Wednesday, May 27, 2009

NY Times: "On Sotomayor, Some Abortion Rights Backers Show Unease"

All the pro-lifers who claim to "KNOW" with certainty how Judge Sotomayor would rule on abortion should give the pro-aborts a call to reassure them, because the pro-aborts don't seem to have any idea where she stands on the issue:
WASHINGTON — In nearly 11 years as a federal appeals court judge, President Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, has never directly ruled on whether the Constitution protects a woman’s right to an abortion. But when she has written opinions that touched tangentially on abortion disputes, she has reached outcomes in some cases that were favorable to abortion opponents.

Now, some abortion rights advocates are quietly expressing unease that Judge Sotomayor may not be a reliable vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 abortion rights decision. In a letter, Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, urged supporters to press senators to demand that Judge Sotomayor reveal her views on privacy rights before any confirmation vote.

“Discussion about Roe v. Wade will — and must — be part of this nomination process,” Ms. Keenan wrote. “As you know, choice hangs in the balance on the Supreme Court as the last two major choice-related cases were decided by a 5-to-4 margin.”

But in his briefing to reporters on Tuesday, the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, was asked whether Mr. Obama had asked Judge Sotomayor about abortion or privacy rights. Mr. Gibbs replied that Mr. Obama “did not ask that specifically.”

... at this point, Judge Sotomayor’s views are as unknown as Justice Souter’s were in 1990, said Steven Waldman, the editor in chief of, a religious Web site, where he has blogged about her lack of an abortion rights record.

“Everyone is just assuming that because Obama appointed her, she must be a die-hard pro-choice activist,” Mr. Waldman said, “but it’s really quite amazing how little we know about her views on abortion.”

In a
2007 case, she strongly criticized colleagues on the court who said that only women, and not their husbands, could seek asylum based on China’s abortion policy. “The termination of a wanted pregnancy under a coercive population control program can only be devastating to any couple, akin, no doubt, to the killing of a child,” she wrote, also taking note of “the unique biological nature of pregnancy and special reverence every civilization has accorded to child-rearing and parenthood in marriage.”

[Read the whole thing]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Round-Up of Reactions to Sotomayor Pick [UPDATED]

Supreme Court-Related Quote of the Day ... [UPDATED]

Sotomayor Blurs Lines in Abortion War [UPDATED]

My Advice for Conservatives Re: Judge Sotomayor [UPDATED]

Conservatives, Liberals, and Supreme Court Picks

Labels: , , , , , , ,


At 5/28/2009 8:20 AM, Anonymous King Lebron James said...

She is too left for my taste but have proven to be an inspirational story.

I commend her rise to a Supreme Court nomination but disagree with her interpretation of the Constitution in many instances.

At 5/28/2009 5:46 PM, Blogger Father Martin Fox said...

I can't see drawing any conclusions whatsoever.

Of course pro life groups are going to gin up as much opposition as they can. I think they are right to do so, because we have every reason to be concerned, and it is good for the prolife cause to mobilize more folks at this time, no matter the outcome.

Of course the pro-abortion folks are going to do the same, for the same reason, and from their perspective, it's right to do as well.

But none of that means anything about whether she may be a stealth good justice. That's a hope without any foundation.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

hit counter for blogger