Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Sonia Sotomayor, Abortion | 07/16/2009 9:25 am

Sotomayor Doesn't Give Too Many Details on Abortion Stance, But Says Women's Views Are Important (Video)

Republicans couldn’t quite pin Supreme Court nominee down on abortion; many not happy with her many non-answers.
By The Staff at wowOwow.com
Image: CNN

"Would we want to see nine white men debating abortion? Probably not. I think most women feel better knowing there’s going to be a couple of women on there hearing those issues. I think in a country as diverse as ours, where we live in a democracy, it is important."

That was one of the most striking statements Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor made Wednesday during Day 3 of her Senate confirmation hearings. She skirted many questions relating to abortion and other hot-button topics — nothing new for Supreme Court nominees — but even some Democrats were reportedly getting frustrated, including Sen. Arlen Specter, D-PA. Sotomayor said even President Obama didn’t ask her about her stance on abortion.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, a leading abortion opponents and a physician who has delivered hundreds of babies, asked if it would be legal for a woman to abort a fetus at 38 weeks after learning the baby had spina bifida.

"I can’t answer that question in the abstract because I would have to look at what the state of the state’s law was on that question," Sotomayor said. She recited portions of the 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld a right to an abortion but allowed some restrictions so long as they do not place an "undue burden" on the woman’s rights. "The question is: Is the state regulation regulating what a woman does an undue burden?" she said.

The day before, Sotomayor said she considers Roe v. Wade "settled law," a stance she maintained yesterday when asked whether the 38 cases argued before the Supreme Court pertaining to Roe v. Wade — none of which overturned the law — meant Roe v. Wade should be here to stay. 

"The history of a particular holding of the court and how the court has dealt with it in subsequent cases would be among one of the factors among many a court would likely consider," Sotomayor said. "The court has considered in other cases the number of times the issue has arisen and what actions the court has or has not taken with respect to that. Casey did reaffirm the core holding of Roe and so my understanding would be the issue would be addressed in light of Casey."

Watch a portion of Sotomayor’s response on abortion below when questioned by Sen. Al Franken, D-MN (via Huffington Post):

 

27 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

S G
Men making these desicions for women. Not. Abortion is legal. The crazies who want to control others lost.
By S G on 07/16/2009 9:30 am
F P
When Roberts was questioned re Roe vs Wade he answered much the same way, and didn’t commit himself.  Sotomayor has stated it’s the law of the land and so it is.  What more does she need to say?  Nothing.
By F P on 07/16/2009 10:27 am
Mel Berg
I have heard little of the questioning but seems that some, are just trying to play to their leader Limbaugh.
By Mel Berg on 07/16/2009 10:03 am
Libra Lady

Actually I think the dems are more worried about what Rush is saying than the Republicans.  To listen to the networks, not a day goes by that Rush’s name isn’t mentioned…which I think is hilarious.  I mean he’s a radio commentator…do the dems fear him that much???

Back on topic, the hearings have been very interesting from both parties questions.  Although, jmho, franken on this panel makes me laugh!!!  That’s all I’m going to say!!!

By Libra Lady on 07/16/2009 10:23 am
caj p
I’m glad it’s just Al Franken that makes you laugh the whole Republican party makes us laugh!
By caj p on 07/16/2009 10:26 am
L. C.

English Teacher

Great Post! … Hilarious! … Bingo!

By L. C. on 07/17/2009 7:24 am
caj p
They are just going through the motions of trying to look tough but they haven’t got a leg to stand on as she will get confirmed.  Shame they are so sad that they play little games of acting tough for the few followers they have left in that party of no credibilty.
By caj p on 07/16/2009 10:25 am
F P
Caj, better Franken than that crook he replaced.
By F P on 07/16/2009 10:28 am
F P

Actually Caj, they’re making asses of themselves esp Kyl and more especially Jeff Sessions; here’s an example of this man’s beliefs:

From an article in The New Republic from 2002 (which is worth reading in full, to understand Sessions’ unique position on the committee), here is a list of statements attributed to Jeff Sessions during his confirmation battle:

 

  • Sessions called the NAACP and the ACLU "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Further said these groups had "forced civil rights down the throats of people."

  • Sessions called a white civil rights lawyer "a disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases.

  • During his confirmation hearing, called the Voting Rights Act of 1965 "a piece of intrusive legislation."

  • Sessions told colleagues that he "used to think [the Ku Klux Klan] were OK," until he discovered some of them were "pot smokers," showing a rather strange set of priorities.

  • A black former assistant U.S. Attorney who worked with Sessions said Sessions had called him "boy," and after hearing him chastise an assumably-white (the story doesn’t say) secretary, Sessions told him to "be careful what you say to white folks."

  • Sessions called Charles Pickering, a George W. Bush nominee who had in 1959 written a paper defending Mississippi’s anti-miscegenation law, "a leader for racial harmony," and "courageous."

 

By F P on 07/16/2009 10:42 am
caj p
I know they are all a joke!   How they can think that this dumb party can ever survive with all that has gone on with Sandford/Ensign and this joke of a hearing is beyond me.  They should really re-name themselves the Repugnant Party as that is exactly what they have become!
By caj p on 07/16/2009 1:09 pm
Mary Quite-Contrary
Funny Frank you would address Sessions’ “issues” with race relations. Maybe this will give him a “jump off” point to discuss LaRaza with Sotomayor?
By Mary Quite-Contrary on 07/16/2009 1:39 pm
F P

Issues?  The man is a committed segregationist and racist.  It’s obvious—and you need to look up what Raza means in the Latino community.  

By F P on 07/16/2009 2:34 pm
Mary Quite-Contrary
I have read up on “The Race.”. How is extolling the virtues of “the race” any different than Sessions bigoted opinions? Bigotry is bigotry.
By Mary Quite-Contrary on 07/16/2009 3:21 pm
F P
Ever heard of the white "race"? The Black "race"?  Actually La Raza can refer and most times does to The People. 
By F P on 07/17/2009 5:59 am
deber B
F P, do you find it interesting that the norm now for both republicans and democrats is to not commit yourself under examination?  They have learned to talk around the question and when they are finished they haven’t really said anything.  This is far from a slam at Sotomayor.   It’s more of a learned behavior.   Where do we go from here?   So much has changed.   I remember previous Supreme Court Justice nominees raising their voices, making their positions clear and at the end one had a real sense of who the judge was and how he/she thought.    I know I’m old, LOL, but I liked it better the old fiery way!   Your thoughts?
By deber B on 07/17/2009 7:13 am