Fundamental Freedoms at Stake with Roberts' Nomination as Chief Justice
President Bush must drop opposition to releasing important Roberts documents;
Public deserves to know more about his judicial philosophy
Madison, WI- The leaders of NARAL Pro-Choice America and NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin joined area activists in the state capitol to call attention to what’s at stake for fundamental freedoms, including the right to privacy, as the Senate prepares for hearings on John Roberts’ nomination to be the United States’ Chief Justice.
Nancy Keenan, NARAL Pro-Choice America president, Kelda Helen Roys, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin, and a University of Wisconsin campus leader focused on Roberts’ record and said the importance of the hearings should not be confined to a hearing room in Washington, D.C.
They also called on President Bush to drop his opposition to releasing critical documents related to Roberts’ service as the Principal Deputy Solicitor General during the first Bush administration. The documents could contain important information about Roberts’ views and judicial philosophy.
“President Bush has nominated Roberts to become the most powerful judge on the nation’s highest court. The public has a right to see documents that will give us more information about his judicial philosophy. If the White House continues to stall, then it begs the question, ‘What is the president hiding, and why?’” Keenan said. “I applaud Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold for stating they will ask Roberts the tough questions and expect clear answers. We are urging Wisconsinites who value freedom and privacy to call their senators and urge them to oppose Roberts’ nomination.”
Roys said the hearings should focus on Roberts’ record of opposition to Roe v. Wade and the fundamental freedoms of privacy and choice.
“We believe in building a culture of freedom and personal responsibility -- part of that is ensuring that women, not politicians, make decisions about their own health care. Roberts' long record of opposing reproductive rights - including arguing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned - make it clear that he does not share our values. Wisconsinites have too much at stake to allow Roberts to be given a lifetime appointment as Chief Justice of the United States,” Roys said.
Jessica Wartenweiler a University of Wisconsin student, who has worked as a campus organizer, highlighted how Roberts’ writings that dismiss the constitutional right to privacy call into question his support for court precedents that guarantee individual’s right to obtain birth control.
“As a University of Wisconsin student, I'm concerned about the attacks on contraception in our state legislature. Our health and our constitutional right to privacy are being threatened by the UW Birth Control Ban. I want a Chief Justice who is going to stand up for the fundamental freedom of privacy—and stop politicians from getting involved in our personal lives. Roberts' record suggests he doesn't believe that the constitution protects the right to privacy —his confirmation as Chief Justice would threaten the health of young women who need birth control to prevent unintended pregnancy," said Wartenweiler.
###
JOHN ROBERTS RECORD:
• So-Called “Right to Privacy.” In an official memorandum to the Attorney General, then- Special Assistant to the Attorney General John Roberts dismissed one of our fundamental liberties as the “so-called ‘right to privacy.’” [Memorandum from John Roberts to the Attorney General (December 11, 1981)]
• “Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” In the Supreme Court case Rust v. Sullivan, John Roberts co-wrote a legal brief arguing that “Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” [Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991)]
• Civil Rights Law Does Not Protect Women from Health Clinic Blockades. In the Supreme Court case Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, John Roberts led the U.S. government’s participation as a “friend of the court” in support of Operation Rescue and argued for a narrow interpretation of a civil rights law used to protect women’s access to their doctors. Roberts claimed that the defendants’ blockades did not constitute discrimination against women and that a civil rights remedy was inappropriate.
| 
