Faithwire
  • Watch
  • Go!
  • Podcasts
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • News
  • Politics
  • Coronavirus Updates
  • Faith
  • Opinion
  • Christmas
  • Set Free Course

Vanity Fair Writer Claims Amy Coney Barrett Would Support Executing Women Who Have Abortions

Ken Cedeno/Pool via AP
Ken Cedeno/Pool via AP
Share Tweet
By Tré Goins-Phillips
Editor

October 26, 2020

A writer for Vanity Fair is claiming — based on no evidence whatsoever — that Judge Amy Coney Barrett, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, would potentially rule in favor of allowing for the execution of women who have abortions.

Bess Levin wrote last week that Barrett’s decision to avoid answering hypothetical questions was a “schtick.” Of course, Barrett was doing the exact same thing done by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, and the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nominated by former President Bill Clinton.

HOT MIC: Feinstein Talks During Break About Amy Coney Barrett’s Pro-Life Views, Religion

In 2010, during Kagan’s Senate confirmation hearings, The New York Times ran the headline, “Kagan Follows Precedent by Offering Few Opinions,” referring to Ginsburg’s famous decision in 1993 to offer “no hints, no forecasts, no previews” on how she would rule as a justice. The Times ran this headline, though, when Barrett followed the so-called “Ginsburg rule”: “Barrett’s Testimony Is a Deft Mix of Expertise and Evasion.”

The crux of Levin’s baseless claim centered on a written exchange between Barrett, who is Catholic and personally pro-life, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who asked the judge, “Under an originalist theory of interpretation, would there be any constitutional problem with a state making abortion a capital crime, thus subjecting women who get abortions to the death penalty?”

In her response, Barrett told the senator to “see my answer to question 100,” which was, “As a sitting judge and as a judicial nominee, it would not be appropriate for me to offer an opinion on abstract legal issues or hypotheticals.”

This happened: @SenWhitehouse followed up in writing with Amy Coney Barrett (SOP) and asked whether the Constitution allows for abortion to be a crime punishable by death and she declined to answer. !!!!! pic.twitter.com/L2T8tMl4uf

— ilyseh (@ilyseh) October 22, 2020

To make her case, Levin used (what she sees as) incriminating past opinions by Barrett, who is expected to be confirmed Monday evening.

Barrett wrote in one court opinion that abortion is “always immoral.” She also joined the dissenters in Box v. Planned Parenthood who argued an Indiana law requiring doctors to notify the parents of minors seeking abortions should be upheld. And as several Democrats noted, in 2006, the then-law professor signed a letter calling for an end to the “barbaric” Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that granted nationwide legal cover to abortion.

Sen. Blackburn Slams Dems’ Sexist Double Standard for Conservative Women

It should be noted, as Barrett explained, she only signed onto the portion of the letter opposing “abortion on demand.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein pressed Amy Coney Barrett on her views about abortion, to which Coney Barrett responded she has “no agenda."

But in 2006, Coney Barrett signed a two-page newspaper ad that called for “an end to the barbaric legacy” of Roe v. Wade. pic.twitter.com/Nld6DgoaTy

— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) October 13, 2020

Barrett repeatedly told lawmakers she has “no agenda” going into the high court and refused — on numerous occasions — to offer them ideological pledges on any issue.

“It would actually be wrong and in violation of the canons for me to [take a side] as a sitting judge,” she explained to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who wanted Barrett to take a stance on Roe v. Wade. “So if I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say ‘I love it’ or ‘I hate it,’ it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or the other in a pending case.”

Feinstein called Barrett’s answer — the same response voiced by Ginsburg and Kagan — “distressing.”

Latest

  • News

    New Survey Shows BLM Support Down, Police Support Up

  • Media

    CEO of CNN’s Parent Company Says COVID Pandemic Is ‘Really Good for Ratings’

  • Opinion

    Allen West: Brilliance of First Amendment Will Protect Religious Freedom from Equality Act

  • News

    Meteorologist Janice Dean on Finding the Sunshine in Life’s Darkest Moments

  • News

    ‘God’s Will Is No Concern of This Congress’: NY Dem Jerry Nadler Rejects God During Debate Over Equality Act


Sponsored Sidebar Default (2)

Navigation

  • Watch
  • Go!
  • Podcasts
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Staff
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram

Subscribe to the Newsletter

Sign up to get our newsletter your inbox every day.

Newsletter Signup

Do you want to read
more articles like this?


Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement