What Is Neil Gorsuch's Stance On Women's Rights? There Is Reason To Be Concerned

[niyad]

The recent administration has created a lot of worry for different individuals. The conservative take on recent politics has left a lot of minorities wondering what lies ahead in their future. One specific group that would be (and will be) largely affected by the recent SCOTUS nomination of Neil Gorsuch is the women of the United States. Women's rights are at great risk with the most recent nominee, but it's important to know the facts. So what is Neil Gorsuch's stance on women's rights? Moving forward, it's important to know how a Justice Gorsuch can affect you and your future.

Women's issues are human issues, and furthermore, every case that passes in front of Neil Gorsuch (should he be confirmed) will affect women in some way. But there are a matter of issues that feel at risk now more than ever. With a Democratic nominee (that didn't happen), things would have felt a little safer, a little more cushioned. But, with Gorsuch's nomination still hot on the presses, it's important to know how he feels about abortion, birth control, and Planned Parenthood.


Birth Control:

Gorsuch had a strong opinion in the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, Inc. case that decided that the craft chain was able to deny their employees birth control coverage despite Affordable Care Act mandates. Slate states that Gorsuch described birth control as "drugs and devices as having the effect of 'destroying a fertilized human egg.'" It is possible that Gorsuch could fight for birth control to be made more expensive by insurance companies (as well as abortions), should he be confirmed for the seat.
Slate also states that Gorsuch also called to rehear (potentially with intention to reverse) a decision to block Utah's attempt at defunding Planned Parenthood. ThinkProgress also says that Gorsuch took extreme measures to try to cut off the funding for the Planned Parenthood, despite a "fact-bound decision."

Interestingly enough, Gorsuch has never made a final statement on his stance on abortion. It wouldn't be fair to say where he'll fall, but certain decisions he's made in the past certainly suggest a rather right-leaning stance on the fundamental women's right. But, according to the Denver Post, NARAL President Ilyse Hogue has some concerns with the appointee, saying, "With Judge Neil Gorsuch, the stakes couldn’t be higher when it comes to women and our lives. Gorsuch represents an existential threat to legal abortion in the United States and must never wear the robes of a Supreme Court justice."

https://www.romper.com/p/what-is-neil-gorsuchs-stance-on-womens-rights-there-is-reason-to-be-concerned-34604

What Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s SCOTUS Pick, Means for American Women


. . . .




Gorsuch, the son of perhaps the most corrupt head of the Environmental Protection Agency in its history (anne gorsuch,reagan appointee), came down on the side of religious zealots in the notorious case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, Inc., in which the craft chain’s owners won the right to deny their employees contraception coverage despite the ACA’s mandate. In the 10th Circuit’s ruling, Gorsuch attributed to the company the capacity for spiritual reverie. The ACA forced Hobby Lobby to “violate their religious faith” by covering birth control, which “their religion teaches to be gravely wrong.” Gorsuch described birth control drugs and devices as having the effect of “destroying a fertilized human egg”—a claim that is demonstrably false, even in most cases of emergency contraceptive use.

Gorsuch also joined a dissenting opinion when Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, another challenge to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate, came before the 10th Circuit. The dissent called the mandate a burden to the plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion. In a 1996 amicus brief in a case about physician-assisted suicide, Gorsuch wrote that requiring public hospitals to provide abortions was an instance of “the courts [feeling] free to override the conscience of health care providers.” In other words, Gorsuch believes that doctors, corporations, and individuals should be able to discriminate against women, preventing them from accessing necessary health care, on account of any personal whim they claim to the court.

More recently, Gorsuch wanted to rehear, and likely reverse, a 10th Circuit panel decision blocking Utah’s attempt to defund Planned Parenthood. The movement to defund Planned Parenthood by preventing patients from using Medicaid dollars on nonabortion services there has been based on false claims of illegal fetal tissue sales. Gorsuch gave credence to Utah Gov. Gary Herbert’s claims of such trafficking, which he proffered without any supporting evidence, instead of dismissing them as a political maneuver, as a majority of his fellow judges did.

The bad news is that Trump has nominated a judge who will join the conservative wing of the court and likely come down against women when their rights are presented for argument. The good news is that, if confirmed, Gorsuch will replace Antonin Scalia, a merciless and sanctimonious anti-abortion advocate who argued that sex discrimination against women was acceptable under the Constitution. As far as the health, safety, and civil rights of America’s women are concerned, it’s hard to imagine how the court could do worse.*

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/01/31/what_neil_gorsuch_trump_s_scotus_pick_means_for_american_women.html

[TexasProgresive]

1. Since he was put forward by the trumpites

my guess is his honest view of women rights is, "Women have the duty to be barefoot and pregnant, and to be groped without complaint."

Let him prove otherwise.

[katmondoo]

2. I see it as the end of women's rights

Unless many, many millions of women stand up in full force against this

[librechik]

3. Xtian lunatic in re women's rights.