Blumenthal Presses Barrett for Her Legal Position on Reproductive Health Care in Response to Past Public Statements on the “Barbaric Legacy of Roe v. Wade” and Calling For “The Unborn to Be Protected in Law”
Under questioning by Blumenthal, Barrett refuses to confirm that the Constitution affords rape survivors the right to access abortion care or that the Constitution prohibits the criminalization of IVF
[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – During today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) pressed Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett on her legal position on Roe v. Wade and constitutional protections for a woman’s right to make private health care decisions.
Blumenthal began his line of questioning by raising concerns regarding two letters – one sponsored by the St. Joseph County Right to Life and one sponsored by the Notre Dame Chapter of University Faculty for Life – that Barrett failed to disclose during her 2017 nomination to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 2006 letter refers to “the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade” while the 2013 letter calls for the “unborn to be protected in law.” Although it has been covered in the press, the 2006 letter has not yet been formally provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The 2013 letter was submitted just days ago.
Access to abortion care after sexual assault
Blumenthal shared the story of Samantha, a woman who became pregnant after being raped and then stalked by a coworker. “When Samantha shared her story with me, she said ‘I knew if I could not end this pregnancy, it would end me.’ So she decided to get an abortion,” Blumenthal recounted.
Noting that St. Joseph County Right to Life – the organization that sponsored the 2006 ad Barrett signed – opposes abortion in all cases, including sexual assaults, Blumenthal posed a simple question to Barrett: “Does the Constitution protect Samantha's right to have an abortion?” Although Barrett restated the Supreme Court’s holdings in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, she refused to directly answer the question or to share her legal opinion on whether abortion is constitutionally protected.
Criminalizing IVF and reproductive health care
Blumenthal then shared the story of Tracy, a woman who was diagnosed with stage IV endometriosis, which caused an ongoing inability to have a healthy pregnancy. Tracy was able to receive treatment to assist in getting and staying pregnant through IVF. Noting that the Executive Director of St. Joseph County Right to Life recently stated that, “We would be supportive of criminalizing the discarding of frozen embryos for selective reduction through the IVF process,” Blumenthal asked Barrett: “Is it your legal position that making IVF a crime would be constitutional?” Barrett again refused to answer with her legal opinion.
Blumenthal pressed Barrett further, asking: “Do you think it would be constitutional to make it a crime for doctors or health care providers to provide that care or abortion care?” Barrett declined to respond to what she described as a “hypothetical” question.
Calling for “the unborn to be protected in law”
Blumenthal then called on Barrett to explain the 2013 letter she signed, which included in the line, “We renew our call for the unborn to be protected in law, and welcomed in life.” Blumenthal asked, “What does it mean for ‘The unborn to be protected in law?’ Does that statement mean there are no valid constitutional protections for abortion, and therefore Roe v. Wade should be overturned?” Barrett again refused to provide her legal position in response to the question.
-30-