You are currently browsing the daily archive for May 28, 2009.

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

As the media is debating how racist Sotomayor is for being a woman, The New York Times finally asks the right question: where does she stand on the right to chose? Unfortunately they frame this in RW terms speaking of “abortion rights”. Armed with this skewed point of view they are listing a host of dubious Sotomayor decisions impacting the right to chose . From the entire list, there’s only one that is actually quite disturbing:

In a 2002 case, she wrote an opinion upholding the Bush administration policy of withholding aid from international groups that provide or promote abortion services overseas.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position,” she wrote, “and can do so with public funds.”

The other worrisome sign was the press briefing  answer:

But in his briefing to reporters on Tuesday, the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, was asked whether Mr. Obama had asked Judge Sotomayor about abortion or privacy rights. Mr. Gibbs replied that Mr. Obama “did not ask that specifically.

HE DIDN’T ASK?????

HE DIDN’T ASK????

Why would he? It’s not as if Roe was his “ace in the hole” to con women into rallying for him, was it?

Assuming for a second Gibbs is honest about his answer, how offensive is this? “He didn’t even ask”???

Would that be Obama’s “sensible conscience rule” Or simply his royal FU that he could hardly send to women everywhere?

and the joke on women is

“Everyone is just assuming that because Obama appointed her, she must be a die-hard pro-choice activist,” Mr. Waldman said, “but it’s really quite amazing how little we know about her views on abortion.”

I am assuming nothing from theAce in the hole” beneficiary. These people didn’t pay attention:

leaders of several other abortion rights groups spoke out in support of Judge Sotomayor, and several conservative groups opposed to abortion rights attacked her, saying they were convinced that the president would not nominate someone who opposed abortion rights.

Interesting that my cartoon talks about women’s health. Reproductive rights would be another good one.

However, the New York Times prefers to go with “abortion rights” vs “right to life”

It is why some of the examples of Sotomayor’s decisions picked are so egregious. Ruling to protect Chinese immigrants from forced abortion is a perfectly good pro-choice position. If one is for choice – i.e – “reproductive rights” a forced abortion is no less a restriction of this right as the inability to obtain one.

It’s only “unacceptable” for “abortionists”. But who are they, if not straw men of the right and now Obama media?

Which says it all.

Not Your Sweetie