An Astonishing Decision on Abortion

The Supreme Court this week deprived New York City of a certain uniqueness--providing abortion on demand to hundreds of thousands of women--when it ruled unconstitutional most of the nation's state abortion laws.

In a seven to two decision, the high court forbade state interference with a woman's right to abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy: stipulated that a woman's health is the only basis for regulation during the second trimester; and left the third trimester to the states' jurisdiction.

Most states have yet to decide how they will respond to the ruling, and Massachusetts is no exception. State Attorney General Robert Quinn's office said yesterday that lawyers are now reviewing the decision and that a statement will be made sometime next week. Before he had received the complete decision. Quinn told the Associated Press that the ruling would not necessarily force a change in Massachusetts abortion laws.

However, the consensus of several doctors, lawyers and members of women's counselling groups this week was that the ruling completely invalidates Massachusetts laws regarding abortions. The question now is how the Legislature of a heavily. Catholic state will move to establish regulations in accordance with the high court's decision.

Sen. Jack H. Backman (D-Boston) said that any new legislation may have to come from abortion opponents rather than abortion advocates.

Pamela Lowry, coordinator of the Boston Pregnancy Counselling Service, predicted that the State will pass conservative. "Probably unconstitutional," legislation governing abortion during the third trimester, but that such legislation will be "more of an opinion to satisfy constituents than a law."

Margaret S. McKenna '70, assistant to the director of the University Health Services (UHS), said that although "it will take awhile for the decision to shake down," her job of referring women to abortion clinics is casier.