After four days, the Senate confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett are over and her appointment to the Supreme Court is all but guaranteed. Barrett's addition will shift the high court to a 6-3 conservative majority, casting uncertainty on the future of abortion rights and Roe v. Wade.
Like many of the Supreme Court nominees that came before her, Barrett offered senators little insight into how she might view the landmark decision that legalized abortion nationwide. But after nearly 20 hours of questioning, senators were left with a few clues about how Barrett, a former law clerk and mentee of the staunchly conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, will approach cases involving abortion rights.
Here are four things we learned about Barrett's view on abortion and Roe v. Wade during this week's Senate confirmation hearings:will almost certainly hear a case that challenges the legal protections surrounding abortion services. Today, 17 cases related to abortion are one step away from the Supreme Court and two — including a 15-week abortion ban from Mississippi, which challenges the core holding of Roe — could be taken up as early as its next term. Dozens more cases, including the handful of last year's six-week abortion bans, are making their way through the judicial system.
Barrett also declined to answer whether the court correctly decided Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court opinion that established a married couple's right to privacy and right to use contraceptives and a decision that served as the bedrock for the court's opinion in Roe v. Wade. In a back and forth with Delaware Senator Chris Coons, Barrett dodged his question asking whether it was properly decided, and instead said the landmark decision is "very unlikely to be challenged."
"It seems unthinkable that any legislature would pass such a law" taking away the right to buy or use contraception, she said.
But just this year, the Supreme Court issued an opinion against birth control access, ruling that the Trump administration has the right to allow employers to deny contraceptive coverage for religious reasons or a "sincerely held moral" conviction.
Refusing questions on Griswold is a departure from other justices, including current Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan and Chief Justice John Roberts, who all said during their confirmation hearings that the landmark case was correctly decided. When asked about Griswold during his 2005 hearing, Roberts said, "I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that."
While Barrett believes that some Supreme Court precedents aren't up for debate, she told senators this week that Roe v. Wade might be. Barrett referred to the concept of "super precedents," a way to describe "cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling."
Barrett said that only a handful of the Supreme Court's most significant decisions would qualify, including Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. Roe v. Wade wasn't included.
"I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe," Barrett told Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, "which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category."
By Barrett's definition of "super precedent," Roe would not qualify given that, as Barrett told senators this week, "calls for its overruling have never ceased." Indeed, state legislatures have passed hundreds of laws that challenge the core holding not only of Roe, but other Supreme Court precedents protecting abortion access, including Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.
Multiple Republican senators pointed to a February 2019 opinion where Barrett ruled against anti-abortion rights protesters to demonstrate Barrett's willingness to follow precedent, even for cases in which she may personally disagree. In that case, Price v. Chicago, Barrett co-wrote an opinion upholding a city ordinance that prohibited anti-abortion rights groups from coming within a 50-foot radius from the entrance of an abortion clinic and closer than eight feet to any other person "for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to displaying a sign to or engaging in oral protest education or counseling with such other person."
In their opinion, Barrett, joined by two other Circuit Court judges, ruled Chicago's ordinance was constitutional and protected by the Supreme Court's precedent in Hill v. Colorado, a 2000 decision upholding a similar so-called "buffer zone."
But those senators didn't mention that Barrett spent much of the 24-page opinion disagreeing with the precedent set in Hill, writing that the decision "is incompatible with current First Amendment doctrine." Though Barrett and her colleagues allowed Chicago's ordinance to stay in place, they recommended anti-abortion rights groups "seek relief in the High Court."
Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono scrutinized Barrett's language in the opinion and said it was indicative of Barrett's willingness to revisit precedent.
"Judge Barrett, you said judges have to wait for cases and can't have an agenda, but here you have examples of justices who are sending out signals. 'Bring these cases to us because we want to take a look at precedent,'" Hirono said.
Per Barrett's recommendation, after anti-abortion rights groups lost, they appealed to the Supreme Court in 2019. In July 2020, the court declined to hear the case.