<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16850" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><A
href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sotomayor_abortion">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sotomayor_abortion</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<H1>Sotomayor calls abortion rights 'settled law'</H1>
<DIV class=byline><ABBR class=recenttimedate
title=2009-07-14T08:34:29-0700>4 mins ago</ABBR> </DIV><!-- end .byline -->
<DIV class="mod ad darla_ad" id=darla-ad__LREC> </DIV>
<DIV class="mod ad darla_ad">WASHINGTON – <SPAN class=yshortcuts
id=lw_1247585694_0>Supreme Court aspirant</SPAN> <SPAN class=yshortcuts
id=lw_1247585694_1>Sonia Sotomayor</SPAN> said Tuesday that she considers the
question of abortion rights "settled law" and says there is a <SPAN
class=yshortcuts id=lw_1247585694_2>constitutional right to
privacy</SPAN>.</DIV>
<P>The <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1247585694_3>federal appeals court
judge</SPAN> was asked at her confirmation hearing Tuesday to state how she felt
about the landmark Roe versus Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1973.</P>
<P>Sotomayor told the <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1247585694_4>Senate Judiciary
Committee</SPAN> that "there is a right of privacy. The court has found it in
various places in the <SPAN class=yshortcuts
id=lw_1247585694_5>Constitution</SPAN>." She said this right is stated in the
<SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1247585694_6>Fourth Amendment protection</SPAN>
against <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1247585694_7>unreasonable search and
seizure</SPAN> and in the <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1247585694_8>14th
Amendment</SPAN> guaranteeing equal protection of the law. She declined to say
pointblank if she agreed with the high court's precedent on this volatile
issue.</P>
<P>Answering a question later from <SPAN class=yshortcuts
id=lw_1247585694_9>Sen. Orrin Hatch</SPAN>, R-Utah, Sotomayor said that "all
precedents of the <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1247585694_10>Supreme
Court</SPAN> I consider settled law," subject to the possibility of subsequent
reversal, such as when the court last month renounced a previous precedent in a
<SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1247585694_11>reverse discrimination case</SPAN>.
It ruled 5-4 on the side of white firefighters from New Haven, Conn., who
challenged a decision by the city to discard the results of an employee test in
which they fared better than minorities who took the
examination.</P></DIV></BODY>
</HTML>