Leftist Feminists Need to Take it Down a Notch

NOW is ready for a fight.

"Once again, George Bush has chosen partisan politics and paybacks over uniting the country," said National Organization for Women (NOW) President Kim Gandy. "Roberts' background shows a political ideology that is inconsistent with the independence we have a right to expect from the Supreme Court. He does not have a commitment to the basic values of fairness and equality, and our hard-won rights will be in jeopardy if he is confirmed."

"NOW will fight Roberts' confirmation through a nationwide grassroots lobbying campaign. Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court, leaves us a legacy as a centrist and independent jurist who upheld the rights of women. We don't need someone with an extremist political agenda, tied to special interests, who will tarnish that legacy," said Gandy.

As O'Connor's replacement, Roberts could cast the deciding vote on countless matters of individual rights where O'Connor had been a key vote, often in a 5 to 4 split — issues like abortion and birth control, affirmative action, privacy rights, disability rights, Title IX equal educational opportunity, family and medical leave, health care, environmental protection and dozens of other crucial issues for decades to come. For young women, Roberts' votes could determine their access to birth control and abortion for their entire reproductive lifetimes.

Among our many concerns, Roberts actively opposes Roe v. Wade and wrote several amicus briefs while a Deputy Solicitor General. In one case where Roe was not even at issue, his brief offered gratuitously "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also wrote a brief in a case NOW brought against Operation Rescue* in an effort to stop violent blockades at abortion clinics. His brief and oral argument supported Operation Rescue, and argued that the blockades were merely an expression of opposition to abortion.

"Sandra Day O'Connor broke barriers as the first woman on the Supreme Court, where she cast decisive votes to preserve and expand rights for women and to eliminate sex discrimination," Gandy said. "George Bush could have chosen a moderate conservative who would be a voice of reason on the Court. Instead he chose, characteristically, to pick a fight. We intend to give him one."

Kim Gandy, NOW's president, was screaming about how John Roberts is poised to strip women of their rights.

Outside a Senate office building today, NOW staged a protest. Less than fifteen hours after John Roberts was announced as the President's choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, the NOW brigade was out there screeching its disapproval.

They were obviously mobilized and ready to pounce. All the statements were made in advance. Only the nominee's name had to be inserted into their remarks and printed on the t-shirts and signs.

At the protest, Gandy howled, "We refuse to allow Roberts - who is such a stealth opponent of women's rights - to pass the Senate confirmation process...George W. Bush just guaranteed the fight of his political career with this nomination."

Other feminist groups have also gone off the deep end over Roberts' nomination.
WASHINGTON -- "Everything we know about Judge Roberts' record indicates that he will be a solid vote against women's rights and Roe v. Wade," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. "If he is to be confirmed by senators who support women's rights, he must say where he stands on Roe and the right to privacy. The burden is on him."

Feminists are concerned for several reasons. In 1991, while serving as principal deputy solicitor general during the administration of the current president's father, former President George H.W. Bush, Roberts included language in one brief before the court that read, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Roberts later said he was speaking for the Bush administration and not expressing his personal views. And during the confirmation hearing for his present position, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he considered Roe "the settled law of the land," adding that "there's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

But feminists remain suspicious. They privately note that Roberts' wife, Jane, who is also a successful lawyer, is an active member of an organization called Feminists for Life, a group that opposes abortion - a possible tip-off to Roberts' true feelings on the issue.

Roberts' record, according to Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families, is "alarming."

"Judge Roberts now bears the burden of distancing himself from his own record and demonstrating his commitment to equal justice under the law," Ness said. "Nearly every issue that matters to women and families can be affected if Judge Roberts becomes a justice - fairness in the workplace; equality in education; work/family policies; access to quality affordable health care; reproductive rights; economic security; and justice for our most vulnerable citizens."

Could these women be more shrill and unhinged?

They're uneasy that Jane Roberts is a member of Feminists for LIFE.

I guess NOW and other groups think that the only good feminist is a pro-abortion feminist.

Wouldn't you think these groups would respect Jane Roberts' right to make the CHOICE to be a member of the feminist organization that suits her beliefs?

It seems to me that the left-wing feminists can't stomach Jane Roberts making a CHOICE.

They reveal that women's rights equals abortion, not choice. To be a feminist, you must be on board with their pro-abortion agenda or you're dangerous.

Does the Roberts family look dangerous to you?