Karen Pearl

Interim President
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
September 15, 2005

Testimony of
Karen Pearl, Interim President
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
before the Senate Judiciary Committee
on the Nomination of John G. Roberts
to be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court
September 15, 2005

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee,
I am Karen Pearl, Interim President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. I am honored to have been invited to testify at these historic hearings.
Planned Parenthood is America's oldest, largest, and most trusted provider of family planning services and education, and reproductive health care. Every year, our 121 affiliates serve five million women, men, and adolescents in over 850 health centers in communities across the nation, providing the information and services people need to stay healthy, plan their families, and make responsible choices about sex and reproduction.
I speak to you today on behalf of the millions of Americans who rely on us now, and on
behalf of those who will come to our health centers in the future, seeking honest,
medically-accurate information, family planning and contraception, and other
reproductive health care including abortion services.
I also speak to you as someone who spent a decade serving clients as president and CEO
of a Planned Parenthood affiliate. Many of those who came through the doors of our
health centers seeking care were uninsured or underinsured, young or poor. In fact,
nationally seventy-four percent of Planned Parenthood clients have incomes at or below
150 percent of the federal poverty level. For many, Planned Parenthood is their only
health care provider.
Our clients rely on us to provide confidential, quality care. They trust us to be there for
them.
We take that trust seriously. Planned Parenthood was founded on the principle that every
person has fundamental human and civil rights to equality, privacy, and dignity. We
consider it our most profound responsibility to ensure that all Americans, regardless of
their circumstances, have access to the full range of reproductive health care options. We
believe it is the right of all Americans to make personal health care decisions free from
government intrusion.
The right to use contraception, to get access to the health care we need, and to make our
own childbearing decisions form the very fabric of American life - underlying freedoms
so basic that many of us take them for granted. Judge Roberts's views on these matters
have the very real potential to shape these freedoms for Americans for decades to come,
affecting the life of every American, but the lives of women most of all - in particular
women who because of poverty, youth, or circumstance are most vulnerable.
This is why we have been so careful and deliberate in our consideration of Judge John
Roberts's nomination to serve as Chief Justice of our nation's highest court. The Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court holds the highest legal position in our country. If confirmed
to become the Chief Justice, John Roberts would be able to influence the direction of the
Court and the opinions it renders. We cannot entrust this crucial position to someone

Testimony of Karen Pearl
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
September 15, 2005
3 of 7
who has demonstrated hostility in the past to women's rights, in particular to the right to
reproductive freedom and the right to choose.
Over the past months, we have reviewed thoroughly and thoughtfully those parts of his
record that have been made publicly available. As more documents from his work on
behalf of the Reagan and George H. Bush administrations were released, and as the
evidence of Judge Roberts's hostility to our most cherished freedoms mounted, we grew
more and more alarmed.
We discovered that as a government lawyer, in administrations openly hostile to the right
to choose, Roberts repeatedly derided and dismissed Americans' settled constitutional
right to choose, the fundamental principle articulated in Roe v. Wade.
In spite of this history, before deciding to oppose his nomination to the Supreme Court,
we wanted to give Judge Roberts an opportunity to speak for himself during these
hearings and clarify whether the American people could be confident that he would be a
Chief Justice who would protect, not take away, our fundamental freedoms.
Rather than affirming these fundamental rights, however, during these hearings Judge
Roberts has consistently evaded the Senators' questions on many of these crucial issues.
He steadfastly refused to answer questions relating to whether the right to privacy
includes the right to choose and to whether Roe v. Wade should be overruled. This leaves
us no choice but to conclude that Judge Roberts, if he were to become Chief Justice
Roberts, would not uphold this settled constitutional right
We oppose Judge Roberts's nomination to become the next Chief Justice of the United
States because of his past record and because of his failure, during these hearings, to
affirm that he will protect our constitutional right to privacy as it has been interpreted by
the Supreme Court, including a woman's fundamental right to choose abortion. We
would oppose any nominee to serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - but
particularly a nominee with Judge Roberts' record - who cannot or will not assure the
American people that he or she will protect, not take away, our settled constitutional
freedoms.
Reproductive liberty in this country has been slowly eroded since the landmark decision
of Roe v. Wade. More than thirty-three years ago, seven Justices - a clear majority of the
Court - ruled the Constitutional right to privacy protects a woman's right to choose
abortion. Since that time, the makeup of the court has shifted significantly.
In 1992, when the Court decided Planned Parenthood v. Casey only two Justices
supported reaffirming Roe in its entirety. Three more justices voted to affirm the
essential holding of Roe, that the Constitution prohibits an outright ban on abortion. Thus
the core guarantees of Roe survived by a vote of just 5-4.
Five years ago, the Supreme Court passed down its most recent abortion-related ruling in
Stenberg v. Carhart. Once again, four of the nine justices made it clear that they

Testimony of Karen Pearl
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
September 15, 2005
4 of 7
supported either overturning Roe v. Wade or significantly gutting its promise that the
constitution protects women's health and lives against government regulations that
threaten them. Justice Kennedy, who in Casey sided with the plurality in reaffirming the
essential holding of Roe, voted against the constitutional protection for women's health in
Stenberg v. Carhart.
If the Court continues in this perilous direction, we could soon face situations where
doctors are prevented from providing emergency care to their patients until they can find
a judge to allow it. We may face situations where a woman incurs liver, kidney, or brain
damage, or loses her future fertility, because restrictive laws forbid the abortion that
could have saved her health.
If confirmed to become Chief Justice, we believe Judge Roberts will lead the Court
further in the direction of allowing politicians to be the arbiters of intimate choices and
basic medical decisions, rather than women in consultation with their loved ones and
doctors. Judge Roberts has failed to demonstrate a commitment to the constitutional
protections upon which women have relied for more than a generation.
Prior to these hearings, Planned Parenthood urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to
seek Roberts's records from his work on the Rust, Bray and Casey cases so that the
American people could see for themselves what Judge Roberts's role was in these cases.
Despite the efforts of some members of this Committee, and our repeated calls for the
Administration to make documents that would shed light on Roberts's role in the
Solicitor General's office available to the Committee and to the public, the
Administration refused. The Senate should not be asked to reach this enormous decision
which will have an impact on the direction of the courts and the nation without
information about Judge Roberts's views on fundamental constitutional rights.
Particularly because the public has been denied access to these critical documents, the
burden was upon Judge Roberts to be fully forthcoming with the Committee. He has
repeatedly failed to meet this burden.
Although many documents from Judge Roberts's records were withheld, many of the
documents which were produced revealed that Judge Roberts had consistently advocated
positions that challenged the legitimacy of a woman's right to choose, and construed civil
rights law narrowly at the expense of women's health and safety. He has also
demonstrated a restrictive view of the role of the federal courts that poses a substantial
risk for women who rely on the courts to protect them from laws that could cause them
harm. Thus, what we do know of Judge Roberts's judicial philosophy from this record
raises grave concerns about his support of a woman's right to choose abortion and of
constitutional protections for women's health and safety.
Roberts's views on Roe v. Wade
A number of documents Judge Roberts authored while serving as an attorney for the
government called into question his support for the fundamental principles articulated in
Roe v. Wade.

Testimony of Karen Pearl
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
September 15, 2005
5 of 7
W
hile serving in the Solicitor General's office in 1990, Judge Roberts co-authored a brief
filed on behalf of the government in the case of Rust v. Sullivan that stated "Roe v. Wade
was wrongly decided and should be overruled." The brief further states that the right
articulated in Roe "find[s] no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."
The Solicitor General's office, and John Roberts, included these arguments in its brief
despite the fact that the case did not involve a challenge to Roe or the right to choose, but
rather concerned federal regulations that prohibited family planning programs which
received federal aid from providing abortion-related counseling.
Years earlier, in 1981, in a lengthy memorandum Roberts drafted while serving in the
office of the Attorney General on proposals to divest the Supreme Court of appellate
jurisdiction, Roberts wrote Roe v. Wade "is broadly perceived to be . . . unprincipled
jurisprudence."
Judge Roberts failed to assuage our fears that the views reflected in these documents are
his own. He refused to assure us that he does not believe that Roe should be narrowed or
overruled altogether. He steadfastly refused to say whether he believed, under principles
of stare decisis, the question of whether Roe should be overruled had been settled by
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where the Court extensively discussed this question and
reaffirmed the central holding of Roe. When asked by Senator Biden whether he agreed
with the statement of Justice Ginsburg during her 1993 confirmation hearings that a state
law banning abortion would be unconstitutional, he refused to respond. Yet, when
pressed by Senator Sessions about whether he would commit to remain open to
evaluating whether Roe should be overruled he responded, unequivocally, "Absolutely,
Senator." We are left with no alternative but to surmise that he shares the view,
articulated in his past writings, that Roe should be overruled.
Roberts's involvement in clinic violence cases
Roberts's involvement in a number of cases involving violence against reproductive
health centers, health care providers, and patients is also deeply troubling.
We at Planned Parenthood are faced with violence and intimidation directed at our
employees and patients everyday. In fact, on the first day that I started as an affiliate
CEO at Planned Parenthood of Nassau County in January 1995, I was greeted by a sign
on the front door that read: "This is a murder zone. Anyone who enters will be killed."
Later, while still serving as the CEO of my local Planned Parenthood, I volunteered as a
clinic escort, working to ensure the safety of the patients who needed our services. One
day, the protesters were edgy because we were enforcing the law and not letting them
trespass on our private property. In retaliation, they stormed onto the parking lot,
screaming at me and my fellow escort, and eventually hitting us with their signs. The
only thing that stopped them from further violence was the police.
Such actions are unacceptable. No one should have to endure intimidation or violence to
gain access to family planning, contraception or any reproductive health service.

Testimony of Karen Pearl
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
September 15, 2005
6 of 7
Unfortunately, my stories are not unique. Planned Parenthood health centers throughout
the nation continue to face intimidation to this day.
For this reason, Judge Roberts's involvement in the case of Bray v. Alexandria
Women's Health Center raises deep concerns. Judge Roberts was one of the authors
of an amicus brief filed on behalf of the United States arguing in support of the legal
position of violent anti-clinic demonstrators and urging a narrow reading of a civil
rights law. Nowhere in the brief did the government disavow the actions or tactics of
the violent demonstrators - not even in a footnote.
Perhaps even more disturbing than the brief in Bray is that as Deputy Solicitor
General, Roberts was involved in the decision to intervene in a district court
proceeding during the blockades of women's health centers in Wichita, Kansas in the
summer of 1991. For two months, thousands of protestors descended upon three
Wichita women's health centers and terrorized women, health center staff, and
healthcare workers. To keep the peace and protect women who were attempting to
enter these women's health centers, the district court issued an injunction against the
protestors and brought in federal marshals. In a highly unusual intervention, the
Department of Justice sought to have this injunction lifted, even though the legal
issue at stake was already pending before the Supreme Court.
Not only is it extremely rare for the Department of Justice to intervene in the district
court, it is even more rare to ask the court to do what was asked here - lift an
injunction that was stopping violence that was paralyzing a city while a legal issue
was on appeal. The Justice Department's request was far more aggressive than was
necessary to accomplish their stated goal of resolving a disputed legal question. The
decision by the Solicitor General's office to weigh in on the Wichita case and urge
that the injunction be lifted would have meant, had this argument prevailed, that the
federal marshals would have been removed from this violent, volatile situation,
putting patients and health care providers at enormous risk of physical harm.
Roberts's actions in these cases show a willingness to take a narrow, rigid, ideological
approach to the law, even at the peril of women. They raise grave concerns and real
questions about Roberts's attitude towards women's health and right to choose.
Finally, Roberts's writings reveal his extremely cramped view of the role federal courts,
including the Supreme Court, should play in protecting the basic freedoms and rights of
Americans. This view of the role of the courts could lead Judge Roberts, particularly in
the leadership role of Chief Justice, to restrict access to federal courts to remedy
violations of constitutional rights.
Conclusion
On June 27, the last day of the prior Term, I stood on the steps of the Supreme Court
alongside Planned Parenthood staff and supporters from Washington, DC to emphasize
the crucial role of the Court in all our lives.

Testimony of Karen Pearl
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
September 15, 2005
7 of 7
Joining with us was Sarah Weddington, the brave attorney who changed the course of
history by arguing and winning Roe v. Wade, making it possible for women to have a
truly equal place at life's table.
Standing with her, I felt the enormous responsibility that all of who us cherish
reproductive freedom share to uphold her legacy. Before Roe affirmed the right of every
woman to control her own fertility and determine her own reproductive destiny, women
were not truly equal in society. More than 30 years later, the progress that Roe set in
motion - and the freedoms it guaranteed - have become a part of the very fabric of
American life. For many Americans, it is as difficult to imagine what life was like before
Roe as it is to imagine life before Brown v. Board of Education outlawed segregated
education. The promise of true equality that Roe represents for every American woman
is essential to our lives - whether or not we ever face the choice to have an abortion.
Right now, we stand at a crossroads. Will we continue to live in an America where
reproductive freedoms are defended, where privacy is protected, and where women are
respected as equals under the law? Or will we see an America where barriers keep
women from getting the health care they need, where the government intrudes upon
personal reproductive choices, and where restrictive laws prevent doctors from fulfilling
their ethical obligation to preserve the health and safety of women?
P
lanned Parenthood Federation of America opposes the confirmation of Judge John
Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. We urge you to do
the same. The vote you cast to confirm or oppose Judge Roberts's nomination to the
position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will be among the most important votes
you cast as Senators. It is your duty to ensure that every Justice that serves on the Court,
and in particular the Chief Justice, promises to uphold and defend the constitutional rights
and freedoms we treasure.