Louisiana’s Wendy Vitter is giving professional racist Thomas Farr of North Carolina a run for his money in the contest for Most Deplorable Judicial Nominee. She’s not sure that the Supreme Court got it right when they banned racial segregation in schools, and she’s willing to say anything to advance her anti-choice agenda, true or not.
Vitter’s been an anti-abortion activist for decades. She’s not one of those whose views respect science and judicial reality, either: she claims birth control kills, abortion causes cancer, and unconstitutional limitations on abortion are praiseworthy. That trifecta alone disqualifies her from holding any office that requires independence, impartiality, and integrity.
According to a YouTube video posted in November 2013, Vitter led a panel entitled “Abortion Hurts Women's Health” at a Right to Life Louisiana event. One of the panel’s speakers was the anti-abortion activist Angela Lanfranchi, who told attendees that abortion increases women’s risk for breast cancer — despite the fact that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has found no causal link between abortion and a woman’s risk for breast cancer.
In the video, Lanfranchi also encouraged panel attendees to take at look at her brochure entitled “The Pill Kills.” That brochure claims women on the contraceptive pill are more likely to die a violent death, because they are more likely to cheat on their male partners, to face fertility problems, to have unhealthy children, and to have poor relationships with their partners. The brochure concludes, “It is not unreasonable to suspect that such effects could also influence rates of intimate partner violence.”
After Lanfranchi spoke, however, Vitter told attendees to pick up one of her brochures.
According to Vitter, Planned Parenthood kills “150,000 females” each year, a statement she’s declined to rescind or clarify.
Her brand of anti-choice zealotry would be particularly devastating on the federal bench in Louisiana, which ranks 46th among states for reproductive rights, and 49th for women’s health and well-being.
[Vitter] has been so prolific and outspoken about her views on abortion that the anti-abortion organization Louisiana Right to Life gave Vitter their “Proudly Pro-Life Award.” Louisiana ranks among the worst states in the country for abortion access and is the third poorest state in the nation. The need for reproductive health care including safe, legal abortion is dire. Statewide, only three health centers offer safe, legal abortion for nearly one million women of reproductive age.
There’s no question Vitter would stand a higher chance than most federal judges of hearing abortion-related cases.
In 2004, the Eastern District of Louisiana — which Vitter is nominated to serve on — considered the legality of a New Orleans anti-abortion scheme in which a man offered abortion services, but instead misled women into delaying their abortions. In 2010, the court also considered a state law that allowed the Louisiana government to close an abortion facility for violations without warning or allowing the facility to correct any errors.
“They basically have every restriction that exists for abortion access,” Heather Shumaker, senior counsel reproductive rights and health for the National Women’s Law Center, said of Louisiana. “If any upcoming restrictions were to be challenged, [Vitter] would be on the bench considering those restrictions.”
Vitter also cheated on her Senate questionnaire in hopes of avoiding the topic, excluding key events from this portion of her history.
Nominees to the federal bench are required to tell the committee about every speech and interview they’ve ever given, and about every article they’ve written, so senators can evaluate whether they’re fit to serve as judges.
It’s curious that Vitter tried to hide her record. Perhaps even she recognizes just how unfit that history makes her to serve as a federal judge.
Vitter failed to disclose these events in her judicial nominations questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee — 95 pages worth of documents that were only added to her disclosures after they were brought to the attention of the senators on the committee.
Vitter tried to excuse her exclusions with a blatant lie.
In her questionnaire, Vitter admits that her list of speeches is incomplete. Because she often spoke with civic and Republican groups, and campaigned with her husband, Vitter writes, her list includes “only speaking appearances for which I have brief calendar entries or which were discovered through an online search.”
She adds that her list also doesn’t include “wholly personal” talks, such as “toasts, eulogies, and religious instruction or commentary.”
Reality check: some of Vitter’s omissions take just seconds to unearth. The point was to champion her views publicly, after all.
When Democratic judicial nominees have committed similar sins, Republicans have been apoplectic.
In a letter to Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, then-Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, and several others wrote, “At best, this nominee’s extraordinary disregard for the Committee’s constitutional role demonstrates incompetence; at worst, it creates the impression that [California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu] knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work form the Committee.”
Vitter’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee didn’t quell any concerns. Quite the opposite. It turns out her views on our nation’s immoral history with racial segregation are just as concerning.
"Do you believe that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided?" Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) asked Vitter, referencing the landmark 1954 Supreme Court decision that ruled racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.
"I don't mean to be coy," Vitter replied, "but I think I get into a difficult area when I start commenting on Supreme Court decisions, which are correctly decided and which I may disagree with."
Blumenthal continued, "Do you believe it was correctly decided?"
"My personal, political or religious views I would set aside," Vitter said, only acknowledging that she will uphold "binding" decisions if she's confirmed for the federal judgeship.
Vitter doesn’t have federal legal experience. She doesn’t even have the minimum 12 years’ total legal experience the American Bar Association has stated necessary for serving as a federal judge. She just barely scraped by with a “Qualified” rating from the ABA, which noted that it was a “small majority” with a minority in favor of rating her “Unqualified.”
Her legal background consists only of a stint as chief of trials in the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office, then practicing an aggressive disregard for the Constitution according to none other than the Supreme Court; a year at a law firm; and, most recently, five years as general counsel to the Archdiocese of New Orleans. Between the law firm and the Archdiocese, the J.D. graduate took a 20-year break from practicing law.
Oh, and so much for draining the swamp—if her name sounds familiar, it’s probably because of her husband, scurrilous former Louisiana Sen. David Vitter.