Sotomayor on Abortion: A Big Blank

This week the Senate has asked Judge Sotomayor a number of questions regarding law, her thoughts on legal precedent, and her previous "wise latina" comments. Most of this week has been quiet. With Democrats holding 60 votes in the Senate, it would be almost impossible for Republicans to block her from the Supreme Court. Could liberal special interest groups block her? What if Judge Sonia Sotomayor was actually against abortion?

This discussion flows from a conversation my Dad and I had about the Judge. He asked me if I would like something interesting to write about Judge Sotomayor. I am always interested in finding unusual points of view on today's topics. My Dad's is unusual, but also compelling, so I thought I would share it.

Do a Google search for "Judge Sotomayor and abortion" and there are a number of articles about questions she has been asked and her lack of a clear answer. Some pro-choice groups are actually upset she hasn't come out clearly in favor of abortion. You can see in real time what the social media universe is saying about the Sotomayor confirmation hearings at Viral Heat. None of the articles I have read give a clear picture about her personal opinions on abortion. My Dad's line of thought goes like this:

1. Judge Sotomayor is a Hispanic Catholic. Both of these groups tend to be more anti-abortion in poll after poll.

2. She attended Cardinal Spellman High School. Here she would have been exposed to the official Catholic view in her late teens. Cardinal Spellman High School is a prestigious Catholic school.

3. Judge Sotomayor has not spoken out about abortion during her career. This is unusual considering the number of social issues she has spoken out about over the decades of her career. She has spoken out about a number of other issues (such as race) that are coming up in her confirmation hearings. As of yet, I haven't heard anyone say that she discussed the moral implications of abortion during her career.

4. Similarly, there are no papers or rulings. She hasn't written any articles on abortion nor has she ruled very significantly on abortion. These last two together show that she has actively dodged giving her opinion in public on abortion.

5. She has been a leader in a number of liberal groups, but not an abortion rights group. Digging through her memberships, I have found no pro-choice group she has held membership too.

6. Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush. In this case, Judge Sotomayor upheld the "Mexico City Policy." This policy said that the federal government would not contribute money to groups outside of the United States that fund abortions. Judge Sotomayor said the government was within its right to make this decision.

There are a number of other clues, but these seem to be the biggest ones to me. I make no claim to know the inner workings of Judge Sotomayor's brain. However, a number of previous nominees have turned out to have different leanings than the President that nominated them. I haven't seen any evidence to contradict my Dad's position, and the more I dig the more I think he may be right. My Dad stated he would give "60 -40 odds that she is pro-life." I think the chances she is pro-life are higher than that. What would the fallout be for the Obama administration if Judge Sotomayor turns out to be anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice?

This post sponsored by Viral Heat

Abortion

I received a number of comments on abortion in a previous post so I thought it might be best to create a post directly dealing with abortion. Over time, my own views have changed on this subject. The more I think about the topic and the more research I put into it, the further to the right on this position I get.

In preparing for this post, I looked for some numbers that could be used as a reference for this discussion. I looked at a number of references while writing this article, and most sites estimate the number per year somewhere around the 1.1 to 1.3 million abortions per year. The CDC reports this number as a little lower (848,163 for 2003), but the CDC does not include abortions in California, New Hampshire, or West Virginia. If we accept the CDC number at face value, 848,163 aborted babies in 2003 are too many.

If you had asked me for my position before my daughter was born, I would have told you that I felt abortion was wrong, and that it was something I could never personally choose. I also felt at the time it wasn't something I could decide for others. When my wife got pregnant, my opinion changed as I saw our baby grow.

I went to almost every one of my wife's appointments with her doctor. I listened in awe at my daughter's heartbeat. I was amazed at the first photo that showed her to be incredibly tiny, and not even identifiable as a person. Later, when we had the full picture of a little person with fingers and toes, I continued to be amazed. I remember the many nights my wife would complain that my daughter was punching her bladder. I was convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that my daughter was a life and a person long before she arrived in this world. She wasn't an extra organ of my wife, or some piece of tissue and flesh, or even a sore tooth. She was a living person.

Our constitution is set up to enumerate our rights. Those rights end if they interfere with the rights of others. Think of the classic movie and fire example. You have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right to run into a crowded movie theater and yell "FIRE!!" at the top of your lungs for the fun of it.

I believe this same theory applies to abortion. Any individual, male or female, should decide what happens to their bodies. However, that right ends when there is another life inside of you that is dependent on you. Who gets to voice that little person's rights? Doesn't that baby have rights as well? Why should someone be allowed to kill that baby for shear convenience?

"What about in the case of rape or incest?" This is a terrible, terrible thing to even contemplate happening to someone. Pro-choice defenders will argue that you can't put a victim through an additional 9 months of pain. But why should the sins of the father be visited on this innocent life? It isn't the baby's fault that he or she was conceived in this terrible way. I don't believe we should compound the tragedy of incest or rape with the added tragedy of killing an innocent.

Ultimately, I believe abortion should be illegal except to save the life of the mother. I welcome your comments.

Unelectable

The following is from the "debate" on Saturday night at Saddleback Church:

Question: Senator Obama, as a pastor I have to deal with this all the time, all the pain, all the conflicts. I know it is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

Senator Obama, presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States: "You know, I—I, eh, er – I think that whether you're looking at this from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is above my pay grade."

Is that really the best answer Senator Obama could give? This is a presidential debate, and Obama can't give an answer to this question. Anyone who has thought about this issue has an answer for it. I would like to think that Senator Obama had some sort of answer to this question when he voted against abortion legislation as an Illinois State Senator. Rich Lowry writes today:

"In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as president. The act would not only codify Roe v. Wade, but wipe out all current federal, state, and local restrictions on abortion that pass muster under Roe, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. This is not the legislative priority of a man keenly attuned to the moral implications of abortion."

This is the "legislative priority" of a man who has a very definite belief on abortion. As a state senator, Obama voted a number of times against pro-life legislation. In the Illinois Senate, he voted against protecting the rights of babies who survived an abortion and were born. Think about this point for a minute. A baby survives an abortion and is born into the world. However, because the mother intended for the baby to be aborted, the doctor should kill the baby. Most people would do whatever they could to protect this newborn baby. Obama voted against protecting the baby more than once. He felt these babies had no rights and deserved no protections. He thought doctors shouldn't be required to provide life saving treatments to babies who were outside the womb.

His answer Saturday night was dishonest and repulsive. For someone who is running for President of the United States to take a serious question about a serious issue such as abortion and simply respond with, "…that is above my pay grade," should show the American people that the Senator is not ready to be President. Maybe we should all do Senator Obama a favor and keep him at his current pay grade in November so he won't be overwhelmed with these questions.

Baby Survives Abortion

Sometimes Life will survive no matter what man does. Some things are just meant to be. If God wants something to happen, it will happen. You probably agree with at least one of those statements. A recent story proves these points.

Jodie Percival and her fiancée got pregnant last year. This was Mrs. Percival's second pregnancy. Her first ended in the death of the baby 20 minutes after it was born. Their first son, Thane, died because of a genetic condition which caused cysts to grow on his kidneys. Mrs. Percival was on the pill because she did not want a second pregnancy. When she got pregnant anyway, her fiancée and she decided they couldn't deal with the loss of a second child, so Mrs. Percival decided to have an abortion.

She had the procedure performed when she was eight weeks pregnant. However, at nineteen weeks, she felt a flutter in her stomach and went to the doctor. She was then informed that her baby was still alive. She says that she was angry at first. She had decided to have the abortion performed and she felt the hospital had let her down. The hospital apologized, but said that in very rare cases, a baby terminated at eight weeks can survive the procedure.

Her second son, Lewis, was born in November, and has only one functioning kidney. He was born with the same condition that killed his brother, and that Mrs. Percival was afraid he might get. However, Lewis apparently decided that if he was going to survive the pill and an attempted abortion, he wasn't going to let a little thing like a kidney problem stop him. As of the news stories that broke this week, both Lewis and his mom are doing fine.

Doctors say that Lewis will require an operation, but that he should be able to lead a normal life. Whether you believe in God, Karma, or just nature, it would seem that some times, man doesn't know best.

No More Funding for Planned Parenthood

Michelle Malkin has an article today about Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (commonly referred to as simply Planned Parenthood) has a number of roles in today's world. They are most widely known for their defense of abortion rights. In Michelle's article today, she, "…turns the spotlight on the nefarious business practices of the government-funded, billion-dollar Planned Parenthood empire." Michelle argues that if Congress is going to interrogate the practices of other industries like oil, tobacco, banking, (and I would add baseball), when are they going to look at Planned Parenthood?

Before reading the article, I had no idea that Planned Parenthood received taxpayer funding. Michelle has looked at the annual report for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and found they, "… had a total income of $1.02 billion – with reported profits of nearly $115 million,"{emphasis mine}. One third of the entire budget for Planned Parenthood is provided in the form of State and Federal grants and contracts. That is $336 million of taxpayer funds going to a group that encourages and helps provide abortions.

Michelle's article is very disturbing in its implications. Why are taxpayer funds being used to fund abortions? Why at this level? After reading Michelle's article, I wondered why Planned Parenthood was getting one red cent of tax payer money? According to the Planned Parenthood website, the group pursues a number of activities. Those activities include: providing reproductive healthcare for men, women, and teens (with affordable products according to the website); providing "honest sexuality and relationship information in the classroom" for "young people"; and "leading the reproductive health and rights movement". The last activity is a very nice way of saying "fighting for abortions".

Many Americans disagree with Planned Parenthoods take on these issues, and disagree with their means. Should those Americans be forced to help fund Planned Parenthood? Shouldn't Planned Parenthood justify their need for hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money when they have a total income of over one billion dollars with over a million dollars in profits? They claim on their site that more than 400 celebrities volunteer with different Planned Parenthood boards. Perhaps that is a better source of funding than tax money.

Michelle Malkins article today covers some of the horror stories associated with Planned Parenthood. Some of them are very tragic. If Planned Parenthood believes in abortion rights and wishes to defend them, more power to them. I don't think the tax payers should be providing them with $300 + million to do it with.