In a move that raises eyebrows, Senate Republicans are poised to confirm a lifetime appointment for a federal judge who has openly criticized fertility treatments and surrogacy. The nominee, Emily Carter, a former law clerk for a Supreme Court justice, has expressed strong opposition to methods like in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogate motherhood, arguing that they have “serious negative consequences for society.” Carter believes these practices undermine the sanctity of motherhood, lead to the exploitation of women, and commodify both pregnancy and children.
Carter, who has been nominated for a position on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, voiced her concerns in 2017 while contesting a California law aimed at safeguarding access to assisted reproductive technologies. Her track record indicates a commitment to limiting reproductive rights; she previously defended an anti-abortion activist who illegally recorded videos to falsely accuse a major healthcare provider of selling fetal tissue. Furthermore, Carter supported Iowa’s controversial six-week abortion ban, which was ultimately deemed unconstitutional. She has also made unfounded claims asserting that “human life begins at conception,” which is not supported by scientific consensus.
This raises perplexing questions about her stance. How can someone advocate for the sanctity of life yet oppose the very means by which some couples can conceive? It seems contradictory to be against abortion while simultaneously criticizing alternative reproductive methods, such as surrogacy. The logic just doesn’t align.
Additionally, Carter stood by her former boss during his own tumultuous confirmation process, defending him against credible allegations of misconduct. In a public statement, she characterized the accusations as unsubstantiated and damaging to his reputation.
Over 200 civil and human rights organizations have signed a letter urging the Senate to reject Carter’s nomination, labeling her an “ideological extremist” whose career reflects a dedication to restricting reproductive freedoms and access to healthcare for women.
For more on related topics, you can check out our other post on fertility options here. For those interested in the science behind pregnancy, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development is an excellent resource here. If you’re looking into more specific methods, you can visit this resource for insights.
In summary, the confirmation of Emily Carter as a federal judge raises significant concerns regarding her opposition to fertility treatments and reproductive rights. Her past actions and statements suggest a commitment to limiting access to essential healthcare services for women, which has prompted widespread backlash from numerous advocacy groups.