Antiabortion Groups' Case Against Sotomayor
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
With no clear evidence for a pro-abortion-rights position in her judicial decisions, antiabortion groups' case against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor can be summed up in eight words: the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Sotomayor sat on PRLDEF's board from 1980 to 1992, a stretch during which the antiabortion group Americans United for Life (AUL) says the legal advocacy group "filed at least six briefs in prominent abortion court cases." AUL says that one of the briefs argues that abortion is a "fundamental right."
"The PRLDEF brief, which Judge Sotomayor has never disavowed, indicates that Judge Sotomayor's views go much farther than Justice [David] Souter—and in fact shares the Blackmun, Brennan, and Marshall view of the constitutionality of abortion rights," reads a new set of AUL talking points.
The AUL analysis cites a recent New York Times story reporting that Sotomayor and the rest of PRLDEF's board "monitored all litigation undertaken by the fund's lawyers, and a number of those lawyers said Ms. Sotomayor was an involved and ardent supporter of their various legal efforts."
Watch for questions about Sotomayor's involvement with PRLDEF's briefs in abortion cases to play a big role in her confirmation hearings next month, as Republican senators try to suss out her views on Roe v. Wade. In the meanwhile, her involvement in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund very likely provides a window into her general views on abortion. But it's far from definitive evidence of a specific position.
Tags: religion | Sonia Sotomayor
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (3) | Print
Reader Comments
Sara W
"SSM is not an attack on marriage. The Evangelicals in this country have already carried that out and largely destroyed the ideal."
I think it was the conservative evangelicals who, twenty years ago, complained about the increase in divorce in America and how it would impact the generations of children who grew up in single households without fathers....You know what liberal advocate groups were saying about them at the time? That they were out of touch with modern society. They laughed and poked fun at the idea saying that they were paranoid. Fifteen years later, I wonder what they are saying now? All of the problems children are facing today are in fact linked to the breaking down of the family structure. Fatherless homes are the greatest factor in crime, drug and alcohol abuse, promiscuity and risky sexual behavior, psychological and behavior problems, and suicide. My family is divorced, my brother went through a very difficult time during his teenage years when my father walked out on us and never attempted to fix his marriage with our mom. My brother had a lot of love, was raised primarily by women, had all the support he needed and still struggled with his identity and what it meant to be a man. Today he is fine, but I've heard him talk about his experiences as an adolescent and how a part of him was never fulfilled because he never had a male in his life to show him how to be a man. Believe it or not, it was a biological need that was never fulfilled. Evangels were right fifteen years ago about the breaking down of the family structure and what would happen if children were brought up in single households or grew up in step family households. Theres something significant about the male and female combination. Children need both influences in their life. I believe structure in many ways reflects love and once you start messing with structure, more confusion, pain, and eratic behavior with surface. As far as evangels messing up the institution of marriage...thats ridiculous. They are the only ones not getting divorced now a days. They were the only ones who tried to work their own marriages out before getting divorced fifteen years ago. I don't believe all divorces are bad especially when abuse( psychological, emotional, sexual or physical), is occurring in the home or adultery. My parents got a divorce because my father was abusive to my mother. Now I know some would argue that it was better for my brother to be raised with no dad then with an abusive dad and you're right,but there was always apart of him that longed to have a male influence in his life. It was not an idea that was forced on him, it was a need that was never fulfilled. By redefining marriage, gays and straights are saying that children don't need a male or a female in their life and that is simply not true. They need both, that is the ideal. Any other way, underminds the truth, which long term leads to consequences. Evangels are asking..why add on?
Obama's Sonia Sotomayor
Mankind is having trouble stopping Obama's agenda. It will take help from above to flush out the wrong and make things right.
Sonia Sotomayor
It doesn't matter what her views are, as long as Obama wants her to be the replacement Justice for Souter, she will be confirmed. It seems that whatever Obama wants, right or wrong, he gets his way and has no concern for the Consitution of the United States and really doesn't care what the people want. We are putting this Country in deep debt and it is beginning to look like we are moving into becoming a third world country. The President and the Congress are completely ignoring the people of the US and doing what they want regardless of how the population feels. Everything is being shoved down our throats and bills are being passed without even being read and some members of Congress have admitted they don't know what is in the bill. Congress also raises their pay while thousands of people are losing their homes and jobs and don't know where their next meal is coming from. What is happening to this Country?
advertisement
