Amy Coney Barrett Will Be the Most Anti-Woman Woman Ever on the Court

Few things have been as soul-crushing for me as a feminist as watching the Trump administration roll back equals rights and protections. So when feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg died I knew this was going to be an opportunity for Donald Trump to once again shit on women, and unfortunately I was correct.

Months ago, I was told by gleeful former Trump adviser and Trump friend-enemy Sam Nunberg that Trump was “saving Amy Coney Barrett for when RBG died.” There was something that felt profoundly gross about this prediction but of course, like all disgusting things in Trumpworld, it turned out to be true.

The idea was simple: Amy Coney Barrett was a woman; RBG was a woman; we feminists should be happy that we’re getting another woman because women are women and obviously all women are largely the same because they are not men. You know, similar plumbing and all.

But if anything, ACB—who actually isn’t in any way cool enough to have earned an RBG-style three-letter nickname—is the anti-RBG. RBG was a champion of women’s rights. During the 1970s, under RBG’s leadership, the ACLU was involved in 66 percent of gender discrimination cases. This is a pretty stark contrast to Barrett, who is more of a conservative activist, a Phyllis Schlafly 2.0. Barrett is a mummy and a religious zealot, and that’s why Republicans feel comfortable putting her on the highest court, because they trust she won’t betray them and, besides, she has seven children. Republicans are extremely impressed with her seven children. Having all these children is like proof that while Barrett is accomplished she still projects traditionally feminine values.

Conservatives immediately told us it was anti-feminist to attack Judge Barrett because she is a woman and thus we were bad feminists for pointing out that she’s a very conservative justice who will completely change the make-up of the court. How dare women attack another woman, says the conservative outrage machine, which is unsurprisingly outraged. The irony is that, as Sarah Jones writes, “Barrett is the beneficiary of decades of right-wing activism, much of it carried out by women who not only rejected feminism but sought actively to bring it down low.”

And perhaps the most telling comment about Barrett came from National Review editor Ramesh Ponnuru. “The main reason I favor Barrett, though, is the obvious one: She’s a woman... If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned—as I certainly hope it will be, as it is an unjust decision with no plausible basis in the Constitution—it would be better if it were not done by only male justices, with every female justice in dissent.” Who better to take away the rights of a woman than another woman, because another woman would never be called sexist. Right?

During his third debate with Hillary Clinton in 2016, Trump said, "If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court." Of course Barrett refused to comment on any of her views during the hearings.

Conservatives are using Barrett’s womanhood to launder her conservatism, which is profound and serious and will for generations change the makeup of the court.

We can’t necessarily glean much from judge Barrett’s long record: she’s only been a judge since she was appointed by Trump in November 2017. But during that hearing Dianne Feinstein was criticized for saying that “the dogma lives loudly within you.” Yes, Democrats are not allowed to bring up Barrett’s religion, despite her writing a paper that said “that Catholic judges may be unable to enforce the death penalty because it would violate their beliefs.” This paper actually invokes her religion, but somehow Democrats are not allowed to discuss it. Ted Cruz said, “Let me be clear: Democrats’ expected attempts to derail this process, along with their contempt for Judge Barrett and her faith, will not impede this nomination,”

And it’s clear that some of the dogma doesn’t live all that loudly in her. For example, as ElieMystal notes, she supports that famous sermon from Jesus, “Thou shalt turn away any neighbor who may solicit an EBT card to pay for her bread.” Yes, in 2020, Barrett was the lone voice in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of denying entry to immigrants who may in the future require public assistance.

But conservatives still know that where it matters to them, in women’s uteruses, Barrett almost certainly believes that life begins at conception. It’s hard to imagine that she won’t support the Supreme Court placing more restrictions on abortion.

Barrett spent the first day of her Supreme Court questioning refusing to answer all the Democrats’ questions. Republicans filibustered, asking questions about her kids, and robes. But the reality is this is a scam. This is a partisan scam. Barrett will be confirmed because Mitch has the votes, and nothing that’s said this week will change that.

Soon Judge Barrett will be Justice Barrett, sitting on the highest court in America, and she will turn out to be the same kind of feminist as Ivanka, all shiny hair and good white teeth, but when it comes to your rights, well ladies, you’re kind of fucked. I want her to stay the fuck away from our uteruses. She’ll be as bad for women as RBG was good for women.