In July 1989 a Supreme Court reconstituted with Reagan appointees upheld
important provisions of a Missouri anti-abortion statute in Webster v. Reproduc-
tive Health Services. Although the Court did not overturn Roe v. Wade, it allowed
the states significant leeway in limiting abortion rights and seemed to invite other
challenges that might further dismantle the 1973 Court ruling. ¹ The Webster deci-
sion was a critical event marking the beginning of a new round of intense conflict
over abortion in which the state legislative and political arenas would become the
primary battlefields.

Changes taking place in the pro-choice movement in the wake of the 1989
countermovement victory parallel many of the developments of the post-Hyde
period of the abortion conflict. In both instances, the pro-choice movement
remained mobilized during the relatively "slow" periods following the major vic-
tories of 1973 and 1983, so that movement organizations were prepared to
respond when the conflict heated up after major countermovement victories. In
1989 the pro-choice movement was in a particularly strong position after having
fought and won the battle over the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme
Court in 1987. As movement supporters were alerted to the new threats to abor-
tion rights posed by the Webster case, professionalized movement organizations
quickly took advantage of constituent concerns to enlarge their resources by
means such as direct mail. Grass-roots participation also increased, and new
movement organizations formed, following the Court ruling. Coalition work was
stepped up as a result of the new threats and the movement was faced with the
problem of devising new strategies and tactics.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services took on major significance in the abor-
tion conflict when the Reagan Administration filed a friend-of-the-court brief
shortly after the 1988 Presidential election which asked the Court to use the case
as an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade; after George Bush took office in 1989,
a similar request was again made by the Justice Department under Attorney Gen-
eral Richard Thornburgh (see New York Times, January 10, and March 26,

-137-