NARAL statement on the Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court

The nominee is a joke. She upheld the Mexico City Act, people! You are blinded by the fact she is a minority woman! She is NOT pro choice! She believes the country's pro life convictions come before pro choice! Do NOT back her, Naral!

NARAL not know the candidates?

Less than a year ago, NARAL abandoned Hillary Clinton for Barack Obama in the unfinished Democratic primary race, despite it being clear to many of us that Mr Obama was not invested in this issue.

Now we find ourselves poised to lose safe, legal abortion as his first nominee to the Supreme Court, who will be the sixth Catholic Justice to sit on the current Court, and who has previously ruled in favor of the notorious international "gag rule" and against Planned Parenthood, is confirmed.

What a sad,sad day.

The last thing we need is another pro-lifer on the supreme court.
Just because she's a woman is no guarantee she will uphold roe v wade.
The facts are out there and they support the assumption that she is not pro-choice.
Obama is letting us down just like he did with bailouts to bankers and selling out single payer healthcare to the likes of big pharma and health insurance CEO's, not to mention the whole torture fiasco.
I am very disappointed in Obama, it feels like another 4 years of Bush-Cheney all over again.

The real irony is that those of us who tried to stick up for Hillary Clinton, a proven, tireless supporter of abortion rights, were constantly told to stop by Obama supporters, on the grounds that we might enable the election of a Republican who would overturn Roe v Wade.

"No matter how much you dislike Obama", we were told, "you have to support him, otherwise you will lose the right to choose."

Instead, Obama gets to take it away from us himself.

I suppose NARAL won't notice. After all, there's that "appealing life story" that Sotomayer brings. Just like Obama did. Never mind the record.

Obama and Sotomayer are hip and cool. Abortion rights, just like Hillary Clinton, are not. We've moved beyond them now. They're so "last century". Even at NARAL.

DO NOT support this nomination until we know FOR SURE she is in favor of a woman's right to choose & will NOT try to throw out Roe vs Wade

People ... please, calm down. Do you truly think that Obama, a generally liberal Democrat, would appoint a judge who he knew would overturn abortion rights? That would be political suicide for him, it just isn't going to happen. I'm sure that Sotomayor will uphold abortion rights. Surely she isn't an idiot, she doesn't want to be the provoker of nationwide riots.

Could this murder be considered a hate crime?

The reason that we are concerned about Sotomayor is her record. For more info on this, see the New York Times, May 27, 2009 "On Sotomayor, Some Abortion Rights Backers Are Uneasy" by Charlie Savage. (Here is the link, don't know if the computer will let me include it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html?hp)

Would Obama appoint someone he knew for sure would overturn Roe? Probably not. But will he appoint someone who is vague on the question, and might very well overturn Roe although she is not saying? Well, apparently this is what he has done. Why? We can guess, but of course there is no way of knowing for sure.

Perhaps Obama thinks that this issue is just not a priority for him. If it is the price he has to pay for other things that are more important to him, he is willing to pay.

Obama can always feign ignorance and surprise later. After all, Sotomayor didn't come out and say that she was against choice, and if no one asks her directly, she will surely dodge the question until after she is confirmed.

Women do not seem to be a group that he is politically concerned with. We are notoriously disorganized. Maybe he figures he can charm enough of us that he doesn't have to actually fight too hard for our issues. So far, he seems to be correct.

The reason that we are concerned about Sotomayor is her record. For more info on this, see the New York Times, May 27, 2009 "On Sotomayor, Some Abortion Rights Backers Are Uneasy" by Charlie Savage. (Here is the link, don't know if the computer will let me include it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html?hp)

Would Obama appoint someone he knew for sure would overturn Roe? Probably not. But will he appoint someone who is vague on the question, and might very well overturn Roe although she is not saying? Well, apparently this is what he has done. Why? We can guess, but of course there is no way of knowing for sure.

Perhaps Obama thinks that this issue is just not a priority for him. If it is the price he has to pay for other things that are more important to him, he is willing to pay.

Obama can always feign ignorance and surprise later. After all, Sotomayor didn't come out and say that she was against choice, and if no one asks her directly, she will surely dodge the question until after she is confirmed.

Women do not seem to be a group that he is politically concerned with. We are notoriously disorganized. Maybe he figures he can charm enough of us that he doesn't have to actually fight too hard for our issues. So far, he seems to be correct.

It seems unbelievable, but according to the White House, Obama didn't bother to ask her views. Just another lie to get those 8 million Clinton supporters.

It is up to the senate now to pick up the ball that the President dropped.