The problem of Amy Coney Barrett
When will white women finally cut bait and think for themselves?
Today the rushed, unethical, hypocritical nomination proceedings for Amy Coney Barrett begin.
Chuck Grassley’s last 5 sentences in his opening statement were:
“You’ll no doubt be asked how you’ll rule on questions and issues and whether the case was correctly decided. I expect that you’ll follow the example of Justice Ginsburg. The nominee should offer no forecast, no hints of how he or she would vote because that’s the role of a judge.That’s the place of a judge in our system of government. Unbiased, fiercely independent, faithful to the rule of law and a steadfast defender of the constitution. Judge Barrett, I look forward to our conversation, once again congratulations.”
Subtext: “woman, here’s what you’re going to say”
Amy Coney Barrett is not a handmaid. She’s not Aunt Lydia. She is the wives. She’s Being Used To Take Women’s Rights Away.
Barrett is being used by the toxic and rotting republican party as a tool to overturn Roe v Wade entirely and to end the Affordable Care Act. She’s a pawn. Her already ultra conservative record shows this. #FakePresident’s claim he doesn’t know her record, or which way her decisions will sway is simply one more of his persistent lies. Her ultra conservative and religious views are precisely why he is pushing her onto the court. #LiarInChief is using a woman to strip women’s rights away from us. Amy Coney Barrett is the Wives. She represents the sadly too large a number of white women in America who will not stand up to patriarchal, outdated, unacceptable policies and laws. She is the woman #45 can freely use and tries to manipulate.
She did exactly as Chuck told her to do. She didn’t talk about how she’d rule. I don’t criticize that, I criticize that she did not speak to how her religion and conservative views will in fact impact her votes. It’s long past time we let go of the charade that politicians, judges, police, healthcare providers, local government officials are not influenced by their personal beliefs, when so often that conflict turns deadly.
Barrett believes states should decide restrictions on Abortion. She has and continues to say that roe is settled precedent, but when you read what her views are on precedent, it’s easy to see how well she fits into the republican toolkit.
From The New York Times’ Adam Liptak’s article: “In a 2013 law review article, she examined the role of the doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin for “to stand by things decided” and is shorthand for respect for precedent. The doctrine is, Judge Barrett wrote, “not a hard-and-fast rule in the court’s constitutional cases,” and she added that its power is diminished when the case under review is unpopular.”
During an interview at Jacksonville University in 2016 Barrett spoke to abortion and stated Roe is not law. She mentioned Casey Vs Planned Parenthood stating Roe v Wade is superseded by C v PPH saying “Roe Vs Wade actually isn’t the law”. In part, she’s inaccurate in her statement. In the larger scope of women’s rights, her statement is predictive of why she’s being rushed through this process.
“I don’t think the core case — Roe’s core holding that, you know, women have a right to an abortion — I don’t think that would change,” Barrett said. “But I think the question of whether people can get very late-term abortions, you know, how many restrictions can be put on clinics — I think that would change.” ~ Barrett at Jacksonille University
Barrett’s comment cleverly included late term abortions which is a dog whistle conservatives who want to abolish abortion rights, women’s rights at large in fact, use to gaslight their listener and redirect the real concerns we have that women who get to clinics because of the vast recent closing of clinics, will eventually be denied any choice at all.
Roe originally stated:
“During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.” Quoted from Cornell Law
The Planned Parenthood case outcome hobbled the true rights of women. In the Planned Parenthood case the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion remained, but changed how restrictions to the right could be made. They overturned the part of Roe that gave sole discretion/full choice of having an abortion to the woman in favor of a viability analysis. This opened the door wide for states to put deep restrictions on a woman’s choice. And they have. From closing clinics that perform abortions, and forcing women to listen to biased often inaccurate statements about abortion, to invasive procedures like internal (transvaginal) ultrasound.
Things will get much worse with Barrett as a pawn on the supreme court.