Abortion Advocate Says John Roberts Will Overturn Roe v. Wade Decision

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Sep 14, 2005   |   9:00AM   |   WASHINGTON, DC

Abortion Advocate Says John Roberts Will Overturn Roe v. Wade Decision

Email this article
Printer friendly page

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
September 14, 2005

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — While Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was careful to avoid taking a specific position abortion and whether he would overturn Roe v. Wade, a leading abortion advocate says Roberts’ answers provide a framework for how Roberts could shepherd the high court to reverse the landmark decision.

Kim Gandy, the president of the pro-abortion National Organization of Women told DemocracyNow in an interview that Roberts showed the ground he could use to overturn Roe.

"What he said repeatedly was that he was not willing to state his position beyond what his writings were on Roe v. Wade, but did give, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a number of people, he did give a roadmap for overruling Roe," Gandy explained.

"He basically laid out several ways that a Roberts court, unlike the Rehnquist court, could and I think would, overrule Roe," she said.

Gandy said Roberts "went through the bases for overturning" the abortion decision by saying a precedent like Roe could be overturned based on erosion, workability and reliance as well as “extensive disagreement."

Gandy indicated that press reports erroneously said Roberts expressed support for a blanket right to privacy, used as the foundation for establishing a legal right to abortion in Roe. However, Gandy said Roberts showed support for privacy only in limited circumstances and not the general sense the court used in 1973.

That media interpretation causes concern for Gandy and other abortion advocates.

"[T]here was a tremendous amount of consternation," among abortion advocates, Gandy explained, when the Associated Press gave "people the idea that he had endorsed Roe or had done so in so many words."

Gandy says Roberts’ answers about respecting judicial precedents are meaningless.

"Of course, every precedent, however ridiculous, is entitled to respect, which means to be – it means recognition, in a legal sense, not respect as in the way – that you think it was rightly decided," she said.

Gandy also criticized pro-abortion senators on their questioning of Roberts saying they were creating problems "with inadequate questions or inadequate follow-up."