Pennsylvania Abortion Law’s Key Parts Voided : Courts: The state says it will appeal the federal judge’s ruling. Some fear this case and one from Guam will be used to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

A federal district judge in Pennsylvania ruled unconstitutional Friday key provisions in that state’s controversial abortion control law, setting the stage for a legal battle that could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Senior U.S. District Judge Daniel H. Huyett III, in a 191-page opinion filed in Philadelphia, struck down provisions in the Pennsylvania law requiring spousal notification, pre-abortion counseling, a 24-hour waiting period and, in the case of minors, the consent of at least one parent.

Abortion rights advocates welcomed Huyett’s decision but feared that it, along with a federal judge’s ruling Thursday overturning a highly restrictive ban on abortions in the U.S. territory of Guam, may spell trouble for abortion rights.

“If the governors of Guam and Pennsylvania appeal the rulings, they will be providing the Supreme Court with invitations to take away the right to choose and overrule Roe,” said Dawn Johnsen, legal director of the Washington-based National Abortion Rights Action League.

She was referring to the landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that, along with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the lesser known Doe vs. Bolton case, established a constitutional right for women to have abortions.

A spokesman for Pennsylvania Atty. Gen. Ernest Preate, calling Huyett’s ruling “disappointing but not unexpected,” said the state plans to appeal the decision to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals within 30 days.

“It is the attorney general’s duty to defend the constitutionality of state statutes, and he intends to pursue all appropriate appeals, including appealing to the United States Supreme Court if necessary,” said the spokesman, Robert Gentzel.

The provision involving parental consent was approved by the Pennsylvania Legislature in 1988 as an amendment to the state’s 1982 Abortion Control Act. The three others that Huyett declared unconstitutional were added to the statute last year in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a case known as Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services that gave states more latitude to impose restrictions on abortions.

In his ruling, Huyett criticized Pennsylvania lawmakers for their “hostility . . . to the protection of a woman’s right of privacy to choose abortion” and declared that many of the recent revisions in the state’s abortion laws were just repetitions of provisions previously declared unconstitutional.

“For now, at least, the law of abortion remains undisturbed, because only the United States Supreme Court has the power to change it,” he said. But, quoting Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun’s admonition, he warned abortion rights supporters that “the signs are evident and very ominous, and a chill wind blows.”

Mary Beliveau, legislative coordinator for the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, an affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee, expressed disappointment at Huyett’s decision, contending that “it is clearly erroneous.”

“For example, similar laws to Pennsylvania’s parental consent law have already been upheld by U.S. Supreme Court decisions,” she said. “We feel confident that, on appeal, the Pennsylvania law will be upheld as constitutional.”

Democratic Gov. Robert P. Casey, a staunch opponent of abortion who signed the now stricken provisions into law, still believes that they are “consistent with the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court,” according to John Taylor, the governor’s deputy press secretary.

State Auditor General Barbara Hafer, an avowed abortion rights Republican who is running against Casey in this year’s gubernatorial race, has used Casey’s opposition to abortion as part of her campaign strategy.

“She’s very pleased with (Huyett’s) decision,” said Ron Ruman, Hafer’s press secretary. “It’s a law she wouldn’t have signed in the first place because she felt it was unconstitutional.”