Healthcare Prof:

Judicial appointments made by President Bush — which account for more than a third with the federal judiciary expected to be serving when he leaves office in January — have “transformed the nation’s federal appeals courts, advancing a conservative legal revolution that began nearly three decades ago under President Ronald Reagan,” the New York Times reports. Though it’s not uncommon for two-term presidents to have a significant impact on appeals courts, Bush-appointed judges “were among the youngest ever nominated and are poised to have an unusually strong impact,” in accordance with the Times. Further, the appointments have come at a time when appeals courts “are increasingly getting the last word” in influential cases, including significant cases on abortion rights, because the Supreme Court in recent terms has taken up fewer cases than in the past, the Times reports.

According to the Times, Republican-appointed judges, who are mostly conservative, are expected to make up 62% with the bench when the subsequent president takes office in January, compared with 50% of the bench when Bush was inaugurated. Conservative judges also manage 10 with the 13 circuits; by contrast, judges appointed by Democrats have a “dwindling majority” on just one circuit. The Times reports that Bush’s nominations now constitute “a lifetime-tenured force that will influence society for decades,” including through laws concerning abortion rights.

South Dakota Case

For example, the Times reports that judges Bush appointed towards the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit played a large role in the court’s 7-4 decision in June that South Dakota can begin enforcing a 2005 law that requires physicians to tell girls seeking abortions that the procedure will “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.” Of the seven conservative judges that made up the majority, Bush nominated six. According to the Times, the Eighth Circuit, which is based in St. Louis, has the appeals court’s highest proportion of judges appointed by Republicans — nine of its 11 judges. In the South Dakota case, the dissenters — such as two Democratic appointees, one Reagan appointee and one Bush appointee — “portrayed the court’s decision as a sharp alter in direction,” the Times reports. The judges in their dissent wrote that the majority had not only bypassed “important principles of constitutional law laid down by the Supreme Court” but also violated established standards for issuing preliminary injunctions. Prior to the June decision, a federal trial judge had blocked the state from enforcing the law and an appeals court panel had upheld the injunction.

Shift in Outcomes

A number of studies have shown that Republican-appointed judges, beginning with President Reagan, have ruled for conservative outcomes a lot more frequently than their peers, the Times reports. For instance, a 2006 study by Harvard Law School professor Cass Sunstein — now an adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) — analyzed whether judges voted for a liberal or a conservative outcome in 20,000 cases. The study found that as a group, appellate judges appointed by Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford voted for a conservative outcome in 52% of their cases — a record identical to that of judges appointed by President Clinton. However, appeals court judges appointed by Reagan and both Bushes took the conservative position in 62% of all cases and an even higher proportion of cases involving certain “ideologically charged areas,” like abortion rights.

Next President

In terms of how the subsequent president will approach judicial appointments, the Times reports that Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) has said he would appoint judges similar to those appointments made by Bush, while Obama has indicated he will select judges with greater “empathy” for the disadvantaged. A Brookings Institution study found that an Obama presidency could reduce the Republican hold on the appeals courts and even create a Democratic majority by 2013. The study showed that if McCain wins, Republicans could have significant majorities in all 13 circuit courts. According to the Times, both conservative and liberal legal advocates “are trying to motivate voters to view the balance with the judiciary as a major issue in the election.” For Bush, his “commitment to moving the courts rightward has been important not only to elite conservative thinkers, but also to the social conservatives who have been his base of support” in elections, in accordance with the Times.

David McIntosh — a co-founder and vice-chair of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal network — said the nation’s appeals courts are more in line with a conservative judicial ideology than at any other time in recent history. McIntosh said, “For somebody who has spent a lot of my life promoting those ideas, it’s very encouraging to see,” adding that conservative judges are moving the judiciary in a neutral direction to correct previous liberal politicization. Nan Aron with the Alliance for Justice said Bush has “packed the courts” with “extremists” who share an agenda that is hostile toward the rights of girls, minorities and workers. “George W. Bush has made great strides in cementing the ultraconservative hold on the federal courts, which began with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, when he set out to impose his agenda on the country through his court appointments,” Aron said (Savage, New York Times, 10/29).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Day-to-day Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Females & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

The full 11-judge 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday heard arguments in a case, Richmond Medical Center v. Herring, on the constitutionality of a 2003 Virginia abortion ban that allows violations to be prosecuted as felonies, the AP/Washington Times reports (O’Dell, AP/Washington Times, 10/29). The case centers on the constitutionality of a 2003 state law banning an abortion procedure that opponents call “partial-birth” abortion and which doctors call”intact dilation and evacuation.” The Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the law on behalf of the Richmond Medical Center for Women and abortion provider William Fitzhugh. A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court in June 2005 voted 2-1 to overturn the law because it lacked an exception to protect the health of pregnant females. The panel cited the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down a similar Nebraska law for lacking a wellness exception. However, the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2007 ordered the 4th Circuit Court to review its decision to overturn the law in light of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in the Gonzalez v. Carhart case, which upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (S 3). The three-judge panel again struck down the law on the grounds that it placed an undue burden on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion (Green, Richmond Times-Dispatch, 10/29).

Arguments

During the hearing, Virginia Solicitor General William Thro argued that the state law was almost identical towards the federal ban (AP/Washington Times, 10/29). Judge Blane Michael — who voted with Judge Diana Griboon Motz in the majority on the previous decisions by the three-judge panel — said that unlike the federal law, the Virginia law is written in a way that a physician could face prosecution if he or she intends to perform a second-trimester dilation and evacuation procedure that turns out to be intact D&E if the fetus is expelled or partially expelled (Richmond Times-Dispatch, 10/29). He said, “When you put those two statutes together, they just don’t look the same or read the same” (AP/Washington Times, 10/29). Michael said physicians face “a credible threat of prosecution every day” they perform a second-trimester D&E. Thro responded that the state law “does not apply to accidental, intact D&Es” (Richmond Times-Dispatch, 10/29). Judge Paul Niemeyer — the dissenter in the three-judge panel’s rulings — said the law clearly prohibits “knowingly performing” the procedure, adding “Knowingly does not mean accidental” (AP/Washington Times, 10/29). Judge Harvie Wilkinson said it is unlikely that alleged violations with the law would ever come to a prosecutor’s attention and, if they did, a physician could say there was no intent. Michael said that “the question is, does (the possibility) chill a doctor?” If so, Michael said, it could interfere with a woman’s appropriate to have an abortion.

Arguing for the plaintiff, Stephanie Toti — a Center for Reproductive Rights attorney — said there are key differences in the definitions in the state and federal laws. Toti said, “It’s very plain the (Virginia) statute does criminalize accidental (intact) D&Es” (Richmond Times-Dispatch, 10/29). She added that the possibility of prosecution could discourage physicians from performing abortions. Based on the Center for Reproductive Rights, 16 of 27 state abortion procedure bans have been permanently struck down by the courts, and 11 state bans remain (AP/Washington Times, 10/29).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. It is possible to view the entire Daily Women’s Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report can be a totally free service with the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

The tribal council of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians tribe in North Dakota has approved a resolution that would ban abortions on the tribe’s land, but it really is unclear if the measure was properly approved and should be allowed to stand, the Grand Forks Herald reports. According to the Herald, a tribal resolution becomes law once it is passed by the tribal council, but it “usually needs a stamp of approval from the local office with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.” Harlene Davis with the BIA Turtle Mountain Agency tribal operations office said that resolutions requiring BIA approval are supposed to come through the office within 10 days and that the office has not received a signed copy of the resolution, which was approved Sept. 17 (Nadeau, Grand Forks Herald, 10/25). She said that the bureau would check the resolution against federal law, adding that she does not know whether it would need BIA approval, the AP/Fargo Forum reports (AP/Fargo Forum, 10/27).

The resolution, adopted by four of eight tribal council members, states that “under no circumstances will abortions be performed and allowed within any private or public facility within the boundaries with the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation and other lands under the jurisdiction with the tribe.” It says that the “Governing Body faithfully believes that life is sacred and begins at the moment of conception” and that “pro-life is actually a universal problem of common sense, moral righteousness for the common very good of life.” It also states that the majority of TMBCI members are Christians (Grand Forks Herald, 10/25).

According to AP/ Forum, one tribal member also raised a concern that the resolution was not legally adopted by the council. Tribal member Andy Laverdure, known as a watchdog for tribal resolutions, said, “We had no published agenda, no three-day notice. It’s a clear violation of the tribal constitution.” Laverdure said that proposals must be done in open session, saying, “It needs to be transparent, on the council’s meeting agenda, so anybody who may want to discuss the concern can do so” (AP/Fargo Forum, 10/27).

The Herald reports that the resolution would affect Belcourt, N.D., the only town within the reservation’s boundaries, and Trenton, N.D., a town on tribal trust lands. Ray Grandbois — associate area director of Indian Wellness Service, which runs the only hospital and clinic in Belcourt — said IHS facilities are not subject to tribal resolutions. The hospital has not received a copy with the resolution, Grandbois said. No abortions have been performed at the hospital in recent years, he added (Grand Forks Herald, 10/25).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You’ll be able to view the whole Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report is really a free of charge service with the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

More than 60 Roman Catholic bishops in recent weeks have urged voters to make abortion their “top priority” in the upcoming presidential election, the Boston Globe reports. According to the Globe, the bishops’ “urgency” reflects “increasing concern” regarding an argument among abortion opponents that the “battle” to ban abortion is “hopeless” and that they would be more effective if they focused on reducing the need for abortions by preventing unintended pregnancies rather than banning abortion.

Nicholas Cafardi, a legal scholar at Duquesne University, said he believes that abortion-rights opponents have “lost the abortion battle – permanently” and that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, many states would not ban abortion. Jim Wallis, a progressive evangelical, said many social conservatives say the “banning-abortion position” is not “realistic” and is “never going to happen.” Wallis added that it’s possible “abortion reduction could result in a more pro-life outcome than taking what have become symbolic stances that are never going to be achieved.”

Mark Silk, a professor at Trinity College, said the debate is an “emerging civil war” within the Catholic Church and is playing out in Catholic newspapers, speeches, blogs and opinion pieces. The new group Catholic Democrats recently posted a question and answers section on its Web site that suggests Democratic candidates would be more effective in reducing the abortion rate than Republican candidates. In addition, the liberal group Catholics United has launched a mail campaign in swing states urging Catholics to reconsider what it means to be “pro-life.”

Two officials from U.S. Conference for Catholic Bishops last week issued a response towards the debate. “The Catholic community is second to no one in providing and advocating for support for women and families facing problems during pregnancy,” the bishops said, adding, “These efforts, however, are not an adequate or complete response to the injustice of Roe v. Wade.” Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver in a recent speech said, “People who claim that the abortion struggle is lost as a matter of law, or that supporting an outspoken defender of legal abortion is somehow pro-life, are not just wrong; they’re betraying the witness of every person who continues the work of defending the unborn child.”

According to the Globe, the bishops’ efforts do not seem to be having an effect on voters as recent polls have found Catholics are leaning toward Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), who supports abortion rights, rather than Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who opposes abortion (Paulson, Boston Globe, 10/30).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. It is possible to view the entire Everyday Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Every day Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

In an attempt to attract Christian voters who “have not been inspired” by Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the Matthew 25 Network — a Christian political action committee — began airing radio commercials this week in support of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the New York Times‘ “The Caucus” blog reports. The ads will run on Christian music stations in several swing states, which includes Colorado, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.

According to “The Caucus,” one of the ads, called “Pro-Life, Pro-Obama,” features Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec, a Catholic legal scholar who served in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. In the ads, Kmiec discusses why people who oppose abortion rights should vote for Obama, who supports abortion rights. Kmiec says that Obama supports improvements in prenatal care, maternity leave and adoption, which would reduce the number of abortions.

“The Caucus” reports that the latest New York Times/CBS poll, conducted Oct. 19-22, found that white voters who describe themselves as evangelical Christians support McCain over Obama by 65% to 22%. The Republican nominee’s support among white evangelicals is less strong than in 2004 — when exit polls show that 78% of white evangelicals voted for President Bush — and “could give Obama an opening in certain red states,” based on “The Caucus.” Furthermore, though a majority of white evangelical voters support McCain, 40% say they are enthusiastic in their support and 42% say they have reservations (Seelye, “The Caucus,” New York Times, 10/27).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. It is possible to view the whole Day-to-day Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Every day Women’s Health Policy Report is really a totally free service with the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

2 (1 votes)

The political future of Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin (Alaska) is the subject of “intensive conversations” among prominent conservatives, which includes a group of conservative leaders who will meet Nov. 5 to weigh the party’s approach to various political problems and also the subsequent presidential election, the New York Times reports. In accordance with the Times, “some elements of the Republican base,” such as antiabortion-rights groups, “are already looking ahead” to a Palin presidential run in 2012. Palin — who opposes abortion rights — would “give the social conservative movement a seat inside the White House” if Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the current election and could “emerge as a standard bearer” for social conservatives if he loses, the Times reports.

Marjorie Dannenfelser — president with the Susan B. Anthony List, which raises funds for candidates who oppose abortion — said, “I would hope she would consider running for president.” Dannenfelser said donations to the group tripled right after Palin joined the Republican ticket, and more than 40,000 girls joined a “Team Sarah” conference call last week for voters who oppose abortion rights. The group plans to hold a similar event following the election regardless of whether McCain wins. “We have to get concrete about where we take this energy from here,” Dannenfelser said (Zernike/Davey, New York Times, 10/29).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Day-to-day Women’s Health Policy Report is actually a free of charge service of the National Partnership for Females & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

The New York Times on Wednesday examined objections from the Cardinal Newman Society — a conservative Catholic group — and New York Cardinal Edward Egan to Fordham University’s plans to present Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer with this year’s Fordham-Stein Ethics Prize. The society on Tuesday said that it had collected a lot more than 1,110 signatures from Fordham alumni and others calling for the university to revoke the award based on Breyer’s support for abortion rights in Supreme Court rulings. Bob Howe, a spokesperson for the Catholic university, said that despite the objections, the university planned to present the award to Breyer as scheduled.

According towards the Times, Breyer is not the first abortion-rights supporter to receive the award, which was established in 1976 to recognize “individuals whose work exemplifies outstanding standards of professional conduct, promotes the advancement of justice and brings credit towards the profession” of the law. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who received the award in 2001, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who received it in 1992, both have joined Court opinions supporting abortion rights. When asked why those awards did not draw criticism from Catholic advocates and the church, Joseph Zwilling — a spokesperson for the Archdiocese of New York — said that “the others apparently did not come to our attention.”

The Times reports that the Cardinal Newman Society in recent months “has become increasingly outspoken in its criticism of Catholic university officials perceived as less than faithful to church doctrine.” Earlier this month, Patrick Reilly — president with the society — criticized St. Joseph College president Pamela Trotman Reid for saying she is “concerned about the correct of ladies to make choices about their own health” if Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) were elected. Reilly also criticized Boston College for hosting an event featuring McCain’s daughter because of McCain’s support for embryonic stem cell research (Vitello, New York Times, 10/29).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You’ll be able to view the entire Everyday Women’s Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report is really a cost-free service with the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

5 (2 votes)

A New York Times opinion piece by Dorothy Samuels on Thursday examined a 1992 decision by the operating board of Alaska’s Matanuska-Susitna Valley’s community hospital to bar physicians from performing abortions at the hospital except in cases of rape, incest, when the pregnant woman’s life is in danger or when a physician documents “the fetus has a condition that is incompatible with life.” The hospital’s operating board had been “captured” by 20 local evangelical churches, which includes Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin’s Assembly of God Church, in accordance with the opinion piece. Samuels writes that the “policy adjust left Alaska without any hospital where a woman with, say, a negative amniocentesis result or other problem not included among the exceptions could obtain a second-trimester abortion at a doctor’s discretion. Such procedures account for about 10% of all abortions.”

Samuels reports that at the center of the issue was Susan Lemagie, who in 1992 was the only physician in the state who performed elective abortions after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Along with the Mat-Su Coalition for Choice, Lemagie sued to overturn the hospital restrictions. In 1997, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled anonymously in favor of Lemagie, “holding that Valley Hospital was a ‘quasi public’ institution because it was the only hospital serving the community and received millions of public dollars. As such, it could not deny a woman’s ‘fundamental right’ to abortion, which is secured by the broad right to privacy embedded in the state’s constitution.” In accordance with Samuels, “The outcome reverberated nationally. Supporters of reproductive rights felt bolstered. Those opposed seized upon the Alaska decision and like developments elsewhere to call for congressional passage of the so-called Abortion Non-Discrimination Act.” The act proposed to extend the correct of individual wellness care providers to refuse to perform or assist in abortion or sterilization procedures based on moral or religious grounds to hospitals, HMOs, insurance plans and various other health care institutions. In addition, under the bill, any law or regulation mandating such services was deemed “discriminatory” and could result in a loss of federal funding.

According to Samuels, although the bill was passed in the House but blocked in the Senate in 2002, “the problem did not fade away.” For instance, the Weldon Amendment — which prohibits funding from going to federal, state or local agencies that act against wellness care providers or insurers that refuse to provide abortion services, make abortion referrals for or cover abortions — was added to the 2004 spending bill for the Labor, Education and HHS departments and remains in force today. Currently, HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt “appears poised to enlarge” the amendment with a proposed rule that would add abortion counseling and the provision of accurate reproductive health data towards the list of services providers and institutions could refuse to provide. Samuels writes that the rule, with roots in the 1992 Alaska controversy, shows that though it can be “a long way from Wasilla to Washington,” the “impact of that far-away abortion brawl is being felt still” (Samuels, New York Times, 10/30).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You’ll be able to view the whole Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is actually a free of charge service of the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

The Christian Family Alliance of Colorado — which supports Amendment 48, a November ballot initiative that would define a fertilized egg as a person in the state constitution — on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the state, Planned Parenthood and Boulder Valley Women’s Health Center over contracts for cervical and breast cancer screenings, the Denver Post reports. Mark Hotaling, the alliance’s executive director, alleges that the state has provided Planned Parenthood and the women’s wellness center with $18 million, violating a law that prohibits public subsidization of abortions.

Officials with the Colorado Department of Public Well being said that like many clinics and wellness departments statewide, Planned Parenthood and Boulder Valley Women’s Well being Center receive $305 per low-income patient to perform cervical and breast cancer screenings as part of a federally funded program. The program has been in place since the early 1990s, the Post reports. Furthermore, the Post reports that the amount given to the two organizations is much less than the amount alleged in the lawsuit. For example, Planned Parenthood with the Rocky Mountains received $610,000 in reimbursements in 2007 — a figure that does not include federal Medicaid payments.

The lawsuit comes following a recent poll that showed widespread opposition to Amendment 48 among Colorado voters, according to a senior vice president with Planned Parenthood. Based on the Post, the amendment would be the “first step toward the outlaw of abortion” (Fender, Denver Post, 10/30).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Day-to-day Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Everyday Women’s Well being Policy Report is a free of charge service with the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

USA Today on Friday examined the future of the Supreme Court along with the effect that potential judicial appointments could have on Roe v. Wade. USA Today reports that “[m]uch has changed” since former justice Sandra Day O’Connor, an abortion-rights supporter, retired in 2006 and Samuel Alito, an abortion-rights opponent, replaced her. This is the “first election year since the mid-1990s when the court appears one vote from altering” Roe, according to USA Today. The current five justices who support abortion rights would likely reaffirm Roe, but just one court appointee from either presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) could determine the future of abortion rights, a “point [that] is not lost on advocates in the abortion debate,” USA Today reports.

Justice Anthony Kennedy — often a swing vote and one with the five justices who supports abortion rights — has recently written in support of giving states “more latitude to restrict abortion” and in 2007 voted to uphold the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The legal reasoning expressed in that opinion could open the door for “a whole variety of restrictions on abortion” and could have a “cumulative effect of overruling Roe,” Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen said. David Garrow, a senior fellow at the University of Cambridge who has written extensively on U.S. abortion rights, said Roe will remain secure “as long as Justice Kennedy remains the crucial fifth vote.”

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, said Roe could be changed right after this “historic election” because of the potential opportunity for the next president to appoint one or much more justices to the court. The public “gets it,” Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said, adding that they have “seen it in recent cases” and with McCain, “who has been far a lot more specific about the overturning of Roe than George Bush was” in the 2000 election.

According to USA Today, McCain has said that if elected he would work to overturn Roe, and in the final presidential debate, he said that “decisions (regarding abortion laws) should rest in the hands of the states.” Obama is really a supporter of abortion rights and said during the last debate that Roe was “rightly decided,” adding that the Constitution “has a proper to privacy in it that shouldn’t be subject to state referendum” (Biskupic, USA Today, 10/31).

NPR Examines McCain, Obama’s Views on Judicial Appointments

In a two-part series, NPR’s “All Things Considered” looked at how judicial appointments by the subsequent president could adjust the balance with the Supreme Court. Summaries appear below.

~ McCain Presidency: Unless some younger members of the court’s conservative majority retire or die unexpectedly, conservatives will keep their upper hand on most concerns before the court. However, if McCain is elected president, the Supreme Court will “likely become yet more conservative” and “conservatives will solidify their control for another generation,” NPR reports. Two vacancies — the spots currently occupied by liberal justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter — are widely expected in the next few years. Because the departing justices are from the “liberal wing” with the court “replacing them with liberals wouldn’t make any difference, at least in terms of generic vote counting,” NPR reports. Conservative appointments to replace Stevens and Souter “would strengthen the conservative majority to six to three or seven to two,” NPR reports. In addition, conservative appointments would mean that the conservative majority would not have to rely on Kennedy to support them, nor would they have to moderate conservative opinions to appease Kennedy (Totenberg, “All Things Considered,” NPR, 10/29).

~ Obama Presidency: Brad Berenson — a former associate White House counsel under the current Bush administration who also worked with Obama as an editor at the Harvard Law Review — said Obama’s knowledge with the courts is greater than McCain’s, NPR reports. Berenson said Obama “has thought far a lot more about courts and constitutional concerns than [McCain] has, and that may mean that a President Obama takes much more personal interest and much more of a personal hand in his judicial appointments than a President McCain would.” Obama’s views on Constitutional law, as expressed in his book “The Audacity of Hope,” give insight into how he would view appointments towards the Supreme Court, NPR reports, adding that in the book he argues that the “Constitution speaks in generalities that cannot tell us what the founders would have thought about modern dilemmas” (Totenberg, “All Things Considered,” NPR, 10/30).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. It is possible to view the entire Every day Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Day-to-day Women’s Wellness Policy Report is really a free service with the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.