Bar Assn. Renews Fight on Abortion : Law: Members at convention recommend 2 to 1 that the lawyers’ group drop its neutral stand and support women’s right to choose.

Wading into the divisive debate over abortion for the third time in two years, American Bar Assn. members on Monday urged their governing body to take a stand in favor of a woman’s right to end a pregnancy.

After a passionate debate reflecting the nation’s bitter split over abortion rights, members recommended by a 2-1 margin that the ABA drop its position of neutrality on the issue and declare itself opposed to laws that restrict a woman’s right to choose.

“In the 1950s, I’m ashamed to say we were neutral when issues of racial justice were before the courts,” ABA President Talbot D’Alemberte told the 1,000 lawyers who gathered for the vote during the group’s annual convention here. “The ABA may not, without grave risk to our credibility, withdraw from the debate over this vital issue today.”

Abortion rights advocates heralded the outcome, cheering and embracing after the tally was complete. But the vote will be moot unless the policy is approved by the ABA’s governing body, the House of Delegates, today.

Dallas attorney Darrell Jordan, a leader of the opposition, predicted that today’s vote will be very close. Adoption of a policy advocating abortion rights, he warned, would establish a “litmus test” and “loyalty oath” for ABA membership.

“Wouldn’t it be tragically ironic if in promoting this pro-choice resolution we deny other members their freedom of conscience?” Jordan asked.

The abortion issue has overshadowed everything else at this year’s annual ABA convention, a six-day meeting of 13,500 lawyers featuring workshops on topics ranging from biotechnology law to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The ABA’s abortion policy is more than a matter of internal intrigue. Groups such as the National Abortion Rights Action League say the nation’s largest association of lawyers can provide an influential voice in the debate by testifying for legislation and filing supportive briefs in key lawsuits.

The ABA’s foray into the debate began in February, 1990, when the group formally adopted a policy in support of Roe vs. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that guaranteed the legal right to abortion. Women lawyers hailed the move as evidence that the ABA, long a staid, male-dominated organization, had become sensitive to issues of concern to its growing female membership.

But 1,500 members resigned after the vote, and six months later the policy was rescinded and a neutral stand adopted.

The reversal outraged many abortion rights supporters, and they have worked feverishly since then to change the association’s position once again.

In San Francisco this week, abortion rights advocates distributed flyers, staged demonstrations and wore purple “choice” buttons to even the dressiest events on the convention social calendar.

At the same time, a paid political consultant has piloted a $50,000 campaign to keep the ABA neutral. On Sunday night, foes slipped 10,000 flyers under the hotel doors of conventioneers, making a last-minute pitch.

Supporters say the ABA has an obligation to take a stand on one of the fundamental legal questions of the day.

“If the government can make laws that require women to bear unwanted children . . . about what can the government not make laws?” Albuquerque lawyer Roberta Ramo asked in a speech before Monday’s vote.

D’Alemberte, who sponsored the resolution in favor of abortion rights, added that the ABA--which remained mute on segregation during the 1950s--will be judged harshly by history if lawyers act like “potted palms” and become “immobilized by fear of conflict.”

But opponents argue that taking a stand on what many view as a personal, moral question would polarize the association and drive members away.

“We are supposed to be a helping profession, helping to heal,” said John Curtin of Boston, a past president of the ABA. “I ask you, does this move help to heal? My conclusion is it will . . . just add to the shouting.”

Many opponents also feel that an abortion rights stand would undermine the ABA’s credibility in evaluating nominees to the Supreme Court and contribute to the impression that it is a liberal, excessively activist group.

If the 520-member House of Delegates rejects the abortion rights policy, the membership could attempt an override--which requires a two-thirds vote--or launch an unprecedented referendum by mail of the association’s 370,000 lawyers.