Justices Agree to Review Abortion Restrictions : Supreme Court: The July decision might be narrow in scope--or it could overturn right to end a pregnancy.

On the eve of the 19th anniversary of its Roe vs. Wade ruling, the Supreme Court said Tuesday that it would decide whether to further restrict the right of women to choose abortion.

The justices will consider a Pennsylvania law that requires a woman to notify her doctor and her husband, then wait 24 hours, before going ahead with an abortion. Abortion rights groups contend that the law violates the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which established that women have a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

While the court announced that it would consider the Pennsylvania case, anti-abortion activists sought Tuesday to shut down two abortion clinics in the Washington area. They plan to march to the Supreme Court today to mark the anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade ruling.

The justices issued only a brief order agreeing to review the Pennsylvania case. If they uphold the state law this summer, it could be a narrow ruling that permits the restrictions in the Pennsylvania law without ruling squarely on the underlying right to abortion. Or the solidly conservative court could use the case to go even further, possibly even overturning Roe vs. Wade.

“I’m confident they won’t explicitly overrule Roe” in the Pennsylvania case, said Duke University law professor Walter Dellinger. “But they could functionally overrule Roe for some women,” such as those who live in rural areas and may not be able to travel to a city and wait 24 hours after seeing a doctor.

How the opinion in the Pennsylvania case is written will be all important. Most likely, legal experts said, is that the justices will write a narrow decision that upholds Pennsylvania’s restrictions because they do not interfere unduly with a woman’s decision to choose abortion.

However, the justices could write an opinion saying that the states have the power to protect “potential human life” and that nothing in the Constitution forbids states from exercising that power. In 1989, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist used such language in upholding a Missouri anti-abortion law, but he spoke for only four members of the court.

The ruling also could propel the volatile abortion issue to the center of the national political debate. Arguments before the court are scheduled for late April, with a decision due by July, just as the Democratic and Republican parties prepare for their nominating conventions.

Under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the Supreme Court has been transformed into a solidly conservative court. Women’s rights advocates said that they fear the court will revoke a constitutional right granted by an earlier court.

In the 1973 ruling, the justices said that the Constitution gives pregnant women the right to choose abortion in consultation with a doctor. States were stripped of any power to regulate abortion, at least until late in pregnancy when a fetus is capable of living outside its mother’s womb.

If the justices were to overturn the right to abortion, states would again be free to restrict the practice or ban it entirely.

Even if all provisions of the Pennsylvania law--enacted in 1989--were upheld by the Supreme Court, women still could obtain legal abortions in Pennsylvania. The justices’ order Tuesday announced that five provisions of the law would be reviewed. However, if the court decides to uphold all five provisions, it would have to rewrite to some degree the legal standards set in Roe vs. Wade, which described abortion as a “fundamental right.”

In an unusual move, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Planned Parenthood Federation who are challenging the Pennsylvania law called a Washington news conference to say that they expect the justices to use the case (Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, 91-744) to end abortion rights.

“The court is likely to use this case to abolish fundamental constitutional rights to choose abortion or birth control, rights that millions of American women have relied on for the last 18 years,” said ACLU attorney Kathryn Kolbert. The justices “will try hard to obfuscate, but the bottom line is that they will overturn Roe,” she added.

However, anti-abortion advocates characterized the Pennsylvania law as a moderate measure that enjoys broad support.

The law “ensures a woman’s right to know the facts about the development of unborn children and alternatives to abortion, facts pro-abortion extremists want to deny them,” said Wanda Franz, president of the National Right to Life Committee.

Under the Pennsylvania law, doctors must tell a pregnant woman about the growth of her fetus and inform her of other choices, such as putting her baby up for adoption. Opinion surveys have found that most Americans support rules that tell pregnant women of alternatives and force teen-agers to consult their parents, Franz said. Many surveys also have shown, however, that most Americans oppose laws that prevent women from obtaining abortion.

Though the two sides disagree on the effect of upholding the Pennsylvania law, they agree that the current court is virtually certain to approve the new abortion restrictions.

Only two of the nine justices are known to support the fundamental right to abortion: Harry A. Blackmun, the author of the 1973 Roe decision, and John Paul Stevens.

Four members of the court have said that they would overturn the Roe decision: Rehnquist and Justices Byron R. White, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy.

If either of Bush’s two conservative appointees to the court--Justices David H. Souter or Clarence Thomas--were willing to join such an opinion, it would overturn the right to abortion. States would then be free to ban abortion.

The only woman on the court, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, has criticized the Roe decision, but also has been unwilling to overturn it.

In 1989, when the justices last considered a major abortion case, O’Connor was the swing vote. In that case, Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, the court upheld a series of Missouri restrictions, including a ban on abortions in public hospitals and clinics. Bush Administration attorneys had urged the court to write an opinion that overturned Roe vs. Wade entirely but O’Connor refused to go along with such a sweeping ruling.

But the retirements of Justices William J. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, both of whom were strong strong supporters of Roe vs. Wade, and their replacements by Souter and Thomas have given the conservative wing of the court a commanding majority.

Indeed, abortion rights advocates labeled the Supreme Court a lost cause Tuesday and said that they plan to spend more time seeking passage in Congress of a national Freedom of Choice Act. This proposal, strongly backed by Democratic leaders, would write into federal law a guarantee that pregnant women could choose abortion.

ACLU officials conceded that Bush would be likely to veto such a bill. All five of the leading Democratic presidential candidates have said that they would protect a woman’s right to choose abortion.

The impact of the court’s ruling on the fall elections would depend on how broadly written it is, political analysts said. At a time when voters are focusing on the economy, polls show other issues, including abortion, have become less important.

As a result, only a fairly dramatic decision by the court would influence substantial numbers of voters, according to Democratic analyst Greg Schneiders.

Times staff writer David Lauter contributed to this story.

Abortion Control Act Provisions

The Supreme Court will consider five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1989:

INFORMED CONSENT: Doctors may perform abortions only on women who have given a “voluntary and informed consent.” This means that 24 hours before the procedure, the doctor must tell the woman of “risks and alternatives.” In addition, the doctor must tell the patient of “the probable gestational age of the unborn child.”

MEDICAL EMERGENCY: Doctors may ignore these steps and perform an emergency abortion only to “avert her death” or to head off “irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

PARENTAL CONSENT: A doctor may perform an abortion on a pregnant woman who is under age 18 only if at least one of her parents has consented.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: Doctors must file reports to the state on each abortion performed, including the “type of procedure performed” and the “gestational age of the unborn child.”

SPOUSAL NOTIFICATION: A doctor may not perform an abortion on a married woman without a statement from her certifying that she has informed her husband of her plans. This requirement may be waived if the spouse cannot be located, is not the father or has assaulted his wife or is “likely” to do so. The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld all of the provisions, except the spousal notification requirement.