Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

In passing a law today that bans all abortions except when the life of the woman is at stake, South Dakota legislators gave right-wing zealots what they have been waiting for since the 1992 Casey decision: another shot at Roe v. Wade. That landmark decision recognized a woman’s fundamental right to privacy in deciding whether to continue her pregnancy.

By a vote of 50-18 in the House and 23-12 in the Senate, state lawmakers virtually assured a legal battle that will reach the Supreme Court. And given the current breakdown of the High Court, whose two newest justices have a history of opposition to women’s rights, the outcome could well be a reversal of Roe.

Every Senator who did not filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Sam Alito to replace Sandra Day O’Connor will share responsibility for what follows.

-February 22, 2006
Today the Supreme Court announced that it will consider the constitution-ality of a federal abortion procedure ban — a law identical in effect to the Nebraska ban that was struck down by the Court in 2000 because it didn’t protect women’s health. We will soon learn whether the High Court’s two newest justices are as devoted to precedent as they say they are, or whether their visceral opposition to abortion will lead them to overturn a clear precedent after only six years.

The new case, Gonzales v. Carhart, concerns the same doctor, the same state, and the same issues as Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000, when Dr. Leroy Carhart challenged a Nebraska law that banned certain vaguely-defined abortion procedures without including any exception for a woman whose health is at risk.

The Court’s narrow 5-4 opinion in that 2000 case found the law unconstitutional. That precedent in Stenberg was the reason three federal courts of appeal have declared this federal ban unconstitutional as well. The outcome in this case could be different because now-retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who cast the deciding vote in Stenberg, has been replaced by an opponent of abortion.

Not only will we find out whether our new justices are committed to “stare decisis” and settled law — as Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito recently assured senators they are — but we will also see whether their opposition to abortion means they will force doctors to violate their Hippocratic oath, putting the desires of Congress above their medical duty to put their patients’ health first.

“This isn’t the first time Congress has tried to practice medicine without a license, but if this ban is upheld, it will be the first time the Supreme Court has allowed them to do so,” said NOW President Kim Gandy. “Will Congress be allowed to deprive you of the medical procedure your doctor says is safest for your particular circumstances?”

(Providence, RI) — Senator Lincoln Chafee’s vote against the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court is, quote, “a hollow vote,” according to the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Women. Spokesperson Carolyn Mark complains that Chafee’s vote became meaningless when he decided not to support a filibuster to extend debate and ultimately block a vote. Donna Fishman of the Rhode Island Coalition for Affirmative Action accuses Chafee of a political ploy, and charges the moderate Republican has failed to protect the civil rights of women. And, Cathy Speer of the Rhode Island division of the American Association of University Women accuses Chafee of, quote, “trying to have it both ways.” She says his vote against confirmation doesn’t matter, but he would not support a filibuster where his vote might have mattered.