NARAL Pro-Choice New Jersey, the state’s leading advocate for personal privacy and a woman’s right to choose, raised concerns about the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court and called on Senators Corzine and Lautenberg to ensure that Roberts provides the American people with forthright answers on his judicial philosophy, including whether he will preserve personal privacy and the constitutionally protected right to choose.

NARAL Pro-Choice New Jersey, along with other pro-choice organizations, will rally on the steps of the Statehouse in Trenton on Thursday, July 21st at 12.30PM. New Jerseyans believe in our culture of freedom and personal responsibility, and the nomination of Judge John Roberts is a direct affront to such mainstream values,” said NARAL Pro-Choice New Jersey Executive Director Laurie Lowenstein. “New Jerseyans will rally in solidarity and support of our pro-choice Senators, whom we expect will demand a thorough and deliberate judicial review process.”

A cursory look at Judge John Roberts’s background reveals a demonstrated record of opposition to reproductive rights and personal freedom:

• 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]

Contact: Jennifer Miller, Director of Organizing
Jennifer@prochoicenj.org
609.581.7171

^[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).}