Statement on Eve of Alito Hearings
Synopsis: Statement from NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts on the eve of the confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 9, 2006
NARAL PRO-CHOICE MASSACHUSETTS OPPOSES ALITO NOMINATION;
URGES TOUGH QUESTIONING ON RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Boston, MA – On the eve of confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts urges members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to be relentless in their questioning of the nominee about his current views and past statements on Roe v. Wade and his judicial philosophy about the right to privacy.
“Judge Alito’s track record suggests a lack of respect for the right to privacy as embodied in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision,” said Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. “Alito’s record confirms that he will move the court in a direction that threatens fundamental freedoms – including a woman’s right to choose.
We urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to fully explore Alito’s position on these key civil rights issues. The full Senate should take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the nation’s highest court will continue to uphold vital constitutional protections,” said Kogut.
In October, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts announced its opposition to President Bush’s nomination of anti-choice Samuel Alito, Jr. to replace moderate Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court.
Judge Samuel Alito and a Women’s Right to Choose: Key Facts
- 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.
###
|
