Radical Pro-Abort Diane Wood Headed to Supreme Court?

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com about the Supreme Court Justice nomineeThis follows this post about a foster child being forced to have an abortion. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Radical Pro-Abort Diane Wood Headed to Supreme Court?

By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., (LifeSiteNews.com) -
Diane Wood, a Chicago federal judge known for her extreme hostility to even minimal legal protections for the unborn, may be topping President Obama's short list of replacements for retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, according to various news reports in recent days.
Obama has long entertained a Supreme Court possibility for Wood, who met face-to-face with the president and Vice President Biden Tuesday in Washington, D.C. Obama had also considered Wood following the retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter last year, before choosing Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another supporter of legalized abortion.
Wood, a federal judge on the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals based in Chicago, was appointed to the position by President Clinton in 1995. A former clerk for Roe v. Wade author Justice Harry Blackmun, Wood dissented against the partial-birth abortion ban in Illinois and Wisconsin, as well as an Indiana informed consent law. The Supreme Court upheld a law nearly identical to the Indiana legislation in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Wood also authored the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the case National Organization for Women v. Scheidler, in which she sided with NOW's attempt to silence Scheidler, the Pro-Life Action Network, and Operation Rescue, to extract large monetary damages, and to prevent them from protesting at abortion clinics. Wood's decision was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 2006.
Wood also wrote a dissenting opinion in Christian Legal Society v. Walker, in which she disagreed with the majority opinion that Southern Illinois University was wrong to revoke official student group status of a CLS chapter because it required its members to be Christian.
Analysts have recognized Wood as perhaps the most extreme left-leaning of the top contenders for the Supreme Court seat. "Probably no one, at least at the top of most short-lists, would elicit the fight that Wood would provoke," noted Bill Saunders at the American Principles Project in April.
In addition to Wood, Obama has also recently met with federal Judges Merrick Garland and Sydney Thomas, as well as Solicitor General Elena Kagan, in the weeks since Stevens announced his intention to retire in the summer. Kagan is also known for strongly favoring taxpayer funding of abortion.
While vowing in April that there would be no "litmus test" on abortion for his Supreme Court pick, Mr. Obama simultaneously admitted that he would prefer to nominate “somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women’s rights.”
The president is expected to announce his pick for the next Supreme Court justice very soon: according to Roll Call, the president summoned two Senate Judiciary Republicans to the White House for closed meetings to discuss the Supreme Court nomination process Wednesday morning. A source with the Washington Post said that the final decision is expected early next week, but could happen even earlier.

CNN Poll Shows Americans Want Conservative, Moderate Supreme Court Justice

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about the polling on the next Supreme Court Justice. This follows this post about Virginia's take on Obamacare. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

CNN Poll Shows Americans Want Conservative, Moderate Supreme Court Justice
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) --
When President Barack Obama names a replacement for retiring pro-abortion Justice John Paul Stevens, a new poll shows a majority of Americans want someone with a different judicial philosophy. However, Obama will likely side with just one-fourth of Americans who want another pro-abortion liberal.
A new CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday showed 37 percent of adult Americans want Obama to nominate someone with a "moderate" judicial temperament.
Another 36 percent want a new Supreme Court justice with "conservative" political views.
But just 25 percent of Americans say they would prefer a new justice with either somewhat or very liberal tendencies of the kind that produced the Roe v. Wade decision and 52 million abortions.
The poll comes as Obama is searching for a replacement and he is reportedly looking at a list of about 10 people, with abortion advocates toping the list. Judge Diane Wood and Solicitor General Elena Kagan are two of the top potential abortion advocates Obama may name to replace Stevens. Full story at LifeNews.com

Virginia Axes ‘Health’ Exception in State Funding for Abortions

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews about Virginia's take on Obamacare.This follows this post about Obama's likely nominee to the Supreme Court. . For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Virginia Axes ‘Health’ Exception in State Funding for Abortions

By Peter J. Smith
RICHMOND, April 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Virginia General Assembly has approved budget changes requested by pro-life Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell on Wednesday, which would prohibit state funding for elective abortions except in cases of rape, incest, fetal abnormality or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
The Republican-dominated House of Delegates approved the changes to the budget by an overwhelming majority of 64 votes in favor, 30 against, with 1 abstention. The Democrat-led Senate just approved McDonnell’s amendment narrowly by a 20-19 vote, with three conservative Democrats joining 17 GOP Senators in supporting the changes.
Sen. Charles J. Colgan (D-Prince William), Sen. Phillip P. Puckett (D-Russell), and Sen. William Roscoe Reynolds (D-Franklin) broke with their caucus to pass the governor’s amendment.
The amendment stops the state from having to reimburse Medicaid abortions justified for “health” reasons, and could potentially save hundreds of unborn babies from abortion per year. According to the Virginia Conference of Catholic Bishops, approximately 150 babies every year for the past four years have been aborted for “health” reasons.
Pro-life advocates were on edge for the Senate vote, because Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, was stuck in Europe because of flights cancelled from last week’s volcanic eruption of Eyjafjallajokull in Iceland.
In fact, NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia quipped on its blog that a “pro-choice volcano” was keeping Bolling delayed in Italy for the Wednesday budget vote.
Nonetheless, it was NARAL that erupted on Wednesday when the General Assembly approved McDonnell’s amendment. The Virginia chapter declared on their Facebook page: “The Virginia Legislature has let all Virginians down by approving the Governor's budget amendment to deny Medicaid funding to women needing abortions because the pregnancy threatens the woman's health, or in cases of severe fetal anomaly.”
However, NARAL’s latter claim is not true: McDonnell’s budget amendment only prohibits the health exception, as another Virginia statute requires the state to pay for low-income abortions when the unborn child has developed “severe or gross fetal abnormality.”
The Virginia Society for Human Life expressed gratitude to McDonnell for bringing “Virginia more closely in line with federal law, the Hyde Amendment, that requires Virginia tax dollars to pay for Medicaid abortions in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother.”
Olivia Gans, president of VSHL, told LifeSiteNews.com that the governor’s amendment will save the lives of hundreds of babies that would be aborted every year under the “health exception.”
But she noted that the amendment “does not completely bring Virginia into federal law,” pointing to the fetal abnormality exception.
“Unfortunately the governor was unable to prevent paying for abortion in the case of ‘gross fetal abnormality’ which is required under a pre-existing Virginia statute,” said Gans. “That requires going back to the General Assembly and changing that pre-existing statute.”
Gans indicated that the best shot for replacing the statute will be the 2011 Senate elections, when pro-life advocates could regain a pro-life majority.
She added that various sources, including the governor’s office, believe that the Virginia exception of “gross fetal abnormality” refers to only a few types of fetal abnormality that are “so gross or compounded that they fairly ensure that the baby cannot live outside the womb.”
“Our understanding is that this is an extraordinarily rare circumstance, but it is one which the governor’s office, the governor himself, along with all of us in the pro-life movement would like to see lifted as well.”
The evidence, Gans said, indicates that there were less than 30 abortions performed in the last 3-4 years that fit the criteria of “gross or fetal abnormality,” and that less disabled unborn children, such as those with Down’s syndrome, have not been construed to fall under that exception.
However, she added that in the interim the governor’s office is working on using their authority to narrow the interpretation of the statute’s definition of gross fetal abnormality in the Virginia Code in order to guarantee “conclusively” that abortionists do not attempt to contort that term to abort viable disabled babies in the womb.

Obama Sends Conflicting Signals Over Supreme Court Nominee and Abortion

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews about Obama's likely nominee to the Supreme Court. This follows this post about American's view on nominees. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Obama Sends Conflicting Signals Over Supreme Court Nominee and Abortion


By Peter J. Smith
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 21, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) –

U.S. President Barack Obama sent conflicting signals on how abortion would play into his pick for a candidate to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, saying that while he did not intend to have a litmus-test for a Supreme Court nominee, he wanted to see someone on the bench who would take into account “women’s rights” – alluding to abortion – in his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
The president held a meeting with bipartisan leaders of the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold hearings on the president’s nominee to the high court’s bench, where he appeared to contradict himself on the issue of abortion and a litmus test.
A reporter asked Obama if he would be willing to nominate a justice “who did not support a woman’s right to choose?”
Obama acknowledged that the use of abortion was “a hugely contentious issue in our country for a very long time,” but said he would take the approach of other U.S. presidents and not require candidates to pass a “litmus test” on that issue.
However, he added that he wanted to see “somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women’s rights.”
“And that’s going to be something that’s very important to me,” Obama said, “because I think part of what our core Constitution - constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that.”
Obama said he intended to have a candidate for Steven’s spot on the high court nominated by the end of May so that a new justice would be ready for the court’s next session. He said he hopes his nominee will have the same “smooth, civil, thoughtful nomination process and confirmation process” as his last pick, Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Stevens announced his retirement on April 9, after spending 35 years on the U.S. Supreme Court, during which time he voted consistently to uphold Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that ruled women had a constitutional right to an abortion, and also opposed measures regulating abortion that were challenged before the high court.
The Pro-Life Action League remembered that in 2003, Stevens was the lone dissenting vote on the U. S. Supreme Court ruling on NOW v. Scheidler that declared Pro-Life Action League and Operation Rescue, along with their respective founders, Joe Scheidler and Randall Terry, were not guilty of violating the RICO anti-racketeering laws by protesting abortion.
Stevens wrote in his dissent that the beneficiaries of the court’s 8-1 ruling were a “class of professional criminals whose conduct persuaded Congress that the public needed federal protection from extortion.”
Stevens, however, later joined the entire court in rejecting an appeal from the National Organization for Women to review the case, saying the court had already decided the issue and “We also actually entered a mandate too.”
The leading candidates to replace Stevens, according to White House officials, are Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Judge Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, as well as Merrick B. Garland of the United States Court of Appeals for the District Circuit. Merrick lacks any record dealing with the issue of abortion, but both Kagan and Wood have pro-abortion bona fides.
Wood, however, is the most objectionable choice for pro-life advocates as she was a clerk for Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the Roe decision, and is a member of the National Organization for Women. Wood also was heavily involved in the NOW v. Scheidler case, and wrote the 2000 appellate decision that fully concurred with the jury’s 1998 decision against Scheidler. She also concurred in the 2003 Appellate decision that agreed with NOW’s argument that the Supreme Court did not actually mean what it said when they vindicated Scheidler of RICO charges – a decision which the Court had to reverse, much to its annoyance.

Americans: Alright to Oppose Supreme Court Nominee Over Judicial Philosophy

An interesting story from www.lifenews about This follows this post about some common myths about abortion. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Americans: Alright to Oppose Supreme Court Nominee Over Judicial PhilosophyWashington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll of American voters shows a majority believe it is alright for senators to oppose a Supreme Court nominee based on the potential jurist's judicial philosophy. The results of the new Rasmussen survey are important as President Barack Obama prepares to select a high court nominee.
The names of potential nominees considered to be on Obama's short list include people like Elena Kagan and Diane Wood -- two solid abortion advocates.
The new Rasmussen poll, out today, shows 56 percent of voters say it is fair for a senator to oppose a legally and professionally qualified nominee on the grounds of ideology or judicial philosophy while just 29 percent say otherwise and 15 percent are unsure.
While 65% of Republicans and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party think ideology and judicial philosophy are legitimate grounds for opposition, Democrats are more closely divided as 45% agree, but 37% think it’s not fair to oppose nominees on those grounds.
Voters believe Obama will select another liberal to replace retiring pro-abortion Justice John Paul Stevens -- with 45 percent saying that justices nominated by Obama will be too liberal, while 41% say the nominee will be fine. Very few Americans think Obama will nominate a conservative to the high court.
The Rasmussen poll also showed 52% of voters believe that, in picking someone to serve on the Supreme Court, a nominee’s legal background is more important than ensuring a court that is as diverse as American society. But 36% think ensuring a diverse court is more important. Full story at LifeNews.com

Commentary: Debunking Adoption Myths

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews about some common myths about abortion. This follows this post about the Barack Obama's Supreme Court analysis. This follows this post about the Obamacare doctor shortage. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Commentary: Debunking Adoption Myths


Guest commentary by Amanda Lord
April 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - We often shake our heads at the prevailing cultural attitude that sees adoption as somehow worse than killing a preborn child outright—but are we pro-lifers partially responsible for propagating that myth?
I became pregnant at 18 years of age. I was terrified, I had very little money and even less knowledge about how to raise a child. When I was about seven months pregnant, I moved into Sunlight Home in Naples, Florida. Sunlight is an amazing maternity home that helps women in crisis pregnancies.
The day I moved in, Miss Linda, the director, asked me about my plans for my baby. I didn’t have an answer. To this day, I thank God for Miss Linda, a wise lady who cared enough to suggest adoption to this confused 18 year old. Although there was nothing easy about the decision, I placed my beautiful son William Martin for adoption two days after his birth.
Even before making the final decision, I was berated with negativity. I was told, “a woman who loves her baby wouldn’t give him away” and even told that my son would “surely hate me for giving him up.” Shortly before signing the papers that would legally relinquish my parental rights, a social worker confided to me: “If a girl decides to have sex, she needs to deal with the consequence of raising her child.”
Despite the negativity, it has been almost five years since I placed William into the loving arms of his adoptive parents. To this day, I still face criticism and false stereotypes from those inside and outside of the pro-life movement. It is imperative that pro-lifers distinguish the facts from the myths surrounding adoption. If not, adoption will continue to be clouded in negativity and many women will decide it is easier to abort instead of considering the loving act of adoption.
Myth 1: Birthmothers have long been stereotyped as uneducated and helpless.
In fact, a 1988 study by Steven McLaughlin showed that unmarried birthmothers who placed were more likely to continue their education and were less likely to receive public assistance than women who chose to parent their children.
Myth 2: Birthmothers don’t love the child that they place for adoption.
This statement is simply not true. As a proud birthmother, I can say that I don’t believe I could love my son more. Even though I have not seen my child in almost five years, his life brings so much joy to me. The poem “All I Have Missed” by Amy L. Chenault expresses the love a woman feels for her child perfectly:
“Through all I have missed my love still abound(s) I thank God each day for you, Mom and Dad, I found.”
Myth 3: Birthmothers suffer irrevocable damage from placing.
“Contrary to popular belief, mothers don’t go on in this world after ‘giving up’ a child, enjoying their lives and forgetting the child ever existed. Even though people would love to think this is true, it’s not the reality of the situation for most of us. Our lives are colored by the traumatic event and we are never the same afterwards. Most of us grieve for years ....” said Jaymie Frederick, who prefers the term “natural (first) mother” and is now a professional searcher and private investigator
It is true that some women feel like “exiled mothers” once they place their child for adoption, but that is not the norm now. Ms. Frederick’s experience echoes that of many women who placed children during what has been called the “baby scoop era” of the 1940s through the early 1970s, when unmarried mothers were basically shunned by society and forced into adoptions.
These days, you are more apt to hear a birthmother say, “It was not an easy decision any way I decided. I chose adoption. Looking back, it was the right decision and I have no regrets, not at all” (anonymous). The key is that she “chose” adoption. There are many web sites started by women who have found peace and joy in the choice of placing their child for adoption (See here and here).
However, if you encounter a woman who continues to feel an intense sorrow from placing her child long after she relinquished her parental rights, it is our duty as pro-lifers to help her gain the peace of mind she deserves by sharing the love of Christ with her.
Myth 4: Placing a child for adoption means a woman “gave up” that child.
First off, the term “giving up a child for adoption” is not at all helping the pro-life movement. Using the term “give up” likens the act to giving up sweets when on a diet. To change minds, one must use the correct wording and remove the false rhetoric. No one gives up a baby. If a woman chooses adoption, she is placing her child into the adoptive parents’ care. And actually, many adopted children are thankful that they were given a life they may not have been able to have if their birthmother hadn’t decided to place them for adoption: “I often receive calls from adult adopted children who ask our agency to locate their birth mother so that they can say ‘thank you’ for placing them for adoption. Placing a baby for adoption can be a self-sacrifice of heroic proportions,” said Susan Sedensky, J.D., an adoption coordinator with the Diocese of Norwich, Connecticut.
If you speak with adoptees, they will almost always tell you that they don’t feel that they were “given up.” They recognize the blessing it is to have been placed for adoption. An adopted friend of mine had this to say about her birthmother and adoptive parents: “I am so thankful to both sets of my parents. They selflessly gave me a gift that cannot be equaled. The love that they shared is incomprehensible. And I know how special and loved I am because of the sacrifices my parents made for me. An adopted kid is one of the most loved kids because of the humongous sacrifices of the biological parent,” said Krista Fagan-Cox, adopted two months after birth.
Myth 5: Abortion is easier and “a lesser heartache” than adoption.
“[Women considering abortion] will say, 'I know it's killing my baby,' but they still think that it would be worse to have the baby, see the baby, know they have a baby, and then give it away,” revealed Peggy Hartshorn, president of Heartbeat International in a recent article about the dwindling number of adoptions.
It’s hard for many in the pro-life movement to understand this frightening mindset, but it’s literally a matter of life and death that we try. For many women, abortion seems easier; it ends the turmoil of pregnancy right away: One short “procedure” and normal life can commence without the “stigma” of adoption. You don’t want to coldheartedly hand over your baby, do you? It will all be over soon, one can imagine Planned Parenthood telling vulnerable women. We know this is a dirty lie of the worst kind, but nonetheless, this is the mentality of many women who choose abortion over adoption.
Counseling and birthmother support services can change the longing for a beloved child into joy that, because of the selfless act of adoption, a child is alive and thriving. I truly believe the reason I recognize the blessing of placing William for adoption is because I received Christ-centered counseling and surrounded myself with people who not only love me but also my son.
Myth 6: Adoption is against God’s will.
There is no question that most pro-life activists see the importance and beauty of adoption. They understand that if a woman feels as though she is not yet ready to parent, she can place her child into a pair of loving arms instead of killing that child through abortion. But there is a prominent mindset in the movement that views adoption as an ungodly alternative to abortion. Teresa M. McDonough, the director of the adoption program at Catholic Charities for the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, has come across such pro-lifers: “[W]e have occasionally encountered people who are pro-life activists who do not support adoption due to a belief that the pregnancy is God's will and, therefore, it is God's will that the woman parents the child.”
If you are a believer, God has become your heavenly Father. In a sense, you were adopted into the family of God. And did not Joseph adopt Jesus into his own family? Can we deny that the child Moses was adopted? Then how can it be said that adoption is against God’s will if the Bible is overflowing with stories of babies being parented by those other than their own flesh and blood? Declaring that adoption is not the will of God is not only causing indecision in the minds of women who are considering adoption but it belittles the beautiful sacrifice a birthmother has made for the child she placed.
Women who find themselves in unplanned pregnancies often feel trapped into either parenting the child in circumstances that they don’t see as ideal or aborting. If we as pro-lifers would work to break the stereotypes that negatively categorize birthmothers, I believe there would be a dramatic decrease in abortions.
I have a picture of William on my desk. While writing this article, I found myself looking at his picture with such joy. I want to do everything in my power to end the needless killing through abortion. And when a woman feels like she cannot possibly parent a child, she and her child deserve to learn of the selfless love and beauty of adoption. Breaking stereotypes and debunking the myths about adoption very well may save the lives of some of the most vulnerable human beings among us.

Obama’s Supreme Court Choice

An interesting story from www.VDare.com about Obama's likely nominee. This follows this post about the pro-abortion stance of most current Supreme Court Nominees This follows this post about the Obamacare doctor shortage. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


Obama’s Supreme Court Choice
[Steve Sailer] [Email author] [Email this article] [Print this article]

It’s natural to assume that Barack Obama, former president of the Harvard Law Review and lecturer at the U. of Chicago Law School, must be obsessing over his opportunity to make another Supreme Court nomination.Yet, he’s not really as interested in the courts as everybody expects him to be. According to David Remnick’s new biography of him, The Bridge, when he was president of the Harvard Law Review, he considered the Law Review, not unreasonably, kind of a joke — why are students editing professors? And, he never published a law article in all the years he was employed by the U. of Chicago Law School.To Obama, the judicial branch lacks the capabilities to administer the kind of things he wants done, so he doesn’t invest much political capital there.As Obama explained in a radio talk in 2001, the judicial branch isn’t well organized to oversee wealth redistribution. To accomplish that requires executive and legislative power.From Obama’s 2001 radio transcript:
But the supreme court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution, at least as it has been interpreted and the warren court interpreted it generally in the same way that the constitution is a document of negative liberties– says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal gov’t can’t do to you but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted; and I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.” …This interview shows Obama the law professor and politician saying that to bring redistribution of wealth, it’s less effective to be, say, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court than it is to be, say, President of the United States.
Obama’s statement seems perfectly plausible: he’s spent years studying and teaching Constitutional law, but he, personally, decided that his ambitions required elective rather than judicial power.
“You know, maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way. Just look at very rare examples where during the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to local school district and the court was very uncomfortable with it.”
This is presumably a reference to Kansas City, where a judge ordered a billion dollars extra spending on heavily black schools. Not surprisingly, it didn’t do much for test scores.
“It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues. You know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and take a lot of time, the court is not very good at it and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that — although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts — I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it. …”So, Obama is saying that he is for “bringing about economic change through the courts” in theory, in practice the courts don’t have the administrative staff and power to do it. Instead, Obama’s goal of “redistribution of wealth” should be achieved through the legislative and executive branches.“Typically, the court can be more or less generous in interpreting actions and initiatives taken, but in terms of funding of abortions and Medicare and Medicaid, the court it not initiating those funding streams. Essentially, what the court is saying is at some point this is a legitimate prohibition or this is not, and I think those are very important battles that need to be fought and I think they have a redistributive aspect to them.”
VDARE.com: Blog Articles — proudly powered by WordPressThe articles on VDARE.com are brought to you by the VDare Foundation.We are supported by generous donations from our readers. Contributions are tax deductible and appreciated. Contribute

Pro-Aborts Top List of Potential Supreme Court Nominees

An interesting story from http://www.lifesitenews.com/ about the Supreme Court Nominees This follows this post about the Obamacare doctor shortage. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Pro-Aborts Top List of Potential Supreme Court Nominees


WASHINGTON, D.C., (LifeSiteNews.com) - As the U.S. awaits word from the White House on who will replace the retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a list of the most probable nominees has begun slowly to leak: all liberal, some overtly pro-abortion. While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is one heavily pro-abortion figure whose name has been floated as a possible surprise choice, the Obama administration put the rumor to rest Monday, saying Clinton would remain in her current position.
The short list of potential nominees is believed to include Solicitor General Elena Kagan, former Georgia Supreme Court chief justice Leah Ward Sears, Federal Appellate Judge Diane Wood, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Federal Appeals Judge Merrick Garland.
Each of the contenders is considered to be at least a fairly liberal choice as a replacement for the far-left Stevens, who announced last week that he would retire at the end of the current session in June.
Solicitor General Kagan, considered one of the frontrunners, is known for strongly supporting taxpayer funding of abortion. She is a vocal critic of the 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision Rust v. Sullivan, which upheld federal regulations prohibiting Title X family planning fund recipients from counseling on or referring for abortion. Also, according to Americans United for Life, Kagan once suggested in a memo while clerking for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall that faith-based groups operating pregnancy care centers should not counsel pregnant youths, because they would inevitably inject their religious beliefs into the counseling. Kagan has also been criticized for her lack of a judicial record.
Justice Sears, the first female African-American chief justice in U.S. history, has not issued any known decisions on the abortion issue. However, Americans United for Life notes that Sears has indicated that she broadly supports substantive constitutional privacy, the principle upon which Roe v. Wade was decided. In a 1998 decision overturning a ban on sodomy, Sears wrote that the courts were responsible to protect individuals' rights against "morals legislation" from the majority.
Diane Wood is considered a leading liberal justice in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and is considered a radical supporter of legalized abortion. After graduating with her law degree in 1975, Wood clerked for Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the Roe v. Wade decision.
Wood went on to author the decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case National Organization for Women v. Scheidler, in which she sided with NOW's attempt to silence Scheidler, the Pro-Life Action Network, and Operation Rescue, extract large monetary damages, and prevent them from protesting at abortion clinics. Wood's decision was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 2006.
Wood also wrote a dissenting opinion in Christian Legal Society v. Walker, in which she disagreed with the majority opinion that Southern Illinois University was wrong to revoke official student group status of a CLS chapter because it required its members to be Christian.
Secretary Napolitano has already won notoriety among the pro-life community for labeling opposition to abortion as a warning sign of violent "rightwing extremism." A Homeland Security report detailing such "rightwing extremism" as characterized by pro-life and other normative conservative values was eventually pulled after an uproar ensued.
As governor of Arizona prior to her cabinet appointment, Napolitano was known as an extreme abortion supporter, having vetoed several pro-life bills, including a ban on partial-birth abortion and a bill protecting the conscience rights of pharmacists.
The name of D.C. Appeals Court judge Merrick Garland, who has no known record on life issues, has also been floated. Garland, 58, is considered a more moderate choice than the others, although he has earned a reputation as a left-leaning justice.
A rumor that Secretary Clinton could be on an internal short list emerged from an interview on Meet the Press Sunday by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who said he had heard the name mentioned, although he did not elaborate. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on Monday, however, confirmed that, "The president is going to keep [Clinton] as his secretary of state."
Hatch suggested Monday that the confirmation process for an Obama nominee could go smoothly - should the president stay away from an activist choice.
"If the president picks somebody who is clearly qualified, there is no question we can get that person through in a relatively short period of time," said the senator on NBC's "Today Show." "On the other hand, if he picks an activist judge ... we ought to do everything in our power to defeat that person."
NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the National Organization for Women have already strongly urged President Obama to choose a judge who would uphold Roe v. Wade.
Political analyst Michael Barone at Rasmussen Reports noted that the health care reform debacle could prove central to the vetting process of the next Supreme Court justice. At least 18 states have already filed suit against the government for passing legislation they call a vast overreach of federal power, particularly a mandate requiring citizens to purchase health insurance under penalty of fines, and have expressed determination to bring the issue to the Supreme Court if need be.
"Some 14 state attorneys general are trying to raise the issue in court, and pending state laws outlawing mandates could raise the question, as well. Those state laws are obviously invalid under the supremacy clause unless the federal law is unconstitutional. Is it? I would expect an Obama nominee to decline to answer," wrote Barone.
"But Republicans may not take such a response as meekly as they did when Ginsberg declined to answer dozens of questions back in 1993," he continued. "They might press harder, as they did in 2009 when they prompted Sotomayor to declare, to the dismay of some liberal law professors, that she would only interpret the Constitution and the law, not make new law.
"Just raising the health care mandate issue helps Republicans given the great and apparently growing unpopularity of the Democrats' legislation."