�Թϲ�����

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett signed an antiabortion newspaper advertisement more than a decade ago that blasted the high court’s landmark abortion rights ruling in Roe v. Wade, a public stance that brought new focus Thursday to a central issue in her confirmation battle. A Senate Democratic aide said “the ad should have been included in Judge Barrett’s Senate Judiciary questionnaire and was not.” The Senate Judiciary Committee, which is vetting her nomination, had asked her to provide a list of all published material, including letters to the editor. (Hughes and Kendall, 10/1)

Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, added her name to a local newspaper advertisement in 2006 that decried the “barbaric legacy” of Roe v. Wade and advocated overturning the landmark decision that guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion. The public declaration from Barrett drew criticism Thursday from a top Democrat who warned that Senate confirmation of the conservative judge to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would threaten women’s reproductive rights. (Itkowitz, 10/1)

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, participated in a "mock" ruling exercise on the Affordable Care Act before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death. Her position on the moot court over the Affordable Care Act, also called ObamaCare, mostly went against the Trump administration's stance, according to the Los Angeles Times. (Deese, 10/1)

The American Medical Association (AMA), the nation’s largest doctors’ group, filed a petition to the Supreme Court Thursday asking it to strike down a rule from the Trump administration barring clinics funded by taxpayers from referring women for abortions. The petition was also filed in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood, the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association and and Essential Access Health, which administers the Title X family planning program in California. It comes after two seemingly contradictory rulings from two federal appeals courts on the administration’s restriction. (Axelrod, 10/1)