The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Wattleton.

STATEMENT OF FAY WATTLETON

Ms. WATTLETON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the committee. It is also my pleasure to speak before you this morning.

I speak as the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which is the political advocacy arm of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America [PPFA]. PPFA is the Nation's oldest and largest nonprofit, private provider of reproductive health care in this country. For 75 years, we have given men and women access to the information and medical care that enable them to decide when and if they will be parents. Every year, nearly 2 million Americans-many of them young and poor-come to our 879 medical centers. We are not a special interest group, as some have implied. Our views represent those of millions of Americans—as a matter of fact, the majority of Americans-who want to preserve their right to make their most fundamental private reproductive decisions.

Last week, David Souter told us that the responsibility of a Supreme Court Justice, and I quote, "is to make the promises of the Constitution a reality for our time and to preserve that Constitution for generations that will follow us." We agree completely. We also believe that one of the promises of our Constitution is the protection of our fundamental right of privacy and reproductive freedom.

Until these hearings, Judge Souter's views on these constitutional promises were virtually unknown, and Planned Parenthood did not oppose his nomination. Instead, supported by 87 percent of the electorate, we asserted that Americans have the right to know Judge Souter's views on fundamental issues such as the rights of privacy and reproductive freedom.

But after days of evasive answers and filibusters, we know little more about his views on these issues than we did before the hearings began, and what we do know is profoundly disturbing. It is clear that Judge Souter sees reproductive freedom as an unsettled issue. He does not accept reproductive rights as an established constitutionally protected right, one of the promises of our Constitution.

Judge Souter acknowledged the existence of a right to marital privacy but would not acknowledge the right of married people to use contraception as outlined in Griswold. He also refused to comment on the later Eisenstadt decision that extended this right to unmarried people.

In fact, he said in regard to Griswold, and I quote, "If there were a successful attack on Roe, that would call into question prior privacy cases." This is a contention that Planned Parenthood has made all along.

In other words, Americans may not have the fundamental right to prevent unwanted pregnancy, much less the safety to terminate a problem pregnancy.

Judge Souter steadfastly refused to answer questions about a woman's right to abortion, saying that it would be inappropriate for him to comment because it is likely that Roe v. Wade would be coming back to the Supreme Court. And yet he was willing to com

ment extensively on the appropriate standard of review for cases including gender discrimination, the free exercise clause, racial discrimination, all of which are likely, like Roe, to come before the Court.

He refused to tell Senator Kennedy if he considered abortion moral or immoral, even in cases of rape or incest, saying it would, and I quote again, "dispel the promise of impartiality in approaching this issue" if it came before him. Yet Judge Souter has no qualms about expressing his own moral views about the death penalty and white-collar crime, issues on which the Supreme Court is repeatedly asked to rule.

The resignation of Justice Brennan has left the Supreme Court precariously balanced. Last year, and again this year, the Court issued decisions that seriously weakened Roe and unleashed wholesale assaults on reproductive rights in State legislatures nationwide. Indeed, when asked what the practical consequences of overturning Roe would be, Judge Souter reduced the issue to a FederalState squabble.

Twenty-four years ago, when David Souter was counseling a young woman in Boston facing an unwanted pregnancy, Planned Parenthood was doing similar work, working with trained counselors, nurses and volunteers all over the United States. The one experience that Judge Souter claims as his sole source of sensitivity on this critical issue of private life is an experience that Planned Parenthood clinics cope with every day. We know, as do most Americans, that Roe v. Wade liberated American women and saved our lives like no other recent Supreme Court decision. Its real life consequences have been matched by few judicial acts in the history of our republic.

For women and their families, the right to reproductive choice creates a foundation for exercising many of the other constitutional privileges we enjoy as Americans. Clearly, the health and wellbeing of American women and of future generations that David Souter expressed concern about will rest in the hands of the next Supreme Court Justice. What choices will my daughter, your daughters, our granddaughters have? Will the promises of our Constitution remain a reality for them? It depends largely on the views of the next Supreme Court Justice on privacy and reproductive freedom.

Any Supreme Court nominee who rejects the fundamental nature of these privacy rights in a democracy must likewise be rejected by the citizens of that democracy. American women, quite frankly, are quite tired of having our rights placed up for grabs. We urge you to keep the faith of the American people and American women, women who will not forget who nominated the next Justice and who confirmed him. We urge you to reject the nomination of David Hackett Souter to the U.S. Supreme Court, and thereby send a message that the period of tolerance for political gamesmanship around our fundamental reproductive rights has ended. [The prepared statement of Ms. Wattleton follows:]

DRAFT

Statement of Faye Wattleton

President

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

before the

Senate Judiciary Committee

on the nomination of David H. Souter

to the U.S. Supreme Court

September 18, 1990

Mr. Chairman:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the nation's oldest and largest non-profit, private provider of reproductive health cara. For 75 years we have given women and men access to the information and medical care that enable them to decide when and whether to have children. Every year nearly two million Americana -- most of them young and many of them poor -- find their way into our 179 medical centers. We help Americans plan their families, enhance their lives, and assure that children are born wanted and loved.

For some in politics, the debate over Rog v. Wade boils down to concerns about polls and votes and constituency pressure. For many trained in the law, Rog is an interesting debating point. But for most Americans, the Roe v. Wade decision was a liberating and lifesaving pronouncement. Its real-life consequences have been matched by only a few judicial acts in the history of our republic. For women and their families, the right to reproductive choice creates a foundation for exercising many of the other constitutional privileges we enjoy as Americans.

But last year and again this year, the court that produced Rog issued decisions that seriously weakened Roe and unleashed wholesale assaults on reproductive rights in state legislatures nationwide. Now, the judge nominated to fill a vacancy on that court is in a position to turn back the clock even further on reproductive rights, to an era when providing or obtaining an abortion was a criminal act.

Until these hearings, Mr. Bush's nominee was a virtual unknown. Rather than oppose his nomination, Planned Parenthood asserted Americans' right to know Judge Souter's views on fundamental rights

of privacy and reproductive freedom, which are taken for granted by the vast majority of Americans.

Today, however, after days of evasive answers and filibusters, we know nothing more about Judge Souter's views on reproductive rights than we did before the hearings began.

Judge Bouter has acknowledged the existence of a constitutional right to marital privacy and a right to procreate, but would not acknowledge the right of married people to use contraception as outlined in Griswold. He also refused to comment on the later Eisenstadt decision that extended this right to unmarried people.

Judge Souter steadfastly refused to answer questions about woman's right to abortion, saying it would be inappropriate for him to comment, because of the likelihood of Ro coming back to the Supreme Court. Yet, as Senator Biden pointed out, Judge Souter was willing to comment quite extensively on his views on the appropriate standard of review for cases involving gender discrimination, the free exercise clause and racial discrimination, all of which -- like Ros -- are likely to come back to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Bouter refused to answer Senator Kennedy's question about whether he considers abortion moral or immoral, even in cases of rape or incest, saying it would "dispel the promise of impartiality in approaching this issue" if it came before him. Yet, Mr. Souter had no qualms about expressing his own moral beliefs about the death penalty and white collar crime.

Pidge Souter's story of having "counselled" a pregnant young woman planned to self-abort before abortion W&S legal in achusetts clearly was meant to assure pro-choice Americans that