Abortion ruling likely to re-energize debate in ’08

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

‘‘For the pro-choice movement nationally or in Maryland, it’s a very troubling day,” said political pollster G. Keith Haller of Potomac Inc. in Bethesda. ‘‘There are many shades of purple in interpreting an individual justice’s opinions, but it certainly portends further restrictions on abortion up to overturning Roe vs. Wade.”

The decision, handed down April 18, will push abortion ‘‘front and center in the presidential and other federal elections in 2008,” Haller said.

While polls show a majority of Americans in favor of keeping abortion legal — with restrictions — the Supreme Court’s stance has shifted with President Bush’s conservative appointments to the high court. That shift could mean further restrictions on abortion, Haller said.

Supporters of abortion rights ‘‘are holding on to a thin piece of ice, and [they] feel the bottom under [them] is crumbling,” he said.

Wendy Royalty, vice chairwoman of Pro-Choice Maryland, agreed.

‘‘We’re very upset by the decision and we think it’s a serious setback for women’s health,” she said. ‘‘We see this trend of politicians making medical decisions that ought to be made by physicians.”

The 5-4 Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, bans the procedure known by opponents as ‘‘partial-birth abortion” from being performed unless the woman’s life, but not her health, is at risk.

U.S. Sens. Benjamin L. Cardin (D) and Barbara A. Mikulski (D) are co-sponsoring a bill called The Freedom of Choice Act to codify the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision and restore the exception for the procedure if a woman’s health is at risk.

‘‘The Supreme Court has imposed its judgment over individual physicians, and that is a very dangerous precedent,” said U.S. Rep. Albert R. Wynn (D-Md., 4th), adding that the case would ‘‘energize the pro-choice movement in the state.”

Abortion opponents said they are heartened by the decision and are likely to push for a similar ban in Maryland.

Maryland is one of about 19 states that has not passed a ban on the controversial procedure.

The last time a bill banning it came to a floor vote in the General Assembly was in 1999 when the Senate approved it 25-22 late in the session. The House amended, then defeated the measure on a 68-70 vote.

In 2000, the ban died in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee without a vote.

Since then, bills that would impose additional restrictions have failed to come to a floor vote in either chamber.

The Supreme Court decision obviates arguments that a ban on such late-term abortions is unconstitutional and means that states can pass their own laws, said Sen. Andrew P. Harris (R-Baltimore County).

A state ban mirroring the 2003 federal law upheld in the Supreme Court’s ruling would provide another means to stop partial-birth abortions, said Harris, a physician who opposes abortion.

Abortion opponents will have to decide whether they are confident that U.S. attorneys will prosecute violators of the federal ban, Harris said. ‘‘If they think it needs belts and suspenders, they should pass a state law ...,” he said.

But Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), who supports abortion rights, said Maryland does not need to pass any legislation because the Supreme Court upheld the federal law. ‘‘Essentially our hands are tied,” said Frosh, a lawyer.

If abortion opponents do file a bill to ban the practice, they won’t face opposition from Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert, Prince George’s). ‘‘I personally favor a partial-birth abortion ban,” he said.

Miller said that, on matters of conscience, he does not try to impose his will on committee leaders.

The debate cuts across party lines in heavily Democratic, heavily Catholic Maryland.

‘‘I don’t know if we have too many advocates to keep the practice of late-term abortions available,” said House Minority Leader Anthony J. O’Donnell (R-Calvert, St. Mary’s), who opposes abortion. ‘‘We’ll have to see. Maryland is a very liberal legislature. It’s early to say what the exact impact will be. But it highlights the importance of who nominates any replacements to the Supreme Court.”

With the exception of a small, but vocal base of abortion supporters and opponents, polls show that most voters put the selection of Supreme Court justices low on their list of priorities when voting for a presidential candidate, said Trevor S. Parry-Giles, a professor at the University of Maryland, College Park.

‘‘The right will see the end they want is within reach. The left will see the danger they’ve feared has more eminence,” said Parry-Giles, author of ‘‘The Character of Justice: Rhetoric, Law, and Politics in the Supreme Court Confirmation Process.”