WASHINGTON — President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee is a constitutional originalist who opposes all forms of assisted suicide and ruled twice against the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate but has never ruled on abortion.

Trump announced the nomination of Neil Gorsuch on Tuesday night, kicking off what Democrats have said will be a contentious confirmation process to fill the seat of the late Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch is currently serving on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which holds jurisdiction over six western states

The 49-year-old Gorsuch holds a Harvard law degree and a PhD in legal philosophy from Oxford.


In 2009, he authored “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” in which he argues against the practice from both a moral and legal standpoint.

“It is an argument premised on the idea that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong,” Gorsuch wrote in the opening pages of the book.

Federal rulings on physician-assisted suicide have been limited. Most recently, a 2006 Supreme Court ruling continued to defer to the states on the matter. In 2009, the Montana Supreme Court ruled against prosecuting doctors who provide aid in dying but made no ruling on the broader legality. But its opponents are still hankering for a fight: In a November op-ed, Wisconsin’s deputy solicitor general urged another legal battle over the issue and a change in conservative legal tactics.

In Hobby Lobby’s lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, Gorsuch sided with the company in an initial circuit court ruling in 2013 as it sought a religious exemption to the mandate. The ensuing Supreme Court decision allowed privately owned for-profit companies to claim a religious objection to the mandate that they cover contraception for their employees.

In a later case also centered on the law’s contraception requirements, Gorsuch joined a dissent in a ruling that denied a motion by other opponents of the mandate claiming religious objections. The dissent blasted the majority for their “dangerous approach to religious liberty.”

With Trump’s recent executive order instructing federal agencies to “ease the burdens” of Obamacare, the contraception mandate could once again end up entangled in litigation.

On the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, however, Gorsuch’s appointment does not move the court in a different direction. Though he has never ruled on abortion before, Gorsuch is expected to vote as the deeply conservative Scalia did should the issue appear again before the justices.

The security of the 44-year-old Roe v. Wade ruling is among liberal groups’ chief concerns when it comes to Trump’s judicial nominees.

Trump said during the 2016 campaign that he is personally opposed to abortion, and that he would appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade so that states could decide their positions on the issue individually.

Senate Republicans now face a procedural decision if Democrats try to block Gorsuch’s confirmation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can employ the so-called “nuclear option” — which would allow Trump’s nominee to pass via simple majority rather than the usual 60-vote margin. But McConnell has in the past sounded reluctant to change the chamber’s rules.

Many Democrats, incensed that Senate Republicans never gave former Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing or vote after his nomination in March 2016, vowed to oppose Trump’s nominee even before Gorsuch was announced. It remains to be seen, however, if enough Democrats will unite to stop his nomination without a change in Senate rules.

When President George W. Bush appointed Gorsuch in 2006 to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, he was confirmed by the Senate with a voice vote.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • I cared for my wife as she lost autonomy during her last 18 months. I learned that you can work on 4 hours sleep. The corporate promoters, K Tucker, of assisted suicide now sell with feelings of fear of losing autonomy flying in the face of those living every day with loss of autonomy. This is insidious. This is why the secular left disability rights community is leading the resistance. They and libertarians know these laws do not assure individual choice.
    The medical standard of care established by the non transparent OR/WA euthanasia policy is an application of poison for anyone with feelings of concern about losing autonomy. This is documented by the OR/WA state reports. Now they propose 1 day turn around from diagnosis to death by poison in Hawaii.
    That is the low bar of standard of care the corporate promoters of euthanasia want to establish for us all. That will put us all (all ages) at risk of exploitation by the medical industrial complex, human trafficking by predatory corporations, covert organ traffickers, predatory heirs and “new best friends” like Oregon’s Thomas Middleton killers via the Oregon policy. This public policy is neither reasonable nor prudent rather it is insidious at best.
    Bradley Williams
    President MTaas

Sign up for our Daily Recap newsletter

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy