Kirsten Gillibrand said on Sunday that she opposed all three of Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominees because she feared they would destroy Roe v. Wade and threaten women’s rights to abortion.
“I’m very concerned,” the New York senator told CNN’s State of the Union when asked how she felt about an upcoming case involving abortion laws.
It’s one of the reasons I deeply opposed Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination. That is why I was deeply opposed to the appointment of Neil Gorsuch and Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh, ”she continued to host Jake Tapper. “These judges were pushed forward on a very political agenda, very deliberately by President Trump and by Mitch McConnell.”
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case in the fall regarding a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks, which is about eight weeks earlier than legal in the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade.
New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said on Sunday that she was against all of Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominees because she feared it would lead to the nullification of abortion rights granted in the historic Roe v. Wade case.
“I’m very concerned,” said Gillibrand when asked what she thought of an upcoming case regarding abortion laws. ‘It’s one of the reasons I deeply opposed Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination’
Gillibrand said she was also against Justices Neil Gorsuch (left) and Brett Kavanaugh (right) for the same reasons.
She also condemned the then Republican-controlled Senate for blocking Merrick Garland’s nomination to a Supreme Court seat when one was opened under Barack Obama following the death of Conservative Judge Antonin Scalia.
Back to the lack of goodwill, again Amy Coney Barrett was voted on at times before the next election – just days. And we couldn’t have Merrick Garland heard for more than a year, ”she complained.
However, at the time of Coney Barrett’s appointment, Gillibrand admitted that even if the trial was “ legitimate, ” she was still against her confirmation for being pro-life and against the Affordable Care Act.
“The appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett by President Trump to the Supreme Court represents the further decline of our democracy and the continued politicization of our judiciary,” she wrote in a statement in September 2020.
Even if this process had been legitimate, Barrett’s anti-choice views, opposition to the Affordable Care Act, and hostility to immigrant and civil rights make her completely unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. I strongly oppose Barrett’s appointment and will vote against her confirmation. ‘
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court agreed to consider a Mississippi state law banning nearly all abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy – giving it the opportunity to significantly weaken the 1973 Roe. v. Wade decision.
The case will be the first abortion case since Republican Senate Judge Amy Coney Barrett confirmed in the closing weeks of Trump’s administration.
The case will be an important test for the new conservative 6-3 majority in the court.
By hearing the case, the judges will see if they want to undo a central part of the historic ruling, a long-standing goal of religious conservatives.
In the Roe v. Wade decision, which was subsequently reaffirmed in 1992, the court said states could not ban abortion before the viability of the fetus outside the womb, which is generally considered by doctors to be between the ages of 24 and 28. weeks. Mississippi law would prohibit abortion much sooner.
The Supreme Court earlier this month agreed to hear a case in the fall over a law in Mississippi banning abortion by 15 weeks, which is about eight weeks – or two months – earlier than is currently allowed under Roe v. Wade
This will be the first abortion case heard by Coney Barrett since he came to court. It will also be an important test for the court’s new conservative 6-3 majority
The Roe v. Wade ruling recognized that a constitutional right to personal privacy protects a woman’s ability to have an abortion.
The court, in its 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, upheld the ruling and prohibited laws that place an “unnecessary burden” on a woman’s ability to have an abortion.
Texas has also strengthened its restrictions on terminating a pregnancy by becoming the largest state this month with a law banning abortions before many women know they are pregnant.
Republican Governor Greg Abbott on Wednesday signed the bill that aligns Texas with more than a dozen other states banning abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, which can happen as early as six weeks after pregnancy.
There is also a unique provision in the new law that essentially leaves enforcement to private citizens through lawsuits against doctors or anyone helping a woman get an abortion, including nurses, front desk personnel, or even the person who takes the patient to the abortion appointment. has driven.
There are no exceptions written in Texas law for incest or rape cases.