Sotomayor Calls Roe 'Settled Law,' Says Health Of Woman Must Be Considered
During the second day of her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said she views the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the U.S. as settled law reaffirmed by subsequent Supreme Court rulings, the Washington Post reports (Goldstein et al., Washington Post, 7/15). At Tuesday"s hearing, lawmakers pressed Sotomayor on her views regarding abortion rights and Supreme Court precedent, the New York Times reports. She told committee members that the contraception rights case that is the foundation for Roe was "the precedent of the court, so it is settled law." She also said the 1992 ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood "reaffirmed the core holding of Roe," adding, "That is the precedent of the court and settled law in terms of the holding of the court" (Savage, New York Times, 7/15). Sotomayor said that "there is a right of privacy" and that the Supreme Court "has found it in various places in the Constitution." She cited the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the law (AP/Yahoo! News, 7/14).Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) asked Sotomayor if she considered the 2007 ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart an example of settled law. In the case, the court voted 5-4 to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The ruling was the first time since Roe that the court upheld an abortion restriction that made no exception for the health of the woman, the Times reports. In her response, Sotomayor said that "[a]ll precedent of the Supreme Court I consider settled law, subject to the deference the doctrine of stare decisis would counsel," although she did not address the health exception component of the Gonzales case.Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) later pressed Sotomayor to elaborate on her views on Gonzales. Feinstein noted that at least seven Supreme Court rulings prior to the 2007 case stated that abortion laws "cannot put a woman"s health at risk." She added that Gonzales "essentially removed this basic constitutional right for women." Feinstein asked Sotomayor, "When there are multiple precedents and a question arises, are all the previous decisions discarded, or should the court re-examine all the cases on point?" Sotomayor replied that she does not consider Gonzales to be a precedent making it settled law that health exceptions for abortion laws are constitutionally unnecessary. She said, "That was, I don"t believe, a rejection of its prior precedents," which are "still precedents of the court." Sotomayor added that the "health and welfare of a woman must be -- must be a compelling consideration." Feinstein pressed Sotomayor to clarify that she meant that it is still settled that abortion restrictions must have health exceptions. Sotomayor said, "It has been a part of the court"s jurisprudence and a part of its precedents. Those precedents must be given deference in any situation that arises before the court" (New York Times, 7/15).Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Sotomayor if the Constitution prohibits Congress or state legislatures "from defining life or regulating the rights of the unborn or protecting the right of the unborn in the first trimester?" Sotomayor began to cite the 14th Amendment to answer the question. Graham interrupted, asking, "[I]s there÷ anything in the document written about abortion?" Sotomayor said the "word "abortion" is not used in the Constitution, but the Constitution does have a broad provision concerning a liberty provision under the due process" clause (Holman, "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," PBS, 7/14).Graham also asked Sotomayor about her work with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which had submitted legal briefs in the past that supported public funding for abortion coverage for low-income women. Sotomayor served on the group"s board from 1980 to 1992. She said that she "wasn"t aware of what was said in those briefs." She noted that she had served on the board but was not a lawyer for the gro
Oncology