The Left Accuses Amy Coney Barrett of Failing to Disclose 2006 Signature on Pro-Life Ad

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trumps nominee for Supreme Court, poses for a photo before a meeting with Senator Steve Daines, R-MT, at the United States Capitol Building in Washington, DC on October 1, 2020. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker / POOL / AFP) (Photo by ANNA MONEYMAKER/POOL/AFP via Getty …
ANNA MONEYMAKER/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Leftwing groups and journalists have accused Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett of failing to disclose her signature on a 2006 pro-life newspaper ad.

NBC News correspondent Heidi Przybyla tweeted Wednesday that “two Democratic aides” have confirmed Barrett “failed to disclose to the Judiciary Committee her participation in a 2006 two-page ad in the South Bend Times calling for Roe v. Wade to be overturned and ending the ‘barbaric legacy’ of the law.”

Brian Fallon, executive director of leftwing group Demand Justice, also tweeted Barrett “signed her name to a full-page ad run by a group that says it believes abortion providers should be prosecuted.”

“This does not appear to have been disclosed in her questionnaire submitted to the Judiciary Committee,” he added and tweeted an article about the pro-life ad from the Guardian with the headline, “Revealed: Amy Coney Barrett supported group that said life begins at fertilization.”

The Guardian article led with the narrative that pro-life groups that assert life begins at fertilization are “extreme even within the anti-abortion movement.”

White House Senior Communications Advisor Ben Williamson, however, responded that the claim Barrett “failed to disclose” her signature on the ad is “false.”

“The Committee’s questionnaire requires disclosure of material that a candidate has ‘written or edited,’” Williamson noted. “Judge Barrett neither wrote nor edited the ad in question. This reporter’s (and Dem aides’) suggestion that ACB did something improper on her questionnaire is false.”

The Washington Post’s Robert Costa also posted to Twitter, “Barrett did not disclose that she signed the ad to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which asks nominees to list any ‘published material you have written or edited… regardless of whether it was published in your name, another name or anonymously.’”

Williamson again asserted, however, “This article quotes one anonymous ‘Democratic aide’ claiming the ad ‘should’ve been disclosed.’”

“That is false and incorrect,” he stated. “Nominees are only required to disclose materials they ‘wrote or edited,’ and Judge Barrett neither wrote nor edited this ad.”

The Guardian article states Barrett, who, in 2006, was a law professor at Notre Dame, was “one of hundreds of people who signed” the pro-life newspaper ad sponsored by St. Joseph County Right to Life of the Michiana region of South Bend. Barrett’s husband, Jesse, reportedly signed the ad as well.

The Guardian reported:

The advertisement, which appeared in the South Bend Tribune, stated: “We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death. Please continue to pray to end abortion.”

One of the issues the ad reportedly addressed was the discarding of unused frozen embryos that are created during the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process.

“Whether embryos are implanted in the woman and then selectively reduced or it’s done in a petri dish and then discarded, you’re still ending a new human life at that point and we do oppose that,” Jackie Appleman, director of St. Joseph County Right to Life told the Guardian.

Appleman added discarding embryos created during the IVF process is equivalent to abortion, and said while their group supports the criminalization of abortionists, they do not support criminalizing women who have abortions.

The pro-life group’s mission, Appleman said, is “to create a culture of life and love in which every child is protected by law.”

In a 2018 paper on the subject of frozen embryos, the Charlotte Lozier Institute,  the research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, observed the ethical dilemmas of couples participating in IVF procedures while agonizing over the decision of what to do with frozen embryos:

If parents achieve a pregnancy using assisted reproductive technologies such as IVF, they must then face the moral dilemma of what to do with the remaining embryos (often referred to as “the disposition decision”) —something that is often overlooked during the initial process of trying to conceive. Fixated on the IVF procedure itself, parents are assured that given the uncertainty of becoming pregnant, extra embryos may be utilized in the future. Afterward, many couples navigate the disposition decision by simply avoiding the subject. The remaining embryos’ survival hinges on parents’ willingness to pay both the storage fees needed to preserve them in liquid nitrogen-filled tanks and the embryologists tasked with monitoring temperatures and maintaining storage units. And as the financial pressure increases, they must make decisions that present numerous ethical challenges.

White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere responded to the Guardian by quoting Barrett’s statement she made on the day President Donald Trump nominated her.

“As Judge Barrett said on the day she was nominated, ‘A judge must apply the law as written,’” Deere said. “Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.”

Displaying its anxiety about Barrett’s nomination, abortion industry political advocacy group NARAL tweeted, “They’re trying to gaslight us. They know exactly what she believes and what she wants to do to our reproductive freedom.”

.

Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.