THE LANDMARK ROE V. WADE THAT LEGALIZED abortion in 1973 was decided in the U.S. Supreme Court by a seven to two majority. If that decision is reviewed by the Court in the coming months, those numbers could be reversed—seven to two in favor of overturning Roe.

In other words, Clarence Thomas probably does not represent the one vote needed to outlaw abortion, but rather one more vote on a Court which is becoming increasingly hostile and solidly anti-choice.

The real question is when and how the anti-choice majority on the court will choose to wield its power, either to overturn Roe or to disfigure it beyond recognition. And just as important, will the impending loss of choice influence voters in the 1992 elections?

Now progressing through the federal courts are six cases that challenge the fundamental right to choose, any of which could provide the opportunity to deal a fatal blow to Roe. Three of the cases—from Louisiana, Utah and Guam—involve legislation that would outlaw almost all abortions. The three remaining cases challenge laws from Pennsylvania, Mississippi and North Dakota that impose onerous restrictions on abortion. The laws challenged in each of these cases are clearly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent.

The first that will come before the Court—probably in the summer of 1992—is the Pennsylvania case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey. This shocking recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals, essentially states that Roe vs. Wade is no longer the law of the land and is an ominous sign of what lies ahead in cases concerning abortion restrictions.

The importance of this case cannot be overstated. The decision represents the first time that a federal appeals court has held that the standard established by Roe is no longer the law and has allowed states to enforce restrictions that, under previous Supreme Court precedents, had been held unconstitutional.

The case includes several appalling restrictions on the right to choose, including a mandatory waiting period before obtaining abortion, even though the court itself acknowledged that such a requirement "may result in delays of considerably longer than 24 hours...may require a woman to make two visits to a clinic rather than one...[and in some cases] means that the overall cost of an abortion...may increase by a significant percentage." The court concluded, nevertheless, that "this requirement does not constitute an undue burden."

The only restriction that was considered an undue burden by the court was one of "spousal consent," requiring a woman to notify her husband before obtaining an abortion.

It is important to note that it is not outside the realm of possibility that the current U.S. Supreme Court may decide to reinstate this onerous provision when it hears the case.

What does all this mean for New York? Despite the fact that New York State passed a law legalizing abortion in 1970, we could be greatly affected by any ruling that attacks Roe.

The passage of the law legalizing abortion in New York—possibly one of the most dramatic moments in the history of the State Legislature—was won by the narrowest of margins. Anti-choice forces have worked electorally for years to create a base that would make New York the biggest prize in their efforts to outlaw legal abortion. New York is the only state in the country with an active and organized Right-to-Life Party. The Party, which began in 1978, was able to achieve perrmanent ballot status in the 1980 Senate race when Alfonse D'Amato accepted their ballot line. Needless to say, D'Amato will be a primary target of NYS-NARAL in the coming electoral cycle.

New York's State Senate is now controlled by an anti-choice majority, 32 to 29. This majority is not representative of the electorate. According to a 1990 statewide poll conducted by Penn & Schoen Associates, 82 percent of New York voters say that the government should not interfere with a woman's right to decide, even if they personally disagree with a woman's reason for choosing abortion.

In addition, if surrounding states outlaw abortion and New York becomes a refuge of safe, legal abortion as it was in the early seventies, our already overburdened health care system could be challenged beyond its capacity to absorb the demand. Already we see a tremendous influx of young women from Massachusetts to New York because of a law in that state which forces minors to seek mandatory parental or court approval before obtaining an abortion. Since the passage of this restrictive law, there has been a 20 percent increase in second-trimester abortions for Massachusetts minors who have traveled to New York State.

Thus, we face a crisis of monumental significance for the pro-choice movement. Efforts to elect pro-choice legislatures are increasing a thousand-fold across the country. The stakes of having legislatures not committed to women's basic right to choose are too great. Such efforts must continue, especially in 1992, when a Presidential election and an important Senate race in New York State will take place. In addition, every Congressional, State Senate and Assembly seat in New York State is open to contest. Many of these races will present a clear pro-choice/anti-choice battle.

A candidate's position on legal abortion must be elevated in the 1992 federal and state elections from a secondary interest to a primary, dominant concern for pro-choice voters.

Pro-choice State and Federal Legislatures are the only secure way to ensure that women will continue to have the freedom to decide either to continue a pregnancy or to end that pregnancy safely and legally. If we don't elect pro-choice candidates both here in New York and across the country, legal abortion may be relegated to reminiscence — only a memory of a truly "kinder, gentler" time.

The Liberal Party of New York State joins in celebrating the birthday and memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. A great leader who preached racial harmony and nonviolence, Dr. King left a legacy of positive change and goodwill for all Americans. Upon acceptance of his Nobel Prize in 1964, King declared that, "Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."

The racial tensions in our society today, nearly 24 years after Dr. King's assassination, are a shameful testament to his dream.

During the past two weeks New York City has been wracked by heinous, vicious acts of racial violence. Wanton retaliation has followed mindless acts of cruelty. It is imperative that New Yorkers bind together to break this vicious cycle of racism.

In 1963, in Washington, D.C., Dr. King spoke of "a dream that one day...the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."

The Liberal Party calls on all New Yorkers to mark this occasion of remembrance and relight the fire of Martin Luther King's dream with a renewed commitment to peaceful social change.

New York State Liberal Party chairwoman Fran Reiter today condemned the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision permitting the U.S. Attorney General to deny Joseph Doherty a new deportation hearing as a reflection of the twelve years of the Reagan/Bush Administrations' determination to erode basic personal and constitutional liberties for their own political advantage.

On Sunday, April 5th in Washington, D.C., the pro-choice movement will gather to let the world know that "WE WON'T GO BACK." As the article by Kelli Conlin in this issue points out, the threats and challenges to a woman's right to choose cannot be ignored. A large turnout at this march/rally is necessary to send a signal across America, from the halls of the Supreme Court to the living rooms of our nation, that reproductive rights will not be compromised.

If you wish to attend, please contact Carl Grillo, the Executive Director, at State Headquarters as soon as possible.