NARAL Ad Names ACLJ Case

In a complete distortion of the facts, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), now known as Pro-Choice America, issued a television ad criticizing John Roberts for his participation in the case of Bray v. Alexandria Womens Health Clinic.  I argued the Bray case before the Supreme Court twice.  The only factual accuracy in the ad was that John Roberts did serve as our co-counsel and argued the case alongside me.  The issue had nothing to do with violence at abortion clinics.  Rather, the case involved the application of a federal statute to pro-life protests.  The Court in Bray held that opposition to abortion did not constitute discrimination against women; and, therefore, there was no violation of the statute. 

 

This clearly is a smear campaign designed to ignore the facts and make assertions that are simply untrue.  The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the application of this 120-year-old law to silence the pro-life community was not permissible.  Those involved in the case worked to ensure that a misapplication of the statute would not be allowed to continue.  There are many laws on the books that criminalize violence, including violent activity outside abortion clinics.  Protecting the constitutional rights of the pro-life community does not equate to endorsing violence.  In fact, we have repeatedly condemned those who resort to violence in the name of the pro-life movement.  NARAL Pro-Choice America is being disingenuous in its ad campaign, and I believe the American people will not fall for this smear campaign.

 

Yesterday, we also filed our brief in the parental notification case with the Supreme Court of the United States.  We asked the Court to overturn a federal appeals court decision that declared unconstitutional a New Hampshire state law requiring parental notification before minors can get an abortion.  We also urged the Court to permit states to prohibit secret abortions for children.

 

Laws like this are extremely important for protecting vulnerable children against coercion, deception, and the damaging emotional and physical consequences of abortion.  States must be able to step in and protect children--through the involvement of their parents--from shady abortion practices, from overbearing and pushy boyfriends, counselors, and employers, and from a major medical procedure that can significantly compromise the health and well-being of their children.  To permit children to get abortions without parents being notified is not only legally flawed, but bad public policy.  We are hopeful the Supreme Court will strongly reaffirm that parental notification laws enacted by states are proper and constitutional.

 

In our brief in support of the New Hampshire law, we contend that the Supreme Court has never held that all laws regulating the provision of abortions must contain a health exception, as the federal appeals court concluded.  In fact, our brief highlights the fact that the Supreme Court has rejected health exceptions in the past in the area of abortion funding and parental involvement laws.  We contend that to require a health exception for parental notification laws would be to make a shambles of existing abortion regulations.  Further, we cite specific Congressional testimony from women who received secret abortions as children and whose testimony dramatically demonstrates that parental notification laws are needed and would play a vital role in the health and safety of children who are considering abortions.

 

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in the case for November 30^th.  The case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and is No. 04-1144.  To view our brief in its entirety, just click here.