I, like many other citizens, am extremely concerned by the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Though there are many grievances I could list, I am going to focus on Kavanaugh’s threat to a woman’s right to choose.

I believe that abortions, in the words of Hillary Clinton, should be “safe, legal and rare.” In a perfect world, there would be nationwide, comprehensive, positive sex education alongside adequate health care, much like Switzerland which, coincidentally, has a rate of five abortions per every 1,000 women. However, America is far from ideal when it comes to women’s rights, so I firmly believe access to safe abortion procedures is necessary. Because of my opinions, I am opposed to any Supreme Court nominee who seeks to undermine Roe v. Wade.

Something I think that all citizens, not just Democrats, should be concerned about, is that Kavanaugh’s willingness to attack established law diminishes his validity. Despite his commitment to follow precedent, he has stated that he doesn’t believe abortion access is a constitutional right. This shows an utter lack of respect for the legal concept of stare decisis or “to stand by things decided,” which refers to the doctrine of precedent. If a judge seeks to undermine an already-existing law, then his commitment to the Constitution must be questioned.

If Kavanaugh is so intent on controlling reproductive rights that he has no qualms about threatening established law, then how is he possibly suited to sit on this nation’s highest court?

Eleanor Vance, Lewiston