PRO-CHOICE WASHINGTONIANS OPPOSE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRO-CHOICE WASHINGTONIANS OPPOSE
SAMUEL ALITO, JR. FOR THE SUPREME COURT
President Bush caves to radical right wing of his party
Seattle, WA – NARAL Pro-Choice Washington announced its opposition to President Bush’s nomination of Samuel Alito, Jr. to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. In choosing Alito, President Bush gave into the demands of his radical right-wing base. At this critical time, we need a Supreme Court appointment that would unite the county.
“This appointment is unacceptable. Instead of unifying the country, President Bush has chosen the path of confrontation,” said Karen Cooper, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. “Alito’s confirmation would shift the Court in a direction that could destroy women’s freedom guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.”
Samuel Alito’s record reveals troubling elements that place him well outside the American mainstream:
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 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 dissented in part because he would have gone even further than the rest of the court.
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 Alito would never find any restrictions or obstacles to be an “undue burden.”
# # #
|
