Pro-choice activists are, according to Lynn Harris on Broadsheet, worried about 3 specific rulings of Sotomayor's: Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, in which she ruled that the global gag rule was Constitutional; Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford, in which she ruled in favor of anti-abortion protesters; and Lin v. Gonzales, in which she ruled in favor of asylum for a Chinese woman because of China's enforcement of its one-child policy. But, for most pro-choice activists, the first case is the most concerning.

According to Filipovic (a lawyer herself):

The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (CRLP) argued that the Gag Rule violated their First Amendment, Equal Protection and Due Process rights. On the First Amendment claim, CRLP argued that the Gag Rule prevented the organization from fully communicating with international non-governmental organizations; if non-U.S.-based NGOs worked with CRLP to advocate for abortion rights in their own countries, they would lose U.S. funding. Thus, the Gag Rule's speech-chilling effect prevented CRLP, a domestic organization, from carrying out their mission, thereby curtailing their freedoms of speech and association. CRLP also argued that the Gag Rule violated their Fifth Amendment Equal Protection rights by privileging anti-abortion views and putting the CRLP on unequal footing when it comes to domestic competition with anti-choice organizations, and violated CRLP's Due Process rights by, as Sotomayor summarized in her opinion, "failing to give clear notice of what speech and activities they prohibit and by encouraging arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."

In other words, the CRLP argued that by not allowing NGO's in other countries to work with CRLP to advocate for abortion rights abroad, the global gag rule violated CRLP's right to speak and associate in the United States. It further argued that, by allowing anti-abortion groups to work with and talk to NGO's abroad without risk to their funding, the government was violating their right to equal protection; and that, since the standard for what speech did and did not qualify international NGOs to lose their funding, the gag rule violated due process.

Sotomayor ruled against the suit. In terms of the First Amendment argument, the Court had previously ruled against Planned Parenthood on similar grounds in a similar case, so she dismissed that one. She dismissed the due process claim, stating that, because the risk was to international NGOs, not the CRLP, the CRLP lacked standing. And she dismissed the equal protection claim because it did not apply to a suspect class (one's beliefs about abortion are not a class) or infringe upon a fundamental Constitutional right (the right to government funding). But what seems to worrys people the most was this statement of Sotomayor's in the ruling:

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

Filipovic doesn't find this decision particularly worrisome:

If anything, CRLP v. Bush highlights precisely why Sotomayor should, in a sane world, be an easy confirmation: She sticks to the rule of law, respects precedent and writes thoughtful and reasoned opinions. She was nominated to the federal district court by George H.W. Bush. Her decisions are left-leaning insofar as she generally seeks to protect Constitutional rights by supporting religious freedom and free speech, and she often sides with the plaintiffs in discrimination cases - hardly "activist" material.

While Filipovic disagrees with some of Sotomayor's decisions, stating "Sotomayor would not have been my first choice, primarily because my political leanings are far to the left of her legal theory," and a handful of other First and Fourth Amendment decisions she disagrees with Sotomayor about, she supports the nomination because of Sotomayor's overall legal philosophy.

Plus, she adds:

Right-wingers are going to oppose her nomination with full force - we would be foolish to do it for them.

But when have liberals ever made things easy on ourselves?

Abortion Rights Backers Get Reassurances on Nominee [Washington Post]
Fair and Balanced: Weighing Sotomayor's Opinions [RH Reality Check]
Sotomayor And Abortion [Broadsheet]

One promise that was kept, though, was the promise made at a New York Times Talks panel on Obama's first 100 days: that Thursday morning, the paper would not feature the typical swearing-in photo, and it doesn't! Aren't they cute? Not maybe as cute as the thought of the inauguration party that Sasha and Malia had last night at the White House, but very little probably could be.

In the mean time, there were plenty of disappointed inaugural ticket holders, what with the clusterfuckery of non-coordination that was security yesterday even for people (unlike me) lucky enough to have tickets or press seating. And, of course, no one was more disappointed that Hillary, whose promised confirmation by unanimous consent yesterday was derailed by Texas Senator John Cornyn because apparently it hasn't yet gotten uncool in some Republican circles to hate Bill Clinton. She is supposed to be up for a vote today, though, at which point she'll join her 7 Cabinetry colleagues in confirmation splendor.

As for other promises kept (other than that whole first-black-President thing), Obama ordered a suspension to prosecutions at Gitmo yesterday, Rahm put a stop to all pending regulation until the Administration can conduct a review and Obama reportedly plans to end the Mexico City policy (i.e., the global gag rule) by executive order this week. Oh, and the new White House website makes a couple snide remarks about Bush, which is just fun.

In illness watch, Ted Kennedy is reportedly recovering from his seizure yesterday which his staff says doctors think was brought on by fatigue. Health and Human Service Secretary nominee Tom Daschle was not in DC yesterday because he's taking care of a brother with brain cancer.

The best news, however, is that Barack is a fellow wine drinker. Reuters says

The White House has no official wine cellar but wines are chosen by a small team for specific events, based on their affinity with the menu as well as politically correct pairing depending on the guests in attendance.

I'd be more than happy to be part of this "small team," so, um, hey, Desirée Rogers? Give me a call. Unlike my language my palate is pretty refined.

First off, John McCain supports the so-called Mexico City Policy, also known as the "global gag rule", which prevents international organizations that talk about or perform abortions from receiving family planning or population funds from the U.S. government. Although the Bush Administration was initially going to extend its global gag rule to its HIV/AIDS program (PEPFAR) in 2003, it eventually relented in the face of fierce public opposition. Despite the fact that PEPFAR funds may go to groups which also provide abortion services, the evidence shows that the gag rule as applied to family planning organizations in Africa, has had significantly detrimental effects on women's access to HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. It also doesn't help matters that a significant portion of the money in the President's HIV/AIDS program goes towards treatment, not prevention, and what prevention money is available is heavily weight in favor of — you guessed it — abstinence-only education.

When asked last year about funding contraception programs to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, McCain hemmed, hawed, admitted he didn't "know" his position on the issue and finally admitted that he deferred to Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma on such issues. Oh, you mean the Tom Coburn who is fighting to tell everyone how "ineffective" condoms are to promote his abstinence-only-for-life agenda? The one who calls "the 'safe' sex myth" a "lie", even when all research shows that proper condom usage can help stem the transmission of disease? The one who led a Senate fight to hold up funding the President's HIV/AIDS program this year because it was expensive and didn't focus enough on treatment instead of prevention — after the Democrats coincidentally adjusted the formula to give more money to non-abstinence prevention program? That Tom Coburn? Now I feel totally better about what McCain will do when it comes to HIV/AIDS prevention programs here and abroad.

Study Pushes Back Origins of AIDS Pandemic [Reuters]
Philadelphia Inquirer: McCain Is A Good Friend To The Unborn [McCain-Palin]
USAID's Family Planning Guiding Principles and U.S. Legislative and Policy Requirements [USAID]
Bush Administration "Breaks the Promise" by Expanding Global Gag Rule to HIV Funding On Eve of World AIDS Day [Africa Focus]
The "Mexico City Policy" And Its Effects On HIV/AIDS Services in Sub-Saharan Africa [Boston College]
How Bush's AIDS Program is Failing Africans [The American Prospect]
McCain Stumbles on H.I.V. Prevention [NY Times]
Bush's Abstinence Man [The Advocate]
Public Health Advocates Say Campaign to Disparage Condoms Threatens STD Prevention Efforts [The Guttmacher Institute]
Coburn Places A Hold On HIV/AIDS Prevention Bill [Think Progress]