Four years ago on the campaign trail, then-candidate Donald Trump pledged that if he were elected, only "pro-life" justices would get his nomination for a seat on the Supreme Court. As president, it's a promise he's delivered on twice already, and in the coming weeks, potentially once more.
Amy Coney Barrett, who is expected to be Mr. Trump's pick, meets the president's unprecedented anti-abortion rights litmus test. The federal judge has referred to abortion as "always immoral" and offers something a former top candidate, Barbara Lagoa, doesn't: A clear anti-abortion rights judicial record. During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, she has already ruled on two abortion-related cases, both times favoring restrictions on access to abortion.
"She is the perfect combination of brilliant jurist and a woman who brings the argument to the court that is potentially the contrary to the views of the sitting women justices," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion rights political group, in an emailed statement to CBS News."profoundly" impacted.
Though Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberal bloc in that decision, his separate opinion has been used by federal appeals courts reason to uphold other abortion restrictions. Today, 17 cases related to abortion are one step away from the Supreme Court and three, including a 15-week abortion ban from Mississippi, could be taken up as early as its next session. Dozens more, including the handful of last year's six-week abortion bans, are making their way through the judicial system.
As anticipation mounts ahead of Mr. Trump's Supreme Court nomination announcement on Saturday, Barrett has emerged as one of the top prospects, meeting with the president twice this week at the White House.
Unlike other frontrunners, Barrett offers a judicial record of being against abortion access. Since her appointment to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, Barrett has reviewed two abortion cases, each dealing with restrictions on the procedure.
In Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc., Barrett joined dissenters arguing in favor of an Indiana law that would have required doctors to notify the parents of a minor seeking an abortion. Unlike parental notification laws in other states, Indiana's didn't include a judicial bypass provision, an exception to the law for minors able to prove to a judge they have the maturity to make the decision of their own and that notifying their parents would not be in their best interest.
Barrett also joined dissenters in another abortion case from Indiana, Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. Barrett favored a rehearing of two state laws: one that regulated the fetal remains from abortion procedures and another that would have banned abortions for reasons related to sex, race or disability, including life-threatening conditions.
The majority, which struck down the so-called "reason ban," found that the restriction limited a patient's ability to receive an abortion prior to fetal viability, and thus was in violation of Roe v. Wade.
Restricting legal abortion is contrary to public opinion, according to polling from the Pew Research Center. As of 2019, more than two-thirds of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, the highest support in more than 20 years, per Pew. A little more than 10% believed the procedure should be illegal in all cases.
A clear judicial record on abortion rights set Barrett apart from former frontrunner Barbara Lagoa, a federal judge on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Barrett is likely a more favorable pick among conservatives: Less than 24 hours after Justice Ginsburg's death, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley tweeted he'd only "vote only for #SCOTUS nominees who understand and acknowledge that Roe was wrongly decided" and called on his fellow Republican lawmakers to do the same.