April 9th, 2010
01:39 PM ET
12 years ago

NARAL and NOW make demands for next justice

(CNN) – NARAL Pro-Choice America, the national abortion rights group, praised Justice John Paul Stevens' record Friday and implored President Obama to nominate a replacement who will also uphold abortion rights.

"Given the current composition of the court, we will assess the eventual nominee's complete record on privacy and other relevant issues in the same way we did during Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation process," NARAL President Nancy Keenan said in a statement.

"One thing is certain: opponents of women's freedom and privacy will use this vacancy on the court as an opportunity to further their attacks on nominees who have taken pro-choice positions," Keenan added. "America's pro-choice majority will fight back."

The National Organization for Women also weighed in on Stevens' retirement. The group called on the president to nominate a woman to the high court, which counts Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg among its nine members.

"NOW is dedicated to achieving gender parity on the Supreme Court, and we call on President Obama to nominate a woman to fill this seat," NOW President Terry O'Neill said in a statement. "The Supreme Court is out of balance, with women making up a mere 22 percent of the bench. That's simply not enough."

Filed under: Supreme Court
soundoff (34 Responses)
  1. Fair is Fair

    Leave it to NOW and NARAL... "we don't care who the next justice will be... we just want to make sure we can still kill babies".

    And for you libtards out there... I'm a woman. The kind of conservative, pro-life, successful woman you love to hate.

    April 9, 2010 01:44 pm at 1:44 pm |
  2. sonsarchangel

    I believe another minority left leaning I important. The Country is NOT represented with this current right leaning court

    April 9, 2010 01:47 pm at 1:47 pm |
  3. iwagner

    Pleaaaaaase take Palin off the TV.

    April 9, 2010 01:49 pm at 1:49 pm |
  4. iwagner

    Take idiot Palin off the TV Tube.

    April 9, 2010 01:50 pm at 1:50 pm |
  5. iwagner

    I know you Repubs are not going to publish this comment

    April 9, 2010 01:51 pm at 1:51 pm |
  6. We Hate You Obama

    The delegator in chief will let Nancy or Harry take the lead on this one (as with everything else) but he'll be around to take credit in the end. Unless it goes bad then someone will go under the bus. Probably George Bush. Yes you can, Obama! LOL!

    April 9, 2010 01:51 pm at 1:51 pm |

    As with all key decisions, our Commmunity Organizer-in-Chief will make the selection of the next justice at the behest of his puppet masters.

    April 9, 2010 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  8. Wisconsonite - Repeal & Replace the Republican Party!

    It doesn't matter . . . the anti-American Republicans are already making plans to filibuster ANY nomination.

    April 9, 2010 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  9. Term Limits

    He'll nominate someone who will open up an abortion clinic in the basement of the Supreme Court.

    Sometimes I wonder why I am against abortion. I mean in a couple generations the whacked out left will have killed themselves off.

    April 9, 2010 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  10. Claudia, Houston, Tx

    It's not about picking a woman, it's about our President picking whose best qualified. Yes, we need women, women who are educated and qualified in their field but one thing that's setting back qualified women is when someone like Palin who clearly lacks all if not more of the above, we will always lag behind. Women demand that our women meet the same education qualifications as men that makes us more competitive then speak.

    April 9, 2010 02:00 pm at 2:00 pm |
  11. T'SAH from Virginia

    I agree 100% – it must be someone who believes in PRO-CHOICE.... Case and POINT!

    "One thing is certain: opponents of women's freedom and privacy will use this vacancy on the court as an opportunity to further their attacks on nominees who have taken pro-choice positions..."

    This is a FACT – The far-right demeanor towards Stupak was harsh and threatening because he was PRO-CHOICE and his family was threatened by that far right audience who truly believe they are charge!!!

    What would really SLAP those haters in the face would be electing a highly intelligent, way above average qualified African American pro-choice protestant woman…..Now that covers all of what we need!!!!!! Yes We Can!!

    April 9, 2010 02:17 pm at 2:17 pm |
  12. Navy Vet

    I had to comment on Obama brushing off Palin's comments. When I read what she stated on Fox my mouth dropped open to the unbelievable ignorance and absolute arrogance that this woman has to even believe that she can make "any" statement about nuclear issues:

    And since CNN isn't allowing comments to that thread I jus have to post this here.

    [sic] Palin said the recently negotiated treaty with Russia – seeking a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons held by the two countries – is an "unbelievable" move and that "no administration in America's history I think would ever have considered such a step."

    Are you serious??? Palin’s incredible ignorance to nuclear issues and our history is frightening considering there are people who actually believe that this woman is capable of being President.

    A little bit of “nuclear’ history, albeit not a complete one.

    The first nuclear‐weapons control agreement, the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), signed by the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain was in 1963,

    The Nuclear Non‐Proliferation Treaty (NPT), put forward in 1968 by the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union, went into effect in 1970

    The Nuclear Non‐Proliferation Treaty (NPT), put forward in 1968 by the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union, went into effect in 1970

    Then there was The 1972 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I)

    And President Ronald Reagan's 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative and;

    The 1988 Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and;

    The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) and;

    START II (1993, revised 1997), the United States and Russia agreed to cut their long‐range nuclear‐weapons levels by two‐thirds and to disable and dismantle specified launching systems by 2007 and;

    In 1996, a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was opened for signatures, with the requirement that its implementation required ratification by all forty‐four states with a nuclear capacity. As of Spring 2000, 155 nations had ratified it, including more than half of the states with nuclear capacity. Among the nuclear‐weapons states, Great Britain, France, and Russia had ratified, while the United States, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel had not.

    April 9, 2010 02:18 pm at 2:18 pm |
  13. Oregon calling

    Hilary Clint would make a PERFECT Justice!!!!!

    Liberal – check
    Women – chech
    Fiesty – CHECK!!!!!

    Peace 🙂

    April 9, 2010 02:25 pm at 2:25 pm |
  14. Lucy, Texas

    After this supreme court ruled that corporations could spend all they wanted to influence the Congress and American voter. I hope they chose someone who has a functioning moral compass that doesn't just vote for the political party platform. It would be wonderful if the next supreme court judge has a functioning both right and left side of the brain.

    Americans have been sold out to big corporations by Bush and the Republicans. It resulted in the the worse recession since 1929. Corporations reaped profits from Katrina and left New Oreleans in worse shape when they left. Corporations like Blackwater profited from the war in Iran as our sons and daughters died in the armed forces. Corporate insurance companies have found that it is more porfitable for sick Americans to die then provide access to health care. All of these corporations made record profits while charging record rates for poor performance while providing ridiculous bonuses to their CEO's. I don't fear government, I fear the corporations who are only interested in how to increase their profits, while decreasing their services. This is not the work ethic that built America. This is the work ethic of slackers or mouchers. They expect someone else to bail them out of trouble. Corporate American didn't make any changes, so Americans should start insisting on changes. Don't forget, we are the ones who have pay the bailout bill as well as the corporatate CEO's Bonuses.

    April 9, 2010 02:39 pm at 2:39 pm |
  15. Sandy SC

    People abortion should be a choice rather than someone demanding that you keep a child that you know will be an award to the state because there is no way they want or will take care of that baby. Let the women choose and stay out of her business.

    April 9, 2010 02:40 pm at 2:40 pm |
  16. Mike

    Palin is in error if she thinks the reduction of third of our nukes, in and of itself, creates a major gap in our defenses. The truth is that both Russia and the United States will still have a sufficient stockpile of nuclear weapons for either to annihilate all life on the planet four or five times over. The real dangers are these: First, the need for modernization of our delivery systems. Second, that rogue nations and groups such as Iran and terrorist groups may obtain nuclear weapons. It is my belief that such nations and groups would have no compunction about using WMDs in order to achieve their ultimate goal - that of world domination. However, we also must be as concerned with other forms of WMDs besides nuclear, but no one - not the media nor politicians - are saying a word about biologicals and chemical weapons.

    April 9, 2010 02:49 pm at 2:49 pm |
  17. Steve (the real one)

    I like how NARAL and NOW keep using the term pro-choice instead of the truth which is they are both PRO-abortion! Pro-choice makes it all sound less graphic and barbaric than being pro abortion!
    I will hear alot of "women can do whatever they like with their bodies" No argument here . It just DNA will prove a baby is NOT a part of a woman's but instead is a seperate individual. After all liberals are the party of educated folk. right? My argument is respectful. Will yours be? I'm not betting on it, but you are the party of tolerance, right? Or is it only when somebody agrees with you? If that is the case, what is there to be tolerant of?

    April 9, 2010 02:51 pm at 2:51 pm |
  18. JA/TN

    abortion is a woman's right, all of the anti-abortion in most cases are intolerant, see the kid 20somthing and you freeze with fear will not educate them or only house in jail,

    April 9, 2010 02:56 pm at 2:56 pm |
  19. Pat

    Last I checked Obama was no expert on nuclear weapons either and its becoming more and more obvious that hes no expert in any area other than scamming the democrat partys consituencey.

    April 9, 2010 03:05 pm at 3:05 pm |
  20. gt

    ok.. so the next conservative judge l needs to be from the klan or nazi party... stupid demand form a stupid bunch of liberal thugs ....

    April 9, 2010 03:06 pm at 3:06 pm |
  21. Rick McDaniel

    This is one special interest group, I will back.

    There should be no religious imposition on women's rights.

    April 9, 2010 03:24 pm at 3:24 pm |
  22. tpbco

    Better that this organization spend their engeries demanding that women CHOSE responsibility rather than abortions, then the point is moot.

    I have NO interest in paying for their abortions OR their unwanted "mistakes".

    Rape, incest and serious health problems are entirely different issue.

    April 9, 2010 03:25 pm at 3:25 pm |
  23. dave

    1. over 50% of all abortions result in the death of a female
    2. what proof do you have that a human fetus is not human?

    you can't send someone to jail without "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" - shouldn't we have the same standard for an innocent fetus?

    No one can do what ever they with their own body - there are laws against lots of things - like nudity

    if we made contract murder legal i bet fewer innocent bystanders would be killed - does that mean we should make contract killing legal?

    April 9, 2010 03:40 pm at 3:40 pm |
  24. Glennis

    Wow, THERE are two upstanding groups to be making demands. They can stick their demands where the sun don't shineas far as I'm concerned. The harm they do to our society far outweighs any good.

    April 9, 2010 04:04 pm at 4:04 pm |
  25. RH

    I find it pathetic and very telling that NOW preaches about equality whilst demanding special treatment. If they were truly interested in equality they’d be demanding Obama select the best jurist for the job, regardless of that person’s sex.

    The single most defining characteristic of "feminism" is self-hatred.

    April 9, 2010 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
1 2