FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Judge Amy Coney Barrett CONFIRMED JUSTICE OF THE U.S. Supreme Court BY 52-48 VOTE; MCFL APPLAUDS VOTE BY DIVIDED SENATE

Massachusetts Citizens for Life commends the U.S. Senate for confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett as Justice of the Supreme Court in a 52 to 48 vote, along party lines. 

"Justice Barrett has consistently demonstrated judicial prudence in her career, and a commitment to upholding the Constitution of the United States," said C.J. Williams, MCFL Director of Community Engagement, "More than that, she has shown by her own life that feminism is not contingent on an act of violence -- abortion."

Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas after the vote. Speaking from the White House Lawn, she told the nation: "My fellow Americans — even though we judges don’t face elections. We still work for you. It is your Constitution that establishes the rule of law and the judicial independence that is so central to it. The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core that I will do my job without any fear or favor and that I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences,”

Justice Barrett earned her J.D. summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School, where she was first in her class and received the Hoynes Prize, the law school’s highest honor. She went on to clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Beginning in 2002, Barrett taught law at Notre Dame Law School, where she was named “Distinguished Professor of the Year” three times. In 2017,  the U.S. Senate confirmed her to serve as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She is married to Jesse Barrett, an Assistant United States Attorney. The couple has seven children.

Roe v. Wade and abortion were raised repeatedly by extreme abortion supporters during Justice Barrett's confirmation hearings. In Massachusetts, even were Roe to be overturned, state laws promoting abortion would remain in place. Many citizens and national leaders have been troubled by this apparent litmus test and the double standard which makes acceptable dragging a personally pro-life judge through the mud while promoting pro-abortion candidates. 

"A judge should judge, not legislate," said MCFL President, Myrna Maloney Flynn, "A litmus test on personal beliefs exposes a deep ignorance  of--or purposeful intention to abuse--our judicial system."

During hearings before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Barrett said that she refused to be turned into a political pawn. "I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people." 

With expectation and excitement, we welcome Justice Barrett to our nation's Supreme Court.

Press Contact: C.J. Williams

[email protected]

857 302 0466

Massachusetts Citizens for Life is the Commonwealth's single solely dedicated pro-life human rights organization. Founded in 1973, MCFL continues to advocate for the most vulnerable citizens in the Bay State: the preborn and the elderly and disabled.

Photo Credit: Associated Press

She's the perfect fit for our Supreme Court, and for our nation: Feminist, brilliant, both a loving mother and a keen and balanced court justice. She's young. At 48, she will be the youngest justice in our highest court. Her progressive principles show up in her living, as you can see by her family and professional life. Balancing parenting responsibilities with her husband, she is a contemporary example of equality for women based on shared responsibility, rather than the violence of abortion (as Erika Bachiochi notes). 

So why is there this radical rift in public opinion about her nomination?

The answer may lie in her consistency. Because Barrett believes in authentic human rights and equality, she opposes abortion.

Amy Coney Barrett is pro-life.  Protecting women and the unborn from violence is the one and only thing that keeps her from sailing into our highest court -- and that opposition, much more than any of her qualifications or vulnerabilities, is something we should be focusing on.

Barrett isn't controversial.

But the opinion that a child's life is the price for a woman's freedom is one that needs to be stated plainly and examined all across our political spectrum. That opinion, and its proponents, should be under the microscope: not Barrett.

--

Read on for some notes on Barrett's judicial voting record, judicial philosophy, and background.

Live Action News writers note: 

Barrett has a brief but consistent record in support of life. In 2016, Barrett voted in favor of rehearing a 2016 case regarding an Indiana law that required aborted babies to be buried or cremated after some judges determined the law to be unconstitutional. The case was later heard by the Supreme Court, which upheld the law. Ginsburg was the sole justice to write a dissent to that ruling.

Barrett also voted to rehear a case regarding a law that would have banned abortions because of the baby’s sex, race, or disability, a law of which she was in favor. In 2017, in the case of Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., Barrett joined dissenters in support of the Indiana law requiring doctors to notify the parents of minors seeking abortions.

In terms of her understanding of the position, Barrett states that she is accepting the nomination not to promote her personal opinions nor for others in her privileged position. “I would assume this role to serve you," she wrote this week,  "I would discharge the judicial oath, which requires me to administer justice without respect to persons, do equal right to the poor and rich, and faithfully and impartially discharge my duties under the United States Constitution."

Kelsey Hazzard, a lawyer and tireless advocate for the unborn from Florida, remarks that "[Barrett'] is a mother of seven, including a child with Down Syndrome. Those two aspects of her life are not in conflict. Judge Barrett's biography proves that, shockingly, work-life balance is achievable without dismembering any babies."

More detail on her career and record can be found at the National Review, which features an article discussing her judicial approach and background. Read it here.