Shaheen said the nominee is out of step on the scope of a presidents executive power, womens right to abortions and pre-existing conditions under the Affordable Care Act.
Your decisions affect real people: the lawyer who represented an immigrant teen in her fight to get an abortion explains why she testified against Brett Kavanaugh
She also said shes frustrated by the “lack of documentation” produced by Republicans and the nominees “refusal to answer basic questions about his judicial record and philosophy.” She said she believes Republicans are deliberately concealing his record.
“After careful consideration of his record and reviewing the limited documents made available to the U.S. Senate, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot support Judge Kavanaughs nomination to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court,” she said in a statement.
No one covers what is happening in our community better than we do. And with a digital subscription, you'll never miss a local story.
Hassan said Kavanaugh has promoted a judicial philosophy that diminishes the rights of women and people of color, favors corporations over people, and promotes a right-wing ideology. She said everything Kavanaugh has said or done undermines his claim that he would be a neutral and impartial arbiter.
“Judge Kavanaugh was handpicked from a list of candidates developed with groups funded by corporate special interests, and the agenda he has implemented throughout his career aligns with that of the big corporations and the wealthiest few in our country,” she said in a statement.
Democrats dont have the votes to block President Donald Trumps nominee, but that didnt stop them from putting up a fight at his confirmation hearings last week.
Garza said she was concerned that had his ruling not been later overturned, the precedent it set could have limited the constitutional rights of others in detention seeking abortions or other medical care, including adults detained by ICE or US citizens incarcerated in the criminal justice system.
For the nomination to fail, several Republicans would have to flip because the GOP holds a 51-49 edge in the Senate. Two potential swing votes, Republican Sens. Susan Collins, of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, are still reviewing Kavanaughs record and havent said how theyre going to vote.
Democrats rallied around Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s reference to popular contraceptive methods as "abortion-inducing" during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
Initially, a Texas state court judge ordered that Jane Doe be permitted to leave custody to obtain the abortion, given that she had obtained the proper judicial bypass to undergo the procedure without parental consent and had secured private funding to pay for it.
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., tweeted an 11-second clip in which Kavanaugh said, "Filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to."
"Kavanaugh chooses his words very carefully, and this is a dog whistle for going after birth control," Harris tweeted. "He was nominated for the purpose of taking away a woman’s constitutionally protected right to make her own health care decisions. Make no mistake — this is about punishing women."
Kavanaugh chooses his words very carefully, and this is a dog whistle for going after birth control. He was nominated for the purpose of taking away a womans constitutionally protected right to make her own health care decisions. Make no mistake – this is about punishing women. pic.twitter.com/zkBjXzIvQI
In Harris’ tweet, Kavanaugh appears to believe birth control is an abortion-inducing drug. Does he?
Harris cut an important second out of the clip — the attribution. Kavanaugh said, "They 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."
"They" refers to a Catholic nonprofit group, Priests for Life. Kavanaugh was answering a question from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, about a case in which he argued Priests for Life shouldn’t have to provide women with the contraceptive coverage mandated by the Affordable Care Act for religious reasons.
Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said Kavanaugh was using the limited time available to summarize the arguments made by the plaintiff.
"It’s very clear he’s characterizing their position, which was held by all the Catholic organizations within that set of cases," Kupec said. "But even within characterizing their position, if you look at the dissent, it’s still not a blanket description of birth control."
In the dissent, Kavanaugh writes, "They complain that submitting the required form contravenes their religious beliefs because doing so, in their view, makes them complicit in providing coverage for contraceptives, including some that they believe operate as abortifacients."
The question is significant to abortion rights activists because most common types of contraception don’t prevent implantation but fertilization. According to the medical community, pregnancy begins after a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. If a Supreme Court justice believes pregnancy begins at fertilization it could jeopardize the legality of birth control methods for women.
Harris’ office pointed out that at no point in his answer did Kavanaugh disagree with this definition of contraception, note it was medically inaccurate, or acknowledge it was politically charged.
"In his full answer, he uses the term uncritically," said Lily Adams, communications director for Harris. "He doesn’t say ‘so-called,’ ‘I don’t agree with it,’ there’s no caveat that he gives that he does not agree with the term."
Adams added that Kavanaugh was not exactly quoting the dissent, as the phrase used in the case was abortion-inducing products, not drugs.
Judge Kavanaugh appears to be telegraphing his belief that Roe, Obergefell, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which provides that the government cannot prosecute consenting adults for having sex, were not correctly decided.
Kavanaugh has not defined what he believes constitutes "abortion-inducing drugs." But the White House insisted that in that statement, "He did not express a personal view."
White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah said it was not the judge’s job to be critical of the term, quoting another segment of the dissent.
"The Supreme Court has emphasized that judges in Religious Freedom Restoration Act cases may question only the sincerity of a plaintiff’s religious belief, not the correctness or reasonableness of that religious belief," Kavanaugh wrote, citing Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby and Thomas vs. Review Board.
In the follow-up to his answer, Kavanaugh says the government did, in fact, have a compelling reason to ensure birth control access to the employees. But he determined the government could provide it without doing so on the backs of the religious objector.
Harris tweeted a clip in which Kavanaugh said, "Filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were — as a religious matter, objected to."
In Harris’ tweet, Kavanaugh appears to define contraception as abortion-inducing. But the video failed to include a crucial qualifier: "They said." In fact, he was citing the definition of the religious group Priests for Life. He has not expressed his personal view.