in ,

What Trump and Amy Coney Barrett Hide about Amy Coney Barrett

Eric Zuesse

U.S. President Donald Trump and his appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, hide the fact that Judge Barrett believes that both abortion and any form of after-conception contraception, such as a “morning-after pill”, constitute murder, because life, as will here be documented that she views it, begins at the very moment of conception, and not after the 20th week as soon as consciousness begins in a fetus, which is the existing, Roe-v.-Wade, standard.

A CBS News poll, taken May 29 to June 2 this year, of 1,309 American adults, found that only 24% of Americans agree with her view and say that abortion should simply be “not permitted.” 43% say it should be “generally available,” and 31% say it should be “available under stricter limits.” A subsequent, September 21 to September 29 NBC News poll asked respondents “Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?” and 66% said No; 29% said Yes. By more than two-to-one, Americans were opposed to overturning the existing law.

The only poll about the morning-after pill in which any sort of blanket legal restriction against its use was even listed as being an option was a 2013 NPR poll that offered, as an option, “A prescription should be required for all women regardless of age.” Only 16.7% of the 3,008 randomly sampled Americans chose that option, and all others chose options in which no prescription, at all, would be required above various age-limits, ranging upwards from 21 down to 15 years of age. Consequently, the percentage of Americans who might have felt that terminating a fertilized human egg within 5 days of its conception (as the morning-after pill is designed to do) should be treated as murdering a person, was something less than that 16.7%. For example, it might have been 8%. But, in any event, far fewer than 16.7% of Americans agree with Amy Coney Barrett, that use of the morning-after pill constitutes murder (because it intentionally terminates a “human life”). Far fewer than 16.7% of Americans think that a woman who uses a morning-after pill deserves to be sent to prison as a murderer. But Amy Coney Barrett is one of them. (Unless she thinks that some murderers shouldn’t go to prison. But how could she then justify that belief?)

Furthermore, only 24% of Americans agree with her view of abortion (that it is murder).

Here is what Amy Coney Barrett believes about both abortion and the morning-after pill:

“We, the following citizens of Michiana [Michigan and Indiana], oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death.”

That statement, in which she made clear that, to her, an intentional termination of a human “life” at any time, from the moment of fertilization (conception) on, constitutes murder, was signed in 2006, both by Amy Coney Barrett and her husband Jesse. That statement was attached to another, which was being published in the South Bend Tribune, which headlined “Roe v. Wade ‘an exercise of raw judicial power’ (Supreme Court Justice Byron White)”. This statement, likewise, made clear her belief, that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned, and that abortions need to be outlawed in the United States, or else left to each individual state to outlaw or not — just like in the old back-alley, abortion-by-coat-hanger, days.

Back in 2006, Ms. Barrett was a professor of law at the Roman Catholic Notre Dame University. As the Wall Street Journal noted on October 1st, “During a segment about Judge Barrett in Tuesday’s presidential debate, former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate, said Roe v. Wade was effectively an issue on the ballot because of the Supreme Court. Mr. Trump responded: ‘You don’t know her view on Roe v Wade.’” But, now, everyone knows, because she has publicly stated it, as clearly as possible, though both she and President Trump have been hiding it, till now.

As Britain’s Guardian reported on October 1st, the organization that sponsored the ad that Barrett and her husband had signed onto, Saint Joseph County Right to Life, when interviewed by the Guardian, said, “We support the criminalization of the doctors who perform abortions. At this point we are not supportive of criminalizing the women. We would be supportive of criminalizing the discarding of frozen embryos or selective reduction through the IVF [in-vitro fertilization] process.” However, if a woman takes an “emergency contraception” or “morning after” pill, and murder is intentionally killing a human “life,” and the pill kills a fertilized egg, then how can they say that “At this point we are not supportive of criminalizing the women”? Is that merely a political statement in order to deceive the public into believing that these people aren’t as extreme as they actually are? But how not-extreme would it even be to criminalize the medical doctors who perform abortions, and the ones who provide IVF services? How insane would that actually be? How could a rational person think that America’s Founders would have wanted their Constitution to be ‘interpreted’ in such a brutal and anti-scientific manner? How could it not be extremist, in the worst sense? After all, medical doctors have been shot, murdered, in America, for performing abortions. Is this something that America’s Founders would have wanted? When their Constitution, OUR Constitution, opened with a supreme commitment to “We, the People” and to “promote the general welfare,” were they referring to fertilized human eggs etc. until death, or instead only to conscious human beings, which don’t even exist prior to around 20 weeks? And, if to fertilized human eggs, then why not also to any mere vegetable, not even animals at all — biological entities that lack any nervous system, even at their maturity? Even mere bacteria and viruses are forms of “life.” But did any of the Founders so much as imagine such insanity as this which some U.S. Supreme Court ‘Justices’ believe and are religiously committed to? For such judges to believe it for themselves, as part of their personal religion, is one thing, they’ve a right to that, but for them to impose it as if this belief had any foundation in the U.S. Constitution is simply bizarre, insane, if not outright stupid. What is the logic of Amy Coney Barrett’s approach to these matters? Or: is there any? We now know what her views are. She has stated them. There is no logic to them. Certainly it’s not based in what is written in our Constitution. It is nowhere there, not at all. Not a bit. It is alien to the U.S. Constitution.

Neither Trump nor Barrett can hide it any longer, because it was already published, back in 2006. So, now, everybody knows it.

Here is what her hero, Antonin Scalia, said about the matter, at his confirmation hearings back in 1986:

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our ranking Member, Senator Biden, is currently on the floor with the introduction of legislation dealing with drug regulation, and he will be over here very shortly. But I will proceed, if I might. Judge Scalia, if you were confirmed, do you expect to overrule the Roe v. Wade?

Judge SCALIA. Excuse me?

Senator KENNEDY. DO you expect to overrule the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision if you are confirmed?

Judge SCALIA. Senator, I do not think it would be proper for me to answer that question.

The CHAIRMAN [Senator Strom Thurmond, Republican, South Carolina]. I agree with you. I do not think it is proper to ask any question that he has to act on or may have to act on.

Judge SCALIA. I mean, if I can say why. Let us assume that I have people arguing before me to do it or not to do it. I think it is quite a thing to be arguing to somebody who you know has made a representation in the course of his confirmation hearings, and that is, by way of condition to his being confirmed, that he will do this or do that. I think I would be in a very bad position to adjudicate the case without being accused of having a less than impartial view of the matter.

Senator KENNEDY. There have been at least some reports that that was one of the considerations in your nomination. There are a lot of other, clearly, strengths which you bring to your own qualifications. But I am interested in what precedence you put on that decision being on the lawbooks. I am interested in your own concept in stare decisis. Do you believe in it? What is it going to take to overrule an existing Supreme Court decision?

Judge SCALIA. AS you know, Senator, they are sometimes overruled.

Senator KENNEDY. I am interested in your view.

Judge SCALIA. My view is that they are sometimes overruled. And I think that — 

Senator KENNEDY. But what weight do you give them?

Judge SCALIA [continuing]. I will not say that I will never overrule prior Supreme Court precedent.

Senator KENNEDY. Well, what weight do you give the precedents of the Supreme Court? Are they given any weight? Are they given some weight? Are they given a lot of weight? Or does it depend on your view

Judge SCALIA. It does not depend on my view. It depends on the nature of the precedent, the nature of the issue. … I assure you, I have no agenda. I am not going onto the Court with a list of things that I want to do. My only agenda is to be a good judge.

Wikipedia’s article on Scalia states: “Scalia repeatedly called upon his colleagues to strike down Roe v. Wade. Scalia hoped to find five votes to strike down Roe in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services but was not successful in doing so.” So: at his confirmation hearing, he had been lying. Is that not treachery? Or is it instead merely perjury?

A precedent therefore exists to Amy Coney Barrett, and Scalia is it. He was confirmed in a vote of the U.S. Senate, a vote of 98 to 0 — it was unanimous, every Senator, including, of course, Joe Biden (who now campaigns against Amy Coney Barrett), approving of Antonin Scalia, to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

America is anything but a democracy. There is plenty of precedent for that. Dictatorships are a dime a dozen, especially prior to the U.S. Revolution (which has long-since been overturned, by a quiet and gradual counter-revolution by America’s super-rich). In no sense does the majority rule in today’s America. National politics in this country is just for show: a “good-cop, bad-cop,” show. That’s all it now is. And that’s just as obvious as is the fact that Amy Coney Barrett intends to terminate the Roe v. Wade decision.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Help us grow. Support The Duran on Patreon!

Report

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.

What do you think?

-13 points
Upvote Downvote
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
64 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The dude
The dude
October 3, 2020

What a long article about nothing.

Dee Cee
Reply to  The dude
October 3, 2020

Zeuss hates conservative thinkers. His work is a good backdrop to Alex and Alex though… nice for some contrast. And to really see how even intelligent libs can’t quite exercise cogent reasoning.

Helen B
Helen B
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 3, 2020

See my comment above.

Dee Cee
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 4, 2020

Yeah okay I’ll bite. FIRST: Amy Coney Barrett is a pro-life Catholic. No one has been able to “hide” that, nor is anyone trying to “hide” it. SECOND: There is to be no religious test for service in public office (US Constitution). Are you at all surprised that she opposes abortion? Good for her for standing on her principles. THIRD: (and here is where there’s a big argument) Roe v. Wade was an incorrect decision. It hinges on the term “person.” They ultimately decided that if you are not a “person” (as in “We the People”), then you don’t qualify… Read more »

Paul Martin
Paul Martin
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 4, 2020

Progressives throughtout time have always been destroyers, not builders. They have no vision for the future, and they never replace whatever good they seek to eliminate. They are negative operaters who do the work for the academic leftist elites, working on their behalf in politics, media and cultural forms, bringing down all the obstacles blocking the ascent of the elite criminals who want to gain completely undeserved control and power over the masses. It’s why the early progressives, like the Fabians, were already touting the idea of eugenics, and lovely people like Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) openly racist… Read more »

BaronAsh
BaronAsh
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 5, 2020

With respect, I think that you ‘progressives’ are the most dangerous, deluded and self-righteously arrogant fools in the mix, and extremely dangerous in that if you get your way, millions will suffer greatly. You worship Big Ideas over living people, concept over heart. I wish you no harm, but I do wish you would all go away so the rest of us could move forward with lives in a positive, productive fashion both on the individual level and also on restoring the Republic by ridding it of the overly Statist elements including the military industrial complex, the corrupt financial system,… Read more »

Paul Martin
Paul Martin
Reply to  BaronAsh
October 5, 2020

Many thanks for summing up progressives in one brief take: “You worship Big Ideas over living people, concept over heart.” That is sadly always true about them, and accounts for their perpetual disconnect. Ideas first, people second…

Helen B
Helen B
October 3, 2020

It is unlikely that ACB will overturn R vs W. For the same reasons Scalia gave. That’s not the issue today anyway. Late term abortion is the current issue, meaning the destruction of a viable foetus up to birth. No sane person would support that, and ACB won’t either.

Terry R
Terry R
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 4, 2020

Is the evidence for that solely based on the signature provided to a petition in 2006 (which BTW did not use the word murder as insinuated in above article) ?
I ask as I am interested if there are any more recent statements from ACB herself: specifically, since ACB took on the role of a judge..

Dee Cee
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 4, 2020

It is murder, Mr. Zuesse. It is capricious to the core to identify ‘this human’ as a nonperson because of his size, but that human as a person because she is larger. Also, talk about being ignorant of your terminology. A zygote is only such for a few minutes. It is the referring to the stage of cellular development when the fertilized egg begins replicating. A woman won’t even know she’s pregnant before the zygote stage has passed, let alone be carrying out an abortion.

tiredofthelies
tiredofthelies
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 4, 2020

‘person’ is a development of a mind. (& changing throughout life)
There is a ‘person’ as soon as there is a soul. (ie. immediately after conception)

BaronAsh
BaronAsh
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 5, 2020

The nervous system and soul and ability to feel pain happens by around the 49th day. Your 20 weeks is way too late. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that these are decisions which people should struggle with family by family, community by community. The main issues with abortion legally are: Should there be taxpayer-funded organisations providing – and even promoting – abortion services? This should be decided on the State not Federal level No doctor or hospital should be forced to provide such a service or be punished. Your arguments about beginning of life are deceptive distractions from… Read more »

tiredofthelies
tiredofthelies
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 5, 2020

because the soul is the spark of life that ignites consiousness.

Dee Cee
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 4, 2020

I hardly fund your claim about pre-20 week babies having no spirit to be credible. I am not aware of a single shred of evidence in theology or philosophy that could support that claim. As to having no consciousness, presumptions like that are contradicted scientifically. You’re a spastic abortion defender and I can see why you’re suddenly very scared. There’s no pretense, no hiding, no smoke screening. The left’s sacrament of Holy Abortion is on its way to being destroyed, amd with it the Satanic influences that are perverting your faculties. I’ll say a big prayer for you and see… Read more »

Dee Cee
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 4, 2020

I’m going to add one more reply: Mr. Zeusse, you should do some research before making claims like “it doesn’t have a functioning nervous system” and “zero sensations, thoughts, or emotions” and “it is not even animated.” First, you’ll learn a whole bunch from this short, well-cited article, about EEG techniques (which gives light to some of the limitations) for researching fetal brain development. Second, you’ll notice that infants in the womb most definitely are “animated” before 20 weeks gestation as I can attest from my own two pregnancies. But you can watch a baby moving for yourself in multiple… Read more »

tiredofthelies
tiredofthelies
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 4, 2020

because you terminate any possibility for life..

BaronAsh
BaronAsh
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 5, 2020

I believe that abortion is basically murder because it snuffs out what would otherwise be a life, moreover without the consent of the life in question. However, I do not believe that the State has the right to force people to provide abortion services or use taxpayer funds for that purpose. If you want to commit murder on your foetus and it is legal to do so in your jurisdiction, then fine, do it. But don’t force people to pay for it or perform the service. Only those medical professionals who share your view should perform such services; those who… Read more »

tiredofthelies
tiredofthelies
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 5, 2020

you just love eugenics..

Michael Woodbridge
Michael Woodbridge
October 4, 2020

Ultimately we must retain the ideal that all life is sacred.That’s not to say that there are no occasions when circumstances might force us to act otherwise, but the ideal has to be retained as a kind of moral compass.

tiredofthelies
tiredofthelies
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 4, 2020

All things are matter, and all are Created. Thus, all things are Sacred… (you can’t make anything, only interfere with what has been Made.)
Yes, Hitler’s aberant behaviour made him a psycho, but at conception he was as us all. (formed by nurture, not nature)

BaronAsh
BaronAsh
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 5, 2020

Good one. The answer to your sacred question is ‘yes.’
You clearly have no idea of what sacred means.
Par for the course for progressives.
You worship the God of Abstract Concept.
Heartless.
Very sad.
But if such people take power – like in Russia in 1917 – usually mass murder is the result because there is no sacrifice on the altar of Idea that they cannot justify, seeing as life itself is of no value to such a mentality.

Paul Martin
Paul Martin
Reply to  BaronAsh
October 5, 2020

In Russia the gulags were used. In America, Planned Parenthood and other eugenics were made available.

Paul Martin
Paul Martin
Reply to  Michael Woodbridge
October 4, 2020

Progressives are immoral people. They usually (and mistakenly) think they’ve got the ethical wherewithal to know what’s best for everyone else, but moral knowledge comes from having a vertical orientation to a higher source of wisdom, as opposed to the limited mind of merely political man who only has opinions… not knowledge. Plato also knew the difference, and held the sophists and their sophisticated bullshit in contempt.

BaronAsh
BaronAsh
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 5, 2020

I dispute it.

Paul Martin
Paul Martin
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 5, 2020

“Plato is considered…” Yes, that’s right — but considered by whom? Those who have every reason to blackwash Plato to eliminate all of his “dangerous” ideas, and those who themselves endanger democracy through their deceptive means for self-gain of power and control. Between the various imperfections of the Greeks and the Spartans, the best solution was still — to this day — made by the Romans, who knew that checks to democracy were absolutely necessary for corruption not to succeed.

tiredofthelies
tiredofthelies
Reply to  Michael Woodbridge
October 4, 2020

exactly

BobValdez
BobValdez
October 4, 2020

ACB’s views on abortion are religion based, rather than medical or social views. It’s unfortunate that many women in the us view abortion as an easily accessed form of birth control, rather than using more accepted methods of avoiding unwanted pregnancies.

BobValdez
BobValdez
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 4, 2020

??? In what way is your article about interpretation of the us constitution? It appears to be discussing the moral and ethical “legality” of abortion. Isn’t it the right of the woman to decide? A small percentage of women DO use abortion like birth control, because they are too lazy to use proper contraceptives. I’ve personally known several, including a family member.

BobValdez
BobValdez
Reply to  BobValdez
October 4, 2020

Eric, a paragraph from your article: U.S. President Donald Trump and his appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, hide the fact that Judge Barrett believes that both abortion and any form of after-conception contraception, such as a “morning-after pill”, constitute murder, because life, as will here be documented that she views it, begins at the very moment of conception, and not after the 20th week as soon as consciousness begins in a fetus, which is the existing, Roe-v.-Wade, standard. This is what my comment was about, Eric. The headline: What Trump and Amy Coney Barrett Hide about… Read more »

Last edited 23 days ago by BobValdez
Paul Martin
Paul Martin
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 4, 2020

Progressives like you want to “interpret” the constitution for the purpose of undermining its integrity and eventually destroying it. If you can somehow impose the view that there might be enough “contradictions” which can no longer be squared away (but which are only more projections) then Hillary’s contention of “maybe that 18th century document should be put through a 20th century paper shredder” can sound reasonable — rather than the underhanded rant that it is. You’re all wolves in sheep’s clothes, trying to blame the sheepdog as the one who’s disguised.

Paul Martin
Paul Martin
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 5, 2020

You did call yourself a progressive, no? That means you perfectly allowed me the opportunity to express my views regarding progressives, who are birds of a feather. Your prose generally demonstrates the toxic outlook that progressives bring to the table… a table at which I will never sit.

BaronAsh
BaronAsh
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 5, 2020

You wrote in that article (thanks for the link and the article btw): “The end-product of all that is our Constitution, which conservatives in recent times try to twist into an “original intent” that, in history, was actually soundly defeated, within just the first two weeks of the U.S. Constitutional Convention.” Please define ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ in your view, esp. in the context of that article. I get the feeling that you are equating today’s ‘conservatives’ with those that in the original debates were pro-aristocratic. Actually, although much has changed, we still have similar problems because despite all the democracy… Read more »

BaronAsh
BaronAsh
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 5, 2020

you ignore the significance of the phrase ‘on demand’ as in ‘we oppose abortion on demand.’ THAT is the issue, that abortion is a right and a service the State must provide, taxpayers pay for, and doctors perform despite any religious objections.

jok
jok
October 4, 2020

USA is mockery, a corrupt Corporate, Bank, Wall St. Super Wealthy-ran phony nation playing at freedom! …….USA? the best democracy Money can buy!!

Hawaii guy
Hawaii guy
October 4, 2020

Such a non issue, quit bringing it up as the chance of roe v wade going back to court will come after Santa Claus Easter bunny, and Joy Division making appearances.

Diana
Diana
October 4, 2020

Pregnancy termination is a very divisive subject and you have to have been in that situation to pontificate. I don’t believe in termination on demand as a form of birth control and I absolutely abhor the ‘use’ to which terminated foetuses are put. However, when someone has very good reasons for this action, having been examined by the appropriate authorities and the termination done in a reputable clinic that will treat the foetus with dignity, then I see nothing wrong with it. Anybody attached to any religion always seems to have black and white views and life isn’t like that.

lizzie dw
lizzie dw
October 5, 2020

The thing is, we live in a secular country with separation of church and state. Anybody in this country can believe in whatever religion they feel like it. Or not. So, Amy Coney Barrett can believe whatever her religious organisation tells her to believe about abortion but she cannot make other women believe the same thing. Her religious beliefs are private to her, as are those of other women private to them. That is what makes our country great.

BaronAsh
BaronAsh
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
October 5, 2020

You are giving SCOTUS power it should not possess – though because of progressives it has been encroaching on them. The Legislature is the one that can make abortion a crime, not the Judiciary. Your quarrel may be with how she may interpret the law as written in a case which comes before them. Roe vs Wade is case precedent, bu Congress can clarify this stuff any which way it likes. Personally, I think this should be up to the States or Municipalities. In any case, no doctor or hospital should be forced by law to provide such services against… Read more »

Last edited 22 days ago by BaronAsh
BaronAsh
BaronAsh
October 5, 2020

It doesn’t matter much what she thinks about abortion. What matters is if she can preside as a Justice in a dispute and apply the laws as written in a faithful fashion. The right wing justices are generally much better at this than the progressives who believe it is their duty to vote their beliefs rather than the law.

Paul Martin
Paul Martin
Reply to  BaronAsh
October 5, 2020

So well said.

JayTe
October 5, 2020

Well let us see how Amy Coney Barrett ACTUALLY responded to what Eric Zuesse accuses her of (i.e. allowing her religion to influence her judicial decisions). At an event with Hillsdale College in 2019, Barrett’s student Stephanie Maloney asked the judge “What role, if any, should faith of a nominee have in the confirmation process?” Barrett said, “None.” “I mean, we have a long tradition of religious tolerance in this country. And in fact, the religious test clause in the Constitution makes it unconstitutional to impose a religious test on anyone who holds public office,” the judge explained. “So whether… Read more »

NYT investigation: WHO open borders directive based on "politics" not science

The Truth About The 1994 Crime Bill