THE ABORTION DECISION : Ruling Pleases Neither Side; Both Vow to Continue Fight : Debate: The opposing camps turn their attention to the upcoming elections and the future makeup of the Supreme Court.

As far as combatants on both sides of the abortion debate are concerned, Monday’s long-awaited Supreme Court decision settled nothing.

In fact, because the court neither outlawed abortion nor granted an absolute right to obtain one without some government-imposed regulation, the ruling appeared to be having the opposite effect: escalating the already bitter battle between those who favor and those who oppose abortion rights.

That bitterness is expected to pervade the presidential election and contests for Congress and state legislatures across the country, and is even expected to spill into the streets. Foes and supporters of abortion rights sought to turn the ruling to their political advantage--both citing, with different emphasis, the fact that the landmark abortion rights ruling had survived by a single vote.

Bill Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, reiterated his support for the right to abortion and vowed to make it a major issue in his campaign. At a press conference in Little Rock, Ark., he warned that Roe vs. Wade “is hanging by a thread” and noted that the next President will be in a pivotal position to shape future court rulings because only one more justice is needed to overturn the 1973 case.

“You have four judges plainly committed to repeal Roe vs. Wade, three others nibbling around the edges and a brave Justice (Harry A.) Blackmun saying he doesn’t know how much longer he can hang on,” Clinton said. “This is one of the things this presidential election is about, and I hope the American people will say in clear, unambiguous terms we do not want to go back” to the days when abortion was illegal.

Blackmun, author of Roe vs. Wade, is 83.

President Bush took the opposite tack. He congratulated the court for upholding the bulk of the Pennsylvania law, noting that it “supports family values in what is perhaps the most difficult question a family can confront.” Bush reiterated his opposition to abortion “in all cases except rape or incest or where the life of the mother is at stake.”

Ross Perot, who is expected to run for the White House as an independent, did not comment directly on the ruling but said: “Personally, my position has been and remains that, basically, this difficult decision should be a woman’s choice.”

The rhetoric escalated even though the court reaffirmed the basic tenets of Roe vs. Wade. Abortion rights advocates portrayed the decision to allow restrictions as a dramatic legal retreat that raised the specter of a return to illegal, back-alley abortions. By crying foul, they hoped to retain the political momentum necessary to elect candidates who support abortion rights in November.

“Roe vs. Wade is dead--they finally put the final knife in it,” declared Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), a leading abortion rights proponent.

Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), said the principal objective of abortion rights groups would be to defeat Bush and to elect “a pro-choice President” and “a veto-proof Congress.”

Anti-abortion leaders, who had hoped that a court dominated by conservatives might completely overturn Roe, complained that they were betrayed.

“You will see a lot of unrest in the streets, a lot of incredible anger from people who want to restore moral sanity and protection to babies,” warned Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue, which regularly stages sit-ins outside abortion clinics.

Darla St. Martin, associate director of the National Right to Life Committee, said the chief goal of the anti-abortion camp would be to reelect Bush and thus enable him to appoint at least one more justice who would help reverse the court’s narrow 5-4 majority in favor of permitting abortion in the United States.

The court’s reaffirmation of Roe could drain some of the political zeal from the efforts of abortion rights groups, who have tried without success over the last decade to use the issue to elect liberal presidential candidates. As they did in 1984 and 1988--and as Blackmun did in his opinion--they will warn voters that the court is just “one justice away” from overturning Roe.

Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women, acknowledged that abortion rights forces were pleased that the court had not overturned the right to have an abortion, but were reacting negatively to gain political advantage. “All of this in a way is political posturing for the elections,” she said.

Supporters of abortion rights had agreed upon this strategy long before the court’s decision was made known. Michelman acknowledged that her group would have adopted the same political response if the court had overturned Roe.

The battle will now move to state legislatures and to Congress, which will consider the so-called Freedom of Choice Act this week. The bill, which is designed to write Roe into law, is expected to pass. Bush has vowed to veto it.

State legislatures are expected to fight over regulations to restrict access to abortions. Future court cases are expected to hinge on whether these laws are consistent with Monday’s ruling.

Both sides have been amassing large sums of political action committee money that they intend to use to help elect like-minded candidates. NARAL recently launched a drive to raise $5 million in three months; the National Right to Life Committee plans to invest $1.5 million in the upcoming elections.

And in the presidential race, political analysts say, Bush could gain an advantage because he is the only candidate who opposes abortion rights. Clinton and Perot could divide the votes of those who support the right to abortion, giving the President a boost even though polls indicate that his position is not shared by the majority of Americans.

In a sense, the decision came as welcome news to Bush because, if the court had overturned Roe, it could have unleashed a political backlash that the President’s campaign strategists feared would bring more supporters of abortion rights to the polls.

But, although it did not overturn Roe itself, the decision is bound to increase tension in the GOP over the bitterly divisive issue. Republicans who support abortion rights are promising a floor fight at the GOP National Convention in August to overturn the anti-abortion plank in the party’s platform.

In the Democrat-controlled Congress, the House Judiciary Committee scheduled a meeting today to vote on the Freedom of Choice Act. A similar measure is expected to be approved Wednesday by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. Final congressional action is not expected until late July or early August because Congress intends to recess for Independence Day and the Democratic National Convention.

Because the bill is supported by many Republicans, such as Sen. John Seymour of California, as well as by liberal Democrats, such as Sen. Alan Cranston of California, supporters predict that Congress will pass it. On Monday, Seymour and Cranston condemned the court decision and called for enactment of the bill.

The legislation is the product of many months of coordinated planning by liberal Democrats in Congress, led by Schroeder, Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose) and a few others. The measure was designed to build on the increasing political strength that abortion rights advocates have demonstrated in Congress since 1988.

“Only a few years ago, the easy vote in Washington on abortion was to vote with (anti-abortion Rep.) Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.),” noted Rep. Les AuCoin (D-Ore.). “That is no longer the case. Today, the easy vote is to vote pro-choice, and that is an amazing transformation.”

But most congressional leaders acknowledged that they do not have sufficient votes to overturn Bush’s threatened veto of the measure.

Times staff writers Sam Fulwood III, Douglas Jehl, William Eaton, David Lauter, Ronald H. Brownstein and Paul Houston contributed to this story.

Reaction to the Ruling

Abortion rights supporters and opponents both reacted angrily against the Supreme Court decision that keeps abortion legal yet broadens state power to restrict it.

ABORTION FOES

“Today the three Reagan-Bush appointees have stabbed the pro-life movement in the back and affirmed the bloodshed.”

--Randall Terry, founder of anti-abortion activist group Operation Rescue

“It’s a major loss to have a fundamental right to abortion upheld by the court.”

--James Bopp Jr., general counsel for National Right to Life Committee

“I am pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision. . . . The Pennsylvania law supports family values in what is perhaps the most difficult question a family can confront.”

--President Bush

“We must continue to pray and work toward that day when the lives of mothers and their unborn children will again enjoy the full protection of the laws.”

--Cardinal John J. O’Connor, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York

ABORTION RIGHTS ADVOCATES

“Today Roe vs. Wade is no longer a constitutional right. We are much worse than we have been in the past. States have been permitted to put roadblocks in the road of women.”

--Kathryn Kolbert, Center for Reproductive Law and Policy

The ruling amounts to a “stab . . . in the heart” of Roe vs. Wade. “It really says they don’t trust women. They don’t think women understand the seriousness of this.”

--Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.)

“This is one more step in a move to outlaw abortion rights. It is exactly what we expected. We think American women lost the right to choose today.”

--Kelly Conlon, National Abortion Rights Action League

“The court is anti-women, anti-child and anti-choice.”

--Norma McCorvey, (Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade) “As a citizen, I respect and obey the laws of the country as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Personally, my position has been and remains that, basically, this difficult decision should be a woman’s choice.”

--Ross Perot

“The decision in the Pennsylvania case and the comments made in dissent by Justice Blackmun make it abundantly clear that the constitutional right to choose is hanging by a thread. . . .”

--Bill Clinton

Source: Times staff and wire reports

Also Headed to the High Court . . .

Three more cases heading toward the Supreme Court will directly ask the justices to decide if abortion is a constitutional right . Utah, Louisiana and Guam all have sought to ban abortion. None of the laws are being enforced as legal challenges work through the federal courts.

Guam: Considered the most restrictive anti-abortion statute, the law would make it a felony to perform any abortion except to preserve a woman’s life or prevent grave danger to health as certified by two independent doctors. The law was overturned in April by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the Supreme Court had not overruled the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.

Louisiana: The law would ban abortion except to save the mother’s life or in promptly reported cases of rape or incest. It calls for prison sentences of up to 10 years and fines of up to $100,000 for doctors who perform illegal abortions. A federal judge declared the law unconstitutional in August, and the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in February.

Utah: The law would ban abortion except in cases of rape or incest, grave danger to the mother’s physical health or if the fetus had grave defects. In cases of rape or incest, the abortion would have to be done no more than 20 weeks into the pregnancy. A federal judge said he would delay ruling on a constitutional challenge to this law until after the Supreme Court ruling on the Pennsylvania statute.

Source: Times wire services