Panel OKs Bill Forbidding States to Curb Abortions : Legislation: House measure bars restrictions before fetal viability. Senate may take similar action today.

Acting quickly to strengthen abortion rights after the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling a day earlier on the issue, the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved a bill that would forbid any state restrictions on abortions before fetal viability.

A similar bill is expected to be adopted today by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, thus setting the stage for House and Senate consideration of the Freedom of Choice Act later this summer on the eve of the election campaign.

A modified version of the legislation is expected to pass the House and Senate later this year, setting up a confrontation with President Bush, who has signaled that he will veto the bill. Congressional leaders acknowledged that they would not be able to override him.

Supporters said that the legislation, approved by a 20-13 vote, would prevent further erosion of a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy.

“The Congress has the power, indeed the responsibility, to fill the constitutional void left by the court,” said Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Tex.), chairman of the judiciary panel. Opponents, however, argued that the bill would allow unlimited abortions and undercut reasonable safeguards endorsed by the Supreme Court when it voted by a 5-4 margin Monday to reaffirm the 1973 ruling that first defined abortion as a constitutional right.

“This legislation would impose on all 50 states an unprecedented regimen of abortion on demand,” said Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), a leading spokesman for anti-abortion forces.

In addition to throwing the issue into Congress, Monday’s ruling appeared to ensure that abortion would remain a central issue in the presidential contest this fall. Of the three likely presidential contenders, Bush is the only anti-abortion candidate. Democrat Bill Clinton and independent Ross Perot favor abortion rights.

Meanwhile, seven leaders of U.S. women’s organizations were arrested in front of the White House on Tuesday for conducting abortion rights demonstrations without a permit. Refusing to disperse, the seven women quietly lined up to be handcuffed while television cameras recorded the scene.

“This is the kick-off of a nonviolent campaign,” said Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women and one of those arrested. Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, and Jane Tennington of the Older Women’s League also were taken into custody.

They object to the court’s decision to permit some restrictions on abortion as long as they do not place an “undue burden” on women seeking to end an unwanted pregnancy.

Debate on the Freedom of Choice Act in the House Judiciary Committee reflected the determination of abortion rights advocates to write the Roe vs. Wade ruling into law and prevent states from placing additional restrictions on access to abortions.

“The Supreme Court can no longer be counted on,” said Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on civil and constitutional rights.

“Roe vs. Wade is on its last legs and is nothing but a hollow shell,” agreed Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.).

Schroeder argued that it is unduly burdensome for women to wait 24 hours after receiving state-prescribed information on fetal development before obtaining an abortion--a restriction upheld by the court Monday.

But Hyde and other lawmakers who oppose abortion countered that the requirements for a waiting period and instruction on how a fetus grows in the womb are likely to produce a wiser decision on whether to terminate a pregnancy.

The legislation before the committee, Hyde said, would allow abortion to be used as a form of retroactive birth control without any limits.

Before approving the bill, the House panel adopted an amendment by voice vote that would permit states to pass laws that would “involve” a parent or judge in a minor’s decision on whether to have an abortion.

Supporters of the amendment said that it would allow state “parental consent,” or parental notification laws, if they provided an alternative--such as approval by a judge--that would permit a pregnant teen-ager to get an abortion.

By a 17-16 vote, the panel approved a “conscience clause” amendment that would allow health care workers to refuse to perform abortions if they were unwilling to do so for moral or religious reasons.

Earlier, the panel rejected on a 19-14 vote a proposed amendment that would bar the use of public funds for abortions.

By a vote of 23 to 10, the committee rejected a proposed amendment that would have allowed states to present information on fetal development and abortion alternatives and require a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking to end their pregnancies.