Dear Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy:

As women Members of Congress who work hard to enact legislation and promote policies that protect women and ensure equality within our society, we fear our work, and the contributions of our colleagues who served before us, will be dismantled with the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We believe that Judge Alito poses a direct threat to the rights of women in America.  As the attached memorandum details, Judge Alito has a long record of extreme views on women's reproductive health, sexual and workplace discrimination, the Family Medical Leave Act and civil rights.  He has worked to thwart established precedent and has affiliated himself with radical organizations that have actively sought to keep women and minorities from advancing educationally and economically.

Under the scrutiny of the nomination process, it is not surprising that Judge Alito now disavows his positions on issues important to women and families in order to secure confirmation votes.  But his record speaks to his true views and it speaks loudly.   Rather than offering a balanced successor to the moderate views of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the majority of this nation, Judge Alito's nomination radically tips the scales of justice against women.

As guardians of the Constitution, Supreme Court Justices play a key role in protecting and ensuring our liberties.  They are given life tenures and are expected to stay above the political fray so their decisions will be fair and unbiased.  They must judge cases with impartiality and open mindedness, and they must respect settled law.

You have a responsibility to ensure that the highest court is not stacked against the hard fought rights that protect women across the country.  When you consider the nomination of Judge Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, we hope you will reflect on the milestones in women's rights and determine that America cannot afford to abandon these fundamental protections.  We encourage you to review the attached memorandum which details many of the disturbing examples of Judge Alito's extreme views on women's rights in the law.  We urge you to consider that this lifetime appointment will have detrimental consequences for American women, and oppose the confirmation of Judge Alito as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

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 familiesMany 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.