Washington D.C. On January 21,1992, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 1989 Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act.

Planned parenthood v. Casey is the first abortion law to come before the Court in 1992.

The Pennsylvania law ensures a woman’s right to know the facts about the development of her unborn child and the alternatives to abortion.

In ruling on the constitutionality of informed consent and other provisions, the Supreme Court could and should reconsider Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision which legalized abortion on demand. It may not do so, however, because the challenged provisions do not directly prevent abortions. Under either scenario, the Court should uphold the Pennsylvania law.

Last October, the U.S. (Pennsylvania) Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld several challenged provisions of the law. These include parental or judicial consent for minors, and informed consent, which offers woman seeking abortions the opportunity to receive information about the developing unborn child and alternatives to abortion 24 hours before the abortion. The court did not uphold a provision, which requires fathers in certain circumstances to be notified before an abortion is performed on their unborn child.

Other provisions were not challenged by pro-abortionists.

These include one provision which protects unborn children against abortions for sex selection and another protects unborn children of 24 or more weeks gestational age from abortion, except when the mother’s life is endangered or when the pregnancy will result in “ irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the women.”

Commenting on the announcement, Judie Brown of the American Life League said that “since the Pennsylvania law which will be reviewed by the Supreme Court does not directly prohibit even one abortion, we see little chance the Court’s eventual ruling will overturn Roe v. Wade. In accepting the case, the Court itself put a review of Roe off limits.”

“The Court must re-establish the constitutional principle that all human persons, born and pre-born, deserve equal protection under the law. We never felt the Pennsylvania case was the vehicle to restore personhood to all innocent human beings,” said Mrs. Brown. (Wanderer Jan 30/92)

Tampa, Florida- In July,1990, little more than half a year after the Freedom of Choice Act was introduced in both houses of Congress, The Tampa Tribune denounced the bill in an editorial as “a thoroughly evil and immoral measure. It should be killed.” If adopted,” the editors stated, “unborn babies would be treated with no more seriousness than a pork chop. Indeed, lawmakers who may regulate the treatment of livestock would be helpless to protect human fetuses.”

A year later, as Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and other pro-abortion organizations came to understand that their Roe v. Wade decision is doomed and pressure must be exerted to pass the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), The Tampa Tribune again asked Congress to reject the bill.

“ The freedom of Choice Act,” declared the editorial, “is not concerned with morality, legalities, social good, or even a woman’s welfare. It simply would give federal approval, indeed encouragement, to the wanton destruction of unborn children for any reason or no reason. Congress should reject this repugnant legislation.”

The FOCA bill was by Sen. Alan Cranston and Cong. Don Edwards, both of California, and seeks legally to enshrine abortion rights absolutely, even nullifying any state abortion restrictions.

As Cong. Edwards said f the measure: “ It provides no exceptions. It is a classic one-sentence statute that says a state may not restrict the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy- and that is for any reason.”


While deploring the millions of children still being killed, John Cardinal O’Conner said the steady decline in the number of abortions should give the pro-life movement a sense of accomplishment.

In a related development, the spiritual head of New York’s 2.2 million Catholics extended an invitation to pro- abortion Catholic politicians and others to “ come to Confession, do penance and change their ways.”

He was speaking in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in early December 1991, amid controversy over an invitation from the Sisters of Charity to pro-abortion Catholic Representative Susan Molinari to address a Foundling Hospital fundraiser. Molinari is very active in Republicans for Choice.

The invitation contravened the Cardinal’s 1986 ban on the invitations to all Arch-diocese-owned or sponsored institutions of speakers who dissent from church teaching.

Shortly after Cardinal O’Conner issued his call for pro-abortion Catholics (like MS. Molinari) to be reconciled to the Church , the Founding Hospital announced that the planned fundraising luncheon had been cancelled.


Bernard Cardinal Law paid a jail visit to Boston are Operation Rescue leader Bill Cotter. He is serving a two-and-a-half year jail sentence for violating a court injunction prohibiting Rescues, and refusing to state that he would never rescue again.

Mr. Cotter, who  is in the Worcester County house of Corrections in Boyleston, Mass, said the Cardinal promised to stay in tough with him, during the visit, held just before Christmas.


Anthony Cardinal Bevilaqua of Philadelphia has instructed parents to “say no” to a condom distribution program “ by demanding that their children not participate” in the program.

The Cardinal said the Philadelphia Board of Education’s new policy was “ reckless, tragic, and morally irresponsible.”