NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado: Judge John Roberts Doesn't Respect Colorado Values of Privacy, Freedom, Reproductive Rights and Personal Freedom
Senators must fulfill responsibility to ask tough questions and expect serious answers about Constitutional issues. DENVER – NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, the state’s leading advocate for personal privacy and a woman’s right to choose, today raised serious concerns about the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court. The group also called on Senators Salazar and Allard to ensure that Judge Roberts provides the American people with forthright answers on his judicial philosophy, including whether he will preserve personal privacy, freedom and the constitutionally protected right to choose. “Coloradans believe in a culture of privacy, freedom, reproductive rights and personal responsibility – Judge John Roberts does not reflect those mainstream values,” said Beth Ganz, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado. “Although his judicial record is short, Judge Roberts has argued against privacy, freedom, reproductive rights and personal responsibility and said on a number of occasions that he believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned,” Ganz said. “We expect our Senators not to act merely as a rubber stamp to President Bush’s nominees. Senators Salazar and Allard have a duty to Coloradans and the American public to ask tough questions and only vote for nominees that support privacy, freedom, reproductive rights and personal responsibility. The decisions Judge Roberts makes if appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court will affect every Coloradan.” A review of Judge Roberts’s background reveals a demonstrated record of opposition to privacy, personal freedom and reproductive rights: 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.”[i]In Rust v. Sullivan[ii], 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 constitutional protections.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 the protesters’ blockade and protests merely amounted to an expression of their opposition to abortion and that a civil rights remedy was therefore inappropriate.[iii] The case – Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic[iv] – 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 the Solicitor General and the Deputy Solicitor General arguing for the overturn of Roe that during John Roberts’s 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.”[v]# # #
-----------------------------------------------
[i] Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) (Nos. 89-1391, 89-1392).[ii] 500 U.S. 173 (1991). [iii] 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). [iv] 506 U.S. 263 (1993). [v] 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).
|
