Sotomayor on Abortion:

[Junkdrawer]

Here's what little I've found. Feel free to add to the thread.
...

Abortion (Mexico City policy): Sotomayor ruled against an abortion rights group in its challenge to the so-called "Mexico City Policy," which states that nations that receive U.S. funds may neither perform nor promote abortions. The abortion rights advocates alleged that the policy violated their First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. Sotomayor upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the case, saying that the group's First Amendment rights had not been violated and that it had not been denied due process. On the equal protection claim, Sotomayor wrote, "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." Sotomayor did not address the underlying abortion issue. Center for Reproductive Law and Policy vs. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2002)

...



http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.resume/index.html

[Uzybone]

1. that decision has nothing to do with abortion

your post even says so.

[Buzz Clik]

5. I noticed that, too.

[CTyankee]

2. What she said was really just a statement of the truth. Prochoicers lost that one

in the Supreme Court. That's reality. It really doesn't give us a hint as to her future direction.

[DFW]

3. If taken at face value, one could also read into her decision:

"The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the pro-choice position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds."

All it means to me is that as far as she is concerned, the Obama adminsitration is free to do as it sees fit on this matter, just as Bush was.

[csziggy]

8. President Obama already reversed Bush's Mexico City Policy

So isn't this question pretty much moot for at least the next four years?

[Marksbrother]

4. Wonder what her position would be if the issue had to do with

birth control. If the GOP recaptures a majority of the House seats in 2010 (a possibility if the economy worsens or doesn't improve and if Obama cuts or tries to cut Social S. benefits) -- and then passes legislation that states that nations that receive U.S. funds
may neither provide birth control devices/products nor promote their use (which would, of course, include condoms), how would Sotomayor rule? That the Supreme Ct. has made clear that the Government is free to favor anti-birth control over the pro birth-control position?

[MADem]

6. As others have said, it has nothing to do with abortion--it has to do with what the

government is "free to do."

What it is, though, is a cowpie to throw at the right if they start crying about "liberal activist" nonsense.

[backscatter712]

9. Very true.

In other words, Sotomayor knows the law, knows the relevant court cases, and understands how to color inside the lines. She's not going to make reckless "judicial activist" decisions.

Yeah, it's something we can fling at the right-wing howler monkeys.

[book_worm]

7. Try again.

[Junkdrawer]

10. Got anything else? Anything?

As she's replacing a pro-choice vote on a closely divided court, I'm thinking this issue just MAY be important to some.

[WeDidIt]

11. Look at the terminology she used in her decision

She called it "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life".

She called it "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion".

She rendered her decision based entirely upon clear precedent for the SCOTUS, too.

[Junkdrawer]

12. Point taken....

As usual, we're all reduced to reading tea leaves...if we weren't that would be instant cause for disqualification.