When asked if he would like his home state of Indiana to ban all abortions, Barrett’s presence should help put Roe vs. Overthrowing Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling confirming the legality of a woman’s right to abortion, praised Vice President Mike Pence Barrett but did not address the issue directly.
“For our part, I would never assume how Judge Amy Coney Barrett would rule in the United States Supreme Court,” Pence said later. “But we will continue to stand strong for the right to life.”
When asked if her home state California should not impose abortion restrictions in such a scenario, Sen. Kamala Harris also declined.
“I will always fight for a woman̵
The week before, President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden had raised Roe in a debate that soon turned into chaos.
“The president is also against Roe v. Wade,” said Biden. “It’s also on the ballot (and) on the pitch. … So that’s also at stake.”
Trump pushed back. “Why is it on the ballot paper? It’s not on the ballot paper,” he said and later added: “Nothing happens there. And you don’t know your view of Roe v. Wade. You don’t know your view.” from Barrett.
While overturning the verdict isn’t literally on the 2020 ballot paper, many abortion rights advocates oppose Barrett’s rise as synonymous with Roe’s inevitable death knell and a fate that only a Biden presidency or left-wing Senate could prevent. Anti-abortion activists, on the other hand, claim that their constitutional views are by no means a guarantee, but, more generally, increase their chances of weakening roe – tea leaves that only time will tell.
“We don’t support her because we believe she’s some kind of secret agent who wants Roe down,” said Steven Aden, Americans United for Life’s chief legal officer and general counsel. “We support her because she is a committed constitutionalist. We think this is in line with our view of the Constitution, but just like other judges, we have to wait and see if we are right.”
Their criticism of abortion often stems from religious grounds, accusing Aden and others of holding personal views that are divorced from judicial intent. But these factors do not guarantee a result, argue anti-abortionists.
“There is no way he can know, and neither can she, how she will decide a future case,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List, told Trump’s CNN, adding that “he can’t” prejudice against them when such a case arises. “
“He promised real-life Supreme Court justices, and that’s because his understanding of the Constitution and ours that the rights of unborn children should be protected there,” she continued. “But that’s very different from saying how you think this will unfold in a particular case.”
“I did not think that I should discuss this with her because she will decide that,” Trump said in an interview with Fox & Friends last month.
Proponents of abortion rights
“Roe v. Wade is definitely on the ballot this November,” Jennifer Dalven, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, wrote to CNN. The President and Senate designate Ginsburg’s successor, who “will determine the future of Roe and whether people in much of the country can get an abortion when they need one”.
“If the court turns Roe upside down, Congress and state lawmakers can decide whether to take this personal choice away from women and families and turn it over to politicians,” added Dalven.
Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, told CNN, “The combination of legislative, political and legal interests means that Roe will be central to the November vote.”
“This is a tried and tested strategy by Trump and the GOP. It’s kind of gas lights for women,” Hogue said. “He promised to only appoint judges who would end Roe and make abortion a criminal offense, but when we’re in the middle of a confirmation hearing he says, ‘You’re crazy! What are you talking about? Roe is not threatened!’ We have been to this dance several times and take him at his word. “
“They passed their playbook, which was a clear strategy for getting bills through the courts that would have a path to the Supreme Court that would undermine and ultimately exempt Roe v. Wade,” she said. later he added, “I think the choice is up to the voters to make sure this doesn’t happen.”
Aden and Dannenfelser recognized an increased likelihood of abortion outcomes that were preferable to their organizations just because Barrett did not share Ginsburg’s views.
“If this is the kind of thoughtful assessment you would get from this or any other candidate, it would, in my opinion, be a significant improvement over the approach taken by the plurality led by Justice (Stephen) Breyer, including Justice Ginsburg,” said Aden said.
Barrett “could opt out of any of these laws (future laws against abortion in court) for a variety of reasons, such as how they were brought up, how they stand, all sorts of things,” Dannenfelser said. “I don’t know how the abortion law can ever change without Roe changing. … I hope it will increase the chances that we can somehow invade Roe.”