Fact checkers have called out attacks on Judge Kavanaugh for what they are: absolutely false.
THE WASHINGTON POST: “DID BRETT KAVANAUGH SIGNAL HE SUPPORTS ‘GOING AFTER BIRTH CONTROL?’”
Harris took aim at Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh for comments he made regarding “abortion-inducing drugs” when discussing a case brought by an antiabortion religious group challenging Obamacare rules on providing employees health coverage for contraception.
During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) questioned Kavanaugh about the case, asking: “Can you tell this committee about that case and your opinion there?”
[Kavanaugh replied] “It was a technical matter of filling out a form, in that case with — that — they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were — as a religious matter, objected to.”
The issue at hand is Kavanaugh’s reference to “abortion-inducing drugs.” A plain reading of his sentence, with its reference to “they said,” suggests that he is merely reflecting the plaintiffs’ argument. Harris’s decision to snip those crucial words from her first post on the video is certainly troubling.
[I]t’s pretty clear from the context that he was quoting the views of the plaintiffs rather than offering a personal view.
Harris’s original tweet, with the “they say” language removed, was slightly mitigated by the second tweet a day later, providing the full context. But there was no acknowledgment by Harris that the original tweet was misleading. She earns Four Pinocchios — and her fellow Democrats should drop this talking point.
POLITIFACT: “DID BRETT KAVANAUGH CALL BIRTH CONTROL ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS? NO”
Democrats rallied around Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s reference to popular contraceptive methods as “abortion-inducing” during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., tweeted an 11-second clip in which Kavanaugh said, “Filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to.”
Harris’ tweet takes Kavanaugh’s statement out of context.
Harris cut an important second out of the clip — the attribution. Kavanaugh said, “They said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to.”
“They” refers to a Catholic nonprofit group, Priests for Life. Kavanaugh was answering a question from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, about a case in which he argued Priests for Life shouldn’t have to provide women with the contraceptive coverage mandated by the Affordable Care Act for religious reasons.
In the follow-up to his answer, Kavanaugh says the government did, in fact, have a compelling reason to ensure birth control access to the employees. But he determined the government could provide it without doing so on the backs of the religious objector.
Harris tweeted a clip in which Kavanaugh said, “Filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were — as a religious matter, objected to.”
In Harris’ tweet, Kavanaugh appears to define contraception as abortion-inducing. But the video failed to include a crucial qualifier: “They said.” In fact, he was citing the definition of the religious group Priests for Life. He has not expressed his personal view.
We rate this statement False.
DAVID LAT IN ABOVE THE LAW: “IN DEFENSE OF JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH”
The claims that Judge Kavanaugh lied under oath are without merit.
There are legitimate and illegitimate reasons to oppose the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. Unfortunately, the illegitimate ones seem to be taking center stage right now.
The illegitimate reasons relate to Judge Kavanaugh’s integrity and ethics. As David French put it in an excellent essay for the National Review, the nominee has been the victim of unfair and unfortunate attacks on his character.
The most recent attacks accuse Judge Kavanaugh of committing perjury. He has testified for dozens of hours at three separate confirmation hearings — in 2004 and 2006 for the D.C. Circuit, and last week for the Supreme Court — and his opponents have been scouring this voluminous testimony to try and find what they view as false and misleading statements.
After viewing the testimonial and documentary evidence, I concluded that the claims lack merit.
“[T]his ‘perjury’ argument is without merit — an unfair and unfounded attack against Judge Kavanaugh. Vote against him if you disagree with his jurisprudence, fine — but please don’t slander him. Thanks.”