aU.S. Connie Barrett, Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, went to my all-girls Catholic high school. We wore the same black-and-white plaid skirts and saddle oxfords and walked around the same hall, albeit about a decade apart. As students at St. Mary’s Dominican High School, with education associated with the Catholic faith, we were encouraged to become strong, independent women and future leaders of the world. I would be proud to see a fellow serving alum in our Supreme Court if that person’s presence does not threaten the lives of millions of Americans in an incredible way.
We don’t have a mascot on the Dominican, just a symbol: Veritas. In Latin, The truth. But the truth is not monotonous – it is stated by our belief systems. How we define matters of truth, especially for someone serving in the Supreme Court.
Barrett’s anti-abortion views have been tolerated in public. In 2015, he signed a letter to Catholic bishops confirming the value of “life from concept”, as well as leading anti-selection figures such as Marjorie Dennefazer, president of the Suzanne B. Anthony list. As a law professor at Notre Dame, Barrett was a member of the anti-abortion group University Faculty of Life, and in 2006, she signed a paid ad in a South Bend newspaper calling for an end to Rowe’s uncivilized legacy. Barrett also spoke out against anti-abortion student groups at Notre Dame, and criticized the Affordable Care Act guarantee that employers must provide birth control to their employees.
Like Justice Scalia at the end, who gave her the clerk, Barrett is a self-described textualist and fundamentalist; It interprets the U.S. Constitution in terms of its simple language and understanding of the intentions and mentality of the original drafts. Barrett also wrote that, in his view, it is appropriate and legal to overthrow ancestors when judges conflict with their personal interpretation of the Constitution. Obedience to the exact original meaning of the Constitution without the current context is problematic. These laws were made by white, Sisander men who enslaved other human beings and never intended to include a large number of Americans – people like women and people of color – in their quest for equal rights.
When a person’s truth, determined by the way they see the world, affects the lives and liberties of different American generations, it has immense power.
When I was in high school, I always wore a small gold pin in the shape of a baby fit on the collar of my shirt. My Catholic upbringing taught me the need to protect the lives of strangers. I then attended This Catholic University of America, the only American university, chartered by the Pope. I was sincere and sincere in my faith. But as the Catholic community on campus became more self-reliant and influential, more self-justified in its beliefs about the “right path,” I began to have more questions. As I came into contact with a growing worldview, I began to understand the limits of my original faith and its declarations.
Over time, I came to recognize that my belief in the “righteousness” of my faith made me think that someone else’s health and reproductive freedom should be legislated. Next, I saw that the patriarchal culture of the church – more strictly in charismatic communities – harmed the lives of girls and women when we became frustrated with any agency, sexuality and life choices around our own bodies. I noticed that, in the absence of talk of abortion, those who claim to be “pro-life” often do not care about the lives of very vulnerable Americans, including children born into poverty and conflict.
With Barrett’s nomination, I worry about the lives and futures of my fellow Americans. I worry about the lives of more than two million Americans who rely on the Affordable Care Act for health care while Barrett criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in support of congressional enforcement. I worry about the lives of women and the lives of all those in the womb while Barrett called abortion “always immoral” and said judges could overturn patterns according to their interpretation of the constitution.
I worry about the lives of LGBTQ + families when Barrett defended the Supreme Court’s disagreement on the landmark marriage equality case Obergefel v Hodges. I worry about the lives of black, Native, Asian, and Latin American Americans when Barrett points out what he sees as flaws in Brown v. Board of Education.: A landmark case that disgusts schools. I worry about transgender young people and adults when in lectures, Barrett said that the title was given to IX and did not know if she needed a transgender bathroom calling her a “physical male”.
Much has been written about Barrett and her husband’s involvement as members of an influential “promised” community known as the Influential People. As many Catholic individuals and organizations have noted, influential Catholic communities are very distinct, distinct from mainstream Catholicism, and more ideologically and culturally savvy. People of Appreciation is a hierarchical organization where members make lifelong commitments or contracts and donate at least five percent of their income to the group. A key session is that husbands have rights over their wives and family. Members are assigned a gay advisor, a “head” for men and a “female leader” for women (for decades “women advisors” have been called “handmade”) but this has changed due to suggestions from Margaret Atwood’s novel and subsequent television series Handmade Tale). According to The New York Times, Current and former members report that these advisors “provide guidance on important decisions, including when to date or get married, where to live, get a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.” According to a report in The New York Times, Democracy Now and the National Catholic Reporter, former members described the group as suffocating, authoritarian and abusive.
A worldview in which the rules of a dictatorial structure are those that erase individual autonomy. A world view in which women play submissive roles, requiring the advice of others before making a decision, renders them without agency. This worldview is extremely dangerous when measuring constitutional decisions on the field of the Supreme Court, national policy.
I respect the role of religion and spirituality in our personal lives. And I do not serve in the Supreme Court with anyone I believe in or consider myself a believer. However, according to the words and actions, I have a problem when the evidence exists, their faith attached to their legal doctrine can force them to make decisions that will negatively affect the lives, agency and well-being of Americans’ pay generations.
Two years ago, my high school gave Amy Connie Barrett the Alumni of the Year award. I read that she was a respected teacher and a humble person. I have no doubt about this. What I doubt is to separate the “justification” of her faith from her decision on healthcare, reproductive freedom and civil rights for millions of Americans. My fear is that his leadership on the Supreme Court will erode rather than protect freedom and justice for all.
.
