Justice Amy Coney Barrett: Why Justice Barrett’s Confirmation is Not a Feminist Occasion
- Izzy Streeper
- Nov 10, 2021
- 4 min read
On September 18, 2020, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died at the age of 87. A little over a month after her death, her replacement, Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed as the fifth woman Justice to serve on the Supreme Court. Some would argue that confirming Justice Barrett is a step in the right direction for feminism and female representation. However, admitting this woman to the most powerful court in the United States Government is doing the exact opposite. This woman is biased and uneducated, and she uses her powers to harm women. Amy Coney Barrett should not be in this position where she will alter marginalized people’s lives for the worse. Her confirmation gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to repeal Roe v. Wade, which allows women the basic human right of bodily autonomy. Sorry Justice Barrett, using your power to undo basic female rights does not seem very ‘feminist icon’ of you.
Amy Coney Barrett’s addition to the Supreme court shifts the Supreme Court to a 6:3 conservative majority. With Justice Ginsburg, the ratio of conservatives to democratic/liberal justices was 5:4. This is harmful to human rights and society because conservative ideas are deeply rooted in tradition, which is typically anti lgbtq+, racist, sexist, etc. This creates an unbalanced set of opinions, leaning away from protecting all citizens’ rights, on the most influential court in the United States. With this comes the issue of left-leaning ideals not being heard in our country. The weighted Supreme court silences progressive change from speaking.
Justice Barrett not only morphs the Supreme Court into a conservative majority, but she is also uneducated. When Barrett was asked what the first five freedoms of the first amendment were, she was not able to answer the entire question: “When asked by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) to name the five freedoms, Barrett was able to name freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly, before looking puzzled and saying, ‘What else am I missing?’ Sasse then told Barrett she had forgotten ‘redress or protest’” (Forbes). I get that everyone has brain-blanks, but I think that question could be answered more correctly and easily by an eighth-grade student learning about the Constitution. A person in that position of power, who (should have) studied these important documents in our government probably should know our basic freedoms. Maybe I’m too hard on Justice Barrett though-- it’s not like she needs this knowledge for her government-based career or anything.
Along with being uneducated, Barrett also has her ideals influenced by her religion. Barrett is a practicing Roman Catholic and has shown instances of her religion affecting her opinions on governing. Since there is diversity of religion in the US, legal influences from any religion cannot be present, as it is applied to every citizen in this country. However, Barrett has not even been on the Court for three months, and she has already let religion affect her vote on a Supreme Court decision. On November 25, 2020, Amy Coney Barrett cast the deciding vote on a case. This barred New York places of worship from limiting in-person attendance due to COVID-19. The Supreme court has also reached this decision for several other states as well. Barrett claimed the proposal was “effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty” (ABC News). This shows Barrett’s bias because she prioritizes religion. That is perfectly fine until it comes to the point where in-person religious services are of greater value than the risk of a human life. Nobody except a devoutly religious person would prioritize many lives over an in-person worship service, and that is where we can see the biases of Barrett coming through. I agree that stopping people from worshipping is infringing the rights of the first amendment. But large in-person services heighten the risk of infection. And with over 310 thousand people dead already, I’m sure virtual meetings would work just fine.
Prioritizing religion over people’s lives doesn’t sound very pro-life to me, but Amy Coney Barrett claims she is. Barrett has stepped into the boiling-hot topic of reproductive rights. Barrett, following the trends of her fellow conservatives, is siding with the anti-abortion stance:. "I think the best evidence of her position on Roe v. Wade is that President Trump has said he will only appoint justices who are committed to reversing Roe, and there's no reason not to believe him" (NPR). With the new conservative majority, the pro-life Supreme Court justices are in the perfect position to repeal Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that allows women the right to legal abortions. However, if Roe v. Wade is repealed, the outcome will be a conservative’s nightmare. Even if abortion becomes illegal, abortions would still occur; they would just occur illegally and unsafely (by the way, at-home abortions have a high risk of death/permanent injury, ever watched Dirty Dancing?). And when access to safe abortion hits zero, teenage pregnancy will increase. But pregnant minors will still be harassed by strangers whenever they go out. Teens having sex will not go down if there is no “plan C.” Teenagers will still have sexual urges, and the only ways to decrease teenage pregnancy and abortion is to teach practicing safe sex, widely providing contraceptives, and figuring out a better way to prevent, rather than deal with later.
Amy Coney Barrett being on the Supreme Court is not a step forward for gender
equality. Representation on its own is not progress; Barrett is a step backward for government protection for marginalized groups, separation of church and state, and bodily autonomy. Justice Barrett should not be on the Supreme Court because her addition makes the US government less eager to make progressive change. The stubborn attitude towards listening to constructive criticism from its, we the people, is what ends up harming so many people and hurting so many lives.
Sources:
Comments