Will Sonia Sotomayor Be Pro-Choice? Looks Like Maybe Not.
We think it’s pretty dope that Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s pick for Supreme Court justice, is (a) a lady and (b) could the first person of Hispanic descent to don Supreme Court robes. But many pro-choice advocates are sounding alarm bells today because they have a sneaking suspicion that, once on the bench, Sotomayor may not uphold Roe v. Wade, something they think should be a “no duh” for a judge appointed by a pro-choice president. What’s got them worried, after the jump… [NY Times]
- Sotomayor may have been a federal appeals court judge for almost eleven years, but (magically) her opinion on abortion has never been revealed. None of her cases have dealt with the legal theory behind Roe v. Wade—that the Constitution protects a woman’s privacy in reproductive decisions. So basically, on this issue, she’s a wild card.
- In a 2002 case, Sotomayor wrote an opinion that said, “The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds.” Translation: she upheld the Bush administration’s policy of withholding aid from international groups that provide or promote abortion services overseas.
- Two years later, Sotomayor sided with anti-abortion protesters in a case where they were suing police officers for using excessive force to break up an abortion clinic demonstration. Again, this decision doesn’t mean she agrees with them—after all, it’s pretty clear that the Constitution protects protestors—but it’s still raised a few eyebrows.
- In 2007, Sotomayor stood up for Chinese women who were seeking asylum in the United because of China’s harsh population-control policies (ahem, forcible abortions and birth control). Sotomayor said, “The termination of a wanted pregnancy under a coercive population control program can only be devastating to any couple, akin, no doubt, to the killing of a child.” Then in 2008, she wrote an opinion supporting a woman who worked in an abortion clinic in China who committed a “crime” in letting a woman who was seven-months pregnant escape her scheduled forced abortion. Now, no one thinks China’s population control policies are cool. But the words “the killing of a child” are pretty strong.
- Sotomayor was raised Roman Catholic, but it’s unknown whether she’s with the church on abortion.
For all these reasons, pro-choice advocates are asking Sotomayor to clarify her views on abortion before a confirmation vote is made. Since Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, her beliefs will effect all of us for years to come. What do you think? Should she be forced to say?


















TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
forcynthia
wrote on May 28 2009 @ 05:19 pm: [report]
I’m hoping for a quality interview with Sotomayor. Of couse she can’t literally be forced to reveal her stance on abortion, but if she were to avoid answering such an important question I certainly would doubt her credibility.
mdtobe
wrote on May 29 2009 @ 05:55 am: [report]
You have to imagine that the President and his advisors have already had this discussion with her in private. They aren’t going to appoint someone without asking them the touch questions first.
joyy
wrote on May 29 2009 @ 08:26 am: [report]
Um, hopefully there just won’t be a chance for Roe v Wade to be overturned! It’s legal, leave it legal.
puck
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 01:47 pm: [report]
I’m with mdtobe on this one. Pro-choice is one of the Prez beliefs. Pretty sure a hot-button issue like that would be covered in selection. Also, I’m pro-choice, but I would certainly say “the killing of a child” when referring to a wanted pregnancy.
theattack
wrote on May 31 2009 @ 11:27 pm: [report]
I think you might have missed the mark on her comments about Chinese population control. If you take the phrase “killing of a child” out of that context, then yes it does sound like she’s anti-choice. In the context she used the phrase in, though, she’s saying that for the parents who are WANTING to have their babies, it’s just as painful for them as it would be for someone to kill their already-born child. That’s a fair statement.