Judge Alito is the Wrong Choice to Replace Sandra Day O'Connor
NARAL Pro-Choice New York Opposes Judge Samuel Alito’s Nomination to Replace Justice
Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court
October 31, 2005
Statement by Kelli Conlin, President -
NARAL Pro-Choice New York
“Samuel Alito is the wrong choice for the United States Supreme Court. His Halloween day nomination is perfectly fitting – a treat for Bush’s right wing base and a trick on the rest of America.
Alito’s views on a woman’s right to decide when to have a child are extreme – so extreme that he has ruled in favor of a government mandate of spousal notification before women are able to access legal abortion. He is wrong as a replacement for the moderate voice of Sandra Day O’Connor and he is wrong for America.”
# # #
Facts on Judge Alito's Record on Choice
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 government mandated 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 he would never find any burden to be undue.
|
