Local figures on both sides of abortion debate react to SCOTUS leak

May 4—Monday night's leak of a draft Supreme Court majority opinion overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision drew opposing reactions — some celebratory, some despondent — from local figures.

Barbara Burkett, who alongside her husband, Edward, organizes trips to the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., was in the former category.

"I was just like 'Thank you, Lord,'" Burkett said of her initial reaction to the news. "This is what we've been praying for and marching for for how many years."

While pleased with the apparent decision, Burkett was unhappy with how it was revealed via a leak, saying she wished the justices had a chance to release it in a "proper format." Still, she is optimistic and hopeful that the final decision matches what is seen in the draft.

Father Jeffrey Lucas, head priest of the Epiphany of the Lord Parish in Meadville, was similarly glad, calling abortion a "great evil."

However, Lucas said he was also glad the apparent move would return the choice of abortion back to the states, rather than making a blanket federal standard.

"I think a federal ban on abortion would be the same as the federal mandate to make abortion legal that we find in Roe," he said. "I think they're the same thing."

Lucas said it's important to keep in mind that the draft opinion does not make abortion illegal. While multiple — mainly conservative-led — states have laws put in place that would severely limit or outright ban abortion should Roe v. Wade be overturned, other states, including Pennsylvania, have no such restrictions in place.

Lucas was also unhappy with the reported leak.

"I think to leak the procedures of the Supreme Court is a very big breach for a person working there," he said. "I think they should be prosecuted."

On the other side of reactions were Women's Services board members Doris Foster and Marcia Metcalfe.

"This is awful," Foster said. "It's unthinkable, and I hope that this is the thing that rouses everyone who cares to vote and to vote for people who support pro-choice."

One of the founders of Women's Services, Foster said the organization, while not an abortion provider, has been pro-choice from the beginning.

Foster said what she found most shocking was that the opinion does not allow for exceptions for cases of rape or incest, allowing abortions to be made illegal even under those circumstances.

Metcalfe said she does not see a place for government in women's decisions when and how they reproduce, and that she supports the right of women to privacy.

"My position is that I'm pro-woman, I'm pro-family, I'm pro-child and I'm pro-choice," she said. "Personally, I'm not happy about this, of course. I'm going to be 70 years old this fall and I can think back clearly to a time when women had to look for illegal abortions and I hope that's not where we're headed."

Metcalfe said she had feelings of sadness and defeat from hearing the news. She does not believe such a decision will stop abortion in the country.

"Women will continue to seek to terminate their pregnancies," she said. "They did before Roe v. Wade and they will after it falls, if that's the ultimate outcome."

However, she said it may lead to situations where women will have to travel to abortion-friendly states to get the procedure, while those without the means may seek out unsafe, illegal abortions.

"People younger than me are going to have to keep up this fight," she said.

Professor Brian Harward, the Robert G. Eddig Chair in Political Science at Allegheny College, remarked that while the opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito appears to have the backing of at least four other conservative members of the court, it is not clear whether Chief Justice John Roberts has joined on the decision.

Harward said that Roberts expressed a viewpoint during oral arguments that he wanted to leave Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in place while upholding the Mississippi state statute that was the focus of the case the decision draft stems from.

"Alito's draft would fundamentally overturn Roe and Casey, and by fundamentally overturn, I mean it would eliminate the central elements of the key holding of Roe," he said.

The professor also considered the possible wider ramifications of such a decision. While Harward said the opinion focuses strictly on Roe, its reasoning could have impacts for other rights.

"If the logic of striking down Roe is because it's securing a right that's not explicitly in the text (of the Constitution), then there go other privacy interests that people might have," he said.

Harward named laws dealing with contraceptive use, gay marriage and sodomy as examples of laws that could be impacted by the logic of the opinion.

"It is a monumental overturning of 50 years of precedent, it's been termed super precedent," he said. "That in itself is very consequential, but the generative effects of that ruling isn't known."

While there is a possibility the final decision may be changed from the draft, Harward expects that it "won't be that different" as long as Alito is able to keep his five-justice majority.

"That's a magic number," he said. "All it takes is five."

Sean P. Ray can be reached at (814) 724-6370 or by email at .