vox--2020-10-12--This is the future of abortion in a post-Roe America

If Roe v. Wade falls , what happens to abortion in America ?
That ’ s the question on a lot of Americans ’ minds after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , with the Supreme Court on the brink of a 6-3 conservative majority .
If the Senate confirms President Trump ’ s nominee , Amy Coney Barrett , the Court will likely have the votes to overturn the landmark 1973 decision that established Americans ’ right to terminate a pregnancy .
Some have predicted a Handmaid ’ s Tale-esque future in which women are forced to bear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begun quietly preparing for a baby boom once all Americans are forced to carry their pregnancies to term .
But the reality is that overturning Roe won ’ t end abortion in America .
What it will end , across much of America , is legal abortion .
That will have devastating consequences for many people , especially low-income Americans and people of color in red states where the fall of Roe would likely shut down the few remaining clinics .
“ This is already an abortion desert , ” Laurie Bertram Roberts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reproductive Freedom Fund , told Vox .
If Roe falls , “ you ’ re just talking about an abortion wasteland.
” But that doesn ’ t mean people who want to end a pregnancy would be completely without options .
Abortion funds around the country would continue their work , in some cases helping patients travel to blue states to get the procedure .
Community-based providers , who perform abortions outside the official medical system , would likely continue to operate .
And self-managed abortion , in which people perform their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bigger role .
Preparing for that reality will require a lot from advocates and providers , from raising money to campaigning against laws that can send people to jail for self-managing an abortion .
But people have been ending their pregnancies in America since long before Roe v. Wade or even abortion clinics existed , and a court decision isn ’ t going to stop them .
It ’ s just going to change what their options — and the risks involved — look like .
To understand the future of abortion in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past .
For generations , most reproductive health care in this country , from labor and delivery to abortion , was provided by midwives .
As Michele Bratcher Goodwin , a law professor at UC Irvine and the author of the book Policing The Womb : Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood , put it , “ the origin story in the United States is that women controlled reproductive health care.
” Midwives were a racially diverse group — before the abolition of slavery , half were Black , Goodwin said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarter were white .
They generally cared for people in their homes , and there were no laws prohibiting them from performing abortions before “ quickening , ” or the time when a pregnant person can feel the fetus move ( usually around 16 to 18 weeks ) .
That began to change in the mid-19th century , when male doctors began an effort to supplant midwives and monopolize reproductive care .
Through the American Medical Association , founded in 1847 , these doctors began to lobby for restrictions on abortion in part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing the procedure .
It worked .
By the beginning of the 20th century , the percentage of reproductive care provided by midwives had plummeted , Goodwin said .
And abortion bans proliferated around the country , with most states banning the procedure by 1880 .
In the decades that followed , people who wanted an abortion had to find a doctor who would do the procedure illegally — an easier task for those who had money — or try to end the pregnancy themselves , using herbs , turpentine , or , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be dangerous , although the exact death toll is uncertain since deaths from illegal abortions often were not recorded as such .
And abortion , though it remained illegal , became much safer in the mid-20th century with the widespread use of antibiotics .
Underground provider networks like the Jane collective , founded in Chicago in 1969 , also sprang up to help people get abortions , working with local doctors and even performing the procedure themselves .
Meanwhile , in the 1960s , states like California were beginning to liberalize their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also laying the groundwork for constitutionally guaranteed reproductive rights in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut , a 1965 decision that struck down state restrictions on married couples ’ use of birth control .
And in 1973 , the Court invalidated the remaining state abortion bans in one fell swoop , finding in Roe v. Wade that states could not impose an undue burden on Americans ’ right to an abortion .
Ever since then , Roe has limited what states can do to restrict abortion .
But they ’ ve still been able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Especially after 2010 , when Republicans took control of many state legislatures , states in the South and Midwest passed a flurry of laws restricting the operations of abortion clinics , such as by requiring providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital .
As a result , dozens of clinics in those regions shut down , leaving many states with just a handful of places — or only one — where patients can legally get an abortion .
And laws requiring ultrasounds and waiting periods before a patient could get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the procedure and made it more time-consuming for patients .
The Hyde Amendment , passed in 1978 , also bars Medicaid from covering most abortions , meaning low-income Americans must often pay out of pocket even though they have the least ability to do so .
Today , many Americans have to travel hundreds of miles and pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars to get an abortion — if they can access one at all .
And people in poverty , people of color , LGBTQ Americans , and undocumented immigrants all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pregnancy .
As Amanda Beatriz Williams , executive director of the Lilith Fund , an abortion fund in Texas , put it , “ Roe is and has never been enough to protect our communities.
” Years of restrictions have forced advocates to adapt Because of the ongoing march of restrictions in many states , abortion rights advocates have practice helping people access the procedure under difficult conditions .
In Mississippi , for example , where only one abortion clinic remains , the Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund helps about a dozen people a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or travel to a clinic .
For many others , the fund provides logistical support , helping patients find the nearest clinic or figure out how many pay periods they have left to save up for an abortion before they ’ re too far along .
“ We ’ re like abortion concierges , and also in a way like travel agents , ” Roberts said .
Roberts isn ’ t sure exactly how many people the fund has helped over the years , but others have assisted hundreds — the New Orleans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helped more than 1,500 patients get abortions since it was started in 2012 .
Meanwhile , an increasing number of patients are choosing to manage their own abortions outside of the official medical system , often by taking the drug misoprostol .
The drug , along with another medication , mifepristone , can also be prescribed by a doctor , and the regimen is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in abortions up to 10 weeks ’ gestation .
However , because of the difficulty of getting to a clinic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have experienced discrimination in medical settings , or simply want privacy in ending their pregnancies — some people obtain the medication online or through a friend or other source , and take it on their own .
It ’ s difficult to estimate how many people go this route , since self-managed abortions happen outside official systems for tracking patients and procedures .
But experts believe between 1 and 4 percent of abortions are self-managed , Farah Diaz-Tello , senior counsel at the reproductive justice legal group If/When/How , told Vox .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s evidence that abortion restrictions could drive up interest in self-managed abortion — one recent study found that requests for abortion medication through an online service were higher in states with restrictive abortion laws .
Self-managed abortion can be a safe option for many people , experts say .
In general , complications from medication abortion occur in less than 1 percent of cases .
And while getting the medication online or elsewhere outside the medical system means the pills haven ’ t been through the FDA ’ s system for regulating medication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reproductive research organization Gynuity of abortion pills ordered online found that most contained enough of the appropriate medication to be effective .
Ultimately , one of the biggest risks of self-managed abortion is not side effects from the medication , but criminal penalties for taking it .
Five states — Delaware , South Carolina , Arizona , Idaho , and Oklahoma — have laws on the books that specifically ban the practice , and many others have laws against “ feticide ” or other crimes that can be used to prosecute people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been advocating for years to remove criminal penalties for self-managing , and they ’ ve had some successes — New York ’ s Reproductive Health Act , for example , passed in 2019 , decriminalized self-managed abortion as part of a larger reform of the state ’ s abortion law .
Another part of the abortion landscape , in recent years as in decades past , has been community-based abortion providers who perform the procedure outside of a medical clinic .
While some help people obtain and use abortion medication , others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Nina Liss-Schultz reports at Mother Jones .
And while their numbers are unknown due to the legal precarity of their work , one such provider told Mother Jones she knows as many as 75 people who provide at-home abortions or train others .
Providing abortions outside the medical system is even more legally risky than receiving them , since most abortion restrictions around the country target providers , not patients .
But If/When/How and other groups have been advocating for their rights , as well as those of people who seek @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough for the law to simply not penalize people who end their own pregnancies , ” Diaz-Tello said .
“ We have to make sure that communities aren ’ t destroyed by criminalization and that people aren ’ t removed from the community-based systems of care that help keep them safe.
” For many , a post-Roe future just means more of the work they ’ ve already been doing While advocates and providers have mobilized in response to abortion restrictions in the past , the fall of Roe would require a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws on the books that could be used to criminalize abortion if the decision is overturned , according to the Guttmacher Institute .
That includes 10 states , such as Louisiana and Mississippi , with “ trigger bans ” that are intended to prohibit abortion automatically if Roe falls .
In those states , the reversal of Roe would likely have an immediate effect on clinics .
“ It would almost be like if someone just one day came and snapped their fingers and all the legal abortion access went away , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t mean abortion would end .
If/When/How , for example , will continue doing the same work it ’ s always done to decriminalize self-managed abortion .
The group is “ worried about the future of abortion rights jurisprudence , but for us , nothing changes , ” Diaz-Tello said , “ because , in many ways , Roe isn ’ t relevant to the question of whether people should avoid jail time for ending their own pregnancies.
” And the work that abortion funds and others have done in recent years could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roe , many say .
For example , the Covid-19 pandemic forced many funds to work even harder , since officials in states like Texas tried to suspend abortions , arguing that they were nonessential medical procedures .
“ When Texas ’ s Governor Abbott exploited the Covid-19 pandemic to shut down abortion providers in Texas , we got a glimpse of a post-Roe state , ” Williams , the Lilith Fund executive director , said .
The group immediately “ connected with abortion funds in other states facing similar crises , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lines of communication , share live-updates , and coordinate logistics.
” They ’ d do the same in the event of an end to Roe , Williams said : “ we ’ d continue to strengthen our regional collaborations , and we ’ d continue to build out our infrastructure so that we can do whatever it takes to ensure people get the care they need.
” The hurdles ahead for many grassroots groups will be high .
For one thing , advocates agree that self-managed abortion can not and should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while potential legal penalties remain in so many places .
“ SMA is not going to replace clinics , ” Roberts said .
The collapse of Roe would likely mean a surge of patients from red states trying to get to blue states for care — perhaps something like what happened during the pandemic , when clinics in Colorado , New Mexico , and Nevada saw a 706 percent increase in patients coming from Texas .
In a post-Roe future , though , it wouldn ’ t just be Texas — while it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state legislatures would respond , the states with trigger bans alone would create large “ abortion wastelands , ” as Roberts puts it .
For example , patients across a region spanning Arkansas , Louisiana , Mississippi , Tennessee , and Kentucky could find themselves without a clinic in their state .
They might seek to travel to Illinois , where providers and advocates have already worked to expand care in preparation for future restrictions .
But even if providers there and in other liberal states can absorb the influx , patients will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obstacle when abortion funds in the places with the greatest need and fewest resources also often have the least cash on hand , Roberts said .
“ I don ’ t know of any Southern fund , honestly , or any clinic that can really say we ’ re totally prepared for a post-Roe existence , ” Roberts said .
“ None of us are funded enough.
” She explained they would need money , not just to fund patients in the months after Roe is overturned , but to fight for access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re going to need money to organize to change state laws.
” Until and unless those laws are changed , the future of abortion without Roe could be , in some ways , a return to the past in which women performed the procedure at home or in their communities — but without the laissez-faire legal environment of the 17th and 18th centuries that allowed them to practice without fear .
With the rise of self-managed abortion and community-based providers , abortion care is “ being returned to women but under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Goodwin said .
For many , the challenge now , and in any post-Roe future , is how to remove that specter — and how to make sure the many people who still want to have abortions in clinics are able to do so .
It ’ s a difficult battle , but one many say they ’ ve had a lot of practice fighting .
“ Abortion funds are experts in adapting to the ever-changing landscape of abortion access , ” Williams said .
“ We ’ ve been flexing those muscles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re ready for whatever comes next.
” Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

If Roe v. Wade falls, what happens to abortion in America?
That was the question on a lot of Americans’ minds after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with the Supreme Court on the brink of a 6-3 conservative majority. And now that the Senate has confirmed President Trump’s nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, the Court will likely have the votes to overturn the landmark 1973 decision that established Americans’ right to terminate a pregnancy.
Some have predicted a Handmaid’s Tale-esque future in which women are forced to bear children. Meanwhile, anti-abortion groups have begun quietly preparing for a baby boom once all Americans are forced to carry their pregnancies to term.
But the reality is that overturning Roe won’t end abortion in America. What it will end, across much of America, is legal abortion.
That will have devastating consequences for many people, especially low-income Americans and people of color in red states where the fall of Roe would likely shut down the few remaining clinics. “This is already an abortion desert,” Laurie Bertram Roberts, the executive director of the Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund, told Vox. If Roe falls, “you’re just talking about an abortion wasteland.”
But that doesn’t mean people who want to end a pregnancy would be completely without options. Abortion funds around the country would continue their work, in some cases helping patients travel to blue states to get the procedure. Community-based providers, who perform abortions outside the official medical system, would likely continue to operate. And self-managed abortion, in which people perform their own abortions with pills, would take a bigger role.
Preparing for that reality will require a lot from advocates and providers, from raising money to campaigning against laws that can send people to jail for self-managing an abortion. But people have been ending their pregnancies in America since long before Roe v. Wade or even abortion clinics existed, and a court decision isn’t going to stop them. It’s just going to change what their options — and the risks involved — look like.
Abortion law in America has a complicated history
To understand the future of abortion in America, it helps to understand the past. For generations, most reproductive health care in this country, from labor and delivery to abortion, was provided by midwives. As Michele Bratcher Goodwin, a law professor at UC Irvine and the author of the book Policing The Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood, put it, “the origin story in the United States is that women controlled reproductive health care.”
Midwives were a racially diverse group — before the abolition of slavery, half were Black, Goodwin said, a quarter were Indigenous, and another quarter were white. They generally cared for people in their homes, and there were no laws prohibiting them from performing abortions before “quickening,” or the time when a pregnant person can feel the fetus move (usually around 16 to 18 weeks). That began to change in the mid-19th century, when male doctors began an effort to supplant midwives and monopolize reproductive care.
Through the American Medical Association, founded in 1847, these doctors began to lobby for restrictions on abortion in part as a way of stopping midwives from doing the procedure. It worked. By the beginning of the 20th century, the percentage of reproductive care provided by midwives had plummeted, Goodwin said. And abortion bans proliferated around the country, with most states banning the procedure by 1880.
In the decades that followed, people who wanted an abortion had to find a doctor who would do the procedure illegally — an easier task for those who had money — or try to end the pregnancy themselves, using herbs, turpentine, or, yes, coat hangers. Such procedures could be dangerous, although the exact death toll is uncertain since deaths from illegal abortions often were not recorded as such. And abortion, though it remained illegal, became much safer in the mid-20th century with the widespread use of antibiotics. Underground provider networks like the Jane collective, founded in Chicago in 1969, also sprang up to help people get abortions, working with local doctors and even performing the procedure themselves.
Meanwhile, in the 1960s, states like California were beginning to liberalize their abortion laws. The Supreme Court was also laying the groundwork for constitutionally guaranteed reproductive rights in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 decision that struck down state restrictions on married couples’ use of birth control. And in 1973, the Court invalidated the remaining state abortion bans in one fell swoop, finding in Roe v. Wade that states could not impose an undue burden on Americans’ right to an abortion.
Ever since then, Roe has limited what states can do to restrict abortion. But they’ve still been able to do a lot within those limits. Especially after 2010, when Republicans took control of many state legislatures, states in the South and Midwest passed a flurry of laws restricting the operations of abortion clinics, such as by requiring providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. As a result, dozens of clinics in those regions shut down, leaving many states with just a handful of places — or only one — where patients can legally get an abortion. And laws requiring ultrasounds and waiting periods before a patient could get an abortion drove up the cost of the procedure and made it more time-consuming for patients. The Hyde Amendment, passed in 1978, also bars Medicaid from covering most abortions, meaning low-income Americans must often pay out of pocket even though they have the least ability to do so.
Today, many Americans have to travel hundreds of miles and pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars to get an abortion — if they can access one at all. And people in poverty, people of color, LGBTQ Americans, and undocumented immigrants all face disproportionately high barriers to ending a pregnancy. As Amanda Beatriz Williams, executive director of the Lilith Fund, an abortion fund in Texas, put it, “Roe is and has never been enough to protect our communities.”
Years of restrictions have forced advocates to adapt
Because of the ongoing march of restrictions in many states, abortion rights advocates have practice helping people access the procedure under difficult conditions. In Mississippi, for example, where only one abortion clinic remains, the Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund helps about a dozen people a week with money for an abortion procedure or travel to a clinic. For many others, the fund provides logistical support, helping patients find the nearest clinic or figure out how many pay periods they have left to save up for an abortion before they’re too far along. “We’re like abortion concierges, and also in a way like travel agents,” Roberts said.
Roberts isn’t sure exactly how many people the fund has helped over the years, but others have assisted hundreds — the New Orleans Abortion Fund, for example, has helped more than 1,500 patients get abortions since it was started in 2012.
Meanwhile, an increasing number of patients are choosing to manage their own abortions outside of the official medical system, often by taking the drug misoprostol. The drug, along with another medication, mifepristone, can also be prescribed by a doctor, and the regimen is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in abortions up to 10 weeks’ gestation. However, because of the difficulty of getting to a clinic to get the medications — whether because they have experienced discrimination in medical settings, or simply want privacy in ending their pregnancies — some people obtain the medication online or through a friend or other source, and take it on their own.
It’s difficult to estimate how many people go this route, since self-managed abortions happen outside official systems for tracking patients and procedures. But experts believe between 1 and 4 percent of abortions are self-managed, Farah Diaz-Tello, senior counsel at the reproductive justice legal group If/When/How, told Vox.
Despite these low numbers, there’s evidence that abortion restrictions could drive up interest in self-managed abortion — one recent study found that requests for abortion medication through an online service were higher in states with restrictive abortion laws.
Self-managed abortion can be a safe option for many people, experts say. In general, complications from medication abortion occur in less than 1 percent of cases. And while getting the medication online or elsewhere outside the medical system means the pills haven’t been through the FDA’s system for regulating medication content, one recent study by the reproductive research organization Gynuity of abortion pills ordered online found that most contained enough of the appropriate medication to be effective.
Ultimately, one of the biggest risks of self-managed abortion is not side effects from the medication, but criminal penalties for taking it. Five states — Delaware, South Carolina, Arizona, Idaho, and Oklahoma — have laws on the books that specifically ban the practice, and many others have laws against “feticide” or other crimes that can be used to prosecute people who self-manage. But If/When/How and other groups have been advocating for years to remove criminal penalties for self-managing, and they’ve had some successes — New York’s Reproductive Health Act, for example, passed in 2019, decriminalized self-managed abortion as part of a larger reform of the state’s abortion law.
Another part of the abortion landscape, in recent years as in decades past, has been community-based abortion providers who perform the procedure outside of a medical clinic. While some help people obtain and use abortion medication, others even perform surgical techniques like vacuum aspiration, as Nina Liss-Schultz reports at Mother Jones. And while their numbers are unknown due to the legal precarity of their work, one such provider told Mother Jones she knows as many as 75 people who provide at-home abortions or train others.
Providing abortions outside the medical system is even more legally risky than receiving them, since most abortion restrictions around the country target providers, not patients. But If/When/How and other groups have been advocating for their rights, as well as those of people who seek abortions. “It’s not enough for the law to simply not penalize people who end their own pregnancies,” Diaz-Tello said. “We have to make sure that communities aren’t destroyed by criminalization and that people aren’t removed from the community-based systems of care that help keep them safe.”
For many, a post-Roe future just means more of the work they’ve already been doing
While advocates and providers have mobilized in response to abortion restrictions in the past, the fall of Roe would require a new level of work.
Twenty-one states have laws on the books that could be used to criminalize abortion if the decision is overturned, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That includes 10 states, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, with “trigger bans” that are intended to prohibit abortion automatically if Roe falls. In those states, the reversal of Roe would likely have an immediate effect on clinics.
“It would almost be like if someone just one day came and snapped their fingers and all the legal abortion access went away,” Roberts said.
But that doesn’t mean abortion would end.
If/When/How, for example, will continue doing the same work it’s always done to decriminalize self-managed abortion. The group is “worried about the future of abortion rights jurisprudence, but for us, nothing changes,” Diaz-Tello said, “because, in many ways, Roe isn’t relevant to the question of whether people should avoid jail time for ending their own pregnancies.”
And the work that abortion funds and others have done in recent years could help prepare them for the end of Roe, many say. For example, the Covid-19 pandemic forced many funds to work even harder, since officials in states like Texas tried to suspend abortions, arguing that they were nonessential medical procedures.
“When Texas’s Governor Abbott exploited the Covid-19 pandemic to shut down abortion providers in Texas, we got a glimpse of a post-Roe state,” Williams, the Lilith Fund executive director, said. The group immediately “connected with abortion funds in other states facing similar crises, and we banded together to strategize, open lines of communication, share live-updates, and coordinate logistics.”
They’d do the same in the event of an end to Roe, Williams said: “we’d continue to strengthen our regional collaborations, and we’d continue to build out our infrastructure so that we can do whatever it takes to ensure people get the care they need.”
The hurdles ahead for many grassroots groups will be high. For one thing, advocates agree that self-managed abortion cannot and should not be patients’ only option — especially not while potential legal penalties remain in so many places. “SMA is not going to replace clinics,” Roberts said.
The collapse of Roe would likely mean a surge of patients from red states trying to get to blue states for care — perhaps something like what happened during the pandemic, when clinics in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada saw a 706 percent increase in patients coming from Texas. In a post-Roe future, though, it wouldn’t just be Texas — while it’s not yet clear how all state legislatures would respond, the states with trigger bans alone would create large “abortion wastelands,” as Roberts puts it. For example, patients across a region spanning Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky could find themselves without a clinic in their state.
They might seek to travel to Illinois, where providers and advocates have already worked to expand care in preparation for future restrictions. But even if providers there and in other liberal states can absorb the influx, patients will need money to travel — a big obstacle when abortion funds in the places with the greatest need and fewest resources also often have the least cash on hand, Roberts said.
“I don’t know of any Southern fund, honestly, or any clinic that can really say we’re totally prepared for a post-Roe existence,” Roberts said. “None of us are funded enough.”
She explained they would need money, not just to fund patients in the months after Roe is overturned, but to fight for access in the years that follow: “We’re going to need money to organize to change state laws.”
Until and unless those laws are changed, the future of abortion without Roe could be, in some ways, a return to the past in which women performed the procedure at home or in their communities — but without the laissez-faire legal environment of the 17th and 18th centuries that allowed them to practice without fear. With the rise of self-managed abortion and community-based providers, abortion care is “being returned to women but under the specter of criminal punishment,” Goodwin said.
For many, the challenge now, and in any post-Roe future, is how to remove that specter — and how to make sure the many people who still want to have abortions in clinics are able to do so. It’s a difficult battle, but one many say they’ve had a lot of practice fighting.
“Abortion funds are experts in adapting to the ever-changing landscape of abortion access,” Williams said. “We’ve been flexing those muscles for years. I believe we’re ready for whatever comes next.”


vox--2020-10-12--Trump resuming pandemic rallies shows how little he’s learned about coronavirus

President Donald Trump is rushing to get back on the campaign trail just one week after leaving the hospital , and before it ’ s even clear that he ’ s tested negative for the coronavirus .
( Minutes before this story was published , Trump ’ s physician released a letter claiming that Trump “ has tested NEGATIVE , on consecutive days , using the Abbott BinaxNOW antigen card.
” ) With polling showing the presidential race trending toward a Biden landslide , Trump is scheduled to hold a rally on Monday evening in Sanford , Florida .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Minnesota on September 30 during which White House aide Hope Hicks fell ill with Covid-19 , and marks the beginning of what is shaping up to be an extraordinarily intense three weeks of campaigning for the president .
Trump has reportedly asked his campaign to schedule in-person events for him every night between Monday and Election Day .
One adviser expressed worry to Axios that Trump is “ going to kill himself.
” While Trump ’ s recent TV and radio interviews indicate he ’ s at least feeling better physically than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his October 2 announcement that he tested positive for the coronavirus , the president wants people to believe he ’ s the first person in the world to test positive and then actually feel better a week later .
During a Sunday morning appearance on Fox News , for instance , Trump claimed without evidence that he ’ s “ immune ” to the virus , but didn ’ t answer a question about what precautions his campaign will take to try to keep people safe at his rallies .
Along the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appearance , Trump campaign official Lara Trump deflected questions about the safety of Trump holding in-person events .
The fact of the matter is it doesn ’ t appear Trump ’ s campaign plans to do much .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says large gatherings where it ’ s hard to maintain physical distance from others ( like political rallies ) present the “ highest risk ” of becoming spreading events , but the campaign ’ s response to questions about how they ’ re flouting government guidance has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health .
Rally attendees are still required to sign a waiver absolving the campaign of any responsibility if they contract Covid-19 .
And early images from Sanford indicate that there won ’ t be much social distancing or mask-wearing .
While Trump ’ s event on Monday is scheduled to take place outdoors , that doesn ’ t mean it ’ s totally safe .
Consider , for instance , the fallout from Trump ’ s September 18 rally in Bemidji , Minnesota .
Trump ’ s latest Minnesota rallies left a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bemidji rally is perhaps best remembered for Trump praising his almost entirely white audience for their “ good genes , ” and for the fact that it began right as news broke of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death .
But it was back in the news late last week after the Minnesota Department of Health ( MDH ) announced that nine coronavirus cases — including two requiring hospitalization , and one that put a person in the ICU — were linked to it .
While it ’ s impossible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infections were contracted at the rally , MDH spokesperson Doug Schultz told Politico that all nine people “ attended the rally during the time when they were likely to have been exposed to the virus that made them ill ( i.e .
14 days prior to illness onset ) .
” He added that it ’ s likely at least one person was infectious at the rally .
Trump ’ s last rally before he announced his coronavirus diagnosis was held about three hours away from Bemidji in Duluth , Minnesota , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ended up in the hospital with his own coronavirus diagnosis .
The MDH sounded the alarm about the Duluth event as well , releasing a statement noting that “ Community transmission of COVID-19 was high in St. Louis County prior to this week ’ s rally , and people attending the rally may have been infectious without realizing it.
” “ People should consider getting tested even if they do not have symptoms because some people may not develop or recognize symptoms and people can spread the virus even without displaying symptoms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Monday night , the Trump campaign is using unreliable temperature checks to try to identify possible coronavirus carriers .
Put it all together and you can understand why Anthony Fauci , head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , said on CNN on Monday that Trump ’ s pandemic rallies are a bad idea from a public health standpoint .
“ We know that that is asking for trouble when you do that .
We ’ ve seen that when you have situations of congregate settings where there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the data speak for themselves , ” Fauci said , adding that the rallies are an extra bad idea right now since new coronavirus cases are again on the rise throughout the country .
Trump is still selling false hope about the coronavirus magically going away If you hoped Trump ’ s coronavirus hospitalization might cause him to rethink the wisdom of holding rallies during a pandemic , he dispelled that even before he left Walter Reed medical center with a tweet in which he advised people , “ Don ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let it dominate your life.
” But that talking point is cold comfort to loved ones of the nearly 215,000 Americans who have lost their lives to Covid-19 , not to mentions the thousands of others who survived with damaged health .
And as CNN detailed on Monday , the latest case numbers indicate things are trending in the wrong direction : Voters are blaming Trump .
A new Washington Post-ABC poll indicates that the failed coronavirus response is a major headwind for his campaign , with nearly two-thirds of respondents saying they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precaution to reduce the chance he ’ d get the disease himself .
But instead of engaging with that reality , Trump on Saturday falsely insisted the coronavirus is “ disappearing.
” And on Sunday , Trump compared his response favorably with a projection from the early days of the pandemic based on a model in which the US government did nothing to slow the spread of the virus .
While it ’ s debatable whether it ’ s good politics for Trump to hit the campaign trail to recklessly hold rallies fresh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he likely contracted in the course of holding reckless events , it ’ s certainly not good public health practice .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

President Donald Trump is rushing to get back on the campaign trail just one week after leaving the hospital, and before it’s even clear that he’s tested negative for the coronavirus. (Minutes before this story was published, Trump’s physician released a letter claiming that Trump “has tested NEGATIVE, on consecutive days, using the Abbott BinaxNOW antigen card.”)
With polling showing the presidential race trending toward a Biden landslide, Trump is scheduled to hold a rally on Monday evening in Sanford, Florida. It will be his first since a trip to Minnesota on September 30 during which White House aide Hope Hicks fell ill with Covid-19, and marks the beginning of what is shaping up to be an extraordinarily intense three weeks of campaigning for the president. Trump has reportedly asked his campaign to schedule in-person events for him every night between Monday and Election Day. One adviser expressed worry to Axios that Trump is “going to kill himself.”
While Trump’s recent TV and radio interviews indicate he’s at least feeling better physically than he was in the days immediately following his October 2 announcement that he tested positive for the coronavirus, the president wants people to believe he’s the first person in the world to test positive and then actually feel better a week later.
During a Sunday morning appearance on Fox News, for instance, Trump claimed without evidence that he’s “immune” to the virus, but didn’t answer a question about what precautions his campaign will take to try to keep people safe at his rallies. Along the same lines, during a separate Fox News appearance, Trump campaign official Lara Trump deflected questions about the safety of Trump holding in-person events.
Chris Wallace has to explain to Lara Trump that two wrongs don't make a right pic.twitter.com/FstOInSRme — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 11, 2020
The fact of the matter is it doesn’t appear Trump’s campaign plans to do much. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says large gatherings where it’s hard to maintain physical distance from others (like political rallies) present the “highest risk” of becoming spreading events, but the campaign’s response to questions about how they’re flouting government guidance has been to suggest the right of assembly trumps public health.
Rally attendees are still required to sign a waiver absolving the campaign of any responsibility if they contract Covid-19. And early images from Sanford indicate that there won’t be much social distancing or mask-wearing.
Very few masks, no distancing -- here's an image from Sanford, Florida, where Trump is holding a rally later tonight pic.twitter.com/HilF87ceet — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 12, 2020
While Trump’s event on Monday is scheduled to take place outdoors, that doesn’t mean it’s totally safe. Consider, for instance, the fallout from Trump’s September 18 rally in Bemidji, Minnesota.
Trump’s latest Minnesota rallies left a trail of Covid-19 in their wake
The Bemidji rally is perhaps best remembered for Trump praising his almost entirely white audience for their “good genes,” and for the fact that it began right as news broke of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. But it was back in the news late last week after the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) announced that nine coronavirus cases — including two requiring hospitalization, and one that put a person in the ICU — were linked to it.
While it’s impossible to know for sure that the nine infections were contracted at the rally, MDH spokesperson Doug Schultz told Politico that all nine people “attended the rally during the time when they were likely to have been exposed to the virus that made them ill (i.e. 14 days prior to illness onset).” He added that it’s likely at least one person was infectious at the rally.
Trump’s last rally before he announced his coronavirus diagnosis was held about three hours away from Bemidji in Duluth, Minnesota, on September 30 — about 48 hours before Trump ended up in the hospital with his own coronavirus diagnosis. The MDH sounded the alarm about the Duluth event as well, releasing a statement noting that “Community transmission of COVID-19 was high in St. Louis County prior to this week’s rally, and people attending the rally may have been infectious without realizing it.”
“People should consider getting tested even if they do not have symptoms because some people may not develop or recognize symptoms and people can spread the virus even without displaying symptoms,” the statement added.
Yet on Monday night, the Trump campaign is using unreliable temperature checks to try to identify possible coronavirus carriers. Put it all together and you can understand why Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said on CNN on Monday that Trump’s pandemic rallies are a bad idea from a public health standpoint.
“We know that that is asking for trouble when you do that. We’ve seen that when you have situations of congregate settings where there are a lot of people without masks, the data speak for themselves,” Fauci said, adding that the rallies are an extra-bad idea right now since new coronavirus cases are again on the rise throughout the country.
"We know that that is asking for trouble when you do that. We've seen that when you have situations of congregate settings where there are a lot of people without masks, the data speak for themselves" -- Fauci says Trump's pandemic rallies are bad from a public health standpoint pic.twitter.com/eNV07VMQj6 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 12, 2020
Trump is still selling false hope about the coronavirus magically going away
If you hoped Trump’s coronavirus hospitalization might cause him to rethink the wisdom of holding rallies during a pandemic, he dispelled that even before he left Walter Reed medical center with a tweet in which he advised people, “Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life.”
I will be leaving the great Walter Reed Medical Center today at 6:30 P.M. Feeling really good! Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2020
But that talking point is cold comfort to loved ones of the nearly 215,000 Americans who have lost their lives to Covid-19, not to mentions the thousands of others who survived with damaged health. And as CNN detailed on Monday, the latest case numbers indicate things are trending in the wrong direction:
The virus is now trending up in 31 states and is receding in only three, according to Johns Hopkins University. On Saturday alone, there were more than 54,000 new infections recorded with a further 618 deaths. The high baseline of cases means that a coming spike could be even more serious than the viral storm that raged through the northeast and the south in the spring and summer. The latest forecast from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington School of Medicine projects that there could be nearly 395,000 US coronavirus deaths by February 1.
Voters are blaming Trump. A new Washington Post-ABC poll indicates that the failed coronavirus response is a major headwind for his campaign, with nearly two-thirds of respondents saying they don’t think Trump took appropriate precaution to reduce the chance he’d get the disease himself.
But instead of engaging with that reality, Trump on Saturday falsely insisted the coronavirus is “disappearing.”
Trump falsely claims the coronavirus is "disappearing," then suggests the situation in the US isn't that different from elsewhere, saying, "very big flareup in Canada." Canada had about 2,500 new coronavirus cases on Friday, whereas the US had more than 58,000. pic.twitter.com/gzeHPZ2O6O — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 10, 2020
And on Sunday, Trump compared his response favorably with a projection from the early days of the pandemic based on a model in which the US government did nothing to slow the spread of the virus.
Trump wants you to believe that "the prediction" was 2.2 million Americans would die from coronavirus, so the fact we're at 214,000 is a sign of how great he's done. He's referring to what the projected death toll would be if the government literally did nothing. pic.twitter.com/mWuOKaFy8F — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 11, 2020
While it’s debatable whether it’s good politics for Trump to hit the campaign trail to recklessly hold rallies fresh off a bout with the coronavirus that he likely contracted in the course of holding reckless events, it’s certainly not good public health practice.


vox--2020-10-12--Read: Amy Coney Barrett’s opening statement lays out her position on the role of the courts

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett delivered her opening statement in her Senate confirmation hearing this Monday — a relatively straightforward recounting of her life story and her position on the role of the courts — setting the stage for intensive questioning yet to come this week .
Democrats have expressed widespread opposition to Barrett ’ s nomination , and emphasized that she could solidify a 6-3 conservative majority on the high court that could overturn the Affordable Care Act and undo Roe v. Wade .
In her opening remarks , Barrett did not touch on specific cases or issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Court ’ s role as a body that ’ s not intended to create policy — a commonly used Republican talking point .
“ Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law , which is critical to a free society , ” Barrett said .
“ But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life.
” “ The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not expect courts to do so , and courts should not try.
” Barrett also offered some indication of the influences behind her approach to the law .
She spoke , for example , about her respect for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia , whom she clerked for and whose judicial philosophy she ’ s widely expected to emulate .
Since that clerkship , Barrett has served as a law professor at Notre Dame University and as a Seventh Circuit Court judge .
Additionally , Barrett talked extensively about her family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professional endeavors .
“ I am used to being in a group of nine — my family , ” she said .
Barrett ’ s personal attributes , including her role as a parent of seven children , are among those that Republicans have sought to highlight in addition to her professional qualifications for the job of Supreme Court justice .
If she were confirmed , Barrett would be the fifth woman ever to sit on the Supreme Court , and the youngest current justice at 48 .
You can read Barrett ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chairman [ Lindsey ] Graham , Ranking Member [ Dianne ] Feinstein , and members of the committee : I am honored and humbled to appear before you as a nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court .
I thank the president for entrusting me with this profound responsibility , as well as for the graciousness that he and the first lady have shown my family throughout this process .
I thank Senator [ Todd ] Young for introducing me , as he did at my hearing to serve on the Seventh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] Braun for his generous support .
And I am especially grateful to former Dean Patty O ’ Hara of Notre Dame Law School .
She hired me as a professor nearly 20 years ago and has been a mentor , colleague , and friend ever since .
I thank the members of this committee — and your other colleagues in the Senate — who have taken the time to meet with me since my nomination .
It has been a privilege to meet you .
As I said when I was nominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am used to being in a group of nine — my family .
Nothing is more important to me , and I am so proud to have them behind me .
My husband Jesse and I have been married for 21 years .
He has been a selfless and wonderful partner at every step along the way .
I once asked my sister , “ Why do people say marriage is hard ?
I think it ’ s easy.
” She said , “ Maybe you should ask Jesse if he agrees.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I know that I am far luckier in love than I deserve .
Jesse and I are parents to seven wonderful children .
Emma is a sophomore in college who just might follow her parents into a career in the law .
Vivian came to us from Haiti .
When she arrived , she was so weak that we were told she might never walk or talk normally .
She now deadlifts as much as the male athletes at our gym , and I assure you that she has no trouble talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she shares her parents ’ love for the liberal arts , she also has a math gene that seems to have skipped her parents ’ generation .
John Peter joined us shortly after the devastating earthquake in Haiti , and Jesse , who brought him home , still describes the shock on JP ’ s face when he got off the plane in wintertime Chicago .
Once that shock wore off , JP assumed the happy-go-lucky attitude that is still his signature trait .
Liam is smart , strong , and kind , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loves watching movies with Mom and Dad .
Ten-year-old Juliet is already pursuing her goal of becoming an author by writing multiple essays and short stories , including one she recently submitted for publication .
And our youngest — Benjamin , who has Down syndrome — is the unanimous favorite of the family .
My own siblings are here , some in the hearing room and some nearby .
Carrie , Megan , Eileen , Amanda , Vivian , and Michael are my oldest and dearest friends .
We ’ ve seen each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of life , and I am so grateful that they are with me now .
My parents , Mike and Linda Coney , are watching from their New Orleans home .
My father was a lawyer and my mother was a teacher , which explains how I ended up as a law professor .
More important , my parents modeled for me and my six siblings a life of service , principle , faith , and love .
I remember preparing for a grade-school spelling bee against a boy in my class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sang , “ Anything boys can do , girls can do better.
” At least as I remember it , I spelled my way to victory .
I received similar encouragement from the devoted teachers at St. Mary ’ s Dominican , my all-girls high school in New Orleans .
When I went to college , it never occurred to me that anyone would consider girls to be less capable than boys .
My freshman year , I took a literature class filled with upperclassmen English majors .
When I did my first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s — I feared I had failed .
But my professor filled me with confidence , became a mentor , and — when I graduated with a degree in English — gave me Truman Capote ’ s collected works .
Although I considered graduate studies in English , I decided my passion for words was better suited to deciphering statutes than novels .
I was fortunate to have wonderful legal mentors — in particular , the judges for whom I clerked .
The legendary Judge Laurence Silberman of the DC Circuit gave me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continues to teach me today .
He was by my side during my Seventh Circuit hearing and investiture , and he is cheering me on from his living room now .
I also clerked for Justice Scalia , and like many law students , I felt like I knew the justice before I ever met him , because I had read so many of his colorful , accessible opinions .
More than the style of his writing , though , it was the content of Justice Scalia ’ s reasoning that shaped me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A judge must apply the law as written , not as the judge wishes it were .
Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like .
But as he put it in one of his best known opinions , that is what it means to say we have a government of laws , not of men .
Justice Scalia taught me more than just law .
He was devoted to his family , resolute in his beliefs , and fearless of criticism .
And as I embarked on my own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that same perspective .
There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming , while losing sight of everything else .
But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life .
I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor ; I owed that to my clients , my students , and myself .
But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life .
A similar principle applies to the role of courts .
Courts have a vital responsibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is critical to a free society .
But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life .
The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People .
The public should not expect courts to do so , and courts should not try .
That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit .
In every case , I have carefully considered the arguments presented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with my colleagues on the court , and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law , whatever my own preferences might be .
I try to remain mindful that , while my court decides thousands of cases a year , each case is the most important one to the parties involved .
After all , cases are not like statutes , which are often named for their authors .
Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world , often through their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an opinion resolving a case , I read every word from the perspective of the losing party .
I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against : Even though I would not like the result , would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law ?
That is the standard I set for myself in every case , and it is the standard I will follow as long as I am a judge on any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination , I was deeply honored .
But it was not a position I had sought out , and I thought carefully before accepting .
The confirmation process—and the work of serving on the Court if I am confirmed — requires sacrifices , particularly from my family .
I chose to accept the nomination because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the Supreme Court in our Nation .
I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can serve my country by playing that role .
I come before this committee with humility about the responsibility I have been asked to undertake , and with appreciation for those who came before me .
I was nine years old when Sandra Day O ’ Connor became the first woman to sit in this seat .
She was a model of grace and dignity throughout her distinguished tenure on the Court .
When I was 21 years old and just beginning my career , Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat in this seat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become of me could only happen in America.
” I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg ’ s seat , but no one will ever take her place .
I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led .
If confirmed , it would be the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside the chief justice and seven associate justices .
I admire them all and would consider each a valued colleague .
And I might bring a few new perspectives to the bench .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ my nomination , I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court .
I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years .
And I would be the only sitting justice who didn ’ t attend law school at Harvard or Yale .
I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own , and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football .
As a final note , Mr. Chairman , I would like to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of life who have reached out with messages of support over the course of my nomination .
I believe in the power of prayer , and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me .
I look forward to answering the committee ’ s questions over the coming days .
And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed , I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an associate justice of the Supreme Court .
Thank you .
Help keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett delivered her opening statement in her Senate confirmation hearing this Monday — a relatively straightforward recounting of her life story and her position on the role of the courts — setting the stage for intensive questioning yet to come this week.
Democrats have expressed widespread opposition to Barrett’s nomination, and emphasized that she could solidify a 6-3 conservative majority on the high court that could overturn the Affordable Care Act and undo Roe v. Wade. In her opening remarks, Barrett did not touch on specific cases or issue areas, but emphasized that she viewed the Court’s role as a body that’s not intended to create policy — a commonly used Republican talking point.
“Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society,” Barrett said. “But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life.”
“The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people,” she continued. “The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.”
Barrett also offered some indication of the influences behind her approach to the law. She spoke, for example, about her respect for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, whom she clerked for and whose judicial philosophy she’s widely expected to emulate. Since that clerkship, Barrett has served as a law professor at Notre Dame University and as a Seventh Circuit Court judge.
Additionally, Barrett talked extensively about her family and how they’ve supported her professional endeavors. “I am used to being in a group of nine — my family,” she said.
Barrett’s personal attributes, including her role as a parent of seven children, are among those that Republicans have sought to highlight in addition to her professional qualifications for the job of Supreme Court justice. If she were confirmed, Barrett would be the fifth woman ever to sit on the Supreme Court, and the youngest current justice at 48.
You can read Barrett’s remarks in their entirety below.
Chairman [Lindsey] Graham, Ranking Member [Dianne] Feinstein, and members of the committee: I am honored and humbled to appear before you as a nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
I thank the president for entrusting me with this profound responsibility, as well as for the graciousness that he and the first lady have shown my family throughout this process.
I thank Senator [Todd] Young for introducing me, as he did at my hearing to serve on the Seventh Circuit. I thank Senator [Mike] Braun for his generous support. And I am especially grateful to former Dean Patty O’Hara of Notre Dame Law School. She hired me as a professor nearly 20 years ago and has been a mentor, colleague, and friend ever since.
I thank the members of this committee — and your other colleagues in the Senate — who have taken the time to meet with me since my nomination. It has been a privilege to meet you.
As I said when I was nominated to serve as a Justice, I am used to being in a group of nine — my family. Nothing is more important to me, and I am so proud to have them behind me.
My husband Jesse and I have been married for 21 years. He has been a selfless and wonderful partner at every step along the way. I once asked my sister, “Why do people say marriage is hard? I think it’s easy.” She said, “Maybe you should ask Jesse if he agrees.” I decided not to take her advice. I know that I am far luckier in love than I deserve.
Jesse and I are parents to seven wonderful children. Emma is a sophomore in college who just might follow her parents into a career in the law. Vivian came to us from Haiti. When she arrived, she was so weak that we were told she might never walk or talk normally. She now deadlifts as much as the male athletes at our gym, and I assure you that she has no trouble talking. Tess is 16, and while she shares her parents’ love for the liberal arts, she also has a math gene that seems to have skipped her parents’ generation. John Peter joined us shortly after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and Jesse, who brought him home, still describes the shock on JP’s face when he got off the plane in wintertime Chicago. Once that shock wore off, JP assumed the happy-go-lucky attitude that is still his signature trait. Liam is smart, strong, and kind, and to our delight, he still loves watching movies with Mom and Dad. Ten-year-old Juliet is already pursuing her goal of becoming an author by writing multiple essays and short stories, including one she recently submitted for publication. And our youngest — Benjamin, who has Down syndrome — is the unanimous favorite of the family.
My own siblings are here, some in the hearing room and some nearby. Carrie, Megan, Eileen, Amanda, Vivian, and Michael are my oldest and dearest friends. We’ve seen each other through both the happy and hard parts of life, and I am so grateful that they are with me now.
My parents, Mike and Linda Coney, are watching from their New Orleans home. My father was a lawyer and my mother was a teacher, which explains how I ended up as a law professor. More important, my parents modeled for me and my six siblings a life of service, principle, faith, and love. I remember preparing for a grade-school spelling bee against a boy in my class. To boost my confidence, Dad sang, “Anything boys can do, girls can do better.” At least as I remember it, I spelled my way to victory.
I received similar encouragement from the devoted teachers at St. Mary’s Dominican, my all-girls high school in New Orleans. When I went to college, it never occurred to me that anyone would consider girls to be less capable than boys. My freshman year, I took a literature class filled with upperclassmen English majors. When I did my first presentation — on Breakfast at Tiffany’s — I feared I had failed. But my professor filled me with confidence, became a mentor, and — when I graduated with a degree in English — gave me Truman Capote’s collected works.
Although I considered graduate studies in English, I decided my passion for words was better suited to deciphering statutes than novels. I was fortunate to have wonderful legal mentors — in particular, the judges for whom I clerked. The legendary Judge Laurence Silberman of the DC Circuit gave me my first job in the law and continues to teach me today. He was by my side during my Seventh Circuit hearing and investiture, and he is cheering me on from his living room now.
I also clerked for Justice Scalia, and like many law students, I felt like I knew the justice before I ever met him, because I had read so many of his colorful, accessible opinions. More than the style of his writing, though, it was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men.
Justice Scalia taught me more than just law. He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs, and fearless of criticism. And as I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective. There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life. I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor; I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life.
A similar principle applies to the role of courts. Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.
That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit. In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.
When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law? That is the standard I set for myself in every case, and it is the standard I will follow as long as I am a judge on any court.
When the president offered this nomination, I was deeply honored. But it was not a position I had sought out, and I thought carefully before accepting. The confirmation process—and the work of serving on the Court if I am confirmed — requires sacrifices, particularly from my family. I chose to accept the nomination because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the Supreme Court in our Nation. I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role.
I come before this committee with humility about the responsibility I have been asked to undertake, and with appreciation for those who came before me. I was nine years old when Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to sit in this seat. She was a model of grace and dignity throughout her distinguished tenure on the Court. When I was 21 years old and just beginning my career, Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat in this seat. She told the committee, “What has become of me could only happen in America.” I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led.
If confirmed, it would be the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside the chief justice and seven associate justices. I admire them all and would consider each a valued colleague. And I might bring a few new perspectives to the bench. As the president noted when he announced my nomination, I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale. I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own, and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.
As a final note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the many Americans from all walks of life who have reached out with messages of support over the course of my nomination. I believe in the power of prayer, and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me. I look forward to answering the committee’s questions over the coming days. And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Thank you.


vox--2020-10-12--The surreal — yet normal — start to Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing

The opening day of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett ’ s confirmation hearing felt both surreal and oddly routine .
About a week and a half after two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee tested positive for the coronavirus , masked lawmakers gathered to make opening statements , with some including Sens .
Thom Tillis ( R-NC ) , Patrick Leahy ( D-VT ) , and Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) appearing remotely .
Sen. Mike Lee ( R-UT ) — one of the Republican lawmakers to be recently diagnosed with coronavirus — returned to make his statement in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s attending physician , who noted that he did not need to take an additional test ( Lee has not shared whether he has recently tested negative ) .
But even as it proceeded without delay , the hearing was far from business as usual : It ’ s taking place as Republicans try to push through a nominee as quickly as they can ahead of the election , despite taking a completely different position in 2016 .
And it ’ s occurring amid concerns about coronavirus exposure at the Capitol .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we should do it , ” said Leahy .
“ We should not be holding this hearing when it ’ s plainly unsafe to do so.
” Little about the panel — beyond its format — spoke to how abnormal it was , however .
Instead , even as Democrats took issue with Republicans ’ approach , much of the hearing proceeded as if it were ordinary , contrary to what many progressive activists hoped to see .
As Democrats tried to emphasize how Barrett would threaten the Affordable Care Act if she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touted her credentials as a Notre Dame law professor and misleadingly deflected concerns about her nomination as attacks on her Catholic faith .
Barrett , meanwhile , had an opportunity to make her opening statement , during which she described her interpretation of the Court ’ s role as a body that ’ s not intended to create policy — a commonly used Republican talking point .
“ The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people , ” Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expect courts to do so , and courts should not try.
” Democrats have said they ’ re aiming to sway potential Republicans on Barrett ’ s nomination by highlighting the stakes of this Supreme Court seat — something they did Monday by using the photos and stories of real people who could be affected by an ACA rollback .
“ We can ’ t afford to go back to those days when Americans could be denied coverage or charged exorbitant amounts , ” said ranking member Dianne Feinstein , while speaking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who was able to obtain cataract surgery after gaining insurance coverage through the ACA .
Lawmakers including Sens .
Cory Booker ( D-NJ ) and Harris emphasized , too , that this hearing was taking place against the backdrop of a rushed process and an ongoing stalemate over stimulus , which Republicans have not prioritized to the same degree as a judicial nominee .
“ Nothing about this is normal , ” said Booker .
Democrats focused on the real people the ACA case could impact in their opening statements If the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upcoming Supreme Court case , more than 20 million people could lose their health insurance and roughly 100 million people with preexisting conditions could once again be discriminated against by insurance providers .
Democrats sought to make this possible fallout clear via their statements .
If Barrett is confirmed , one of the first cases she could rule on could determine whether the ACA is able to stand .
One after another , Democrats named constituents in their home states , including Connor , a 10-year-old in Connecticut with muscular dystrophy , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he needs as a result of the ACA ’ s protections for individuals with preexisting conditions .
“ It has protected Connor from losing insurance because of this insidious disease that he never caused , ” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal ( D-CT ) .
Democrats are focusing on the ACA as their chief message both because of the need to defend the policy and because they have public opinion on their side .
According to a late September survey from Morning Consult , 62 percent of voters support the Affordable Care Act , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) in her remarks also spoke about her personal experiences with Covid-19 , which both her husband and her father were diagnosed with , and urged voters to call Republican senators regarding their concerns about the Supreme Court nomination .
“ This isn ’ t Donald Trump ’ s country .
It is yours .
This shouldn ’ t be Donald Trump ’ s judge .
It should be yours , ” she said .
As Vox ’ s Ian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticized Supreme Court decisions to uphold the ACA including Justice John Roberts ’ s reasoning for doing so in NFIB v. Sebelius in 2012 .
“ Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute , ” Barrett has written .
Republicans emphasized Barrett ’ s qualifications — while misleadingly accusing Democrats of attacks on her religion Republicans also returned to the same themes repeatedly throughout the hearing , highlighting Barrett ’ s professional qualifications for the role including her tenure as a clerk for Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 ) , and her work as a law professor at Notre Dame University , while frequently referencing her family as well .
If confirmed , Barrett — a parent of seven — would be the first mother of school-age children to sit on the high court .
“ Her students ‘ express awe with the power of judge Barrett ’ s intellect and with her professionalism , ’ ” said Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) .
“ To sum up , Judge Barrett ’ s qualification and character are impeccable.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that opposition to Barrett was driven by concerns with her religion , which Democratic lawmakers broadly did not mention .
“ They are attacking you as a mom and a woman of faith because they can not attack your qualifications , ” said Sen. Joni Ernst ( R-IA ) , even though neither of these issues was raised .
Republicans took this approach because religion was a central issue during Barrett ’ s circuit court confirmation in 2017 , when comments made by Feinstein at the time seemed to suggest that Democrats were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its relationship with her potential work as a judge .
At the time , Feinstein noted that the “ dogma lives loudly within you , ” a statement that Republicans have pointed toward as anti-Catholic sentiment .
“ This committee isn ’ t in the business of deciding whether the dogma lives too loudly in someone , ” said Sen. Ben Sasse ( R-NE ) .
Barrett has previously written about how her faith relates to potential judicial decision-making about capital punishment , and Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet is among those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game to ask Barrett about these writings , without perpetuating anti-Catholic sentiment .
Senators will have ample time on Tuesday and Wednesday to question Barrett directly about her stances on a wide range of issues , though whether this upcoming session will affect a vote on her nomination is an open question .
Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the upper chamber , meaning four lawmakers would have to defect from the party line in order for Barrett ’ s nomination to fail — since Vice President Mike Pence can break a 50-50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenario , but trying to convince a handful of their GOP colleagues to vote against the nomination will be a key aim of Democrats ’ arguments in the hearing this week .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The opening day of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing felt both surreal and oddly routine.
About a week and a half after two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee tested positive for the coronavirus, masked lawmakers gathered to make opening statements, with some including Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Kamala Harris (D-CA) appearing remotely. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) — one of the Republican lawmakers to be recently diagnosed with coronavirus — returned to make his statement in person after being cleared by the Capitol’s attending physician, who noted that he did not need to take an additional test (Lee has not shared whether he has recently tested negative).
But even as it proceeded without delay, the hearing was far from business as usual: It’s taking place as Republicans try to push through a nominee as quickly as they can ahead of the election, despite taking a completely different position in 2016. And it’s occurring amid concerns about coronavirus exposure at the Capitol. “This isn’t the way we should do it,” said Leahy. “We should not be holding this hearing when it’s plainly unsafe to do so.”
Little about the panel — beyond its format — spoke to how abnormal it was, however.
Instead, even as Democrats took issue with Republicans’ approach, much of the hearing proceeded as if it were ordinary, contrary to what many progressive activists hoped to see. As Democrats tried to emphasize how Barrett would threaten the Affordable Care Act if she ascends to the high court, Republicans touted her credentials as a Notre Dame law professor and misleadingly deflected concerns about her nomination as attacks on her Catholic faith.
Barrett, meanwhile, had an opportunity to make her opening statement, during which she described her interpretation of the Court’s role as a body that’s not intended to create policy — a commonly used Republican talking point. “The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people,” Barrett said. “The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.”
Democrats have said they’re aiming to sway potential Republicans on Barrett’s nomination by highlighting the stakes of this Supreme Court seat — something they did Monday by using the photos and stories of real people who could be affected by an ACA rollback. “We can’t afford to go back to those days when Americans could be denied coverage or charged exorbitant amounts,” said ranking member Dianne Feinstein, while speaking about a California constituent named Christina Monroe Garcia, who was able to obtain cataract surgery after gaining insurance coverage through the ACA.
Lawmakers including Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Harris emphasized, too, that this hearing was taking place against the backdrop of a rushed process and an ongoing stalemate over stimulus, which Republicans have not prioritized to the same degree as a judicial nominee. “Nothing about this is normal,” said Booker.
Democrats focused on the real people the ACA case could impact in their opening statements
If the Affordable Care Act is overturned in an upcoming Supreme Court case, more than 20 million people could lose their health insurance and roughly 100 million people with preexisting conditions could once again be discriminated against by insurance providers. Democrats sought to make this possible fallout clear via their statements. If Barrett is confirmed, one of the first cases she could rule on could determine whether the ACA is able to stand.
One after another, Democrats named constituents in their home states, including Connor, a 10-year-old in Connecticut with muscular dystrophy, who has been able to access the treatments he needs as a result of the ACA’s protections for individuals with preexisting conditions. “It has protected Connor from losing insurance because of this insidious disease that he never caused,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).
Democrats are focusing on the ACA as their chief message both because of the need to defend the policy and because they have public opinion on their side. According to a late September survey from Morning Consult, 62 percent of voters support the Affordable Care Act, and 79 percent of voters back health insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) in her remarks also spoke about her personal experiences with Covid-19, which both her husband and her father were diagnosed with, and urged voters to call Republican senators regarding their concerns about the Supreme Court nomination. “This isn’t Donald Trump’s country. It is yours. This shouldn’t be Donald Trump’s judge. It should be yours,” she said.
As Vox’s Ian Millhiser has written, Barrett has previously criticized Supreme Court decisions to uphold the ACA including Justice John Roberts’s reasoning for doing so in NFIB v. Sebelius in 2012. “Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute,” Barrett has written.
Republicans emphasized Barrett’s qualifications — while misleadingly accusing Democrats of attacks on her religion
Republicans also returned to the same themes repeatedly throughout the hearing, highlighting Barrett’s professional qualifications for the role including her tenure as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (who died in 2016), and her work as a law professor at Notre Dame University, while frequently referencing her family as well. If confirmed, Barrett — a parent of seven — would be the first mother of school-age children to sit on the high court.
“Her students ‘express awe with the power of judge Barrett’s intellect and with her professionalism,’” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). “To sum up, Judge Barrett’s qualification and character are impeccable.”
Republicans also repeatedly and misleadingly suggested that opposition to Barrett was driven by concerns with her religion, which Democratic lawmakers broadly did not mention. “They are attacking you as a mom and a woman of faith because they cannot attack your qualifications,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), even though neither of these issues was raised.
Republicans took this approach because religion was a central issue during Barrett’s circuit court confirmation in 2017, when comments made by Feinstein at the time seemed to suggest that Democrats were scrutinizing Barrett’s religion and not its relationship with her potential work as a judge. At the time, Feinstein noted that the “dogma lives loudly within you,” a statement that Republicans have pointed toward as anti-Catholic sentiment.
“This committee isn’t in the business of deciding whether the dogma lives too loudly in someone,” said Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE). Barrett has previously written about how her faith relates to potential judicial decision-making about capital punishment, and Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet is among those who have argued that it’s fair game to ask Barrett about these writings, without perpetuating anti-Catholic sentiment.
Senators will have ample time on Tuesday and Wednesday to question Barrett directly about her stances on a wide range of issues, though whether this upcoming session will affect a vote on her nomination is an open question.
Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the upper chamber, meaning four lawmakers would have to defect from the party line in order for Barrett’s nomination to fail — since Vice President Mike Pence can break a 50-50 tie. It’s an unlikely scenario, but trying to convince a handful of their GOP colleagues to vote against the nomination will be a key aim of Democrats’ arguments in the hearing this week.