Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett says her son,12, asked why she had a bulletproof vest after Dobbs leak 33%

By Josh Christenson78%

7/14/2026, 4:06:59 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Anecdotal, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 28.6% saturation with 123 hits. Analysis detected 776 faulty-reasoning hits from 430 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.2% and a BS Rank of 33% (14,844 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 67.80% of the article peer group.

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett opened up Tuesday about the chilling moment she had to explain to her son why she had to wear a bulletproof vest following the leak of the opinion that overturned Roe v. 
Wade. 
Barrett, a mother of seven, told lawmakers on a House Appropriations subcommittee that her security detail told her to wear extra protection on her commute home after a draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs v. 
Jackson Women’s Health Organization was published by Politico in May 2022. 
“I carried it into my house, put it into my bedroom, dropped it down on a table, turned around, and my 12-year-old son was standing in the doorway of my bedroom, and he wanted to know what it was and why I had it,” Barrett recounted. 
“And I didn’t know how to respond because, maybe I lack imagination, but I didn’t expect that performing this service was going to put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was, and why I had to wear one.” 
The Dobbs decision, which was formally issued by the court on June 24, 2022, overturned the nationwide right to an abortion established by the high court with the Roe decision in 1973. 
Weeks earlier, a would-be assassin was napped near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Maryland home with a backpack full of zip ties, a knife, and a Glock-17, among other weapons. 
Barrett and her colleague, Elena Kagan, testified in support of an enhanced budget for the Supreme Court in the first appearances by sitting Supreme Court justices before Congress since 2019. 
The court is asking for $228.4 million from Congress for fiscal year 2027, which begins Oct.1, including an extra $14.6 million for beefed-up security measures. 
“Many of us, me included, have received threatening anonymous deliveries designed to intimidate and harass us,” added Barrett, who was confirmed the Supreme Court in the fall of 2020 following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 
Kagan, who joined the court in 2010, noted to lawmakers that the number of threats against the court has increased by 38% this year, following a 25% jump in threats the previous term. 
“For some of us, those threats have come very close, and all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize,” said Kagan, who insisted that “all members of the court continue to do their jobs as they believe legally right, adjudicating cases without fear or favor.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 2.6%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 1.2%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Josh Christenson: 3.0%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.6%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.1%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 10.1%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Josh Christenson: 6.9%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect8.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.0%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 7.3%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Josh Christenson: 1.3%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias11.4%This article: 15.3%Josh Christenson: 11.6%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias15.3%This article: 10.5%Josh Christenson: 2.6%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias10.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.7%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 19.8%Josh Christenson: 4.5%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias19.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 2.2%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.5%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.7%Josh Christenson: 1.1%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 2.5%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.2%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 3.8%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 2.5%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.9%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 2.8%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 6.5%Josh Christenson: 0.2%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring6.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.1%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 28.6%Josh Christenson: 12.5%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion28.6%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 1.2%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.7%Josh Christenson: 2.4%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.7%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.3%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 19.1%Josh Christenson: 2.2%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal19.1%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 1.3%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 10.5%Josh Christenson: 0.4%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity10.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.4%Josh Christenson: 1.0%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote8.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 1.9%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.3%Josh Christenson: 9.2%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice15.3%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 1.2%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 1.7%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 1.4%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Christenson: 0.2%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

430 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers70%attributed speech129writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Amy Coney Barrett • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 37 words • 0.0% coveragePolitico • 11 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 46 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageSupreme Court • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 36 words • 100.0% coverageElena Kagan • 33 words • 0.0% coverageElena Kagan • 49 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Elena Kagan

100%flagged-word coverage
82 attributed words27% of attributed speech51% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Biased Writer Voice-51.2 ptsWriter: 51.2%Elena Kagan: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.