Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, calling Republicans "hypocritical," said, "This hearing shows the American public exactly what my Republican colleagues' priorities are, ramming through another ideologically-driven justice to the Supreme Court instead of helping the people in our country suffering during this pandemic."

Hirono then asked if Barrett will consider the “real-world impact” of striking down the Affordable Care Act, noting that she and other Democrats have told stories of their constituents who rely on the law.

"Senator, to be clear, I have the utmost empathy, the stories, you know, that you have told, including the story of Veronica's family are very moving. If I were a justice, the commitment that I would make to you and all people affected by the laws is that I would follow the law as you enacted it," Barrett said. "I would do equal justice under the law for all and not try to thwart or disrupt in any way the policy choices that you and your colleagues have adopted."

Not satisfied with her answer, Hirono pressed Barrett, who reiterated her belief that Congress sets the policy and its up to the court to interpret whether those policies are constitutional, effectively refusing to reveal how she might decide on the highly-consequential case before the court on Nov. 10.

"No case comes before a court unless it involves real live people who've had a real-live dispute, and it is the job of a judge deciding every case to take into account the real-world consequences of the parties before it," Barrett said.

"So are you aligning yourself with Justice Ginsburg in terms of what you would consider real-life impacts and the effect it would have on your decision regarding the law?" Hirono asked.

"I don't know what context -- the particular context in which Justice Ginsburg was describing that. I think what I'm trying to align myself with is the law. And I will take into account all factors, including real-world impacts, when the law makes them relevant. As it clearly does, for example, in the doctrine of stare decisis," Barrett said.

Hirono also argued Barrett’s use of the term "sexual preference" instead of "sexual orientation" -- coupled with her view that constitutionality should overtake precedent -- worry a large part of the LGBT community. Hirono called the term "outdated" and one used to claim homosexuality is a "choice."

"I don't think that you use the term sexual preference as just -- I don't think it was an accident," Hirono said. The next senator to speak, Republican Joni Ernst of Iowa, gave Barrett the opportunity to respond, and Barrett clarified she did not mean to cause offense with her prior use of term. "I certainly didn't mean, and, you know, would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community. If I did, I greatly apologize for that. I simply meant to be referring to Obergerfeld's holding with respect to same-sex marriage," she said.

After a short break, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., addressing whether Barrett would participate in any cases involving the presidential election if confirmed, argued that President Trump has made it so that an appearance of bias is unavoidable.

"I continue to believe that if you were to participate in a decision involving that election, it would do enduring and explosive damage to the court," he said.

"I think you know it would be wrong. Not because of anything you've done. In fact, I am not raising the issue of whether you've done any sort of deal -- because of what Donald Trump has done."

"The president has said that he is putting you on the court as the ninth justice so you can decide the election. He's been very clear and transparent. And the American people are not dumb. They are watching and listening, and if you were to sit on this case, if it goes to this Supreme Court, the American people would lose faith and trust in the court itself," Blumenthal said.

"It would be a dagger at the heart of the court and our democracy if this election is decided by the court rather than the American voters, so I wanted to begin by making that point," he added.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., gave Barrett the opportunity to explain the "right to life" advertisement she and her husband signed in 2006 that Democrats argue shows she is a threat to Roe v. Wade.

"You said you signed it on your way out of church, if I remember correctly?" Hawley asked.

"I did," Barrett said, recalling when she signed it. "That was almost 15 years ago. There was a table set up for people on their way out of Mass to sign a statement validating their commitment to the position of the Catholic Church on life issues. The ad that was next to it. I don't recall seeing at the time and in context looking at it, looked to me like that was an ad by the St. Joseph County Right to Life group. The statement that I signed was affirming the protection of life from conception to natural death," she said.

Barrett emphasized that she signed it in her "personal capacity still as a private citizen."

"Now I am a public official, so while I was free to express my private views at that time, I don't feel like it is appropriate for me anymore because of the canons of conduct to express an affirmative view at this point in time," she said.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., noting what President Trump has said about needing nine justices on the Supreme Court by the November election to decide any election-related disputes, asked Barrett if she will commit to recusing herself from those cases.

"Given what President Trump said, given the rest of the context of this confirmation, will you commit to recusing yourself from any case arising from a dispute in the presidential election results three weeks from now?" Coons asked.

"Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify this," Barrett began. "And I want to be very clear for the record and to all members of this committee that no matter what anyone else may think or expect, I have not committed or signaled, never even written -- I've had a couple of opinions that have been around this law, but I haven't even written anything that I would think anybody could reasonably say  this is how she might resolve an election dispute."

"I would consider it, and I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity then to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people," Barrett continued.

"That would be on the question of actual bias, and you asked about the appearance of bias and you're right that the statute does require a justice or judge to recuse if there is an appearance of bias. And what I will commit to every member of this committee, to the rest of the Senate and to the American people is that I will consider all factors that are relevant to that question that requires recusal when there's an appearance of bias," she said.

Barrett went on to say she would discuss that with the other justices were a dispute to arise.

"Justice Ginsburg said it is always done with consultation of the other justices. So, I promise you that if I were confirmed and if an election dispute arises, both of which are if, that I would very seriously undertake that process and consider every relevant factor. I can't commit to you right now for reasons that we've talked about before, but I do ensure you of my integrity and that I would take that question very seriously," she said.

Under questioning from Sen. Klobuchar, Barrett said Roe v. Wade is not a "super-precedent" -- so it could theoretically be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Earlier, Barrett said that Brown v. Board of Education, which established that racial segregation in schools is unconstitutional, is one of just a handful of cases she and some others consider to be "super-precedent" or settled law.

“Is Roe a super-precedent?” Klobuchar asked, before Barrett asked in return, “How would you define ‘super-precedent?’”

“I'm asking you,” Klobuchar said.

“People use super-precedent differently. The way that I was using it in the article that you’re reading was to define cases that are so well-settled that no political actors ... seriously push for their overruling. I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe v. Wade which I think indicates Roe v. Wade doesn't fall in that category. Descriptively means it's a case, not a case that everyone has accepted,” Barrett said.