History has repeatedly demonstrated that it only takes one election, one coup, or a handful of new laws to transform a historically peaceful country into an unrecognizable nation seemingly overnight. As an American citizen, I’ve often taken my political freedoms and security for granted. I’ve had the privilege to naively consider rampant corruption, undemocratic elections, and unjust court systems issues that only pertain to developing countries. The narrative I was fed was that the problems that plague many developing countries aren’t concerned America needs to worry about. Instead, I was taught that the responsibility lay to the United States to set the example of how to govern fairly, compassionately, and responsibly for the world. In recent years, those original beliefs of mine have gradually receded. The Republican Party’s nomination and confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court was the last straw. I can now confirm that I no longer believe in the narrative of America’s integrity and moral superiority.

Regardless of where your opinions lie on the political spectrum, honesty, and keeping true to your word should be considered nonpartisan aspects of governance. When Senator Lindsay Graham walked back the statement he made in 2016, “I want you to use my words against me.[1] If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsay Graham said, ‘Let’s let the next president, whoever it may be, make that nomination,’” the Republican Party’s last sliver of principle died. Any remaining hope of principled behavior was officially squashed when Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court in a 52–48 vote.[2] Senator Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican who dissented. I am not against Republicans or the Republican party, but the Republican Party’s blatant disregard for precedent and lack of moral integrity has concerning implications for the future.

Some potential consequences may be previewed in the hit series, “The Handmaid’s Tale.” The show is disturbing for many reasons: the frequent rape of women, violations of human rights, and inhumane torture tactics. However, the most disturbing feature is the implication that America could transform into an oppressive theocracy like Gilead. The show often provides the viewer with glimpses into life before Gilead, a time riddled with similar issues that we face now: mass partisan polarization, a rollback of rights for women and members of the LGBTQ+ community, and increasing violence from right-wing groups. The episodes demonstrate how new laws were quickly implemented as the fanatically religious government took over. Suddenly, women were no longer allowed to work professionally or hold bank accounts in their own names, and any opposition to these laws was brutally shut down. Amidst this political chaos, the Republic of Gilead arose in all of its patriarchal glory. Women were further forbidden from reading or writing and instead are expected to focus all their attention on serving their Commanders (the elite framers of Gilead) and their wives. Moreover, all those who are considered dispensable (meaning they’re barren or deemed subversive) are sent to the Colonies, a concentration camp-like wasteland that you’re not expected to return from, or publicly executed. The only court left is a kangaroo court where cruel and unusual punishment, not justice, is served. Political change is swift. Before anyone was able to wake up and realize what direction their lives were headed in, the damage was already done and it was too late to fight back.

While “The Handmaid’s Tale” is fictional, many aspects of the story are not. In fact, a version of Gilead presently exists in North Korea where doctors are forbidden from providing birth control or abortion procedures in an effort to increase the birth rate.[3] Reigns of terror in the name of a return to so-called “conservative values” or “family values” have been supported throughout history. Nazi propaganda dictated to German women that their sole role in life should be as a wife and mother, with the goal being to raise Aryan children that would one day serve the Third Reich.[4] In order to encourage mothers to reproduce, a prestigious award called the “Mother’s Cross” was created and bestowed upon mothers who had anywhere from five to seven children.[5] There even existed a covert Nazi program called “Lebensborn” meaning “Wellspring of Life” which was created with the intention of producing “racially pure” offspring by breeding fit Aryan women and SS officers.[6]Those deemed qualified enough to be in the Lebensborn program were provided with benefits for themselves and their children.

The notion that a woman’s highest calling should be reduced to being a mother was facilitated and encouraged through these propaganda tactics. Meanwhile, political prisoners, Jews, and all others considered “inferior” to the Aryan race were sent to concentration camps to die. If laws and programs like these existed before, who is to say that it can’t, or won’t, happen again? It would be the height of hubris to claim that Americans are invulnerable to acting intolerantly based on propaganda. 

Speaking of propaganda, Amy Coney Barrett has been repeatedly praised by the Republicans as a benevolent mother of nine children. The Republican senators put particular emphasis on the fact that two of the nine are adopted from Haiti and one has down syndrome.[7] I don’t doubt Barrett’s intentions in regard to her own children, but we cannot let them cloud the reality of the situation. The Republican Party felt the continual need to bring up her motherhood during the hearings for numerous reasons, none of which was to actually support women. First, Barrett’s nomination has turned out to be even more controversial than Kavanaugh’s, and reminding the public of her commitment to motherhood was a Republican attempt to make her more likable. Second, her motherhood served as a reminder of her womanhood, which was a weapon used to deflect any claims of “sexist” or “anti-feminist” values amongst the Republican Party. This allowed Republicans to paint Democrats as the real misogynists since they opposed a female nominee to the Supreme Court. Third, her motherhood was used to place her on a pedestal as an example that women “can have it all”– a successful career and a big family– as long as they are pious and devoted enough. Some women can have it all, but for many women, it’s an unaffordable luxury. Using Barrett as a model of success that Republicans can point to in order to repeal abortion rights and affirmative action is not feminist, but elitist, and it will harm more women than it will help.[8] Priding Barrett on her motherhood skills in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing reaffirmed the idea that a woman’s greatest accomplishments will always be diminished to her children. There is currently a striking overemphasis on a woman’s place in relation to children and motherhood coupled with a revitalized political movement to overturn Roe v. Wade. It is almost impossible not to be alarmed at the parallels between the state we’re in now and the Orwellian state we could transform into if things continue down this path.

We must remember that Barrett’s confirmation threatens millions of American lives by threatening to end the Affordable Care Act and Roe v. Wade. While she dodged questions pertaining to these contentious topics during the confirmation hearings, her past opinions have expressed clear anti-abortion and anti-ACA views. In one scholarly article, she distinctly provided examples of, “cases that no justice would overrule, even if she disagrees with the interpretive premises from which precedent proceeds,” and Roe v. Wade was not one of them.[9] She also has a distressing history of ruling against workers’ rights, LGBTQ rights, and immigration rights. In short, she’s here to take away hard-fought rights but will do so with a smile and a string of pearls.

Beyond Barrett, the Republicans’ brazen maneuver to confirm a Supreme Court Justice eight days before a national election demonstrates an unparalleled disrespect for our democratic institutions and a level of shameless hypocrisy unforeseen in American politics. Their actions represent the party’s willingness to undermine democracy if it means benefiting themselves, and their causes. If we allow for this behavior to become normalized like Donald Trump’s past transgressions, we resign ourselves to tyranny and submit ourselves to fascism. 

Amy Coney Barrett doesn’t represent motherhood; she represents the downtrodden American women who will suffer due to her political and religious views. Barrett doesn’t represent pro-life values; she represents the millions of American children that will go hungry because their parents can’t afford to feed them. Barrett doesn’t represent democracy, but an undeserved seat that she stole in an effort to suppress American democracy. Former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, "Women belong in all places where decisions are being made. It shouldn't be that women are the exception.”[10] By nominating Barrett, the nation has defied Ginsburg’s last wishes and let her down. Barrett’s nomination will ensure that she continues to be the exception for women in powerful political positions, but not the rule. That is, if our democracy is still intact by the time she retires. 

Sources:

1. Schwartz, Matthew S. “'Use My Words Against Me': Lindsey Graham's Shifting Position On Court Vacancies.” NPR. NPR, September 19, 2020. https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/19/914774433/use-m

2. Neil Vigdor, Nicholas Fandos and Sydney Ember. “2020 Election Live Updates: Barrett Set to Be Confirmed to Supreme Court.” The New York Times. The New York Times, November 8, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/26/us/trump-biden-election.

3. Staff, RFA. “North Korea Forbids Doctors To Perform Abortions, Implant Birth Control Devices.” Radio Free Asia. Radio Free Asia, October 14, 2015. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/korea/north-korea-forbids-doctors-to-perform-abortions-implant-birth-control-devices-10142015145920.html.

4. “Third Reich.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Accessed November 9, 2020. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/third-reich.

5. “Hitler Encouraged Germans to Have Multiple Children with the Mother's Cross.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, November 5, 2009. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hitler-institutes-the-mothers-cross.

6. “The Nazi Party.” The "Lebensborn" Program. Accessed November 9, 2020. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-quot-lebensborn-quot-program.

7. North, Anna. “Why Republicans Keep Talking about Amy Coney Barrett's 7 Kids.” Vox. Vox, October 13, 2020. https://www.vox.com/2020/10/13/21514390/amy-coney-barrett-children-kids-supreme-court.

8. Onion, Rebecca. “The ‘Women Can Have It All’ Narrative Around Amy Coney Barrett Is a Trap.” Slate Magazine. Slate, October 1, 2020. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-and-the-women-can-have-it-all-trap.html.

9. Amy C. Barrett, Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement, 91 Tex. L. Rev. 1711 (2012-2013). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/293 

10.  “Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Pictures and Her Own Words.” BBC News. BBC, September 19, 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54218139.