Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Protect Women's Health or Side with the Bush Administration

(Washington, DC) – NARAL Pro-Choice America has vowed to raise public awareness of what's at stake as the Supreme Court prepares to hear a case from New Hampshire in which the Bush administration has backed proposed standards that threaten to eliminate core principles of Roe v. Wade, including a requirement that any restriction on abortion protect women's health.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England gave the Court the option of either upholding or eliminating long-established standards that have prevented states from further chipping away at a woman's right to choose.

"The Ayotte case illustrates what's at stake when it comes to the balance of the Supreme Court," said Nancy Keenan. "The Bush administration has weighed in on this case, which means it wants politicians – not doctors – to determine when women can and cannot receive the care they need. The Supreme Court's decision in Ayotte could effectively dismantle Roe v. Wade's core protection of women's health and fundamentally alter how doctors challenge abortion restrictions that pose a threat to their patients' health. If the Court sides with the Bush administration, we also will see an onslaught of anti-choice measures in state legislatures that would all but eliminate the right to choose for millions of American women."

When this bill was before the New Hampshire legislature, NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire advised legislators that, in accordance with clear Supreme Court precedent, no restriction on the right to choose may endanger a woman's health. Yet the legislature deliberately passed a law that could endanger women's health.

NARAL Pro-Choice America, NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire and 24 other state-based affiliates filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief. Building on years of research and lobbying on state legislation, NARAL Pro-Choice America and its affiliate network argues that the Court should not allow a dangerous precedent that would open the floodgates to legislatures to enact abortion restrictions without exceptions to protect women’s health.¹ The Bush administration voluntarily entered the case to file a brief in support of the state of New Hampshire’s arguments against women’s health and in favor of a new standard of review that could effectively eliminate the right to choose for scores of American women.² 

1. Brief for NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, Et. Al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, No. 04-1144 (Oct. 12, 2005).

2. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, No. 04-1144 (Aug. 2005).

Contact:
Ted Miller, 202.973.3032