Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Anti-abortion Scottsdale doctor urges rejecting Judge O’Connor

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

WASHINGTON – A doctor from Scottsdale on Friday reluctantly opposed the nomination of Sandra O’Connor as the first woman justice of the U.S. Supreme Court because Judge O’Connor refused to declare her unqualified support for the anti -abortion movement dUl’ing Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Dr. Carolyn Gerster, co-founder of the Arizona Right to Life Committee, told the panel on its final day of hearings into the nomination that she regrets having to oppose Judge O’Connor, whom she has known since the early 1970s. Dr. Gerster, herself a successful woman in a maledominated profession, said, “I believe the nomination of a woman to the Supreme Court is about 200 years overdue. I wish with all my heart that I could support this nominee from Arizona.” She praised the judge and former Arizona state senator as “a highly intelligent, dedicated, capable and likable person.” But she opposed the nomination because she is not satisfied that Judge O’Connor, whose three days of testimony ended Friday, fully has repudiated certain pro-abortion votes she cast while a member of the Arizona Legislature from 1969 to 1975. At the conclusion of the hearing, Committee Chairman Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., reiterated his confidence that Judge O’Connor will be confirmed overwhelmingly by the full Senate. But he backtracked from earlier predictions that the confirmation will come as soon as next week. Thurmond said the Judiciary Committee will meet Tuesday to consider the nomination, but he noted

Newspaper article, Phoenix Gazette, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Anti-Abortionists to Oppose O’Connor

Newspaper article, Phoenix Gazette, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

WASHINGTON – The Moral Majority and the nation’s largest anti-abortion organization said today they would seek to block Senate confirmation of Arizona Court Of Appeals Judge Sandra D. O’Connor as a Supreme Court justice because of her views on abortion. “Sandra O’Connor had a consistent and strong pro-abortion voting record while a senator in Arizona,” said Dr. J.C. Wilkie, president of the National Right -to-Life Committee. President Reagan, in announcing Mrs. O’Connor’s nomination, said he was completely satisfied with her record on right-to-life issues. He did not elaborate. WILKIE AND Richard Viguerie, publisher of the Conservative Digest, spoke bitterly of Reagan’s choice, charging that the president had ignored the pledge of the Republican 1980 platform to name judges “who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.” Douglas Badger, a lobbyist for the Christian Action Council, a Protestant group that opposes abortion, explained the opposition to Mrs. O’Connor by citing three votes which he said she cast in the Arizona Senate. Badger said that in 1970 – before the Supreme Court ‘s 1973 abortion decision – she voted for a bill that would have legalized abortions in Arizona under certain circumstances. He was unable to detail those circumstances. THEN IN 197 4, he said, she voted in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the Republican caucus against a resolution calling on Congress to amend the Constitution to outlaw abortions. Also in 1974,

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Anti-Abortionists only apparent foes of Judge O’Connor as hearing starts

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

WASHINGTON – Anti-abortion lobbyists ap• _pear to be the only ones opposing Senate confirmation of Sandra O’Connor of Phoenix as the first woman justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee today begins a •Ulree-day hearing on President Reagan’s nominaton M Judge O’Connor to succeed Justice Potter :S~;who retired July 3. , The hearings will. be televised on KAET, Channel 8, beginning at 7 p.m. today, Thursday and Friday. Several ardent opponents of legalized abortion are scheduled to appear before the 18-member committee to speak against Judge O’Connor’s confirmation. The~ base their opposition largely on the belief that her voting record in the Arizona Senate from 1969 to 1975 does not establish unequivocal support for the right-to-life movement. Political observers, however, expect their testi• mony fo have little influence on the committee’s vote. “I am not aware of any senator who has firmly planted his foot and said he is not going to vote for her,” said Bob Maynes, a spokesman for Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz., a Judiciary Committee member. Maynes said the lobbyists who oppose Judge O’Conner seem to be misinterpreting her public record on the abortion issue. ”She; has said many times that she is personally opposed to abortion,” he said. “What she will not do, understandably, is commit herself in advance on hypothetical questions about what she would do if such.and-such a case came before the Supreme Court, and that’s apparently what has some people

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

Anti-abortionists gather to oppose Judge O’Connor

Arizona Republic, Newspaper article, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

DALLAS – Anti-abortion leaders urged Thursday that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O’Connor remove herself from consideration or that President Reagan withdraw her name before Senate confirmation hearings begin next week. Nellie Gray of March for Life assailed Judge O’Connor ‘s nomination at a news conference beginning a 12- hour rally by a coalition of conservative Christians. She called the upcoming confirmation process for the former Arizona legislator “fatally flawed.” Miss Gray said that if Reagan and Judge O’Connor ignore her group’s d~~ds , “The Senate should recog01ze 1~ duty as an advising and consentmg_ body to bring the import.ant questions abeut the nomination before the hearings and to get the full facts before the Senate .” …

Arizona Republic, Editorial, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

An Historic Woman

Arizona Republic, Editorial, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

T . H_ E nomination of Arizona state Appeals Court Judge Sandra O’Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court bo~ors the wom~n of America, the people of Arizona and the Judge herself. lf approved by the Senate, as she should be Judge O’Connor will be the 102nd m~mber of the land’s highest court and the first woman justice in the court’s 191-year history. She will give the court its second sitting member from Arizona, truly an amazing accomplishment for a small state. The other Arizonan is Justice William Rehnquist, a law school classmate of Judge O’Connor. Finally, elevation to ~he Supre~e Col!rt will be the crowning achievement m the hfe of the ranch girl from Duncan who climbed the ladder of public service through the state attorney general’s office, the state Legislature, the Superior Court system and the Arizona Court of Appeals. Sandra O’Connor has helped the state in many extra-judicial ways. As a board member she persuaded Ariiona’s Blue Cross and Blue Shield to unite, before the national organizations did so. As president of the Heard Museum, she helped Arizona’s Indian tribes to achieve the recognition they deserve. As a director of the Arizona Academy, she motivated an effective statewide Town Hall unique in America. Judge O’Connor has some rough days ahead. Her every act will be under public scrutiny. There will be a lot of discussion and ex~ination of Judge O’Connor’s feminist views, which perhaps have best been described by a long-time friend. “She never lets you forget she’s

Newspaper article, Peninsula Times Tribune, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

A Momentous day’ woman gets nomination

Newspaper article, Peninsula Times Tribune, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Reagan today named Arizona judge Sandra D. O’Connor to become the first woman justice in the 191 years of the Supreme Court. Mrs. O’Connor, 51, who Reagan called “a person for all seasons,” would fill the vacancy created by Justice Potter Stewart’s retirement. And her selection as the court’s 102nd justice, following 101 “Brethren,” matches the president’s campaign pledge to name a woman to one of the first vacancies. Reagan called it “the most awesome appointment” within his power. In Phoenix, Mrs. O’Connor told a news conference that “This is a momentous day in my life and the life of my family. I am extremely happy and honored to have been nominated by President Reagan for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court.” “If confirmed, I will do my best to serve the court and this nation in a manner that will brmg credit to the president, to my family and to all the people of this great nation,” she said . The president announced his choice on a nationwide broadcast from the White House press room . He had decided upon Mrs. O’Connor following apersonal interview with her last week in the Oval Office and a followup telephone call late Monday . Reagan urged the Senate to give “swift bi-partisan confirmation” to her “so that, as soon as possible, she may take her seat on the court and her place in history.” The court, now in recess, does not begin its 1981-82 term until October. Some opposition already was brewing among the far right to her prospective nomination,

Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection, The Washington Post

A Master Stroke’

Op ed, The Kauffman-Henry Collection, The Washington Post / By

“Arizona Judge Sandra O’Connor, Nominated for Supreme Court, Will Be First Woman Justice,” the headlines say, and my phone rings a little more these days. “Who is she, what is she like, and what does this mean for the court and for the political future of Ronald Reagan?” I’ll try to shed some light. I’m a lawyer and a fellow Arizonan, and while I’m not a close friend of the nominee, we are acquaintances. I know her through her reputation and her very successful career in public service and as a community leader. When people as politically diverse as Barry Goldwater, John Rhodes, Ted Kennedy and I can all support a Supreme Court nominee, it’s got to be remarkable. But she will be opposed. The New Right, the Moral Majority and Phyllis Schlafly will go after her with a vengeance that is their particular trademark. Nevertheless, I expect Mrs O’Connor will, and ought to be, confirmed. To understand some of what I have to say, you must understand some basic things about the Arizona Republican Party. A moderate Republican friend of mine told me in Tucson not long ago that the party had split into two camps: conservative and very conservative. “The very conservative believe nothing should be done for the first time,” he said, “and the conservatives believe that a few things should be done for the first time, but not now.” The point of this is that Sandra O’Connor is a conservative Arizona Republican, but she is a sensible conservative, and in her career in the Arizona Legislature she

Arizona Republic, Editorial, The Kauffman-Henry Collection

A Historic Day

Arizona Republic, Editorial, The Kauffman-Henry Collection / By

THE scrutiny that Sandra Day O’Connor underwent during confirmation hearings to become the first woman justice of the U.S. Supreme Court will not end with her swearing in t.oday. For at least the next several years – or at least .until her sex no longer seems unique for a Supreme Court justice – journalists and legal scholars will poke, pry and ponder as they evaluate the work and habits of Justice O’Connor. For their part, newsmen will try to penetrate the wall of secrecy around the court’s deliberations, seeking inside reports on how this lone woman fares with eight men during deliberations. Legal scholars will dissect each new ruling seeking some clue as to whether the feminist touch finally has found its way into the stodgy wording and the male reasoning of court decisions. Justice O’Connor’s private life will be just as thoroughly watched, as she inevitably begins to mingle in Washington’s cosmopolitan set of politicians, diplomats and favorseekers. Her wardrobe also will be the object of scrutiny, especially by fashion gossips who look for trends among Washington’s pacesetters and powerful. This is the price anyone in public life pays. But Justice O’Connor’s price will even be higher because of the history she has created, and the fact that she’s a woman. She will bear the burden well, even with wit and humor. And in time, those who will have given her inordinate scrutiny will tire of their tasks. Justice O’Connor has an established judicial reputation in Arizona for immersing