Women’s Right to Choose Rests With the Voters

We can stop holding our breath.

Sort of.

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court laid its cards on the table and showed it supports--by one vote--women’s right to legal abortion.

Sort of.

Speaking from both sides of its mouth, the court upheld the “essential holding” of Roe vs. Wade. Women may still have legal abortions. But the states may put up roadblocks, as long as they do not impose “undue burdens”--whatever those are.

If you’re not confused yet, listen to what the justices had to say.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, abortion foe: “Roe continues to exist, but only in the way a storefront on a Western movie set exits: a mere facade to give the illusion of reality.”

Justice Harry Blackmun, abortion-rights advocate: “But now, just when so many expected darkness to fall, the flame has grown bright.”

Most people have not read the decision; most will let word of mouth or headlines be their guide. My guess is that if the justices are confused, so are plenty of the rest of us.

And confusion is a dangerous thing.

It may prevent people from taking seriously the real and continuing threat to legal abortion. Now that states can impose restrictions, many will do what they can to ensure abortion does not take place. Ever.

Curious about how young women have interpreted the ruling, I wandered around Santa Monica College one morning, trying to get a sense of what they knew.

All the women I spoke with knew that abortion is still legal, but not one could tell me the details of Monday’s 5-4 decision.

Unfortunately, it’s the details--the upholding of parental consent, the 24-hour waiting period after medical consultation, the possibility of abortion records being made public--that will determine which women will be able to avail themselves of the right they still own.

This fact seems lost on the women with whom I spoke.

Eighteen-year-olds Victoria Arias and Delia Padilla and 20-year-old Cristina Robinson virtually drew blanks when I asked what they knew about Monday’s decision.

“I haven’t heard that much,” said Robinson. “I guess it hasn’t fazed me because it hasn’t affected me.”

“I think it was good news,” said Arias.

Seventeen-year-olds Danielle Fogel and Orit Naor and 18-year-old Dante McCarthy seemed embarrassed that they could not say what had happened.

“It’s men trying to take the power away from women,” ventured McCarthy.

Alicia Brewster, 25, and Miss-Julie McNeil, 19, had slightly clearer notions of what the Supreme Court said.

“Their decision was that they are trying to please both sides--pro-life and pro-choice,” said Brewster.

Added McNeil: “The Supreme Court seems to be going backward, not forward. I know the Supreme Court knows it’s the ‘90s. I just don’t know if they know it’s the 1990 s.”

When informed that the court upheld the right of states to require minors to receive parental consent before they may terminate a pregnancy, the women expressed outrage.

“Ridiculous,” said Robinson. “That’s not right at all.”

Yet not one knew that since 1987, California has had a parental consent law on the books. It has never been enforced, but that does not mean it won’t be one day.

State Atty. Gen. Dan Lundgren is fighting a recent San Francisco Superior Court decision that struck down this state’s parental consent law as a violation of the right to privacy. The California Supreme Court may hear the case in 1993.

Only one member remains of the liberal state high court that, in 1981, said a woman’s right to abortion is guaranteed under the right-to-privacy provision in our state’s Constitution. Things could change.

The November election will probably determine the fate of legalized abortion in this country.

Now that Blackmun has virtually announced his retirement, the next President will surely have the opportunity to appoint a justice.

“I am 83 years old,” wrote Blackmun, in a poignant personal message included in Monday’s court decision. “I cannot remain on this court forever, and when I do step down, the confirmation process for my successor well may focus on the issue before us today. That, I regret, may be exactly where the choice between the two worlds will be made.”

So let’s not stay confused by what the court decided Monday. It decided it is one vote away from outlawing a woman’s right to make the most fundamental decisions about her body.

And it is up to voters to shape the choice for Blackmun’s successor.

If the wrong man wins the presidency, that Western facade of Rehnquist’s may indeed come tumbling down.

And darkness will fall on Blackmun’s flame.