Though generally heralded as a brilliant jurist, the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as an associate justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, allowed no challenge to the fact that brings the total number of such Catholic judges to at least six of the nine sitting justices. This jurist was clear that her religion, though an inherent part of who she is, would not be the final decider in her decisions.
Women's groups, liberal activists, LBGT groups and others with agendas from many vantage points opposed Barrett's nomination. After all, how could a woman oppose the right to an abortion? Their assault on the male jurists was not this pointed. Lost in the murky waters of religion is possibly the "originalist" intent of the Bible upon which their oath is taken.
Will the recent edicts of Pope Francis threaten to upturn centuries of biblical thought? What about his apparent sentiments that those identifying themselves as LGBT should have the option to be in a family?
The pope’s support for civil unions may reflect his leanings in that regard. Such “musings” may cause the courts to rethink the allowance of same sex marriages, making such unions civil — leaving this to governments, while leaving to the church traditionally religiously-based concepts of marriage.
Will the push for equality ultimately give transgender males the same rights as females? The concept of sexual preference for those desiring consummation of their sexuality based on their internal desire not their biology is a quandary which will be difficult to resolve in court. Should biological males be allowed to compete athletically with females?
”Harry Potter” author J. K. Rowling, on sex and gender identity, alluded to the fact that those who menstruate are a class all their own. This view, brought an avalanche of hate from the transgender community and its supporters. It may be argued, that when people want to promote a point of view, science may not matter.
Sexual orientation or gender identity is constantly morphing including LGBTQ, binary and much alliteration thereof. People believe they have the right to be whatever or whoever they want with no consequences and this will cause some interventions by the courts. Children under 18 in search of surgical permanent sexual body alterations which many later regret, should give us pause.
Whether this seems distasteful to some, the courts may rule on some of this. A Justice Amy Coney Barrett voice could be most reasonable in the mix.
If equality is rendered in most decisions in life, will religions which ask that women submit — or exist under the control of their families — or rules which fail to allow females fair inclusion be subjected to a hearing before the courts? Will children still be under the control of their families or the state?
Freedom of speech has ruled the day in allowing ministers to advocate G-d's calling unimpeded. Will causing a different definition of the look of sexual being make these voices heed instead the word of government?
If people want to preserve their freedoms, it is becoming clearer that they must not take government funds in administering their duties or be subject to federal laws in their existence. Unfortunately, there is nothing in a democracy which is proving not subject to federal law.
It has been claimed that the concept of family was at the center of our government and lives. Will our freedom to change who we are as sexual beings destroy this concept?Appreciate what an outstanding scholar such as Amy Coney Barrett will bring to these discussions and rulings.
Ada M. Fisher, MD, MPH is a former Medical Director in a Fortune 500 company, licensed teacher, retired physician, former county school board member, speaker, author of "Common Sense Conservative Prescriptions Good for What Ails Us Book 1" and was the NC Republican National Committeewoman (2008-2020). Read Dr. Ada M. Fisher's Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.