State Sen. Jason Rapert, who filed the bill which would only allow abortions in the case of ectopic pregnancies or when the life of the mother was endangered, called the move “the trigger” to begin the process of pushing the nation’s highest court to rule on Roe.
In fact, Barrett’s views on Roe v. Wade were a regular feature of questions lobbed her way by Senate Democrats during her confirmation hearings. Barrett, however, offered little guidance as to how she might vote if a case challenging Roe came before her.
“The debate over the future of abortion is where it was before the hearings began: Barrett as a law professor working at a Catholic university made clear that she was opposed to abortion and as a judge voted twice to revisit her colleagues’ opinions that struck down abortion restrictions. In addition, she had to supplement her record when CNN reported upon undisclosed talks she gave as a law professor to student groups that oppose abortion.. After hours of testimony, however, Barrett never strayed from her mantra: As a judge she would follow the law and leave her personal opinions aside.
“My policy views, my moral convictions, my religious beliefs do not bear on how I decide cases nor should they, it would be in conflict with my judicial oath,’ she said.”
That lack of clarity from Barrett hasn’t stopped Republican lawmakers from drawing conclusions about how she — and the court — may rule if a challenge to legalized abortion eventually came before it.
In short: Figuring out exactly how each of the nine justices will vote on any given case is no easy task. But as evidenced by Arkansas’ latest efforts, it is becoming clear that we are likely to see some serious challenge to Roe appear before the court in the not-too-distant future.