Conservative groups say they plan to focus on U.S. Circuit Judge Diane Wood's rulings on abortion-related cases if President Obama nominates her for the U.S. Supreme Court seat currently held by Justice John Paul Stevens, who plans to retire at the end of the term, the Washington Post reports (Slevin, Washington Post, 4/19).

According to the New York Times, Wood is one of three contenders who are drawing the most attention as possible nominees; Solicitor General Elena Kagan and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland are the other two.

Files the Times obtained from conservative groups show that they would aim to portray Wood "as an abortion-rights extremist who is hostile to Christians." If Kagan is nominated, conservatives likely will "accuse her of subordinating national security to a gay rights agenda," the Times reports (Savage, New York Times, 4/17).

Specifically, social conservatives criticize Wood's opinions against a ban on abortion late in pregnancy and an Indiana law requiring a waiting period for women seeking abortions.

Curt Levey -- executive director of the Committee for Justice, which opposes Wood -- said abortion is Wood's "Achilles' heel." According to Levey, the fact that abortion-related issues likely would arise if Wood is nominated shows that "she's probably not going to be selected, because Obama doesn't have the stomach for this to be about an abortion debate."

Liberals praise Wood -- who serves on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals -- for taking forceful stances against prominent conservative colleagues. According to Nan Aron, leader of the liberal group Alliance for Justice, Wood's critics "are misconstruing some carefully reasoned opinions for their own political ends." She added, "No one expects a Democratic president to appoint a justice or a judge who is anti-choice" (Washington Post, 4/19).

Wood's supporters also note that she has a lengthier record on social issues than other potential nominees mainly because such cases often came before her court. They point out that in many of those cases, Republican-appointed judges, such as conservative favorite Judge Richard Posner, voted the same way as Wood.

Opponents Target NOW V. Scheidler Opinion

Last year, an organization then known as the Judicial Confirmation Network targeted Wood with advertisements criticizing her opinion in NOW V. Scheidler, a case "that pitted lawyers for the National Organization for Women against the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League," the Post reports. The case centered on an antiabortion-rights group accused of violent actions against abortion clinic employees and patients.

Wood was part of a three-judge panel that voted 3-0 to uphold a lower court's decision that the protesters violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. "When the case went to the Supreme Court, ... the justices agreed that the protesters had broken the law," but they determined that the case did not meet a pre-condition for conviction under federal RICO statutes and voted 8-1 to send the case back to the lower court, the Post reports.

Upon reconsideration, Wood "concluded that the high court had left an important element of the RICO claim unaddressed," but she "emphasized that she was not challenging the justices' conclusions" and sent the case back to a trial judge, according to the Post. The Supreme Court intervened and voted 8-0 to affirm that it indeed intended to close the possibility of using RICO in the case (Washington Post, 4/18).

Garland Draws Less Criticism

According to the Times, conservatives have yet to find as much "potential ammunition" in Garland's record as in those of Wood and Kagan. One incident that could be used against Garland concerns a comment he reportedly made in 2005 after the papers of former Justice Harry Blackmun -- the author of Roe v. Wade -- were opened to the public. Garland reportedly said that the release of the papers was a "great gift to the country." According to Phillip Jauregui, president of the conservative Judicial Action Group, "The fact that he would use those words to describe Harry Blackmun's papers is cause for concern" (New York Times, 4/17).

Multimedia Coverage

MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show" on Friday featured George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, who discussed how conservative opposition to University of California-Berkeley School of Law Professor Goodwin Liu could be a precursor to debate over a Supreme Court nominee (Maddow, "The Rachel Maddow Show," MSNBC, 4/16).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2010 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.