In her 15 years on the federal bench, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood -- a contender to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens -- "has pleased abortion-rights supporters with several opinions," the Wall Street Journal reports. The fact that Wood has ruled on multiple abortion-related cases contrasts with the "less well-defined views" of two other contenders -- Solicitor General Elena Kagan and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland. As a result, Wood's nomination might be more likely to prompt objections from conservatives, according to the Journal.

Wood expressed support for the philosophical underpinnings of the court's decision in Roe v. Wade before joining the federal bench, the Journal reports. In 1993, Wood praised Justice Harry Blackmun -- her former boss and author of the Roe decision -- in the Dickinson Law Review, stating, "Blackmun articulated in Roe ... the important insight that a core set of individual rights exists that neither the states nor the federal government may trample."

The Journal also highlights three of Wood's rulings on abortion-related cases. In a 2002 dissent, Wood objected to an Indiana law that would have required women to receive in-person information from a medical professional at least 18 hours prior to an abortion. Wood agreed with a lower court judge that the law would force women to make two trips to an abortion provider and create excessive financial and emotional costs. She cited the "undue burden" Supreme Court precedent and studies showing that such requirements prevent some women from obtaining abortions, though she was outvoted by her two colleagues on the federal panel.

In a 1999 dissent, Wood objected to state laws restricting so-called "partial-birth" abortion, a position that "was vindicated in 2000 when the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law restricting such abortions," according to the Journal.

In another case, Wood sided with the National Organization for Women in a lawsuit in which the organization used federal extortion laws to argue against tactics used by antiabortion-rights protesters. The Supreme Court later reversed Wood's decision, though her supporters note the reversal had more to do with an interpretation of extortion laws than with the issue of abortion.

Wood's supporters say that her record in favor of abortion rights and her ability to work with conservative colleagues on the Seventh Circuit would make her a good replacement for Stevens, who "paired liberal views with an ability to persuade wavering justices in the middle," the Journal reports.

Attorneys reviewing Wood's judicial record say that she often leans left on social issues but writes restrained opinions that build on existing laws, according to the Journal. Michael Greve, a legal expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, said, "Her opinions are all very scholarly," adding, "She is not a bleeding heart."

Obama Interviews Appeals Judge Thomas for Supreme Court Vacancy

President Obama on Thursday conducted his first known formal interview with a Supreme Court candidate, meeting with 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sidney Thomas at the White House, a person familiar with the conversation said, the AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports. Thomas also met with Vice President Biden on Thursday.

The 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, has a "liberal reputation, but attorneys who know Thomas describe him as independent and a straight-shooter," the AP/Journal-Constitution reports. Thomas was nominated to the ninth circuit in 1995 by President Clinton and confirmed without controversy.

The meetings with Thomas "wor[k] to the White House's advantage" because they signal that Obama could be considering a candidate "who comes from outside the Washington Beltway" and did not attend an Ivy League school. Thomas graduated from Montana State University and earned a law degree from the University of Montana School of Law.

Obama is considering roughly 10 candidates for the seat. In addition to Thomas, Wood, Kagan and Garland, the White House has confirmed that Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D), Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, former Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Ann Williams are under consideration (Feller, AP/Atlanta Journal Constitution, 4/30).

Obama Criticizes Supreme Court Activism

Responding to a question from reporters about whether concerns about "conservative judicial activism" would play a role in the court nomination, Obama highlighted claims by conservatives that justices in the 1960s and 1970s made the "error" of overstepping the role of the judiciary and interfering with the roles of elected officials, the New York Times reports. According to the Times, Obama's comments mark "the most sympathetic statement by a sitting Democratic president" about the conservative claim that decisions issued by the Warren and Burger courts represent liberal "activism" and "dubious" legal reasoning. During that period, the court decided Roe, the Times notes.

Obama did not identify specific cases. He said, "It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically. And in the '60s and '70s, the feeling was -- is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach." He added, "What you're seeing now," during the Roberts court, "I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error. The concept of judicial restraint cuts both ways."

Obama's remarks drew criticism from some liberals, including Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice (Savage/Stolberg, New York Times, 4/29).

Washington Post/ABC News Poll Assesses Public Opinion on Supreme Court

In related news, a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll revealed "a change in the way Americans view" the Supreme Court, the Post reports. Although 46% of respondents said they consider the court balanced in its opinions -- a figure essentially unchanged from when the poll was conducted three years ago -- 26% now consider the court too liberal, compared with 18% in the previous poll.

Sixty percent said they want the next justice to vote to support Roe, while 38% say they would want the justice to vote to overturn the precedent. The percentage opposed to the ruling marks the highest level since the Post/ABC News began polling on the question in 2005, while the number in support of the ruling has remained stable.

Eight in 10 respondents said it is not important for the president to select a black, female or Protestant justice. Stevens is the court's sole Protestant (Barnes/Agiesta, Washington Post, 4/30).

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.