Blog for Choice: Supreme Court Archives

May 6, 2008

McCain to Give Speech on Judges

Today around 10 a.m., Sen. McCain is scheduled to give a speech at Wake Forest University on judges. Many reporters have received advanced copies of the speech, so here are a bunch of links where you can read their impressions:

Wall Street Journal: McCain Speech to Shed Light On Judicial Philosophy

Marc Ambinder (The Atlantic): What McCain's Speech Isn't About

USA Today: McCain criticizes Obama for vote against chief justice

The Hill: McCain courts right wing

Associated Press: McCain to give speech on judicial appointments

Jonathan Martin (Politico): McCain's message to conservatives on judges and DNC pushback

In response to media reports on Sen. McCain's prepared remarks, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America released the following statement:

"John McCain's voting record reads like a Who's Who List of right-wing activist judges who are hostile to the constitutional right to privacy and want to allow politicians to interfere in our most personal, private medical decisions," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "McCain's support of anti-choice judges will be one of many reasons voters, especially pro-choice Independent and Republican women, will not cast their ballots for him in the fall."

It is all too clear why McCain is speaking about judges on a day when most voters are focused on the Democratic primaries in North Carolina and Indiana. We all know that he gets points with the right-wing organizations, but he can't afford to use this rhetoric when trying to reach the pro-choice Independent and Republican women he needs to win in the fall. Hopefully the media won't let him off the hook on this one.

Click here to read more about McCain's anti-choice record concerning judicial nominees (scroll to the bottom of page 1).

Posted by Molly at 9:55 AM | Comments (0)

November 15, 2007

Fertilized eggs unite?

This is just bizarre.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday to allow a proposed 2008 ballot initiative to proceed that would extend certain rights to fertilized eggs. Huh? NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado Executive Director Kathryn Wittneben said it well:

“Proponents of this initiative have publicly stated that the goal is to make all abortion illegal -- but nothing in the language of the initiative or its title even mentions abortion. If that’s not misleading, I don’t know what is.”

It really is ridiculous. Check out more info on the decision here.

Posted by Jessica at 10:42 AM | Comments (0)

April 18, 2007

The Supreme Court decides women's health is irrelevant

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America has this to say about the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban:

"Today's decision shows Bush's appointees have moved the Court in a direction that could further undermine Roe v. Wade and protections for women's health. The door is now open for politicians like George W. Bush to interfere even more in our personal, private medical decisions. The Court has given anti-choice state lawmakers the green light to open the flood gates and launch additional attacks on safe, legal abortion, without any regard for women's health."

Click here to read more.

Posted by Jessica at 10:20 AM | Comments (30)

March 21, 2007

The Horrifying Honaker Nomination

by Sharon Breitweiser, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Wyoming

Talk about a blast from the past… President Bush is at it again, this time in my own backyard. I swear, nothing this administration does surprises me anymore, yet somehow I was still shocked when I heard the latest news.

It turns out that earlier this week, with the blessing of anti-choice Sens. Craig Thomas (R-WY) and Mike Enzi (R-WY), President Bush nominated Rock Springs lawyer Richard Honaker for a federal judgeship in Wyoming.

And, boy, do I know Richard Honaker…

In my boxes of files from past legislative sessions, elections, and legal battles, I found example after example of Honaker’s blatant anti-choice bias. Yet he seems to consider his anti-choice record to be mere youthful exuberance. The man who once led an effort to outlaw abortion in Wyoming is now trying to downplay his own radical agenda. “As a state legislator,” he now says, “I took positions on a lot of legislative issues and public policy issues, and one of them was on the abortion issue. That was my role at that time…But my role as a judge would be far different.” In other words: Don’t worry your pretty little head, I’m going to change my anti-choice ways. Riiiight.

So, when an Associated Press reporter called for a quote, I didn’t know where to start! Should I start with the list of anti-choice legislation he championed in the state legislature – such as the “Human Life Protection Act,” a bill he authored that would have outlawed almost all abortion? Maybe I should highlight the major role Americans United for Life played in developing his “Human Life Protection Act?” The group even paid for his trip to Chicago, where they advised him on how to advance this legislation! Or maybe it would be better to focus on his role with the “Unseen Hands of Prayer Circle PAC” – the group that was formed to try to push an abortion ban through the ballot process after it failed in the legislature? Honaker even represented the extreme anti-choice group before the State Supreme Court and succeeded in getting the measure on the 1994 statewide ballot – but fortunately, Wyoming voters overwhelmingly rejected the Honaker abortion ban by a 61-39 percent margin.

Of all the Americans qualified to sit on the federal bench, this is whom George Bush picks?!?!?

Honaker’s nomination now goes to the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee – so we’re watching closely to see what happens next. But it just goes to show: Despite the electoral gains we made last November, President Bush can still nominate whomever he wants to these crucial judgeships – and, if confirmed, they serve lifetime appointments!

Not surprisingly, the leader of Wyoming Right to Life, Steven Ertelt, is giving Bush a gold medal for the Honaker nomination, as evidenced by this statement: “Because of his pro-life views and past efforts to protect human life, it's obvious that Richard Honaker joins with attorneys on both side of the abortion debate who understand that Roe v. Wade was an example of unadulterated judicial activism and that the role of the courts to is interpret the law -- not make it up as you go.”

So, Richard Honaker receives kudos from two extreme anti-choice senators and a radical anti-choice group, and there are countless documents exposing his leadership in efforts to outlaw abortion. Nope – no anti-choice bias here!

Posted by Blog for Choice at 12:33 PM | Comments (0)

February 28, 2006

Supreme Court decision takes away tools to protect women from violent anti-choicers

The Supreme Court ruled today in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women that the federal racketeering and extortion laws can’t be used to stop anti-choice extremists from obstructing access to clinics, damaging property or using violence.

This case has been going on since 1986, when the National Organization for Women (NOW) brought a class action suit against anti-choice groups that had been violent and threatening in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America says that the decision “takes away a legal resource doctors, clinic employees and women could have used to protect themselves from the violent acts of these extreme anti-choice demonstrators.”

We can’t forget that violent protests are not a thing of the past--just in the past year there was an attempted firebombing at a Louisiana clinic and one incident of arson in Florida.

Posted by Jessica at 3:52 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Quick Hit: USA Today editorial tells it like it is

Today’s must-read is the USA Today editorial, Emboldened, abortion foes attack 'Roe' head-on. I dare you to find a more terrifying headline concerning choice. (Though that fetus tree story will always hold a special place in my heart.)

I’ll leave you to read the whole piece, but this is the line that stuck with me:

Unless checked, the process South Dakota is starting could lead to the most draconian rollback of personal liberties in U.S. history.

Posted by Jessica at 10:21 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 21, 2006

Supreme Court will hear “partial birth” abortion case

The Supreme Court has announced that it will consider the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which has already been struck down in California, Nebraska and New York.

Considering the new Bush-friendly make up of the Supreme Court, I’m absolutely terrified.

The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito.

Supporters of the Act claim that it simply bans a certain procedure used in late-term abortions. Yeah right.

Nancy Keenan sets the record straight:

"The two main reasons Courts have struck down these bans are: their broad language could ban abortion as early as the 12th week in pregnancy, and they lack exceptions to protect women's health. Medical groups, including the American college of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, oppose the federal ban.

Today's action means the core principle of protecting women's health as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade is in clear and present danger."

Posted by Jessica at 12:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 31, 2006

Senate votes to confirm Alito

If the Alito nomination teaches us anything, it's that we have to take back the Senate. Senator Obama of Illinois said it best this weekend: "There's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values. And that's to win elections."

That's our plan - it's getting the numbers back on our side in the Senate and electing pro-choice senators wherever we can.

What are your ideas for getting this done?

Click here to read the statement by NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan on the vote.

Posted by Blog for Choice at 12:24 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

January 26, 2006

NY Times calls for filibuster of Alito

Wow. NY Times is getting a little hardcore: Senators in Need of a Spine.

Today’s editorial calls out Dem senators to fight against Alito, someone “whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress.”

The editorial argues that even if there’s no chance of winning, now is the time to fight for principle.

A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

Burn! Make sure to read the whole piece.

Posted by Jessica at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 25, 2006

Alito vote: not looking good

For us, that is. Sigh.

The Associated Press reports that Alito has already won enough commitments from senators to ensure his confirmation.

As of late Tuesday, the federal appeals court judge had enough vote commitments for confirmation a simple majority in the 100-member Senate with 50 Senate Republicans plus Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska publicly saying through their representatives, in interviews with The Associated Press or in news releases that they would vote for him.

Say it ain’t so!

Posted by Jessica at 10:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 24, 2006

Nancy Keenan responds to Alito vote

NARAL Pres. Nancy Keenan issued the following statement in response to today’s 10-8 Senate Judiciary Committee vote in favor of Samuel Alito:

"The eight members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who opposed Samuel Alito's nomination stood up for the American values of freedom and privacy. We hope their colleagues follow their lead as the full Senate now considers whether to confirm Alito for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. For senators who value privacy and freedom, the only option is to vote no.”

No joke.

In related news: Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) released a statement today saying he would vote “no” on Alito. Sen. Nelson has voted for Bush’s judicial picks 96 percent of the time (including Roberts), but says that Alito’s “many legal writings, judicial opinions and evasive answers both at his hearing and in our private meeting, convinced me he would tilt the scales of justice in favor of big government over the average person.”

Posted by Jessica at 2:48 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Sigh.

From the Associated Press: Alito nears win in partisan committee vote

Posted by Jessica at 12:21 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 18, 2006

Ayotte decision a stark reminder of anti-choice attacks

Nancy Keenan had this to say about the Ayotte decision handed down today:

"The Ayotte case is an example of how lawmakers at the state and federal levels are continuing to exploit every opportunity to take away our reproductive freedom – even while Roe v. Wade stands. Today, we are issuing our 15th annual report summarizing women's access to healthcare nationwide and exposing the persistent threat facing reproductive freedom across the 50 states.

"While it is certainly heartening that the Court did not use this case to overturn specific precedents that protect women's health, this decision does mark a departure from prior cases. In the past, abortion restrictions that did not include protection for women's health would have been struck down in their entirety. After today's decision, that is no longer the case."

Click here for the decision and here for a release from Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.

Posted by Jessica at 4:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Supreme Court rules on New Hampshire parental notification case

From then Associated Press:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a lower court was wrong to strike down New Hampshire abortion restrictions, steering clear of a major ruling on whether such laws place an undue burden on women.

The opinion was written by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key swing voter at the court on abortion rights.

Justices said a lower court went too far by permanently blocking the law that requires a parent to be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy.

An appeals court must now reconsider the law, which requires that a parent be informed 48 hours before a minor child has an abortion but makes no exception for a medical emergency that threatens the youth's health.

More to come...

Posted by Jessica at 10:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 17, 2006

Vote on Alito set for next week

Too scary. The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Alito’s nomination on January 24, sealing the deal for the future of women’s reproductive rights.

Yeah, I’m not too freaked out. Take action now!

Posted by Jessica at 12:46 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 12, 2006

Alito dodges questions on Roe, privacy rights

You know, I keep hearing kudos from Republican senators on how forthcoming Alito has been. Maybe I’m missing something. Seems to me Alito has been more evasive--particularly on questions concerning Roe--than even Roberts was.

I’m even seeing some news headlines about Alito keeping an “open mind” on abortion. But what does that mean?

The Boston Globe reports that legal specialists think Alito hasn't given up anything on how he feels about choice. He certainly hasn’t reassured anyone that his views have changed since he wrote in 1985 that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

For example, Alito has declared that he believes in a right to privacy -- but cited a different kind of privacy than the Supreme Court has cited in recognizing abortion rights. After being asked about privacy for the first time, Alito immediately brought up the Fourth Amendment's protection against having one's home searched, not the 14th Amendment's protection of liberty.

Both amendments create protections sometimes referred to as ''privacy rights," but only the 14th Amendment is relevant to abortion, said Richard Fallon, a Harvard professor of constitutional law. The Fourth Amendment protects only people's personal space, while the 14th protects their liberty to control their personal lives.

Pressed for his views about the kind of privacy right that relates to abortion, Alito repeatedly demurred.

Sneaky, sneaky. But very smart.

Alito did the same dance around questions on Griswold:

When Alito was asked about the contraception cases, he offered no objection to their ''result." But he also avoided endorsing the legal reasoning behind the cases -- that people have a privacy-based right to control their reproductive lives.

So really folks, let’s not call Alito’s ability to word his answers carefully “forthcoming.” Because he’s been anything but. Alito has not distanced himself from his previous anti-choice statements. He is dangerous for choice, and dangerous for women.

Posted by Jessica at 10:32 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 11, 2006

Alito Mischaracterizes Key Reproductive Rights Case

The latest analysis from NARAL:

Today, under questioning from Senator Dick Durbin, Samuel Alito testified that stare decisis – respect for precedent – was "the beginning and the ending point of the analysis in the joint opinion" in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey that reaffirmed the central holding of Roe v. Wade. This is false. Alito further testified that Roe was different from other cases that he was willing to say were correctly decided, because the other cases were decided based on constitutional rights found in the 14th Amendment. Alito’s answer is telling – he did not endorse the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court, that a woman’s right to choose is also grounded in the 14th Amendment, clearly leaving himself room to vote to overturn Roe without being inconsistent with his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Check out the full report.

Posted by Jessica at 5:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Republican pro-choice group opposes Alito

Check it out:

The Republican Majority for Choice (RMC) regrettably announces its opposition to the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

RMC is an organization whose core mission is to protect the right to choose as outlined in Roe v. Wade and to represent the millions of Republicans who strongly support this right. After much research and analysis of Mr. Alito’s own record and statements on this issue of individual freedom it is clear that he is an advocate for further restricting this right.

Judge Alito seems by all measures to be an experienced and capable jurist, but one who is out of step with mainstream Americans on the issue of abortion and maintaining the legal right to choose.

Good stuff. Let’s face it--Alito hasn’t quashed anyone’s fears about his very obvious anti-choice stance. Alito has not distanced himself from his previous statements on Roe and has been nothing but evasive. His confirmation would be devastating for women’s rights.

Posted by Jessica at 12:58 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Alito hearings, morning edition

10:49AM: Alito says if confirmed he won't be a mold of O'Connor, he'll said "I'll be myself." Just like mom always told you to.

10:45AM: So how many times will Colburn say that Roe
was wrongly decided? Maybe we should make this a drinking game. Oh no
he didn't! The bad science bullshit breast cancer-abortion link?!

10:18AM: Is anyone else freaking out that this guy is equating Roe to Plessy?

Posted by Jessica at 10:18 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

In case you missed the hearings

...and feel like doing some reading, here are the transcripts from yesterday.

My favorite part:

CORNYN: But Judge Scalito might -- Alito, excuse me...

(LAUGHTER)

After talking about Judge Scalia -- you know what I was thinking, in the back
of my mind, a nickname that you've acquired sometimes. And I apologize.

Posted by Jessica at 9:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 10, 2006

Alito hearings, afternoon edition

4:02 PM: Alito just keeps digging. He can't get away from the "analogy" relating a minor needing to notify a parent about abortion and a woman needing to notify a husband. Cause we're just like kids anyway, right?

4:00 PM: Health exception stuff...does a law need to have a health exception to be considered constitutional? Alito gave a half answer, says that the issue of women's health is "compelling."

3:56 PM: Feinstein is smacking Alito down on his whole husband-notification nonsense.

Latest from Nancy Keenan: "Samuel Alito did not refute his record of opposition to Roe v. Wade."

3:40 PM: Feinstein. You gotta love her.

12:50 PM: Biden wants to talk about Casey but doesn't have time...will have to wait until later. Sigh.

12:45 PM: Another discrimination case from Biden, pushing Alito on "real world" racism (which apparently he doesn't quite get).

12:32 PM: Biden says that others noted that Alito's judgment in the Bray discrimination case could effectively "eviscerate Title VII" and ignored the reality of racial animus. Dear lord.

12:32 PM: Biden is bringing up the Princeton club again and discrimination and how subtle it's become. He's questioning Alito on discrimination cases. This should be interesting.

12:29 PM: Biden is talking about Alito replacing O'Connor. And how important it is to understand that the hearings go beyond Alito, but is about who he is replacing.

Posted by Jessica at 12:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Question

Is it wrong that I love Sen. Biden purely because he just used the word 'malarkey'?

Posted by Jessica at 12:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Alito hearings, morning edition

11:00 AM: OK, he's getting his ass kissed a little too much for my taste. I'm going to break for a while. In the meantime, look out for bloggers for choice...

10:30 AM: Alito is talking about his Princeton days and how he "doesn't recall" being involved with a less-than-desirable student organization. (You know the kind that doesn't like women or non-whites in school.)

10:11 AM: Now on to presidential power. Alito says, "no one is above the law." How Chuck Norris of him. He's not giving up anything though. Wow, I didn't think he could be as evasive as he was on Roe. How wrong I was.

10:05 AM: Ok, is anyone else completely distracted by the woman behind Alito and
her big green puffy shirt? Actually, I think that's his wife. My bad.

9:57 AM: Alito keeps talking about stare decisis and it's just killing me. He's not really giving anything up on Roe or Casey. Or maybe I'm just not listening hard enough...

9:47 AM: And Specter pulls out the big-ass chart! Super duper.

9:40 AM: And we get right into Roe!

Alito is talking about stare decisis and Roe. Haven’t we already talked about how this is completely useless? Precedent, my ass.

Such evasion...but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Posted by Jessica at 9:44 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Alito, Alito, Alito

Yeah, I know. All Alito, all the time on most blogs. Admit it, you love it. But luckily today’s hearings (set to start at 9:30AM) are all about the questions. Down to business.

In the meantime, check out Alito’s statement and the hearing transcript from yesterday.

Posted by Jessica at 9:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 9, 2006

Hope for Alito hearings

For those of you who are as freaked out as I am about the hearings (starting today!), here’s a little ray of hope I call Feinstein. Check out some of these excerpts from an interview the California senator gave Brit Hume on Fox News yesterday.

On the possibility of voting for Alito.
"Well, first of all, it depends on the hearing...His position on a woman’s right to choose or abortion I think is a seminal issue in all of this...Well, he has expressed his views. My question is are his views, let’s say, on abortion the same as they were in 1985 when he wrote in an application, the Constitution does not protect a woman’s rights in this area. Now, if that’s true and he still holds to that, this will make him a very difficult nominee for many of us."

On her concerns about Alito and Roe.
"Well, obviously, I come from a state that is 71 percent supportive of Roe. The American people, according to the latest ABC poll -- 60 percent supportive of Roe. This is a pivotal question. And he’s in a pivotal spot because of Sandra Day O’Connor’s particular position on the court, where she was dispositive in so many 5-4 votes.

...Roe could have been overturned 38 times. Precedent has been established. Women all over America have come to depend on it. An overwhelming majority of people support it."

Just plain sticking it to them.
"...I’m old enough to know what it was like back when abortion was illegal. I know what it’s like to see young women commit suicide. I know what it’s like to see them go to Tijuana. And I don’t want to go back to those days."

Admit it, you love her.

Posted by Jessica at 9:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 5, 2006

Women’s rights organizations join forces to block Alito

The National Organization for Women, the National Congress of Black Women and the Feminist Majority Foundation have just announced Freedom Winter ‘06, a joint campaign to block the confirmation of Samuel Alito.

In the spirit of Freedom Summer 1964, when thousands of students from across the country traveled to Mississippi and other Southern states to register and mobilize African American voters in unprecedented numbers, Freedom Winter ’06 is mobilizing students to save women’s rights and civil rights.

I think this is great--young women are going to be particularly affected if Alito is confirmed, so we need to get out there in force!

Posted by Jessica at 12:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NARAL releases new report on Alito and birth control

NARAL Pro-Choice America has just released a report on Alito and his
anti-choice history--specifically how he confuses birth control with
abortion. I know, it’s wacky.

Download the report here.

Posted by Jessica at 10:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 3, 2006

Countdown to hearings begin

Alito’s hearings are set to begin on January 9. Scary.

And of course, abortion will be a huge focus of the questioning--specifically a 1980s case where Alito upheld a restriction requiring that women obtaining abortions notify their husbands. You know, cause us feeble girls can’t make big decisions on our own.

Senators are expected to grill Alito about the case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, scheduled to begin Jan. 9. They're also expected to ask him about memos he wrote in the 1980s in which he said Roe should be overturned.

While the court's decision in Casey upheld a constitutional right to abortion, the justices gave states new powers to make it more difficult for women to end their pregnancies. For that reason, activists on both sides regard Casey as the court's most important abortion case since Roe, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

Since Casey, state legislatures have approved hundreds of new regulations that determine when, where and how women may get abortions.

Let’s just hope that folks are little harder on Alito than they were on Roberts.

Note: BushvChoice is going to have some cool stuff going on starting the week of the hearings, so make sure to come back often. And no, I won’t tell you yet. It’s a surprise.

Posted by Jessica at 9:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 27, 2005

Alito against liberty?

The Boston Globe has an interesting piece today on Alito and his stance on the 14th Amendment’s protection of ''life, liberty, and property,” a main component in Roe.

Apparently Alito tried repeatedly to limit the court’s interpretation of these protections. Great.
The appeals court had ruled in a series of cases that the 14th Amendment protects people against arbitrary decisions by their local government, such as zoning board officials who deny permits for no good reason.

Alito, now a nominee to the Supreme Court, rejected such rights, writing that ''only in extreme circumstances is it proper to invoke" 14th Amendment protections.

Although the zoning board cases involved a subject quite different from abortion, Alito's critics note that the Supreme Court cited the same interpretation of the 14th Amendment in Roe v. Wade as a justification for the right to an abortion -- that denying a woman access to an abortion unfairly deprives her of her liberty.

Read the whole piece for the full story, but really—how much more info do we need on this guy to know that he’s terrible for women?

Posted by Jessica at 10:42 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

December 23, 2005

Alito argued to overturn Roe...again

It just keeps getting worse with this guy! How much more convincing do folks need that Alito is dangerous for women?

From the Associated Press:

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote in a June 1985 memo that the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion should be overturned, a finding certain to enliven January's confirmation hearings.

In a recommendation to the solicitor general on filing a friend-of-court brief, Alito said that the government "should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled."

More to come on the legalese of the memo--in the meantime, check it out for yourself.

UPDATE: Looks like this memo--which is being called new by news and wire services--is actually the same one released some time ago. Well, at least we can view the full doc this time around.

Posted by Jessica at 10:37 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 16, 2005

Civil rights orgs (don’t) heart Alito

The Washington Post reports that several large civil rights organizations have come out against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), the NAACP, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and the Black Leadership Forum held a Capitol Hill news conference where they announced plans to fight Alito's nomination.

The LDF also issued a 70-page analysis of Alito's record to buttress its position. It concludes that Alito would pose a threat to the nation's hard-earned civil rights gains. "We can predict with substantial certainty that Judge Alito will likely vote in a manner that, given the current composition of the court, will cause a substantial shift in the court's civil rights jurisprudence with devastating effects," the report said.

Coming out strong; I love it!

Posted by Jessica at 11:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 14, 2005

Best news via a headline ever

Knight Ridder Newspapers: Alito hearings to be rougher than Roberts'

Well I should certainly hope so!

Opposition to Alito is extensive, far beyond what Roberts faced. Because Alito's conservative credentials are beyond question and his stands on controversial questions of law are more clear cut than Roberts' were, his backers assume that at least the 22 Democrats who voted against Roberts will be united against him - and probably more.

"This vote will be all of those and then some," said Wendy Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, which supports Alito's confirmation.

Both Republican and Democratic Senate aides believe that Alito could easily have more than 40 votes already lined up against him, but most aren't ready to declare publicly yet.

These votes would be enough to block Alito with a filibuster.

Posted by Jessica at 11:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 12, 2005

Must-read on Alito

This LA Times column brings up some interesting points about Alito’s stance on abortion and what it means for the future.

Author Ronald Brownstein points out that the recent disclosures from Alito’s memos on Roe say a lot about the future of Supreme Court nominees:

If this ammunition allows opponents to stop Alito — either by a majority vote or a filibuster — it will surely push future presidents back toward stealth nominees with limited public records. But if opponents can't generate full-scale resistance to Alito — at a time when nearly two-thirds of Americans tell pollsters they don't want Roe overturned — Bush and his successors may conclude they can risk more ideologically aggressive nominees, so long as the public considers them qualified.

Scary stuff. Personally, stealth nominees freak me out more than an out-of-the-closet anti-choicer like Alito.

Brownstein also squashes a common argument being pushed by Alito’s supporters concerning the memos:

One is the Roberts defense: Alito was only following his client's directions. That seems less persuasive than in Roberts' case. In the Justice Department memo, Alito wasn't advocating for his client; he was advocating an anti-Roe strategy to his client. And in the job application he clearly expresses personal pride about his work on antiabortion cases.

Read the whole piece; let me know what you think.

Posted by Jessica at 3:18 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

December 7, 2005

Don’t be fooled over Ayotte

Former Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt has a great editorial in Women’s eNews today on Supreme Court case Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood.

Feldt reminds us what Ayotte is really about.

Don't mistake Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England--the abortion case now before the Supreme Court--for a run-of-the-mill case about minors' access to abortion.

Think of it as two poisonous arrows aiming straight for the heart of Roe v. Wade.

Scary image, but a correct one.

The two arrows Feldt refers to are central to women’s reproductive rights and health:

The questions the sections in the law put before the court are whether protection of women's health--the so-called health exception--can be absent from laws that restrict abortion, and whether the standard for challenging laws restricting abortion will be lowered to the point that a woman would have to actually be harmed before the law could be challenged.

If the high court upholds the New Hampshire law, poof, there goes Roe's health standard that has continued to protect women even as states and Congress have chipped away at access to abortion. And poof, there goes the legal standard allowing us to immediately prevent these laws from being enforced when a court deems they are likely to cause harm to women.

Truly terrifying. Make sure to read the whole piece.

Posted by Jessica at 10:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 6, 2005

Most telling title ever

This Boston Globe headline caught my eye this morning: For foes of Roe v. Wade, Alito's fuzziness comforts.

Ah yes, the warm fuzzy comforting feeling of women’s reproductive rights being eroded.

Check this out, from the article:

One would think that the news that President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court said in a job application that he believes there is no right to abortion; that he strategized about ways to undermine Roe v. Wade while an attorney in Ronald Reagan's Justice Department; and that he left no doubt in his mother's mind that he opposes abortion, would all be glad tidings to conservatives.

But conservatives know that Alito will have an easier time being confirmed if there's ambiguity about his stance on abortion. So [Judicial Confirmation Network head, Wendy] Long chose to describe Alito's Reagan-era memo on overturning Roe, which was released by the National Archives last week, as ''more about inside baseball and tactics" than his view of abortion rights.

So don’t forget, these mofos are being deliberately ambiguous. This whole thing is a wink-wink-nudge-nudge to anti-choicers, who have no doubts about Alito’s intentions towards Roe. And neither should you, so make sure to take action.

Posted by Jessica at 10:50 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 2, 2005

Dems coming out strong against Alito

After finding out about a new anti-choice memo, Democrats are “taking a firmer stance” against Alito’s nomination, reports The New York Times.

Lawmakers and senior aides said Thursday that a newly released Reagan administration memorandum from 1985 laying out Judge Alito's strategy for weakening the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade abortion ruling has intensified Democratic skepticism toward the nominee not just on abortion rights, but also on whether he is being forthcoming.

"Certainly the chance of a filibuster is greater today than it was the day Alito was nominated because of so many new revelations," Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said Thursday.

Mr. Schumer also sent Judge Alito a letter asking him to explain why his participation in the Supreme Court case while working in the Justice Department was not disclosed in his responses to a Senate questionnaire.

Mr. Schumer and other Democrats say a judgment on whether the emerging record on Judge Alito is sufficient to provoke a filibuster will hinge on his performance during confirmation hearings scheduled to start early next month.

Well thank goodness. The last thing women need is yet another anti-choice Justice.

Posted by Jessica at 11:53 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

December 1, 2005

Alito memo reveals more anti-choice actions

It just gets worse and worse with this guy!

A new memo written by Alito in 1985 shows that he has been working to undermine choice for years.

The memo, written during Alito’s tenure in the Reagan administration, says that the Justice Department should set a goal of overturning Roe, and in the meantime should weaken the law through state restrictions.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said, “Alito’s memo is a litany of legal strategies designed to undermine women’s reproductive health. He even confuses birth control with abortion and advocates additional restrictions on women’s access to contraception.”

Lovely. Click here to find out more about the memo.

Posted by Jessica at 11:14 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 30, 2005

Supreme Court case starts today

From the Associated Press:

The court, starting with Justice David Souter, a New Hampshire native, wasted little time before firing questions at Ayotte about how the state's law deals with situations where a minor's health — but not life — is in danger and she needs an immediate abortion.
Justices

Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer zeroed in on how doctors would avoid being prosecuted or sued if they performed an abortion if the minor did not want to notify a parent and a judge was unavailable to provide the necessary approval.

The justices did not seem satisfied when Ayotte said another, existing New Hampshire law would protect the doctor from legal action and that the state's attorney general would set a policy that would shield physicians in such instances.
"How do we know that's the law?" asked Breyer. "There are people of good faith on both sides of this argument" who may disagree about the other law's meaning.
…

"In an emergency, a woman needs to go to the hospital not a courthouse," justices were told in a filing by Jennifer Dalven, attorney for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England which challenged the law.

We’ll keep you updated on the case…

Posted by Jessica at 12:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 29, 2005

Supreme Court meets on abortion tomorrow

The Supreme Court will meet tomorrow to start hearing arguments on Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, the court’s first abortion case in five years.

On a conference call last night for bloggers, speakers from NARAL, the ACLU Reproductive Freedoms Project and NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire explained that Ayotte is about a hell of a lot more than parental notification.

This case isn’t arguing whether or not parents should be notified or give consent when their daughters want to obtain an abortion--it’s about the health of young women:

New Hampshire imposes a 48-hour waiting period after the required notice to at least one parent. Like all states, it provides an exception for conditions that present an immediate threat to a pregnant teenager's life.

But of the 43 states with parental-involvement statutes, New Hampshire is one of only five that do not also provide an exception for non-life-threatening medical emergencies, and it was on this basis that two lower federal courts declared the law unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court's decision in the case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, may therefore shed light on the contours of the "health exception" that the court's abortion precedents have required since Roe v. Wade in 1973.

No matter what someone thinks about abortion, I think any parent would want their child to get the best medical care possible. And if your daughter is in medical distress, you would want her doctor taking care of her, not running off to find a lawyer and judge.

In a press release, NARAL Pro-Choice America president said, “The Ayotte case illustrates what’s at stake when it comes to the balance of the Supreme Court...The Bush administration has weighed in on this case, which means it wants politicians – not doctors – to determine when women can and cannot receive the care they need. The Supreme Court’s decision in Ayotte could effectively dismantle Roe v. Wade’s core protection of women’s health and fundamentally alter how doctors challenge abortion restrictions that pose a threat to their patients’ health. If the Court sides with the Bush administration, we also will see an onslaught of anti-choice measures in state legislatures that would all but eliminate the right to choose for millions of American women.”

Scary as hell. So don’t let this one fall below the radar.

Posted by Jessica at 11:31 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

November 28, 2005

Roberts faces first major abortion case

New Chief Justice John Roberts will face his first major abortion case on the Supreme Court when Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood comes up before the court next week.

The case stems from a 2003 New Hampshire law requiring teenagers to tell a parent before getting an abortion. While the law has an exception for girls who would die without the procedure, New Hampshire lawmakers omitted an exception for other non-life-threatening health problems because they felt it would render the law meaningless.

The new law has never been enforced, because two federal courts have said the lack of a health exception made it unconstitutional.

...New Hampshire's version would make it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion on a minor unless the doctor has written proof that at least one parent has been notified or unless the doctor certifies the girl would die without the procedure.

But unlike the parental involvement laws in most states, the New Hampshire statute does not explicitly let a doctor proceed when, in the doctor's judgment, the girl might be about to suffer serious health consequences short of death.

Nice to know where some folks’ priorities are

Posted by Jessica at 10:35 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

November 22, 2005

Alito needs to explain 1985 comments

From the Associated Press:

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said Monday that the confirmation process for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito will be more difficult because of comments Alito made on a 1985 job application.

Durbin, D-Ill., said he is concerned because on the application, Alito questioned constitutional protections that the No. 2 ranking Democrat says are widely considered "fundamental."

"It would be troubling if he still holds these opinions," Durbin told reporters after speaking at the University of Chicago Law School.

...Durbin said Alito can expect to be asked about his comments on the 1985 document.

"I think he not only has to explain where he is today, but whether he has changed a position he took 20 years ago," Durbin said.

I agree, but really--how likely is that Alito will give a straight answer? I think we’ll be seeing a lot of answer-avoiding nonsense reminiscent of the Roberts hearings.

Posted by Jessica at 9:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 21, 2005

Take Action!

Help stop anti-choice Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito--sign NARAL’s petition. NARAL Pro-Choice America is aiming for 500,000 signatures by December 9th, so after you sign the petition send it to friends. (You can also print it up.)

A little something cool--if you collect 6 petition signatures by Dec. 9, you get an oh-so-cool magnet. Come on, admit it. You love magnets.

Posted by Jessica at 3:52 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

November 17, 2005

More anti-choice info on Alito

It just keeps getting better. Sigh.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, noted recently that a story in the Boston Globe underscores Alito’s anti-choice views.

According to the news report, a former colleague of Alito’s during his tenure in the solicitor general’s office has revealed that Alito sought out the opportunity to work on the Reagan administration’s 1985 legal brief for Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. This brief argued in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade: "[T]he textual, historical and doctrinal basis of [Roe v. Wade] is so far flawed that this Court should overrule it and return the law to the condition in which it was before that case was decided."

"Americans have read Alito’s own words boasting of the special gratification he felt to be involved in the Reagan Administration’s efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade. Everyday, we learn new information revealing the true nature of Alito’s work at the Department of Justice—as an architect of a legal philosophy that opposed a woman’s constitutional right to choose,” Keenan said.

Terrifying. Click here to learn more about Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Posted by Jessica at 10:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 16, 2005

Quick hit: What Would Alito Do?

Go check out Sharon Lerner’s What Would Alito Do? at The Nation. Lerner discusses how Alito is a little too willing to put restrictions on abortion and what that could mean for upcoming Supreme Court cases on choice.

My fave part:

The answer lies in his record. Airing his extreme decisions for what they are and what they mean for women's rights and health is the best hope we have of preventing the "note-from-your-husband judge" from becoming the "not-on-your-life Justice."

Posted by Jessica at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 15, 2005

Alito backs away from past abortion comments

In a recent conversation with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito backed away from his past anti-choice comments.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., an abortion rights supporter and the only woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said she asked the conservative judge about a document released Monday showing Alito in 1985 telling the Reagan administration he was particularly proud to help argue that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”

“He said first of all it was different then,” she said. “He said, ‘I was an advocate seeking a job, it was a political job and that was 1985. I’m now a judge, I’ve been on the circuit court for 15 years and it’s very different. I’m not an advocate, I don’t give heed to my personal views, what I do is interpret the law.”’

I don’t buy it. Arguing that Roe isn’t constitutional isn’t a personal view, it’s a legal opinion. And that’s what makes it dangerous.

Posted by Jessica at 12:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 14, 2005

Alito says there is no right to abortion

Wowie.

Check this out from The Washington Times:

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.

"I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.

..."I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

Scary stuff.

Posted by Jessica at 9:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 9, 2005

Alito and Roe: Don’t believe the hype

Alito and his recent comments on Roe aren’t anything to get excited over. Seriously.

“Mr. Alito is making the standard political move of ‘going centrist’ after nomination,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “The hard-line anti-choice base secured his nomination, and now Alito is courting the votes of moderate senators who respect a woman's right to choose and respect the Court for adhering to precedent. Clarence Thomas told the Senate that he respected precedent, then he voted to overturn Roe one year after he was confirmed to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. That is why Americans can’t take these reported statements at face value. If Alito's backers -- the ones who forced Harriet Miers' withdrawal -- are so delighted with him, would he be so respectful of precedents women's freedom if he is confirmed?”

Click here to check out exactly what Thomas said.

Posted by Jessica at 12:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 8, 2005

Pro-Choice Americans can't afford to gamble on Alito

The latest info from NARAL spells out exactly why Alito is so dangerous for choice.

The thing that resonated most with me is just how giddy anti-choicers are over his nomination:

Remember that President Bush caved in to the anti-choice far right when his first nominee, Harriet Miers, failed to meet these groups' call for a reliable opponent of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.

Groups like Concerned Women for America and Operation Rescue officially opposed Miers. Their opposition came despite reports that Miers contributed money to an anti-choice group, supported a constitutional ban on almost all abortions during her run for the Dallas City Council, led the fight at the American Bar Association to repeal its pro-choice policy, and had numerous friends and colleagues attest to her anti-choice beliefs. Her record was insufficient and unreliable for them. They insisted the President go back to the drawing board--and he capitulated to their demands.

Tellingly, on the day President Bush announced Alito's nomination, those same anti-choice, far-right groups who have long demanded the overturn of Roe v. Wade cheered the news.

Terrifying.

The new document also goes into Alito’s record--which is way risky on choice. Make sure to check it out.

Posted by Jessica at 11:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack