WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) – The pro-life and conservative movement should not boost Justice Amy Coney Barrett as an argument against abortion and as a counter to the Left’s claim that women need abortion to succeed.
National Review writer Alexandra DeSanctis Marr tweeted on May 8: “Feminists: Women need abortion because children are obstacles to success” and “Counterpoint” with a photo of Justice Barrett and her family.
Feminists: Women need abortion because children are obstacles to success.
— Alexandra DeSanctis Marr (@xan_desanctis) May 8, 2022
A 2020 New York Times profile quoted female conservatives who said Barrett “shows that it’s possible for a woman to rise to the top of her profession while having many children” and the justice “represents the fact that not all women need to think the same way about the raising of children and family planning.”
Heartbeat International’s Danielle White wrote in 2020 that Barrett’s nomination showed “we know that women’s futures don’t end where their babies’ lives begin” and “Success and motherhood. That’s progress.”
“Success and motherhood” is “progress”? The implication here is that motherhood is diametrically opposed to “success,” which is the same argument pro-abortion feminists make. Or that just having motherhood is a regression or at least represents a stalled life.
Success is clearly defined by the pro-lifers quoted as reaching positions of power and prestige. But that’s not what success is for men or women.
Success is living out our lives virtuously to fulfill our vocation and honor God. All that Barrett needed to do to be a success is to love her husband and love her kids.
That’s all. She did not need to become a professor at Notre Dame, a federal judge, or be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, the argument that women can have it all, a prestigious career and children, implicitly tells stay-at-home moms that they really could be doing more. After all, just look at Justice Barrett, she’s writing Supreme Court briefs and taking care of her kids!
Yet, we know that this, logically, cannot be true, and something must give.
There are only 168 hours in a week. A stay-at-home mom has dedicated all 168 hours to her family. A working mom, especially a SCOTUS justice, forfeits off the bat at least one-fourth of those hours to her job and to other people. That’s why the Barretts rely on paid help and a relative to take care of their kids.
There is not anything wrong with paying someone to help your family, but it should come as an assistance to the mother in the home, not as a replacement. So, in reality, Justice Barrett does not really have it all. She forfeits at least one-fourth of her motherhood for her career success.
She and her husband outsource childcare to a third-party, while she gives up time with her kids to instead be a “success” and read legal briefs and adjudicate disputes over the interpretation of copyright law. That cannot be what the pro-life movement wants. The pro-life movement cannot possibly have as our ultimate goal that women work 50 to 60 hours per week.
Instead, conservatives should focus on restoring the natural order of men providing for their families and women staying at home with kids. That is success for both men and women.
Men do not need to be the CEO of a major corporation to be a success – all they, too, need to do is provide for their families financially and love them by helping them get to Heaven.
Women do not need to be corporate CEOs, attorneys at major law firms or SCOTUS justices to be a success – all they need to do is love their families and help them get to Heaven.
This is what conservatives and pro-lifers should support.