Edition: U.S. / Global


By MICHAEL deCOURCY HINDS, Special to The New York Times
Published: October 25, 1989

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives today overwhelmingly approved stringent new restrictions on abortions, the first such legislative move since the United States Supreme Court's July ruling giving states wider authority to limit abortion.

By passing several anti-abortion measures that the Supreme Court has already ruled unconstitutional, the Pennsylvania lawmakers challenged the Court to narrow further or reverse its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which made abortion a constitutional right.

The action today comes as politicians have reported a shift by the public away from supporting tighter abortion restrictions. Congress, meanwhile, has tried to eliminate some restrictions on public financing of abortions. In addition, lawmakers and other officials in four states have backed away from abortion curbs that are less severe than those passed by the Pennsylvania House. Restrictions in Legislation

The House approved the abortion measures by a vote of 143 to 58. The bill, the Abortion Control Act of 1989, would prohibit abortions after a fetus is 24 weeks old, the point at which it is generally considered viable outside the womb. The only exceptions would be to save a woman's life or to prevent ''substantial and irreversible impairment of her major bodily functions.''

The measure would prohibit abortions at public hospitals, except in the case of rape or incest or to save the mother's life, and it would ban abortions that are performed because a couple wants a child of a particular sex.

Other provisions require that women intending to have abortions must, in most cases, notify their husbands; must be informed by physicians of the fetus's development and alternatives to abortion, and then must wait 24 hours before the abortion.

The legislation approved today would also regulate the medical use of fetal tissue and organs, generally following the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health. Women violating the law's provisions would not be held liable, but medical personnel who violate it would face criminal penalties. Efforts to Weaken Bill

If passed by the State Senate and signed by Gov. Robert P. Casey as expected, the law would be the most restrictive anti-abortion measure in the nation. In 1976 the Supreme Court threw out a Missouri law requiring a spouse's consent for an abortion, and in 1983 it overturned an ordinance in Akron, Ohio, requiring doctors to describe fetal development and prescribing waiting periods.

After passing the legislation in mid-afternoon, the Pennsylvania lawmakers began considering more than 80 amendments to weaken the bill or replace it with ones guaranteeing a woman's right to have an abortion. These amendments were rejected by large margins. Passage by the Senate is expected as early as mid-November, and Governor Casey, a Democrat, has said he would sign the legislation. 'Time, Money and Hassle'

The chief sponsor of the Pennsylvania measure, Representative Stephen F. Freind of Delaware County, described his bill as a ''moderate, common-sense approach'' to ''one of the most wrenching social issues of our time.'' Abortion, he said, ''should be regulated by government and hopefully someday outlawed.''

But Karen A. Ritter, a Democrat from Lehigh County who was the chief sponsor of the amendments seeking to widen abortion rights, urged her colleagues to allow women to make their own choices about abortion.

''This bill would not prevent abortions,'' she said. ''All it would do is add time, money and hassle to women seeking abortion.'' She noted that of the 58,000 abortions performed last year in Pennsylvania, only 128 occurred after the 23d week of pregnancy.

Current state law requires that parents of minors seeking abortions be notified, a provision that is being challenged in court, and bars financing of abortions under Medicaid unless the life of the mother is at risk. The point at which a fetus becomes viable is not addressed in the current law, leaving the question to the courts.

The shifting politics of abortion has become the subject of intense debate in the months since July 3, when the Supreme Court upheld a Missouri law banning abortions in public hospitals among other restrictions. Supporters of abortion rights have said the Court's decision, in Webster v. Reproductive Services, galvanized abortion rights groups that had come to take the rights for granted after the Roe v. Wade decision.

Political and academic specialists offered varying explanations for why Pennsylvania seems to be taking a contrary course.

''There is nothing in the way Pennsylvanians have voted in the last 30 years that would explain why Pennsylvania should be the most likely state to have legislative restrictions on abortion,'' said Sandra Featherman, director of the Center for Public Policy at Temple University in Philadelphia. ''This is a state that generally elects moderates and liberals to statewide office. This is a state that voted for Hubert Humphrey.''

Dr. Michael L. Young, an associate professor of politics and public affairs at Pennsylvania State University in Harrisburg, said, ''The only explanation for this legislative action that warrants consideration is that Pennsylvania has a Legislature that's very sensitive to lobbying,'' adding, ''The anti-abortion lobbysts have been well organized since 1973, but there has been almost no effective opposition on the other side until this summer.''