Publisher refuses to cave to demands that Amy Coney Barrett's book be canceled: 'We remain fully committed'

Penguin Random House is refusing to cave to woke demands to cancel a forthcoming book written by Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

What is the background?

Nearly 700 writers, editors, and other workers in the publishing industry have signed an open letter demanding that Penguin Random House not publish Coney Barrett's forthcoming book.

The reason? Coney Barrett, who helped overturn Roe v. Wade, is guilty of an "assault on inalienable human rights," referring to overturning the federal right to an abortion.

This is not just a book that we disagree with, and we are not calling for censorship. Many of us work daily with books we find disagreeable to our personal politics. Rather, this is a case where a corporation has privately funded the destruction of human rights with obscene profits. Coney Barrett is free to say as she wishes, but Penguin Random House must decide whether to fund her position at the expense of human rights in order to inflate its bottom line, or to truly stand behind the values it proudly espouses to hold.

Coney Barrett reportedly received an advance of $2 million from Penguin Random House for her book.

What did PRH say?

Sentinel, an imprint at Penguin Random House that publishes conservative titles, is standing by Coney Barrett's book.

"We remain fully committed to publishing authors who, like Justice Barrett, substantively shape today’s most important conversations," said Sentinel publisher Adrian Zackheim, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Zackheim added that Sentinel "publishes books so that people can read them, and evaluate them on their own. In an intelligent free society we need to disseminate ideas in a robust form so that we can discuss them."

A representative for Penguin Random House confirmed that Zackheim was relaying the sentiment of Penguin Random House.

Coney Barrett's book will likely not see bookshelves until 2024. Politico reported last year the book will be focused on how "judges are not supposed to bring their personal feelings into how they rule."