Sonia Sotomayor's Mixed Record on Abortion Rights

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.

Dave Summers of PA 12:22PM June 05, 2009

Even though you are pro-choice, it does not mean everyone, not even the majority, thinks the way you do.

I am a woman born of an unplanned pregnancy in 1972. Months later in 1973 abortion became legal. It is not lost on me that I, or my three daughters, would not be here if the court ruling had come sooner. I in fact have a very "progressive" father who disagrees with many of my political positions. I am quite sure, if given the correct circumstances, he would have forced my mother to abort me.

Recently a poll indicated that 52% of Americans now call themselves pro-life. With technology being what it is today, a 10 week old fetus showing movement, heartbeat, arms, legs, face, and fingers in a 3D ultrasound, it does not surprise me. It's hard to deny when you look in the face of an unborn child. That is why pro-choicers don't want women to see the ultrasound. Even they can see the truth.

In 1973 routine ultrasounds were unheard of. We simply didn't know, the womb remained a mystery. If you read the wording of the Roe v Wade ruling you'll find the justices could not determine when life began, and were therefore forced to choose based on current medical knowledge.

Today we know differently. At as young as 6 weeks gestation there is a perceivable heartbeat. At as young as 9 weeks there is perceivable movement which would require brain activity. How do we define life outside the womb? A beating heart and brain activity, if you have both, even if you are on a respirator, you are considered a human life protected by the constitution.

Still these feminists cling to this gruesome "right" ignoring the rights of the son or daughter they are carrying.

As for Sotomayer, let her be confirmed. We could use a few Obama appointees that don't have tax fraud records and campaign funding scandals.

Christine Emmick of PA 4:35PM May 29, 2009

I don't think the author supports any government forcing abortion or sterilization...the point is that Sotomayer apparently thinks that the men, at least the alleged potential father, have a standing in the outcome of a pregnancy...it looks to me that Sotomayer will be the fifth Justice needed to overturn Roe. v. Wade...I think it is time to consider what next: for legality purposes I think abortion should be viewed as on the same "side" as the right to try to get pregnant, to continue the pregnancy (no matter what the health, social, or monetary consequences), as well as the right to use or not use contraception.

I also think a network to provide sage illegal abortions must be set up soon.

Also-there is no "pro-abortion" position...there is no group of people promoting abortion as a means of birth control, or as a means to surpress another group of people-as with the latter in the case illegal abortion proponents.

Kali

Kali of MN 9:26PM May 28, 2009

I don't see anything in these rulings that indicate she is not pro-choice. The gag rule, from a judicial standpoint, is about speech and federal funds, not abortion. Her dissent on the Chinese immigrants only shows that she believes a woman being forced to have an abortion amounts to persecution (not an unreasonable stance for someone who believes in a "woman's right to choose"). And the question of the appropriate use of police force against protesters is only tangentially tied to the abortion issue, at best. These are straw men to make pro-life supporters think she is not as far left as she seems from her other words and deeds.

INTJ of NC 12:02PM May 28, 2009