THANK YOU AND I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLEMENT THE WITNESS. I THINK YOU ARE DOING VERY WELL. THIS IS A BIT OF A TOUGH PLACE. ONE OF THE ISSUE I HAVE WITH APPOINTEES IS ABORTION. I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS IT WITH YOU TODAY. IN 2017, I ASKED JUSTICE GORSUCH ABOUT THIS DURING HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING. I ASK HIM TO EXPAND ON A COMMENT HE HAD MADE ABOUT HIS BELIEF THAT PRECEDENT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT ADDS STABILITY TO THE LAW. IN RESPONSE, JUSTICE GORSUCH REITERATED HIS BELIEF THAT PRECEDENT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE AND I QUOTE ONCE A CASE IS SETTLED, THAT ADDS TO THE DETERMINANT SEE OF THE LAW. HE ALSO STATED THAT ROE HAS BEEN REAFFIRMED MANY TIMES. I ALSO SPOKE WITH JUDGE KAVANAUGH MANY TIMES. I ASKED HIM WHETHER HE BELIEVES THAT ROE WAS SETTLED WRONG AND IF SO, WAS IT CORRECTLY SETTLED. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH SAID THAT ROE IS SETTLED AS A PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT. HE SAID THAT ROE HAS BEEN REAFFIRMED MANY TIMES AND MOST PROMINENTLY MOST IMPORTANTLY REAFFIRMED IN PLANNED PARENTHOOD V CASEY. HE DESCRIBED CASEY AS HAVING THE VALUE OF A PRECEDENT ON PRECEDENT. I MOST RECENTLY SPOKE ABOUT THIS ISSUE WITH JUSTICE BARRETT 2020. I ASKED HER WHETHER SHE AGREED WITH JUSTICE SCALIA'S VIEW THAT ROE WAS WRONGLY DECIDED. SHE COMMITTED TO QUOTE OBEY ALL OF THE RULES IF FACED WITH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO OVERRULE CASEY. SHE SAID SHE HAD QUOTE NO AGENDA TO TRY TO OVERRULE CASEY". HERE'S A QUESTION. DO YOU AGREE WITH JUSTICE KAVANAUGH THAT ROE V. WADE IS SETTLED AS A PRECEDENT AND WILL YOU LIKE JUSTICE BARRETT COMMIT TO OBEY ALL OF THE RULES OF STARE DECISIS IN CASES RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF ABORTION? THANK YOU, SENATOR. I DO AGREE WITH BOTH JUSTICE KAVANAUGH AND JUSTICE BARRETT ON THIS ISSUE. ROE AND CASEY ARE THE SETTLED LAW OF THE SUPREME COURT CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE A WOMAN'S PREGNANCY. THEY HAVE ESTABLISHED A FRAMEWORK THAT THE COURT HAS REAFFIRMED AND IN ORDER TO REVISIT AS JUSTICE BARRETT SAID THE SUPREME COURT LOOKS AT VARIOUS FACTORS BECAUSE STARRY DECISIVE'S IS AN IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE. IT PROVIDES AND ESTABLISHES PREDICTABILITY, STABILITY, IT ALSO SERVES AS A RESTRAINT IN THIS WAY ON THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY BECAUSE THE COURT LOOKS AT WHETHER OR NOT PRECEDENTS ARE RELIED UPON, WORKABLE, IN ADDITION TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE WRONG. AND OTHER FACTORS AS WELL. I AGREE WITH BOTH OF THOSE STATEMENTS THAT YOU READ. 