🚨 BREAKING 🚨
A statement from Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, on President Trump’s Nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A statement from Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, on President Trump’s Nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"At this unprecedented time, and while the nation is still mourning and paying tribute to Justice Ginsburg’s tremendous contributions to advancing equality, President Donald Trump has nominated a replacement who would gut Justice Ginsburg’s legacy …"
"... and turn back five decades of advancement for reproductive rights. The Senate Majority’s attempt to bulldoze this deeply troubling nomination through before the inauguration in January is unconscionable …"
"... an insult to the American public, an assault on the integrity of the Supreme Court, and a threat to critical constitutional rights. Americans need to make clear that their fundamental rights for generations to come will not be pawns in a political power grab." #OurCourt
"In the three years that Judge Amy Coney Barrett has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, she has ruled against abortion rights both times the issue was before her." #OurCourt
"The cases involved challenges to Indiana abortion restrictions, including one that bans abortion care if sought because of a fetal diagnosis or for reasons of sex or race." #OurCourt
"Judge Barrett joined an opinion which argued that '[n]one of the Court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions' on grounds such as those in the Indiana statute."
"In fact, Roe v. Wade and the cases that follow are very clear that the GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO INTERROGATE WOMEN OR SCRUTINIZE THEIR DECISIONS to choose to end a pregnancy prior to viability." #OurCourt #WeDissent
"What is alarming is that Judge Barrett went out of her way to make the argument that states could ban abortion if they don’t like a woman’s reason, even though Indiana had not sought further review of the issue." #OurCourt #WeDissent
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
