August 5: The Pro-Choice Religious Liberty Argument
Always on the lookout for a new wrinkle on ancient battles, I drew attention to a recent legal development at New York:
Though the constitutional law of “religious liberty” is a murky field, we are all accustomed to hearing anguished claims from conservative Christians that laws requiring them to provide or pay for reproductive-health services or treat LGBTQ employees and customers equally are an unacceptable violation of their beliefs. Now that the Supreme Court has struck down the federal right to an abortion, it’s clearer than ever that the Christian right and its Republican allies are aiming to construct a system where they are free to live their values as they wish, regardless of the impact on others.
But as a new lawsuit in Florida shows, what’s good for the conservative goose may also be good for the progressive gander. A group of religious officials are arguing in state court that the new anti-abortion law enacted this year by Florida Republicans violates their right to religious expression. The Washington Post reports:
“Seven Florida clergy members — two Christians, three Jews, one Unitarian Universalist and a Buddhist … argue in separate lawsuits filed Monday that their ability to live and practice their religious faith is being violated by the state’s new, post-Roe abortion law. The law, which is one of the strictest in the country, making no exceptions for rape or incest, was signed in April by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), in a Pentecostal church alongside antiabortion lawmakers such as the House speaker, who called life ‘a gift from God.’”
The plaintiffs in these suits most definitely want to rebut the idea that forced birth is the only authentically “religious” perspective on abortion services. After all, as United Church of Christ minister Laurie Hafner explains, the anti-abortion cause has little biblical sanction:
“Jesus says nothing about abortion. He talks about loving your neighbor and living abundantly and fully. He says: ‘I come that you might have full life.’ Does that mean for a 10-year-old to bear the child of her molester? That you cut your life short because you aren’t able to rid your body of a fetus?”
The legal theory in the lawsuits focuses specifically on the counseling of pregnant people and their families that clergy engage in routinely, and that under the new Florida law may be treated as the illegal aiding and abetting of criminal acts. Hafner’s suit alleges that this violates both federal and state constitutional rights, along with Florida’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (a 1993 federal “religious liberty” law):
“The dramatic change in abortion rights in Florida has caused confusion and fear among clergy and pregnant girls and women particularly in light of the criminal penalties attached. Given her general duties and work as a Pastor, Plaintiff intends to engage in counseling regarding abortion beyond the narrow limits of HB 5 and, therefore, risks incarceration and financial penalties.”
It’s unclear how this argument will fare in the courts. Conservative judges may stipulate that anti-abortion laws impinge on religious-liberty rights that are nonetheless outweighed by the state’s “compelling interest” in fetal life. But at least, for once, the judiciary and the public will have to come to grips with the fact that many millions of pro-choice religious Americans passionately oppose what is happening to our country in the name of “life.” During the run-up to this week’s resounding “no” vote on a constitutional amendment removing any hint of abortion rights in the state’s constitution, a Presbyterian Church in Kansas displayed a sign that read, “Jesus trusted women. So do we.” This was likely an allusion to the “Trust Women” motto of the famous Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, who in 2009 was assassinated in the foyer of the church in which he was serving as an usher. His legacy lives on in houses of worship and now in the courts.
Why does Bush say the country would be better off if he is re-elected. Maybe he didn’t remember that 9-11 happened on his watch.?????
Jeff, yes. The future is now.
So what John?
I see VoteHillary.org which pushed a 2004 Hillary Rodham Clinton Draft presidency is now pushing her for president in 2008. The site is http://www.votehillary.org I have heard it will be launched as early as next week.
…Continued from above
Case in point:
No matter how the question is asked:
Do you believe it is time for a change?
Does Bush Deserve to be reelected?
Is America on the Right or Wrong track?
etc.
Consistently, 52 to 54% vote that it is time to change the leadership of the country.
That is why Bush never exceeds 44 to 46%. Because the remainder of people disagree with him.
If you look at it historically, this number is very important in the final outcome of the election.
The approval rating (Bush typically in the mid-40s) vs those who think it is time for a change (typically in the low 50s).
This poll doesn’t do anything to undermine that argument.
So no worries. We’re still doing okay.
Kerry has to do a better job defining this election. I told you all it was a mistake to focus so much on foreign affairs and his Vietnam record. Because those who vote on that subject will vote for Bush regardless of what is happening in Iraq or his own record in the military.
Kerry’s statement to the effect that he wouldn’t have changed his vote for the IWR was just stupid.
It isn’t too late. But Kerry definitely has to define this election about the economy – the haves vs the have nots.
That’s how he will win.
He needs a consistent confident message that people understand and resonates.
This poll, and other recent polls, is about Kerry – not Bush.
This CBS poll has gotten a lot of attention these past couple of days but here is why I am less concerned about it than others.
Asides from the veterans, which the polls shows is going for Bush by about 15% (incidently, Bush won the veterans vote in 2000 by about 35% – which means that in overall total number this is still a 20% gain for the Dems – considering that veterans make up about 10% of population, that means this is a total pick up of about 2% total for Dems and a loss of 2% overall for Bush).
Anyway, you’ll notice that Bush’s numbers still hover at the 44 to 45% mark, which is essentially where he is always at.
Bush will not win anything with 45% of the vote.
Thus, the dynamics are unchanged. If you think that Nader will get 2% of the vote. Bush 44% to 46%, that means that Kerry will win 52% to 54% of the vote.
So despite the bruhaha, this poll still shows Bush in trouble.
I suppose with the lead up to the Republican convention, the media has to talk about something.
But I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
When polls come out (not counting Gallup which always over-counts republicans by about 8%) that show Bush consistently getting 48% to 50% and Kerry getting about the same, then I will start to worry.
But when the polls demonstrate a close race at 44% or 45%, then this is just as bad as Bush getting 44% to 45% and Kerry getting 52 to 54%.
Because the undecideds always go to the challenger.
Remember 1980. The race was always “close” between Reagan and Carter – about 42% or so. This went on all the way to election day. Then Carter stayed at 42% and Reagan got the rest.