STATEMENT ON THE NOMINATION OF JAMES LEON HOLMES
The National Partnership for Women & Families opposes the nomination of James Leon Holmes to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. James Leon Holmes is yet another on a
growing list of troubling judicial nominations made by President Bush since he took office in January
2001. Holmes’ record is all too familiar, following a pattern similar to other Bush nominees – strong
ties to conservative and extremist organizations, vehement anti-choice views, and hostility to
women’s and/or civil rights. His words speak volumes about the threats his nomination poses to
crucial legal protections for women. We believe that he is the wrong choice for the Eastern District
of Arkansas and strongly urge you to oppose his nomination.
A Record of Hostility and Opposition to Women’s Rights Issues
Reproductive Rights. Fierce opposition to reproductive rights is the cornerstone principle of the
“litmus test” used by the Bush Administration to select judicial nominees. Holmes’ vehement
rhetoric exemplifies this principle. His long history of opposition to reproductive rights is welldocumented in his writings and statements, as well as his analysis of the relevant case law.
o He has compared pro-choice advocates to Nazis and abortion to slavery, writing that
abortion is “. . . the simplest issue this country has faced since slavery was made
unconstitutional. And it deserves the same response.”1
o His writings include arguments in favor of the criminalization of abortion and
granting personhood rights to fetuses – “To continue our present policy is to give
those persons in the womb no rights at all, not even the most minimal right, the right
to life."2 [emphasis added].
o He writes dismissively about women who become pregnant as a result of rape. On
the lack of a rape exception in The Human Life Amendment, an amendment to the
Arkansas constitution that prohibits the use of public funds for abortion unless the
woman’s life is in danger, he stated, “. . . concern for rape victims is a red herring
because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as
snowfall in Miami.”3 In fact, studies estimate that between 25,000 and 32,000
women each year become pregnant as a result of rape in the U.S., and about 50
percent of these pregnancies end in abortion.
Holmes’ unwavering, hostile views on choice also have made clear his inability or unwillingness to
apply the law in a fair, unbiased manner. His legal analysis and advocacy reflects rigid policy
1
James Leon Holmes, Abortion Issue, Letter Forum, Daily Dispatch (Dec. 24, 1980).
Leon Holmes, Letter to the Editor, Abortion Issue, MOLINE DAILY DISPATCH, Dec. 24, 1980.
3
Id. This amendment was later found to conflict with federal law for lacking exceptions in cases of rape and incest.
2
1
preferences regarding fundamental rights that would erode rights critical to women, including
reproductive rights.
On defending an anti-abortion protestor – he offered a so-called “choice of evils” argument in
defense of an anti-abortion protestor charged with trespassing at physician’s clinic, claiming that his
client’s trespass was justified because he was trying to inform women entering the clinic about the
alleged harmful effects of abortion. The court rejected Holmes’ argument and refused to allow the
defense.4
o On the US Constitution – he has stated that “the Constitution was intended to reflect
the principles of natural law” and argues that both Roe v. Wade and Planned
Parenthood v. Casey “constitutionalize the theory of moral relativism, which is the
antithesis of natural law.”5
“Proper” Roles of Women and Men. Many of the nominees submitted by the Bush Administration
have a history of opposition to the core legal principles that have led to the creation and expansion of
fundamental rights for women and minorities. Holmes’ views reflect this extremism. His right-wing
ideology extends to his views about the appropriate roles of men and women, and would severely
limit the progress that has been crucial to the success of women in education, business, and
employment settings.
•
•
In an article written with his wife, he stated that “. . . the wife is to subordinate herself to her
husband.”6
He has blamed the feminist movement for what he believes is the erosion of morality: “It is
not coincidental that the feminist movement brought with it artificial contraception and
abortion on demand, with recognition of homosexual liaisons soon to follow. . . . No matter
how often we condemn abortion, to the extent we adopt the feminist principle that the
distinction between the sexes is of no consequence and should be disregarded in the
organization of society and the Church, we are contributing to the culture of death.”7
Conclusion
James Leon Holmes’ extreme views and his resistance to the faithful application of well-established
legal principles demonstrate that he is ill-suited for a lifetime judicial appointment. We call upon
the Senate to reject Holmes’ nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas.
4
See Pursley v. Arkansas, 730 S.W. 2d 250 (Ark. Ct. App. 1987).
Leon Holmes, Comments on Shankman, THE CATHOLIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW, Vol. VI (2001).
6
Leon Holmes & Susan Holmes, Editorial, Gender Neutral Language, ARKANSAS CATHOLIC, April 12, 1997, at 10.
7
Id.
5
2