The discussion/debate/argument over the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court would be high stakes even if we considered only (if confirmed) she would replace an icon of the pro-abortion left, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But when President Trump formally announced he had selected Judge Barrett, it opened the door to the kind of first principles conversation pro-abortionists loathe.
Of course, for them, first and foremost is the preservation of Roe v. Wade, a talisman of the secular pro-abortion left. After all, hadn’t the linchpin of the 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood been the declaration, “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives”?
Abortion=Equality, Equality=Abortion.
Judge Barrett, incredibly accomplished, is a standing rebuke, which is why the opposition to her will be as vicious in its own way as what pro-abortionists tried to do to now-Justice Kavanaugh. She is, as President Trump said Saturday, “a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution.” And she is.
Here is a quote from one of Judge Barrett’s countless admirers, followed by some representative comments found in various news accounts:
SIGN THE PETITION: Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett
“She represented the women I go to church with, while also representing the professors I had in graduate school,” she [Ruth Malhotra] said. “She seemed to be the whole package.” This appeared, in of all places, in a wholly sympathetic profile that appeared in today’s New York Times. Ruth Graham went on to write
But for many conservative Christian women, the thrill of the nomination is more personal. Judge Barrett, for them, is a new kind of icon — one they have not seen before in American cultural and political life: a woman who is both unabashedly ambitious and deeply religious, who has excelled at the heights of a demanding profession even as she speaks openly about prioritizing her conservative Catholic faith and family. Judge Barrett has seven children, including two children adopted from Haiti and a young son with Down syndrome.
John Stonestreet, of Breakpoint, put it this way:
More specifically, Barrett represents a new kind of feminism; one that doesn’t come at the expense of children; that doesn’t require rejecting the inherent goodness of a women’s procreative nature. Barrett’s career has been built on her judicial genius, while fully embracing who she is as a woman, a wife, and a mom.”
When your opponent is as formidable as Judge Barrett is, it drives pro-abortionists off the deep end. My favorite —in the sense of being most telling—came from a man.
Writing for Slate, which truly has gone bonkers, Mark Joseph Stern listed some of her incredible accomplishments but dismissed them as nothing more than following a “playbook.” To state the obvious, if a judge Stern liked did half of what he acknowledges Judge Barrett has already accomplished, he wouldn’t be talking about “checking off boxes” but raving about his candidate being a truly worthy successor to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Last night, Tucker Carlson unloaded on Judge Barrett’s critics.
“Even though on some level, Democrats understand rationally that it’s a very bad idea to attack a woman for her family or religious faith, they can’t help themselves. So they’re doing it. Amy Coney Barrett represents everything that made this a great country. Therefore, they despise her.”
His conclusion is memorable:
“And precisely because Democrats know that Amy Coney Barrett’s life refutes the lies they have pushed on the rest of us for decades, they must destroy her personally. They have no choice. Her happiness — her family’s happiness — is evidence that they are frauds.’
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.
