By Dave Andrusko

Editor's note. Please send your comments and observations to daveandrusko@gmail.com.  They are very helpful.

"Facing concerns about the issue from supporters rather than detractors, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama did not ask Sotomayor specifically about abortion rights during their interview. But Gibbs indicated that the White House is nonetheless sure she agrees with the constitutional underpinnings of Roe v. Wade, which 36 years ago provided abortion rights nationwide."
     From "Abortion Rights Backers Get Reassurances on Nominee," from this morning's Washington Post.

"We believe it is critical that senators thoroughly explore whether Judge Sotomayor believes that Supreme Court justices have the right to override the decisions of elected lawmakers on such issues as partial-birth abortion, tax funding of abortion and parental notification for abortion."
     Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, quoted in this morning's Washington Times.

Quite a first three days for pro-abortion President Barack Obama's first nominee to the United States Supreme Court. Nobody ever accused Obama of lacking in political acumen, which is why the selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor comes as no surprise.

Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor and pro-abortion President Barack Obama

Like everyone else, we've discussed how Obama has used Sotomayor's status as the first Latina nominated to the Supreme Court and her compelling personal narrative as a kind of force-field (or battering ram) to ward off tough questioning.

On abortion Judge Sotomayor is, essentially, the stealth candidate. There is very little in her record that tells you much of anything one way or the other. Where she has ruled tangentially on abortion, the only way she could have satisfied the abortion lobby would have been, judicially, to run amuck.

But pro-abortion groups want clear-cut assurances in advance. This morning's Washington Post (always helpful to the Abortion Establishment) ran a story which gave two examples in the first four paragraphs.

The story quoted White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who said Thursday, "In their discussions, they talked about the theory of constitutional interpretation, generally, including her views on unenumerated rights in the Constitution and the theory of settled law." Gibbs added, "He left very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his."

The Post's Robert Barnes and Michael D. Shear then quoted from a 2007 debate in which then-candidate Obama said, "I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy." [Interestingly, in the very next sentence Barnes and Shear repeat the canard that has dogged the abortion discussion for over 36 years: "The Supreme Court found that the right to privacy provided a woman the choice to terminate a pregnancy in its early stages."]

If that weren't enough, "Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), one of the Senate's leading abortion rights supporters, said she will not specifically ask Sotomayor about Roe but said she has no reason to doubt Sotomayor's position on the issue," according to the Post story. "I feel as comfortable as I could possibly feel."

But to calm any remaining jitteriness on the part of the abortion lobby, near the end of the story the Post quoted George Pavia, described as senior partner in the law firm that hired Sotomayor as a corporate litigator before her days on the bench, who "said he thinks that support of abortion rights would be in line with her generally liberal instincts. 'I can guarantee she'll be for abortion rights.'"

Well, does that mean that "Judge Sotomayor believes that Supreme Court justices have the right to override the decisions of elected lawmakers on such issues as partial-birth abortion, tax funding of abortion and parental notification for abortion," to quote NRLC's Legislative Director Douglas Johnson from this morning's Washington Times? Does it/would it make any difference to Judge Sotomayor that 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the American public is revolted by partial-birth abortions and is adamant that its tax dollars not pay for abortions and that parents ought at least to be notified that their minor daughter is contemplating an abortion?

Especially in the age of Obama and pro-abortion Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, these are not incidental, minor questions. While his legion of admirers in the media insists he is Mr. Moderate, in truth Obama's Abortion Agenda is breathtakingly sweeping in scope and impact.

It is vitally important to know whether Judge Sotomayor shares Obama's determination to shred the minimal net of protections erected over 36 years.

Part Two -- Safer Way to Transform Skin Cells Into Stem Cells Nearing Human Trials