WASHINGTON -- The nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court sent a shock wave through the ranks of abortion supporters and prompted what organizers are calling a massive effort to defeat him in the Senate.
All the activity, which includes a mobilization of people nationwide to write and phone members of the Senate and other lobbying campaigns, is based on the premise that Bork, who would replace retiring pro-abortion Justice Lewis Powell, would add the crucial fifth vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the landmark l973 decision that legalized abortion.
In its last decision on the issue in 1986, the court upheld a woman's right to abortion 5-4. Since then, Chief Justice Warren Burger retired and Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative who observers view as anti-abortion, joined the court.
Many of thoseopposing Bork supported Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, another Reagan appointee, based on her pro-abortion record in the Arizona Senate. However, O'Connor has been anti-abortion since joining the court in 1981.
Nonetheless, both sides of the abortion issue express certainty about Bork and are willing to pull out all the stops in defeating his nomination.
'This man is much, much more extreme in his views than O'Connor was in hers,' said Kate Michelman, executive director of the National Abortion Rights Action League. 'She did not have an extremist record.'
Doug Johnson, legislative counsel for the National Right to Life, said that based on Bork's comments, writings and view of the Constitution, 'He is not going to find a constitutional basis for Roe vs. Wade. We recognize that and NARAL does too.'
NARAL, founded in 1969, kicks off its campaign to fight the Bork nomination Monday with a news conference to present its battle plan. The group has also devoted much of its 1987 annual conference over the weekend to the topic.
A NARAL spokesman, Richard Mintz, said plans include lobbying, a grassroots effort, media contacts, demonstrations and hearings around the country to gather testimony on what Roe vs. Wade means.
'For us, this is priority No. 1,' he said, adding the campaign 'is shaping up as probably the largest grassroots effort that NARAL has ever undertaken.'
He said the nomination came on the heels of a number of successes for the pro-abortion movement, pointing to anti-abortion referendums that failed last fall in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Arkansas and Oregon and polls showing about 70 percent of the public support a woman's right to abortion.
'The president is using the nomination power to remake the Constitution in his image, to shape the values of society in his image,' said Michelman. 'That's what the nomination is about.'
Eleanor Smeal, president of the National Organization for Woman, said the group's opposition to Bork will be 'very vigorous.
'We feel this is it, the fifth vote (to overturn Roe vs. Wade)' she said.
She said NOW has added to the agenda of its national convention, which begins in Philadelphia July 17, to plan opposition to Bork.
Like NARAL, NOW's opposition will take the form of letter writings, rallies and lobbying.
Bork has consistently criticized the court's rulings that found a right to privacy in the Constitution, the basis of not only the right to an abortion but the right to access to birth control devices.
In a Senate hearing, he called Roe vs. Wade 'an unconstitutional decision, a serious and wholly unjustifiable judicial usurpation of state legislative authority.'
But, O'Connor too had a record to go on. When she was a member of the Arizona Senate she voted in favor of a woman's right to abortion on a number of occassions. Pro-abortion groups praised her nomination in 1981 and anti-abortion groups charged President Reagan betrayed his promise to fight abortion.
The anti-abortion groups trooped to the Senate to oppose O'Connor and threw up picket lines. One group said a 'pro-abortion record is, per se, disqualifying as is a record of racism.'
Both sides were wrong. Since joining the court, O'Connor has consistently voted to restrict a woman's right to abortion.
'When I testified for O'Connor, I had interviewed a lot of people who told me she was not a Rehnquist vote,' Smeal said, in reference to the steady conservative voting pattern of Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
'I had hoped she'd be better. She is still better than Rehnquist. I feel if O'Connor wasnot on the bench, we would be in an even worse position. Our only hope of not having a total reversal (of Roe vs. Wade) is her.'
Michelman, whose group did not take a position on O'Connor, said, 'All of us believed she was a very wonderful choice for the court. We were surprised when she started to vote againt Roe vs. Wade.'
Michelman said that despite the error made with O'Connor, there is no reason to believe Bork 'will not use his position to reverse what he has said was a wrong decision.'
'I would like to believe judicial precedent would have some weight in any case the Supreme Court is considering that would effect a rollback of a right,' she said. 'I hope that's true. But given what Judge Bork has so firmly stated over and over again that Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided, I can't image if abortion was before the court he would not use that opportunity to reverse or chip away so it becomes a non-existent right.'
If Bork joins the court, he will have an opportunity to express his preference on abortion almost immediately. The court has already accepted for review next term an Illinois abortion law that restricts minors' access to abortion.
Of course, the future of Roe vs. Wade will not solely be decided by Bork but by the other eight justices, four who have voted in favor of a woman's right to abortion and three who have voted against.
However, of the three against, only two, Rehnquist and Justice Byron White, voted against abortion in the original decision. It cannot absolutely be said O'Connor, who has consistantly voted to limit a woman's access to abortion, would take the much larger step and vote to overturn Roe.
Michelman believes O'Connor would, but added, 'We can't predict the future. We can look at what Judge Bork represents in ideology. The court is hanging in the balance and his nomination will tip that balance one way or another.'
