Several left-wing feminists failed to rally around Judge Amy Coney Barrett as her confirmation hearings kicked off, mocking her and belittling her status as a mother of seven children.
Feminist author Lauren Hough unleashed a slew of attacks on Barrett on Monday, remarking, “It’s a very weird thing to watch these old creeps congratulate a handmaid on her clown car vagina.”
“You can tell a lot about how a judge will rule by her fertility so I’m glad she’s already proven hers because the cervix check really shouldn’t be done live,” she mocked, adding, “But I’m excited for her to share her casserole recipe and some stain-removal tips”:
She continued belittling Barrett’s status as a mother on Tuesday, sarcastically asking, “Does anyone know if Amy Coney Barrett has kids or a family?”
Author, activist, and self-described “expert in online hate & harassment” Soraya Chemaly expressed anger at the GOP for presenting Barrett as a “support of women’s power,” calling her a “prototypical ‘exceptional woman’ of gender ideology”:
Like others, politics writer Laura Bassett also targeted Barrett’s status as a mother.
“Republicans’ argument today, in sum: ‘We love her because she’s a mom, and she will force you to be a mom too. If you don’t love that then you must a party that hates moms,’” she said:
Leftist filmmaker Michael Moore also piled on, posting a deceptively edited photo of Barrett in a red dress, comparing her to a handmaid. The dress Barrett wore on Monday was hot pink — not red:
Washington Post contributor Jill Filipovic suggested that the GOP has “emphasized Amy Coney Barrett’s fertility and family size.”
“It’s almost like the message is, ok you’re a very successful Career Woman, but you’ve justified your selfish ambitions by having seven kids so it’s ok,” she said. Fellow Post contributor Helaine Olen appeared to agree, taking issue with the emphasis on Barrett’s family:
Filipovic also asked, “Has anyone ever called a male judge a ‘working dad’?”:
Barrett briefly addressed the attacks against her and her family during Tuesday’s hearing. She and her husband had a very brief amount of time to make a decision with “momentous consequences for our family,” she said.
“We knew that our lives would be combed over for any negative detail. We knew our faith would be caricatured. We knew our family would be attacked,” she said:
And so we had to decide whether those difficulties would be worth it, because what sane person would go through that if there wasn’t a benefit on the other side? And the benefit, I think, is that I’m committed to the rule of law and the role of the Supreme Court in dispensing equal justice for all. I’m not the only person who could do this job, but I was asked and it would be difficult for anyone, so why should I say someone else should do the difficulty if the difficulty is the only reason to say no?
“I should serve my country, and my family is all in on that because they share my belief in the rule of law,” she added.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.