President Donald Trump’s new Supreme Court pick, Amy Coney Barrett, would prove to be a sharp pivot from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Issues that affect millions of American' lives, including access to health care, immigration reform, protections for DACA recipients, LGBTQ equality, and voting rights are on the line. 

Above all, healthcare and racial justice are issues ingrained into Latinx values. Both are subject to extensive changes with the potential appointment of Barrett.

With a legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act due in November, she could play a decisive role in the future of the program otherwise known as Obamacare — for the worse.

Women’s reproductive rights are on the line.

Barrett has been critical of ACA aspects in the past, reports Newsweek. She signed a petition arguing against the ACA, insisting employers provide access to birth control in insurance plans, citing it infringes upon “religious freedom.”

Her stance against Roe v. Wade — a landmark Supreme Court decision that enacted women’s right to choose to have an abortion, have also been widely reported on since Trump’s decision was made.

Barrett is also vocally against the existence of affirmative action programs at colleges and universities — which increase diversity — same-sex marriage, and environmental protections.

Congressman Chuy García (D-IL) took to Twitter to further break-down the consequences of Amy Coney Barrett.

“I’ll be doing daily posts to lay out information about Barrett’s judicial views in a series called, “The Facts about Amy Coney Barrett.” It’s important to know what’s at stake as we organize for a suitable replacement for #RBG on our country’s highest court,” Rep. García wrote.
 

“Judge Barrett would invalidate the #ACA. After Chief Justice Roberts upheld the ACA in ‘17, she criticized Roberts saying he pushed “beyond its plausible meaning” to save it. She wants to take health care away from millions of people during a pandemic,” he continued.

A pandemic, that has disproportionately affected Latinx lives in the United States above all other demographics in the country, in both cases and deaths.

“In 2017, Barrett refused to hear a case about workplace racial segregation in a Chicago business that assigned workers to different stores based on race. She is just fine with businesses racially segregating their workforces,” García added.

He will continue to break-down what’s at stake in the coming days, as the situation becomes more clear.

One thing is for certain. This is a moment Conservatives have been working toward for decades. Even with a potential Democrat-led White House, House, and Senate. Barrett in a Supreme-Court entrenched within the Conservative agenda will stagnate progressive moves for change.