About Abortion Are You Pregnant? Professional Education Publications and Research U.S. Public Policy In Canada Membership Support NAF About NAF
 Find a Provider | News | Blog | Get Involved | Action Alerts | Clinicians for Choice | En español | En français | Site Map | Contact Us | NAF Home
NAF Logo Public policy programs provide scientific and medical expertise to policy makers and ensure that the voices of abortion providers and patients are heard in policy forums across the country.
Public PolicyGet informed/Get active
Current Issues
in congress
in the executive branch
In the Courts
In The States
international issues
policy reports
Resources
> NAF Took a Stand
- Executive Nominees
- Judicial Nominees
> In Their Own Words
> What's at Stake
> Bush's Ideal
             Supreme Court
             Justices
> O'Connor's Legacy
> Consultation &
             Consensus
> Samuel A. Alito
> Claude Allen
> Janice Rogers
             Brown
> Miguel Estrada
> Michael Fisher
> James Leon Holmes
> Brett Kavanaugh
> Carolyn B. Kuhl
> Harriet Miers
> Priscilla Owen
> Charles W.
             Pickering
> Bill Pryor
> John G. Roberts
> Diane Sykes
> Timothy Tymkovich
> Glossary
> Useful Links
Patient Partnership
Search prochoice.org
Powered by
Google
NAF Hotline
1-800-772-9100
Find a provider:
1-877-257-0012

(no funding assistance provided on this line)

NAF TOOK A STAND/JUDICIAL NOMINEES/O'Connor's Legacy


Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (1981-2006)

Justice Sandra O'Connor has played a very influential role on the Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. In both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Stenberg v. Carhart (Carhart I), O'Connor's single vote in support of a woman's right to choose ensured the survival of Roe v. Wade.

Justice O'Connor, with Justices Kennedy and Souter, wrote the controlling plurality opinion in Casey which upheld a woman's right to a safe and legal abortion in a case many feared would overturn Roe v. Wade:

"After considering the fundamental constitutional questions resolved by Roe, principles of institutional integrity, and the rule of stare decisis, we are led to conclude this: the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed."

"Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code."

While Justice O'Connor's opinions have changed in the way abortion cases are analyzed, lowering the standard of review from strict scrutiny to an undue burden analysis, she has prevented the conservative members of the Supreme Court from destroying the central provisions of Roe.

In Stenberg v.Carhart (Carhart I), the Court's most recent decision concerning abortion rights, Justice O'Connor joined Justice Breyer's majority opinion affirming Roe and Casey:

"...[t]his Court, in the course of a generation, has determined and then redetermined that the Constitution offers basic protection to the woman's right to choose. We shall not revisit those legal principles."

In Hill v. Colorado, Justice O'Connor voted uphold Colorado's law creating a buffer zone around health facilities. Inside the 100-foot buffer zone, a patient cannot be approached within eight feet without consent for the purpose of leafleting, displaying a sign, or engaging in conversation.

Women retain the right to choose by a fragile one-vote margin. Replacing Justice O'Connor, who has consistently voted to uphold reproductive freedom, with an anti-choice justice could result in the demise of women's access to safe and legal abortion. For more information about potential nominees to the Supreme Court, please visit Bush's Ideal Supreme Court Justices.

NAF website Copyright 2010 National Abortion Federation. Use of this site signifies your agreement to our Usage and Privacy Policy.