Obama Sure Of Sotomayor's Abortion Stance

Washington Post: White House Scrambles To Provide Abortion Rights Backers With Reassurances On Sonia Sotomayor

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Washington Post Staff Writers Robert Barnes and Michael D. Shear.

---

The White House scrambled yesterday to assuage worries from liberal groups about Judge Sonia Sotomayor's scant record on abortion rights, delivering strong but vague assurances that the Supreme Court nominee agrees with President Obama's belief in constitutional protections for a woman's right to the procedure.

Facing concerns about the issue from supporters rather than detractors, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama did not ask Sotomayor specifically about abortion rights during their interview. But Gibbs indicated that the White House is nonetheless sure she agrees with the constitutional underpinnings of Roe v. Wade, which 36 years ago provided abortion rights nationwide.

"In their discussions, they talked about the theory of constitutional interpretation, generally, including her views on unenumerated rights in the Constitution and the theory of settled law," Gibbs said. "He left very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his."

In a 2007 debate during the campaign, then-candidate Obama said, "I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy." The Supreme Court found that the right to privacy provided a woman the choice to terminate a pregnancy in its early stages.

The president's advisers could not point to a specific basis for Obama's belief that he and Sotomayor share the same view on the issue, other than their general conversation about judicial philosophies. In nearly 20 years as a district judge and on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York, Sotomayor has not confronted constitutional questions about the issue.

Several aides said they do not think the issue came up in the preliminary conversations that Sotomayor held with White House staff before her interview with the president. And one senior adviser said the reports that were compiled by lawyers for Obama referenced only her relatively sparse legal record on the issue.

But White House officials appeared eager to send a message that abortion rights groups do not need to worry about how she might rule in a challenge to Roe v. Wade.

"He did not specifically ask, as we've stated for the past several days," Gibbs said. "But as I just said, I think he feels -- I know he feels -- comfortable, generally, with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his."

Officials said they had private conversations yesterday with groups on both sides of the abortion debate. Senior Senate Democrats said they expect that liberal Democratic senators will raise the issue with Sotomayor in private meetings next week on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), one of the Senate's leading abortion rights supporters, said she will not specifically ask Sotomayor about Roe but said she has no reason to doubt Sotomayor's position on the issue. "I feel as comfortable as I could possibly feel," Boxer said.

The abortion issue is likely to arise in Sotomayor's confirmation hearings in July, in part because of her background as a Catholic. But she is unlikely to offer any more clarity than have previous nominees. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., for instance, ducked the question during his 2005 hearings by saying that Roe is "settled as a precedent of the court."

Sotomayor is nominated to join a court that is fundamentally split on the issue. In its last major decision, the court ruled 5 to 4 in 2007 to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. It was the first time the court approved the ban of a specific abortion procedure and the first time it approved an abortion restriction that did not include an exception to protect the health of the woman.

The justice Sotomayor would succeed, David H. Souter, was in the minority in that case, so her vote would not have altered the outcome.

But Souter was one of the three authors of the 2002 decision that upheld the basic tenets of Roe. Abortion rights supporters think that Roe survives today with the support of the four liberals on the court, among them Souter, plus Justice Anthony Kennedy. Replacing Souter with someone who does not support Roe would obviously imperil the right.

National abortion rights groups have issued welcoming but cautious statements on the judge's nomination, and have called on the Senate to discern her views. But the groups have been reluctant to publicly challenge the White House on the issue, declining requests to comment further on their concerns.

Sotomayor's most notable decision on abortion came in 2002, when she ruled against abortion rights advocates who wanted to challenge what is known as the Mexico City rule. It forbade overseas organizations that receive U.S. funds from providing or promoting abortion services. The rule has been a political football, put in place by Republican presidents and rescinded by Democrats, most recently by Obama in January.

Sotomayor's decision reveals nothing about abortion rights but relies on precedents from the Supreme Court and the 2nd Circuit to deny the challengers' suit to go forward. "We have been over this ground before," Sotomayor wrote, noting a previous case before the court that raised almost identical issues.

"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," she concluded for the unanimous three-judge panel.

Even more tangentially, Sotomayor has ruled that a suit brought by a group of abortion protesters who claimed police brutality could go forward; it focused on questions of municipal liability. And in cases involving deportation to China, she has written about the country's sterilization and forced abortion standards. In one case, she talked about how husbands would be affected: "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."

In the few days since Sotomayor's nomination, no record of her personal feelings on the issue have emerged; some former clerks say they do not remember discussing it with her. George Pavia, senior partner in the law firm that hired Sotomayor as a corporate litigator before her days on the bench, said he thinks that support of abortion rights would be in line with her generally liberal instincts.

"I can guarantee she'll be for abortion rights," Pavia said.

Also before she was a judge, Sotomayor served on the board of the Maternity Center Association, a Manhattan nonprofit group that focuses on improving maternity care for women.

Carol Sakala, director of programs for the organization (now called Childbirth Connection), said today that it "deals exclusively with women who want to carry their pregnancies to term" but has never taken a position on abortion. She said abortion has never come up at a board meeting in the more than 10 years she has worked there and is not discussed in her daily work.

"We have no reason to have a position on abortion. We aren't involved in any manner with that issue," Sakala said. "There's no paper trail on it, because it's not relevant to our work."


Staff writers Paul Kane, Jerry Markon, Shailagh Murray and Keith B. Richburg contributed to this report.

[stn_sage]

I've heard about and read the so-called "infamous" comment made by Sotomayor in one of her rulings! But, I don't think it "proves" that she's a racist, as much as it shows she's using a stereotypical view to make a point in her ruling! Folks---there IS a difference!

Besides that---I haven't seen so much as ONE other legitimate complaint against her!

Over the years, I've seen plenty of other less capable judges nominated to the court---in fact, many people would argue that a couple of them made it ONTO the court, anyway! And, I ---for one--- wouldn't care to argue against that claim!

As far as I can tell---there's NO valid reason not to SWIFTLY pass her! The GOP shouldn't be allowed to obstruct the process! They've already hurt the country enough! It would further demonstrate Mr. Obama's and the Democrat party's lack of political muscle! And, negatively impact on them in 2010 elections, if they don't start showing some "backbone" and stand up against the GOP instead of kow-towing to them so often!

I know this---if she has some secret extremist rightwing agenda---and she gets onto the court---Mr. Obama can "kiss a second term goodbye"! He's already aggravated and disappointed his base and supporters MORE THAN he should have! THIS, would be
an early 'final nail' in his coffin---as far as getting re-elected goes!

[onesword]

Sotomayor will legislate from the bench exactly how Obama tells her to...that's why he picked her...he prefers empathizing with a plaintiff or defendant according to their race, rather than by Constitutional Law.
Posted by TheEverReadyBunny

Maybe I've misread an article when they first announced her as his choice. They described her as being a type of person that don't take any nonsense from anyone. So in your opinion it was a complete lie. Okee Dokey.

[onesword]

I'm always amused at the wanna be intelligent people who call those who really ARE intelligent names like "dumb" and "stupid."

Judge Sotomayor graduated at the top of her class from one of the toughest law schools around. A person can't be 'dumb' and accomplish that.

But you average joes out there keep showing your stuff and trying to demean her; keeps the rest of us entertained.
Posted by texbelle123

That's the mindset of some people no matter what President Obama does or who he chooses within his cabinet. Someone will definitely find a flaw even if they have to create one.

[realnews12]

Sotomayor is so radical, the Supreme Court has rule against her 80% of the time....
This has nothing to do with gender or race.

Posted by Mr_2258-007

As usual, Mr_2258, you have the "facts" wrong. The Supreme Court has overturned Sotomayor's rulings 60% of the time ( 3 out of the 5 cases which came before the Court), which is actually a good record. On average, the Court overturns THREE-QUARTERS -- that's 75% -- of the rulings that come before it. Justice Alito's record before he became a Justice was that 100% of his rulings were overturned by the Court !!!

This isn't 1970. Abortion is not the big issue. Child remands into foster care are the hot button item as are child support, visitation, abduction and protection.

[texbelle123]

I'm always amused at the wanna be intelligent people who call those who really ARE intelligent names like "dumb" and "stupid."

Judge Sotomayor graduated at the top of her class from one of the toughest law schools around. A person can't be 'dumb' and accomplish that.

But you average joes out there keep showing your stuff and trying to demean her; keeps the rest of us entertained.

[nolalou]

Sotomayor is so radical, the Supreme Court has rule against her 80% of the time....
This has nothing to do with gender or race.
Posted by Mr_2258-007

Oh give it up, first your facts are BOGUS, and second , you are an IDIOT if you think Sotomayor is some kind of radical! If we believed you, you;d think Obama had nominated Fidel Castro! Give it up, you MORON!

[mrzerato]

Sotomayor is so radical, the Supreme Court has rule against her 80% of the time....
This has nothing to do with gender or race.
Posted by Mr_2258-007

Samuel alito was so radical the supreme court ruled against him100% of the time


Out of the some 4000 cases as a judge on the court of Appeals she had only three that was over ruled. That means she has a confirmation rate of 99.99%. Not bad .

[timothyjo]

he was sure of closing gitmo, sure of realsing photos obama is only sure of what hillary tells him. LOL Now he is sure of this judge?Us africian americans need sure leadership!But i dont know about this guy.

[dragyn30]

Who cares we need change! Her comments were made a long time ago and if you think about they bore some truth.

I have to commend Obama on his attempts at diversifying his appointments. I work in an internationally and ethnically diverse organization and while we are not perfect we do a good job. We do not all see eye-to-eye but we do respect each others position on issue. I believe that is what he is trying to do.

While I do not condone abortion as a means of birth control, it does have its place, until these idiots who cry murder step up to the plate and cough up the money to pay for these children they need to back off, we euthanize sick animals, why condemn a horribly disfigured or critically ill child to a zero quality life.

I have walked this path, it is not something a woman wants to put herself through.

[gratvialavas]

She will be nominated and there is NOTHING you can do about it. NOTHING.

[denn034]

Bring on the filibuster!!!!!

[npkppprc]

Basically with her stupid comments, she is nothing but a highly educated racists with no common sense. Kind of like the socialist who nominated her. Remember don't talk bad about the Latina judge it may upset someone.

[gratvialavas]

Ghostfighter lives

[mrzerato]

WHERE IS THE RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY?!!!!!!

How about one of those people who can think for themselves? They're called atheists or agnostics. Put an atheist on the court!!!
Posted by sunspro

This is one of the most surprising facts I have seen. I had to check for myself. Yeah I think we do need a little religious diversity. If she gets on the court, she will be the 11th catholic justice to serve and 6 will be on the same court. Yeah we need some diversity.

[credibility2]

valaric - to answer your question - as a nation, we've become dominated by the left who is paranoid about gender, orientation, skin color and affirmative action and not content until it's rammed down everyone's throats. This began back in the 1960s and has worsened over the decades. We've become a nation full of PC do-good-ers and government-reliant leeches that are spineless, lack integrity, personal accountability, responsibility and the will to be self-reliant. It is a cancer that has no cure.

[mwhc1]

this is the thing with republicans.... they are of course split on how to handle this... but the problem is they are worried about their image, worried about a backlash. republicans miss the whole issue here. i dont think the republicans are going to do any better in 2010 or 2012. it really is amazing how the entire party has fallen. wouldnt have guessed it just a few years ago. nothing stays the same forever!

[sunspro]

Just answered my own question:

Catholics: Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Scalia.
Jewish: Breyer, Ginsburg.
Protestant: Stevens.
Souter is Episcopalian, to be replaced by the SIXTH Catholic on the court.

WHERE IS THE RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY?!!!!!!

How about one of those people who can think for themselves? They're called atheists or agnostics. Put an atheist on the court!!!

[sunspro]

I have been told that, if Sotomayor is confirmed, she'll be the 5th Catholic currently on the Supreme Court.
Is that correct?
That is way too many Catholics for me! How about a Jew or atheist on the Court?!

[axel3599]

You know, the one thing I have noticed about this story is about the "interpretation of the constitution" Instead of trying to "interperet" it into what you want to interperet it as, take it at face value and follow what it says. I am sick of politicians, right wing and left wing politics deciding how the constitution should be "interpereted". You may not agree with everything that is in the constitution, but it is set up so that the people have protections from the parasites that politicians have become.