100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Sotomayor Signals Support For Roe V. Wade | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Sotomayor Signals Support For Roe V. Wade In Meetings With Senators Main Category: Abortion Article Date: 19 Jun 2009 - 5:00 PDT Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in conversations with senators has indicated her support for Roe v. Wade, even if she has not explicitly stated that she supports abortion rights, the AP/Yahoo! News reports. According to the AP/Yahoo! News, Sotomayor is "following a time-honored tradition" among nominees of assuring senators that she will not aim to impose a certain agenda, while also avoiding firm commitments on how she might rule on certain issues -- such as abortion rights -- if they come before the court. In questioning Sotomayor, senators hope to obtain assurances that she will honor certain precedents, such as Roe, which allows them to justify their votes for her to their constituents, the AP/Yahoo! News reports. Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center said, "There's always a bit of a parlor game that develops in terms of what precisely words said by nominees mean." Because Sotomayor has never directly ruled on the key issues in Roe, advocates on both sides of the abortion-rights debate have speculated over her views on constitutional privacy rights. White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs has said that President Obama and Sotomayor discussed her "views on unenumerated rights in the Constitution and the theory of settled law." The AP/Yahoo! News reports that Gibbs' comments indicate that Sotomayor would be unlikely to overturn Roe, which supporters consider "settled law." Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), both of whom support abortion rights, said they spoke with Sotomayor about her position during private meetings and were pleased with her answers. Feinstein said that Sotomayor is "a woman who is well-steeped in the law and well-steeped in precedent, and I believe that she has a real respect for precedent." Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), an opponent of abortion rights, said that when he privately asked Sotomayor whether she believed a fetus should have any constitutional rights, she responded that she had never considered the issue (Hirschfeld Davis, AP/Yahoo! News, 6/18). http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154643.php 54 68 69 73 20 6f 6e 65 20 69 73 20 66 6f 72 20 79 6f 75 20 52 65 64 2e 20 6c 6f 6c |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never posted on the issue of abortion rights before.....
My opinion is (best take this down for I probably won't say it again....)... There are far too many children in our adoption system without parents, without love, without futures. If you are not going to care for a child like it is the only thing on earth that matters, to carry it to term is more of a wrong than aborting it! I don't give one sh!ttin cent what government or any party morals are! You are willing to be a mother or a father or you are worthless as an individual if you create life! "Rape babies" are an exception, and that is a personal issue in my opinion, your willingness to love and value of a life! When we start dictating one right of an individual, rely on a government or religion to tell us what is right or wrong, I believe it is their obligation to see to the future of their demand! If they don't want to "parent" the child to maturity, they need to stay the hell out of the choice! jmo! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never posted on the issue of abortion rights before..... My opinion is (best take this down for I probably won't say it again....)... There are far too many children in our adoption system without parents, without love, without futures. If you are not going to care for a child like it is the only thing on earth that matters, to carry it to term is more of a wrong than aborting it! I don't give one sh!ttin cent what government or any party morals are! You are willing to be a mother or a father or you are worthless as an individual if you create life! "Rape babies" are an exception, and that is a personal issue in my opinion, your willingness to love and value of a life! When we start dictating one right of an individual, rely on a government or religion to tell us what is right or wrong, I believe it is their obligation to see to the future of their demand! If they don't want to "parent" the child to maturity, they need to stay the hell out of the choice! jmo! I agree.... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
quiet_2008
on
Sat 06/20/09 08:04 PM
|
|
she is a liberal judge replacing a liberal judge and pretty much preserving the character of the court at it was
the only problem I really have with Roe v. Wade is constitutional the Constitution says that all rights not guaranteed or denied by the Constitution are up to the states. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and thus it should be up to the states discretion to legalize it or not. But the Supreme court has made it a Federal law in spite of that |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
she is a liberal judge replacing a liberal judge and pretty much preserving the character of the court at it was the only problem I really have with Roe v. Wade is constitutional the Constitution says that all rights not guaranteed or denied by the Constitution are up to the states. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and thus it should be up to the states discretion to legalize it or not. But the Supreme court has made it a Federal law in spite of that interesting point |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a christian lobbyist issue. They still hold a lot of clout with most politicians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
she is a liberal judge replacing a liberal judge and pretty much preserving the character of the court at it was the only problem I really have with Roe v. Wade is constitutional the Constitution says that all rights not guaranteed or denied by the Constitution are up to the states. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and thus it should be up to the states discretion to legalize it or not. But the Supreme court has made it a Federal law in spite of that interesting point Most important point. If the supreme court is making decisions that circumvent the constitution for political reasons (most of the decisions I have noted recently are just that -- political)... Is it still performing the function that was designed into it by our founding fathers? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People are people, not matter what area of the country they live in, that is why I think this should be a federal law, not left up to states that can descriminate by the number of prolifers or choice voters. If I needed an abortion and I had to travel accross country to get it, I could be in serious trouble of the abortion was to save my life. I think the only reason people want certain things to be dicided by states is so they can out number those against it, or for it, in some cases of other issues.
Am I wrong? What am I missing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People are people, not matter what area of the country they live in, that is why I think this should be a federal law, not left up to states that can descriminate by the number of prolifers or choice voters. If I needed an abortion and I had to travel accross country to get it, I could be in serious trouble of the abortion was to save my life. I think the only reason people want certain things to be dicided by states is so they can out number those against it, or for it, in some cases of other issues. Am I wrong? What am I missing? Personal responsibility. What I wonder is??? Who gets the federal monies that control system. Feds never pass a law or adjudcate anything that does not work in their best interest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People are people, not matter what area of the country they live in, that is why I think this should be a federal law, not left up to states that can descriminate by the number of prolifers or choice voters. If I needed an abortion and I had to travel accross country to get it, I could be in serious trouble of the abortion was to save my life. I think the only reason people want certain things to be dicided by states is so they can out number those against it, or for it, in some cases of other issues. Am I wrong? What am I missing? you're not wrong but you're looking at the morality of it. I'm speaking strictly legal and conforming to the letter of the constitution the proper way to go about it would have been to make an amendment to the Constitution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Kinda odd how one party claims to be against it yet NEVER actually does anything to change things
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's my view of abortion. It should never be used as birth control. Most women that get an abortion in "the health of the mother" are lying. That would be less than 10 percent of the cases. I was born in 1964 at 6 months of age. I lived fine. So in my mind 3rd trimester abortions are murder, but then again I believe a person is a person at conception. Abortion is murder to the right wing, and the woman's choice to the left wing. But then again the left wing wants to save the spotted owl gore. ops I meant Owl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never posted on the issue of abortion rights before..... My opinion is (best take this down for I probably won't say it again....)... There are far too many children in our adoption system without parents, without love, without futures. If you are not going to care for a child like it is the only thing on earth that matters, to carry it to term is more of a wrong than aborting it! I don't give one sh!ttin cent what government or any party morals are! You are willing to be a mother or a father or you are worthless as an individual if you create life! "Rape babies" are an exception, and that is a personal issue in my opinion, your willingness to love and value of a life! When we start dictating one right of an individual, rely on a government or religion to tell us what is right or wrong, I believe it is their obligation to see to the future of their demand! If they don't want to "parent" the child to maturity, they need to stay the hell out of the choice! jmo! I'm just trying to understand how you view abortion - is it the taking of a life? Why are rape babies any different? Are they somehow less human? Are you basing the rights of a human on the basis of their conception? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fetus's have rights, rape, incest or whatever. But they can not speak, so the mother has the choice. However, the man has no say. For example, I am married to a woman, we want to have a baby. She gets pregnant and it is uncomfortable for her. So one day, she decides to have her sister take her to an abortion clinic while I am at work. I have no say or rights, even though the child is half of me. Rape and date rape and incest are a small part of abortion procedures people. Quit using that as an excuse for unplanned or undisciplined birth control. We all could have been aborted by these current rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the thread was about Sotomayor and R v. W and not the rightness/wrongness of abortion
I think we're still not allowed to debate abortion here cause of all the anger it brings up |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 I trust that a wise latina woman can make better decisions than a white guy like me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I trust that a wise latina woman can make better decisions than a white guy like me
Latinos are not having abotions. Hello. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where on earth are you getting your statistics from?
|
|
|
|
|
