By Sarah Brill, Science and Technology Editor
Amy Coney Barrett was nominated for associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America by President Trump on September 26, 2020. On October 27 2020, she was sworn in. Being a Supreme Court justice is a lifetime appointment and after Ruth Bader Ginsberg passed away on September 18 2020, President Trump was anxious and quick to fill the seat despite Ginsberg’s last wishes to have her seat replaced after the election had been called. Barrett has received vehement opposition from liberals and rightfully so.
Let’s break it down. One issue Amy Coney Barrett has attempted to litigate is abortion rights. In 2016, Barrett was a member of an organization called “Right To Life” which has been criticized on multiple occasions for misleading vulnerable women with false information whilst they attempt to seek abortion. She has also called the court ruling of Roe V Wade an “erroneous decision.” Barrett, like many politically right-winged people, does not support the concept of pro-choice. Pro-choice is the ability for a woman to have complete control over her body. No one should be forced into a pregnancy if the woman was raped, the woman’s life could be at risk, or the woman’s child could suffer or die. There are many other examples where abortion is acceptable, but it seems that the “right” does not understand that. If they cared about pro-life, I think they might want to care about the woman who is carrying the fetus rather than the fetus that is not formed. “Judge Barrett has defended herself on multiple occasions against charges that her religious faith might influence her in court. ‘I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge,’ she once said.” Unfortunately her statement, whilst amicable in writing, is not true.
With regards to LGBTQ+ rights, Barrett, on multiple occasions, has refused to denounce prior writings and statements which, if implemented, could lead to a regression in LGBT+ rights. “Barrett has demonstrated hostility toward LGBTQ+ rights in her words and rulings. She defended the Supreme Court’s dissenters on the landmark marriage equality case of Obergefell v. Hodges, questioning the role of the court in deciding the case.” Additionally, she stated that Title IX protections, a harassment claim, does not extend to the transgender community. When asked whether she would uphold LGBTQ+ rights, she responded and said “I would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.” A seemingly innocent phrase with a Freudian slip locked into her response. Sexual preference is an outdated term that implies that people within the LGBTQ+ community have a choice of whether to be gay or not, for lack of a better phrase. Barrett, while again her intentions were amicable, she succeeded in answering the worst nightmares of the LGBTQ+ community; she will not respect them. How can a person uphold the rights of an entire community when she cannot change or accommodate her personal views?
We all are aware that President Trump will do anything to rip apart the framework of the Obama administration, so it is not surprising that he has declared Barrett a Supreme Court justice. It is also common knowledge that Trump wishes to get rid of the Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA) leaving 23 million Americans without healthcare. Barrett could be the stepping stone towards that goal: in 2017 she opposed the ACA, then ObamaCare, critiquing John Roberts who famously voted to preserve the ACA. Because of her opposition in the past, she poses a true threat to those currently on the ACA.
Needless to say, this article barely scratches the surface of what Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is capable of doing, but there is this phrase I saw on the internet that best fits her actions, and her possible course of actions: Barrett will walk through all the door Justice Ginsberg opened, just to shut them all behind her and I think that is true.