New Report Underscores Alito's Anti-Choice Philosophy

Washington, DC -- Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said a story in today's Boston Globe provides further evidence of Samuel Alito's efforts to advance his legal philosophy under which the constitution does not protect a woman's right to choose.

According to the news report, a former colleague of Alito's during his tenure in the solicitor general's office has revealed that Alito sought out the opportunity to work on the Reagan administration's 1985 legal brief for Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. This brief argued in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade: "[T]he textual, historical and doctrinal basis of [Roe v. Wade] is so far flawed that this Court should overrule it and return the law to the condition in which it was before that case was decided."

"Americans have read Alito's own words boasting of the special gratification he felt to be involved in the Reagan Administration's efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade. Everyday, we learn new information revealing the true nature of Alito's work at the Department of Justice—as an architect of a legal philosophy that opposed a woman's constitutional right to choose," Keenan said. "Since the vast majority of Americans want the Supreme Court to uphold the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Roe v. Wade, the Bush White House will continue to try to downplay the emerging facts about Alito's legal record. But President Bush should know that the public won't accept a Supreme Court nominee like Alito who consistently tries to distance himself from his own words."

Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

• By a vote of 5-4, the Court invalidated provisions of Pennsylvania's anti-choice "Abortion Control Act," including a requirement that women seeking abortions receive biased counseling mandated by the state.
   
• In arguing for the overturn of Roe, the brief called Roe "ill founded" and "inherently unworkable."
   
• The brief argued that respect for precedent -- or stare decisis -- was insufficient reason to uphold Roe: "Stare decisis is a principle of stability. A decision as flawed as we believe Roe v. Wade to be becomes a focus of instability, and thus is less aptly sheltered by that doctrine from criticism and abandonment."
   
• The brief was questioned and criticized by numerous prominent legal scholars. Harvard Law professor Richard Fallon remarked quizzically, "It's hard to understand what's going on with the Justice Department. The law in this area has been stated." 

Contact:
Ted Miller, 202.973.3032