Maine Senator Susan Collins responded to news of the leaked draft of the Dobbs decision with skepticism on May 3, 2022. She remarked, “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision, and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meeting in my office.” When pressed for further elaboration, Collins declined, stating that her statement “speaks for itself.”
Collins’ comment highlighted a long-standing trend among Supreme Court nominees, including Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who refrained from explicitly revealing their positions on significant legal matters during their confirmation hearings. However, it also underscored a larger issue regarding reproductive rights, particularly in vitro fertilization (IVF), which is once again under scrutiny.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were widely understood, including by Collins, to have been nominated with the expectation that they might contribute to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh, in particular, hinted at his stance on Roe during his confirmation hearings by referencing the “Glucksberg test,” indicating a precedent that could potentially be applied to abortion rights cases.
Susan Collins (Credits: CNN)
This historical context is crucial as Collins and other Republicans face scrutiny over their positions on reproductive rights, especially in light of recent legal developments concerning IVF, such as the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling considering frozen embryos as persons.
While some Republicans expressed support for IVF, their advocacy seemed contradictory given their past support for measures like the Life at Conception Act, which aimed to establish fertilized eggs as legal persons and ban abortions nationwide.
The Alabama ruling highlighted the broader efforts aimed at restricting reproductive rights across the country, reflecting a decades-long campaign to dismantle Roe v. Wade and impose stricter abortion regulations.
The response to the ruling revealed a division within the Republican party between those advocating for incremental restrictions and more extreme positions calling for an immediate ban on abortions.
In the face of mounting pressure, some Republicans attempted to rebrand their stance on abortion as moderate, proposing resolutions or legislation ostensibly supporting IVF without meaningful impact. However, the true battleground for reproductive rights lies in the states, where radical factions hold significant influence, and efforts to undermine these rights persist despite superficial assurances.
As the election year progresses, Republicans are expected to obfuscate their true positions on abortion, presenting themselves as moderate while supporting measures that erode reproductive freedoms. It remains to be seen whether the media will challenge these misleading narratives and provide the necessary context to expose the underlying agenda of the GOP in its efforts to roll back abortion rights.
