Once again, a conservative white man wants to set up camp in women’s uteruses. On the third day of Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Democrats urged him to explain his stance on abortion rights. In response to a question from Texas senator Ted Cruz, Kavanaugh casually referred to contraceptives as “abortion inducing drugs,” The Cut reports. Cruz’s question was in regards to Priests for Life, a case in which a religious organization objected to the part of the Affordable Care Act that required employers to provide their female workers with insurance coverage for contraceptives.
According to the New York Times, Priests for Life was opposed to an accommodation offered by the Obama administration in which companies could waive the responsibility to pay for birth control by filling out a form. Kavanaugh testified, “They [Priests for Life] said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion inducing drugs that they were as a religious matter objecting to.” As a Catholic organization, Priests for Life objects to all forms of contraception, as well as abortion. A potential defense to Kavanaugh’s remarks is that he was illustrating the views of the individuals who brought the case. However, Kavanaugh’s chosen language revealed a pro-life stance that could indicate views detrimental to the future of Roe vs. Wade and a woman’s agency over her body.
Unsurprisingly, Kavanaugh's offhanded comment unleashed a firestorm of criticism from abortion rights activists and immediately generated the hashtag #abortioninducingdrugs on Twitter. Time reports that Democrats were also in an uproar about the statement. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California as well as Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts took to Twitter to condemn Kavanaugh’s extremism and defend women’s reproductive rights.
Another sign of Kavanaugh’s pro-life leanings was revealed Wednesday night when California Senator Kamala Harris inquired about his position on two cases that defeated contraceptive bans in 1965 and 1972 that were the groundwork for Roe vs. Wade, The Cut reports. Kavanaugh refused to give a straight answer, only saying, “I have no quarrel” regarding a concurrence written by Justice Byron White in the 1965 case Griswold vs. Connecticut, which highlighted privacy and control over one’s personal life, free from government intrusion in relationships.
Eric Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University, told The Cut, “Justice White’s concurrence, which is the part of the opinion Kavanaugh said he agreed with, was a fact-specific opinion dealing only with the fit between the means and ends of the statute. It did not rely on the right to privacy upon which Roe was based. Moreover Justice White dissented in Roe, which White consistently opposed his entire career.” Kavanaugh’s alleged agreement with Justice White’s distinct concurrence raises further questions about his attempts to gaslight the American public with his use of confusing code words surrounding abortion.
It's not too late to call your Senators and urge them to #StopKavanaugh. Call 1-844-515-2798 now.
More From BUST
Hi there! I’m a comedian, writer and actress living in New York City. I’m the only person to have a subscription to Nickelodeon Magazine without access to the Nickelodeon channel. My favorite movie is George Of The Jungle. Follow me on Twitter and Instagram @stonecoldvolpe and check out my website francescavolpe.com for more of my writing and silly videos!