Both the state and the unborn child’s mother are (at least typically) acting with gross unfairness to the unborn child, whereas the moral objection to capital punishment is not that it is unfair to the offender.” They also wrote: “The prohibitions against abortion and euthanasia (properly defined) are absolute those against war and capital punishment are not.” She and her co-author wrote: “The abortion case is a bit easier, we think. This means that they can neither themselves sentence criminals to death nor enforce jury recommendations of death.” Although the article focused on the death penalty, it briefly discussed abortion and suggested the case for recusal was even stronger in that context. She and her co-author wrote: “e believe that Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty. Professor Barrett wrote a law review article called “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases” in which she made the provocative argument that observant Catholic judges must recuse in death penalty cases because their religious faith, which counsels against taking a life, was more important than following the law when the two conflict. Wade and expressed the view that abortion is “always immoral.” In a 2013 speech entitled “ Roe at 40: The Supreme Court, Abortion and the Culture Wars that Followed,” she used extreme rhetoric to describe the Roe decision, stating: “The framework of Roe essentially permitted abortion on demand, and Roe recognizes no state interest in the life of a fetus.” In this speech, she also declared that “Republicans are heavily invested in getting judges who will overturn Roe.” Professor Barrett has been a member of the “University Faculty for Life,” which is open to any faculty, administration, or staff member at the University of Notre Dame who “respects the sacred value of human life from its inception to natural death” and is “committed to the legal and societal recognition of the value of all human life.” Women’s Health: Professor Barrett has criticized Roe v.

Her record demonstrates a dangerous lack of deference to long-standing precedent and judicial restraint. Professor Barrett’s statements and writings reveal a strong bias against reproductive freedom and LGBT rights. The Leadership Conference urges the Senate to reject this nomination. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 national organizations committed to promoting and protecting the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States, I am writing in opposition to the confirmation of Amy C.

Amy coney barrett decisions