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.
Did the NPR survey include only NPR listeners? If so, it is perfectly irrelevant since these people are much more intelligent than average Americans.
I would love to get more feedback on ED’s question. Do any of you personally know of anyone who voted for Gore in 2000 and who will be voting for Bush in 2004? I do not know anyone. In addition, with all of the stories I have read over the past year, I have only heard of one person who voted for Gore and who will vote for Bush — with literally dozens who voted for Bush who are undecided or who will definately vote for Kerry. Since this is a very unscientific sample, can anyone provide more data points?
Thanks,
Paul
It’s easy for some of the Blitzer/Dobbs polls to be manipulated. Atrios is famous for “torturing” them by sending literally thousands of hits to their polls. However the polls on the main page draw a much larger audience, and I would think it’s hard to ‘freep’ a poll with half a million responses. I still think it is likely that they simply reflect the blue state views. But the blue states probably account for more than 60% of the population. So that begs the question, how does a Gallup poll of 800 people break down demographically?
Kaus, I didn’t mean those turncoat politicians. I was talking about the average electorate. Ed.
Ron Silver a dem? Are you kidding. He’s been a right-winger for yhears.
I vote in some of those on-line polls on CNN Wolf Blitzer and Lou Dobbs has one every day. They are always like 90% for the Liberal view. Cnn is not so Liberal but not as far to the Right as FOX. So it’s hard to tell how true these polls are.
I happened by an online poll on the CNN website which had almost 500,000 responses! And the results were 58% Kerry, 40% Bush. At the very least this says that people who use the web regularly are overwhelmingly for Kerry. This also jibes with Kerry’s margins on the East and West coasts. And it suggests that these national polls are heavily skewed to midwest states. Is that possible?
All Kerry needs to say regarding the war on terror now that Bush says it cannot be won — Bush is wrong! We not only can win the war on terror we WILL win the war on terror! I’m sorry the President feels we do not have the capacity to win this war, for the American people expect victory.
Ed, there are some Dems supporting Bush. Zell Miller, Ed Koch, Ron Silver come to mind. All together there’s probably several dozen of them in the nation, and they’ve all been recruited to appear at the RNC.
Scott.. this is a great moment for Kerry to talk on foreign policy.. great moment for him to talk about alliances to win this war on terror… its a beaming opportunity… I just hope these folks can ride this wave to the shore..
cheers
he said the war on terror can’t be won? I missed that – we need to go after that bigtime – don’t remember any Democrats saying the war on terror can’t be won – we just said invading Iraq wouldn’t contribute to it . . .
I wonder why I don’t see or hear of any Demorcrats for Bush? But, I know of a whole bunch of Republicans for Kerry? I bet there are very few if any one that voted for Gore who are going to vote for Bush. The numbers are many who voted for Bush in 2000 and now are voteing for Kerry.
It looks like Bush is softening his stance on everything… he agrees that he was involved in that smear campaign, he agrees that Kerry is a hero and served honorably, he says that the war on terror cant be won anymore.
Are we talking a flip-flopper here? Are we seeing a president who has become soft on the under belly? Are we looking at someone who has shifted position on his base and expects them to follow? Is he now appealing to a different type of voter, moderates maybe? Where is he going with this softer Bush approach?
Are we now being shown a compassionate Bush? No staying the course anymore? Maybe he turned the corner himself and left the economy behind.
I hope the DEMS realise that he is providing added fodder and fuel for direct attacks on his policies. He has literally opened a gaping hole on his presidency and left it there for issues to be put on the table and debated. There is even room to classify him as a flip-flopper because this new approach goes contrary to everything he has been preaching for the past four years.
Rise up Kerry supporter and DEMS… another golden opportunity is here.
Cheers
John Kerry said the same thing on Chris Matthews show a while back. He said “Chris, I am going to win this thing”!
It means that when you overcount Republicans and undercount Democrats, Republican candidates usually come out ahead.
Call me crazy, but we’re going to win this thing.
So you can choose your poll: Gallup and others have Bush ahead, Zogby and NPR have Kerry ahead. Who knows what it all means, except that we (Dems) have to keep working and donating money to the cause right up to election day.