Fair and Balanced: Weighing Sotomayor’s Opinions


President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the
Supreme Court should shock no one.  What
is surprising is the relative lack of information about Sotomayor and one of
the most perennially controversial Constitutional issues: abortion rights.

In her time on the bench, Sotomayor’s only major
abortion-related case was Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bushand her conclusion isn’t
going to warm the hearts of reproductive rights activists. In that case, the
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (now the Center for Reproductive Rights)
challenged the Global Gag Rule, a policy which barred U.S. money from funding
any organization abroad that so much as mentioned abortion as an option or
advocated for abortion rights.  The
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (CRLP) argued that the Gag Rule violated
their First Amendment, Equal Protection and Due Process rights.  On the First Amendment claim, CRLP argued
that the Gag Rule prevented the organization from fully communicating with
international non-governmental organizations; if non-U.S.-based NGOs worked
with CRLP to advocate for abortion rights in their own countries, they would
lose U.S. funding.  Thus, the Gag Rule’s
speech-chilling effect prevented CRLP, a domestic organization, from carrying
out their mission, thereby curtailing their freedoms of speech and
association.  CRLP also argued that the
Gag Rule violated their Fifth Amendment Equal Protection rights by privileging
anti-abortion views and putting the CRLP on unequal footing when it comes to
domestic competition with anti-choice organizations, and violated CRLP’s Due
Process rights by, as Sotomayor summarized in her opinion, "failing to give clear notice of what speech and
activities they prohibit and by encouraging arbitrary and discriminatory
enforcement."

The Second Circuit ruled against CRLP, and Sotomayor was the
judge who penned the decision.  She held
that that a previous case — Planned
Parenthood Federation of America,
Inc. v. Agency for International Development
– "not only controls
this case conceptually; it presented the same issue."  In that case:

This
Court rejected the challenge on the merits, finding "no constitutional
rights implicated" by the Policy and the Standard Clause. Planned
Parenthood,
915 F.2d at 66. The Court reasoned that the domestic NGOs
remained free to use their own funds to pursue abortion-related activities in
foreign countries and that "[t]he harm alleged in the complaint is the
result of choices made by foreign NGOs to take AID’s money rather than engage
in non-AID funded cooperative efforts with plaintiffs-appellants." Id. at 64.
"Such an incidental effect" on the activities of the domestic NGOs,
the Court held, did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Id. The Court
concluded that "the Standard Clause does not prohibit
plaintiffs-appellants from exercising their first amendment rights." Id. Moreover, the
Court explained that whatever one might think of the Mexico City Policy,
"the wisdom of, and motivation behind, this policy are not justiciable
issues," and the Court found the restrictions to be rationally related to
the "otherwise nonjusticiable decision limiting the class of beneficiaries
of foreign aid." Id.
at 64-65. Having rejected plaintiffs’ claims on the merits, this Court declined
to address the question of whether plaintiffs had standing under Article III. Id. at 66.

 

The First
Amendment claim was dismissed because the issue had already been decided in the Planned Parenthood case.  The Due Process claim was dismissed for lack
of prudential standing, because CRLP’s complaint did not fall within the "zone
of interests" protected by the Due Process Clause – it was a third party (the
foreign NGOs), not CRLP, whose rights are constitutionally unclear because of
the Gag Rule.  The Equal Protection claim
was dismissed because the Gag Rule’s privileging of anti-abortion views did not
infringe upon a fundamental Constitutional right or target a suspect class
(legalese for a classification of groups which have historically been subject
to discrimination, and therefore receive increased scrutiny under the Equal
Protection Clause); further, Sotomayor pointed out that "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." 

The Center for
Reproductive Law and Policy lost the case, and the Global Gag Rule continued to
compromise women’s health around the globe until Barack Obama took office.

That outcome
disheartened feminists, liberals and reproductive justice advocates, and I wish
it had been decided differently.  But the
decision wasn’t necessarily a bad one – and it absolutely should not stop
progressive women’s rights activists from supporting her nomination. 

If anything, CRLP v. Bush highlights precisely why
Sotomayor should, in a sane world, be an easy confirmation: She sticks to the
rule of law, respects precedent and writes thoughtful and reasoned
opinions.  She was nominated to the
federal district court by George H.W. Bush. 
Her decisions are left-leaning insofar as she generally seeks to protect
Constitutional rights by supporting religious freedom and free speech, and she
often sides with the plaintiffs in discrimination cases – hardly "activist"
material.  But she’s not a liberal dream
by any stretch.  She has some bad First
Amendment cases to her name (Doninger
v. Niehoff
, where she sided with a school that disqualified a student
from running for senior class secretary after the student posted a vulgar
school-related message on her blog), and some bad Fourth Amendment ones (United
States v. Howard
, where she held it was constitutional for state
troopers to entice suspects away from their cars in order to allow other
troopers to search the vehicles for drugs). 
Those cases, though, are the exceptions rather than the rule; generally,
Sotomayor follows a fairly consistent Constitutional philosophy, and errs on
the side of maintaining rather than limiting rights.

Given her
history, it’s hard to grasp why conservatives brand her "a liberal
activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is
more important than the law as written," as Wendy
E. Long, counsel to the right-wing Judicial Confirmation Network, put it
.  Sotomayor has clearly and consistently
deferred to "the law as written" — she’s considerably less activist and
dogmatic than Bush’s two Supreme Court appointees, John Roberts and Samual
Alito.  Unfortunately for conservatives,
the law as written does affirm the rights to speak without governmental
intervention, to practice your religion freely, to be free from state-sponsored
religious exercises, to maintain your privacy, and to retain certain
protections even if you are a suspected criminal or a criminal defendant. 

Sotomayor has embraced free speech rights even where the
speech was abhorrent (an NYPD officer mailing anonymous bigoted and racist materials
to charities requesting donations); stood up for victims of race, gender, age
and disability discrimination; and dissented
when the Second Circuit rejected
a challenge to the New York law that
disenfranchises convicted felons.  She is
by most accounts an intellectually gifted, hard-working and highly experienced
judge.  So while there is unfortunately
little to go on with regard to her views on abortion rights, we know that
Sotomayor is a smart, capable left-leaning moderate. She’s not going to undo
years of a conservative court alone but she is highly qualified and undoubtedly
progressive.

Sotomayor would not have been my first choice, primarily
because my political leanings are far to the left of her legal theory.  But I’ll be supporting her whole-heartedly.  Her trail of opinions paints a picture of a
fair-minded, incisive legal scholar who is unafraid to stake out unpopular but
legally meritorious positions. 
Right-wingers are going to oppose her nomination with full force – we
would be foolish to do it for them. 

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • invalid-0

    Jill:

    As an avowed Anti-Papist, I must say that the prospect of no less than six (6) professed Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court worries me terribly. I can’t imagine that you do not see the possibility that Sotomayor – though progressive on certain issues – may be a vote that will undermine, if not overturn Roe and its progeny? With such a long career in the Federal Courts, I find it hard to believe that she hasn’t been avoiding reproductive justice issues intentionally, and that worries me greatly. From what I’ve heard, we don’t even have so much as a donation to NARAL or Planned Parenthood to rely upon.

    I mean, she spent several years under the tutelage of priests and brothers and nuns and engaged in all of that sort of ornate Popery herself. I can’t believe that this wouldn’t have had an effect on her, or that palling around with a bunch of other anti-choice Catholics might not have an affect upon her views.

    I have nightmares that Rome might “activate” her and Kennedy at some point after she’s been confirmed as a Justice.

    Please help assuage my fears, Jill.

    • invalid-0

      Reproductive Revolutionary:
      “she spent several years under the tutelage of priests and
      brothers and nuns and engaged in all of that sort of ornate Popery herself. I can’t believe that this wouldn’t have had an effect on her, or that palling around with a bunch of other anti-choice Catholics might not have an affect upon her views.”

      So Catholics, former Catholics and recovering Catholics can’t possibly be pro-choice? Well, there’s an enlightened, fair-minded, non-judgmental attitude (she said tongue placed firmly in cheek). How dare you? I defy anybody to question my commitment to reproductive rights on the basis of how I’ve chosen to worship over the course of my lifetime. It is no more your business than is the reason a woman has for choosing an abortion, a tradition anti-choicers hold to with ferocity.

      I suggest a long, hard look in the mirror, Reproductive Revolutionary.

    • http://earthlink.net invalid-0

      Repro revo-
      You’re watching much to much DaVinci Code stuff. The Vatican is going to pull some type of a switch to turn Sonia on? Give me a break. She doesn’t even go to Mass except for Christmas, weddings and funerals.
      That said, thank God for Catholic schools that educate poor kids like Sotomayer and give them the educational and intellectual rigor to get out of the projects. I’m glad she didn’t waste away in the public schools in her neighborhood. Thank her hard working Catholic mom for that. And, being a fiesty New Yorker I’m not so sure she won’t be doing battle with the Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas gang.

  • invalid-0

    Jill, I agree with you that Sotomayor is a good choice, but not a liberal dream. And it is hard to know how she would vote on issues that haven’t come before her, so there is room to be both optimistic and pessimistic! But I think you might be letting her off a bit too easily. Don’t feminists and progressives want the “liberal dream” judge, and if so, what’s wrong with being disappointed with anything else? There are plenty of other women of color who have been more visionary on progressive issues. To that end, I think your ending comment came off as a bit of a letdown for me: “Right-wingers are going to oppose her nomination with full force – we would be foolish to do it for them.” I understand that you’re saying that we shouldn’t pile on someone who the Right is also piling on. OK, maybe it’s not a fight we should take on. But I think that in the pages of RH Reality Check, we shouldn’t back down from calling Obama out and asking for more.

  • invalid-0

    Jeanette, I think it is you who need to take a look in the mirror and realize that you are a captive of a false consciousness. How could you possibly be a part of that Silly Hat Club, which is like Patriarchy central and hates you so much? I think what you need is some immersion in Reproductive Rights and Women’s Studies classes, or in lieu of formal education, spend some time at pandagon or other good blogs that call out the Catholic Church for what it is – the enemy of women everywhere.

    • invalid-0

      Tell me you are joking – what hate and bigotry if I take your comments at their face value. Can you not make an contructive argument without resorting to name call? “Silly Hat Club” indeed! You embarrass yourself.

  • invalid-0

    How one worships and identifies spiritually, like the contents of any woman’s uterus, is absolutely none of your business. No Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or any person has to prove to you that they are pro-women and pro-choice. Where is your proof that you’re pro-choice? Sorry, but being non-Catholic isn’t proof enough to me that you are feminist yourself.

    And perhaps you are the one who should read Pandagon more carefully. While they directly attack the Catholic church’s antifeminist, heterosexist, and racist views, they are careful not to demonize feminists who choose to identify as Catholics.

  • http://www.joejp.blogspot.com invalid-0

    As a product of Catholic education, I can tell you being a “Catholic” can mean so many things. After all, Justice Brennan was a Catholic, and though he is somewhat lackluster on abortion issues, so is Kennedy — who wrote Lawrence v. Texas and protects the rights of sexual speech and is wary of the death penalty. After all, Anna Quindlen, the feminist writer is a Catholic too.

    FWIW, she is also divorced.

  • invalid-0

    Sotomayor is very very troubling pick. And yes, Kennedy is the one who gave us Carhart v. Gonzalez and I would really really really want to have some proof that Sotomayor is willing to say THAT decision was wrongheaded before she passes go.

    I fully agree with Femisex.com that Obama will put all his eggs in the basket of affirmative action for minorities at the expense of women and reproductive choice when it comes to his picks for Supreme Court.

    Femisex predicted the Sotomayor nomination, based on Sotomayor’s empathy for poeple of color Above whites. I think that will be the reoccuring theme of Obama during his tenure.
    Right about now I am wishing BIG time for a Hillary presidency, b/c i can bet you all the big dollars we wouldn’t be guessing with her.
    And Jill has been so besotted with Obama that I think she’d approve if he picked 50 Cent for the Court.

  • invalid-0

    The White House comment that Judge Sotomayor goes to Mass “on family and other important occasions” should assuage the fears of anyone afraid that she takes much Catholic teaching seriously. The idea that the Papal Nunciowill activate her belongs with Bilderberger organizational charts.

  • invalid-0

    The Catholic Religion is, by its own laws, exclusively male ruled. This means that over half the world’s population, by Catholic law, should have no voice in their own government. The secular government officials who have identified as Catholic have been forced by the Church to obey literally man-made Church law where the Church has the power to enforce it fully, as in the Phillipines, Ireland and Venezuela, for example. Where Catholic women have been elected in these, they have had to follow Church law regarding women’s rights.

    In addition to being only male, those who make and administer Church law are also, by Church law, childless. So they would be that much more removed from the cruelty to children, as well as to women, that results from the church’s use of childbirth to punish and control women’s, but not men’s, sexuality.

    As Kennedy’s decision clearly illustrated in Carhart, for “devout” Catholics, Catholic policy will take precedent over U.S. law. There has been an ever increasing effort by the Church to force U.S. Catholic politicians to enforce Church law as well. Predictably, this effort has been most successful is limiting the rights of women, the silenced majority in the Catholic church.

    Catholic women in the U.S. with the means to do so may well live lives outside the Church’s laws, not just with respect to divorce, but contraception and abortion as well – Catholic women have been for years the largest percentage of religious women who obtain abortions. (Poor women in the U.S. depend for medical care on the public hospitals the Church has quietly taken over during the last several decades). If the Church had tried to limit the lives of all U.S. women as it does in countries where it controls the government, it would have lost them, their money and the political influence of their families in the U.S. I have wished for some time that the Catholic church had done this, so that middle and upper-class American Catholic women would not have the luxury of supporting a religion whose deadly policies they, unlike poor women in the U.S. or women in the rest of the world, can choose not to obey.

    Think about the furor the appointment of a Christian Identity Supreme Court justice would create. The Catholic church does not differ one iota in claiming the divine right of one part of society to rule the other, in silence, for all their lives, based on biology.

  • invalid-0

    There is so much to love about this post:
    “The Catholic Religion is, by its own laws, exclusively male ruled.”
    Exactly!

    “As Kennedy’s decision clearly illustrated in Carhart, for “devout” Catholics, Catholic policy will take precedent over U.S. law.”

    a quick look at Roman Catholics on the Bench will tell you the odds of getting a fair shake for women on repro justice by member of this religion. Sadly Obama has done the math on this. He want to get affirmative action sure thing through at the expense of a big FAT MAYBE on repro rights for women.

    Carhart v Gonzales showed exactly how much Kennedy thought of women and their ability to think without the Church “helping” them along. a check of the other Catholic votes on Carhart will show how stick to the anti-abortion line those votes tend to go.

    “If the Church had tried to limit the lives of all U.S. women as it does in countries where it controls the government, it would have lost them, their money and the political influence of their families in the U.S. I have wished for some time that the Catholic church had done this, so that middle and upper-class American Catholic women would not have the luxury of supporting a religion whose deadly policies they, unlike poor women in the U.S. or women in the rest of the world, can choose not to obey.”
    no a thing to add, so perfectly did you say this!

    But the matter at hand is not the Church so much as it is Obama’s decision to GAMBLE with women’s repro rights! It fits his pattern of saying one thing and doing another, FOCA, HYDE, etc. yes, he tosses us a bone occasionally but that is not CHANGE but stagnation–gag rule comes, gag rule goes, gag rule comes, gag rule goes. WHAT a crock.
    HYDE would be CHANGE, FOCA would be CHANGE. AND to pick a woman to the court who ruled against the Center for Repro Rights??? I can bet you Obama would never in a million years leave the affirmative actions thing to chance!

  • invalid-0

    I’m reposting something I posted on Pandagon in my response to the issue Sotomayor’s affiliation with the RCC:

    The fact is, all we know about Sotomayor’s affiliation with Catholicism is that she was raised Roman Catholic. Which is true for probably more than 90% of first-generation Puerto Ricans living in mainland United States. Gallup recently found that American Catholics were no more likely to be opposed to abortion than non-Catholic Americans. The same poll also found that Roman Catholic Americans are MORE tolerant of premarital sex, divorce, and homosexual relations than non-Roman Catholic Americans. In addition, President Obama scored a larger majority among the Catholic vote than he did the overall vote in November.

    I am not an actively practicing Roman Catholic (or a member of any organized religion), but I was born and raised a Roman Catholic. If I were to be in the process of being appointed to a high-level job like Sotomayor is, I would likely be categorized as a Roman Catholic, despite the fact that I haven’t regularly attended church or followed RCC teachings and traditions in more than a decade. It is true that the most devout members of that faith tend to be more anti-choice than not, and clearly the official stance of the RCC is anti-choice, but there are so many people in America who are considered “Catholic” who barely have anything to do with the church or its teachings that I don’t automatically presume that if someone is categorized as Roman Catholic that they will automatically be an anti-choice wingnut. Both Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy are Roman Catholics as well, but does anybody ever worry about either of them pushing or supporting anti-choice legislation?

    I don’t like that SCOTUS will have 6 Roman Catholics with this appointment. That said, I think there is a pretty huge divide in the ideology of Roman Catholic hierarchy and leaders and the actual members of the Roman Catholic Church in America – most American Catholics just don’t practice or believe in what the RCC officially teaches when it comes to sex and reproduction issues. With that in mind, I have absolutely no fears whatsoever about Sotomayor becoming a fifth vote to overturn Roe or taking strong anti-choice positions in her judicial opinions on SCOTUS.

  • invalid-0

    The secular government officials who have identified as Catholic have been forced by the Church to obey literally man-made Church law where the Church has the power to enforce it fully, as in the Phillipines, Ireland and Venezuela, for example. Where Catholic women have been elected in these, they have had to follow Church law regarding women’s rights.

    All true.

    But we are not the Phillipines, Ireland, or Venezuela.

    And need I remind many here that the most powerful female in the United States Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, is herself a practicing member of the Roman Catholic Church?

    I’m fairly sure Speaker Pelosi’s election and ascension to this position hasn’t forced her to fall in line with the anti-choice views of the Vatican.

    All of the criticism here against the teachings and positions of the RCC are completely valid, which is pretty much why I stopped being a member of that organization early in my college years. The hierarchy and top spokespeople of the RCC in America (including douchebags like the insufferable Bill Donohue) are no doubt enemies to the cause of reproductive justice.

    But the fact is, nearly 1/4 of the U.S. population is considered to be “Catholic”. Though I no longer consider myself a member of that organization and haven’t been a member in years, I never formally renounced my membership, I just stopped going to church and stopped trying to defend their bullshit. And yet, I would still probably be considered a “Catholic” because I was taught by nuns and priests in my youth and participated in Catholic traditions in my upbringing.

    American Catholics as a whole really aren’t much different than non-Catholics in their attitudes towards abortion and contraception, and many polls back this up. The RCC has failed miserably at getting the flock to fall in line with official church teachings here in the U.S.

    I would like to have Judge Sotomayor’s reproductive rights positions clearly known before she gets confirmed, but I won’t assume that simply because she is a Catholic that she is automatically an anti-choice wingnut. Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are both Catholic as well, and I don’t worry about either of them working to get anti-choice legislation passed.

  • invalid-0

    And Jill has been so besotted with Obama that I think she’d approve if he picked 50 Cent for the Court.

    Nice. Are you this much of a racist in real life, too?

  • invalid-0

    But we are not the Phillipines, Ireland, or Venezuela. And need I remind many here that the most powerful female in the United States Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, is herself a practicing member of the Roman Catholic Church? I’m fairly sure Speaker Pelosi’s election and ascension to this position hasn’t forced her to fall in line with the anti-choice views of the Vatican.

    We are coming closer all the time; poor women are already there as far as reproductive rights are concerned. I know firsthand that kind of pitiless use of women, as well, and I am neither elderly nor poor. The Church had the power to force U.S. Catholic women of my mother’s generation into childbirth so often and so much against their will that the doctors at the local Providence hospital who would remove a woman’s uterus to save her life and her sanity were regarded as merciful heroes. The fact that this also forced the women into early menopause was considered a small price to pay.

    As this last election showed, Pelosi is not particularly an advocate for women’s rights and even she has been subjected to the chain-jerking the Catholic Church is increasingly using with regard to U.S. politicians. Had Pelosi been running for President or nominated for the Supreme Court and taken the unequivocal stand for a woman’s right to ownership of her own body that say, Kerry did, she would undoubtedly have been subjected to the same opposition from the (all-male) Catholic College of Bishops, the (all-male) anti-abortion priests’ organizations and the (all-male) Vatican.

    I doubt a Christian Identity judge would be able to begin the immediate re-introduction of segregation in the U.S., either, but then someone from a white minority ruled religion would thankfully never have been considered, much less have a majority on the current Court.

    All that said, I think the problem is not Sotomayer now so much – I like it that she seems to be what the Fathers would consider lapsed – as the already existing SC majority of devout, male, Catholics.

    (I do wish posts could be edited: that second to last paragraph in my original comment should have read:

    “If the Church had tried to limit the lives of all U.S. Catholic women as it does in countries where it controls the government, it would have lost them, their money and the political influence of their families in the U.S. ” )

  • invalid-0

    Nice. Are you this much of a racist in real life, too?

    Are you this much of a sexist?

  • invalid-0

    Well, I can clearly see, by the eloquent posts by many here, that bigotry and hatred are not the sole propriety of the vast right wing conspiracy. Sotomayor has been a staunch advocate of many of the teachings of Christ, as defined by the RCC, including sympathy for the poor, the downtrodden, and those who live on the fringe of society. Nearly all are traditionally liberal and “progressive” points of view. But it seems that when she also holds dear to another teaching of Christ as defined by the RCC, specifically the personhood and dignity of the unborn, ugliness such as that displayed here bubbles over. Posts that, in my estimation, are shameful at best, and downright evil at worst. President Obama seems to have made a fine choice. Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us all.

  • invalid-0

    what exactly was racist about the comment. I find no sign of racism? this seems like a red herring thrown out to deflect the very good point that Jill has been in the tank for Obama for forever. Choice is at stake her and the point made was valid.

  • invalid-0

    Jill,

    You’re a bigot and an idiot. Its not possible that Judge Sotomayor avoided abortion cases intentionally. A judge on the appellate court doesn’t get to pick and choose what cases she gets. Somebody appeals a case and then the case is randomly assigned to a three judge panel. The judges on that panel have no say in what cases they get (other than being able to recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest in their hearing the case)

    • http://france-grenoble.blogspot.com/ invalid-0

      Has not found in words Jill anything fanatical and idiotic. Very in detail and distinctly all is written.

  • invalid-0

    Whoops, my last comment should have addressed to Reproductive Revolutionary, not Jill. that person is the bigot and idiot

    • invalid-0

      You’re the idiot. An intermediate Appellate Justice can decide not to author an opinion, and can influence whether an opinion is a published opinion or no.

      And that is without reference to the fact that you’d have to be a fool to believe that panel assignments are, gee golly, just random.

  • progo35

    Just some thoughts…
    My sister and law, who I love dearly, and I are both Christians. She is very pro choice. I am very pro life. So, being religious doesn’t guarantee one position or the other.

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • invalid-0

    I think she has to explain why she ruled against family planning in the only court case about women’s choice. I mean how the heck can we help the women’s health in countries around the world if we have judges that rule the way she did in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush? If she rules this way on women’s health how will she rule on stem cell research?

  • invalid-0

    Getting back to the first comment, it is weird and potentially scary that there will be six Catholics on the Supreme Court. This is in a country were even not one athiest could join that club.

  • invalid-0

    Guess who voted to uphold the so-called “partial birth” abortion ban, and do so without requiring-as other precedent had previously held- an exception for the life of the mother?

    Give up?

    It was a 5/4 decision and only the 5 Catholics on the court (all males of course) voted to uphold the ban- they had no ecumenical support for that terrible decision.

    Talk about stacking the court- thank you Bushes.

  • invalid-0

    The Roe v. Wade case took three years of trials to reach the United States Supreme Court. In the meantime, McCorvey had not aborted, but had given birth to the baby in question. In the case, she claimed that her pregnancy was the result of rape. She now claims that to have been untrue.[2]

    In the 1980s, McCorvey revealed herself to be the “Jane Roe” of the famous case, and that she had been the “pawn” of two young and ambitious lawyers (Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee) who were looking for a plaintiff with whom they could challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion.[3] In her 1994 autobiography, I Am Roe (her first book), she wrote of her sexuality. For many years she had lived quietly in Dallas, Texas with her long-time partner, Connie Gonzales. “We’re not like other lesbians, going to bars,” she said in a New York Times interview. “We’re lesbians by ourselves. We’re homers.”

    [edit] Conversion
    At a signing of I Am Roe, in 1994, McCorvey was befriended by pro-life activist Flip Benham.[citation needed] Within a year, McCorvey converted to Catholicism. She was baptized on August 8, 1995 by Benham in a Dallas backyard swimming pool, an event that was filmed for national television. Two days later she announced that she had become an advocate of the pro-life movement (specifically, “Operation Rescue”), campaigning to make abortion illegal.

    She wrote in her book, Won by Love,

    “I was sitting in O.R.’s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. ‘Norma,’ I said to myself, ‘They’re right.’ I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that’s a baby! It’s as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth–that’s a baby!
    “I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn’t about ‘products of conception.’ It wasn’t about ‘missed periods.’ It was about children being killed in their mother’s wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion–at any point–was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.”[4]

  • invalid-0

    “I am Roe,” people evolve. McCorvey is no longer the person she was when Roe v. Wade was argued, and now she feels differently about abortion. But there are many women today who are or have been in the position she was in, and who do not agree with her present-day position on abortion.

    I mean, William Shatner is a terrible singer, but that doesn’t take away anything from his portrayal of Capt. Kirk on the old Star Trek series. People are not static entities. Neither you nor I nor he are the same person we were thirty, forty years ago.

  • invalid-0

    I was reading an article on this subject over at the New York Times, and I was struck by the language she used in the gag rule decision.

    “The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position,” she wrote, “and can do so with public funds.”

    I’ve never heard anyone but reproductive rights supporters use the term anti-abortion. They always call themselves pro-life and us pro-abortion. It’s certainly not definitive, but I’m having a hard time seeing her as anti-abortion.

  • invalid-0

    SOTOMAYOR SHALL BE AN ASSET TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT!
    _____________________
    SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL!

    EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY!

    George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked Margie Schoedinger to the point that she could not get away from it, and she committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered her.

    “In her suit, Margie Schoedinger states that George W. Bush committed sexual crimes against her, organized harassment and moral pressure on her, her family members and close relatives and friends. As Schoedinger said, she was strongly recommended to keep her mouth shut. . . . Furthermore, she alleges that George Bush ordered to show pressure on her to the point, when she commits suicide” (blog of drizzten).

    “One of those ‘very leasts’ [was] George Bush’s personal complicity in the death (murder to be precise) of my friend Margie Schoedinger in September of 2003. Determining the exact whereabouts and contacts of . . . George Bush on September 21 thru 22, 2003, should be entirely lacking in difficulty” (Leola McConnell—Nevada Progressive Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010).

    McConnell is correct: Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder where it culminated in her death.

    Bush is a racist hate criminal and hates black people (please feel free to see my “GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” blog). (Schoedinger was an African-American woman.)

    BEWARE: If the president of the United States hates one—for whatever reasons—he can continuously criminally stalk one to the point that one cannot get away from it, and one ultimately commits suicide in desperation to escape. He can murder people in this way.

    Bush is getting away with his murder of Schoedinger—with no sheriff, prosecutor, or court willing to uphold the rule of law.

    Bush’s method of murdering Schoedinger cannot exist in a vacuum: he must have murdered other people in the same way.

    Bush should confess, come out with the names of all of the people whom he murdered in the disgusting way he murdered Schoedinger, undergo execution, and accordingly find himself at the intersection where he would be free.

    (There are thousands of copies of the information above on the Internet. It exists very extensively in all major search engines. Please feel free to go to any major search engine, type “George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked Margie Schoedinger to the point that she could not get away from it, and she committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered her” or “Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder where it culminated in her death,” hit “Enter,” and find innumerable results.)
    _____________________
    Andrew Wang
    (a.k.a. “THE DISSEMINATING MACHINE”)
    B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
    Messiah College, Grantham, PA
    Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

  • http://dynastyirondoors.com/page/1n4w7/INTERIOR_WINE_DOORS/WROUGHT_IRON_DOORS.html invalid-0

    Does anyone know anything else about her? It seems that Democrats across the board are willing to vote for anyone or anything that Obama says is good because he says so. That stimulus package worked out great….Let’s hope that this current pick for the Supreme Court turns out to be better than that.

  • http://www.spinletslab.com/ invalid-0

    Heyyaa…. jus saw a very same blog somewhere else too !!! guess somebody’s been copyin ur stuff…

  • http://www.cityslick.net/ invalid-0

    Abortion rights are definitely a touch subject and one that most will stay away from. Great to see the topic being taken on and the thoughtful approach given. Many people will just use avoidance as an option but it isn’t really available as a choice to those who are in the situation where a decision must be made one way or the other. Excellent details providing food for thought.

    Thanks
    Henal

  • http://www.get-for-free.net/get_free_maybelline_samples invalid-0

    it’s really hard to decide. is it a murder or is it a prevention of an unwanted life which may lead to murder. sometimes I believe that doing nothing (giving birth right away) is much better. still not sure