Summary:
- In 2006, Amy Coney Barrett signed onto an open letter that called for the end of Roe v. Wade and described Roe's legacy as "barbaric." The group who published the letter, St. Joseph County Right to Life, supported criminalizing in vitro fertilization.
- Amy Coney Barrett has been vocal about her anti-abortion views, claiming that, in regards to abortion, “both the state and the unborn child’s mother are…acting with gross unfairness to the unborn child.” Barrett also stated that she believed unlike war and capital punishment, the prohibition against abortion was absolute; she also claimed that God’s status as the “lord of life” made a convincing argument against abortion. Likewise, Barret believed that life begins at conception.
- Coney Barrett was associated with at least two organizations acting on anti-abortion agendas: a member of Notre Dame’s Faculty for Life and the a featured speaker to the Thomas More Society, an group created to protect anti-abortion activists right to “pray and counsel outside our nation’s abortion facilities.”
- In 1998, Amy Coney Barrett wrote that she could not defend Justice Brennan’s commitment to the U.S. constitution and laws as a “proper response for a Catholic judge” when faced with a question of abortion. In 2003, Barrett referred to Roe v. Wade as an erroneous decision, and later stated that Roe v. Wade did not belong on a list of “superprecedents,” cases that no Justice would overrule.
- Citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 2013, Barrett claimed, that due to its decision, “states can regulate [abortion] in the interest of the life of the fetus.”
- Barrett has since implied SCOTUS should not have ruled on abortion and in doing so created a problem of partisans seeking judges that agreed with them.
- Barrett signed onto a letter that criticized the Obama administration’s ACA exemption for religious institutions and referred to emergency contraception as an “embryo-destroying” pill.
- Barrett has not ruled directly on abortion but she has twice voted to rehear cases that struck down abortion-related restrictions involving fetal remains and parental consent.
- As an Appeals Court judge, Barrett demonstrated skepticism to broad interpretation of abortion rights
- In addition to the Trump administration signaling that they believe, Barrett will overturn Roe v. Wade, media and advocacy groups regarded Barrett as hostile to Roe v. Wade and abortion rights.
¶ 2006: Barrett Signed An Open Letter Calling For The End Of Roe v Wade
In 2006, Amy Coney Barrett Signed A Letter That Included A Call For The End Of Roe v. Wade. According to the Daily Beast, “Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett signed a letter in 2006 that included a call for the end of Roe v. Wade, denouncing the seminal court decision that provided a legal right to abortion as “barbaric.” The letter came in the form of an advertisement from the anti-choice group St Joseph County Right to Life which was based in South Bend, Indiana.” [Daily Beast, 10/1/20]
¶ Barrett Failed To Disclose The Letter
Barrett Did Not Disclose The Letter To The Senate Judiciary Committee When Trump Nominated Her For The 7th Circuit Or SCOTUS. According to The Independent, “The ad, which had more than 1,200 names attached to it, appears to be the most direct expression of Barrett’s opposition to abortion and is sure to intensify debate that she would vote to restrict, if not overturn, abortion rights if she is confirmed to the Supreme Court. It was not included in materials Barrett provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee for her pending high-court nomination or in 2017, when she was nominated to the job she currently holds as a judge on the federal appeals court based in Chicago.” [Independent, 10/01/20]
¶ Letter Called Roe’s Legacy “Barbaric”
The Letter Called Roe’s Legacy “Barbaric.” According to the Daily Beast, “The Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion for any reason,” the ad read. “It’s time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children.” [Daily Beast, 10/1/20]
[Daily Beast, 10/1/20]
¶ Letter Was Published By St. Joseph County Right To Life, Who Supported Criminalizing In Vitro Fertilization
The Letter Was Published As An Ad By St. Joseph County Right To Life. According to the Daily Beast, “Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett signed a letter in 2006 that included a call for the end of Roe v. Wade, denouncing the seminal court decision that provided a legal right to abortion as “barbaric.” The letter came in the form of an advertisement from the anti-choice group St Joseph County Right to Life which was based in South Bend, Indiana.” [Daily Beast, 10/1/20]
St. Joseph County Right To Life Supported Criminalizing In Vitro Fertilization. According to The Guardian, “Amy Coney Barrett, the Trump administration’s supreme court nominee, publicly supported an organization in 2006 that has said life begins at fertilization. It has also said that the discarding of unused or frozen embryos created in the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process ought to be criminalized, a view that is considered to be extreme even within the anti-abortion movement. […] In an interview with the Guardian, Jackie Appleman, the executive director of St Joseph County Right to Life, said that the organization’s view on life beginning at fertilization – as opposed to the implantation of an embryo or a fetus being viable – did have implications for in vitro fertilization, which usually involves the creation of multiple embryos. ‘Whether embryos are implanted in the woman and then selectively reduced or it’s done in a petri dish and then discarded, you’re still ending a new human life at that point and we do oppose that,’ Appleman said, adding that the discarding of embryos during the IVF process was equal to the act of having an abortion.” [Guardian, 10/01/20]
St. Joseph County Right To Life Executive Director Jackie Appleman: “We Support The Criminalization Of Doctors Who Perform Abortions.” According to The Guardian, “Asked whether doctors who perform abortions ought to be criminalized, she said: ‘We support the criminalization of the doctors who perform abortions. At this point we are not supportive of criminalizing the women. We would be supportive of criminalizing the discarding of frozen embryos or selective reduction through the IVF process.’” [Guardian, 10/01/20]
¶ Barrett Was Vocal About Her Anti-Abortion Views
¶ Barrett Has Made Clear Her Moral Objection To Abortion
1998: On Abortion Barrett Said The “Both The State And The Unborn Child’s Mother Are …. Acting With Gross Unfairness To The Unborn Child.” According to The Daily News (Longview, Washington), “Repeatedly, however, they distinguish between capital punishment and abortion or euthanasia. ‘Criminals deserve punishment for their crimes; aged and unborn victims are innocent,’ they write. And in endorsing judicial recusal, they cite a law review article urging the same result for an anti-abortion judge who is compelled by precedent — and the status of being a lower-court judge — to uphold that right. ‘The abortion case is a bit easier, we think,’ they write. ‘Both the state and the unborn child's mother are (at least typically) acting with gross unfairness to the unborn child, whereas the moral objection to capital punishment is not that it is unfair to the offender.’” [The Daily News (Longview, Washington), 7/8/18]
¶ Barrett Believed That Unlike War And Capital Punishment, The Prohibition Against Abortion Is Absolute
Barrett Believed That Unlike War And Capital Punishment, The Prohibition Against Abortion Is Absolute. According to her 1998 Journal Article,“The prohibitions against abortion and euthanasia (properly defined) are absolute; those against war and capital punishment are not […] abortion and euthanasia take away innocent life. This is not always so with war and punishment.” [“Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” 1/1/98]
Barrett Claimed That God’s Status As ‘Lord Of Life’ Makes A Convincing Argument Against Abortion. According to her 1998 Journal Article,“It makes a more convincing case against abortion and euthanasia if we can say in an unqualified way that God alone is the Lord of life.” [“Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” 1/1/98]
¶ Barrett Believed Life Begins At Conception
Barrett Believed Life Begins At Conception. According to Chicago Sun-Times, “A Notre Dame University publication in 2013 cited Barrett's belief that ‘life begins at conception.’” [Chicago Sun-Times, 7/4/18]
Barrett Told A Magazine At Notre Dame She Believed In The Value Of Life From Conception To Natural Death. According to NPR, “And Barrett has a real record of speaking out both in the academy and now in her years on the federal court bench on topics like abortion. She told a magazine at Notre Dame several years back that she believes in the value of life from conception to natural death. That certainly would inform her views on the landmark precedent Roe v. Wade.” [NPR, 9/21/20]
¶ Barrett Presented At An Event Called “Roe At 40” Where She Spoke “To Her Own Conviction That Life Begins At Conception”
Barrett Presented An Event At Notre Dame Called “Roe At 40: The Supreme Court, Abortion And The Culture War That Followed.” According to Notre Dame Magazine, “The consequences of American abortion jurisprudence was the subject of ‘_Roe_ at 40: The Supreme Court, Abortion and the Culture War that Followed,’ a presentation that ND law Professor Amy Coney Barrett made in South Dining Hall’s packed Oak Room January 18.” [Notre Dame Magazine, 1/25/13]
Barrett Spoke “To Her Own Conviction That Life Begins At Conception.” According to Notre Dame Magazine, “Barrett reviewed the debate over the Supreme Court’s “institutional capacity” to resolve divisive questions like the legality of abortion. A constitutional law authority and mother of seven who clerked for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett spoke both to her own conviction that life begins at conception and to the ‘high price of pregnancy’ and ‘burdens of parenthood’ that especially confront women before she asked her audience whether the clash of convictions inherent in the abortion debate is better resolved democratically.” [Notre Dame Magazine, 1/25/13]
¶ Barrett Was A Member Of AT LEast Two Organizations That Advocated Against Abortion
¶ Barret Was A Member Of Notre Dame’s Chapter Of Faculty For Life
October 2017: Barrett Told The Senate Judiciary Committee She Was Part Of University Faculty For Life From 2010 Until 2016. [Senate Judiciary Committee, 10/31/17]
- May 2016: Trump, Breaking With Precedent, Announced His List Of Future Supreme Court Justices. [New York Times, 05/18/16]
- November 2016 Is The Final Time The Internet Archive Has A Record Of Barrett Being Listed On Notre Dame’s University Faculty For Life. [Internet Archive, accessed 09/24/20]
- November 2017: Barrett Was On Trump’s Updated List Of Potential Supreme Court Nominees. [White House, 11/17/17]
¶ University Faculty For Life Was Founded To Promote Work Of Faculty ‘Who Respect The Value Of Human Life From Inception To Natural Death’
1989: University Faculty Was Founded To Promote The Work Of Faculty “Who Respect The Value Of Human Life From Inception To Natural Death.” According to University Faculty for Life, “University Faculty for Life was founded in 1989 to promote research, dialogue and publication by faculty who respect the value of human life from inception to natural death. Abortion, infanticide and euthanasia are highly controversial topics, but we believe they should not be resolved by the shouting, newsbites and slogans that have dominated popular presentations. Because we believe the evidence is on our side, we would like to assure a hearing for our views in the academic community. Our three basic issues (abortion, infanticide and euthanasia) have many dimensions -- political, social, legal, medical, biological, psychological, ethical and religious. We do not have a detailed statement of orthodoxy; rather we have provided an interdisciplinary forum in which scholars can discuss these issues. Since 1990 the UFL has published a quarterly newsletter named Pro Vita. Beginning in 1991 it has held an annual Conference at various university campuses, and, since 1992 the Conference proceedings have been published in book form and distributed to UFL members and hundreds of university libraries. We have sent letters to public figures who misstate biological facts and submitted several amicus curiae briefs on the life issues to the Supreme Court. The media regularly show pro-life people as mindless zealots. We hope our presence will change that image. We also believe that academicians united on these issues can encourage others to speak out in their own schools and communities.” [University Faculty for Life, accessed 09/24/20]
October 2010: University Faculty For Life Approved A Notre Dame Chapter With The Goal “To Foster Research And Put Forth A Pro-Life Position To Educate The Community About Life Issues.” According to The Notre Dame Observer, “University Faculty for Life (UFL), a national organization, approved a chapter on Notre Dame’s campus this fall, the University announced last week. Notre Dame faculty and staff can now join the newly-formed group to engage in academic conversation about pro-life issues. Fr. Wilson D. Miscamble will serve as the president of the Notre Dame chapter, and Daniel Philpott, a political science professor, will serve as vice president. Miscamble said the group would give faculty the opportunity to participate in moral issues and affirm the right to life at all stages. The national organization of UFL was founded in 1989 to promote research and dialogue among faculty and staff who ‘respect the value of human life from its inception to natural death,’ according to a University press release. ‘Our goal is to foster research and put forth a pro-life position to educate the community about life issues,’ Miscamble said.” [Notre Dame Observer, 01/12/10]
¶ University Faculty For Life Filed An Amicus Curia Supporting Arizona’s Overly Broad Ban On Certain Abortions While Barrett Was A Member
March 2014: The ACLU Filed A Lawsuit On Behalf Of The NAACP Of Maricopa County And Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum Against Arizona’s Overly Broad Ban On Abortions Based On Race Or Sex Of The Baby. According to The ACLU, “The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona have filed a lawsuit on behalf of the NAACP of Maricopa County and the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF) challenging a state law that relies on harmful racial stereotypes to shame and discriminate against Black women and Asian and Pacific Islander (API) women who decide to end their pregnancies. The law, HB 2443, is based on stereotypes that Black and API women cannot be trusted to make personal health care decisions without scrutiny by the state. The law, which contains criminal penalties, requires every physician providing abortion care to certify that the reason the woman is seeking that care has nothing to do with the race or sex of the embryo or fetus.” [ACLU, 03/12/14]
In Conjunction With The Alliance Defending Freedom, University Faculty For Life Filed An Amicus Brief In Support Of The Arizona Law. [Alliance Defending Freedom, 05/19/14]
¶ Barrett Was Associated With The Thomas More Society, A Pro-Life Organization
¶ The Thomas More Society Was Founded To Protect Anti-Abortion Activists’ Right To “Pray And Counsel Outside Our Nation’s Abortion Facilities”
1997: The Thomas More Society Was Founded In A Case To Provide Pro Bono Legal Services To Anti-Abortion Activists Who Would Gather Around And Try To Disrupt The Operations Of Abortion Clincs. According to The Thomas More Society, “The Thomas More Society is a not-for-profit, national public interest law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty. Based in Chicago, the Thomas More Society defends and fosters support for these causes by providing high quality pro bono legal services from local trial courts all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The Thomas More Society was forged out of necessity in 1997 in order to continue defending the historic N.O.W. v. Scheidler case. This nationwide class action lawsuit brought by the National Organization for Women against prominent pro-life leader Joseph Scheidler (among others) was a transparent attempt to gag pro-life activism at abortion clinics nationally through the blatant misuse of federal antitrust and racketeering statutes.” [Thomas More Society, accessed 09/24/20]
- 2020: One Of The Thomas More Society’s Current Goals Was Listed As “Defending Laws That Protect Human Life From Conception To Natural Death.” According to the Thomas More Soceity, “Having decisively prevailed in N.O.W. v. Scheidler in the U.S. Supreme Court, 8-1 (2003) and 8-0 (2006), the Thomas More Society continues to litigate cutting-edge cases including: Protecting the First Amendment rights of those who pray and counsel outside our nation’s abortion facilities. Defending laws that protect human life from conception to natural death. Ensuring the free expression of religion in the public square. Respecting family values. The Thomas More Society has assisted thousands of clients including some of the nation’s most renowned pro-life and religious leaders: David Daleiden, David Bereit, 40 Days for Life, Lila Rose and Live Action, Joe, Ann and Eric Scheidler and Pro-Life Action League, Sidewalk Advocates for Life, Created Equal, Pro-Life Action Ministries, Troy Newman and Operation Rescue, Former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities, Dioceses, Religious Orders, the Notre Dame Protestors (‘ND88’) and many more.” [Thomas More Society, accessed 09/24/20]
¶ The Thomas More Society Defended Those Arrested For Protesting President Obama’s Commencement Address
May 2009: Anti-Abortion Protestors Were Arrested In Protest Of President Obama’s Commencement. According to The Guardian, “Police arrested dozens of protesters in a tight security operation at America's most famous Catholic university as a graduation speech by President Barack Obama today became a battleground for clashes over stem cell research and abortion. Students held an all-night prayer vigil at Notre Dame University, Indiana, with some threatening to wear mortar boards decorated with Christian crosses and yellow babies' feet to show their opposition to Obama's pro-choice stance on abortion. In the hours leading up to Obama's arrival, activists repeatedly marched on to Notre Dame's campus, where they were detained for trespass. In many cases, protesters lay down on the ground, prompting police to carry them away.” [Guardian, 05/17/09]
The Thomas More Society Provided Legal Defense For Most Of The Protestors. According to The National Catholic Register, “The Thomas More Society, which had defended most of the 88, simultaneously issued its own press release. ‘This is a big step forward and a victory for the pro-life cause,’ said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the society. Brejcha praised Father Jenkins for his attendance at the March for Life in Washington, in 2010 and 2011 and for ‘the creation of new and significant pro-life initiatives on campus.’ The Thomas More Society statement noted that ‘those who share pro-life convictions may differ on tactics and approaches, but they best serve their sacred cause when they work together to secure the common good for all human beings, born and unborn alike, rather than carrying on as courtroom antagonists. … The parties remain in profound disagreement over the 2009 Commencement, but after prayerful consideration, they have decided to put their differences behind them, to cease battling in court, and rather to affirm a commitment to the fundamental proposition that each and every human life is sacred, from conception until natural death.’” [National Catholic Register, 05/10/11]
May 2011: The University Asked The County Prosecutor To Drop Charges Against The Protestors. According to The National Catholic Register, “Two years have passed since President Barack Obama’s controversial appearance at the University of Notre Dame. The university’s decision to invite the pro-abortion president to speak at the 2009 commencement exercises and receive an honorary doctorate was met with protests from a number of bishops. And people came to northern Indiana from all over and held rallies on and off campus. Nearly 90 protesters were arrested for trespassing. Now, at the behest of Notre Dame, Saint Joseph County, Ind., prosecutor Michael Dvorak has dropped the charges against the ‘ND 88,’ as the group of protesters has come to be known (one has since died).” [National Catholic Register, 05/10/11]
¶ Randall Terry, The Leader Of The Protests Later Defended Daniel Jenky When He Compared The Affordable Care Act To Hitler And Stalin
Randall Terry Was The “Principal Figure Behind The Events That Led To Many Of The Arrests.” According to the National Catholic Register, “The principal figure behind the events that led to many of the arrests was Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue and a Catholic convert. Upon hearing the news that Obama would be invited, Terry and his family temporarily moved to South Bend in an RV. Terry orchestrated daily protests in front of the university.” [National Catholic Register, 05/10/11]
April 2012: Notre Dame Board Of Trustees Member And University Fellow Daniel Jenky Compared President Obama To Hitler Land Stalin For His Healthcare Reforms. According to The Notre Dame Observer, “The document was also submitted to over 100 University faculty and professors who signed a letter earlier this week addressing controversial statements made in an April 14 homily delivered by Bishop Daniel Jenky of the Diocese of Peoria, Ill. Jenky is a member of Notre Dame’s Board of Trustees and serves as a University Fellow. In his homily, Jenky compared the dispute over President Obama’s healthcare reform to challenges the Catholic Church has faced in the past. He cited Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin as examples.” [Notre Dame Observer, 04/27/12]
April 2012: 143 Notre Dame Professors And Faculty Called For Jenky To Renounce His Statements Or Resign From His Positions Associated With Notre Dame. According to The Notre Dame Observer, “The letter signed by at least 143 Notre Dame professors and faculty was addressed to Jenkins and University Fellow and Chair of the Board of Trustees Richard Notebaert. It called for a public statement distancing Notre Dame from Jenky’s statements. The professors and faculty also requested for Jenky to renounce his statements or resign from his positions at the University.” [Notre Dame Observer, 04/27/12]
April 2012: Five Other Members Of The “ND 88” Signed Onto Randall Terry’s Letter Calling For The Notre Dame Faculty Who Signed A Letter, Calling On The Signers Of The Faculty Letter To, “Have The Decency To Resign. According to The Notre Dame Observer, “On Thursday morning, pro-life activist Randall Terry visited Notre Dame’s campus to host a press conference and deliver a letter to University President Fr. John Jenkins. The document was also submitted to over 100 University faculty and professors who signed a letter earlier this week addressing controversial statements made in an April 14 homily delivered by Bishop Daniel Jenky of the Diocese of Peoria, Ill. Jenky is a member of Notre Dame’s Board of Trustees and serves as a University Fellow. […] In Terry’s response, he and the 13 other cosigners call on the professors and faculty who submitted the letter to Jenkins and Notebaert to repent or ‘have the decency to resign.’ ‘You clearly have little honor, and even less regard for innocent human life,’ Terry’s letter stated. ‘There was not one word – not one syllable – in your letter that condemned or confronted the atrocities being committed by Obama. By your words and your omissions, you show your own treachery against innocent human life, and the teachings of the Church.’ In the version submitted to Jenkins and Notebaert, the letter requests ‘immediate action’ be taken against the signing professors and faculty ‘who have unethically cast aspersions upon a holy bishop.’ Gary Boisclair, press agent for Terry and one of the letter’s signees, said the visiting group was looking for a response from the faculty who reacted to Jenky’s homily. ‘[We look to] the faculty’s call to repentance and to apologize to Bishop Jenky for their damaging statements to this humble, holy leader of the Church,’ he said. […] Six of the signees of Terry’s letter, including Terry himself, identify themselves as members of “ND 88,” the group of 88 individuals arrested in May 2009 for protesting Obama’s commencement address at the University.” [Notre Dame Observer, 04/27/12]
¶ 2019: Barrett Appeared As The Keynote Speaker To The Thomas More Society’s Red Mass
¶ Head Of The Local Thomas More Society Hosting Barrett, Stephen Judge, Invoked The Influence Of Church Gospels On Legal Decision-Making In His Promotion Of The Mass
Judge: “The Prayers Of The Red Mass Invoke The Blessing And Guidance of The Holy Spirit On Lawmakers And Lawyers.” According to Today’s Catholic, “Originally, the long robes the lord high justices and judges in the 12th and 13th century in England were bright scarlet. Spiritually, too, there is a connection to the color red. Red is the liturgical color of the Holy Spirit, as seen during Pentecost. The venerable custom of calling this Mass a Red Mass derives from the red vestments of the celebrant, representing the tongues of fire of the Holy Spirit. Attorney Stephen Judge, head of the St. Thomas More Society in South Bend explained further. ‘First, the prayers of the Red Mass invoke the blessing and guidance of the Holy Spirit on lawmakers and lawyers — the texts of the Red Mass are typically taken from the Votive Mass for the Holy Spirit. Second, red is the proper liturgical color for martyrs and thus for our patron, St. Thomas More. In fact, Bishop Rhoades has at least once offered a votive Mass for St. Thomas More, for the Red Mass.’” [Catholic Today, 09/11/19]
Judge: “It’s Still Very Significant For The Legal Community And Individual Practitioners To Gather With Our Bishop And Invoke The Blessing And Guidance Of The Holy Spirit For Our Professional And Personal Lives’” According to Today’s Catholic, “For the faithful practicing the legal profession, the Red Mass is an important marker in both their personal and professional lives. ‘Although the Red Mass dates to a time when there wasn’t nearly as much formal separation between Church and State, it’s still very significant for the legal community and individual practitioners to gather with our bishop and invoke the blessing and guidance of the Holy Spirit for our professional and personal lives,’ Judge said.” [Catholic Today, 09/11/19]
- Judge: “Red Mass Helps Remind Catholic Lawyers That WE Cannot Live An Integral Life By Separating Our Professional Pursuits From Our Faith.” According to Catholic Today, “‘For one, it provides a public witness to our belief that all human law and legal institutions are ultimately accountable to divine law and that we can, and indeed must, call upon God’s assistance in creating, interpreting and executing our own laws. On an individual level, the Red Mass helps remind Catholic lawyers that we cannot live an integral life by separating our professional pursuits from our faith and that the power we have as lawyers and judges must always be subject to the Truth.’” [Catholic Today, 09/11/19]
¶
¶ Barrett’s Involvement Was Explicitly Tied To The Scrutiny Of Her Extremist Catholic Faith During Her Nomination
Attorney For The Hosting Diocese Scott Hall: “Judge Barrett’s Presence Will Be Especially Meaningful Given The Frilling She Got By Senate Committee […] Her Catholic Faiths And Beliefs Were Brought Front And Center.” According to Catholic Today, “In Fort Wayne, the annual Red Mass will be celebrated Oct. 1 at 5:30 p.m. at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. A dinner reception will take place at the Archbishop Noll Catholic Center: Reservations are required to attend the dinner. Guest speaker Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, will address St. Thomas More Society members and others present. Scott Hall, attorney for the diocese, shared: ‘Judge Barrett’s presence will be especially meaningful given the grilling she got by Senate committee members when she was nominated for the appellate court post a couple years ago. Her Catholic faith and beliefs were brought front and center (and) used as evidence to question her suitability for the position.” [Catholic Today, 09/11/19]
¶ 1998: A Law Review Article Co-Authored By Barrett Criticized Justice Brennan’s Stated Commitment To The Constitution And US Law As An Improper REsponse By A Catholic Judge On Abortion
Barrett Co-Authored A 1998 Law Review Article In Which She Said She Would Not Defend Justice Brennan’s Commitment To His Oath Of Office To The Constitution And U.S. Laws As A “Proper Response For A Catholic Judge” To Take For Abortion. According to Alliance for Justice, “In fact, in a 1998 law review article advocating that Catholic judges recuse themselves from certain phases of capital cases, Barrett and her coauthor criticized comments by former Supreme Justice William Brennan. When asked how he would reconcile his Catholicism with the law, Brennan had said, ‘what shall control me is the oath that I took to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and . . . that alone . . . governs.’ Barrett and her coauthor wrote: ‘We do not defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty.’ Barrett’s view that judges should not be guided by the Constitution ‘alone’ is remarkable. The act of a judge recusing herself from a case because of a personal disagreement with the law that is at issue in the case is the definition of putting one’s personal beliefs ahead of the law. Judges do not get to pick and choose which laws they apply.” [Alliance For Justice, 9/8/17]
¶ Barrett Cited Planned Parenthood v. Casey And Referred To Roe As An “Erroneous Decision”
Barrett Cited Planned Parenthood V. Casey As An Example Of A Reliance Interest That Justify Keeping “Erroneous Decision On The Books.” According to Scotus Blog, “In another article, “Stare Decisis and Due Process,” published in the University of Colorado Law Review, Barrett discussed the legal doctrine that generally requires courts to follow existing precedent, even if they might believe that it is wrong. Barrett wrote that courts and commentators “have thought about the kinds of reliance interests that justify keeping an erroneous decision on the books”; in a footnote, she cited (among other things) Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe v. Wade. Barrett’s detractors characterized the statement as criticism of Roe itself, while supporters such as conservative legal activist Ed Whelan countered that the statement did not reflect Barrett’s views on Roe itself, but instead was just an example of competing opinions on the reliance interests in Roe.” [Scotusblog, 9/21/20]
- “Stare Decisis And Due Process” Was Published In 2003. [Notre Dame Law School, 1/1/03]
¶ Barrett: Roe V Wade Does Not Belong On List Of “Superprecedents,” CAses That No Justices Would OVerrule
Barrett Believed That Roe V. Wade Did Not Belong On A List Of Superprecedents, Cases That No Justices Would Overrule. According to the Chicago Sun Times, “In a 2013 Texas Law Review article, Barrett wrote about ‘superprecedents’" – ‘cases that no justice would overrule.’ Barrett's list of examples ‘on most hit lists’ included Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. Board of Education, but not Roe v. Wade. In a footnote, she explained that scholars ‘do not put Roe on the superprecedent list because the public controversy about Roe has never abated.’” [Chicago Sun-Times, 7/4/18]
¶ Barrett Claimed Planned Parenthood V Casey Allowed The State To Regulate Abortion After Viability Except When The Mother’s Health Is At Risk
Barrett Said Planned Parenthood V. Casey Modified Roe But Upheld Its Central Ruling Because It Allowed States To Regulate Abortion Except When The Health Of The Mother Is At Risk. According to The Observer, “The 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey modified Roe but upheld its central ruling, she said. ‘Planned Parenthood v. Casey is a case that alters Roe but preserves the core of Roe,’ she said. ‘As of the [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey ruling, before viability the state policy may not pose a substantial obstacle to a woman’s obtaining an abortion, but the state can regulate in the interest of the life of the fetus. [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey also stated that after viability the state can regulate with an exception for health of the mother.’” [Observer, 1/21/13]
¶ Barrett: “State Can Regulate In The Interest Of The Life Of The Fetus”
Barrett Said A “State Can Regulate In The Interest Of The Life Of The Fetus.” According to The Observer, “The 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey modified Roe but upheld its central ruling, she said. ‘Planned Parenthood v. Casey is a case that alters Roe but preserves the core of Roe,’ she said. ‘As of the [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey ruling, before viability the state policy may not pose a substantial obstacle to a woman’s obtaining an abortion, but the state can regulate in the interest of the life of the fetus. [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey also stated that after viability the state can regulate with an exception for health of the mother.’” [Observer, 1/21/13]
¶ Barrett Said SCOTUS’ Ruling On Abortion Caused A Problem Of Political Parties Seeking Judges That Agreed With Them; Implied SCOTUS Should Not Have Ruled On Abortion
Barrett Called SCOTUS’ Ruling In Roe A Problem That Manifested In Republicans Seeking Anti-Roe Judges And Democrats Seeking Pro-Roe Judges. According to the Notre Dame Observer, “Barrett said one problem with the Supreme Court having ruled on the issue is the effect Roe v. Wade has had on the confirmation process of newly appointed Supreme Court justices. “Republicans are heavily invested in getting judges who will overturn Roe [v. Wade], and Democrats are heavily invested in getting judges who will preserve the central holding of Roe [v. Wade],” Barrett said. “As a result, there have been divisive confirmation battles of a sort not seen before.” [Notre Dame Observer, 1/21/13]
¶ Barrett Questioned Whether Abortion Was A Matter For The Court Or State Lawmakers
2013: Barrett Said It Made A Difference Whether Abortion Was Addressed At A State Or National Level And Whether Access Was Determined By Elected Officials Or Judges. According to The Observer, “Barrett said an important question surrounding the issue of abortion is what part of the government should ultimately decide abortion policy. It makes a difference whether the issue is addressed at a state or national level, and whether it is addressed by popularly elected legislators or appointed judges, she said.” [Observer, 1/21/13]
- Barrett: “Does The Court Have The Capacity To Decide That Women Have The Right To Obtain An Abortion Or Should It Be A Matter For State Legislatures?” According to The Observer, “‘It brings up an issue of judicial review: Does the Court have the capacity to decide that women have the right to obtain an abortion or should it be a matter for state legislatures?’ she said. ‘Would it be better to have this battle in the state legislatures and Congress rather than the Supreme Court?’” [Observer, 1/21/13]
¶ 2017: Barrett Was Asked If She Believed She Was Selected Because Of Her Pro-Life Beliefs; She Replied She Did Not Know
2017: During Her Circuit Court Nomination Hearing Barrett Was Asked If She Believed She Was Selected Because Of Her Pro-Life Beliefs. According to Indianapolis Star, “Trump said during the campaign that he would put ‘pro-life justices on the court.’ His list of potential nominees that he drew off of has the approval of pro-life groups. Asked by Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, if she thinks she was nominated for the Seventh Circuit position because of her ‘strongly held moral convictions regarding abortion,’ Barrett said she did not know ‘what those involved in the selection process may or may not have thought about how I would resolve cases involving abortion.’” [Indianapolis Star, 7/8/17]
- Barrett Said She Did Not Know If Those Involved In The Selection Process Considered Her Views On Abortion. According to Indianapolis Star, “Asked by Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, if she thinks she was nominated for the Seventh Circuit position because of her ‘strongly held moral convictions regarding abortion,’ Barrett said she did not know ‘what those involved in the selection process may or may not have thought about how I would resolve cases involving abortion.’” [Indianapolis Star, 7/8/17]
¶ 2013: Barrett Said Abortion Rights Would “Probably Stand,” Believed The Controversy Around The Issue Concerned Funding
2013: Amy Coney Barrett Gave A Speech At Notre Dame To Mark The 40th Anniversary Of The Roe Decision. According to the Notre Dame Observer, “The first installment of the semester in the Professors for Lunch series, “Roe at 40: The Supreme Court, Abortion and the Culture War that Followed,” drew an audience that filled the Oak Room of South Dining Hall on Jan. 18. During the lunch event, law professor Amy Barrett discussed the legacy of the landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade that was decided on Jan. 22, 1973.” [Notre Dame Observer, 1/21/13]
Barrett: “The Fundamental Element, That The Woman Has A Right To Choose Abortion, Will Probably Stand.” According to the Indianapolis Star, “‘The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand,’ the student newspaper The Observer quoted her saying.” [Indianapolis Star, 7/18/18]
Barrett Said It Was “Very Unlikely” The Supreme Court Would Ever Overturn Roe V. Wade. According to the Indianapolis Star, “In a speech Barrett gave at Notre Dame on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, she declared it ‘very unlikely’ the court will ever overturn Roe’s core protection of abortion rights, according to coverage of her remarks in university publications.” [Indianapolis Star, 7/18/18]
¶ Barrett Said Controversy Over Abortion Was A Matter Of Public Or Private Funding
2013: Barrett: The “Controversy” Surrounding Abortion Was “A Question Of Whether Abortions Will Be Publicly Or Privately Funded.” According to the Indianapolis Star, “The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand,” the student newspaper The Observer quoted her saying. “The controversy right now is about funding. It’s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded.” [Indianapolis Star, 7/18/18]
¶ 2012: Barrett Signed An Open Letter That Criticized Obamacare For Allowing Access To “Abortion-Inducing Drugs, Contraception, And Sterilization.”
2012: Barrett Joined Hundreds Of Academics In Signing An Open Letter To The Obama Administration Criticizing The “Accommodation” Built Into The ACA For Religious Institutions. According to Letter to the Obama Administration, “The Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an ―accommodation‖ for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (―cost free‖) these same products and services. Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.” [Letter to the Obama Administration, 2/27/12]
¶ Open Letter: The Religious Institution “Accommodation” Does Nothing Of Moral Substance And Failed To Remove The Assault On Religious Liberty
“This So-Called ‘Accommodation’ Changes Nothing Of Moral Substance And Fails To Remove The Assault On Religious Liberty And Right Of Conscience. According to Letter to the Obama Administration, “This so- called ―accommodation‖ changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.” [Letter to the Obama Administration, 2/27/12]
The Letter Accused The Obama Administration Of A “Grave Violation Of Religious Freedom” By Compelling Religious Employers To Purchase Health Insurance That Provided Employees “Abortion-Inducing Drugs, Contraception, And Sterilization.” According to the Letter to the Obama Administration, “The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.” [Letter to the Obama Administration, 2/27/12]
¶ Letter Referred To Emergency Contraception As An ‘Embryo-Destroying’ Pill
The Letter Claimed The ACA’s Religious Exemption Was “Morally Obtuse” And That It Was “Unrealistic” Because It Still Allowed An Employee Access To “The Embryo-Destroying ‘Five Day After Pill.’” According to Letter to the Obama Administration, “For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy. It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying ―five day after pill‖ pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer.” [Letter to the Obama Administration, 2/27/12]
¶ Barrett Has Ruled Indirectly In Favor Of Challenging Roe V Wade At The Highest Court Since Being Appointed To The 7th Circuit
Barrett Has Not Rule Directly On Abortion But She Has Twice Voted To Rehear Cases That Struck Down Abortion Related Restrictions. According to Postmedia Breaking News, “Abortion rights groups have expressed concern that if appointed, Barrett could help overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. Although Barrett has not ruled directly on abortion as a judge, she has cast votes signaling opposition to rulings that struck down abortion-related restrictions. In 2016, Indiana passed a law requiring that fetal remains be buried or cremated after an abortion. After some judges found the law unconstitutional, Barrett voted in favor of rehearing the case. She was outnumbered, but the Supreme Court later reinstated the Indiana law. In 2019, Barrett voted to rehear a panel's ruling that upheld a challenge to another Republican-backed Indiana abortion law. The Indiana measure would require that parents be notified when a girl under 18 is seeking an abortion even in situations in which she has asked a court to provide consent instead of her parents. The Supreme Court ordered in July that the case be reconsidered.” [Postmedia Breaking News, 9/20/20]
¶ Barret Voted To Rehear Indiana Laws Relating To Fetal Remains (2016) And Parental Consent (2019)
Barret Voted To Rehear Indiana Laws Relating To Fetal Remains (2016) And Parental Consent (2019). According to Postmedia Breaking News, “Abortion rights groups have expressed concern that if appointed, Barrett could help overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. Although Barrett has not ruled directly on abortion as a judge, she has cast votes signaling opposition to rulings that struck down abortion-related restrictions. In 2016, Indiana passed a law requiring that fetal remains be buried or cremated after an abortion. After some judges found the law unconstitutional, Barrett voted in favor of rehearing the case. She was outnumbered, but the Supreme Court later reinstated the Indiana law. In 2019, Barrett voted to rehear a panel's ruling that upheld a challenge to another Republican-backed Indiana abortion law. The Indiana measure would require that parents be notified when a girl under 18 is seeking an abortion even in situations in which she has asked a court to provide consent instead of her parents. The Supreme Court ordered in July that the case be reconsidered.” [Postmedia Breaking News, 9/20/20]
Barrett Joined Dissent Asking The 7th Circuit To Toss Fetal Remains Ruling And Rehear The Case Suggesting The Law Prohibiting Abortion Clinics From Treating Fetal Remains As Waste Was Constitutional And Even Suggesting The Law Would Have Been Upheld “Had It Concerned The Remains Of Cats Or Gerbils.” According to Telegraph Herald, “An 2018 ruling by a 7th Circuit panel declared unconstitutional an Indiana law requiring the burial of fetal remains after an abortion or miscarriage, and prohibiting clinics from treating the remains as waste. The law, signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence, also barred abortions on the basis on the race, sex or disabilities of the fetus. Barrett joined three conservative judges in asking for the ruling to be tossed and for the full court to rehear the case. They didn't have the votes to force a rehearing. But they issued a joint dissent on the rehearing decision, clearly suggesting they thought the Indiana law was constitutional. The dissent, written by Judge Frank Easterbrook, argued that Indiana's law would have been upheld ‘had it concerned the remains of cats or gerbils.’” [Telegraph Herald, 9/22/20]
¶ As Appeals court Judge, Barrett Was Skeptical to Broad Interpretations Of Abortion Rights
¶ As Appeals Court Judge, Barrett Demonstrated Skepticism To Broad Interpretations Of Abortion Rights, Acknowledged Inability To Challenge Higher Court’s Precedence Leaving Open Possibility Of A Different Result At The Supreme Court
As An Appeals Court Judge Barrett Has Demonstrated Skepticism To Broad Interpretations Of Abortions Rights Joining An Opinion That Questioned The Constitutionality Of Chicago Law But Acknowledging An Inability To Challenge A Higher Court’s Precedence Leaving Open The Possibility Of A Different Result At The Supreme Court. According to The New York Times, “In her work on the appeals court, Judge Barrett has been wary of broad interpretations of abortion rights. In 2018, she joined a dissenting opinion expressing skepticism about a ruling that had held unconstitutional an Indiana law banning abortions sought solely because of the sex or disability of a fetus. A three-judge panel of the appeals court — one that did not include Judge Barrett — struck down the law, saying it conflicted with Supreme Court precedent. Though the state did not seek further review from the full Seventh Circuit, Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, joined by Judge Barrett and two other colleagues, addressed the law in a dissent from denial of review by the full court of a different provision of the law. ‘None of the court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race and other attributes of children,’ he wrote. Judge Barrett followed Supreme Court precedent last year in a second case concerning abortion, voting to uphold a Chicago law shielding women entering abortion clinics from unwelcome interactions with protesters and counselors. The law was almost identical to one the Supreme Court upheld in 2000, in Hill v. Colorado. The Seventh Circuit’s opinion, written by Judge Diane S. Sykes and joined by Judge Barrett, was skeptical of the constitutionality of the Chicago law under the First Amendment. But Judge Sykes said appeals court judges were not free to disregard Supreme Court precedents, even when later decisions appeared to undercut them. ‘The road the plaintiffs urge is not open to us in our hierarchical system,’ she wrote. That left open the possibility of a different result on the next higher rung in the judicial hierarchy: the Supreme Court.” [New York Times, 9/20/20]
¶ The Trump Administration Signaled That they Believed Barrett Would Overturn Roe V. Wade
Mike Pence, When Asked If Barrett Would Overturn Roe, Said He Believed She Would Interpret The Constitution In The Model Of Scalia And That As “The Most Pro-Life President In American History” The “Same Standard Will Be Met With His Nominee To Fill This Vacancy On The Supreme Court.” According to CBS, “NORAH O`DONNELL: I want to ask you about one of the frontrunners, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. She is a Catholic. She is a conservative. She is a mom of seven kids. Are you convinced that Judge Barrett would overturn Roe versus Wade? MIKE PENCE: What I`m convinced of is that-- that Judge Barrett and the other finalists on the list will interpret the Constitution in a way that`s consistent with the great tradition of Justice Antonin Scalia. NORAH O`DONNELL: She is pro-life. MIKE PENCE: President Trump has made it clear that-- that it`s-- it`s our objective to appoint pro-life jurists to our federal courts at-- at every level. NORAH O`DONNELL: Judge Barrett gave a speech at Notre Dame on the fortieth anniversary of Roe versus Wade, and she said it`s very unlikely that the court will overturn Roe. So, why are you convinced that Judge Barrett would restrict abortion rights further? MIKE PENCE: I just know that Judge Barrett will follow the Constitution as will all the finalists. The reality is that the Supreme Court in this last session actually rejected a-- a very moderate restriction on abortion from Louisiana, a bill that would only have required doctors in abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at the neighboring hospitals. NORAH O`DONNELL: And on that case, you believe that someone like Judge Barrett would respect the states` rights on that issue? MIKE PENCE: I`m proud to serve alongside the most pro-life President in American history. And I know that same standard will be met with his nominee to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court.” [CBS, 9/21/20]
¶ Barrett Was Well Regarded As Hostile To Roe V Wade And Women’s Reproductive Freedom By Media And Advocacy Groups
¶ Alliance For Justice: Amy Coney Barrett Would Invalidate The ACA And Eliminate Reproductive Freedom For Women
Alliance For Justice: Amy Coney Barrett Would Invalidate The ACA And Eliminate Reproductive Freedom For Women. According to The New York Times, “‘Amy Coney Barrett meets Donald Trump’s two main litmus tests: She has made clear she would invalidate the A.C.A. and take health care away from millions of people and undermine a woman’s reproductive freedom,’ said Nan Aron, the president of Alliance for Justice, a liberal group.” [New York Times, 9/20/20]
¶ NARAL: Barrett Aligned With Extreme, Anti-Choice Organizations, Believed Roe V. Wade Was Decided Incorrectly
NARAL Said Barret Was “Aligned With Extreme, Anti-Choice Organizations’ And “Believes Roe V. Wade Was Incorrectly Decided.” According to Las Vegas Review Journal, “When the Senate confirmed Barrett by a 55-43 vote in 2017, NARAL Pro-Choice America protested that she was ‘aligned with extreme, anti-choice organizations’ and ‘believes Roe vs. Wade was incorrectly decided.’” [Las Vegas Review Journal, 9/23/20]
¶ Washington Post Editorial: Barrett Posed Biggest Threat To Abortion Rights
Washington Post Editorial Said Barrett Posed The Biggest Threat To Abortion Rights. According to Journal-Times (Kentucky), “Critics of Barrett describe an activist judge who would overturn the Roe v. Wade landmark abortion case. A Washington Post editorial identified her as the candidate who posed the biggest danger to abortion rights, pointing to Barrett's writings on abortion and ignoring legal precedents set by the high court.” [Journal-Times (Kentucky), 7/9/18]
¶ The Daily News (Longview): Amy Coney Barrett’s Legal Writings Were A Flashing Neon Sign Announcing She Would Overturn Roe V. Wade
The Daily News (Longview): Amy Coney Barrett’s Legal Writings Were A Flashing Neon Sign Announcing She Would Overturn Roe V. Wade. According to The Daily News (Longview, Washington), “And yet: Of all the potential Supreme Court nominees that President Trump is considering, the one who seems most inclined to undo Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's work and overturn Roe v. Wade as completely and quickly as possible is Amy Coney Barrett, a 46-year-old newly minted (last November) federal appeals court judge.Maybe any of those on Trump's Federalist Society-vetted list would leap at the chance to dump Roe, or at least to interpret the current standard — limits on abortion are permissible if they do not constitute an undue burden — in a way that would drain it of real meaning. But there remains a big difference between outright overruling and cramped interpretation. And while Barrett has the shortest judicial paper trail of the likely nominees, her academic writings are the equivalent of a flashing neon sign: I'll do it.” [The Daily News (Longview, Washington), 7/8/18]