The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Justice Sandra O'Connor Hearing on Abortion
- Transcript
[Tease]
Sen STROM. THURMOND: Raise your right hand. The evidence you give in this hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god.
Justice-designate SANDRA O`CONNOR: I do so swear
Sen. THURMOND: Just have a seal
ROBERT MacNEIL [voice-over]: Sandra O`Connor, almost certain to be the first woman Justice in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, talks about abortion and judicial philosophy.
[Titles]
MacNEIL: Good evening. Sandra O`Connor. President Reagan`s nominee to become the first woman Justice on the Supreme Court, told the Senate today that she is firmly opposed to abortions. In the first day of confirmation hearings, the 51 -year-old Arizona Court of Appeals judge also said she was a judicial conservative. She believed that the proper role for the courts is one of interpreting the law, not making it. Most members of the Senate Judiciary Committee indicated they would support her confirmation, which is considered assured. The only significant opposition has come from abortion opponents. Some 200 of them picketed the Senate building today. They charged that several of Judge O`Connor`s votes as a state legislator indicated that she favored abortion. Because her nomination has aroused such wide interest, and because confirmation hearings are almost the only chance to hear a Supreme Court Justice at length, we devote tonight`s program to excerpts. Judge O`Connor faced questions on a wide variety of issues, but abortion dominated the opening of the session, when it was raised by the committee chairman. Republican Strom Thurmond, of South Carolina,
Sen, STROM THURMOND, (R-S.C): Judge O`Connor, there has been much discussion about your views on the subject of abortion. Would you discuss your philosophy on abortion - both personal and judicial - and explain your actions as a state senator in Arizona on certain specific matters: first, your 1970 committee vote in favor of House Bill 20, which would have repealed Arizona`s felony statutes on abortion.
Judge O`CONNOR: My own view in the area of abortion is that I am opposed to it as a matter of birth control, or otherwise. The subject of abortion is a valid one, in my view, for legislative action, subject to any constitutional restraints or limitations. I think a great deal has been written about my vote in a Senate judiciary committee in 1970 on a bill called House Bill 20, which would have repealed Arizona`s abortion statutes. Now, in reviewing that, I would like to state, first of all. that that vote occurred some 11 years ago, to be exact, and was one which was not easily recalled by me, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the committee records, when I looked them up. did not reflect my vote nor that of other members, with one exception. It was necessary for me, then, to eventually take time to look at news media accounts, and determine from a contemporary article a reflection of the vote on that particular occasion. The bill did not go to the floor of the Senate for a vote; it was held in the Senate caucus, and the committee vote was a vote which would have taken it out of that committee with a recommendation to the full Senate. The bill is one which concerned a repeal of Arizona`s then-statutes which made it a felony punishable by from two-to-five years in prison for anyone providing any substance or means to procure a miscarriage unless it was necessary to save the life of the mother. It would have, for example, subjected anyone who assisted a young woman who. for instance, was a rape victim, in securing a D. and C. procedure within hours or even days of that rape. At that time. I believed that some change in Arizona`s statutes was appropriate, and had a bill been presented to me that was less sweeping than House Bill 20. I would have supported that. It wasn`t, and the news accounts reflect that I supported the committee action in putting the bill out of committee where it then died in the caucus. I would say that my own knowledge and awareness of the issues and concerns that many people have about the question of abortion has increased since those days. It was not the subject of a great deal of public attention no concern at the time it came before the committee in 1970. I would not have voted. I think. Mr. Chairman, for a simple repealer thereafter.
Sen. THURMOND: Now. this second instance was your cosponsorship in 1973 [of] Senate Bill 1190. which would have provided family planning services - including surgical procedures, even for minors, without parental consent.
Judge O`CONNOR: Senate Bill 1190 in 1973 was a bill which the prime sponsor was from the city of Tucson, and it had nine other co-signers on the bill. I was one of those co-signers. I viewed the bill as a bill which did not deal with abortion, but which would have established as a state policy in Arizona a policy of encouraging the availability of contraceptive information to people generally. The bill at the time. I think, was rather loosely drafted, and I can understand why some might read it and say. "What does this mean?" That did not particularly concern me at the time because I knew that the bill would go through the committee process and be amended substantially before we would see it again,. That was a rather typical practice, at least in the Arizona legislature. Indeed, the bill was assigned to a public health and welfare committee, where it was amended in a number of respects. It did not provide for any surgical procedure for an abortion, as has been reported inaccurately by some. The only reference in the bill to a surgical procedure was the following: it was one that said, "a physician may perform appropriate surgical procedures for the prevention of conception upon any adult who requests such procedure in writing." That particular provision, I believe, was subsequently amended out in committee, but be that as it may. it was in the bill on introduction. Mr. Chairman. I supported the availability of contraceptive information to the public generally. Arizona had a statute, or statutes, on the books at that time - in 1973 - which did restrict rather dramatically the availability of information about contraception to the public generally. And it seemed to me that perhaps the best way to avoid having people who were seeking abortions was to enable people not to become pregnant unwittingly or without the intention of doing so.
Sen. THURMOND: The third instance, your 1974 vote against House Concurrent Memorial 2002. which urged Congress to pass a constitutional amendment against abortion.
Judge O`CONNOR: I voted against it, Mr. Chairman, because I was not sure at that time that we had given the proper amount of reflection or consideration to what action, if any. was appropriate by way of a constitutional amendment in connection with the Roe v. Wade decision. It seems to me. at least, that amendments to the Constitution are very serious matters, and should be undertaken after a great deal of study and thought, and not hastily. I think a tremendous amount of work needs to go into the text and the concept being expressed in any proposed amendment. I did not feel at that time that that kind of consideration had been given to the measure. I understand that the Congress is still wrestling with that issue after some years from that date, which was in 1974. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
Sen. THURMOND: Now. the last instance is concerning a vote in 1974 against a successful amendment to a stadium construction bill which limited the availability of abortions.
Judge O`CONNOR: Also in 1974. which was an active year in the Arizona legislature with regard to the issue of abortion, the Senate had originated a bill that allowed the University of Arizona to issue bonds to expand its football stadium. That bill passed the state Senate and went to the House of Representatives. In the House, it was amended to add a non-germane rider which would have prohibited the performance of abortions in any facility under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Board of Regents. When the measure returned to the Senate, at that time I was the Senate majority leader, and I was very concerned because the whole subject had become one that was controversial within our own membership. And I was concerned, as majority leader, that we not encourage a practice of the addition of non-germane riders to Senate bills which we had passed without that kind of a provision. And indeed. Arizona`s constitution has a provision which prohibits the putting together of bills or measures or riders dealing with more than one subject, and I did oppose the addition by the House of the non-germane rider when it came back. It might be of interest, though, to know. Mr. Chairman, that also in 1974 there was another Senate bill which would have provided for a medical assistance program for the medically needy. That was Senate Bill 1165. It contained a provision that no benefits would be provided for abortions, except when deemed medically necessary to save the life of a mother, or where the pregnancy had resulted from rape, incest or criminal actions. I supported that bill together with that provision, and the measure did pass and become law.
Sen. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D-Mass.): Your nomination represents a great victory for equality in our society, and millions of Americans in America obviously are looking to you with a rightful sense of pride. You`ve had a long and distinguished legal career, and I`d like to just ask you whether you`ve experienced discrimination as a woman over the period of that career, and what form and shape it has taken?
Judge O`CONNOR: Senator Kennedy, I don`t know that I have experienced much in the way of discrimination. When I was admitted to law school. I was very happy that I was admitted to law school at a fine institution. My only disappointment. I think, came when I graduated from law school at Stanford in 1952, and looked for a position in a private law firm in the private sector. I did not- I was not successful in finding employment in any of the major firms at that time with whom I had interviewed. But I did find, then, employment in the public sector, and became an assistant - or deputy - county attorney in San Mateo County, California. And it was my experience at that time that in the public sector it was much easier for young woman lawyers to get a start. It was a happy resolution for me in the sense that I really spent the bulk of my life in the public sector, and so that start turned out to be very beneficial.
Sen. KENNEDY: Well, you were active in several efforts in Arizona, in the state Senate, to revise employment, domestic relations, property laws which discriminated against women. And I think at that time you pointed out the sharp discrepancies between the pay which men and women often receive for similar work. And as you may have seen, recently there was a report by the EEOC that-- about the continued aspects of discrimination on the basis of sex and in jobs and pay. and they`re still widespread. Do you find that that`s still widespread, and is this a matter of concern to you?
Judge O`CONNOR: Well, it has always been a matter of concern to me. I have spoken about it in the past, and have addressed the fact that there does seem to be a wide disparity in the earnings of women compared to that of men. We know that perhaps a portion of that is attributed to the fact that women have - traditionally, at least - accepted jobs in lower-paying positions, perhaps, than has been true for men. and that may be a factor. When I went to the legislature in Arizona we still had on the books in Arizona a number of statutes that did. in my view, discriminate against women. Arizona`s a community-property state, and the management of the community personal property was placed with the husband, for example. And these were things that had been in place for some years. And I did take a role in the legislature - an active role - in seeking to remove those barriers, and to correct those provisions.
Sen. KENNEDY: Well, from your own knowledge and perception, is there- how would you characterize the level of discrimination - again, on the basis of sex - today?
Judge O`CONNOR: Presently?
Sen. KENNEDY: Yes.
Judge O`CONNOR: I suppose that we still have areas from state to state where there remain some types of problems. We know that statistically the earnings are still less than for men. and I`m sure that in some cases, in some instances, attitudes still have not followed along with some of the changes in legal provisions.
Sen. KENNEDY: In your-
Judge O`CONNOR: It`s greatly improved, however, and it`s been very heartening to me as a woman in the legal profession to see the large numbers and percentages of women who are now enrolled in the nation`s law schools, and who are coming out and beginning to practice law. and who are serving on the bench. And we`re making enormous changes, and these changes. I think, are very welcome.
Sen. KENNEDY: In your response to the committee`s questionnaire - I think it`s question #2 - you gave an extensive answer that mentioned your concern and involvement in efforts to provide greater equality for women, and for many other groups. And you specifically mentioned the legal aid for the poor; you mentioned the rights of institutionalized persons; you refer to religious non-discrimination; you mentioned native Americans; you mentioned mentally ill. But you don`t mention two of the most obvious groups who`ve also suffered from injustice and inequality - that`s black Americans and Hispanic Americans - and I was wondering if you`d briefly discuss your perception of the degree to which the black Americans or Hispanic Americans are denied equality in our society.
Judge O`CONNOR: Well. I think that a great deal of the concern that has been expressed through the courts and in legislation and otherwise in our nation has been, obviously, over the situation of the blacks. This has been perhaps the worst chapter in our history, and one which great effort has been undertaken to try to correct.
Sen. KENNEDY: Well, is your sense that as the result of a continuing discrimination that exists in our society, that one of the important priorities is a vigorous enforcement of the civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination?
Judge O`CONNOR: Yes. I think that enforcement of those laws which the Congress has seen fit to enact is a very necessary part of the obligation of both the executive and the judicial branches, insofar as those things come before them. I`m sure you recognize that in the case of the judicial branch, it does not reach out to seek matters; it rather receives those cases and controversies that comes before- that come before it
Sen. ALAN SIMPSON, (R-Wyo.): If I might just ask just for you to give me a brief summary as to what general improvements you might see in federal- state judiciary relationships, do you see as desirable, and do you sec yourself as having a role in bringing that about, and bringing it to fruition?
Judge O`CONNOR: Well. Senator, speaking to the last first. I am interested in judicial administration. I have not. of course, had experience in the federal system, and I have a great deal to learn with regard to the federal bench and its system. Certain!). I hope that we can always recognize the very great importance that the state court system has in our overall system of justice in this country. Indeed, the vast number of all criminal cases and all other cases, for that matter, are handled in the slate court system. That`s the system that is doing the bulk of the work, even though I know that you here in the Senate are hearing a great deal about the great pressures that are being experienced in the federal courts due to their increase in business. But if you look at it overall, it`s the state courts that are handling such great bulk of our work, and it `s important that those courts function well, that they have capable jurists, that they have an opportunity for training - and I believe in good training of judges. It is possible to go to school and learn something about being a judge, and we have programs like that that are available, and they`re good programs and merit support. And we have to be mindful of the interrelationship of the state and federal courts, and I hope, give some finality, where it`s possible, to state court decisions, even in the federal [audio interruption]
Sen. PATRICK LEAHY, (O-Vt.): You feel that a judge should be perfectly able and willing to go and fly totally in the face of popular sentiment if the judge felt that that was the only way to reflect the law?
Judge O`CONNOR: If that is necessary. I think judges must be prepared to act with courage.
Sen. LEAHY: Do you feel that a judge should feel perfectly prepared to fly in the face of popular sentiment if the judge is convinced in so doing that the judge is upholding the law?
Judge O`CONNOR: Well, Senator. I think we have to approach each case on the basis of the facts of the case and the law applicable to it. and we consider the case as judges in the context of the case which has come before us - the factual record, and the briefs that have been filed, and the arguments of counsel. I don`t think that judges are permitted to go outside the record in resolving the issues to come before the judge.
Sen. LEAHY: Albeit a judge does not live isolated in some type of a never- neverland of the court, judges do read newspapers, do see the news, do live as members of the community, and should-
Judge O`CONNOR: I hope so. yes.
Sen. LEAHY: -in each one of those instances, or else we have a lifeless judiciary. Again, my question: a judge can well be aware of what might be popular sentiment at a time. If a judge feels, however, that a popular sentiment does not reflect the law, and must rule on an issue where the law is. in that judge`s estimation, contrary to popular sentiment, is there any question where the judge has to go?
Judge O`CONNOR: Not in my mind. I think the judge is obligated to apply the law as the judge understands it to be.
Sen. JOSEPH BIDEN, (D-Del.): And it seems as though we should understand that when, in fact, the legislative bodies of this country have failed in their responsibilities - as they did in the civil rights area - to speak to the change - change in the mores of the time - and see to it that that`s reflected in the law on those rare occasions, it is a proper role for the Court to step in.
Judge O`CONNOR: I do not believe that it is the function of the judiciary to step in and change the law because the times have changed or the social mores have changed. And I didn`t intend to suggest that by my answer, but rather to indicate that I believe that on occasion the Court has reached changed results interpreting a given provision of the Constitution, based on its research of what the true meaning of that provision is, based on the intent of the framers. its research on the history of that particular provision. I was not intending to suggest that those changes were being made because some other branch had failed to make the change as a matter of social policy.
MacNEIL: Judge O`Connor also seemed to go out of her way to respond to another criticism from conservative groups that she lacked sensitivity to traditional family values. She made the unusual gesture of introducing her family. And we conclude with that. I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.
Judge O`CONNOR: My nomination to the United States Supreme Court has brought my own very close family even closer together, and I would like to introduce them to you. if I may. My oldest son. Scott, if you would stand please. Scott.
Sen. THURMOND: Would you stand as your name is called. (Laughter)
Judge O`CONNOR: Scott graduated from Stanford two years ago. He was our state swimming champion. He`s now a young businessman, a pilot, and a budding gourmet cook. Now my second son. Brian, is a senior at the Colorado College. He is our adventurer: he is a skydiver with over 400 jumps, including a dive off El Capitan at Yosemite last summer. I look forward to his retirement from that activity [laughter] so he can spend more time in his other status as a pilot. Now. my youngest son. Jay. is a sophomore at Stanford. He is our writer, and he acted as my assistant press secretary after the news of the nomination surfaced, and did a very good job keeping all of us quiet. Now. if I could promise you that I could decide cases as well as Jay can ski or swing a golf club. I think that we`d have no further problems in the hearing. And finally I`d like to introduce my dear husband. John. We met on a law review assignment at Stanford University Law School and will celebrate our 29th wedding anniversary in December. John has been totally and unreservedly and enthusiastically supportive of this whole nomination and this endeavor, and for that I am very grateful. Without it. it would not have been possible. And I would like to introduce my sister. Ann Alexander .... [fades to show music and credits]
- Series
- The MacNeil/Lehrer Report
- Producing Organization
- NewsHour Productions
- Contributing Organization
- National Records and Archives Administration (Washington, District of Columbia)
- AAPB ID
- cpb-aacip/507-862b85461m
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/507-862b85461m).
- Description
- Episode Description
- The main topic of this episode is Justice Sandra O'Connor Hearing on Abortion. Byline: Robert MacNeil
- Created Date
- 1981-09-09
- Topics
- Women
- Health
- Politics and Government
- Rights
- Copyright NewsHour Productions, LLC. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode)
- Media type
- Moving Image
- Duration
- 00:31:55
- Credits
-
-
Producing Organization: NewsHour Productions
- AAPB Contributor Holdings
-
National Records and Archives Administration
Identifier: 96895 (NARA catalog identifier)
Format: U-matic
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
- Citations
- Chicago: “The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Justice Sandra O'Connor Hearing on Abortion,” 1981-09-09, National Records and Archives Administration, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed November 27, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-507-862b85461m.
- MLA: “The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Justice Sandra O'Connor Hearing on Abortion.” 1981-09-09. National Records and Archives Administration, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. November 27, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-507-862b85461m>.
- APA: The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Justice Sandra O'Connor Hearing on Abortion. Boston, MA: National Records and Archives Administration, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-507-862b85461m