However, some inferences can be drawn from the handling of recent abortion-related "Jane Doe" cases. As part of a decision over parental notification laws enacted in Texas, the all-GOP court split with most of the Bush appointees taking the more moderate position.

Justices Baker, Hankinson, and Gonzales generally voted in the majority on these "Jane Doe" cases — a position that dissenting justices saw as by-passing the intent of the law and in effect making abortion without Parental Consent easier to obtain. Justice Abbott consistently sided with the dissenting opinion that tended to limit the ability of minors to by-pass the Parental Notification Acts, accusing the Court of playing "a guessing game" as to the intent of the law.

The majority opinions took the position that the court is "not called upon to decide the constitutionality or wisdom of abortion. Arguments for or against abortion do not advance the issue of statutory construction presented by this case. Instead, our sole function in this case is to interpret and apply the statute enacted by our Legislature."

Could Roe vs. Wade be overturned by adding more judges to the Supreme Court like those Bush appointed in Texas? If they believe as Bush does that Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional and can support their position through interpretation of the law rather than emotion, then yes, it is possible.

But it is still unclear whether Bush would move away from the moderate, non-activist choices he made in Texas and select judges more like U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. Both considered far right conservatives, Bush has said that they are the justices he most admires.

> Page 1, 2, 3