anti-abortion legislation in the past, critics say he needs the support of abortion rights legislators if he is to retain his leadership post.

“Fundamentally, what it all comes down to is that the Speaker doesn’t want to (anger) people . . . by letting pro-life bills get out of committee,” insisted Samuel Lee, the chief lobbyist for Missouri Citizens for Life.

A go-slow approach has also harmed prospects for enactment of new restrictions in Alabama, which anti-abortion forces once thought would be one of their most fruitful battlegrounds this year. Restrictive bills have been approved by committees in both houses in recent weeks. But state Sen. Jim Preuitt, chairman of the state Senate Judiciary Committee, which must pass on abortion bills, said final passage of any legislation would be “quite a chore” given the press of non-abortion related bills that must be dealt with first.

And Preuitt, a Democrat, said the strident activities of some abortion foes are undercutting their support among some lawmakers. Though Preuitt said he has always sympathized with abortion opponents, the lawmaker said he was angered recently when a group of 15 to 20 anti-abortion demonstrators picketed his automobile dealership in Talladega because the Judiciary panel was not moving as fast as they would like on abortion bills.

“They accused me of dragging on the bills,” he said. “ . . . I was worked up enough that a couple of more demonstrations and the bill probably would never have gotten out.”

Staff writer Daniel M. Weintraub contributed to this story from Sacramento. Bob Secter reported from Chicago.