FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 31, 2005

Boston, MA--NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts announced today its opposition to President Bush’s nomination of staunchly anti-choice Samuel Alito, Jr. to replace moderate Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court.

“In choosing Alito, President Bush gave in to the demands of his far-right base,” said Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. “Samuel Alito’s record confirms that he will move the court in a direction that threatens fundamental freedoms, including a woman’s right to choose.”

• Alito took pains to distance himself from the longstanding constitutional requirement that abortion restrictions must have exceptions when a woman's health is in jeopardy. He did so when ruling on a New Jersey law that effectively banned abortion as early as the 12th week of pregnancy and lacked an exception to protect women’s health. The health exception is a fundamental tenet of Roe v. Wade, and the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments about the need for the health exception this fall. Should Alito’s vote replace that of Sandra Day O’Connor, a fundamental right will likely be lost by next summer.
  

• Alito has argued that significant restrictions on a woman’s right to choose are constitutional. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Alito argued that all of the proposed law’s restrictions on a woman’s right to choose – including a spousal-notification provision struck down by the Third Circuit and, later, the Supreme Court – were constitutional.
  

• Alito would uphold state laws that place significant roadblocks in the way of women seeking abortion care. Alito concurred with the majority’s opinion in Casey that concluded that “time delay, higher cost, reduced availability, and forcing the woman to receive information she has not sought,” although admittedly “potential burdens,” could not “be characterized as an undue burden.” This opinion practically ensures that he would never find any burden to be undue.

“Alito’s confirmation could shift the Court in a direction that threatens to eviscerate the core protections for women’s freedom guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, or overturn the landmark decision altogether,” added Kogut.