Barrett hearings day 2: Barrett faces questions on abortion, Catholic faith, race, and religious freedom

Washington D.C., Oct 13, 2020 / 05:13 pm (CNA).-

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was pressed on Tuesday for her position on abortion, marriage, and health care, during her first day of questioning by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Barrett’s Catholic beliefs have been the subject of some scrutiny in the press in recent weeks, but on Monday and again on Tuesday, Democratic senators said that her religion would not be a topic of questions.

But the nominee did tell senators Tuesday that she could “set aside” Catholic doctrine when making a decision on the bench,

While affirming the importance of her Catholic faith, Barrett said that she could “set aside” Church teaching when ruling on the bench, in order to make judgments based upon her reading of the law. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had asked her if she could “set aside whatever Catholic beliefs you have regarding any issue before you.”

“I can,” Barrett answered, saying that she has done so while serving as a judge on the Seventh Circuit appeals court and “if confirmed to the Supreme Court, I will do that still.”

Barrett is a Catholic mother of seven who is a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She formerly taught at the University of Notre Dame law school.

Pressed repeatedly for her views on abortion, marriage, health care, and other issues, Barrett invoked a standard on Tuesday that she credited to Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she had been considered for the Court: “no hints, no previews, no forecasts” of future decisions, as Barrett summarized it.

“I can’t grade precedent,” Barrett said, noting elsewhere that “it’s inconsistent with the duties of a sitting judge…to take positions on cases that the Court has decided in the past.”

However, glimpses of her judicial philosophy did appear at times during the hearing. When asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar if Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states, was “super-precedent” of the Court, Barrett indicated that it was not.

“Super-precedent” is a standard applied by some legal scholars to particular Court decisions that are, as Barrett said on Tuesday, so well-settled that virtually no one is currently pushing for their repeal.

“And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” Barrett said of “super-precedent,” adding that “scholars across the spectrum” say “that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled.”

While on the Seventh Circuit, Barrett ruled on a few abortion-related cases that were discussed on Tuesday.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) asked the nominee about a case in which she joined with the court majority to uphold Chicago’s eight-foot “buffer zone” rule that barred pro-life sidewalk counselors from approaching within that distance of an abortion facility.

Barrett explained that she used existing Supreme Court precedent in Hill v. Colorado that upheld a similar “buffer zone” ordinance elsewhere.

“My duty as a judge was to follow the governing law, and the governing law in that case was Hill,” she said of the decision that favored an abortion facility.

In an exchange with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Barrett explained another abortion-related case she was involved with.

When a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit struck down Indiana’s mandate that fetal remains be buried or cremated, an appeal to the full court by the state was unsuccessful.

Barrett was one of the judges dissenting from the court’s denial of the appeal, and she joined a dissent by Judge Frank Easterbrook. In that dissent, Easterbrook argued that the fetal remains law couldn’t be struck down simply because the Court thought unborn babies were not persons. He also said that the Supreme Court had not overturned state bans on sex-selective or disability-based abortions.

During his questions, Leahy also brought up a pro-life open letter signed by Barrett from 2006 in the South Bend Tribune and asked her if she agreed with a policy position of the group organizing the petition, which opposed in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Barrett said that she had signed the statement on her way out of Church, which “simply said” that “we support the right to life from conception until natural death.” She declined to give her opinion on IVF on Tuesday so as not to affect any future cases before the Court.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) did ask her about race, particularly the impact watching the video of George Floyd had on her. Barrett called it “very, very personal,” having adopted two Black children from Haiti.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also brought up the matter of religious freedom, and criticized his Democratic colleagues for perceived hypocrisy.

He mentioned the religious freedom case of the Little Sisters of the Poor against the federal contraceptive mandate which would “force them to pay for abortion-inducing drugs” among other drugs and procedures.

Religious freedom under the law, he said, extends to the sisters who “take oaths of poverty” and who “devote their lives” to caring for the sick and the elderly.

Cruz criticized his Democratic colleagues for perceived hypocrisy. Pope Francis, he said, has spoken out about issues such as immigration and the environment “that our Democratic colleagues like and agree with,” and they in turn promoted the pope’s appeals on those matters.

“Somehow missing from that amplification,” he said, was Pope Francis’ visit to the Little Sisters of the Poor residence in Northeast D.C. during his 2015 trip to the U.S. A Vatican spokesman told the press that Pope Francis visited the home to show support to the sisters’ during their court battle against the contraceptive mandate.

While Barrett refrained from offering her judicial opinions on controversial issues, Democratic senators still asked her repeatedly about abortion and warned that they did not trust her to be impartial.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) still tried to get Barrett to answer on abortion, citing the example of “Samantha” who was a sexual assault survivor and who felt she need to have an abortion. He asked if that was protected by the Constitution.

Barrett simply answered that Roe v. Wade “clearly held” that women have a right to terminate a pregnancy, and that the 1992 ruling Planned Parenthood v. Casey built upon that decision.

Graham asked her about the issue of abortion, noting that states have enacted “heartbeat” bans on abortion at the detection of a fetal heartbeat—usually around six to eight weeks in a pregnancy—as well as 20-week abortion bans.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking minority member of the committee, brought up the dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which Justice Antonin Scalia and others stated that “we believe that Roe was wrongly decided” and could be reversed.

Feinstein asked Barrett if she agreed, and Barrett gave the answer that she would largely repeat throughout the day: she would not give her opinion on Supreme Court precedent, which she said “signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in an impending case.”

Feinstein continued pressing her on abortion, guns, health care, and LGBT issues, but Barrett said regarding LGBT issues that she would not give her opinion on the Court’s ruling in the Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage across the country.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

1 Comment

  1. I dare say ¨render unto Caesar that which are Caesar´s…¨, while being a ¨precedent¨, is certainly not a “super-precedent”, considering that it is a ´down-stream´ ´descendant / fruit´ of the mentality which stupidly demanded a Caesar in the first place!…

    1 Sam. 8: 7 – 22:

    ´…and the Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. Just as they have done to me, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so also they are doing to you. Now then, listen to their voice; only—you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.”

    So Samuel reported all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers. He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day.

    But the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; they said, “No! but we are determined to have a king over us, so that we also may be like other nations, and that our king may govern us and go out before us and fight our battles.” When Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the Lord. The Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to their voice and set a king over them.”…´

    Oh what a tangled web we have woven for ourselves when we asked for a king!

    So here we are, – at the mercy of ´kings´ and their vassals / minions / donors who…
    1a) protect the ´right´ to extinguish innocent human life, ( ),
    1b) use taxpayer money to fund the atrocity and then profit from them ( ),
    2) poison our children – (example: and ) –
    3) legislate from the bench (example: Roe v. Wade, , etc. )

    #sow-the-wind, reap-the-whirlwind, indeed!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.