Mon. 4/16 – That’s a hard “NO” on Wendy Vitter

She would like a lifetime position on the  Federal Bench in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

It’s hard to imagine a worse judicial nominee than Wendy Vitter. She’s pushed fake science as fact when it suits her anti-abortion agenda, for example, championing baseless theories linking abortion and contraception to cancer and infertility. She won’t even say her opinion on Brown vs. Board of Education decision out loud. She has stated anti-immigrant views and has worked in a DA’s office which was accused of multiple instances of unconstitutional behavior.

Minimal Script: I’m calling from [zip code] to urge Senator [___] to oppose the nomination of Wendy Vitter.

More script if you want it: Her extreme fact-free anti-abortion views endanger our health, and her shocking refusal to disavow the segregation of schools puts her far outside the judicial mainstream. Vitter is a dangerous and unqualified nominee who shouldn’t be let anywhere near a federal bench.


Senator Feinstein: DC (202) 224-3841, LA (310) 914-7300, SF (415) 393-0707, SD (619) 231-9712, Fresno (559) 485-7430
and Senator Harris: DC (202) 224-3553, LA (213) 894-5000, SAC (916) 448-2787, Fresno (559) 497-5109, SF (415) 355-9041, SD (619) 239-3884
Other Senator Contacts:

Deeper Dive

(the slot) At the 2013 Louisiana Needs Peace Conference conference, Vitter espoused anti-abortion and anti-birth control positions that range from standard to extreme. She praised Texas’s TRAP laws, arguing that they were passed to protect women and their health (despite evidence otherwise). While moderating a panel sponsored by Lousiana Right to Life, Vitter endorses a brochure called “The Pill Kills,” from the anti-abortion Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, that links oral contraception with cervical, breast, and liver cancers, as well as suicide and “violent death.” The brochure posits that women who are on the pill are more attracted to men who are genetically similar. That similarity leads to “less healthy” children and infidelity, thus producing intimate partner violence.

What?  (The whole ball of medical-sounding nonsense is here…)

AFJ noted that the nominee had left anti-abortion speeches off her Senate questionnaire. When challenged, whe supplemented her original submission with approximately 100 new entries. Quite a lot to have “forgotten”. Her previous career at the Orleans Parish DA’s office came during a time when the office was under scrutiny for repeated failures to disclose evidence to defense counsel. Vitter’s leadership role as Chief of Trials in an office that had “blatant and repeated violations” of the Constitution and a culture that was “deliberately indifferent”to the law. And despite actually acting as counsel for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, Catholic Charities who were helping resettle Syrian refugees in Louisiana, she made clear that she opposed this humanitarian aid.

This week, at her hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she refused to say whether she supported Brown v Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court decision that ended school segregation. The ruling has quite literally touched the lives of every single American, providing the legal basis not just for the desegregation of our schools but all public life. If judicial nominees — or nominees for any other office for that matter — cannot affirm the veracity of the court’s decision, they cannot be trusted to uphold the responsibilities fairly of the position they seek.

This isn’t the first time Trump has nominated an unqualified ideologue for a judgeship, but even for him, Wendy Vitter is an outrageously inappropriate choice.



Trump wants Wendy Vitter, who thinks Planned Parenthood killed 150000 women a year to be a federal judge (Mother Jones)

Wendy Vitter won’t say if she supports Brown vs. Board of Education (time)

In a field of terrible judicial nominees, Wendy Vitter is exceptionally unfit (the hill)

Trump’s Latest Judicial Nominee Once Promoted Literature That Claims the Pill Causes ‘Violent Death’ (the slot)

A judge pick who won’t back landmark Brown case is unacceptable (CNN)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s