[See end of story]

HIGH COURT REJECTS CASE ON ABORTION CLINIC LAW

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected a constitutional
challenge to state and federal laws that make it a crime for protesters to
block access to abortion clinics.

The justices let stand a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that upheld the
constitutionality of the federal law, the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act, and a similar North Carolina law.

The federal law, which was adopted by Congress and signed by President
Clinton in 1994, makes it a crime to block access to clinics, damage their
property or injure or intimidate abortion-seeking women or clinic staff.

A number of anti-abortion protesters initially challenged North Carolina's
clinic protection law. While the case was pending, the federal measure took
effect, and the lawsuit was expanded to cover both laws.

A federal judge in North Carolina in 1996 struck down both laws.

The judge found the federal law to be unconstitutionally vague and over
broad, in violation of the First Amendment, free speech rights of the
protesters.

The judge also said Congress lacked the authority under the Constitution's
Commerce Clause to adopt the law because it regulates protest activity,
which does not substantially affect interstate commerce.

But the appeals court last year upheld the laws. It said the federal law
was a valid exercise of congressional power, and that the law prohibits
conduct involving force or threatened force, not constitutionally protected
speech.

Attorneys for the anti-abortion group, the American Center for Law and
Justice, asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.

They said the case involved "peaceful, law-abiding picketers and sidewalk
counselors" who face continuing harassment from the police outside abortion
clinics.

But the Supreme Court rejected the appeal without any comment or dissent.
The Justice Department, which defended the law, noted the high court has
rejected six other similar challenges between 1995 and 1997.

In another case, the court let stand an unprecedented ruling that upheld
the convictions of two pregnant, drug-using women by redefining a state
child-abuse law to include a viable fetus.

The justices denied an appeal by the two women who were arrested, charged
and sentenced under the law. The women said the South Carolina Supreme
Court's ruling undermined fundamental constitutional rights and will have
far-reaching implications. The controversy dated back to 1989, when South
Carolina attorneys began applying the state's child endangerment law to
pregnant women whose conduct posed a risk to fetal health.

The appeal involved Cornelia Whitner, 34, who was indicted, pleaded guilty
and then sentenced to eight years in prison for smoking crack cocaine while
pregnant. Her baby was born with traces of cocaine in its system.

Whitner served 19 months in prison, but was freed after a lower court judge
ruled that the state's child abuse laws did not apply to a fetus.

That decision was overturned by a sharply divided South Carolina Supreme
Court, which declared that the child abuse and endangerment law does
include viable fetuses.

The ruling marked a radical departure from a series of decisions by state
high courts, all of which have rejected efforts to prosecute pregnant women
for alleged drug or alcohol use.

The other case involved Malissa (eds: correct) Ann Crawley, 36, who was
charged with child neglect because of her drug dependency during pregnancy.
She pleaded guilty and was placed on five years of probation.

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina and the
New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights represented the two women
in their Supreme Court appeal.

Their basic legal argument was that the state court ruling violated the
constitutional guarantee of due process notice and the constitutional
prohibition against vague criminal laws.

The lead attorney in the case, Lynn Paltrow, warned of the consequences of
the South Carolina court ruling.

"It will hurt those women who, because of fear of arrest, may not seek the
prenatal care that could significantly improve maternal and fetal health,
women whose medical decisions may now be construed as endangering fetal
health," she said.

Supporting the appeal were a number of medical, social services and
substance abuse treatment organizations, which said the case should be
heard to avert "widespread and serious harm to pregnant women."

They said the ruling would endanger the lives of women and would discourage
pregnant addicts from seeking medical help.

But South Carolina Attorney General Charles Condon defended the law, which
carries a maximum punishment of 10 years in prison, and urged the Supreme
Court to reject the appeal.

The high court sided with Condon, denying the appeal without any comment or
dissent. The action by the justices does not create nationwide precedent.
^REUTERS@

Copyright 1998 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or
redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior
written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or
delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski