Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her forthcoming memoir, robustly defends her 2022 vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, arguing that the 1973 ruling establishing a constitutional right to abortion was an overreach of judicial authority that lacked historical grounding in American law.
In “Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution,” set for release on September 9, Barrett asserts that the infamous Roe decision, which essentially legalized abortion on demand nationwide, was an “exercise of raw judicial power” that invented a right not deeply rooted in the nation’s traditions.
“The evidence does not show that the American people have traditionally considered the right to obtain an abortion so fundamental to liberty that it ‘goes without saying’ in the Constitution,” Barrett writes, according to excerpts published by CNN. “In fact, the evidence cuts in the opposite direction. Abortion not only lacked long-standing protection in American law — it had long been forbidden.”
Barrett, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2020 following the death of pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined the 5-4 majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which reversed Roe and returned abortion to the states.
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
Pro-life advocates hailed the ruling as a historic victory, restoring democratic control over abortion after nearly five decades of unlimited abortions. The decision has led to significant protections for unborn babies, with 18 states implementing pro-life laws banning abortions.
In her memoir, Barrett emphasizes the judiciary’s role in respecting the will of the people rather than imposing moral judgments.
“The Court’s role is to respect the choices that the people have agreed upon, not to tell them what they should agree to,” she writes. She cites the late Justice Ginsburg: “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, herself a supporter of abortion rights, observed nearly twenty years after Roe that the case may have ‘halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction,’ ‘prolonged divisiveness,’ and ‘deferred stable settlement of the issue.’”
Barrett also addresses criticisms of her Catholic faith, which some have suggested could bias her judicial decisions. She pushes back against this notion, arguing that personal beliefs must not override legal duty.
“Fortunately for the health of our country, people of faith are not the only Americans with firm convictions about right and wrong,” she writes. “Nonreligious judges also have deeply held moral commitments, which means that they too face conflicts between those commitments and the demands of the law.”
She illustrates this principle with her vote to reinstate the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, convicted in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, despite her personal opposition to capital punishment.
“For me, death penalty cases drive home the collision between the law and my personal beliefs,” Barrett writes. “Swearing to apply the law faithfully means deciding each case based on my best judgment about what the law is. If I decide a case based on my judgment about what the law should be, I’m cheating.”
The memoir, published by Sentinel Books, a conservative imprint of Penguin Random House, also offers a glimpse into the Supreme Court’s inner workings. Barrett recounts moments of collegiality, noting that her chambers once celebrated with “an impromptu bottle of champagne” when other justices quickly joined a “particularly tricky” opinion she authored.
Barrett’s book, for which she reportedly received a $2 million advance, is expected to draw significant attention as she makes public appearances, including a conversation and book signing event at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation on Thursday.
