
DATE: Tuesday, June 17, 1997                TAG: 9706170347

SECTION: FRONT                   PAGE: A3   EDITION: FINAL 

SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS 

DATELINE: WASHINGTON                        LENGTH:   82 lines

SUPREME COURT ALLOWS MONTANA TO BAN ABORTIONS BY ASSISTANTS

In a ruling called ``devastating'' by one abortion-rights advocate, the Supreme Court on Monday let Montana outlaw abortions performed by physician assistants.

But the court rejected Utah's bolder bid to make abortions more difficult to obtain.

The court's unsigned opinion in the Montana case was only its second abortion-rights decision since 1992, when the justices reaffirmed the core of the landmark 1973 ruling in Roe vs. Wade: Women have a constitutional right to end their pregnancies.

Most of the highest court's recent focus in the continuing social, political and legal battle over abortion has been on picketing and other demonstrations outside abortion clinics.

In a March 31 decision, the court unanimously upheld a Montana law requiring unmarried girls under age 18 to notify a parent or get a judge's approval before undergoing an abortion.

By a 6-3 vote Monday, the justices reversed a federal appeals court ruling that had blocked enforcement of the Montana's 1995 law on who is allowed to perform abortions.

The court said past rulings made clear that states can require all abortions to be performed by physicians.

``Today, some of our worst fears about the limits of constitutional protection for women's reproductive health care decisions have come true,'' said Janet Benshoof of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.

``A majority . . . has said that an abortion restriction . . . designed to limit access to abortion - not protect women's health or promote informed choices - is constitutional,'' Benshoof said. ``It's a devastating acceptance of discrimination against abortion providers.''

But Clarke Forsythe of Americans United for Life called the ruling ``a significant public health victory.''

``With all the concern for back-alley abortions, it's astonishing that abortion advocates would want non-doctors to perform elective abortions,'' he said.

The court's ruling said the 1995 Montana law did not place an ``undue burden'' on women's rights to abortion.

For the previous 21 years, the state had allowed licensed physician assistants working under the direct supervision of a physician to perform early-term abortions.

The 1995 law actually affected just one person. Susan Cahill who works in Kalispell, Mont., under the supervision of Dr. James Armstrong, is the only non-physician in the state who performs abortions.

Armstrong and Cahill challenged the law, and a federal trial judge refused to block its enforcement. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did block the law's enforcement by ordering the judge to restudy the case.

Monday's ruling said the 9th Circuit court was wrong.

``Even assuming . . . that a legislative purpose to interfere with . . . abortion without the effect of interfering with that right . . . could render the Montana law invalid, there is no basis for finding a vitiating legislative purpose here,'' the court said.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Clarence Thomas joined in the unsigned opinion.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer dissented.

The challengers of the Montana law still can pursue a separate attack and argue that it is an unconstitutional ``bill of attainder'' - a criminal law aimed only at Cahill. But Monday's ruling called that claim ``implausible.''

In separate action, the court rejected, without comment or dissent, Utah's attempt to revive a law that would bar most abortions for women more than 20 weeks pregnant.

ILLUSTRATION: THE COURT

In other matters Monday, the court:

Ruled that a 1986 law making it easier for private citizens to

sue federal contractors for allegedly defrauding the government

cannot be applied to misconduct that occurred before the law was

passed.

Agreed to decide whether the Federal Election Commission

misinterpreted federal law when it exempted a pro-Israel lobbying

group from disclosing its campaign-related spending.

Rejected the appeal by the man convicted of killing nine people

at a Buddhist temple near Phoenix in 1991. KEYWORDS: SUPREME COURT