It’s difficult for me to despise Amy Coney Barrett. She epitomizes the perfect, successful, educated Catholic-American woman. She has the likeability and dependability of the pearl-wearing girl next door. She is smart and articulate. And, I’ll admit it. Her adopted Haitian children tugged on my heart. She attended an all-girls religious high school and later earned a full scholarship to the University of Notre Dame's Law School, where she finished first in her class. She then went on to become a prestigious judicial law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Her flawless working-mom image is wrapped up with a beautiful seven-child family. Two of those children were adopted from orphanages, one of whom came after the devastating 2010 earthquake that killed an estimated 250,000 people in Haiti. So why does the thought of Amy Coney Barrett filling Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Supreme Court seat taste like permanent gristle in my chicken and make me want to barf my lunch? Because despite all her astonishing achievements, this individual is hardly a champion for women and our rights. None of Amy Coney Barrett's accomplishments translate to her being an acceptable replacement for the feminist icon that was the notorious RBG. How can I back any woman who deems herself to being subservient to a man? Let me be clear. I have no problem with Catholicism. I love rock-star humanist Pope Francis and his drive to bring the Church, step by step, into the modern age. I am married to a tender, accepting Catholic. However, if you are to be in the supreme position of judgment for this nation's 330 million people, and you are practicing a religious offshoot under the veil of Catholicism that is to the right of the Pope, we have a problem. I have difficulty with fanaticism in any religion. People who hate others because they are different are problematic. People who want to deny rights to others because they are different are problematic. What exactly is this People of Praise religious sect to which Amy Coney Barrett belongs? Depends who you ask. According to the Associated Press, it’s a church that is hostile to gay rights and an offshoot that has roots in Pentecostalism and can include its practitioners speaking in tongues. According to many Catholics on Twitter, it is a cult whose followers hate the Pope and Jesuits. The AP reported that Amy Coney Barrett not only served as a trustee for a religious private school that has anti-gay policies, but she also chose to educate three of her seven children there. This is a school that does not allow gay teachers to teach or gay parents to let their children attend. Children are taught that they will burn in a blistering inferno for being a sodomite. I do not know how that is legal in modern times, but I do know that this school receives tax dollars and enjoys tax-exempt status. Do we not have a separation of Church and State? What happened to judges being unbiased intermediaries of the law? During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, I witnessed Barrett expertly dodge every vital question posed to her. Her omissions told me her truth. Here is a sampling of the issues on which she refused to take a public stance: Climate change, the Affordable Care Act, abortion, birth control, whether systemic racism exists, same-sex marriage and a peaceful transfer of presidential power. Rest assured, she did confirm that she likes warm puppies and that domestic duties are shared in her household, a question that I’m sure would not have been asked to a man interviewing for the same job. So, Amy, what exactly do you stand for? Doesn’t the job require you to opine on major issues? We all know your recent rulings. So, be brave. Be truthful. Come out and say it. In 1993, RBG boldly told us exactly who she was and what she represented, and she was confirmed with a 96-3 vote. I guess we have really reversed the clock in 27 years. What is this Senate charade that is such a waste of time, energy and tax dollars? I just don’t get the originalist Constitution interpretation she espouses, especially coming from a strong woman. And, let’s face it. To raise 7 children with Amy Coney Barrett’s accolades, you need to be fierce. According to the direct 18th-century writings of our faulty founding fathers, Amy Coney Barrett would be popping out her many kids on a potato field instead of receiving her impressive education. She would be sewing and hanging laundry on a clothes-line instead of practicing law. She would not have had the right to vote or own property. Her two beautiful Black adopted children could have been slaves on a plantation and each been considered 3/5ths of a person. Barrett’s overall judgment is troubling. I watched her and her 7 children sit unmasked at her nomination party at the White House Rose Garden. Turns out, that ceremony became a COVID-19 super-spreader event. Some of her rulings are even more disturbing. For example, she was part of a three-judge panel that reversed a $6.7 million federal jury award to a 19-year-old pregnant inmate who was repeatedly raped by a prison guard. Barrett deemed that only the guard, and not the county, was responsible for damages. On a correctional guard's paltry annual salary, my guess is the new payout for that abused inmate won't be much. Let’s move forward people. This is medieval. Trump and the GOP may think they have scored a big win by pushing Barrett to replace RBG, but I think NOT. This move has ignited a fire under every pro-choice woman to vote them ALL out and cut the shit already.