"The solicitor general refers to Moore's book[Abortion in America] in the context thatabortion has always been regarded with distaste,"says New York University professor Sylvia Law, whoco-authored a pro-choice brief signed by 281historians. "But what's ironic is that Mooredoesn't say anything like that."

In fact, Moore is one of the signers of thehistorians' brief, which espouses that antithesisof the administration's opinion.

The historians' brief was submitted partly tocombat the "misuse of historical scholarship,"says Judith R. Walkowitz, a professor at RutgersUniversity.

"It is important for the Court to know thedepth of historical scholarship, rather thanmerely assume what social, cultural and legaldebates have meant," says Professor of the Historyof Science and Medicine Allan M. Brandt, the onlyHarvard professor to sign the brief. "Thesolicitor general's brief wasn't really based onhistorical context."

The historians' brief contends that"nineteenth-century abortion restrictions soughtto promote objectives that are today plainlyeither inapplicable or constitutionallyimpermissible."

Rationales used at that time were "based ondiscriminatory and sexist interests that the Courtwould no longer recognize," says Brandt. Thedevelopment of safe techniques and licensing lawshave rendered invalid such concerns about women'ssafety and the legitimacy of practitionersperforming the procedure.

Scholars say the courts today would dismissarguments against abortion that rely on thedeclining fertility of the white, Anglo-Saxonmiddle class as "nativism." And many also believethe idea of a government decision that sex is aprocreative act would be an infringement onwomen's freedom.

The brief also notes that the illegality ofabortion in the 19th century had "differentialimpacts on different races, classes andethnicities of women," says Walkowitz. "Whilemiddle-class women seeking abortions were able toafford a safe and relatively hygienic procedure,poorer women were forced to resort to `back-streetabortions.'"

And the argument is the same today, accordingto many pro-choice adherents. Pro-choicers alsosay that briefs submitted by anti-abortionistsrely on religious and philosophical arguments,rather than legal and historical ones.

"They try and promote respect for the fetus asa human being and traditional family values," saysLaw, adding that the briefs "develop the samethemes over and over again."

Many of the pro-choice briefs--includingopinions filed by the American MedicalAssociation, the American PsychologicalAssociation and other health care groups--addressscience and politics. Massachusetts AttorneyGeneral James Shannon submitted a brief on behalfof the attorneys general of California, Colorado,New York, Texas and Vermont.

Pro-choicers contend, however, that theantiabortion briefs have neither the backing northe evidence in their briefs because of thereligious focus.

But Carroll says that although several of thebriefs use religious arguments, most are based onlegal and scientific ones.

And religious groups are found on both sides ofthe issue. One pro-choice brief was filed by theNational Coalition of American Nuns, Catholics fora Free Choice and 51 prominent practicingCatholics. The statement argues that the contextfor the restriction of abortion has no basis inCatholicism.

"Catholic tradition has always held that thequestion of personhood is spiritual, notscientific," according to the brief.