The abortion ruling is a good example of the damage an activist Supreme Court can do when it pokes its nose into areas where it doesn't belong.

In 1973 many states had already loosened their anti-abortion laws without generating controversy. Then the high court suddenly declared all states' anti-abortion laws unconstitutional.

The court jumped way out in front of public opinion. It was a big mistake, for it opened up the most divisive issue among Americans since the War Between the States.

Additionally, Roe was an insult to the federalist system. Naturally, some state laws were stricter than others, but they each represented their constituencies on this sensitive issue.

If Roe is ever overturned, it would likely be returned to the states, which wouldn't be a bad development at all - however much it might put state and local politicians on the spot. Legislators respect public input on sensitive issues; the courts, which currently make abortion policy, do not.

After three decades, the abortion debate still rages and, strangely enough, both sides are gloomy about the future. The election of a Republican president and Senate is very worrisome to the pro-choice movement.

"Roe is in grave peril," says Betsy Cavendish, legal director for pro-choice groups. "With a switch of two votes, Roe could be overturned."

Pro-life author Teresa R. Wagner has a different take. She notes that within the legal profession which, again, determines abortion policy, support for abortion is at an all time high. The courts have even struck down laws against partial birth abortion, the procedure that kills the baby during the birth process.

"The pro-life movement must now admit that not only has it not won, but that victory is not near," Wagner writes.

There is nothing for either side to celebrate after 30 years. There is only a sadness that the Supreme Court ever opened a wound that still bleeds.

--From the Wednesday, January 22, 2003 printed edition of the Augusta Chronicle