Activists Against Roberts

Women's rights advocates wasted no time in organizing angry opposition to John G. Roberts, the conservative jurist named Tuesday night to succeed the court's centrist Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Activists sprang into action as word spread of the president's decision, sending e-mail messages late into the night to thousands of supporters urging them to ask their senators to vote against a man they fear will undermine women's rights and work to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the landmark decision that decriminalized abortion.

"George Bush could have chosen a moderate conservative who would be a voice of reason on the Court," Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said in one of many electronic calls to action. "Instead he chose, characteristically, to pick a fight. We intend to give him one."

That fight began in earnest Wednesday morning, when women's and abortion rights supporters from advocacy groups -- such as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Organization for Women, and the Feminist Majority Foundation rallied on Capitol Hill to call attention to what they characterized as the endangered status of women's reproductive rights. NARAL Pro-Choice America held a petition signing.

Amid the email salvos and protests, political observers said Roberts has a good chance of winning Senate confirmation -- perhaps by the time the court reconvenes the first Monday in October. Hearings are expected to begin in late August or early September.

"In the end he will get confirmed," said Susan Low Bloch, a law professor at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. "But there will be a fight."

Statement against Roe

Women's rights activists based their opposition to Roberts on the belief he would not support abortion rights. They cite a written statement he made in a court brief while serving as deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration. "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled," he wrote.

Roberts downplayed that statement after he had been appointed to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, saying in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003 that he was obliged at the time to represent the views of the administration, according to news reports.

He also said he considered Roe vs. Wade "settled law," according to the Republican Majority for Choice, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C. He added that he held no personal views that would prevent him from applying the precedent set in Roe vs. Wade or Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey, which permitted states to pass anti-abortion restrictions such as waiting periods and parental consent laws but kept core abortion rights intact.

Watched by Pro-Choice Republicans

The apparent contradiction between Roberts' statements on choice has prompted circumspection by pro-choice Republicans, who expressed cautious support of Roberts but called for attention to his record and judicial temperament.

"We remain open-minded and will proceed cautiously as we monitor the confirmation hearings," Republican Majority for Choice officials said in a statement. "Liberal and reactionary opposition based on a circumstantial review of Justice Roberts' limited public record reflect an agenda predisposed to oppose all Republican nominees."

Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, echoed the sentiment at a Wednesday morning news conference.

Senators, he said, would be examining Roberts' views on stare decisis, the legal principal that courts should follow precedent. Roberts' answers may reveal whether he intends to overturn Roe or Casey or whether he regards those cases as having settled the law.

Democrats Muted

Senate Democrats took a similarly muted approach, vowing to conduct a thorough examination of Roberts' record and personal views before making any decisions about whether to support him, a strategy that may inoculate them from accusations of knee-jerk opposition to the president's judicial nominees.