Supreme Court Action Affirms Abortion Right : Law: On a 6-3 vote, the justices refuse to hear appeal of a ruling that struck down Guam’s ban on the procedure.

The Supreme Court on Monday once again reaffirmed a woman’s right to abortion, refusing even to consider an appeal of a lower court ruling that declared Guam’s 1990 anti-abortion law unconstitutional.

The high court action, on a 6-3 vote, marked the first time in the nearly 20 years since it gave women the right to seek a legal abortion that the court refused to hear arguments in a major abortion dispute.

The action--consistent with the court’s closely watched ruling in a Pennsylvania case last summer--demonstrates that future abortion battles are likely to focus on how states may regulate the procedure, not whether they can prohibit it.

In its June decision in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the court said states may regulate abortion as long as they do not put an “undue burden” on the freedom of a woman to terminate her pregnancy. States may require, for example, that doctors wait 24 hours after seeing a pregnant patient before performing an abortion.

The Guam law, by contrast, would have imposed a five-year prison term on doctors who perform abortions, except in cases in which the mother’s life is in danger.

Nonetheless, attorneys for Guam Gov. Joseph F. Ada filed an appeal of a lower court ruling that invalidated the law and asked the justices to reinstate at least part of the territory’s anti-abortion measure.

In recent weeks, the justices had delayed acting on the case, spurring speculation that an important abortion ruling might be forthcoming. But on Monday, the court dismissed the appeal in the case (Ada vs. Guam Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 92-104).

Abortion-rights lawyers who represented the Guam physicians group called the court’s action “a great victory.”

“We are extremely happy that the court has decided not to consider the Guam abortion ban and that the governor has not been allowed to continue this outrageous case,” said Anita Arriola of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.

The National Right to Life Committee termed the decision “disappointing but unsurprising.”

Justice Antonin Scalia, a strong foe of the court’s ruling in Roe vs. Wade, which gave women the right to seek a legal abortion, filed a three-page dissent. But even he did not challenge the premise that a total ban on abortion is unconstitutional. Rather, he argued that the court should have reinstated part of the Guam law that banned late-term abortions.

“I see no reason why the Guam law would not be constitutional at least in its application to abortions conducted after the point at which the child may live outside the womb,” Scalia wrote.

The full court has said abortion may be outlawed after a fetus becomes viable, but the majority in this case apparently believes that Guam will have to enact a new law to cover such abortions.

Only Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Byron R. White joined Scalia’s dissent. Significantly, Justice Clarence Thomas did not. In June, however, Thomas had joined the other three in calling for a reversal of Roe vs. Wade. Usually, affirmative votes by four justices are required before an appeal can be heard.

In other action, the court:

--Agreed to decide whether the government may regulate cable TV systems that use a satellite dish to pick up signals to be broadcast throughout an apartment complex or other “multiunit dwelling.”

Some of these cable systems are exempt from regulation because they do not use public rights of way, such as telephone polls.

In the case (U.S. vs. Beach Communications, 92-603), the court said it would review a ruling by a federal appeals court here that struck down regulations imposed on multiunit complexes having more than one owner.

--Refused to hear another appeal (MacDonald vs. United States, 92-703) from former Green Beret and convicted murderer Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald. Lawyers for MacDonald said new evidence could prove his innocence, but the court denied the appeal without comment. MacDonald was found guilty of killing his pregnant wife and two daughters 22 years ago but has appealed the conviction six times to the high court.

--Refused to review a ruling that some adoption lawyers said threatens the “stability and finality” of adoptions.

Most states have laws limiting the time period in which biological parents can contest an adoption. In the District of Columbia, the limit is one year.

But a court ruled here in July that the limit must be lifted in the case of a St. Louis man because the mother concealed the fact that she had put her child up for adoption.

Although the high court refused to hear the adoptive parents’ appeal in the case (M. N. M vs. M. J. L., 92-600), that action does not set a national precedent.