Jay Sekulow: July 2009 Archives

Barry, I know we won't agree on the abortion/health care issue - but it's worth noting that we have heard from more than 70,000 Americans (more than 60,000 online) who are demanding that Congress include an exclusion on abortion services to prevent them from becoming mandatory benefits in any health care legislation.  There are a number of pro-life amendments being considered now in the House and we will continue to support these measures as the debate continues.

With respect to parental rights, it's important for parents to be able to rely on their deeply held religious beliefs when it comes to the care and upbringing of their children.  Parental rights, however, must never be used as a guise for abuse or neglect.  If medical issues are involved, there must be a balance between parental rights and doing what is best for the child. 

Barry, I disagree that "any sensible health care reform" is going to have to cover, as you call it "reproductive health care," or as I would say, "abortion."  Americans do not want their federal dollars paying for abortions.  Let me set the facts straight. 

You cite polling numbers from the pro-abortion groups Guttmacher Institute and National Women's Law Center. I would note, however, that polling data from non-partisan sources show that Americans are increasingly opposed to abortion.  A recent Gallup poll shows that for the first time since 1995, more Americans call themselves "pro-life" than "pro-choice."   

In an effort to revamp the nation's health care system, there's a troubling development underway in the legislative process  Congress is considering health care legislation that would identify abortion as a health 'benefit' and mandate coverage of abortion services in national health care plans. 

That's right - abortion would be considered a mandatory health benefit provided in all government and private insurance plans under a proposal being considered by Congress.

The truth is that abortion must never become a mandated 'health benefit' in our country. 

Barry, let me answer your questions.

First, Judge Sotomayor's answer that Roe v. Wade is "settled law" is not necessarily "a bad thing" if she is explaining the Supreme Court's jurisprudence.  Chief Justice Roberts, at his confirmation hearing, acknowledged that Roe "is settled as a precedent of the Court."  Justices, when reviewing any case, must consider the principles of stare decisis, and nominees to the Supreme Court should show a respect for stare decisis.  However, the Supreme Court does revisit (and reverse) its own "settled law" decisions--look at Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 decision that overturned the "settled law" from the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick case upholding state sodomy laws.  What's important to know is when a Supreme Court justice will be willing to revisit precedent.  Consider Judge Sotomayor's views on the subject.  In response to questioning from Senator Cornyn, Judge Sotomayor said that due to "evolving social changes" and Congress passing new laws, "whatever was viewed as settled law previously will often get changed because Congress has changed something." She further explained that "society evolves in terms of technology and other developments, and so the law is being applied to a new set of facts," and she noted that

"There are new directions in the law in terms of the court. The court -- Supreme Court is often looking at its precedents and considering whether, in certain circumstances whose precedent is owed deference for very important reasons, but the court takes a new direction. And those new directions rarely, if ever, come at the initiation of the court. They come because lawyers are encouraging the court to look at a situation in a new way, to consider it in a different way."

Barry, you call it 'ideological bloviation' - I call it raising serious questions about Judge Sonia Sotomayor's judicial philosophy.

There are valid issues that need to be addressed:  It's my hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee thoroughly examines Judge Sotomayor's commitment to impartiality and the rule of law; her ability to separate her personal experiences from her role as a judge; her understanding of the role of a judge as compared to that of a legislating body; her views on foreign law; her views on important constitutional protections, and whether or not she agrees with President Obama's "empathy standard." 

Judge Sotomayor provided just a glimpse of where she might stand on these issues.