Susan Collins Said Kavanaugh Called Roe “Settled Law.” She Should Have Heard Him in Court Today.

Sarah Silbiger/ Zuma

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Remember when Republican Sen. Susan Collins broke the tie to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s to the Supreme Court in 2018?

At the time, Collins was just one of two undecided senators. Her vote of support was pivotal to putting Kavanaugh in the highest court despite many scandals, including an accusation of sexual assault. A large piece of this was that Collins—who supports abortion rights—told the public that Kavanaugh wasn’t likely to overturn Roe v. Wade; that, in fact, she would not support a nominee who “demonstrates hostility” to the precedent. In a meeting, Collins said Kavanaugh had assuaged this fear by saying Roe was “settled law.” 

Well, that was three years ago and a lot has changed.

During today’s oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson on Mississippi’s law banning abortions after 15 weeks, Kavanaugh didn’t sound like the person who Collins described.

He asked Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart to clarify whether his state was “not arguing that the Court somehow has the authority to itself prohibit abortion…” Or, to put it in layperson terms, that if the court repeals Roe, that doesn’t mean it is outlawing abortion. Um, Brett, nobody is asking the Supreme Court to mandate an abortion ban. We’re talking about the fact that there is a fundamental right to abortion not being upheld for people in states intent on infringing upon it.

That wasn’t the end. Kavanaugh went on to list major court cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education, that overruled precedent. He said this was to show that “if we think that the prior precedents are seriously wrong,” it’s fine to overturn them. “Doesn’t the history of this court’s practice…tell us that the right answer is actually a return to the position of neutrality?” he continued.

Well, we know that a “position of neutrality” wouldn’t exactly be neutral. It would reverse Roe, overturning nearly 50 years of abortion rights for pregnant people.

Again, Collins, this isn’t sounding very “settled”! Her thoughts? Well, she told a reporter that she did not listen to the oral arguments.

“I did not see his questioning or hear any of the arguments. I hope to later tonight play them so I have first-hand knowledge…but so can’t comment about what I didn’t see,” she said, adding that she was “for” Roe.

This has frustrated colleagues. “I don’t know where she got that reassurance,” Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) told Mother Jones on Wednesday about Collins’ position, sounding exasperated. She cited Kavanaugh’s decision during his time as a DC Circuit judge that would have forced an undocumented minor further into pregnancy had a federal court not intervened to grant an abortion. “I have no assurances that he’s going to do much to protect a woman’s right to choose,” Hirono said. “He basically does not consider any regulatory burden so burdensome on a woman [that it should not legally exist].”

The three justices appointed under Trump—Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett—all appeared to signal support for Mississippi’s ban. A decision is expected next summer.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate