Multiple sources on the web post of the Dark Ages Trump nominee, Amy Comey Barrett, and her rabid choice-hating acceptance of dogma. The report noted here, Daily Beast's from Oct. 1, 2020. [UPDATED].
Link. Title: Progressives attack Amy Coney Barrett for signing letter opposing abortion in 2006 --- 'Please continue to pray to end abortion'
Before the excerpt, remember that for a few centuries the Roman Church survived the end of the Roman Empire and was a major European force, for its agenda including Crusades, in what has aptly been named THE DARK AGES.
Excerpt:
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is facing renewed attacks for
signing a letter in 2006 that endorsed Catholic doctrine on the sanctity
of life and called for an end to Roe v. Wade.
The letter, reported by the Daily Beast and The Guardian, was sponsored by St. Joseph County Right to Life, a pro-life group
based in Indiana, and was published in a newspaper advertisement.
Barrett and her husband, Jesse, signed the letter along with hundreds of
other people in 2006, when Barrett was working as a law professor at
the University of Notre Dame.
The advertisement, which appeared in the South Bend Tribune, stated:
"We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and
defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death."
"Please continue to pray to end abortion," it said under many signatures.
On a separate page, St. Joseph County Right published a commentary on the organization's position regarding Roe vs. Wade.
"The Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion for any reason," the commentary said. "Now, after more than thirty-two years under Roe
more than 47 million unborn children have been aborted. The majority of
those abortions were performed for social reasons. Yet poll after poll
continues to show that an increasing majority of Americans are opposed
to abortion as a method of birth control. And in 2000, the Supreme Court
ruled that Roe v. Wade allowed and protected the brutal partial-birth abortion procedure — a practice opposed by over 70% of all Americans.
"It's time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children," the message concluded.
The Guardian's report identified St. Joseph County Right to Life as "an
extreme anti-choice group." It also called out the pro-life group for
supporting the criminalization of abortionists and the criminalization
of discarding frozen embryos created in the in vitro fertilization
process.
Jackie Appleman, the executive director of St. Joseph County Right to
Life, told the Guardian in an interview that the organization believes
in Catholic doctrine that teaches life begins at conception.
"Whether embryos are implanted in the woman and then selectively
reduced or it's done in a petri dish and then discarded, you're still
ending a new human life at that point and we do oppose that," Appleman
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 process," she said.
[...] The letter Barrett signed does not mention IVF, or criminalizing abortionists. Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out for National Review
that Barrett and the other signatories signed only the statement
opposing abortion on demand and supporting the right to life, not the
commentary on the legacy of Roe v. Wade.
[...] Hillary Clinton's former senior adviser Zac Petkanas said Barrett's
signature on that letter is "disqualifying" for the Supreme Court.
Damned right it is "disqualifying" and any Republican [or Democrat] Senator voting to confirm should be voted out first chance, as unqualified to have a say in leading a nation knowing science explains things better than organized agendas of superstition and mythology.
At hearings, somebody with a spine needs to ask Barrett whether she and/or her spouse are Opus Dei. The bet here: The question will not be asked, McConnell has the votes, and the Republicans, their evangelical base, and the Roman Church are in an alliance against those of US with a mind. And with a will to preserve liberty, including the right to plan a family and not have allegedly celibate men some of whom abuse young boys dictate against individual liberty.
And - don't give public money set aside for education to that bunch for indoctrination into belief systems dating back to Constantine, and recognized by him as a force for crowd control and empire extension/consolidation.
As said in the final scene of Braveheart - FREEDOM
Freedom from ideology of subjugation to a preisthood's collective view of things is but one freedom to protect and advance, but it sure is a hell of a big one.
We Still Don’t Know Who Is Paying For Trump’s SCOTUS Seats The conservative front group backing Amy Coney Barrett already spent $27 million to remake the Supreme Court. We have no idea where the money came from.
Andrew Perez - Sep 29
Having already spent tens of millions of dollars to install two of
President Donald Trump’s justices on the Supreme Court, a conservative
dark money group now says it plans to spend millions more to confirm Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett, who has issued rulings favorable to corporate interests.
The
money raised by the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) comes from
untraceable sources — and Barrett previously rebuffed a Democratic
senator’s request that she ask outside groups to refrain from spending
big money to try to influence a congressional review of her appellate
court nomination.
JCN previously spent as much as$27 million
to block President Barack Obama’s 2016 Supreme Court pick and place
conservative jurists Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the high court.
As The Daily Poster previously reported,
JCN received $15.9 million from a single anonymous donor between July
2018 and June 2019, the tax period covering the Kavanaugh fight.
Now,
JCN says it will spend at least $10 million supporting Barrett’s
confirmation. That’s in addition to astroturf lobbying campaigns by the
Koch Network’s Americans for Prosperity and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The Chamber plans to encourage its members to “elevate Barrett's
platform and explain why her confirmation is aligned with the business
community’s priorities,” according to Axios.
There is more. Read it. It is posted at David Sirota's new website:
Bookmark the site. Keep atuned to what is posted there on a daily basis.
In closing, the Chamber liking Barrett has nothing to do with her abortion hate, and all to do with her favoring corporations over people, as a judicial bias.
Last, readers have to take a look at what could be one of the most shameless pieces of dissembling, aptly posted online by National Review, authored by a dude whose bio-blurb at the item's end is:
Shills and whores for a buck, are a dime a dozen - or, excuse mixing metaphors over pricing. DC is infested with them. They sometimes get stuff put up on the internet, not of course to say good Mr. Whelan is of that stripe. But his item is possibly dissembling about truth, i.e., all the letter reporting exposes him.
However, in fairness: Misleading by omission can be innocent error, if not knowing of a contradicting source. It can also be intentional. Limiting a purview to only academic writing is a means to focus on where some person may be more careful to hide biases, whereas newspaper advocacy ads tell the bias as it is.
Presume good Mr. Whelan wrote without knowing of that letter/advertisement, a negligent researching thing, and is not intentionally hiding a pea under a shell. Or presume otherwise. We are free to draw circumstantial inferences as we see best, each in his or her own worldview.
ONE FINAL DETAIL - Although fodder for a separate post, it can be unwound here as well as elsewhere --- Earlier in this post it was written, "the Republicans, their evangelical base, and the Roman Church are in an alliance ...".
See also this websearch. It is there, it is real, it is rabidly anti-choice, and belaboring the point serves little purpose. Choice and liberty compose both sides of a single coin. Restraining either recklessly restrains the other.
_________UPDATE________
A websearch on the judge's hateful bias. At least one commentator sees Barrett as suppressing this particular bit of evidence of her anti-Roe bias. Lying by omission.
This question fits the Democrat Senatorial letter suggesting ample time is needed to vet the nominee. (Gary Gross posted screen shots, so here they are, page 1 and page 2)
The main focus in UPDATING, NYT posting:
Amy Coney Barrett signed an ad in 2006 urging overturning the ‘barbaric legacy’ of Roe v. Wade.
Judge
Amy Coney Barrett’s stated opposition to Roe v. Wade is in line with a
pledge by President Trump, who promised to appoint Supreme Court
justices who would overturn it.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times
Judge
Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s nominee to Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, signed a newspaper ad in 2006 that
supported overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision establishing
the right to abortion.
The ad, which ran across two pages in The South Bend Tribune and was first reported by The Guardian on Thursday,
quoted Justice Byron White’s dissent in Roe v. Wade, and called the
decision “an exercise of raw judicial power” and urged overturning its
“barbaric legacy.”
Judge Barrett’s
opposition to Roe is in line with a pledge by President Trump to appoint
justices to the court who would overturn the ruling. On Tuesday, during
his first debate with Joseph R. Biden Jr., Mr. Trump sought to walk
back that promise, disputing that abortion was “on the ballot” and
telling Mr. Biden of Judge Barrett, “you don’t know her view on Roe v.
Wade. You don’t know her view.”
But
with news on Thursday that Judge Barrett had signed the open letter,
which was also signed by her husband, Jesse Barrett, a fellow lawyer and
former federal prosecutor, the nominee’s view on the ruling became
clear. Though the judge’s participation in other groups had indicated
her personal opposition to abortion, her stance on the court decision
specifically had not been widely known.
[...]
Most Americans support keeping abortion legal. In a recent New York Times/Siena poll,
56 percent of likely voters said they would be less likely to vote for
Mr. Trump if his appointee would help overturn Roe v. Wade, while 24
percent said they would be more inclined to vote for him.
The
poll found that 71 percent of independents believed abortion should be
legal all or most of the time, and 31 percent of Republicans said the
same. A third of the country said it should be illegal all or most of
the time.
Ms. Barrett lives in South
Bend, Ind., and has extensive ties there, having graduated from Notre
Dame Law School in 1997 and taught there since 2002. The ad in question
was placed by a local anti-abortion group called St. Joseph County Right
to Life.
“Please continue to pray to end abortion,” the ad urged.
