President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, revealed to the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday that she does not know when human life begins. The next day, Jackson said that she “did not want to speculate” about a preborn baby’s viability.
During committee hearings Tuesday, Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) questioned D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jackson about the Supreme Court’s role in deciding rights and laws and asked her one of the most fundamental questions of constitutional jurisprudence.
“When does life begin, in your opinion?” asked the senator.
It took Jackson a couple of seconds to force out herself, “Senator, uhm…” She shook her head, looking puzzled. “I don’t know,” Jackson finally replied with a nervous chuckle.
“Ma’am,” Kennedy followed up, “Do you have a belief?”
Jackson replied that she has “personal, religious, and otherwise beliefs that have nothing to do with the law, in terms of when life begins.” When asked about her personal beliefs, Jackson specified that she has a “religious belief” which she “sets aside” when ruling on cases.
Then Kennedy asked the Supreme Court Justice wannabe another question that Jackson did not have an answer to.
“When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?” he inquired.
“Well Senator, uhm… I believe that the Supreme Court, uhm… Actually, I actually don’t know the answer to that question,” Jackson said. “I’m sorry. I don’t.”
Here, Jackson, as pro-abortionists typically do, tried to separate theological beliefs — “my personal religious belief” — from the actual science.
Americans have already learned that biology is not Judge Jackson’s strongest skill. During hearings on Tuesday, she failed to answer the question, “What is a woman?” and excused herself by stating that she was “not a biologist.”
Just as in the case of the definition of sex, science is settled on when human life begins, and it is surprising, at best, that such a well-educated and experienced judge as Jackson does not know it.
LifeSite News points out,
Long-settled biological criteria and mainstream medical textbooks establish that a living human being is created upon fertilization and is present throughout the entirety of pregnancy. Many abortionists and abortion defenders have admitted as much; in 2019, University of Chicago Department of Comparative Human Development graduate Steve Jacobs found that 96% of more than 5,500 biologists he surveyed agreed, despite overwhelmingly identifying as “liberal,” “pro-choice,” and Democrats, and a majority identifying as “non-religious.”
According to an article posted in the National Journal of Medicine in 2004,
Life, in a true sense of the word, begins when the chemical matter gives rinse, in a specific way to an autonomous, self-regulating, and self-reproducing system.
At the same time, one could assume that Judge Jackson wouldn’t consider anyone any less than alive for not self-regulating or reproducing. A man or woman is not any less alive if he or she is unable to have children. Likewise, a person with impaired motor skills or an inherited metabolic disorder is equally alive as someone able. Logically, if a person is not autonomous, it does not mean he is not alive.
As an expert in law, which she is supposed to be, Jackson must also know that law and science are closely connected. For example, 38 states have written and passed laws against fetus homicide. Of those, 29 have distinguished that life exists even during the early stages of gestation. Therefore, killing a pregnant woman is viewed as a double homicide in many states throughout the nation.
During the hearings on Tuesday, Jackson was asked by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) about her thoughts on Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two Supreme Court rulings that established the right to abortion without an undue burden.
“Roe and Casey are the settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman’s pregnancy. They have established a framework that the court has reaffirmed,” Jackson said.
She added, “in order to revisit, as Justice Barrett said, the Supreme Court looks at various factors because stare decisis is a very important principle.”
On Wednesday, Jackson was questioned about her understanding of fetal viability, or the point at which a pre-born child can survive outside the womb, by Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas). Cornyn wondered if the Supreme Court could repeal its cases over time. The senator implied that today, with medical and scientific advancements, a baby can survive at much earlier stages than in 1973, when the SCOTUS ruled on Roe.
“I hesitate to speculate,” Jackson responded, “I know that it [fetal viability] is a point in time that the court has identified in terms of when the standards that apply to regulation of the right.”
She yet again reiterated that she was “not a biologist.”
Asked the same day by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) if she knew that a 20-week-old pre-born baby can feel pain, she said she did not know.
As reflected in her background, Jackson’s stance on the matter isn’t surprising.
As an attorney, she co-wrote an amicus brief in 2001 for pro-abortion organization NARAL Pro-Choice America in favor of free-speech “buffer zones” outside of abortion clinics. In that document, she described pro-life protesters at the abortion clinics as “hostile,” “noisy,” and “in-your-face.”
As a judge, Jackson ruled against President Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) effort to limit federal funding of Planned Parenthood.
If confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, Jackson will almost certainly be a “yes” vote for the expansion of women’s access to abortion.
