FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 30, 2005
Explosive new evidence of Alito's hostility to women's reproductive freedom comes on same day as landmark case is argued before Supreme Court
Washington, DC – As the oral arguments closed in a pivotal case in which the Supreme Court will decide whether to continue protecting women’s health, a newly released memo reveals even more evidence that President Bush’s nominee for the Court is a legal architect who has spent years working to dismantle fundamental protections guaranteed under Roe v. Wade.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the memo written by Samuel Alito during his tenure in the Reagan administration underscored the dire threat he poses to women’s health if he is confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
“Samuel Alito’s writings reflect a visceral opposition to Roe v. Wade. It is clear that his legal philosophy calls for a calculated strategy to dismantle fundamental constitutional protections for women, including the health exception issue that the Supreme Court is considering right now,” Keenan said. “Alito’s memo is a litany of legal strategies designed to undermine women’s reproductive health. He even confuses birth control with abortion and advocates additional restrictions on women’s access to contraception. If Alito replaces Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Court will shift in a direction that jeopardizes the fundamental values of freedom and privacy that a vast majority of Americans want protected.”
Background on Alito Memorandum
Today, NARAL Pro-Choice America issued a list of key excerpts from Alito’s memo written on June 3, 1985 regarding Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and another abortion-related case. This new information follows the release of a 1985 job application in which Alito wrote that “the constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”
The newly released document is a memo that Alito wrote to his superiors while in the Solicitor General's office, recommending that the Reagan administration file an amicus brief in two abortion cases that had been granted cert by the Supreme Court, Thornburgh and Diamond. The cover page is from then-Acting Solicitor General Charles Fried to a number of other people, enclosing Alito's memo and the start of a brief that Fried drafted as a result. The cover includes the warning that "I need hardly say how sensitive this material is, and ask that it have no wider circulation."
Among Alito's key conclusions/thoughts: (1) the administration should file an amicus in support of the abortion restrictions at issue. (2) The amicus should “make clear that that we disagree with Roe v. Wade.” (3) However, since the Supreme Court will not overturn Roe in either of these cases, the administration should take the opportunity to support a variety of restrictions on the right to choose that the Supreme Court and lower courts had struck down. Alito sketches out what has become the anti-choice movement’s strategy: Accept that Roe will not immediately be overturned (while continuing to argue that it should be), while simultaneously enacting as many restrictions as possible to, in Alito’s words, “mitigat[e] [Roe’s] effects.”
Key excerpts include:
"...no one seriously believes that the Court is about to overrule Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). But the Court's decision to review these cases nevertheless may be a positive sign."
"What can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?"
"We should file a brief as amicus curaie supporting appellants in both cases. In the course of the brief, we should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled."
"What, for example, is the objection to informing a woman that certain methods of birth control are "abortifacients," i.e., that they do not prevent fertilization but terminate the development of the fetus after conception?"
he refers to providers as "abortionist[s]"
"There may be an opportunity to nudge the Court toward the principles in Justice O'Connor's Akron dissent, to provide greater recognition of the states' interest in protecting the unborn throughout pregnancy, or to dispel in part the mystical faith in the attending physician that supports Roe and the subsequent cases."
Contact:
Ted Miller 202.973.3032
