Barrett defends pro-life ad she signed in 2006: ‘An affirmation of life’

‘I think that statement is an affirmation of life. It points out that we express our love and support for the mothers who bear them.’
Tue Oct 13, 2020 - 6:19 pm EST
Featured Image
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) questions Judge Amy Coney Barrett during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing on October 13, 2020 C-SPAN / YouTube

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett during today’s confirmation hearings defended signing a pro-life statement published in a local newspaper 14 years ago. “It’s really no more than the expression of a pro-life view,” she said.

The ad had stated, “We faculty and staff at the University of Notre Dame reaffirm our full support for our University’s commitment to the right to life, we renew our call for the unborn to be protected in law and welcomed in life, and we voice our love and support for the mothers who bear them.”

Asked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) about what it means for the unborn to be protected by law, Barrett explained, “I think that statement is an affirmation of life. It points out that we express our love and support for the mothers who bear them. Again, it was a statement validating the position of the Catholic university at which I worked, in support for life, and to support women in crisis pregnancies, to support babies.”

Blumenthal had led up to his question by trying to elicit emotion and telling the story of a woman who was raped. “Samantha went out with a few friends and coworkers,” the senator said. “She woke up the next morning and a coworker’s home, confused, scared, covered in blood. She’d been raped. After she was raped, Samantha was, in her words, a zombie. She couldn’t change clothes, couldn’t shower, she couldn’t drink or think. She wanted this event to be erased from her memory.”

“Samantha’s attacker,” he continued, “also began stalking her, and she was struggling with depression and PTSD. In March [2017], Samantha took a pregnancy test, and then another, and another. It kept coming back with the same result: pregnant. After the horrible violence she faced, she simply couldn’t process that she was now pregnant. When Samantha shared her story with me, she said, ‘I knew if I couldn’t end this pregnancy, it would end me.’ So she decided to get an abortion.”

“Now, as you know, Judge, the landmark Roe v. Wade decision gave her that option. It gave women the right to decide for themselves whether and when to have a child. Roe didn’t compel Samantha to get an abortion, he didn’t tell her what she had to do. But it gave her that choice.”

Instead of giving her opinion on the issue, Barrett responded by summarizing the two main abortion cases that have come before the Supreme Court.

Roe v. Wade clearly held that the Constitution protected a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy,” she said. “Casey upheld that central holding and spelled out in greater detail the tests that the court uses to consider the legality of abortion regulations.”

The newspaper ad, she continued, “didn’t say anything about rape or incest or any of those things. It simply validated the teaching of my Church on the sacredness of life from conception to natural death.”

Rebecca Kiessling, whose mother was raped and subsequently placed her for adoption, told LifeSiteNews, “I’m curious as to whether Sen. Blumenthal would support a law which would authorized rape victims to pay someone to kill their rapist? Or just her innocent child? I did not deserve the death penalty for the crime of my biological father. He should focus on punishing rapists not babies.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

“As a child who was conceived from rape and abandoned at birth I am thankful that back in 1972 the law protected my birth mom from making one of the biggest mistakes of her life,” said Monica Kelsey, who was also conceived in rape. “Today, I am the founder and CEO of Safe Haven Baby Boxes, a nonprofit that fights for babies who are at risk of abandonment and I help give their mothers hope.”

“This is something I would recommend for Senator Blumenthal, give women hope in their moment of crisis, not additional pain! Genesis 50:20 says it best: ‘You intended to harm me but God intended it for good, to accomplish what is now being done the saving of many lives!’”

Jennifer Christie was raped herself, and decided to keep her child. “Where is the empowerment in telling a woman she can’t?” Christie commented. “She can’t love her child from assault. She can’t move forward without abortion. Where is the outrage that the strength of survivors is so radically underestimated? Rape is evil. A child is not.”

“Senator Blumenthal purports abortion is necessary after rape,” she explained. “I have a joyful 6-year-old who fills my home with laughter and my heart with joy. He would disagree.”

“We are strong enough to not return violence for violence,” Christie is convinced. “We are strong enough to unearth love from the debris of hate. Life is not ‘a’ choice. It is the only choice.”

Several times today, Barrett explained that she was not going to comment on specifics of hypothetical cases that might come before the Supreme Court. Early on, she referred to pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said “with her characteristic pithiness” that a Supreme Court nominee during confirmation hearings should give “no hints, no previews, no forecasts” regarding potential future rulings.

  abortion, amy coney barrett, jennifer christie, monica kelsey, rape, rebecca kiessling, richard blumenthal, supreme court

Keep this news available to you and millions more

Your gift will spread truth, defeat lies, and save lives

Share this article