Twenty-nine years ago, when former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in the Court's landmark Roe vs. Wade decision, no doubt he believed that what he was doing, though inconsistent with the Constitution, would ultimately benefit women. He must have known that the unborn, whom he considered to be less than "persons in the whole sense," would be deprived of life. But he may not have suspected then, as we know now, that the child in the womb during an abortion would feel the abortionist's knife and die an agonizing death.

Certainly he had no way of knowing that his decision would produce, by now, over 40 million abortions. Nor could he have suspected then that the legalization of abortion would give rise to an enormous abortion industry, and that the landmark decision he was writing would ultimately do more to protect abortion practitioners than women in trouble. He couldn't have known that what he was writing into the Constitution would be used by some to deny a pregnant woman her right to carry her unborn child to term. He couldn't have known about sixteen-year-old Donna Saint Marie, a New Jersey girl coerced by her parents into an unwanted abortion.

Shortly before her 16th birthday, Donna learned that she was pregnant by her boyfriend, James, who was a few years older than she was. But the young couple was in love, and they had already talked about marriage. Now that Donna was pregnant, they decided to marry immediately and raise the child. James' parents thought that was a reasonable plan and fully supported the young couple. Donna's parents expressed a totally different view.

They demanded that she submit to an abortion. They spoke of the embarrassment that childbirth would bring to their family. But Donna consistently and firmly resisted. Her parents then alternated threats of punishment with offers of inducements, including "a big church wedding" if only she would submit to an abortion.

But Donna wouldn't budge. When she was seven weeks pregnant her parents sent her to stay with an aunt who lived in another state, where she was told, repeatedly, that she would ruin her life unless she submitted to an abortion. After a week of "get an abortion" brainwashing her parents showed up at the aunt's door and gave Donna a choice: submit to an abortion, or they will press charges against James for having relations with a minor.

Given the choice between jail for her intended or aborting her baby, Donna agreed to go with her parents to a nearby abortionist. There she first signed a consent form, and then filled out a lengthy questionnaire. Asked on the questionnaire, "What do you consider abortion to be?" Donna wrote, "murdering my baby." Asked, "Is anyone forcing you to have an abortion?" Donna wrote "Yes, my parents!" In light of her answers the out-of-state abortionist refused to perform the abortion on the by now 16-year-old girl.

Infuriated, Donna's parents dragged her back to New Jersey where the harangue continued. At one point her father, in a rage, punched her in the abdomen. Again the parents threatened James with criminal prosecution. They looked for a local abortionist and dragged her to an abortion clinic where she again signed a consent form, and waited for the form that would allow her to explain why she was there. But there were no such forms at this clinic, no opportunity to explain her way out of the abortion. Before she fully comprehended what was happening, she was on an operating table and her baby was being aborted by a doctor she didn't know and who never bothered to ask her why she was aborting her child.

For a period of three weeks this 16-year-old girl fought for the life of her child, resisting unimaginable pressure from all the authority figures in her life. Everyone failed her -- her parents, her aunt, the licensed professional who took her baby's life, even the law. When she was in a position to do so, Donna filed suit in New Jersey against the abortionist who wrongfully took the life of her child. Although Donna could establish all the elements of a legal claim, she has been unable to demonstrate that she suffered any loss because, thanks to Roe vs. Wade, New Jersey law does not recognize that her child ever existed.

A few years ago the National Foundation for Life initiated the Litigation Project to support Donna and two other New Jersey women in their efforts to redress their grievances against the doctors who terminated the lives of their children without legal consent. A federal class action suit entitled Santa Marie vs. Whitman was filed in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey on June 10, 1999. There are five plaintiffs in this case, the three aggrieved women, and two women with active obstetrical practices who have the legal standing to speak for the rights of their patients. The complaint alleges that New Jersey's civil and criminal laws related to abortion violate the equal protection rights of the women of the state and their unborn children.

The Santa Marie case represents the first instance in which women have brought law suits that attack the Supreme Court's two landmark abortion decisions (Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, both issued in January, 1973) and seeks to have those decisions set aside. Since those two cases, abortion doctors and abortion clinics have brought all of the federal suits, which argued in support of the right to abortion.

The plaintiffs in Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton were, of course, women — Norma McCorvey (Roe) and Sandra Cano (Doe). But both McCorvey and Cano filed Friend of the Court briefs in support of Santa Marie last May. They argue, as does Santa Marie, that the Supreme Court's abortion decisions have diminished the rights of women. The lead counsel for this case, Harold Cassidy — known for his work on behalf of mother's rights — predicts that Santa Marie will reach the Supreme Court in about 15 months.

Justice Blackmun must be rolling in his grave.