[NYTr] NOW, NARAL on Supreme Court Abortion Ruling

[nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com]

sent by Ed Pearl

NOW and NARAL via Portside - Apr 19, 2007

NOW and NARAL on Supreme Court Abortion Ruling

1. Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Procedure Ban "Most
Political Decision Since Bush v. Gore"

2. Supreme Court Decision Marks Setback for Women's Health and Privacy

National Organization for Women
http://www.now.org/press/04-07/04-18.html

Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Procedure Ban "Most
Political Decision Since Bush v. Gore"

Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

April 18, 2007

Today the Supreme Court upheld this nation's first
abortion procedure ban-a ban enacted by George W. Bush
and conservatives in Congress. Five justices, including
Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel
Alito-both installed by Bush and a Republican-majority
Senate-ruled that the law does not violate a woman's
constitutional right to abortion.

Not since Bush v. Gore has the Supreme Court made such
a political decision, or one that so completely
distorts the law and disregards the U.S. Constitution.

The law is so vaguely written that it may ban the most
common abortion procedure used after 12 weeks of
pregnancy, and there is no exception to allow its use
if the woman's health is in serious danger. The joint
ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned
Parenthood is a major step in the campaign to outlaw
all abortions, first by chipping away at and then by
fully overturning Roe v. Wade.

Bush used his allies' control in Congress to push
through anti-abortion legislation, and he used their
power to confirm anti-abortion justices to the Supreme
Court-justices who have now upheld that same
legislation.

The National Organization for Women and other advocates
predicted as much, and fought tooth and nail against
the confirmation of Roberts, and even more passionately
against Alito, who replaced Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor. Now we see that apparently, everything
Roberts and Alito said at their confirmation hearings
about respecting precedent was a pack of lies.

When the time came for women's rights supporters in the
Senate to prevent confirmation of Sam Alito, the "fifth
vote" against abortion rights, only 25 senators stood
up for women. And indeed he was the fifth vote for the
majority in today's decision. The senators who voted to
end the Democratic filibuster, thus allowing Alito to
join the court, must be reminded that their failure led
to this day. We must stop the stacking of the federal
courts and work toward a congressional majority that
supports women's rights.

Tellingly, seven years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart, the
Supreme Court ruled against an almost identical ban
enacted in Nebraska. The clear precedent set by
Stenberg in 2000 was the reason three U.S. Courts of
Appeal declared the federal ban unconstitutional. But
last year the Bush administration pressed on with
appeals to the Supreme Court by Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales.

So why did Gonzales forge ahead when a clear precedent
had been set only six years earlier? And why did the
court uphold this ban, effectively undoing that
precedent? In the dissenting opinion, Associate Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg explains it quite clearly:

"Though today's opinion does not go so far as to
disregard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed
that it was when we last considered a restrictive
abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier
invocations of the 'rule of law' and the 'principles of
stare decisis.'"

In other words: The Supreme Court changed, stupid!

This is a clarion call for feminists, progressives and
everyone who cares about justice, equality and
democracy. We must link arms and say "No more."

We must elect a Congress that will repeal this ban and
a president who will sign the repeal.

November 2008 can't come soon enough.

### For Immediate Release Contact: Mai Shiozaki,
202-628-8669, ext. 116; cell 202-641-1906

Sign up to receive press releases by email | by RSS

Copyright 1995-2007, All rights reserved. Permission
granted for non-commercial use. National Organization
for Women (This was printed from
http://www.now.org/press/04-07/04-18.html)

                         ***

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 18, 2007

Supreme Court Decision Marks Setback for Women's Health and Privacy
http://www.naral.org/news/press-releases/2007/pr04182007_scotus.html

Court's ruling opens door for more political
interference in personal, private medical decisions

Washington, DC Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-
Choice America, issued the following statement in
response to today's Supreme Court decision in the
Federal Abortion Ban cases.

"Today's decision shows Bush's appointees have moved
the Court in a direction that could further undermine
Roe v. Wade and protections for women's health. The
door is now open for politicians like George W. Bush to
interfere even more in our personal, private medical
decisions. The Court has given anti-choice state
lawmakers the green light to open the flood gates and
launch additional attacks on safe, legal abortion,
without any regard for women's health.

"The bottom line is clear: elections matter. An anti-
choice Congress and an anti-choice president pushed
this ban all the way to the Supreme Court. In fact, the
same politicians behind this abortion ban also block
stem-cell research and interfered in the Terri Schiavo
case. We need to elect more pro-choice members of
Congress and a president who will stand up for-not
attack-our fundamental values of freedom and privacy.

"The Court has disregarded the medical opinion of
leading doctors who oppose the ban. The American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists-which
represents 90 percent of the OB GYNs in this country -
says the ban is harmful to women's health and
interferes with medical decision making.

"This case is about more than abortion. This decision
means the Court is willing to partner with the Bush
administration and uphold laws that interfere with
personal decisions that should be left up to a woman
and her family.

"Indeed, this is a setback for all Americans who
believe politicians should not make private, personal
medical decisions for the rest of us. Many pro-choice
lawmakers, including presidential candidates, opposed
the Bush Federal Abortion Ban. These leaders are right
to remind the public that President Bush's appointees
to the Court are taking women's reproductive rights in
a dangerous direction."

Background

The Supreme Court struck down an almost identical state
law as unconstitutional in 2000, and every court to
hear a challenge to this first-ever federal ban on
abortion declared it unconstitutional. Since the
Court's decision in 2000, President Bush appointed
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to
the Supreme Court and abortion foes see these
appointments as an opportunity to undermine the Roe v.
Wade decision. NARAL Pro-Choice America and its
affiliate network lobbied strongly against the law and
submitted an amicus brief to the Court arguing that the
only appropriate remedy for the ban's constitutional
flaws was to bar its enforcement entirely.

Contact: Ted Miller, 202.973.3032

==
Submit via email: moderator at portside.org
Subscribe: www.portside.org/subscribe
Search the archives: www.portside.org/archive