**A Summary of Judge Alito's Radical Positions on Issues Facing American
Women**

***Denies fundamental health exceptions***

Judge Alito is not a centrist on women's reproductive rights, but
instead espouses radical views on a woman's right to choose. Judge Alito
supported abortion restrictions that failed to allow exceptions when a
woman\'s health is in jeopardy. He ruled in support of a law that banned
abortion as early as the 12th week of pregnancy and lacked an exception
to protect women's health. The health exception is a fundamental tenet
of Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court heard arguments about the need for the
health exception on November 30th. If Judge Alito has the opportunity to
rule on this exception, the health of many women in this country could
be jeopardized.

***Supports spousal notification that sets unusually high bar for undue
burden measure***

Judge Alito argued that spousal notification for an abortion is
constitutional. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v.
Casey, Judge Alito wrote the dissenting opinion arguing that a
spousal-notification provision struck down by the Third Circuit and,
later, by the Supreme Court -- was constitutional. This dissenting
opinion supports stripping women of equal rights guaranteed in the
Constitution, and suggests that Judge Alito has determined that women
are not capable of making their own decisions. Many women may live in
difficult, often violent, situations where sharing such information is
not a realistic option. The government cannot mandate healthy
communication in relationships where it will never exist. Unfortunately,
Judge Alito does not appear to believe women are better judges of their
personal relationships than the government.

A key measure of the U.S. courts to determine if abortion restrictions
are lawful is whether or not there is an undue burden placed on a woman
seeking to obtain an abortion. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern
Pennsylvania v. Casey, Judge Alito sets an unusually high bar for
establishing an undue burden by supporting spousal notification \-- a
considerably higher bar than that ultimately set by the U.S. Supreme
Court.

***Chips away at the protections of Roe v. Wade***

It is clear from his record that Judge Alito believes it is appropriate
to chip away at the tenets of Roe v. Wade until this fundamental right
guarantees women little if any realistic access to abortion. In May
1985, while working as a lawyer for the Department of Justice, Judge
Alito wrote a memo to the Solicitor General advocating for the
government to file a brief as amicus curiae supporting appellants in
Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and
Diamond v. Charles. In his memo, which he initially failed to reveal to
the Senate, Judge Alito promotes the tactic of weakening the fundamental
tenets of Roe v. Wade until it can be overturned. In his memo, Judge
Alito writes, "What can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals
of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the
meantime, of mitigating its effects?"

Later in the memo, Judge Alito presents information that the Akron
ordinance would have required a physician to provide information to
women seeking abortions, which included: the probable age of the "unborn
child"; that \"the unborn child is a human life from the moment of
conception\"; \"the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the
particular unborn child at the gestational point of development\"; that
an unborn child more than 22 weeks old may be able to survive outside
the womb; and that numerous agencies are available to assist her during
pregnancy and after birth if she chooses not to have an abortion. The
U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Akron ordinance, but Judge Alito
argues that the "Court largely side-stepped the issue", and urges the
government to revisit it in the amicus brief. In advocating for the
government to take on this issue, Judge Alito states "the Court may well
reject the argument outlined above, but I do not think it will find it a
particularly easy argument to dismiss. The contrary position really does
appear like a kind of censorship and a denial of informed choice."
Again, it is insulting to all women in this country to infer that women
undergoing an abortion do not know what they are doing.

Judge Alito actually argues that their case is strengthened by providing
women seeking an abortion with scientifically unsound and intentionally
emotionally charged information. This twisted legal argument highlights
the lengths that Judge Alito has taken to limit a woman's access to
abortion.

***Supports unreasonable searches***

Judge Alito has adopted radical views on women's rights, especially on
limiting civil rights. Judge Alito has supported unauthorized searches
of women and children. In Doe v. Groody, pursuant to a warrant, police
officers carried out a search of the home of a man suspected of drug
dealing. While there, the police strip-searched the wife and ten-year
old daughter, although they were not mentioned in the warrant. The Does
sued for invasion of privacy. The officers argued that they were
entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated a clearly
established constitutional right. The district court held in favor of
the Does, and the divided three-judge panel of the Third Circuit
affirmed. Judge Alito was the dissent and argued that the warrant could
be read to authorize a search of the wife and ten-year old daughter,
despite that it violated their rights and subjected them to humiliation.

***Puts unattainable burdens on victims of sexual harassment and
discrimination***

Laws that prevent sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace
have helped to ensure that women can pursue rewarding careers, and build
a successful future for their families. However, Judge Alito has
attempted to make it more difficult for women to advance in the
workplace by placing the burden on women victims of discrimination and
sexual harassment. In Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co, Ms.
Sheridan sued for sex discrimination and other claims when DuPont failed
to promote her to the higher position of "Manager of Restaurants." The
majority of the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, endorsed a standard
which makes it easier for someone alleging discrimination to present
sufficient evidence to get their case to trial, a decision closely in
line with the majority of other Circuits. Judge Alito was the sole
dissenter from this decision, however, arguing that he would place an
even greater burden on many victims of discrimination by requiring them
to present much more evidence before they would be allowed to take their
case to trial.

In another case, Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, Officer Robinson
complained of sexual harassment by her supervisor. The allegations
consisted of egregious sexually explicit and inappropriate conduct.
Judge Alito rejected Robinson's claim that she suffered retaliation in
the form of restricted job duties, reassignment and subsequent failure
to transfer her after she filed her complaints, despite Ms. Robinson
never being transferred and only being promoted after she had already
left her job. In rejecting Robinson's claims, Judge Alito applied very
stringent standards of proof that, even in the most compelling cases,
would be difficult for many victims of discrimination to meet.

***Denies Family Medical Leave Act benefits to American families***

Many families use the benefits afforded to them under the Family Medical
Leave Act (FMLA). This law has protected women from losing their jobs or
being denied promotions because of their dual roles as primary
caregivers. More than 67 percent of first time mothers in the US work
during their pregnancy, and nearly 43 percent of working women use paid
leave to care for their newborn for up to 12 weeks. Despite the benefits
of this law to hardworking American women who rely on the FMLA, Judge
Alito has sought to restrict eligibility for FMLA. In one case, a
Pennsylvania state employee was fired for taking sick leave. Judge Alito
argued that Congress did not have the power to require state employers
to comply with the FMLA. In Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs,
the Supreme Court effectively reversed Judge Alito and ruled 6-3 that
the law does properly apply to state employees.

***Places greater burden on refugees and asylees seeking political
freedom in the US***

In Fatin v. INS, Judge Alito ruled against Parastoo Fatin's application
seeking refuge in the US, concluding that she was not eligible for
asylum based on her argument that she refused to conform to
post-Revolutionary laws that place severe restrictions on women.
Post-Revolutionary Iranian law states that women require their husband's
consent in order to travel to a different country or to work outside of
the home. A woman's testimony in court is worth half that of a man's. A
widowed woman receives half the inheritance that a widowed man receives,
and women are arrested for "un-Islamic" dress. Even the US State
Department has cited Iran as a violator of women's human rights. Judge
Alito is unsympathetic to refugee and asylees who have been victims of
gender-based persecution in their own countries, and would likely close
America's doors to them.

***Associates with groups that discriminate against women and
minorities***

Judge Alito's radical views on women's rights precede his legal
decisions on the Court. Judge Alito was a member of the now defunct
Concerned Alumni of Princeton. This organization was founded by alumni
who opposed Princeton admitting women. They attacked Princeton for
promoting birth control. This organization also charged that Princeton
was admitting too many minorities and too few children of alumni, and
defended exclusive clubs that banned women. Judge Alito listed his
membership to Concerned Alumni of Princeton on his application for a
promotion in the Reagan Administration, adding to his extensive record
of opposition to women's rights.