Will Sonia Sotomayor Abort Roe v Wade?

Now, this is quite an interesting turn. It seems some of the radical abortionists on the Left are worried that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is not an absolutist on the "divine right" to kill a baby before it is born. Now, there is no evidence that she is ready to overthrow Roe v. Wade. However, Sotomayor has ruled in favor of the Bush administration's so-called "Mexico City policy," freedom of assembly for pro-life protestors. and in favor of a Chinese woman's amnesty due to the specter of forced birth control if the woman returned to China. None of those are radical positions and none point to a justice who will overturn the "Plessy" of human life. Still, there are some interesting nuggets in this mini-controversy.

First, we are once again being treated to the "'Roe' is in danger/the sky is falling" drumbeat from the pro-abortion crowd. The ABC News story linked here mentions that "Roe" has hung on by a narrow 5-4 margin in recent cases. Really? I don't recall the Supreme Court ruling on the general principle of "Roe." They have handled cases involving various laws under the abortion heading, but not the procedure itself. They also refer to a recent CNN poll in which 68% of the respondents said they did not want to see Roe v Wade completely overturned. Did you catch that? Completely overturned. Now, there is no mention of parental consent, partial birth abortion or other issues that often reach the courts. In fact, it is issues like those and physician conscience statutes or foreign aid for abortions that Sotomayor may hear as a Supreme Court justice. Of course, the red herring is the assertion that an overturn of Roe v Wade would make abortion illegal. It, of course, would simply turn over the issue to the states and admit that ending a life is not a constitutional right.

This dust up is also a reminder of the radical anti-life nature of NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and, to be honest, President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama. Most pro-abortion (or pro-choice to ease their conscience) people have pure, if misguided, reasons for their stance. However, these organizations celebrate the act of abortion as though it is a religious ritual. They would prefer no limits until the cord is cut, no parental notification, massive foreign aid for international abortions and to prosecute doctors who do not wish to perform abortions. Let us not forget President Obama, as a back-bench wallflower in the Illinois Senate, gave an impassioned speech in an attempt to defeat the Born Alive Act which directed doctors to administer aid to babies that survived botched abortions. To state Senator Obama, the intent to kill the baby carried more weight than any need to sustain its life if it survived the procedure. He can try to mollify his position as a "moderate" on abortion, but his opposition to that common sense protection of life is a matter of record. Former nurse Jill Stanek catalogued Obama's defenses for his vote.

Sonia Sotomayor, despite deciding properly on some life issues, is still not qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. She has made it clear, as has President Obama, that the law is not as important to her as the lessons of her life experience. That is LibSpeak for "I'll advance the causes I believe in, the law be damned." Therein lays the irony. Obama likely assumed that Sotomayor, like most Leftists, would never divert from script. Nothing is more important than advancing their agenda and nothing will get in the way. In this case, while grievance politics and socialism are part of her life story, so is her Hispanic and Roman Catholic heritage. Given her judicial philosophy, one can assume her decisions in the "controversial" cases were a product of her life experiences rather than her fidelity to the law. The question is, how far will those Catholic-influenced sensibilities take her? A number of Republican presidents have been surprised by justices who lurched to the Left after their appointment. Sotomayor will be a dependable Leftist in regard to statism and grievance mongering, but how sweet would it be for an Obama appointment to be the deciding vote in a pro-life decision, especially the overturning of Roe?