Americans United for Life President & CEO Charmaine Yoest outlines the pro-life argument against President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court in today’s Washington Times: “Sotomayor worse than Souter”:
When President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, the conventional wisdom was that she would be an apt replacement for retiring Justice David H. Souter, maintaining the high court’s “balance” — or, more accurately, its lopsided liberal tilt.
But Team Obama knows something most Americans don’t. When it comes to the landmark 1973 decision Roe v. Wade and the abortion cases that have since made it to the Supreme Court, Sotomayor is no Souter. Rather, her record shows that for the overwhelming majority of Americans who support at least some restrictions on abortion, she is worse than Justice Souter — reading a “fundamental right” to abortion into the Constitution.
On the basic issue of whether Roe v. Wade is settled precedent, Justice Souter is a reliable vote for the high court’s liberal wing. He has refused to take the opportunity, in cases such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, to re-examine the judicial basis for permitting legal abortion. But when it comes to common-sense restrictions on abortion, Justice Souter has voted repeatedly to uphold laws such as informed consent and parental notification — which polls show are supported by at least 70 percent of the American public.
Not so Justice Sotomayor, whose activism before becoming a federal judge reveals strong and consistent opposition to common-sense regulations.
Read the full story on the Washington Times‘ Web site.
LEARN MORE: For in-depth background on Sotomayor’s record of abortion advocacy via her work for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund — which, as Yoest notes, she has “never disavowed” — visit Sotomayor411.com
