NARAL Pro-Choice NH Opposes Alito for Supreme Court
President Bush fails to nominate moderate consensus candidate to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Concord, NH - NARAL Pro-Choice NH joined with NARAL Pro-Choice America to announce 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 in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. 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. “President Bush completely gave in to the radical right by nominating Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor’s swing vote on the Court, putting the health and safety of women across America at risk. If Alito is appointed and has the opportunity to hear the Ayotte case, it is a near certainty that he will vote against protecting women’s health,” said Liza Dube, Political Director for NARAL Pro-Choice NH. “We’ve seen him rule in favor of other significant restrictions to access to abortion. The Supreme Court does not need to directly overturn Roe v. Wade to completely disable it, but with a nominee as extreme as Alito chosen to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, the possibility of Roe being overturned is greater than ever.”
| 
