As hundreds of Harvard students prepare for Sunday's march on Washington to rally for women's legal right to abortion, law professors and historians around the country are supporting briefs attempting asking the Supreme Court not to repeal Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973.

Later this month, the Court will hear Webster v. Reproductive Health Services--the first case threatening Roe since the appointments of Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy tipped the Court's ideological balance to the right.

The Court will review a lower court's decision to overturn a Missouri law restricting the use of public facilities and funds for abortion and abortion counseling.

Not all Americans are convinced that the rightto have an abortion is protected under theConstitution, despite the 1973 decision. Andpro-choicers are still concerned that the legalityof the procedure is in jeopardy.

Yet in every relevant case that it hasreviewed, the Supreme Court has upheld Roe.The rallies, boycotts and bombings of the last 16years, however, have proved that the issue is farfrom decided.

"While the Court's decision represents the mostserious threat since 1973 to the right for womento choose an abortion," says President of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) NormanDorsen, "the reaction from religious,professional, medical and public serviceorganizations, as well as... academia,demonstrates a strong public sentiment to preservethe constitutional principles established in theoriginal Roe decision."

Thirty-one pro-choice and many anti-abortiongroups have submitted briefs, reviving argumentsfrom as long ago as the 19th century.

The brief topped by the most signatures is astatement on behalf of 2887 women who have hadabortions and 627 friends of women who have hadabortions. "I chose an abortion," reads thebrief. "I was able to get a safe legal abortion,unlike my maternal great-grandmother who abortedherself with a knitting needle....My motherwhispered the story to me late one night, stillafraid..."

At issue is whether knitting needles andwhispered conversations will return if the courtoverturns the Roe decision.

According to Jan Carroll, a legislativedirector of the National Right to Life Committee,the Court could uphold the provisions of theMissouri statute without overturning Roe."But we do think it's a likely place for the Courtto begin the erosion of Roe v. Wade," sheadds.

"And if it upholds the law, it will be a signalto other states that similar provisionsrestricting abortion could pass," Carroll says.

The variety of labels used to describe abortionrun the gamut from "reproductive freedom" to"murder." And the terms reflect the intensity ofemotions underlying the debate over legalabortion. Partisans of both sides have invoked andinterpreted the civil liberty and human rightsaspects of the issue, and both use the FirstAmendment in amici curiae, or "friends ofthe court" briefs on both sides.

Professor of Law Charles Fried, solicitorgeneral during the Reagan administration, willpresent the Court with President Bush's stance.Fried has already submitted a brief recommendingthat the Court use Webster as a test caseand review Roe.

Fried argues that history and tradition in thiscountry have never supported the practice ofabortion. But some of the evidence on which herelies comes from the other side.

Fried refers to a book by University ofMaryland professor James Moore as an example ofhow abortion has always been an unsavory topic inthe United States.