"Basic rights to privacy and bodily integrity are fundamental to our American values and jurisprudence. These rights did not arise in the birth control or abortion cases, but are consistent with our historical values of limited government and individual rights. From restrictions on sterilizing criminals or the mentally retarded, to search and seizure laws, to keeping information private, to allowing anonymous voting, our Constitution has sought to protect individual liberty. The decision in Roe was not about giving women anything. It was about limiting what the government could and could not do about very private decisions-in this case, one that involves matters of religion, conscience, health, family, and even life."

"The Roe v. Wade decision was a prime example of the deep anti-totalitarian principle of American constitutionalism-that the government may not invade the deepest intimacies of a person's life without an overwhelming governmental interest in doing so. The decision, and its later defense-as a fundamental equality principle protecting women's full right to participate in the life of the community by freeing them to make their own reproductive decisions-is an essential part of that fundamental Constitutional rule.

We need to recognize how far short we have fallen from fulfulling the promise of Roe-the promise that every American woman would have the right and the capacity to effectuate her own decisions about contraception, child birth, pregnancy, and abortion. That promise has been maintained only for women who are affluent, professional and living in the most enlightened parts of the country, but it is a promise that has fallen far short of being fulfilled for the most vulnerable women. . . . On the 30th anniversary of Roe, celebration should be tempered by the realization of how far short we remain from fulfilling the promise of Roe for every American woman."

"There is little doubt that [Roe] has made a major difference in the lives and health of women. . . . [A] generation of women no longer faces the prospects of illegal, dangerous, back-alley abortions and they are free to make personal and private decisions on their own terms. But these rights are not universally recognized. Indigent women, women who live in the majority of U.S. counties where there are no abortion providers, younger women, women in need of second trimester abortions continue to face numerous obstacles to safe and legal abortion. . . . And millions of women around the world face enormous obstacles when attempting to obtain reproductive and sexual health services. . . . I am thrilled to have been a part of the movement for women's rights and health over the last 30 years and to have an opportunity to meet the courageous women and health providers who have contributed so much to the effort to preserve Roe and its progeny. But Justice Learned Hand had it right when he said 'liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.'"

Ms. Kolbert is a senior research administrator with the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania and executive producer of NPR's "Justice Talking." She co-founded the Center for Reproductive Rights and served as vice president from 1992 until 1997. Repeatedly recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America," Ms. Kolbert argued Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists before the United States Supreme Court.

"I got involved with civil rights in law school during the 60s and at that time never thought it had anything to do with women. I wanted to win civil rights battles and bring peace to the world. Why do I do this work? It's really not for women's rights; it's for human rights. There is one simple word that describes why Roe v. Wade is so important: 'privacy.' My fear is if Roe gets reversed, it's going to be because the Court says there is no constitutional right to privacy. I've been saying this long before the government response to 9/11 threatened our privacy. If Roe is reversed, I don't think we will enjoy the same country that we did even before Roe was decided."

"In the early 1960s, when I was a college dorm counselor and a friend to many women, I began developing a list of abortion providers on a piece of yellow legal paper. It had the phone numbers, the name of the doctor, and the code word you needed in order to call and schedule for an abortion. It wasn't always easy and it was demeaning and difficult, but there was access to abortion in the 1960s. Women with higher education and in higher socioeconomic status always knew where to get an abortion because they were capable of coming up with money to go to Washington or Pennsylvania or Puerto Rico."

Janet Benshoof (continued)

"The high point for abortion rights in this country was around 1977. At that time, the constitutional protections of Roe were at a high point and there was the best access for poor women and young women. There was more Medicaid coverage for women, more rights for young people, and more providers inside and outside hospitals. Because more doctors performed abortions, and because it was viewed as a medical issue, not a political one, rapid medical advances could and did occur, which made abortion even safer.

In 1976, the Republican Party radically changed its platform by calling for the U.S. Constitution to be amended to impose what would be the most restrictive abortion ban in the world. This stated goal not only still exists, it has been pursued avidly and has been partially successful. The Republican platform's Human Life Amendment does not end with reversing Roe v. Wade. It goes far beyond Roe: by recognizing fertilized eggs as human beings with constitutional rights, it would prevent any state from legalizing abortion. Overturning Roe is the rallying cry of the conservative right, whose major focus is to diminish the power of the judiciary. There has never been any other single issue in the history of this country that is more determinative of who is nominated to the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts.

I've argued before federal judges across the country for over 30 years, and I have seen how shockingly politicized and polarized the judiciary has become since the Reagan administration. By contrast, the judges selected by President Nixon, who were not picked for their ideological views, are in large part extremely fair minded and judicious. The Nixon appointees have been very principled on applying the precedent of Roe. Now, there are some judges who are so completely ideological that they twist basic constitutional doctrines to create anti-Roe case law. Even worse, as shown by several cases in the Supreme Court, some justices will even twist basic legal standards on procedure or fact-finding to get an anti-abortion result.

One silver lining in this charged atmosphere is that it has enhanced the power of women's votes. Abortion is a highly salient issue to women, and when a threat to Roe is perceived, women relate to it as highly personal. They see that the opponents of choice will not stop at overturning Roe, but have a radical theocratic plan in mind. There are both political and legal gains when candidates are forced to define their position on Roe-or even to take a position. If politicians get elected on this issue, they are held accountable to their pledges. So, like making lemonade out of lemons, we're making feminist politicians-sometimes out of lemons."

Walter Dellinger (continued)

"One of the great professional privileges in my life was being asked to draft President Clinton's executive order issued on January 23rd, 1993 on the 20th anniversary of Roe. This order repealed the abortion counseling gag rule and the restrictive rules on participation in international family planning projects.

One week before the 20th anniversary, I was called by the Office of President-Elect Clinton and asked to prepare whatever executive orders a president could issue to protect women's reproductive rights. They were to be issued on January 23rd, 1993, two days after the new President's inauguration. It was a daunting task, but, at the end of a week, we produced a series of executive orders repealing the abortion counseling gag rule that had doctors giving incomplete and misleading information to some of the most vulnerable women and denying them knowledge about their basic rights of reproductive choice. The executive order repealed a policy which had restricted America's participation in previous international family planning projects, and called for reconsideration by the Food and Drug Administration of medical abortion methods, allowed service women access to abortion in overseas locations, and allowed fetal tissue transplantation research. The executive orders were designed to free our scientific research and medical practice from the grasp of abortion politics."