NARAL Pro-Choice America Responds to Justice Stevens' Retirement
Stupak retires and then Justice John Paul Stevens does, too... what a busy, busy Friday.
Here is the statement from Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, on the retirement of Justice Stevens:
"NARAL Pro-Choice America salutes Justice John Paul Stevens' commitment to public service. Stevens is among the strongest supporters of the right to choose currently serving on the Supreme Court, and his retirement serves as yet another stark reminder of the important role the Court plays in our everyday lives.
"Stevens consistently voted to uphold American liberties, as set forth in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. His record reflects a respect for individual freedom and opposition to political interference in our most personal, private decisions. Stevens' retirement now gives President Obama the opportunity to nominate a fair-minded individual who, like him and the majority of Americans, supports the constitutional right to privacy as reflected in Roe.
"The nine-member Court includes two Justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who have voted to overturn Roe, and two more members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, whom President Bush appointed because he wanted Justices who reflected the Scalia-Thomas mold.
"Given the current composition of the Court, we will assess the eventual nominee's complete record on privacy and other relevant issues in the same way we did during Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation process. Unlike Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor articulated several times throughout her hearing that the constitutional right to privacy includes the right to choose, and thus we supported her nomination for a seat on the nation's highest court.
"One thing is certain: opponents of women's freedom and privacy will use this vacancy on the Court as an opportunity to further their attacks on nominees who have taken pro-choice positions. America's pro-choice majority will fight back.
"This vacancy could make choice an even more prominent issue in the 2010 mid-term congressional elections. Americans will be watching to make sure senators understand the need for a Justice who respects a woman's ability to make the personal, private decisions that are best for her and her family."
Want to learn more about Justice Stevens' decision on choice-related cases? Download this pdf. And, as always, you can read more about the Supreme Court's decisions on key cases related to reproductive rights, you can download this incredibly helpful information.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7b333276-de1f-43df-b32e-e02fd5a45989)
Tags:
Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, freedom, John G. Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, nominee, personal freedom, President Obama, privacy, Rep. Stupak, Roe v. Wade, Samuel Alito, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court,
| Share this post: | Tweet |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: NARAL Pro-Choice America Responds to Justice Stevens' Retirement.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.blogforchoice.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3523
Search the Blog
There is no "pro - choice majority" in America. Ms. Keenan must know that the majority of people support fairly substantial restrictions on abortion, and the majority do not consider elective abortion a constitutional right. Whatever reasons may be advanced for placing a justice with similar views to Stevens on the court, majority support for his opinions on abortion certainly cannot be one of them.
In Guerrilla Apologetics for Life Issues, author Paul Nowak asks his readers to try and get pro-choicers to determine when they think human rights should begin; implying that since life begins at fertilization, all other criteria (viability, birth, etc.) are arbitrary.
The real question in the abortion debate is not the seemingly absurd scenario of giving full human rights to human zygotes, but rather the thorny question of how to protect those rights without violating a new mother's privacy and civil liberties.
In January 2006, on the eve of the West Coast Walk For Life, Carol Crossed of Democrats For Life (she wrote the foreword to my own book, The Liberal Case Against Abortion) spoke optimistically of Roe v. Wade being overturned.
When I asked her if Roe could be overturned without Griswold v. Connecticut (the 1965 Supreme Court decision which guarantees a right to marital privacy regarding the practice of contraception) being overturned as well, Carol froze, and couldn't answer the question!
I would have preferred it if she'd responded instead: "You're right. It's wrong to put people under electronic surveillance without their knowledge or consent. We shouldn't have to resort to draconian measures to protect prenatal life."
As a pro-life liberal, it's my conviction the real issue in the abortion debate is not necessarily the seemingly absurd scenario of giving full human rights to human zygotes (this is, after all, how life begins), but rather the thorny question of how to protect those rights without violating a new mother's privacy and civil liberties.
I've contributed heavily to the ACLU Foundation in the past, not because I've suddenly become a huge fan of partial-birth abortions, but because (having lived unwillingly under electronic surveillance), it's my conviction we have a right to privacy.
The Reverend Jesse Jackson observed in 1977 that the “privacy” argument used in Roe v. Wade to justify abortion “was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside of your right to be concerned.”
I disagree. The "premise of slavery" was that blacks were subhuman: the identical premise used today to deny rights to animals. Is "humanity," or personhood based on species membership or sentience?
A new mother's privacy and civil liberties! There are no pro-life groups on either the right or the Left (including progressive pro-life groups, like Democrats For Life or Feminists For Life) which openly advocate contraception. And this makes us vulnerable to attack from the pro-choice side.
This isn't a shouting match. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers agree on everything except the timing; i.e., the time to decide when to have a child is before fertilization, not after. The abortion issue is not a confrontation between misogynistic oppressors of women and cold-blooded "baby-killers," rather it is a rational, secular debate on when human rights should begin.
"The abortion issue is not a confrontation between misogynistic oppressors of women and cold-blooded "baby-killers," rather it is a rational, secular debate on when human rights should begin."
I agree. I am very glad to see that someone out there is taking a calm, rational, and respectful approach to dialogue about this extremely divisive issue. If only there were more people that displayed such traits on either side of the debate...true dialogue would be possible.