The war within the states.

WHATEVER THE DISPUTES about the Supreme Court's Webster decision, virtually everyone understands it as an invitation to state regulation of abortion. We can look forward to intense and prolonged battles in state capitals nationwide, as the debate that was choked off by the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade is finally re-opened.

Each side has some "safe" areas. California, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii liberalized their abortion laws before Roe, and have solidly pro-abortion courts and legislatures; much of the Northeast is also a secure haven for abortion-on-demand. Louisiana, Illinois, South Dakota, Utah, and Idaho have adopted laws or resolutions to outlaw abortion upon Roe's reversal, while 11 more states have passed legislation granting as much protection to "fetal life" as the Court will allow, and an additional ten still have their pre-Roe abortion laws on the books.

Of course, even an explicit reversal of Roe wouldn't necessarily reactivate such laws. In fact, pre-emptive court fights have already been launched by Roe's supporters in case of reversal. For example, an anti-Roe statute passed in 1975 by the Illinois legislature (pro-life then as it is today) has recently been ruled legally impotent by one state judge, who said additional "enabling legislation" would be required in order to outlaw abortion should Roe be reversed.

Nonetheless, Ralph Rivera, chairman of the Illinois Pro-Life Coalition, believes that "we have a good shot at making abortion illegal, but . . . it will take a lot of work." Republican Governor James Thompson is one reason; he would probably veto any legislation outlawing abortion unless it were "loaded with exceptions," although he has now said he's reconsidering his position in the light of Webster. So too is his probable opponent in the next general election: Attorney General Neil Hartigan has dropped his pro-life stance since the Webster decision.

Illinois shows how difficult outlawing abortion may be even in supposedly "good" states. With pro-abortion governors ready to veto pro-life bills, many state courts inclined to strike down those that do become law, and upcoming elections complicating politicians' calculations, it's not enough to have an anti-abortion majority in the legislature. But anti-abortionists have one strategic asset: perseverance.

In Arkansas, attempts to ban state abortion funding by ballot referenda failed in 1984 and 1986; the pro-lifers finally won with 52 per cent of the vote in 1988. Similarly, Michigan's pro-lifers, who routed a referendum to liberalize abortion laws back in 1972, have for years seen pro-abortion governors routinely veto legislation banning public funding of abortion. In 1987, they launched a petition drive to force a "citizen initiative," mandating a legislative vote and barring a veto; the anti-funding initiative passed overwhelmingly, stood up to court challenges, and easily survived (57 to 43 per cent) a 1988 pro-abortion referendum.

To Barb Listing, President of Right to Life of Michigan, the initiative win is a good omen. Despite published reports that place Michigan in the solidly "pro-choice" camp, "it shows there's a strong pro-life base," she says. If necessary, "we would go the referendum route again."

Michigan's battles could be tame compared to those in Iowa, where the Senate is pro-life, the House is pro-abortion, pro-life GOP Governor Terry Branstad expects to face a pro-abortion opponent next year, and national proabortion groups, sensitive to the state's "first caucus" status, vow that they can and must hold the line.

But they will have to contend with Iowans for Life, the scrappy outfit that spearheaded the defeats of U.S. Senators Dick Clark (1978) and John Culver (1980). Carolyn Thompson, the group's redoubtable leader, admits that the elements for a pro-life victory are currently lacking, but says "Iowans are basically pro-life, and we have the ability to win political victories. We're used to major battlesand the other side is going to get one." Moreover, a chance for meaningful victories "will bring back into the movement people who've taken a sabbatical."

While the anti-abortion movement will seek to restrict the practice everywhere it can, not ignoring less populous states such as Wyoming and the Dakotas, the biggest and most important battles will come in the larger states, where tens of thousands of abortions are performed each year. Illinois and Michigan both fall into that category; so of course does California, which leads the pack with over 200,000 abortions annually. However, prolife forces don't expect much success there, as the state Supreme Court continuesto strike down abortion-funding bans even after the removal of liberal activist Rose Bird.

A more likely target-although not with much hope for the near term-is second-place New York, Jean Head, a long-term state anti-abortion leader, believes "significant change is possible," reminding us that, while New York was one of the first states to legalize abortion in 1970, the legislature voted to repeal that law two years later (although Governor Nelson Rockefeller vetoed the pro-life bill). Currently, the state Assembly is pro-abortion, the Senate "generally" anti-abortion. And the governor is Mario Cuomo, who used to claim that he was "personally opposed" to abortion but was bound to uphold the law of the land. The day after the Webster decision, he announced that he must now uphold the law of the state, as the state constitution forces him to support public funding of abortion in order to protect the poor. Until Cuomo changes his position, or leaves office, New York will probably remain pro-abortion.

The same day Cuomo spoke out, Governor Bob Martinez called a special session of tbe Florida legislature to pass restrictions in line with those allowed by Webster; some such restrictions will almost certainly pass because, as state right-to-life leader Jean Doyle points out, "we've been putting the right people in office since 1973." She cites as proof "our parental consent statute that flew through both houses last year." However, the state courts have ruled that the statute cannot be enforced untit the U.S. Supreme Court rules on similar laws in Ohio and Minnesota in the fall.

In Texas, there are over eighty thousand abortions annually, but the statutes struck down by Roe v. Wade are still on the books; the legislature has never repealed them, and, according to Richard Schmude, general counsel for the Houston-based Right to Life Advocates, Inc., is receptive to whatever restrictions the Court will allow.

Of course such scenarios express as much optimism and hope as hard judgment; the Webster decision, or even a complete reversal of Roe down the line, can only create an opportunity for state regulation. State courts and most of the media tend to back abortion, and neither is directly responsible to the political process-though each can be gradually persuaded. And abortion advocates tend to ignore their foes' strength of commitment, as shown in a recent Los Angeles Times poll: 46 per cent of pro-life voters versus only 30 per cent o "pro-choicers" said they would switch tbeir vote based on that single issue. Each side is ready for a long fight. And a complex one.