NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Forewarned is forearmed: understanding the game plan behind the pro-abortion campaign against Judge Amy Coney Barrett

Sep 23, 2020

By Dave Andrusko

We’ve posted elsewhere about the rising storm of vitriol launched against Judge Amy Coney Barrett, said to be among President Trump’s  possible choices to succeed Justice Ruth Bader on the Supreme Court, including two today. It’s late in the day so let me direct you to a post by David Mills that appeared at the National Catholic Register and offer some thoughts about “3 Ways Liberals Will Attack Amy Coney Barrett’s Catholic Faith.”

Mills summarizes his argument early on:

Her critics will hit her in three ways. The first treats serious Catholicism as in itself disqualifying. The second presents every belief the critic doesn’t like as “religious” and therefore forbidden. The third takes words out of context to make the victim look like a Catholic fanatic. 

He immediately adds

These are the standard methods of trying to push Christians out of the public square. It’s useful to know how they do it.

As for the first argument, Mills shrewdly observes that when pro-abortion Sen. Dianne Feinstein said in 2017that “In your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you — and that’s of concern”…

As far as I can tell, Feinstein meant that Barrett really believed what she believed. That was enough to make the senator claim to be concerned, and to vote against her. The senator didn’t have to examine what she believed about the issues at hand. 

Everyone speaks from their fundamental beliefs. When Barrett speaks as a Catholic … she speaks as a Catholic. That’s what everyone with beliefs does. 

When my friends who are observant Jews speak as observant Jews, they do the same thing. When my Marxist friends speak as Marxists … they speak as Marxists. It would be weird if they didn’t.

Mills adds. “Never mind what she believes about the law.” To the Dianne Feinstein and her fellow pro-abortion Senate Democrats, it’s enough to disqualify Judge Barrett if she speaks as a believing Catholic.” 

The second way of attacking Judge Barrett’s Catholic faith is more subtle, or, alternatively, incoherent. A statement that can—and does—stand on its own or could be uttered by someone with no faith at all— is said to be an (impermissible) imposition of her “private faith.” For example, if she, or anyone, considers the unborn child to be innocent life. Mills writes

Pro-choicers love trying to dismiss defense of the rights of the unborn as religious. But how is calling the unborn child “innocent life” religious at all? The unborn child is definitely a life and definitely innocent. An atheist should see that. It’s an observation. It’s no more “dogmatic” than knowing that the South Pole gets more snow than Miami. It’s obvious. But Newsweek twists it into an expression of private religious faith.

Third, and this we will see endless examples of, the designation “Barrett the Theocrat”—a fanatic. Just pick selected passages, take them out of context, ignore that what she is most often saying in “THOSE QUOTES” is to find balance in your life, and, voilà, suddenly we are supposed to fear a Justice Barrett.

Poppycock.

Thanks to David Mills. Forewarned is forearmed.

Categories: Supreme Court
Tags: