PRO-CHOICE AMERICANS OPPOSE SAMUEL ALITO FOR THE SUPREME COURT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 31, 2005 PRO-CHOICE AMERICANS OPPOSE SAMUEL ALITO FOR THE SUPREME COURT Lansing – MARAL Pro-Choice Michigan 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 far-right base and is attempting to replace the moderate O’Connor with someone who would move the court in a direction that threatens fundamental freedoms, including a woman’s right to choose as 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 he would never find any burden to be undue. “Sandra Day O’Connor has been the Court’s swing Justice, casting the deciding votes over the years to protect women’s reproductive freedom. 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,” said Rebekah Warren, Executive Director of MARAL Pro-Choice Michigan. Warren added, “MARAL Pro-Choice Michigan is taking the confirmation battle back to the grassroots, educating the public about this serious threat to Roe v. Wade and collecting signatures to urge pro-choice U.S. Senators Levin and Stabenow to keep fighting for reproductive freedom by voting against Judge Alito. As citizens of a state with a pre-Roe criminal ban on abortion and an extremely anti-choice state legislature, we are all too aware that the U.S. Supreme Court is our last line of defense when anti-choice laws are passed by state governments, Congress and the White House. We are working to preserve this final protection for the women of Michigan and call for the appointment of a Justice with a demonstrated commitment to individual freedom, including the right to choose.” Contact: Kelly Hamilton, 517-327-4707.
| 
