Roberts is Divisive Pick for Supreme Court
Americans want and deserve Senators to ask tough questions about serious Constitutional issues
Madison, WI – NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin, the state’s leading advocate for personal privacy and a woman’s right to choose, raised concerns about the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court and called on Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold to ensure that John Roberts provides the American people with forthright answers on his judicial philosophy, including whether he will preserve personal privacy and the constitutionally protected right to choose.
“Wisconsinites believe in our culture of freedom and personal responsibility, and the nomination of John Roberts is a direct affront to such mainstream values,” said Kelda Helen Roys, NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin Executive Director and an attorney. “Our senators are not rubber stamps for President Bush’s divisive nominee, but have a duty to the American public to demand answers and ensure that Judge Roberts respect understand the impact his decisions will have on the everyday lives of Wisconsinites.”
A cursory look at John Roberts’s background reveals a demonstrated record of opposition to reproductive rights and personal freedom:
• As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court (in a case that did not implicate Roe v. Wade) that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled…. [T]he Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion… finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”
• In Rust v. Sullivan , the Supreme Court considered whether Department of Health and Human Services regulations limiting the ability of Title X recipients to engage in abortion-related activities violated various constitutional provisions. Roberts, appearing on behalf of HHS as Deputy Solicitor General, argued that this domestic gag rule did not violate the Constitution.
• Roberts, again as Deputy Solicitor General, filed an amicus brief for the United States supporting Operation Rescue and six individuals who routinely blocked access to reproductive health care clinics, arguing that the protesters’ behavior did not amount to discrimination against women even though only women could exercise the right to seek an abortion. Roberts argued that their blockades and protests merely amounted to an expression of their opposition to abortion and that a civil rights remedy was therefore inappropriate. The case – Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic – presented the Supreme Court with the question of whether the Civil Rights Act of 1871 provided a federal cause of action against persons obstructing access to abortion clinics.
• The Court was so accustomed to John Roberts arguing for the overturn of Roe that during his oral argument before the Supreme Court in Bray, a Justice Asked, “Mr. Roberts, in this case are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?” He responded, “No, your honor, the issue doesn’t even come up.” To this the justice said, “Well, that hasn’t prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases.”
Notes:
- Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) (Nos. 89-1391, 89-1392).
- 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
- Transcript of Oral Reargument of John Roberts, Jr., Oct. 6, 1992, Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) (No. 90-985). 506 U.S. 263 (1993).
- Transcript of Oral Reargument of John Roberts, Jr., Oct. 6, 1992, Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) (No. 90-985).
# # #
| 
