SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 2200 words

COMMITTEE: SENATE JUDICIARY

HEADLINE: TESTIMONY CONFIRMATION FOR JOHN ASHCROFT FOR U.S. ATTY. GEN. (DAY 3)

TESTIMONY-BY: KATE MICHELMAN , PRESIDENT OF

AFFILIATION: NARAL

BODY:
January 18, 2001 Testimony of Kate Michelman, President of NARA Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Regarding the Nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General Thank you, Senator Leahy and Members of the Committee, for inviting me to testify. Almost ten years ago before this Committee, I spoke of my experience as a struggling young mother of three, again pregnant by the husband who had abandoned my family and me. I testified as a woman forced to endure humiliating interrogation by a hospital committee and confronted with laws that made abortion a crime. I have spent the decade since that testimony fighting for the rights of women, traveling around our country. I have spent these years meeting thousands of women who depend on this nation's constitutional protection for a woman's right to choose and the survivors of those women who lost their lives because they didn't have that right. I have also spoken to women facing legal hurdles today. Desperate women call NARAL to ask whether the laws that restrict and stigmatize abortion forbid them from obtaining the services they need. Women without the money to diaper their children; women who cannot travel for hours to get an abortion; young women who fear they'll be battered or thrown out of the house if they tell their parents they are pregnant; women pregnant by abusive relatives. The right to safe, legal abortion is not secure. The Supreme Court has recognized that the right to choose is fundamental to women's equality, our dignity, and our freedom. Yet that right hangs by a thread. That thread -could be cut by just one Supreme Court justice, or by an Attorney General uncommitted to its protection. The women NARAL represents cannot afford to have that thread severed. Their futures, their families, and sometimes their very lives, depend upon the right. I will discuss our opposition to the nomination of John Ashcroft in the context of three dominant themes relating to this nomination: -First, Senators must choose between John Ashcroft's unmitigated quarter- century attack on a woman's right to choose versus his initial remarks before this Committee, in which he vowed to preserve Roe v. Wade, the very case he has long sought to undermine. -Second, this nomination is so far outside the bounds of our national consensus regarding fundamental civil rights and civil liberties that it must be rejected, notwithstanding the President's prerogatives and Senatorial courtesy; and - Third, John Ashcroft's obvious and necessary promise to enforce existing law is woefully insufficient to warrant his confirmation. His record speaks volumes. That record indicates that John Ashcroft would indeed use the full panoply of powers available to the Attorney General to shape the law, to rescind the freedoms it took American women a century to secure. John Ashcroft's record, spelled out in more detail in my written submission, includes the following: -He cosponsored the Human Life Act of 1998, which declared that life begins at fertilization. If enacted, this Act would have the effect of banning common contraceptive methods like birth control pills that millions of women rely upon. -In his support of abortion procedure bans, he has called preserving the woman's life "rhetorical nonsense.' -He likened safe, common forms of contraception to abortion in opposing insurance coverage of contraception. -As Attorney General of Missouri, he took action to limit nurses from providing vital contraceptive services. Fortunately, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously rejected that effort. -As Governor, he supported a bill in Missouri that would have outlawed abortion for 18 different reasons, encompassing almost all abortions. Women seeking reproductive health services would have had to sign an affidavit, revealing the most intimate details of their personal decision. - In 1981 as Attorney General, Ashcroft came to Washington to testify in favor of the Helms/Hyde bill declaring that life begins at conception, thus allowing states to prosecute abortion as murder. The legislation was flagrantly unconstitutional but Ashcroft testified that he wanted to present a challenge to the courts, rather than having Congress respect established law. These and other actions. John Ashcroft has taken. as a public servant to criminalize abortion -- even in cases of rape and incest -- and to limit the availability of contraceptives demonstrate that he uses every tool of every public office to attack women's rights. The Attorney General-designate must commit not to take any action to roll back our constitutionally protected rights. But that's not all. His or her experience must demonstrate that such a commitment can be trusted, and John Ashcroft's late conversion on the road to confirmation is implausible. For the women whose lives, health and futures depend upon reproductive rights, it will be too late if Senator Ashcroft does not live up to his surprising promises to protect the right to choose. Many say the President is entitled to have his nominees confirmed, short of some violation of the law or an ethical lapse. And I know that when a colleague sits in front of you, the confirmation process is particularly sensitive and difficult. Within reasonable bounds, a President should be able to pick his closest advisors. But those reasonable bounds have been exceeded with this appointment. It would be unthinkable for the Senate to confirm an Attorney General who built a career on dismantling Brown v. Board of Education. By the same token, a person should be disqualified from being Attorney General if he has sought, over decades and by repeated official acts, to annul women's rights, as John Ashcroft has. A career built on attempts to repeal established constitutional rights is not only sufficient reason to vote against his nomination; it should compel rejection. Integrity of course demands that the Senate not sacrifice women's rights for the friendship of a colleague. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, 'The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.' If you understand that women's equality hinges on the right to choose, you must vote against the confirmation of John Ashcroft. John Ashcroft has told you that he will enforce the law. What else would he or any nominee say? Remember, though, that the official duties of the Attorney General go far beyond enforcing the clear and specific dictates of existing law. And through every one of those duties and powers, including as the President's legal advisor as to what the law should be, John Ashcroft poses a threat to women's reproductive rights and equality. No case will ever present the same facts as decided cases such as Roe, Casey, or Stenberg. John Ashcroft will have a keen eye for the small differences new cases and new statutes present, and he will argue that these differences fall outside the protections of the established law he has newly promised to uphold. For example, would the Department argue in the Supreme Court that requiring parental consent for contraceptives is unconstitutional? Roe v. Wade, which was always more than just a legal case, has been hollowed out already. John Ashcroft's Ion-, g record suggests that he would- maintain only those protections the Court has already explicitly said cannot be taken away. NARAL did not expect the President-elect to nominate anyone other than a conservative to be Attorney General. But John Ashcroft - notwithstanding the remarkable assurances he has offered over the past two days -- is far beyond the margin of tolerance. Millions of women who stand with me cannot afford the risk of confirming John Ashcroft to the awesome position of Attorney General.

LOAD-DATE: January 25, 2001, Thursday