Ayotte es mas importante

NARAL Pro-Choice has sent out the following in a release. This case is very important, and it's something we should all learn more about and pay attention to:

In six weeks - November 30 - the Supreme Court will hear the first case related to women's reproductive health in five years.

Cases like this rarely make front-page news, so here are the two most important things you need to know about Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England:

It could eliminate the constitutional requirement that any laws restricting abortion care must include an exception to protect women's health.
It could drastically reduce, if not eliminate, the ability for pro-choice advocates to challenge anti-choice laws in court.

It would be an understatement to say that a lot rides on this case. Ayotte could affect virtually every abortion-related case and law in the country.

That it's so broad and dangerous is exactly what anti-choice lawmakers in the New Hampshire legislature intended. Fran Wendelboe, the state representative who sponsored the bill, candidly told the Associated Press: "We didn't mistakenly forget to put in a health exception. We purposely crafted the bill without an exception." And as you probably already guessed - the Bush administration has weighed into this case on the anti-choice side.

What's even worse about Ayotte is the timing. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor frequently cast the deciding vote in cases that protected privacy and choice. Her replacement may cast the deciding vote this time. Even if O'Connor is still sitting on the Supreme Court when the case begins on November 30, it’s unlikely she will get to vote on the case. If her replacement is confirmed before the case is decided, then either the Supreme Court will rehear the case with the new justice or let the lower court's decision stand. That's why the Bush administration is working so hard to see nominee Harriet Miers confirmed before the case begins. Jay Sekulow of the anti-choice American Center for Law and Justice and a Miers supporter has said that, "I don't think there's ever been [a turning point] this significant in Supreme Court history. For both sides, it's winner-take-all, loser-take-nothing." [The National Journal, October 15]

Like most Supreme Court cases, Ayotte is complex. We hope you take a moment to learn more about the case – visit our website for a summary of the bill and the key issues.

And if you haven't already, please contact your senators and urge them to carefully review Miers' record and question her about her judicial philosophy.

Harriet Miers Nominated to fill O'Connor's Seat

The president of People for the American Way stated the following:

“President Bush has nominated his personal lawyer and long-time friend to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. His choice raises serious questions about whether he has found a nominee who has the requisite qualifications and independence for the nation’s highest court."

Does anyone see this as bad timing? Is Bush using two major hurricanes to drown out the coverage of his two Supreme Court nominees? (Like the analogy? Hurricanes? Drown out? Anyways, this is serious, I shouldn't joke). I guess we'll never know. Regardless, this is the PERSONAL LAWYER and long-time friend of one of the most conservative president's this country has seen since Teddy Roosevelt, and at least he helped the environment. No lawyer can say they aren't influenced by their client when their client is the President of the United States. She's been asked to fight for everything the president wants to fight for. She has no judicial experience. Is this a proper nominee for the Supreme Court? Keep an eye on this nomination, and don't go unheard.

Remember, you can help fight this nomination at Save the Court.org.