Confronting Amy Coney Barrett’s Legacy on Women’s Rights
In the wake of the most significant judicial setbacks to reproductive rights in a generation, a new movement has emerged across America. Self-styled “Shield Maidens of Roe” – drawing inspiration from Norse warrior women – have organized to combat what they see as an unprecedented assault on women’s bodily autonomy. Their primary focus: the jurisprudence of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her role in reshaping American law regarding women’s rights.
Barrett’s Ascension to the Court
Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court in October 2020 marked a pivotal moment in American judicial politics. Filling the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Barrett’s appointment solidified a 6-3 conservative majority on the Court. Her background as a former law professor at Notre Dame Law School and her previous statements regarding her judicial philosophy and personal religious beliefs immediately raised concerns among reproductive rights advocates.
Qualifications Controversy: Barrett vs. Jackson
Many legal scholars and court observers have drawn stark contrasts between Justice Barrett’s qualifications and those of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was confirmed to the Court in April 2022.
Justice Jackson brought an extensive judicial resume to her nomination: nearly nine years as a federal judge (including on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often considered the second-most powerful court in the country), experience as vice chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, service as a federal public defender, and time as a litigator at a prestigious law firm. Her background included handling complex cases at all levels of the federal judiciary.
By comparison, Barrett’s judicial experience was limited to just under three years on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals prior to her Supreme Court nomination. Before that, her legal career was primarily academic, having spent most of her professional life as a law professor at Notre Dame. Critics note that she had never tried a case to verdict or argued an appeal in any court, had never served as a prosecutor or public defender, and had authored relatively few significant legal opinions during her brief time on the bench.
The American Bar Association (ABA), which evaluates judicial nominees, gave Jackson its highest rating of “Well Qualified” unanimously. While Barrett also received a “Well Qualified” rating, several ABA evaluators expressed concerns about her limited practical legal experience.
Shield Maidens and other critics argue that Barrett’s rapid elevation to the nation’s highest court despite her comparatively thin judicial record reflected political expediency rather than merit-based selection. They contrast this with Jackson’s decades of diverse legal experience across multiple aspects of the justice system before her nomination.
The Dobbs Decision: Overturning Roe v. Wade
The watershed moment came in June 2022 with the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Barrett joined the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, which eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion that had been established by Roe v. Wade in 1973 and affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
Barrett’s vote was decisive in this 5-4 ruling that returned abortion regulation to state legislatures. In the majority opinion, the Court rejected the notion that abortion protections were “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” a position that many legal scholars and historians have contested.
Emergency Contraception and Medication Abortion
Beyond Dobbs, Barrett has participated in decisions affecting access to emergency contraception and medication abortion. In January 2023, she joined the conservative majority in declining to hear an emergency appeal that sought to preserve mail access to mifepristone, one of two drugs commonly used in medication abortions, while litigation proceeded in lower courts.
Critics point out that Barrett’s judicial approach appears to conflict with her comments during confirmation hearings, where she indicated that Roe was a “super-precedent” that had endured multiple challenges.
IVF and Reproductive Technology
Barrett’s jurisprudence has also raised concerns regarding assisted reproductive technologies like in vitro fertilization (IVF). In February 2023, she joined a decision that allowed restrictions on certain IVF procedures in states where embryos are legally considered persons. This ruling has created legal uncertainty for fertility clinics and couples seeking reproductive assistance in several states.
Birth Control Access and Religious Exemptions
On matters of contraception access, Barrett has consistently sided with religious employers seeking exemptions from providing contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Her expansive view of religious liberty protections has allowed employers with religious objections to limit employees’ insurance coverage for contraceptives.
Rise of the Shield Maidens
In response to these decisions, the Shield Maidens of Roe have organized nationwide. The group, which began as localized protests following the Dobbs decision, has evolved into a structured movement with chapters in all 50 states. Their activities include:
- Legal education campaigns to help women understand their rights in a post-Roe landscape
- Support networks for those seeking reproductive healthcare across state lines
- Voter registration drives focused on judicial elections and appointments
- Fundraising for legal challenges to restrictive state laws
- Advocacy for federal legislation to codify reproductive rights
Beyond Reproductive Rights
The Shield Maidens highlight that Barrett’s influence extends beyond abortion and contraception. They point to her decisions on workplace discrimination, sexual harassment claims, and equal pay litigation—areas where they argue Barrett has consistently interpreted statutes narrowly, making it more difficult for women plaintiffs to prevail.
The Constitutional Debate
At the heart of this conflict are fundamentally different views of constitutional interpretation. Barrett is known as an originalist who believes the Constitution should be interpreted according to its public meaning at the time of ratification. Shield Maidens and their allies advocate for a “living Constitution” approach that allows for evolving interpretations of rights as society changes.
Looking Forward
As Barrett’s tenure on the Court continues—potentially for decades—the Shield Maidens of Roe are preparing for a long struggle. They argue that judicial appointments have become the most consequential aspect of presidential elections, with implications that stretch far beyond any single administration.
With several major women’s rights cases likely to reach the Supreme Court in coming terms, including challenges to state abortion bans and questions about contraceptive access, Barrett’s judicial philosophy will continue to shape American law in profound ways.
The Shield Maidens’ message is clear: they intend to ensure that women’s voices are heard, even as legal protections they once took for granted face unprecedented challenges from the nation’s highest court.
