WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) today sharply criticized a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a federal law banning certain abortions. It is the first abortion decision from the Supreme Court since Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired. Both organizations said that the Court's decision will endanger women's health.

"Unfortunately, today's decision has placed politics above protecting women's health," said Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of NAF. "This ruling is a set back for all Americans who believe politicians should not legislate medical decision-making. The decision disregards the opinion of leading doctors and medical organizations that oppose the ban because it is harmful to women's health."

The Court ruled today on two challenges to the federal abortion ban, called by its sponsors the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act." The two cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart and three other physicians, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, brought by Planned Parenthood Federation of America on behalf of its affiliates throughout the country.

A third challenge to the ban, National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales, was brought by NAF and seven individual physicians, represented by the ACLU, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, the ACLU of Illinois, and the New York Civil Liberties Union. In 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit put that case on hold until the Supreme Court issued a decision in the other two cases. Today's Supreme Court decision requires that the ban be upheld in this case as well.

"Today's decision undermines a core principle of Roe v. Wade that women's health must remain paramount," said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "The decision invites politicians to meddle even further into the doctor-patient relationship by passing additional restrictions on abortion."

Leading doctors and medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents 90 percent of OB-GYNs in this country, opposed the federal ban.

Congress passed the federal abortion ban and President Bush signed it into law in 2003, despite numerous court decisions striking down similar state bans, including the decision in 2000 by the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent to today's opinion: "Though today's opinion does not go so far as to discard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of 'the rule of law' and the 'principles of stare decisis.'"

Today's cases are Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, No. 05-1382 and Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380.

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) is the professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada. Our mission is to ensure safe, legal, and accessible abortion care to promote health and justice for women. Our members include health care professionals at clinics, doctors' offices, and hospitals, who together care for more than half the women who choose abortion each year. For more information, visit our website at www.prochoice.org.

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. For more information, visit: www.aclu.org/reproductiverights. 

DENVER, CO - The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a complaint against three White House staffers for illegally ejecting Denver residents from a taxpayer-funded town hall with President Bush, even though they had done nothing to disrupt the event. The residents, who have been dubbed the “Denver 3” by the media, were singled out because of an anti-war bumper sticker on their car.

“The president does not have the authority to ignore the First Amendment simply because he disagrees with someone’s views,” said ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Chris Hansen, who is lead counsel in this case. “There has been a consistent pattern from the White House of handpicking which Americans are allowed entry to public events. That is unacceptable when taxpayers of all political stripes are footing the bill.”

Today’s complaint was filed in an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of Leslie Weise and Alex Young, two of the three people who were thrown out of the Denver event on March 21, 2005. For nearly two years, the White House has refused to admit its role in the incident. But Michael Casper, a Republican volunteer at the event who is also named in the ACLU lawsuit, said in a deposition that two White House employees directed him to throw out Weise and Young.

Casper identified the staffers as Steven Atkiss, then-Deputy Director of White House Advance, and James O’Keefe, lead advance staffer for the Denver event. Atkiss now serves as chief of staff for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection. The ACLU also filed a complaint against Greg Jenkins, then-Director of White House Advance, whom the ACLU said is responsible for establishing the policy to eject anyone from presidential events whose views are perceived to be different from the president’s.

“The White House should not be in the business of censoring Americans,” said Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Colorado. “Our clients were removed not because they were disruptive, but because they could ‘potentially’ engage in critical speech.”

Weise and Young had tickets to attend the Denver town hall on Social Security, but they were singled out after a staffer noticed a bumper sticker on Weise’s car that read, “No More Blood for Oil.” Weise was stopped upon entering the event, and warned by Casper that she had been “ID’d,” and that she would be arrested if she had any ill intentions. She was then allowed to enter, but Casper came back and forcibly removed Weise and Young after receiving official orders from O’Keefe and Atkiss.

“No one should be punished for peaceful expression of a viewpoint at a public event,” Weise said. “Our lawsuit seeks to ensure that this conduct will not happen again in America.”

The ACLU said that the Denver incident is not isolated. Other Americans have been forced to leave open-to-the-public presidential visits around the country. Individuals considered to have critical viewpoints were removed or excluded from Social Security town hall meetings in Arizona, North Dakota and New Hampshire.

The Denver case is Weise v. Jenkins and is in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. In addition to Hansen and Silverstein, attorneys in the case are Catherine Crump of the national ACLU and Martha Tierney and Jerremy Ramp of Denver-based law firm Kelly Haglund Garnsey & Kahn, who are acting as ACLU of Colorado cooperating attorneys.

more on this case

In a lawsuit filed today, ACLU lawyers alleged that a Denver police officer’s “recklessly sloppy” police work—which included false statements and crucial omissions in an affidavit the officer submitted to a judge—caused a local woman with no criminal record to be falsely arrested and jailed for an incident with which she had no connection whatsoever.

The suit was filed on behalf of Valerie Rodriguez, who has worked for a nationally known financial company in Denver for seven years. When she applied for a temporary seasonal job with the Postal Service in 2005, she was rejected because a background check purportedly revealed that she had a criminal record.

“Our client immediately investigated what she knew was a terrible mistake,” said Elisa Moran, who represents Ms. Rodriguez as an ACLU cooperating attorney. “She found out that there was an outstanding warrant for her arrest, for an alleged assault of a woman whom she did not know and had never met. When Valerie went to the Denver Police Department to straighten out the error, she was arrested, fingerprinted, and thrown into a cramped and scary jail cell, where she spent hours waiting for bail.”

According to the lawsuit, the bogus warrant stemmed from an incident nine months earlier at a gas station in Denver’s Five Points neighborhood. A young woman flagged down officer Timothy Scudder, the defendant in the ACLU’s lawsuit. She reported that she had been struck by an acquaintance she knew as “Big Val.” The victim said that “Big Val,” who was reportedly a drug user and prostitute, had fled the scene on foot.

“The victim said that ‘Big Val’ lived a few blocks away and that her full name was Valerie Rodriguez,” Moran explained. “Officer Scudder searched a noncriminal computer database for that name, found our client’s name, and then wrote up a criminal complaint and warrant application with our client’s date of birth, social security number, and driver’s license number.”

“Valerie had no criminal record, had been living in the home she owns in Aurora for six years, and had never lived anywhere near Five Points,” Moran said. “If Officer Scudder had spent two additional minutes investigating, he would have found the eight-page-long criminal record of a different Valerie Rodriguez who did live in the Five Points area. Officer Scudder did not bother showing any photographs to the victim and he did not bother checking out the nearby address of the suspect that the victim provided. Instead, he obtained an arrest warrant by falsely stating that the victim knew our client and had identified her as the person responsible for a criminal assault.”

“Police officers have the power to scribble a few lines on a pre-printed form and obtain a warrant for a person’s arrest,” said Mark Silverstein, ACLU Legal Director. “Police have a responsibility to exercise that power with the utmost care. That did not happen in this case.”

“If Officer Scudder had investigated properly, he would not have sought a warrant for Valerie’s arrest.” Silverstein continued. “If Officer Scudder had submitted an honest affidavit with all the facts, no judge would have issued the warrant. Because of Officer Scudder’s recklessly sloppy police work, however, Valerie lost a job opportunity, endured the horror of a baseless arrest, spent time in a jail cell, and then had to spend hours and dollars to clear her name and get the groundless charges dismissed.”

“What happened to our client raises serious questions about how many other groundless warrants are silently lurking in police computers,” Silverstein said, noting that ACLU lawyers filed suit four months ago against a Lakewood detective who obtained a similarly bogus warrant that caused the false arrest and jailing of another innocent woman.

“These warrants will remain active for months or years,” Silverstein continued, “and the persons wrongly named will have no idea they are accused of something they did not do. They won’t know until an officer happens to check the computer, and a minor accident or a routine traffic stop is suddenly transformed into a mandatory trip to jail, complete with handcuffs, fingerprints, mug shots, and who knows how long a wait for bail.”

According to today’s lawsuit, the false charges of assault against Ms. Rodriguez were dismissed, and she was able to get an order sealing the record of her false arrest. After a Channel 7 news investigation publicized Ms. Rodriguez’s ordeal, the Denver Police Department conducted an investigation. Officer Scudder received a written reprimand for “improper procedure.”

The ACLU’s suit, Rodriguez v. Scudder, was filed in federal district court in Denver.

more on this case