Sen. Specter Says Filibuster Of Obama Judicial Nominee Johnsen Is 'Under Consideration'

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Public Health
Article Date: 23 Apr 2009 - 1:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Monday said that a filibuster of Dawn Johnsen, President Obama's nominee to lead the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, is "under consideration," CQ Today reports. Johnsen's nomination has received criticism from some conservatives because of her former work for abortion-rights groups and her criticism of OLC under former President George W. Bush.

Specter on Monday said that he has not made up his mind about Johnsen's nomination after meeting privately with her. He did not state his position on the subject when the Judiciary Committee considered Johnsen's nomination last month, according to CQ Today. Following the committee's party-line approval of Johnsen's nomination, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said that he would do everything he can to block her confirmation. Some Democrats have indicated that they will counter any protracted floor debates on Johnsen's nomination with a discussion of the Bush administration's counterterrorism policies (Stern, CQ Today, 4/20).

Washington Times Editorial Calls for Filibuster

Senators should filibuster Johnsen's nomination because of her "radical" views supporting abortion rights, a Washington Times editorial states. The editorial quotes a 1989 brief Johnsen filed with the Supreme Court on behalf of an abortion-rights group and claims that in the brief, "Johnsen equated having a baby with slavery." The editorial notes that during her confirmation hearing, Johnsen explained that she did not make a Thirteenth Amendment argument and does not believe the Thirteenth Amendment is relevant to abortion at all. The brief was filed in opposition to a statute limiting public funding for abortion, the editorial says.

The editorial adds that Johnsen's "inability to understand reasonable distinctions is a recurring problem in her advocacies." It cites a 1996 article in Slate in which "she argued that parental or judicial consent for a minor to get an abortion guts Roe v. Wade and leaves only a useless 'shell' of the original decision," according to the editorial. The editorial says that Johnsen "made this claim without any empirical evidence that abortion by minors fell as a result of the rule," even though she cited a Guttmacher Institute study to show that consent rules "have drastically reduced the number of abortion providers around the country." The editorials adds, "We found no such evidence in the Guttmacher Institute report she cited."

The editorial continues that the Democratic majority in the Senate has given Obama "an easy time getting nominees confirmed," as "[e]ven unanimous Republican opposition can't stop a nominee." The editorial says that Johnsen's "extreme views, willingness to distort information and less than forthright testimony should disqualify her from service," concluding that both parties should "come together to filibuster this radical" (Washington Times, 4/22).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations