It should not be a surprise that the person Donald J. Trump has nominated to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg believes abortion is “always immoral.” That stance, after all, is a key reason Amy Coney Barrett got the nod, although she has plenty of views on a range of other issues that would nudge the court further to right if she is confirmed. She was, after all, a member of the “Faculty for Life” at Notre Dame. It’s thus hardly unexpected that The Guardian would discover Barrett’s name among those who signed a 2006 ad from the extremist anti-abortion group St. Joseph County Right to Life attacking the “barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade.”
The ad, published in the South Bend Tribune of Indiana, states: “We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death. Please continue to pray to end abortion.”
The organization is serious about that. It argues, for instance, that discarding unused or frozen embryos created by in vitro fertilization should be criminalized. In a movement known for extremes, that view goes too far for many anti-choice activists. Although more than half the states have passed highly restrictive anti-abortion laws, even Alabama’s effort to effect a near-total ban on abortion exempted in vitro fertilization.
But there is a rising tide in favor of such a ban among some newer activists. In a July statement, Students for Life of America argued a “consistent, intellectually-honest stance holds that human life begins at conception/fertilization, which means that destroying embryos is killing human beings at our very earliest phase.”
Whether Barrett agrees with those who say this or with the more “moderate” extremists of the anti-choice movement is unknown. Just how far is she willing to take “always immoral” and “barbaric” when writing or concurring with court rulings? Perhaps she will let us know in her confirmation hearings whether she still agrees with those stances. More probably we’ll be treated to the standard demurring nominees offer about not being willing to say how they would rule in a particular case before the Supreme Court. As we know all too well, those demurrals are often outright b.s.
What we do know is that for all the attempts to smooth the rough edges off anti-choice judiciary choices, if a new Supreme Court majority puts down Roe v. Wade with a precedent-reversing ruling that returns abortion to a matter for the states, all kinds of extremes may emerge. We’re not just talking about more hospital admitting privileges for abortion doctors, the mandating of counseling that includes lying “pregnancy crisis centers,” “fetal heartbeat” laws, waiting periods, and forced ultrasounds.
Although states have passed laws with tough penalties for performing all but a narrow range of abortions—most of which laws have been overturned by state or federal courts—no states have passed laws explicitly calling for punishing women for getting abortions. Many anti-abortion organizations have specifically argued against such punishments for women, saving those for abortion providers. But not all. Moreover, some state laws have been written in such a way that a reported miscarriage could be scrutinized to determine if it was actually an abortion, and women penalized for if it was. In the absence or gutting of Roe v. Wade, such laws might no longer be blocked judicially.
Talk about barbaric.