Difficult to tell the difference between Sotomayor’s comments thus far and the talking points of your typical Planned Parenthood executive.
One side, Stewart, is arguing the law. The other, Sotomayor, is arguing policy.
Alito: Are there secular philosophers and bio-ethicists who take pro-life position?
Stewart: Yes
Sotomayor seems to think that the Constitution prohibits the government from doing something that might make poor people poorer. I have bad news for her about a lot of current economic policy.
Oral argument is a conversation between justices and advocates, of course — but it’s also one among the justices. Sotomayor suggests that Griswold, Obergefell, etc. are endangered by the Court overturning Roe and Casey . . . and in comes Justice Barrett, allowing Stewart to bat it away.
J. Sotomayor claims that it's a “religious view” that unborn children are living human beings. There is of course no dispute that they are living organisms of the human species. It is true there is disagreement about when such organisms deserve legal protection. But the view that they deserve protection at any size, stage of development, etc., is no more religious than the view that they deserve protection only after viability, or only after birth.
Sotomayor is arguing, in short, that the Court has to keep its abortion precedent in place because to do otherwise would produce results she doesn’t like.
Sotomayor says that poor women are 75% of the population. I have questions.
Sotomayor just makes one pro-abortion talking point after another.
Sotomayor is really making my point below about constitutional scandal: rather than defend Roe as proceeding from a sensible view of the Constitution, she argues that the Constitution must adhere to a particular doctrine or we don't get the results we want.