Following the nomination of New York Federal Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court, many have sought clarification on her views on abortion. To help shed light on her legal opinions on the controversial issue, Americans United for Life recently conducted a telephonic news conference that focused on Sotomayor’s decision making when she was a member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF).

   AUL president Dr. Charmaine Yoest opened the discussion by noting the high press attention given to Sotomayor’s views on the issue. “This nomination is about principle over politics,” she said. “We want to equip you with the facts and resources we have found.”

   Clarke Forsythe, AUL’s senior counsel, spoke on Sotomayor’s personal and public background. He said that from 1980 to1992, she served on PRLDEF’s board of directors as the vice president or chair of the fund. On May 28, The New York Times said, “The board monitored all litigation undertaken by the fund’s lawyers, and a number of those lawyers said Ms. Sotomayor was an involved and ardent supporter of their various legal efforts.”

   During those 12 years, the organization was involved in five abortion related court cases. PRLDEF filed six friend of the court briefs in these cases. In each circumstance, it argued that the Supreme Court should “impose unlimited abortion rights and eliminate virtually all abortion regulations passed by popularly elected representatives in the states.”

   In the 1980 case of Williams v. Zbaraz, PRLDEF argued that “medically necessary” abortions should be publicly funded. Their definition of medically necessary was “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age — relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”

   According to Forsythe, in each of the other four cases, PRLDEF took the stance that “abortion is a fundamental right according to the First Amendment and the court shouldn’t allow any regulation of abortion.”

   Most recent of the cases was Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which it was stated, “The Fund opposes any efforts to...in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade.”

   Forsythe concluded his discussion of research and then deferred to William Saunders, AUL senior counsel.

   “I think what we can best hope for is a determination to raise what is the key issue in this, and that is whether or not we are going to have a Supreme Court that respects the law or a court that thinks it’s their obligation to make law,” Saunders said. He then asked the question, “Is she a judge who believes in particular impartiality or is she a judge who will rule based on her subjective references?”

   The team went on to discuss how the hearing had been set for July 13, sooner than even President Obama had expected. Saunders stated that after nominating Sotomayor, Obama said he hoped his nominee could be on the court by October.

   Assessing Sotomayor’s views, Saunders stated, “This isn’t an issue of whether or not you should be proud of her because she is Latino. I think everyone should be proud of her. It’s great that she has been nominated. But the question is, as an individual, will she be a fair judge who gives everyone a fair break or does she push one side over another? Does she respect the rules of the court and the role of the Congress in our democracy?”

   (Brittney Cooley is a reporter with Hispanic Link News Service in Washington, D.C.  Email:  [email protected])

   ©2009