The recent buzz regarding Bush's upcoming nomination to the Supreme Court tonight is it will be Edith Brown Clement. As Tim has already mentioned, her record with regards to abortion is sparse.
However, one ruling that should be noted is Planned Parenthood v. Sanchez, which was decided in March of 2005. In this case, the state of Texas passed a law to prevent federal family planning funds from being used to help finance abortion and entities that perform abortion. Basically, the state of Texas didn't want federal family planning dollars being used to pay for the upkeep (utilities, rent, phone bills, etc.) of entities that provide both abortion and family planning.
Planned Parenthood sued because they felt that this law 1.) "imposes an unconstitutional condition" on their eligibility for funds 2.) "imposes an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion" and 3.) "violates the Supremacy Clause..."
The district court blocked this legislation with an injunction because Judge Sam Sparks felt Rider 8 (the part dealing with abortion) blocked Planned Parenthood from creating "affiliates" who wouldn't perform abortions and could therefore receive family planning funds. The district court's decision was overturned by Judge Higginbotham's unanimous opinion (joined by James Dennis and Edith Brown Clement).
They sent the case back to the district court and ruled that Planned Parenthood and its affiliates could receive federal family planning funding as long as they created "affiliates" who were not involved in abortion.
This has been described in an e-mail by Ed Whelan, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, as a "modest win" for prolifers. Here's the reaction from Planned Parenthood.
It is also good to know that the People for the American Way strongly oppose her.
