You’re never gonna believe this.
Amy Coney Barrett reportedly landed a $2 million advance for a book that basically amounts to “I meant to do that” when it comes to wiping out abortion rights - and the spin is almost as cynical as the act itself.
In “Listening to the Law,” Barrett insists the Court should “respect the choices that the people have agreed upon, not to tell them what they should agree to.” Cute line from the same woman who voted to let states tell millions of American women what they can’t do with their own bodies. I call that gaslighting with a gavel.
The fact remains that most Americans support legal abortion in most situations. Support remains steady after Roe’s overturn. But why would you get a ruling that reflects the will of the people when SCOTUS is made up of justices appointed by minority rule? Barrett insists the Court was simply honoring “the choices that the people have agreed upon.” Apparently, “the people” in Barrett’s world excludes the majority.
The New York Times reported in 2023 that she originally balked at taking up Dobbs, like she never anticipated the case resurfacing once the court had a conservative majority. Suuuuuure!
But she ended up going along with the 5-4 vote anyway. Basically she’s saying that she knew it was a grenade, pulled the pin, and now wants applause for her courage. The book cherry-picks history too - claiming abortion “had long been forbidden” which conveniently ignores that English common law allowed abortions before “quickening” - around 16 to 18 weeks. Details like that tend to get fuzzy when you’re cashing a $2 million check.
In the book, she tries to paint abortion as a “complicated moral debate” that sets it apart from marriage, sex, or contraception. Interesting timing given the Court is being asked to revisit same-sex marriage this fall. Translation: those rights are next on the chopping block.
The money itself is its own indictment. A Supreme Court justice making $268,300 a year in taxpayer dollars decides to moonlight for a reported $2 million six months into the job, with only two majority opinions under her belt. Legal scholars called the optics “bad.” That’s putting it politely.
Barrett also admits that “glossing over issues is often deliberate” and that vagueness is the price of consensus. In plain English: we intentionally write opinions that dodge accountability while still delivering the political results. At least she’s honest about one thing.
Trump put her on the Court to kill Roe. She killed Roe. Now she’s monetizing the kill shot with a glossy book tour. That’s not jurisprudence - it’s simply another grift.
Correction, September 28th, 2026: This essay first said Barrett says she balked at taking up Dobbs - that came from The New York Times’s 2023 reporting, not from her. It also said a justice made $250,000 a year - it was $268,300 in 2021, when her book deal was reported. And it misquoted her book - the words are “the choices that the people have agreed upon,” abortion “had long been forbidden” and a “complicated moral debate.”
Update, September 28th, 2026: A few lines now say the $2 million is a reported book advance and that Dobbs let states, not the Court, decide what women can do with their bodies.