NINOMANIA
:: A constitutional law blog by Scalia/Thomas fan David M. Wagner, M.A., J.D., Research Fellow, National Legal Foundation, and Teacher, Veritas Preparatory Academy. Opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect those of the NLF or Veritas. :: bloghome | E-mail me ::
:: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 ::
A remarkable piece of New York Times-NARAL teamwork
"Abortions rights backers," the moribund paper of record would have us believe, are experiencing "unease" about Judge Sotomayor. She might even, they allegedly fear, be that fifth vote to strike down Roe.
OK, what is this really about? That becomes clear in the third graf: “Discussion about Roe v. Wade will — and must — be part of this nomination process,” a NARAL spokesperson is quoted as saying. You see? This is about making sure that an explicit commitment about abortion becomes a canonical part of the confirmation hearing process.
Justices Roberts and Alito avoided discussing abortion and/or Roe, and they relied on the precedent of Justice Ginsburg, who -- rightly, of course -- also declined to discuss it. NARAL is trying to reverse the Ginsburg precedent.
Meanwhile, have a look at the Sotomayor decisions that, if we are to trust the NYT (maybe I should stop right there), are considered alarming by "abortion rights advocates":In a 2004 case, she largely sided with some anti-abortion protesters who wanted to sue some police officers for allegedly violating their constitutional rights by using excessive force to break up demonstrations at an abortion clinic. Judge Sotomayor said the protesters deserved a day in court.
So, to "aborton rights backers," people who allege police brutality don't even deserve a day in court if they are "anti-abortion protestors"?Judge Sotomayor has also ruled on several immigration cases involving people fighting deportation orders to China on the grounds that its population-control policy of forcible abortions and birth control constituted persecution.
So "abortion rights advocates" are down with forcibly deporting women to China where they face forced abortion or sterilization, or punishment for resisting these?In a 2007 case, she strongly criticized colleagues on the court who said that only women, and not their husbands, could seek asylum based on China’s abortion policy. “The termination of a wanted pregnancy under a coercive population control program can only be devastating to any couple, akin, no doubt, to the killing of a child,” she wrote, also taking note of “the unique biological nature of pregnancy and special reverence every civilization has accorded to child-rearing and parenthood in marriage.”
So the abortion-rights agenda means fighting that biological nature and that special reverence, and forcing dads to stay back in China even when the moms are admitted here as refugees?
Hey, I read it in The New York Times...!
:: David M. Wagner 10:28 PM [+] ::
...
"Abortions rights backers," the moribund paper of record would have us believe, are experiencing "unease" about Judge Sotomayor. She might even, they allegedly fear, be that fifth vote to strike down Roe.
OK, what is this really about? That becomes clear in the third graf: “Discussion about Roe v. Wade will — and must — be part of this nomination process,” a NARAL spokesperson is quoted as saying. You see? This is about making sure that an explicit commitment about abortion becomes a canonical part of the confirmation hearing process.
Justices Roberts and Alito avoided discussing abortion and/or Roe, and they relied on the precedent of Justice Ginsburg, who -- rightly, of course -- also declined to discuss it. NARAL is trying to reverse the Ginsburg precedent.
Meanwhile, have a look at the Sotomayor decisions that, if we are to trust the NYT (maybe I should stop right there), are considered alarming by "abortion rights advocates":
In a 2004 case, she largely sided with some anti-abortion protesters who wanted to sue some police officers for allegedly violating their constitutional rights by using excessive force to break up demonstrations at an abortion clinic. Judge Sotomayor said the protesters deserved a day in court.So, to "aborton rights backers," people who allege police brutality don't even deserve a day in court if they are "anti-abortion protestors"?
Judge Sotomayor has also ruled on several immigration cases involving people fighting deportation orders to China on the grounds that its population-control policy of forcible abortions and birth control constituted persecution.So "abortion rights advocates" are down with forcibly deporting women to China where they face forced abortion or sterilization, or punishment for resisting these?
In a 2007 case, she strongly criticized colleagues on the court who said that only women, and not their husbands, could seek asylum based on China’s abortion policy. “The termination of a wanted pregnancy under a coercive population control program can only be devastating to any couple, akin, no doubt, to the killing of a child,” she wrote, also taking note of “the unique biological nature of pregnancy and special reverence every civilization has accorded to child-rearing and parenthood in marriage.”So the abortion-rights agenda means fighting that biological nature and that special reverence, and forcing dads to stay back in China even when the moms are admitted here as refugees?
Hey, I read it in The New York Times...!
:: David M. Wagner 10:28 PM [+] ::
...
