Judiciary

Obama’s Short List of Abortion Supporters

Americans are used to hearing nominees for the Supreme Court carefully hedge their answers to any question related to Roe v. Wade and abortion.  This reflects a political reality in which any hint of sympathy toward defending unborn life in the law spells confirmation challenges for a potential nominee.

In contrast, this political reality does not exist for those committed to an abortion-rights ideology. A study Americans United for Life released this week examining the life-related views of President Obama’s rumored “short-list” for the Supreme Court documents demonstrated on-the-record evidence of the potential nominees’ pro-abortion opinions expressed consistently and without hesitation.

A quick review of the probable “short list” of nominees — contained in AUL’s new legal prospectus — reveals public records of each of the identified potential nominees demonstrating a clear and unmistakable commitment to pro-abortion activism.

  • Solicitor General Elena Kagan has publicly and repeatedly criticized long-standing federal regulations prohibiting federally-funded abortion counseling. Kagan also argues those regulations amount to the subsidization of "anti-abortion" speech.

  • Judge Diane Wood ruled against partial-birth abortion bans in Illinois and Wisconsin and equated some pro-life protestors with Mafia thugs.
  • Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano twice vetoed bans on partial-birth abortion as governor of Arizona.  Recently, Napolitano released a report to the nation’s law enforcement community branding some pro-life activists as potential “domestic terrorists.”
  • Judge Leah Ward Sears, throughout her judicial career and by her own admission, views the courts as the protector of the “little guy” against the public majority.  In privacy-related cases, Sears has evidenced a broad conception of substantive constitutional privacy — the very basis upon which Roe v. Wade is predicated.  Additionally, her court opinions have referred to the responsibility of courts to protect constitutional rights against “morals legislation” from the majority.

In each of the probable nominees’ records, we see examples of blatant disregard for both the democratic process and the views of the American public.  The nominees on the “short list” have clear records of ruling in favor of taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, vetoing common-sense abortion regulations such as bans on the dangerous and medically unnecessary partial-birth abortion procedure, and attempting to restrict the First Amendment rights of pro-life activists.

The potential nominees are unequivocal in their support for unfettered abortion and would not hesitate to “legislate from the bench” to advance Obama’s radical pro-abortion agenda — even in the face of massive public opposition evidenced by projects such as AUL Action’s Fight FOCA petition, which has gained more than 700,000 signatures since Election Day.  

This fits a consistent pattern of the current administration.  When asked about life issues, Obama speaks of the ethical and moral dimensions of abortion, of the need to reduce the number of abortions, and of seeking elusive common ground with pro-life Americans.  Unfortunately, the administration’s record does not match his rhetoric.  

In just four months in office, the administration and its pro-abortion allies have deployed a variety of executive, budgetary, and legislative means to realize their “full vision of reproductive freedom” — code words for unrestricted, unregulated, unapologetic, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

Already, pro-abortion groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood are working to ensure the new Supreme Court justice will not only uphold Roe v. Wade, but go even further.  They want a justice who will read — once and for all — the radical “Freedom of Choice Act “(FOCA) into the Constitution.

Recently, pro-abortion groups publicly acknowledged they may not have the votes to get FOCA through Congress.  And their Plan B — enacting FOCA piecemeal through a variety of legislative and executive means — will take much longer to achieve than they would like.  
 
So they are moving ahead with Plan C — an increasingly activist Supreme Court willing to erase every life-affirming and protective law nationwide and impose abortion-on-demand on an unwilling American public.  After all, pro-abortion groups recognize that the ability to appoint federal judges — especially U.S. Supreme Court justices — is a powerful means for ensuring FOCA is read into the Constitution at a faster pace than the time-consuming alternative of piecemeal implementation.  

Obama’s “short list” represents a uniformity of opinion on this issue at least:  They will eagerly read the spirit and intent of FOCA into the Constitution. With the announcement of his choice to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, Obama can be expected to use judicial activism to continue his administration’s pattern of actively undermining and ultimately eliminating legal protections for women and the unborn.  

Will the next Supreme Court justice match the common-ground seeking rhetoric or the radically pro-abortion record of the administration?  Sadly, our analysis of the likely nominees reveals it is nearly certain to be the latter.


Sign Up