One has to assume Obama wouldn't have appointed Sonia Sotomayor without some indication that she's pro-choice but -- based on very, very little information -- I wonder if she might not end up being an abortion centrist.
First, in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, she actually ruled against the pro-choice group on Constitutional grounds.
Second, in Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford, she ruled in favor of the rights of anti-abortion protestors.
Neither of these cases dealt with the merits of abortion. Nonetheless, it's interesting that in the two cases we know of that related partly to abortion, she took the position that pro-life groups would have wanted (albeit for reasons unrelated to Roe v. Wade). At a minimum, these cases would seem to indicate that, if she is pro-choice, she didn't let those views affect her view of the relevant law.
Third, though we certainly can't generalize, it is the case that Hispanics are the most pro-life members of the Democratic coalition. In Beliefnet's "12 Tribes" study conducted in the summer of 2008, 58.9% wanted strong restrictions on abortion, while 41.1% took the pro-choice position. She may well be in the 41.1% but at a minimum she grew up in an environment where the pro-life position was well-respected.
I realize this is thin gruel, and new information might turn up any second showing her strong pro-choice position but I'm based on what we know now I'm not sure we can assume she's hard-line pro-choicer.
UPDATE: Interestingly, Americans United for Life has issued their statement opposing Sotomayor -- but it lists no specific pro-choice comments or rulings from the judge. Instead, they focus on her general judicial philosophy: "She believes the role of the Court is to set policy which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the National Abortion Control Board."
UPDATE #2: The White House briefing also points to her ruling in Lin v Gonzales in which she ruled in favor of a Chinese woman who sought asylum in part because of the force sterilization and abortion policies of the Chinese government.
UPDATE #3: She reportedly was on the baord of a group formerly called the Maternity Center Association, now called Childbirth Connect. They list "20 Rights of Childbearing Women." None of them relate to the "right to choose." In fact, I find no mention of abortion on their website.
UPDATE #4: Nancy Keenan, the head of NARAL, the leading pro-choice group, praised her accomplishments but had no sense of whether Sotomayor is pro-choice: "We look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor's views on the right to privacy and the landmark Roe v. Wade decision as the Senate's hearing process moves forward."
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I wonder what her position is on Marriage and the Family.
"He who is not with me is against me"
The mere fact that her position on life issues appears such an enigma makes suspicious. Also she was nominated by someone that manifests homicidal intent. How can I prove this? During the campaign, then candidate Obama said he wasn't sure when human life began (remember the "above my pay grade" dodge?) Well, if you are not sure, then you err on the side of life. Otherwise, if you are willing to kill what might be human, then you display homicidal intent to kill what IS human.
Steve, thanks for your excellent article. As a life long Pro Life Conservative, I have been sickened by the overdone, hyperbolic rhetoric coming from Conservatives surrounding the nomination of Sonia Sotormayor. Its like they got into the habit of slicing and dicing everyone and just can't stop.
But in this case, Conservatives really ought to quiet down and listen. Sotomayor might very well be much more reasonable than the alternatives. Certainly the facts have yet to turn up a pro abortion mindset out of her past.
And, having listened, seen, read, the context of what she said about a Latino woman, etc., and 2nd Court of Appeals "making policy," I don't think the pundits are being honest about her positions. She was simply telling it like it is, whether you agree or not. It amazes me how different things are when you see for yourself, rather than just take what the pundits and politicians say for truth. At least we should give her a chance.
Obama has done nothing but toshow everyone that he is pro-abortion as an Illinois senator ,aUS senator, and now as President.
Further,all his appointments to date have been pro-abortion and largely Catholic.
To me the abortion debate is not about the parents, or women, but it's about children.
Have any of you who are concerned about killing unborn children thought about the what life is like for of a child whose parent is unable or unwilling to love and care for him or her? Do you assume that any life is worth living?
I'd also like to ask: Have you a) adopted an unwanted child or teenager from foster care? Perhaps that's not feasible for you, in which case, b) have you called your senator to ask him or her to please raise your taxes so that unwanted children can be supported?
It seems that the idea of Life! Life no matter what! is what matters to those who are upset by legal abortion. I don't understand how you would wish a life of nearly assured misery and despair onto a child who is born into a home whose parent could never love or care for him or her.
Unless you are someone who concerns yourself in some practical, meaningful way with caring for children with unprepared/ unfit/ unloving parents, I don't think you have any moral standing in this debate.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.