WASHINGTON — President Bush’s nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General is meeting with approval by some U.S. Senators. Pro-lifers aren’t so sure.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., included Mukasey in a list sent to the president as a judge who would be “ideologically moderate.”

“I floated his name, among others, in the past, as somebody who would put rule of law first, albeit someone who’s conservative,” said Schumer about his past support for Mukasey.

Some organizations friendly to the pro-life position have voiced their support for Mukasey.

“The President’s nomination of Judge Mukasey is good for the Department of Justice and good for America,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, an organization defending religious and constitutional freedoms. “Judge Mukasey is a highly respected jurist and has a tremendous record of accomplishment both as Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, as well as an attorney in private practice.”

But Schumer’s endorsement — and Mukasey’s involvement with the campaign of pro-abortion Republican Rudy Giuliani — raised pro-life suspicions.

“Sen. Schumer is one of the most strident and partisan pro-abortion senators in the United States Senate,” said Brian Burch of Fidelis, a Catholic-based political advocacy organization. Burch noted that Fidelis was not opposing Mukasey but rather “raising concern” about his pro-life credentials.

Mukasey is also a judicial advisor and financial contributor to Giuliani’s presidential campaign. “It’s no secret that Giuliani is pro-abortion,” said Burch, “It’s a safe assumption that he is in the same camp as Rudy when it comes to the life issue.”

A White House spokesman said he was uncertain of any abortion issues that the attorney general would face, although he reaffirmed the president’s pro-life credentials.

Pro-life groups raised concerns when Bush nominated Judge Alberto Gonzales to replace Attorney John Ashcroft. Gonzales had expressed support for teen abortion without parental notification, although he stated that the ruling made him “personally troubled as a parent.”

Ashcroft, who resigned in late 2004, was widely hailed as an ideal candidate for the pro-life movement, as he opposed abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. In spite of Gonzales’ questionable record, however, Gonzales proved his loyalty to the president and his pro-life agenda by successfully defending the partial- birth abortion ban in 2007 in Supreme Court cases Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, landmark decisions in which the Supreme Court upheld the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

It is unclear whether the new attorney general will face any similar challenges against the partial birth abortion law. “There is always the possibility of new law suits against that act, said Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of National Right to Life.

Johnson added that pro-life protections under the Hyde/Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment have been challenged in state courts and would likely be an upcoming issue for an attorney general. “You can never say for sure though, what will arise,” he said.

The amendment prohibits discrimination of federal funds from health care providers such as Catholic hospitals who decline to provide or refer abortions. 

Mukasey’s judicial record has relatively few abortion-related cases, although critics question his ruling on Dong v. Slattery, a political refugee ruling that he made in 1994.

The case involved a refugee from the People’s Republic of China who claimed asylum, citing political persecution for defying the country’s one-child-per-couple rule. That law has been enforced with forced abortion. Judge Mukasey ruled that immigration laws did not permit asylum.

“A PRC citizen prosecuted for opposition to a universally applied coercive family planning policy is not being persecuted for his political opinion.” Mukasey wrote at the time, “Under the ‘one child’ policy, it is not the individual’s political opinion or the expression thereof, but, rather, his past or likely future act that exposes him to punishment.”

Mukasey supporters claim that the ruling is evidence of his strict adherence to the law. “His career is marked by strict adherence to the law, and his decision in Dong illustrates that point,” said Blair Jones, a White House spokesman. “The case was about an immigration law that Judge Mukasey was duty bound to uphold.”

Jones pointed out that in 2006, Mukasey participated in an appellate decision that recognized a 1996 change in the law. President Bill Clinton signed a defense bill that year that included a clause granting asylum to victims of China who were victims of forced abortion and sterilization.

Burch said that it was important to watch the congressional confirmation hearings closely.

“An attorney general is not simply a judge,” he said. “He has a lot of judiciary discretion in his job, and he will be responsible to involve and promote legal policy within the White House.”

Charlie Spiering writes from Washington, D.C.