A Washington Times editorial on Wednesday unveiled further evidence of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s support for unlimited abortion rights. The paper revealed the contents of four more amicus curiae briefs authored under Sotomayor, urging the Supreme Court not to “overturn or in any way restrict” Roe v. Wade.
The first such brief from the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), where Sotomayor served as a board member between 1980 and 1992, was unearthed in late May and addressed the 1989 Supreme Court case Webster v. Reproductive Health Cases.
The brief, signed by several interest groups, stated: “All Amici share an urgent concern that the Court clearly and unequivocally reaffirm Roe v. Wade. … They fear that any tampering with the right to abortion recognized in Roe will have a powerful, adverse impact on the liberty, equality and health of poor women and women of color.”
The brief also affirmed that Roe v. Wade recognized a “fundamental right” to abortion without which women “were stripped of the right of self-determination that is a given for men.”
The Times reports that similar briefs were issued under Sotomayor to the Supreme Court cases Williams v. Zbaraz, Rust v. Sullivan, Ohio v. Akron Center, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
While board members are not necessarily directly involved in such briefs, a May 28 New York Times article said the PRLDEF board “monitored all litigation undertaken by the fund’s lawyers,” and described Sotomayor as “an involved and ardent supporter of their various legal efforts.”
“She just believed in the mission,” former board chairman Luis Alvarez said of Sotomayor.
Several former members testified to the Times that “Ms. Sotomayor stood out, frequently meeting with the legal staff to review the status of cases” throughout her twelve years, serving at times as board member, vice president, and chairman of the litigation committee.
Following a recent meeting with Sotomayor, pro-life Senator Jim DeMint expressed concern that the judge said she had “never thought about” the rights of the unborn child. DeMint’s account corresponds to the impression of pro-abortion senators, who say their meetings with Sotomayor satisfied them that she would “respect precedent” set by Roe v. Wade. [article]
Of course the other day Judge Sotomayor in response to a question said She “Never Thought About” Rights of Unborn. That is a rather scary statement if she is telling the truth. Before you decide that a class of people should be legally killed you might want to think about the subject a bit. Though when it comes to defending abortion it never comes down to intellectual arguments, but platitudes about choice or scenarios to invoke emotion.
8 comments
Following a recent meeting with Sotomayor, pro-life Senator Jim DeMint expressed concern that the judge said she had “never thought about” the rights of the unborn child.
So technically, she is not lying – she never has thought about the rights of the unborn child because she never believed they had any.
Sad, sick and pathetic. But let’s be honest, did we really expect anything different from an O pick?
As a native of Puerto Rico myself, I would like for someone to explain what the heck does abortion (rights) have to do with being Puerto Rican to get that activist group involved.
Mr. Flapatap — it doesnt. If you watch what Mr.O is doing is that he is getting as many “minorities” together as his appointees to show that anything is possible for anyone to be a “success”. Yet, these appointees all agree (coincidently ?) that the unborn have no rights. He wants us to believe that it is ok to be successful and yet have no respect for the unborn. I cant help but think where we would be today if Mr. O’s mom took the option that he is advocating.
BUT, (there he goes again) “‘fundamental right’ to abortion without which women ‘were stripped of the right of self-determination that is a given for men.’?????
Howze about yer woman’s fundamental right to tell the current don giovanni/lothario to keep his rocket in his pocket because, “I am a liberated woman. I’m not an warm body evolutionarily placed here to satisfy your sex drive.”
Self determination? “Just say no!”
No! That’s not in the liberal script . . .
Wonder why?
N.B., Due to ‘separation of Church and state’ diktat, I am prohibited from stating the universal Truth regarding ye womyn’s right to kill her unborn baby, er, “reproductive health care” on demand.
Sottomayor’s response is disingenuous to say the least. She’s a Catholic and a judge yet she has no thoughts about a controvery that so divides this nation? She’s skirting around the issue just as Obama did with his flippant remark about the beginning of life being above his payscale. It’s politics as usual. Sad but not surprising.
The idea that Sotomayor would turn out to be pro-life has been absurd from the start.
She was appointed by a man who voted for outright INFANTICIDE.
Were there really people who deluded themselves into thinking Obama would somehow let a pro-lifer slip through the cracks?
Were there really people who deluded themselves into thinking Obama would somehow let a pro-lifer slip through the cracks?
I think it was a well-intentioned but ultimately wrong attempt by conservatives to make lemonade out of lemons. “Oh it could be much worse!” they’d say. More evidence of the conservative crack-up. I first smelled it when they were saying that Obama’s election would mean the end of playing the race card. Bwahaha! A whole scam industry is just going to close up shop because The One was elected? I don’t think so. It is highly ironic that conservatives pretend to Machiavellianiam and then turn around and grant so much benefit of the doubt that their brains fall out.
What did you expect. Obama was elected POTUS and he has the right to appoint judges to the Supreme and Federal Courts. Sorry if this bothers you, but this is the main reason I voted for the man. This is just the beginning. Forget the Supreme Court, what people fail to realize is the amount of change that federal judge appointees will enact. People freak out about the Supreme Court, but really the social change will be brought by the federal judges. There are very few differences between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the economy. Each party spends a boat load. The differences come from social change. Gay marriage rights, abortion, censorship, affirmative action…..these are a few of the issues where the differences between parties is stark and tangible. For goodness sake, gay marriage is being accepted in many states, and mostly due to liberal judges not associated with the Supreme Court. All of New England, excluding Rhode Island, has already accepted gay marriage. It is a wonderful thing, and really, it can’t be stopped. I am not gloating here, just proud of what President Obama is doing.