In the wake of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, Pro-Life conservatives eagerly await who President Trump will choose to appoint as her replacement, pending confirmation by the Senate. Ginsburg neglected to protect vulnerable women and their preborn children from being exploited and killed by the abortion industry. Judge Amy Coney Barrett leads by example in her personal life and has an extensive record. Judge Barrett is the clear Pro-Life option to redeem Justice Ginsburg’s legacy.
Judge Barrett is a textualist who has upheld the value of innocent human Life in her personal and professional life. When her son was diagnosed with Down syndrome while still in the womb, she chose Life for her son. In doing so, Judge Barrett modeled the same values she later expressed in an opinion when the question of an Indiana law prohibiting abortion on the basis of sex, race, or disability came before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The dissent she joined correctly labeled the practice of abortion based on such discriminatory characteristics as “eugenics” and noted that “none of the Court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children.” This opinion is especially relevant considering that Justice Thomas has indicated that the next dynamic question about abortion policy the Supreme Court will likely take up will center on state laws like the Texas Preborn NonDiscrimination Act, a priority bill that Texas Right to Life spearheaded in 2019 that passed the Senate but was killed in the House of Representatives.
The myth of a constitutional “right to abortion” was invented and promulgated by justices who see the United States Constitution as a living document, one to be interpreted broadly rather than sticking to the plain words of the document. Those justices claimed that the right to abortion derived from the “right to privacy,” which in turn was derived from “emanations and penumbras” surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Barrett, by contrast, has clearly recognized through her written opinions that the text of the Constitution must be interpreted as written, through a textualist lens. This judicial philosophy inherently supports Pro-Life legal objectives.
Judge Barrett’s legal credentials are indisputably worthy of an appointment to the Supreme Court. She is a devout Catholic of unquestionable character, and she and her husband have seven children, two of whom are adopted from Haiti. She has also been a member of the Federalist Society and spoken at events organized by Alliance Defending Freedom, an advocacy group dedicated to defending the right to religious liberty. If nominated and confirmed at just 48 years old, she has the potential to serve on the Supreme Court for decades to come.
Who better to take Justice Ginsburg’s place on the Supreme Court than a similarly intelligent, capable, and accomplished female jurist who instead is Pro-Life? If Amy Coney Barrett is nominated to our nation’s highest court, President Trump has the opportunity to advance Pro-Life case law and elevate an example for all women that our children are an asset, rather than an obstacle, to our success.