Frank Turek Website Banner Seminar

Setting the Record Straight With ACB: LGBT Rights, Women’s Rights, and Pre-existing Conditions

Nathan Skates /


The left’s fear of Amy Coney Barrett has led to misinformation regarding the nominee’s intentions.


Any Supreme Court nomination by President Trump was certain to send his opposition into a panic, but his nomination of Amy Coney Barrett has many ready to put on sackcloth and ashes. They think someone like Barrett will undo decades of what they have achieved through The Court.


Three falsehoods that have been circulating regarding Barrett are that she will attack gay rights, she will close the doors Ruth Bader Ginsburg opened for women, and that she will eliminate health care for those with pre-existing conditions.


LGBT Rights

Judge Barrett is a committed Catholic, which concerns Democrats. Some claim that she and the other conservatives on the bench will discriminate against the LGBT community and possibly overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 landmark case that effectively legalized gay marriage in all fifty states. As reported, Barrett signed a letter that states that marriage is between a man and a woman, however that does not indicate that she will use her position on the court to wage war on the LGBT community.


As the article references, Barrett has not said that Obergefell v. Hodges is unconstitutional because gay marriage is unconstitutional, or that Title IX doesn’t extend to the right of transgenders to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with because it’s wrong. What she has argued is that the Supreme Court should not decide that for states.


It is well documented that Amy Coney Barrett co-authored a paper stating that in cases where a judge’s convictions prevented them from adhering to the law they should recuse themselves. The Federalist also quoted her Hillsdale College discussion where she stated:


“Adhering to duty in the face of a contrary personal or political preference, and in the face of public pressure to the contrary, has particular resonance for the job of a judge. A judge is obligated to apply the law as it is and not as she wishes it would be. She is obliged to follow the law even when her personal preferences cut the other way, or when she will experience great public criticism for doing so.”


Based on that statement, Amy Coney Barrett is going to follow the law, whether it fits her personal religious beliefs or not.


Women’s Rights

The argument that she will close the doors that Ruth Bader Ginsburg opened for women is erroneous. Some on the left reference Barrett’s ruling that a Purdue University student who was accused of sexual assault was denied due process. This has nothing to do with women’s rights and everything to do with every citizen’s right to due process. In what way would Barrett’s presence on the court close doors for women?


The only “right” she may play a role in restricting would be ruling that states should decide on abortion restrictions. Abortion isn’t an open door of opportunity for women, it is slamming the door on the opportunity for unborn women to live. If Barrett were to rule in favor of states’ rights to restrict abortion, she would be paving the way for countless women to pursue their dreams rather than have their lives snuffed out.


Pre-existing Conditions

A common accusation from Democrats is that Republicans want to take away healthcare from those with pre-existing conditions, and this is not an exception. Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court would not threaten their access to healthcare. As the New York Post wrote, just because Barrett disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act does not mean that she would be able or even willing to overturn it through unilateral Supreme Court action. Also astutely pointed out by the Post is that President Trump signed an executive order requiring insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions.


Amy Coney Barrett is not a judicial activist on a crusade to undo the “progress” the left has made over the last fifty years. She is a principled judge with a fidelity to the Constitution and her duty. If Democrats are truly worried she will take away people’s rights, they have nothing to fear. If they are worried she might help return power to the states and end judicial tyranny then she is their worst nightmare.