The U.S. Senate voted 68-31 to approve the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the lifetime appointment on the highest US court.

Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of American United for Life issued this statement today in response to this confirmation:

Americans United for Life applauds the 31 senators opposing Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation. It’s a stunning vote of “no confidence” in a nominee whose background of abortion advocacy and record of judicial interventionism raise serious questions about her fitness for the high court. The number of senators opposing Sotomayor also sends the message that the next time there’s a vacancy on the Supreme Court, Americans will expect a nominee whose judicial philosophy upholds the Constitution – not his or her own political ideology.

AUL’s legal experts have also been supplying information on the troubling judicial philosophy of Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor to Capitol Hill and the American public, in advance of this week’s vote by the full Senate on her confirmation. Their latest informational release, “What Judge Sotomayor Said — and Should Have Said” demonstrates how Sotomayor’s answers before the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed flaws in her understanding and judgment.

AUL’s expertise was recognized by Congress before the American public when President & CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest was invited to testify before the Judiciary Committee on the Sotomayor nomination. You can view and read her testimony at the Sotomayor hearings at AUL.org.

Media Contact:
Heather Smith
202-270-9962
heather.smith@aul.org

When the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court was announced, many political observers assumed the Senate would provide an overwhelming “yes” vote on the administration’s judicial nominee pick. Instead, thirty-one senators have announced they are opposing Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation. It’s a stunning vote of “no confidence” in a nominee whose background of abortion advocacy and record of judicial interventionism raise serious questions about her fitness for the high court.

The number of senators opposing Sotomayor also sends the message that the next time there’s a vacancy on the Supreme Court, Americans will expect a nominee whose judicial philosophy upholds the Constitution not his or her own political ideology.

Please join me in thanking those senators who are planning to vote against Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation. If one of them is your senator, call and show your appreciation. The Senate switchboard is (202) 224- 3121.

Here’s the list of senators who have announced they’re voting against Sotomayor: John Barrasso (Wyo.);  Robert Bennett (Utah); Sam Brownback (Kan.); Jim Bunning (Ky.); Richard Burr (N.C.); Saxby Chambliss (Ga.); Tom Coburn (Okla.); Thad Cochran (Miss.); Bob Corker (Tenn.); John Cornyn (Tex.); Mike Crapo (Idaho); Jim DeMint (S.C.); John Ensign (Nev.); Mike Enzi (Wyo.); Charles Grassley (Iowa); Orrin Hatch (Utah); Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas); James Inhofe (Okla.); Johnny Isakson (Ga.); Mike Johanns (Neb.); Jon Kyl (Ariz.); John McCain (Ariz.); Mitch McConnell (Ky.); Lisa Murkowski (Alaska); James Risch (Idaho); Pat Roberts (Kan.); Jeff Sessions (Ala.); Richard Shelby (Ala.); John Thune (S.D.); David Vitter (La.); and Roger Wicker (Miss.).

If your senator is not on the list, call and ask him or her to do the right thing and say “no” to Sotomayor. And thank you from all of us at AUL for helping us protect and defend life! 

For Life,

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO

Americans United for Life (AUL) announced today that its President & CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest has been called to testify at the confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor, which begin on Monday, July 13.

AUL President Charmaine Yoest said “We are honored to have the opportunity to testify before the Judiciary Committee about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the highest court in the land. I am looking forward to sharing AUL’s extensive legal research about Judge Sotomayor’s record. In particular, her radical associations and judicial philosophy raises serious concerns in the prolife community.”

Dr. Yoest plans to focus her testimony on making the connection for the senators and the American public between the positions taken by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF) during her tenure on the Board and her judicial interventionist approach to the bench.

“Her PRLDEF record proves that she is an abortion advocate. That record includes opposition to parental notification, opposition to informed consent, opposition to bans on partial-birth abortion and support for taxpayer-funded abortions. These positions are far outside the mainstream of American public opinion,” said Dr. Yoest.

The oldest national public policy organization dedicated to protecting and defending life, Americans United for Life has garnered major media attention for their comprehensive legal work in uncovering Judge Sotomayor’s background on abortion and how she is worse than Justice Souter on abortion. This research is located at AUL’s two informational Web sites:

• Sotomayor411.com features in-depth background on the nominee’s record and her involvement with a radical pro-abortion group. The site also features a detailed comparison chart on why the nominee would be worse than retiring Justice David Souter on the life issues, a point that Yoest emphasized in her recent op-ed in the Washington Times.
• AskSotomayor.com spotlights the “Top Ten” questions senators should pose to put her judicial philosophy into sharp focus. The “Top Ten” questions on the site, which Yoest presented to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week via a memo, are tailored to clarify Sotomayor’s beliefs about such vital issues as the role of the Courts – whether it is to make policy, as Sotomayor once suggested, or to interpret the Constitution – and whether she sees abortion as a “fundamental right,” as was argued by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund while she was on its board.

Media Contact:
Heather Smith
202-270-9962
Heather.Smith@aul.org

When CNN, ABC, the Washington Post, National Public Radio, and hundreds more news outlets wanted expert pro-life legal commentary on President Obama’s nomination of Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, Americans United for Life (AUL) was there. Drawing upon our legal team’s months of research, I and other AUL experts explained to the media why pro-lifers should be concerned about Judge Sotomayor’s long history advocating radical judicial activism.

Now, as the confirmation process begins, I would like to invite you to listen to the latest on Judge Sotomayor from that same team of pro-life legal experts. Please join me for a 45-minute conference call on Thursday, June 11, at 9:00 pm ET / 6:00 pm PT. The conference call is free, but space is limited—please register online.

Dial in to the conference call to hear the inside story and ask questions on the Sotomayor nomination, with reports from me and the AUL legal team whose insights are making the news:

• Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe, sharing the results of our legal team’s research into Sotomayor’s record and judicial philosophy;
• Senior Counsel William Saunders with a report from Washington on where things stand with the nomination;
• Vice President of Legal Affairs Denise Burke, discussing current trends in legislation and the importance of the Supreme Court in working to build a nation where every human being is welcomed in life and protected in law;
• And Vice President of Governmental Affairs Dan McConchie, giving talking points to use when contacting your Senators and when discussing the nomination with your friends and family.

This is a critical time in our nation’s history, when the courts are at a crossroads, and critical abortion regulations like the partial-birth abortion ban and informed-consent laws hang in the balance.

Will you join me for this call and learn how you can use the latest information on Sotomayor to influence Congress and the rest of the nation in favor of protecting life? Register now for the conference call.

I look forward to your participation as we work to build a pro-life America.

For Life,

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO

P.S. — Please register now and join AUL’s pro-life legal experts on Thursday, June 11, 9:00 pm ET / 6:00 pm PT.  And please consider a gift to assist with this and our other pro-life efforts. 

As the nation awoke yesterday to news of President Obama’s Supreme Court pick, news outlets sought Americans United for Life President Charmaine Yoest for commentary on what significance Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination has for pro-life Americans.

Video coverage by the Associated Press highlighted Dr. Yoest’s assessment of the nominee’s judicial temperament. The AUL President appears at 1:23 of the following clip.

Dr. Yoest was also interviewed at length for Breitbart.tv’s 5 p.m. newscast.

Other news outlets that featured AUL’s take on the nomination included:

• The Associated Press: “Sotomayor: A liberal record . . . but not entirely so“
• CNN: “Obama nominates Sotomayor to Supreme Court“
• ABC News: “Some Voices Rise Against Sotomayor’s Nomination“
• National Review Online: “Bench Memos.” NRO blogger Kathryn Jean Lopez notes that, in the face of liberal kudos for Judge Sotomayor, Dr. Yoest — unlike the Republican National Committee — decided that now is not the time to be neutral.
• U.S. News and World Report: “Sotomayor Blurs Lines in Abortion War“
• Life Site News: “Obama Supreme Court Pick Lacks Abortion History, but Criticized for Judicial Activism, Racism“

Today, the national coverage of AUL’s reaction to the nomination continued, including an article on CBS News.com’s PoliticalHotsheet: “Sotomayor Nomination Renews Roe v. Wade Debate.”

We’ve been working hard in the lead-up to the Supreme Court nomination to prepare . . . and today was the day. As you know, the President nominated Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor. 

We’ve spent the day responding to requests for a response from a pro-life perspective — running from the Associated Press to the BBC to FOX Radio and more.

The Washington Post gave AUL credit for leading the way in researching Sotomayor’s record and being one of the first pro-life groups to comment on her nomination. We want to keep you informed as this nomination process goes forward, so please stop by AUL.org for more background on Judge Sotomayor.

So what do we think? Frankly, this is a very troubling nomination. In listing his requirements for a Supreme Court pick, President Obama highlighted “empathy” rather than loyalty to Constitutional principles. Now, we see what that means – a judge who makes it clear she decides cases on feelings, not facts. She is a radical judicial activist who readily admits that she applies her personal political agenda when deciding cases.

In a speech at Duke Law School at 2005, Sotomayor said that her own Court of Appeals — not the democratically elected legislature — is “where policy is made.” Taking such “judicial action,” she said in a 2004 speech, is part of the “heroics of judges today; it may dwell in protecting our own turf and ensuring that it is we who interpret the law.”

Sotomayor’s philosophy of radical judicial activism is exactly the thinking that led to the Supreme Court turning into the “National Abortion Control Board,” denying the American people the right to be heard on this critical issue. She will further entrench the Court’s self-appointed role as the sole arbiter of abortion policy. Based on her judicial philosophy, we expect her to elevate unrestricted, unregulated, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand to a fundamental constitutional right by reading the sweeping Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) into the Constitution.

Pro-abortion groups are already lining up to endorse Obama’s choice. NARAL praised her “distinguished record of professional accomplishments,” while the National Organization for Women (NOW) said it would “celebrate” the nomination with a “Confirm Her” ad campaign.

That’s why it’s so important we get out the truth about Sotomayor’s radical judicial activism. Our recent polling data shows 69% of the American people believe that “some federal judges have gone too far by doing more than just interpreting the law and instead are making new law.” Mainstream America will not tolerate the choice of a Supreme Court nominee who, instead of following her duty to uphold the Constitution, chooses instead to dictate her own personal political agenda.

We need your help to make sure the next Supreme Court justice rules on facts, not feelings. Will you send a generous gift today? We want to send a loud and clear message that the American people will not tolerate a judge who believes in setting her own policy and “protecting [her] own turf.” But we need your help to keep pounding the message home during the confirmation process. Let’s show our politicians and the American people that a vote to confirm her would be a vote to strip Americans of the ability to choose for themselves how to regulate abortion. Thank you for standing with us!

For Life,

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Americans United for Life

P.S. — Your gift will help us make sure the next Supreme Court justice rules on facts, not feelings.

AUL in the News

• CNN Politics
• Newsweek
• NPR
• ABC News Political Punch
• Townhall
• Guardian (UK)
• Chicago Sun-Times

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Sotomayor Wants to Set Policy, Will Perpetuate Role of Supreme Court as “National Abortion Control Board”

Washington, DC — Americans United for Life (AUL) President & CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest reacted to President Barack Obama nominating Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the United States Supreme Court, stating:

“For all the President’s talk of finding ‘common ground,’ this appointment completely contradicts that hollow promise.  Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy undermines common ground.  She is a radical pick that divides America.  She believes the role of the Court is to set policy which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the National Abortion Control Board denying the American people to right to be heard on this critical issue.  This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench, at a time when the Courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations — supported by the vast majority of Americans — like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance.

“A vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court Justice is a vote to strip Americans of the ability to choose for themselves how to regulate abortion.  Our recent polling data speaks to this point of judicial activism:  69% of the American people believe that “some federal judges have gone too far by doing more than just interpreting the law and instead are making new law.”

The Supreme Court took on the role of the ‘National Abortion Control Board’ in 1973 with Roe vs. Wade, and Judge Sotomayor will further entrench the Court’s self-appointed role as the sole arbiter of abortion policy.  Based on her judicial philosophy, we expect her to elevate unrestricted, unregulated, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand to a fundamental constitutional right by reading the sweeping Freedom of Choice Act – also known as FOCA – into the Constitution.
 
“The American people want the right to implement common-sense regulations on abortion.  American parents want parental involvement laws to protect their daughters from having abortions without their knowledge or consent.  They want prohibitions on late-term abortions and the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortion-on-demand.  And women have rallied for informed consent laws, ensuring that they receive all medically-appropriate information about abortion, its complications, and its consequences.”
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Washington, DC — Americans United for Life (AUL) President & CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest reacted to President Barack Obama nominating Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the United States Supreme Court, stating:

For all the President’s talk of finding ‘common ground,’ this appointment completely contradicts that hollow promise.  Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy undermines common ground.  She is a radical pick that divides America.  She believes the role of the Court is to set policy, which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the ‘National Abortion Control Board,’ denying the American people the right to be heard on this critical issue.  This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench, at a time when the Courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations – supported by the vast majority of Americans – like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance.

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows that 72% of Americans believe President Obama should nominate either a moderate or conservative to be the next Supreme Court Justice.  Only 27% believe the next nominee should be somewhat or very liberal.

Additionally, people overwhelmingly want the nominee to have experience as a judge.  As for that litmus test of the chattering class that keeps insisting the nominee be either a woman or minority, most Americans disagree with 61% saying it’s not important that the nominee be a woman, approximately 75% saying it’s not important to be a Hispanic, and almost 80% saying he or she doesn’t need to be African-American.

68% of Americans do indicate in this survey that they did not want Roe v. Wade overturned, but the question was skewed to misrepresent what Roe did by claiming that it only allows abortion in the first trimester rather than the reality that, since Roe, abortion has been and continues to be legal in all nine months of pregnancy for any reason.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 15, 2009

Washington, DC — Americans United for Life (AUL) announces today a new legal prospectus on the probable “short list” of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominees, and their records on life issues. AUL is the nation’s first national pro-life organization and the leading legal and public policy organization in the pro-life movement.

The comprehensive, concise document identifies nine probable nominees and highlights cases, past writings, opinions, and arguments indicating affinities for pro-abortion activism.  In addition, it explains how past interpretations by some of the individuals could be applied to future rulings on life issues.  The prospectus also identifies personal endorsements of and political contributions to extreme, pro-abortion activist groups.

For example, Solicitor General Elena Kagan tops many ’short-lists’ and yet she has publicly and repeatedly criticized federal regulations that prohibit federally funded abortion counseling.  Kagan argues that the regulations amount to the subsidization of “anti-abortion” speech.  Another short-list topper, Judge Diane Wood, has disputed the constitutionality of partial-birth abortion bans enacted in Illinois and Wisconsin.

To access the prospectus, visit: http://www.aul.org/ussc_potentials

AUL President Dr. Charmaine Yoest states:

“The records of these potential nominees are absolutely the most radically pro-abortion our country has ever seen.  Every potential nominee is pro-abortion and would advance President Obama’s radical agenda to enact FOCA, eliminating every restriction on abortion nationwide.  In their records, we see examples such as ruling in favor of taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, vetoing common-sense abortion regulations, favoring an expansive right to privacy, and restricting the First Amendment rights of pro-life activists.

“One of the reasons for the controversy surrounding President Obama’s visit to Notre Dame this weekend is the gap between what he says and what he does with respect to life issues.  In his first 100 days in office, he has made policy changes, appointments, and public promises that directly contradict his claim of wanting to reduce the number of abortions.

“We expect that with this upcoming nomination, he will continue the rhetoric of valuing the protection of all human life while in reality undermining protections currently in place.  We will continue to work to draw attention to this gap, and we will make the pro-life voice heard during this nomination process.”

Probable “Short List”

• Elena Kagan, Solicitor General of the United States
• The Honorable Diane Wood, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
• Janet Napolitano, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security
• The Honorable Leah Ward Sears, Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court
• The Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Other Potential Nominees

• Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan
• Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts
• Kathleen M. Sullivan, Stanford Law School
• Cass Sunstein, White House Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulator Affairs

About Americans United for Life
Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.  The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971.  The Wall Street Journal has profiled AUL, and PBS’ Frontline program chronicled AUL’s successful efforts in Mississippi.

Dear Friend,

As you’ve undoubtedly heard, Justice David Souter is leaving the Supreme Court, and President Obama will soon nominate a replacement.

Since casting his first vote against life in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, Justice Souter has repeatedly voted to extend the tragedy of abortion — into all nine months of pregnancy, at any time, and for any reason.  In 2000 and again in 2007, Justice Souter voted to make partial-birth abortion a Constitutional right.

You and I don’t want another Justice Souter on the Supreme Court, so we have to make our voices heard.  People are waiting to see if we will respond.  I’ve had countless reporters ask me what the pro-life movement is going to do. 

That’s why AUL’s work is so important.

In everything from the Wall Street Journal to the Congressional Quarterly to the Chicago Tribune, AUL is speaking out against any nominee who intends to implement a radical abortion rights agenda as a Supreme Court Justice.

In addition, the AUL Legal Team has put together and is distributing widely a comprehensive report on potential Supreme Court nominees.  The report examines those we believe are on President Obama’s “short list,” as well as other potential nominees he may be considering.  Every potential nominee is pro-abortion and would advance President Obama’s radical agenda to pass FOCA, eliminating every restriction on abortion nationwide.  You can read the report to see just how radical the President’s nominee could be.

Right now, I need your help to continue this vital work.

Already, pro-abortion groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood are raising money to help them make sure the next Supreme Court Justice will not only uphold Roe v. Wade, but go even further.  They want the new Justice to read the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) into the Constitution — striking down every abortion restriction in the nation.

You see, they haven’t yet succeeded in getting FOCA through Congress.  And their Plan B — passing FOCA through Congress “by stealth” — is taking longer than they’d like.

In the meantime, they’re moving ahead with Plan C — to have an activist Supreme Court erase every pro-life law nationwide.

Unfortunately, a new Justice who would read FOCA into the Constitution wouldn’t be alone.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has even written a law review article detailing how she would do it. 

So you see, the stakes are very high indeed.  If President Obama sends a pro-abortion nominee to the US Senate, we will do everything possible to make sure that nominee is rejected.

We need your help to make sure we don’t get another pro-abortion Justice.  Will you send a generous gift today?

Time is of the essence.  We must show the US Senate that we will not stand for another Justice Souter who will continue to undermine our right to protect women and children from the tragedy of abortion.  Together, we can make our voices heard. 

Yours for life,
 

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Americans United for Life
 
P.S. — With a vacancy on the Supreme Court, we must act now to stop Planned Parenthood and NARAL from getting a new Justice who will read the Freedom of Choice Act into the Constitution.  Please give generously today to help.  Thanks!

The AUL Legal Team has put together a report on potential Supreme Court nominees. This report is comprised of what we believe is President Obama’s “short list” as well as other potential nominees he may be considering. Every potential nominee is pro-abortion and would only advance President Obama’s radical agenda to pass FOCA, eliminating every restriction on abortion nationwide.

To read the full report, visit aul.org.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 5, 2009

WASHINGTON – Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life (AUL), issued the following statement to support the appointment of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as ranking minority leader of the GOP and to address what’s being reported as a rushed nomination for the United States Supreme Court to replace Justice Souter:

“We applaud the appointment of Senator Sessions for this leadership position and his commitment to give a ‘fair evaluation’ of all nominees for the Supreme Court. He has an excellent record and we have confidence he will do what’s right in properly vetting this nomination.

“We appeal to Sen. Sessions to halt the idea implied by Sen. Hatch that President Obama will fast track this selection to the Court. Proper evaluation of each nominee will help ensure that he or she is qualified and values application of the law, and is not a liberal judicial activist seeking to impose their own political agenda from the bench.

“Several of the potential nominees being reported are, indeed, either not qualified or have records of judicial activism – a strong indication that they would use the Court to roll back abortion restrictions made by the American people through their elected representatives such as partial birth abortion and parental notification. Both of these laws are overwhelmingly supported by the public, but a Justice with an agenda could reverse the rule of law by legislating from the bench.

“Sen. Sessions, we urge you to begin your role as ranking minority member by putting the brakes on rushing through a Supreme Court nominee.” 

About Americans United for Life

Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.  The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971.  The Wall Street Journal has profiled AUL, and PBS’ Frontline program chronicled AUL’s successful efforts in Mississippi.

Media Contact:
202-289-1478

This letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was released this morning.

————————————

May 4, 2009

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Leahy:

We understand that Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, David Souter will retire at the end of the Court’s current term.  The President will soon send to the United States Senate a nominee to our highest court.

Americans United for Life is a public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.  We will oppose any nominee to the Court who believes social activism trumps interpreting the Constitution.

The Constitutionally-protected right to self-government is threatened when judges arrogate to themselves the legislature’s power to craft public policy.  The most important question a nominee for the Supreme Court must answer is to articulate their judicial philosophy:  will they advance an agenda that limits the right of the people to determine the content of abortion-related laws through the democratic process?

The President has expressed a public commitment to reducing the frequency of abortion in the United States. Appointing a nominee who intends to read the Freedom of Choice Act into the Constitution will undermine that objective, increase the number of abortions nationwide, and further disenfranchise millions of Americans who want to settle this issue through the democratic process.

Furthermore, elevating abortion to a fundamental right on the same plane as the freedom of speech would void common-sense abortion regulations that the vast majority of Americans support, like the prohibition on partial-birth abortion.   Such a move would also require taxpayer funding of abortion, eliminate informed consent and parental notice and consent laws, state requirements that abortions be done only by physicians, and more.  A judicial nominee who intends to pursue such a radical agenda should be summarily rejected by the Senate.

In the days ahead, we look to our Senators to uphold their duty to raise serious questions on the nominee’s judicial philosophy and reject any nominee who places personal preference over upholding the Constitution.

Sincerely,

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President and CEO

————————————

A PDF of this letter is available here.

“Pro-abortion Supreme Court nominee will read Freedom of Choice Act into the Constitution.”

WASHINGTON – Major media outlets are reporting that United State Supreme Court Justice David Souter has informed the White House that he plans to retire at the end of the Court’s current term.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life, stated, “We will work to oppose any nominee for the Supreme Court who will read the Freedom of Choice Act into the Constitution in order to elevate abortion to a fundamental right on the same plane as the freedom of speech. In his search for a replacement for Justice Souter, President Obama should avoid a pro-abortion litmus test.”

Dr. Yoest continued, “This nomination represents a test for a President who has expressed a public commitment to reducing abortions while pursuing an aggressive pro-abortion agenda. Appointing an abortion radical to the Court — someone who believes social activism trumps the Constitution – further undermines efforts to reduce abortion. In the days ahead, Justice Souter’s retirement also represents a test for the Senate: will they uphold their duty to raise serious questions over a nominee’s judicial philosophy?”

“The irony is that even many abortion rights supporters agree that Roe v. Wade was poorly decided,” Yoest said. “One person often cited as a potential Obama pick, legal scholar Cass Sunstein, has argued that Roe ‘badly overreached’ and that the decision rests on shaky constitutional foundations.”

Regarding Souter’s tenure on the Court, Americans United for Life Senior Counsel Clarke D. Forsythe stated, “Justice David Souter is one of the most pro-abortion members of the United States Supreme Court. During his tenure, Justice Souter voted to uphold abortion on demand and to strike down common sense abortion regulations that the vast majority of Americans support. He voted in 2000 and again in 2007 to strike down prohibitions on the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. As many votes on abortion have been 5-4 decisions, his presence on the Court has extended the tragedy of abortion by restricting the right of states to make their own decisions on abortion law.”

About Americans United for Life
Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.  The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971.  The Wall Street Journal has profiled AUL, and PBS’ Frontline program chronicled AUL’s successful efforts in Mississippi.

According to the website, HowMuchTime.org, “If abortion is made illegal, the woman having one would be a criminal.” The website poses the question: “How much time should she do?”  
 
 This website is yet another example of how abortion advocates purposefully mislead women and lie to the American public. It is no surprise that the domain name is registered to someone with a Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains email address.

Let these “myth-busters” set the record straight:

Myth: If abortion is made illegal, women will be criminalized and put in jail.

Fact: If abortion is made illegal, women will not be prosecuted and put in jail for having an abortion. Historically, women have never been prosecuted for having abortions. Before Roe v. Wade, only abortion providers were prosecuted for illegal abortions. In fact, women who had abortions before Roe routinely and openly filed lawsuits for medical malpractice against abortion providers after having a botched illegal abortion. Women who had abortions before Roe did not hide from the law, because they knew that they would not be prosecuted under the law for having an abortion. Without exception, current pro-life laws and legislation do not permit the prosecution and imprisonment of women for having an abortion.
Myth: If Roe is overturned, abortion will be illegal.

Fact: If Roe is overturned, abortion will be legal in at least 42 states. In fact, state abortion prohibitions that existed prior to Roe would be enforceable only in (at most) eight states. If Roe is overturned, the abortion issue will change from being a federal issue subject to the dictates of the United States Supreme Court to being an issue controlled on the state level. The states’ power to legislate on abortion will finally be restored.

 It’s about time that women learned the truth about abortion and the legal implications of a reversal of Roe v. Wade. In response to the question, “How much time should she do?” my reply is: “She should and would serve no time at all.”

In an important 6-4 decision today, the Fourth Circuit announced that it will rehear en banc a case involving the constitutionality of Virginia’s partial birth abortion ban.  The original panel of three appellate judges had originally declared the statute—with provisions nearly identical to that of the Supreme Court-affirmed federal ban—unconstitutional. 

Despite the statute’s clear provision excluding other forms of abortion from its prohibition, the Fourth Circuit panel concluded that the statute prohibits all D&E abortions, making its reach unconstitutional according to Gonzales v. Carhart.  The court’s convoluted reasoning was as follows: there is no “intent” provision at the beginning of the procedure.  The requirement that an abortionist intend to perform a partial birth abortion does not attach until the baby has already been extracted intact.  At that point, any action taken to kill the baby is an overt action, making the abortion an intentional partial birth abortion.  The court stated that this meant that if an abortionist began the procedure intending to perform a D&E, but “accidentally” drew the baby out intact with the head lodging in the mother’s cervix, any act from that point on is intentional and punishable.

However, and as the state argued in its briefs, the “intent” requirement clearly attaches from the very beginning of the procedure.

This case has a number of important implications.  First, the Fourth Circuit’s initial decision is clearly testing the United States Supreme Court’s (USSC) decision in Gonzales v. Carhart.  In essence, the Fourth Circuit panel is manifestly deviating from the USSC’s instruction in that case.

Second, the outcome of the case could have significant effects in other states.  Currently, there are at least four state partial birth abortion bans in place that either 1) have already been litigated and found constitutional, or 2) mirror the constitutional federal law. 

However, there are at least eight state laws that have not been challenged.  The Fourth Circuit’s current line of logic could be extended to enjoin some of these state laws.  However, if on rehearing the Fourth Circuit reverses course and upholds Virginia’s law, these laws will be bolstered by both Gonzales v. Carhart and the Fourth Circuit decision.

Last year before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Barack Obama told pro-abortion activists:

“The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”

With a single stroke of the pen, Barack Obama would wipe away virtually every state law on abortion nationwide. Instantly, it will undo thirty-seven years of legal work, research, and educational successes that AUL has accomplished in the 50 states. Put another way: Barack Obama will undermine the very reason we exist — to protect human life state by state.

Sen. Barack Obama has co-sponsored this “Freedom of Choice Act” legislation with 18 other Senators. The bill has the support of 110 Members of Congress, too. The stated aim of this legislation is to “end the abortion wars.”

Let me be clear: to these legislators, “ending the abortion wars” means allowing abortion-on-demand in all nine months of pregnancy for any reason and without any restrictions nationwide. This would eradicate state and federal laws that the majority of Americans support — such as requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions, fully-informed consent, and parental involvement — and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future.

AUL Vice President & Legal Director Denise Burke has prepared an analysis of the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which we’ve just posted on our website. Please click here to read Denise’s analysis of this horrendous legislation.

On June 30, AUL’s fiscal year comes to a close. In order to end the year with the funds necessary to fight this looming threat, we must raise $269,000 by June 30. AUL, like many organizations, experiences a dip in donations in the summer time. Please, if you are in a position to give a substantial gift, even a sacrificial one, don’t delay.

Gonzales v. Carhart: One Year Later
Letting the People Decide

By Denise M. Burke
Vice President & Legal Director, Americans United for Life

One year ago, the public debate over abortion was irrevocably altered. In the landmark Gonzales v. Carhart decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and, more importantly, abdicated, at least in part, its role as the “National Abortion Control Board.”

In its decision, the Court signaled an increasing willingness to blunt attempts by abortion extremists to use the courts to unilaterally impose their radical agenda on the American public, and an increasing willingness to let the people decide abortion policy. The immediate reaction of activists, state legislators, and the public confirmed this critical shift.

While abortion extremists hastily recycled the hyperbolic rhetoric of the 1970s, legislators and the public increasingly considered prudent responses to the mounting evidence of the negative impact of abortion on women. [more]

I was in a meeting this week on Capitol Hill with Congressman Pitts of Pennsylvania. We were discussing judges, and he made the great point that six justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court are over the age of 70. Five of those justices are in favor of Roe v. Wade and the current culture of death in America.

The next President will likely nominate multiple justices to the Court. Do we want a President who will nominate justices who pass an abortion-rights litmus test or one who publicly states that their nominees be in the style of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas and strictly interpret the Constitution rather than continue this atrocious legacy of legislating from the bench?

While abortion has been legal in the United States for 35 years and remains legal and available throughout pregnancy for any reason, public recognition of the negative impact of abortion on women is increasing and more pro-life laws are in effect than ever before.

“Abortion-on-demand has been imposed on our nation because the courts and others have accepted — and even advanced — at least two pervasive myths: that abortion is ‘good’ for women and that the interests of women and their unborn children are necessarily in opposition,” says Americans United for Life (AUL) Vice President & Legal Director Denise Burke. “To restore a culture that respects and values human life, we first have to counter these myths with facts.”

“In the 35 years that abortion has been legal in the United States, much information has accumulated demonstrating that abortion hurts women in devastating ways,” states AUL Staff Counsel Mailee Smith.

The five most well-documented medical risks from abortion are: (1) a heightened risk of pre-term birth in future pregnancy, (2) an increased incidence of alcohol and drug abuse, (3) an increased risk of suicide, (4) a heightened risk of placenta previa in future pregnancies, and (5) the loss of protective effect against breast cancer from a first full-term pregnancy.

Smith adds, “These risks are in addition to the significant risks inherent in the procedure itself and the substandard health and safety conditions that exist in many abortion clinics around the nation.”

“Until all the pieces are in place to make the overruling of Roe a realistic possibility and until the truth has replaced misinformation about abortion,” says Burke, “laws that put fences around the abortion license and highlight the negative impact of abortion on women are imperative.”

Prudent and effective regulations to reduce abortion and limit its negative impact include rigorous informed consent, parental involvement for minors seeking abortions, limitations on public funding for abortion, minimum health and safety standards for abortion clinics, and many others.

“Abortion simply does not promote the psychological or physical health of women,” declares AUL Staff Counsel Maggie Datiles. “Once the scope of the negative impact of abortion on women is fully understood, support for most or all abortions will erode and a renewed culture of life will be within our grasp.”

AUL attorneys and policy staff are available for interviews.

Media Contact:
Matthew Eppinette
312-568-4701

About Defending Life 2008
AUL’s annual publication, Defending Life 2008: Proven Strategies for a Pro-Life America, is the definitive legal guide to abortion, bioethics, and the end of life. Cutting through the murky cloud of media chatter and controversy, Defending Life 2008 provides clear, thoroughly researched, and accurate information and is available to anyone who wants to understand key pro-life issues and utilize proven legal strategies to address them.
Defending Life 2008: http://www.aul.org/?p=Defending_Life

About Americans United for Life
Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which every human being is welcomed in life and protected in law. The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971. The Wall Street Journal has profiled AUL, and PBS’ Frontline program chronicled AUL’s successful efforts in Mississippi.
Website: http://www.AUL.org
Blog: http://blog.AUL.org

Monday’s Wall Street Journal carried an outstanding opinion piece (subscription required, unfortunately) by Steven Calabresi, who is a professor of law at Northwestern and a cofounder of the Federalist Society. As the Supreme Court starts its new session, Calabresi weighs in on the best way to evaluate the Court’s work.

the proper basis on which we should evaluate the Court’s performance in this term and in the future is not whether it reaches “conservative” or “liberal” results in constitutional cases, but whether it reaches results that are faithful to the Constitution as written and understood at the time of it’s adoption.

Why? Calabresi gives three reasons, the first of which is perhaps the most obvious and compelling.

the long-accepted rule for interpreting legal texts is to construe them to have the original public meaning that they had when they were enacted into law. This is the way we interpret statutes, contracts, wills and even old Supreme Court opinions.

He goes on to explain that both the rule of law and the allocation of powers require originalism. It’s unfortunate that the article is available by subscription only, because it deserves a much wider reading.