Sonia Sotomayor's Mixed Record on Abortion Rights
By Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Jefferson Street blog.
While Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is widely hailed by the right as an activist, liberal judge, there are hints in her record that she may be anything but when it comes to abortion rights.
It's been widely reported that she followed Supreme Court precedent in ruling to uphold the Bush administration's so-called Mexico City or gag rule policy. That policy prohibited overseas family planning nonprofits that received U.S. funding from even discussing the option of abortion with women who came to the clinics seeking family planning advice. It was seen at the time as a major advance for religious anti-abortion rights groups, and a major defeat when President Obama overturned that executive order right after he took office.
But there are also two lesser-known rulings that would also seem to plant her firmly in the anti-abortion court. In one case, she won praise from one conservative lawmaker in a decision regarding whether a Chinese immigrant couple deserved amnesty in the United States for fleeing China's one-child policy:
Now-retired Rep. Vito Fossella (R-N.Y.) praised Sotomayor's dissent in a 2nd Circuit Court decision ruling that Chinese men were ineligible for asylum along with their wives, when they were subjected to forced abortion or sterilization.
And as colleague Dan Gilgoff points out, analysis by the conservative group Americans United for Life found Sotomayor siding with pro-life protesters in a third ruling:
[Sotomayor] has also ruled in favor of antiabortion protesters who sued West Hartford, Conn., claiming that police there used excessive force against them at a demonstration.
Meanwhile, abortion rights advocates are expressing excitement over the president's nomination of the first Latina to the U.S. Supreme Court, but reserving judgment on her position on abortion rights. The Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup issued a statement yesterday that stopped short of a full endorsement:
We encourage the Senate Judiciary Committee to engage Judge Sotomayor and any future nominees to the Court on their commitment to the principles of Roe v. Wade. Anything less threatens not only a woman's constitutional rights, but her life and health."
Similar statements emanated from Planned Parenthood and the National Women's Law Center. One of two things is going on here. Either President Obama has picked a well-disguised pro-life nominee to the court, about which conservatives should be gleeful. Or he has chosen a nominee whose pro-choice views are so cloaked in noncommittal rulings that she is the stealth of all stealth pro-choice court nominees.
Check out our political cartoons.
Become a political insider: Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly, our new digital magazine.
Tags: Supreme Court | abortion | Sonia Sotomayor
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (13) | Print
Reader Comments
Dear John
I find it ironic that a man who will never actually carry a child will stand up for a woman's right to terminate the beating heart of her unborn.
I was pro-choice before my first pregnancy. Then I felt the baby move, very much alive, in my womb. It is a strange and wonderful feeling to be inhabited by another human being. I might suggest after your first pregnancy, you may change your mind as well. :)
Judge Sotomayor's nomination
In addition to Bonnie Erb's warning re: the Sotomayor "stealth" nomination to the US Supreme Court & whether she will uphold "stare decisis" on Roe v. Wade, we must remain mindful of her "stealth" nomination to counteract the most important right in a democracy -- strict separation of religion from governance, as the First Amendment's establishment clause mandates. President Obama already has ignored the wisdom of Madison, Jefferson & a majority of the other Founding Fathers, & of JFK in his brilliant portrayal of freedom of conscience before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960. What else is Obama's "faith-forced" initiative if not contempt for the separation of church & state, equalling if not exceeding that of George W. Bush? Having a Catholicism-endowed Supreme Court majority may be taboo to critical analysis but needs to be confronted directly, especially when our right to freedom of conscience & women's right to Roe v. Wade protections, continue to be threatened by religious fanatics, including Pope Benedict, with his unreason & distortions. When religion ruled the world, it was "the Dark Ages" of world-wide, autocratic Catholicism.
Christine dear...
Even though you are pro-life, does not mean everyone thinks the way you do. It goes both ways sweetheart.
Maybe you are right and it would be better for the government to take control over women's bodies and force them to give birth in the event of an accidental, unplanned or unwanted pregnancies including pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. That way, when we get a war-mongering president like Bush, we can simply ship them off to fight over some oil as young adults and terminate their lives then as he did.
It assuring to know we finally have a president who is working hard to restore the good of humanity in this world, correcting some of the chaos, destruction and corruption that the Bush administration caused.
advertisement
