Only 486 Days until Election Day 2006!
So please forward this to every woman you know who should be part of the Missouri Women's Coalition and encourage them to join with us...

SUPREME COURT VACANCY = NEWS OF THE WEEK
Unless you’ve been vacationing on a remote tropical island without cable TV, you must know that the Big News last week was the unexpected retirement announcement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor. And, sources are talking about the imminent retirement news by Justice Rehnquist – sure to come in the very near future.

You know what that means.

Roe vs. Wade jumps back to center court – and we must be vigilant and ready to fight once again for our right to choose our own reproductive health care. Granted, this gets tiring when we are facing so many other issues on the political front. Yet, we’re not ready to give up when women’s lives are at stake.

1. Update from Sen. Barbara Boxer

Urge President Bush to honor the Senate's Constitutionally-mandated "advice and consent" responsibility now - and work constructively to find a nominee who will bring America together!

If the President honors Justice O'Connor's tenure by consulting with Senators from both parties to name a mainstream, independent replacement, that nominee will be confirmed quickly. And, more important, the rights of all Americans will be in good hands.

Just think about where we might be today if not for Sandra Day O'Connor's service on the Supreme Court over the past 24 years.

• Without Justice O'Connor, universities would no longer be able to use affirmative action to increase educational opportunities on campuses.
• Without Justice O'Connor, the Court could have undermined government neutrality toward religion and government action against pollution.
• And without Justice O'Connor, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned.

Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senator

2. Emily’s List – Supreme Court Update

The attached memo summarizes the findings of the study as they relate to this anti-intrusion message and the Supreme Court. The full report is also available on our website at www.emilyslist.org.

From: Garin Hart Yang Research Group/The Feldman Group, Inc.
Re: EMILY’s List Women’s Monitor survey shows women hold strong views about government intrusion
Date: July 6, 2005

As the nation awaits the announcement of a new Supreme Court nominee, findings from EMILY’s List’s most recent Women’s Monitor survey can provide instructive, important guidance for the leaders and lawmakers who will be involved in this historic process.

The data from this survey underscore that voters, especially women voters, overwhelmingly uphold the value of privacy for individuals and families, while rejecting government intrusion on issues involving religion and morality.

Republicans begin this process facing underlying skepticism from all voters — women in particular — that they will uphold the principals and priorities voters think should guide decision-making in this area.

If Republicans handle this Supreme Court nomination in a way that triggers the concerns reflected in these findings, they risk alienating important blocs of the women’s electorate.

• Issues involving religious and moral concerns should be outside the bounds of government and politics. By a nearly two-to-one margin, women voters believe that “questions of religion and morality should be left up to the individual, and it should not be the role of government to impose any particular religious or moral point of view on the country,” (62 percent) rather than “government should be actively involved in protecting our traditional moral values — including the right to life, marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and the importance of religious faith in our society” (33 percent). Importantly, this preference for keeping government out of moral and religious issues is evident among a broad spectrum of the electorate, including women who identify themselves as politically independent (71 to 25 percent) and men (63 to 33 percent). Even women voters who say that abortion should be legal only in the most extreme cases are divided on the question of government morality, with fewer than half (49 percent) saying that government should impose religious or moral precepts and 44 percent saying that it should not.
• Republicans have miscalculated voters’ willingness to accept government intrusion on matters of morality and personal values. These data demonstrate that voters, particularly women, feel that Republicans have already overstepped their bounds on issues of privacy and government intrusion into families and personal morality. When asked how much they trust each party to handle “respecting the privacy of individuals and families,” women voters place Republicans a full rating point behind Democrats on a ten-point scale, giving a 6.1 mean score to Democrats and a 5.1 mean score to Republicans. The GOP’s relative shortcomings on this issue hold up strongly among independent women and among men.
• Republicans carry a greater burden in terms of voters’ comfort and confidence in selecting and advancing a Supreme Court nominee. Republicans begin this selection and confirmation process at a disadvantage in terms of voters’ — especially women voters’ — confidence. When asked how much they trust each party to “support the right kind of justices to serve on the Supreme Court,” voters rate Democrats slightly higher (5.4) than Republicans (5.2). This schism is wider among women voters (5.6 Democrats, 5.2 Republicans), and wider still among independent women voters (5.4 Democrats, 4.8 Republicans).

www.emilyslist.org

3. Potential Supreme Court Nominees – NARAL ProChoice America

Supreme Court Justice O'Connor's retirement gives the radical right the chance they've been waiting for to overturn Roe v. Wade. You can bet they are pulling out all the stops and spending millions of dollars to make sure that President Bush picks an anti-choice nominee to tip the balance on the court. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council told the Washington Post: "This is the moment that social conservatives have been awaiting for more than a decade -- a real chance to change the philosophical balance of the Supreme Court."

Finding an anti-choice activist will be easy for Bush. Several nominees on Bush's likely short list have advocated for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Be on the lookout for Michael McConnell, who called the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade "an embarrassment to those who take constitutional law seriously." Another potential nominee, Janice Rogers Brown, argued against expanding insurance coverage for birth control. For more potential nominees, click here.

www.naral.org

4. Supreme Court Shortlist

Anticipation of the resignation of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, which has been building since his cancer treatment began last fall, will climax next week when the Supreme Court's term ends. The Bush administration has telegraphed that it would like him to step down this summer—long before the November 2006 mid-term congressional elections—and has floated names for his replacement.

What views have the president's shortlisters expressed, on and off the bench?

In order of our best guess as to the likelihood that they'll be chosen, here's a guide to the prospective nominees' records. (Bush's choice could be selected for the post of chief justice or associate justice, depending on whether he decides to elevate one of the current associates to the top job.)

(FOR MORE INFORMATION ON EACH CANDIDATE, PLEASE GO TO: http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/)

1. Michael J. Luttig, age 51, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (appointed 1991)

His confirmation battle: Luttig is often cast as a mini-Scalia. The characterization fits him well. In his judicial opinions, he sometimes rejects the statesman model in favor of cutting sarcasm and has shown a tendency to adhere to his own restrained method of judging even on the rare occasions when it leads him to unpopular or anti-conservative positions. Fairly or not, Luttig watchers invariably speculate as to whether a personal tragedy in his past—the murder of his father in a carjacking in 1994—has influenced his approach to criminal law.

Abortion
Voted to deny rehearing in a case about South Carolina's decision to offer "choose life" license plates. Luttig's vote helped to uphold a ruling that the license-plate program violated the First Amendment because it did not offer pro-choice advocates a similar opportunity to make license plates that asserted their views. (Planned Parenthood of S.C. Inc. v. Rose, 2004)

Stayed a district court's judgment invalidating Virginia's ban of so-called partial-birth abortion on the theory that the law was constitutional. The Supreme Court later disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Gilmore, 2000)

2. John Roberts, age 50, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (appointed 2003)

His confirmation battle: Roberts has been floated as a nominee who could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.

Abortion
For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)

3. Emilio Garza, age 58, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (appointed 1991)

His confirmation battle: Garza would be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice since Benjamin Nathan Cardozo in the 1930s, making him harder for liberal groups to oppose. His lengthy record on the bench is conservative. One exception: Garza has expressed some concern about the Texas death penalty, which in recent years has come under repeated scrutiny by the Supreme Court. Still, he usually affirms lower-court decisions approving executions.

Abortion
Agreed to strike down Louisiana's abortion law as unconstitutional because it criminalized abortions except to save the life of the mother, or in cases or rape or incest. In a concurrence, Garza noted his disagreement with the relevant Supreme Court precedent, saying, "the Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion" and "I would allow the people of the State of Louisiana to decide this issue for themselves." (Sojourner v. Edwards, 1992)

Agreed to strike down Louisiana's statute allowing teens seeking abortions to go to court rather than notifying their parents, on the grounds that the exceptions made to parental notification were too narrow. In a concurrence, reiterated his stance that the Supreme Court's opinions granting a right to abortion are "inimical to the Constitution." (Causeway Medical Suite v. Ieyoub, 1997)

For a unanimous panel, held that Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce gave it the authority to pass a law limiting the access of protesters to the entrance of abortion clinics. (U.S. v. Bird, 2005)

4. Michael McConnell, age 50 , a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit (appointed 2002)

His confirmation battle: When McConnell was nominated to the 10th Circuit three years ago, he had the support of liberal law professors who called him Bush's "most distinguished" nominee and signed a letter of support for him. Other liberal groups, on the other hand, fought hard against his confirmation, highlighting his support for expanding the role of religion in the public sphere. How to account for the split? As a respected and well-liked law professor, McConnell was well-placed to win support in the academy, and one of the arguments made on his behalf was that, as an advocate of judicial restraint, he'd be sure to follow the Supreme Court's directives. McConnell wouldn't be similarly bound by precedent, however, if he joined the high court himself. Instead, the combination of his hard-line conservative views and his sunny disposition could make him extremely effective at bringing about change.

Abortion
In 1996, signed a statement supporting a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. "We believe that the abortion license is a critical factor in America's virtue-deficit," the statement reads.

Before Congress, testified in opposition to a bill designed to limit the access of protesters to abortion clinics.

5. Alberto Gonzales, age 49, attorney general of the United States

His confirmation battle: Gonzales faced concerted opposition when he was nominated to be attorney general, mostly because of the role he played as White House counsel in easing the way toward coercive interrogation of the Guantanamo Bay detainees. But he was confirmed with 60 votes, which puts him over the filibuster threshold. If Gonzales were nominated for the Supreme Court, liberals might look past his torture tarnish and figure he's the best Supreme Court material they're likely to get from the Bush administration. Gonzales' bigger problem may be the religious right: When the administration floated his name as a serious candidate last week, conservative groups yelped because he's viewed as moderate on abortion and affirmative action. The quip by Republican Hill staffers reported by the National Review two years ago: "Gonzales is Spanish for Souter."

Abortion
Over a dissent, agreed that a 17-year-old girl could have an abortion without getting her parents' consent. The court was applying a Texas statute allowing an abortion without parental consent if the teenager asking for it "demonstrates that she is mature and sufficiently well informed." In a concurrence, Gonzales argued that the dissent's position—that exceptions to the rule of parental notification should be rare and require a high standard of proof—were policy decisions for the legislature, not the court. To construe the statute more narrowly than the text amounted to "an unconscionable act of judicial activism." (In re Jane Doe, 2000)

In another parental-notification case, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the teenager seeking an abortion had not established that she was sufficiently mature and well informed to do so without telling her parents. Because the girl's hearing took place a few days after the court issued its decision In re Jane Doe, Gonzales wanted to send the case back to the trial court, where the girl would have another chance. He explained that the evidence presented thus far did not prove that she had "thoughtfully considered her alternatives, including adoption and keeping the child" or that telling her parents about the abortion could subject her to emotional abuse. (In re Jane Doe 3, 2000)

6. J. Harvie Wilkinson III, age 60, a judge on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (appointed 1984)

His confirmation battle: Wilkinson is reported to be an affable, middle-of-the-road southerner like Lewis Powell, the Supreme Court justice for whom he clerked. But his record as a forward-looking defender of core conservative values is more akin to William Rehnquist's. Like Rehnquist, Wilkinson has a long affiliation with the Republican Party (he ran unsuccessfully for a House seat in Virginia in 1970). His confirmation battle would probably highlight his willingness to defer to the president in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi. Wilkinson's approach to the case was overturned by the Supreme Court and pilloried, in a separate opinion, by Scalia. Another factor to consider is Wilkinson's age—at 60, he is the oldest of the shortlisters by a significant margin.

Abortion
Voted to deny rehearing (along with Luttig) in a case about South Carolina's decision to offer "choose life" license plates. Wilkinson's vote helped to uphold a ruling that the license-plate program violated the First Amendment because it did not offer pro-choice advocates a similar opportunity to make license plates that asserted their views. (Planned Parenthood of S.C. Inc. v. Rose, 2004)

For a unanimous panel, found that an anti-loitering statute was invalid as applied to a group of protesters staging a pro-life rally because the statute did not give them proper notice that the core political speech and expressive activity in which they were engaged was prohibited by law. However, the panel refused to find the city of Norfolk, Va., liable. (Lytle v. Doyle, 2003)

7. Editah Brown Clement, age 57, a judge on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (appointed 2001)

Her confirmation battle: Clement doesn't provide much ammunition for opposition groups, but perhaps not much for conservatives to get excited about either. She hasn't written anything notable off the bench (or at least nothing that's come to light yet), and most of her judicial decisions have been in relatively routine and uncontroversial cases.

8. Samuel Alito, age 55, a judge on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (appointed 1990)

His confirmation battle: Alito has the Scalia-esque nickname "Little Nino" and the Italian background to match it. As the author of a widely noted dissent urging his court to uphold restrictions on abortion that the Supreme Court then struck down, in a decision that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, Alito could be especially filibuster-prone. Like Scalia, he frequently makes his mark in dissent.

Abortion
Dissented from a decision holding that Pennsylvania could not require women to inform their husbands before getting abortions. Alito argued that because the law only required the husbands to have notice and did not give them a veto over their wives' decisions, it did not pose an "undue burden" for women. This approach was rejected by the Supreme Court. (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1991)

Agreed that an immigration judge was within his discretion to find not credible an application for asylum based on China's forced-abortion policy. (Xue-Jie Chen v. Ashcroft, 2004)

Emily Bazelon is a Slate senior editor.
David Newman is a contributing editor at Legal Affairs.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/

5. DNC’s Women’s Vote Center “Week in Review”

AMERICANS TO BUSH: UNITE THE COUNTRY WITH YOUR SUPREME COURT CHOICE

This week, Americans have hope in our President. President Bush has the opportunity to unite our country and change the divisive legacy of his Presidency - with his choice for a nominee to the Supreme Court. President Bush and his Republican allies continue to repeat the twin mantras that the selection of a new Supreme Court Justice to replace moderate jurist Sandra Day O'Connor should be a "fair process" that must occur in a "timely" fashion. These proclamations come at an especially important time for the President. Despite campaigning for re-election as a uniter, Americans are more deeply divided than ever and the President's approval ratings are at an all-time low. As his bid to privatize Social Security languishes in the Congress, with support for his Iraq policies falling and with many Republicans fighting his Administration's out-of-control spending, President Bush faces a key moment in his Presidency.

President Bush faces a historic opportunity to make good on his promise to unite the country - by either working with Democrats to nominate a fair-minded, common sense conservative in the mold of Justice O'Connor, or he can appease his hard-right constituency and put forward a nominee who will further tear the country apart based on partisan leanings.

President Bush has invited a small bipartisan group of Senate leaders to the White House for a meeting on Monday, July 11. Democrats know this is an important first step in the process of meaningful consultation, but we want to ensure this is more than just a courtesy call. Democrats, who represent millions of American voices calling for consensus and consultation of all Americans during the debate over a nominee, want real, meaningful consultation before the President makes any decisions on a potential nominee to the Supreme Court.

American women hope the President will work with all Senators - Democrats and Republican - to select a mainstream nominee who will protect the rights of every American. Democratic Senate Leaders remind us that consultation is actually the historical norm and is precisely what President Clinton and Senator Hatch did during the last Supreme Court nomination process. Meaningful consultation is not just checking names off a list or making a courtesy call with no real chance for discussion.

A LEGACY TO REMEMBER: SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR

Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, leaves a legacy all Americans can be proud of. Justice O'Connor's moderate voice helped protect important rights:

• Teachers can't be fired for opposing discrimination against girls in our public schools.
• Patients have the right to get a second medical opinion when an HMO tries to deny them care.
• Students from all backgrounds and ethnicities can have access to our universities.
• The disabled are guaranteed physical access to our public court buildings.
• Citizens have legal options to stop polluters who dump toxic waste into our waterways.

www.dnc.org/wvc

6. Statewide Upcoming Events - Do Something!

Saturday, July 9 – Women’s Democratic Clubs – 2nd Congressional District Democratic Summit
9am – 12pm
Parkway NE Middle School – 181 Coeur de Ville Lane (near I-270 & Ladue Rd), St. Louis
Contact MDP – 573.636.5241 or cdillon@missouridems.org for more information.
For more information and/or to let us know you are coming please call: 314-965-5352 or email at: jp-dem@sbcglobal.net

Saturday, July 9 – Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus Canvass Event “Take the Fear Out of Door-to-Door
9am – 12 pm
New Downtown Library, 14 W. 10th Street, Kansas City, MO
Coffee and breakfast provided

Join Caucus activists for a 1 1/2 hour training to learn the ins and outs of this fundamental grassroots campaign tool. Then hit the streets going door-to-door as a group to put into action what you've just learned. The canvassing will take place north of the River in the Gladstone area, and will deal with health care issues.

Brook Balentine, WPC Candidate Recruitment & Training Chair and Nathan Riding, the KC ProVote Director will be our workshop leaders. Call 816 531-9595 to register or email tmorris@gkcwpc.org. Admission is free.

Monday, July 11 – Town Hall Meeting on Social Security with Congressman Lacy Clay Jr.
7-9pm
Millenium Student Center, Century Room A, UMSL
8001 Natural Bridge Rd, St. Louis
For more information, contact Michele Clay at MCCLAY217@aol.com

Tuesday, July 12 – Planned Parenthood Mail Party
10am – 3pm (no, you don't have to stay the entire time)
Help us get a mailing out to North County residents.
Forest Park Planned Parenthood, St. Louis
Sign up today by contacting Michelle at 314-531-7526 ext. 331 or michelle.trupiano@ppslr.org

Tuesday, July 12 – Saint Charles Alliance Monthly Meeting
7pm
St. Charles Justice Center, 1781 Zumbehl, St. Charles
Contact Leigh Jenkins, leighjenkins@msn.com

Tuesday, July 12 – “Fill My Pills Now”
Sponsored by Planned Parenthood
Help Stomp Out Pharmacy Denial in St. Louis
7pm
Central Reform Congregation, 5020 Waterman Ave, St. Louis MO
RSVP to Erin at 314.531.7526, ext 331 or emflynn_rovak@wulaw.wustl.edu.

It may be difficult to believe, but there are pharmacies in St. Louis that refuse to stock emergency contraception and that permit their employees to refuse to fill legal, medical prescriptions, including prescriptions for birth control. THIS HAS TO STOP!

Saturday July 16 – Planned Parenthood Data Entry Party
10:00am-1:00pm
Help us enter data from over 1,400 petitions we collected during June.

You can also come in anytime during the week between 9:00am-5:00pm

Forest Park Planned Parenthood, St. Louis
Sign up today by contacting Michelle at 314-531-7526 ext. 331 or michelle.trupiano@ppslr.org

Saturday, July 16 - Second Annual Democrats Picnic
3:00 pm - 7:00 pm
Lions' Club Park, Rolla
All local, regional, state Democrats are invited to attend - We want a BIG crowd!
Hamburger, hotdogs, drinks will be provided. Please bring a dish to share
Fund-raising project: Recycling aluminum cans to raise funds for Phelps County Democrats - Please save your aluminum cans (no pie plates or alum. foil) and bring to the picnic. We can recycle for 40 cents per pound. This a part of an ongoing fund-raising project. Details at the picnic.
For more information, contact Paulette Beechner at beechner@fidnet.com

Monday, July 18 – Planned Phonebank Party
10:00am-1:00pm and 6:00pm-9:00pm
All phonebanks will be held at the SEIU dialer center located at 5585 Pershing in the Skinker Debaliviere neighborhood, St. Louis
Sign up today by contacting Michelle at 314-531-7526 ext. 331 or michelle.trupiano@ppslr.org

Thursday, July 21 – Planned Parenthood Phonebank Party
6:00pm-9:00pm
Phonebanks will be held at the SEIU dialer center, 5585 Pershing in the Skinker Debaliviere neighborhood, St. Louis
Sign up today by contacting Michelle at 314-531-7526 ext. 331 or michelle.trupiano@ppslr.org

Thursday, July 21 – Phelps County Democratic Committee
7pm
Carpenters’ Hall, Highway 72 East, Rolla
Regular monthly meeting
For more information, contact Mark Turley at mark@smithturley.com

Friday, July 22 through Sunday, July 24 – Camp Russ Carnahan
2:30 – 9pm Friday, 9am – 6pm Saturday, 9:30am – 3pm Sunday
St.Louis
Participants are responsible for their own accommodations.
$35 per person, including dinner Friday, lunch Saturday and Sunday
Deadline for applications – Friday, July 15
For more information, please contact Sean Gagen – 202.546.6752 or sean@grassrootssolutions.com

Saturday, July 23 – Planned Parenthood Phonebank Party
10am – 1pm
Phonebanks will be held at the SEIU dialer center, 5585 Pershing in the Skinker Debaliviere neighborhood, St. Louis
Sign up today by contacting Michele at 314.531.7526, ext 331 or michelle.trupiano@ppslr.org

Wednesday, August 10 – Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation Lobby Event
6pm
Talayna’s Restaurant, 310 DeBaliviere, St. Louis
Free
Workshop offered to introduce individuals to the process of lobbying as a constituent at the state level, give an update on the Alliance's accomplishments and upcoming plans, and to introduce you to state legislators who can answer your questions about lobbying. A list of legislators attending will be available at a later time. The Alliance will also receive a donation of 50% of each check total Please RSVP for this event by responding to this e-mail or by calling 314-994-1000.