Grassley’s Gavel: Hammering Down on Reproductive Rights”.

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds the keys to the future of American constitutional law, vetting judicial appointments that shape the nation for generations. With the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House on November 5th, and Senator Chuck Grassley likely reassuming the gavel at the Judiciary Committee, the already dim outlook for reproductive rights could darken considerably.

I’m sure none of you have any doubt—I am not a conservative. As someone deeply concerned about reproductive rights and judicial integrity, I worry about the potential return of Donald Trump and its implications.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is poised to pick up the gavel once more as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, assuming Republicans win on November 5th. At age 91, even GOP senators are privately whispering concerns about the congressional dinosaur’s ability to lead such an influential panel. And really, in a political landscape dominated by talk of age—be it Biden, Trump, or that one really long meeting you can’t escape—there are legitimate questions about whether Grassley has the stamina for such a job. While age alone doesn’t disqualify someone, young voters, new to the political stage, will surely be asking: “Is this the best we can do?”

But let’s leave age out of it for a moment. Grassley’s return as Chair of the Judiciary Committee would be the final nail in the coffin for reproductive rights in the United States. The fact that Donald Trump was able to make three successful Supreme Court nominations during his presidency was one of the biggest accidents in history. It handed us a conservative, strict constructionist court that tookMississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks and used it to effectively end the constitutional right to abortion.

Strict constructionism—the idea that we should read the Constitution like it’s 1787, powdered wigs and all—is the sworn enemy of progress. Especially for those of us who want to see a universal right to abortion up until foetal viability (about 22 weeks), which, by the way, is something Vice President Kamala Harris has been very vocal about during Biden’s presidency. The fact is the framers didn’t make provisions for modern reproductive healthcare in their document. So why are we pretending that reading it as they wrote it is some kind of genius approach to 21st-century governance? 

Grassley’s stance on reproductive rights is no secret. He’s proudly declared, “I’m pro-life, I’m pro-woman and I’m pro-family. These views are not in conflict”.The irony, of course, is hard to miss. How exactly does one claim to be pro-woman while championing policies that strip women of their autonomy over their own bodies? It’s the classic sleight of hand we’ve come to expect from conservative rhetoric—wrapping restrictions on reproductive rights in a package labelled “pro-woman” while ignoring the devastating impact these policies have on women’s health, freedom, and futures.

Grassley was front and centre when he blockedPresident Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016, arguing that the vacancy shouldn’t be filled in an election year. The result? ASupreme Court vacancy as the rallying cry for Trump’s first campaign. Fast forward, and Grassley’s manoeuvring gifted Trump his first nominee, Neil Gorsuch, and then a second. You can pretty much credit the Court’s conservative stranglehold on Grassley’s persistence.

And if we’re talking about controversial nominations, we can’t skip Brett Kavanaugh. Grassley presided over those 2018 hearings, where Kavanaugh faced allegations of sexual misconduct, yet still defended him publicly, calling him a ‘superb’ nominee and advocating for a limited inquiry into the allegations. Kavanaugh, of course, was confirmed—because in the world of Grassley, it seems you don’t let something as trivial as accusations of sexual assault get in the way of a good ol’ Supreme Court appointment.

Mike Davis, Grassley’s former chief counsel for nominations, quipped that Trump would “be very happy it’s Grassley,” because Grassley has been “very effective for Trump.” And he’s right. Grassley’s strategic brilliance ensured Trump’s lasting impact on the highest court in the land.

According to a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee (who remains anonymous, as all exciting whistle blowers do), Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito could be eyeing retirement. This isn’t just any reshuffle. This could be the moment where the Court’s conservative wing cements its dominance for generations to come. The stakes couldn’t be higher for reproductive rights, democracy, or anything resembling a progressive agenda.

If the Republicans win in November, with Trump back in the White House and Grassley once again wielding the gavel, the constitutional right to abortion will be well and truly buried, and I don’t see any branches being lowered to help. In fact, the ladder to restore these rights might just be kicked away altogether.

Grassley might be 91, but his influence on the judiciary is stronger than ever. If Republicans regain control of the Senate, reproductive rights in America will continue their downward spiral into oblivion, and the threat to democracy exacerbated. The Founding Fathers might not have written about abortion, but that isn’t stopping us from making it a national, if not global, issue during this election, and beyond. 

Archie Rankin is a Fellow at the Sixteenth Council.