Dear Senator:

I write you to oppose the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft to the position of United States Attorney General. A vote to accept John Ashcroft sends a green light to overturning Roe v. Wade and beyond - to an America in which women are second class citizens. This letter precedes my full written testimony, which I will submit to the Judiciary Committee later this week. I write you as a constitutional scholar and as President of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, a public interest law group dedicated to guaranteeing reproductive privacy both in the United States and internationally.

My expertise is based on 25 years of litigation on constitutional privacy issues in all fifty states and, extensively, in the United States Supreme
Court. This includes being counsel on over thirty abortion and birth control cases in the United States Supreme Court (either as counsel for the plaintiffs or amicus counsel) starting in 1977. Most recently I was co-counsel in the Supreme Court case, Stenberg v. Carhart, a case upholding the principles of Roe in the summer of 2000. In recognition of my pivotal role in shaping privacy law, I have repeatedly been named by the National Law Journal as one of America's 100 most influential lawyers.

In 1992, I founded the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, which has represented millions of women, women whose access to safe abortion and contraception is threatened by this nomination. We also represent doctors and medical professionals who face anti-choice harassment and violence every day in the course of delivering essential health care to women.

Our opposition to this nomination is not based on Mr. Ashcroft's politics, his religion nor his anti-abortion stance. Nor should this nomination
process focus on Mr. Ashcroft's support of any particular anti-abortion bill, such as the federal ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortion.
Rather, we oppose this nomination because Mr. Ashcroft's extremist judicial philosophy on rights of the "unborn," as evidenced by a career spent furthering this agenda, makes it impossible for him to enforce laws protecting choice, and the political and legal rights of American women.

John Ashcroft has been single-mindedly dedicated to obtaining constitutional rights for the "unborn," beginning with fertilized eggs and has been very consistent in his position. For example, under his philosophy he also opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest. What distinguishes this appointment from that of any other previous Attorney General, though, is not just that this goal is his number one political and legal priority, but that it can be fulfilled only by taking away religious and privacy rights of American women.

John Ashcroft believes that overturning Roe is wholly inadequate and would be "unjust" to the "unborn." Accordingly, overturning Roe and letting states decide on abortion legislation is for him a "first step." He believes that ultimately states should have no rights in this matter because fetuses, starting with fertilized eggs, should be given federal constitutional rights.

John Ashcroft has been disingenuous when he deflects questions about whether he supports criminal penalties for women seeking abortions or certain contraceptives. First, he attempts to avoid the issue entirely by asserting that all women are "victims" and were never prosecuted for undergoing abortions in this country before Roe v. Wade. This is not true. And while women were rarely put in jail, this answer is misleading because pre-Roe, there was no independently recognized constitutional right granted to any fetus as Ashcroft's judicial philosophy demands. In fact, if his goal of civil rights for the "unborn" is achieved, all states would be forced to penalize women. Second, John Ashcroft supported a 1999 Missouri ban on most abortions (now enjoined) which would have made a woman who obtained a proscribed abortion guilty of second degree murder, with penalties up to life imprisonment.

While it is true that an Attorney General cannot impose a constitutional amendment by fiat, the extreme ideological view that has driven Ashcroft's career promises to color the actions he would take as Attorney General. The powers of the Attorney General include:

* to advise the Executive Branch on all legal matters;
* to influence the selection of federal judiciary vacancies, including those on the Supreme Court;
* to represent and advocate on behalf of the United States, through the Office of the Solicitor General, on select matters pending before the
federal judiciary;
* to direct United States Attorneys on U.S. legal policy;
* to determine whether to prosecute offenders of some federal statutes;
* to counsel the United States Congress on pending legislation;
* to advise the President on the constitutionality of federal legislation presented for his signature.

Unlike former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork or current Justice Antonin Scalia, Ashcroft has dedicated his career to actively advancing, through legislation, litigation and advocacy, an activist doctrine that would grant constitutionally based civil rights to the "unborn" from the moment of conception. Such a philosophy has implications not just for the right to choose abortion, but for the entire domain of privacy rights and reproductive freedoms. The lives of women during their childbearing years could be stringently regulated, lest their jobs or their life-styles have a negative impact upon a potential pregnancy. Indeed, John Ashcroft is forthright in admitting that he believes that the most commonly used types of contraception should be classified as "abortifacients" and prohibited.

This extreme judicial philosophy, which sacrifices the civil rights of women, renders Mr. Ashcroft incapable of fulfilling the Attorney General's role as the lawyer for all the people of this country. Such an appointment would be equivalent to requesting Thurgood Marshall to serve as Attorney General enforcing apartheid laws such as those in the former administrations in South Africa.

I am dedicated to the American constitutional principles of religious freedom and reproductive choice. I could not perform the duties of Attorney General in a United States where Roe v. Wade were not the law of the land. My principles would preclude me from enforcing anti-choice laws against women and doctors. Similarly, as a tireless crusader for obtaining civil rights for fetuses, Ashcroft cannot be the Attorney General in a United States where women's rights are governed by the principles embodied in Roe v. Wade. His life's work has been the advancement of a legal doctrine antithetical to the present Constitution and dangerous to women.

I implore you to carefully consider the consequences of this appointment to our country, to our Constitution, and to our reputation for promoting women's rights internationally. A vote for John Ashcroft is a vote against the rights of women.

Sincerely,

Janet Benshoof, President (electronic mail, January 14, 2001).

Janet Benshoof is one of the nation's foremost experts on reproductive rights and privacy law, and has been advocating for women's health and equality for over twenty years. In June of 1992, Benshoof, along with a group of other seasoned reproductive rights attorneys, established the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (CRLP). Benshoof is actively involved in challenges to a number of state and federal laws, including those that restrict abortion, limit access to contraception, censor sexuality education, or involve new technologies. She has argued before the United States Supreme Court and litigated in over forty states.