Later this month will mark the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It’s an anniversary that we might no longer be remembering had President Reagan’s first choice for the Supreme Court, William Clark, accepted a nomination–so says college professor and political biographer Paul Kengor.

Reagan “called Clark into the Oval Office and asked if he wanted to be considered for the court vacancy,” Kengor said. “Clark said no. He said he enjoyed what he was doing for Reagan’s foreign policy, and he never came to Washington to die there. He wanted to serve Reagan faithfully for a few crucial years and then return to California to get back to his family and life on his ranch.

“When Clark said that, President Reagan pulled a note card from his coat pocket–which included only a few names, I believe with Clark’s at the top–and said, ‘That’s what I thought you’d say, Bill.’ Reagan scratched off Clark’s name.”

History tells the rest of the story: Reagan nominated Sandra Day O’Connor, who in 1992 affirmed Roe. But who knows how different our world would be today had Clark not refused the court spot: He later became Reagan’s national security adviser and was instrumental in laying the framework to win the Cold War.

The abortion debate promises to heat up as pro-life groups introduce new ballot initiatives to define “personhood” as starting from the moment of conception.

Members of Colorado for Equal Rights are trying to amend the state constitution. “This is not criminal legislation. It’s not going to make anything illegal,” Kristi Burton, the co-sponsor of the initiative, told WoW. “It’s just going to define person—put the definition of person in our constitution.”

The Colorado Supreme Court recently voted to approve the language of Burton’s petition. The court’s ruling does not endorse the petition but merely says that it is technically correct—a decision that allows Burton’s group to collect the 76,000 signatures necessary to get the initiative on the ballot.

Groups in Oregon, Montana and Georgia are introducing similar initiatives and legislation that explicitly intends to end abortion by establishing the legal personhood of an unborn child.

This move is critical to challenging the fundamental holding of Roe v. Wade that the14^th Amendment does not extend to the unborn. In the Roe. V. Wade opinion, the Supreme Court itself acknowledged that abortion rights would “collapse” if the personhood of a fetus could be established because “the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”

Robert Muise, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center, is handling a lawsuit against the Oregon Secretary of State and Attorney General for denying the request of an individual who wanted to circulate the initiative.

Muise told WoW if any of the groups are successful, it will prompt a court battle: “The first time someone tries to say the homicide laws apply to abortion, someone will run to the federal level. In my view, bring it on…You’ll never have a meaningful restriction on abortion so long as Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land.”

There is the question, however, of whether pro-lifers will win that court battle. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals just made a distinction between fetus-murder and abortion, ruling that a similar Texas law does not conflict with Roe v. Wade.