Abortion Advocates Attack
Bush Judicial Nominee in Senate Hearing

July 25, 2002—Washington, DC: Pro-abortion members of the Senate Judiciary used a hearing Tuesday to attack Pricilla Owen, President Bush's nominee for a federal court of appeals position, on abortion and her rulings upholding a pro-life Texas law requiring parental notification for teen girls seeking abortions.

California pro-abortion Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who is chairing the hearings, pledged to "keep an open mind on this nominee," but told Owen she was concerned about the "feeling among some that you are, in a sense, a judicial activist."

A Texas Supreme Court Justice, Owen was named in May 2001 to fill a vacancy on the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and has been targeted by abortion advocates because of her rulings favoring parental notification.

"There is no doubt Justice Owen has repeatedly tried to rewrite legislation from the bench . . . to conform to her own philosophy," claimed Mary Kate Gallagher, executive vice president of NARAL. NARAL's report on Owen says, "The Fifth Circuit's record on reproductive rights, together with Owen's support for greater obstacles to obtaining an abortion, would place a woman's right to choose in serious jeopardy if Owen is confirmed."

Owen's and her supporters refute the charges.

"The picture that some special interest groups have painted of me is wrong," Owen said at her confirmation hearing.

"Judge Priscilla Owen has come under attack because Senators Daschle and Leahy and the pro-abortion groups that support them say she is out of the mainstream. But the reality is, the so called 'Texas Truth Squad' working to demonize Judge Owen is nothing more than a Who's Who list of liberal, pro-abortion organizations," Family Research Council President Ken Connor said Tuesday

"It is ridiculous the way her opponents characterize her opinions," said John Nowacki of the Free Congress Foundation. "This is about parental notification -- not even parental consent, but notification."

Owen's opponents say the best witness for their side is none other than White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, whose job is to shepherd her nomination through the Senate.

During his own tenure on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales wrote an opinion that accused Owen of holding a view of an abortion case that would have been "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

Owen opposed a "judicial bypass" for teens seeking abortions in 9 of 12 cases. Her disagreement with Gonzales emerged about 2 1/2 years ago, in the case of a pregnant 17-year-old Texas high school student known to the public as Jane Doe 1. The girl wanted an abortion, but under state law she had to tell a parent first unless a judge found that she was mature enough to make the decision herself; that she faced possible abuse by her parents; or that parental notification would not be in her best interest.

Denied by two lower courts, she took her case to the Texas Supreme Court. The court voted 6 to 3 to give her the exemption, contending she was mature and well-informed.

The majority granted the exception in March 2000, before publishing an opinion explaining its reasons in June. In that opinion, the majority said it had acted swiftly in March before Doe entered the 15th week of her pregnancy. The court also noted that the girl was only days shy of her 18th birthday.

But Owen accused the court of "irresponsibly" acting without a published opinion and overturning what she considered the reasonable views of the lower courts.

"This is some evidence that Doe is not mature enough to accept responsibility for her actions or her future. She intends to continue to seek and take support from her parents in virtually all aspects of her life, but not with regard to her decision to have an abortion," Owen wrote.

Yet her opinion was not the harshest. Justice Nathan L. Hecht accused the justices in the majority of imposing their "personal views" and ignoring the rights of parents.

Gonzales' concurring opinion was written largely as a response to Hecht's dissent. "It has been suggested that the Court's decisions are motivated by personal ideology," he wrote. "To the contrary, every member of this Court agrees that the duty of a judge is to follow the law as written by the legislature."

Gonzales has played down his past remarks about Owen, noting that they simply reflect the typically vigorous way jurists debate.

"They're mischaracterizing what I said in the opinion," Gonzales said. "They're using something I said in an opinion as a general statement...that she is unfit, which is totally untrue. I'm confident that she will exercise judicial restraint."

Pro-life advocates say it's those who oppose parental notification who are extreme, not Owens.

"Far too often, other parties, abortion providers or sexual predators, whose interests may conflict with those of the child are afforded more standing in the abortion decision than parents," FRC's Conner said.

Utah's Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican on the committee, pledged to fight what he called the "deceptions, distortions, and demagoguery orchestrated against [Owen's] nomination." As he has in the past, Hatch singled out pro-abortion activists, who oppose the Owen nomination. "To that I ask, who is more out of the mainstream? Judge Owen, the Texas State legislature and the majority of Americans who support such laws OR pro- =abortion groups who oppose them?"

Republicans on the committee say they are prepared to fight on Owen's behalf -- far better prepared than they were during the confirmation battle for pro-life nominee Charles Pickering, whose appeals-court nomination was killed by abortion advocates last March. GOP supporters have come up with a detailed rebuttal to the charges in the various anti-Owen reports. "Our team is three miles ahead of where it was with Pickering," says one Republican aide.

"This one could go down," says another Republican. "But it's not going to go down without a huge fight."