While Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson does not have an in-depth abortion record, pro-life groups point to past scenarios in order to explain her possible stance on abortion.
One includes a response to a question during her nomination process to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Jackson was asked, “Does the Constitution protect rights that are not expressly enumerated in the Constitution? Which rights?”
Jackson went on to answer, “The Supreme Court has determined that the Constitution protects certain rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.” She pointed to cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, and Eisenstadt v. Baird, (1972), which “recognize an unenumerated right to privacy that encompasses the right to marital privacy and to use contraception.”
She also noted that “Obergefell v. Hodges, […] (2015), and Loving v. Virginia, […](1967), affirm a constitutional right to marry, while other cases “recognize the right to have children and to direct their education.”
She went on to answer that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey “articulate a limited right to terminate a pregnancy, particularly before viability…”
When asked about her judicial philosophy, Jackson said she does not have one, but she did point to the importance of past Supreme Court decisions.
She noted, “In every case that I have handled as a district judge, I have considered only the parties’ arguments, the relevant facts, and the law as I understand it, including the text of any applicable statutes and the binding precedents of the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit.”
In response to another question, she noted, “A circuit judge might properly encourage the Supreme Court to reconsider holdings that are confusing or otherwise problematic in application, by pointing out a problem with the interpretation or application of a precedent, in either a concurrence or a dissent.”
She continued, “But it would not be proper for a circuit court judge to depart from Supreme Court precedent when ruling in a case.”
Jackson has also appeared to rule against pro-life groups or efforts in the past.
As The Daily Wire reported:
Jackson’s case background on abortion appears relatively limited, though she clearly sides with Biden’s pro-abortion perspective.
“In a related case, she ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to cut grant funding under the federal Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program. In Policy and Research v. HHS, she found that the administration had not properly grounded its action in the mandates of the Administrative Procedure Act,” The Washington Post reported.
While she was a lawyer, Jackson wrote an amicus brief in defense of a Massachusetts law that controlled actions within a certain distance of reproductive health care centers.
According to the brief:
The Massachusetts Act, however, regulates conduct only within eighteen feet of a “reproductive health care facility.”
Within that narrow zone, the Act makes it unlawful to “knowingly approach” within six feet of another person, without that person’s consent, “for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education or counseling with such other person….”
The amicus brief also stated:
Contrary to the district court’s implication, the Act grew out of a sustained legislative effort to balance the free speech rights of abortion protesters against patients’ and providers’ right of access. The Legislature’s solution, developed by a working committee comprised of legislators with differing views on the issue, was a compromise: a statute that permits speakers on all sides of the abortion debate to voice their views about reproductive health services openly and vigorously, so long as, within an eighteen-foot radius of clinic entrances and driveways, such speakers do not approach within six feet of unconsenting individuals. This “floating bubble” legislation has the advantage of protecting the interests of~ involved in the abortion debate: it allows free and open communication while at the same time enabling patients and staff members to proceed into the clinic unhindered.
She has received support from pro-abortion groups, such as the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Alexis McGill Johnson.
Whitney Robertson, press secretary at America Rising PAC, provided the following statement to The Daily Wire regarding Jackson’s nomination:
Ketanji Brown Jackson is the abortion lobby’s dream of a nominee to the Supreme Court. She has consistently sided with causes that earned her the endorsements of the nation’s most prominent abortion groups. If the Democrats were looking for a rubber stamp for their anti-life agenda, they found one in Judge Jackson.
The topic of abortion is a contentious issue going into the summer as the Supreme Court considers a law out of Mississippi that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. With a ruling, the high court could decide to overturn Roe v. Wade, severely limit it, or uphold the past decision.