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.
Mady-
Yesterday afternoon, I looked at all polls with post dates of October at race2004.net. I excluded those with either a GOP or Dem designation. I used 3 way data, if available, when Nader was on the ballot, 2 way data, if available, when Nader was not on the ballot. If a given organization did more than one poll, I used the most recent.
Of the 11 polls in Florida, 4 had Kerry in the lead, 4 Bush, 3 tied. The unweighted (by sample size) average was Bush up by 0.5%.
Of the 11 polls in Ohio, 7 had Kerry in the lead, 4 had Bush in the lead. The average was Kerry up .8%
Of the 7 polls in Wisconsin, 2 had Kerry in the lead, 3 Bush, and 2 were dead ties. The average was dead even.
Of the 8 polls in Iowa, 2 had Kerry up, 5 Bush, with 1 tie, average Bush lead of 2%.
Of the 5 in New Mexico, 2 had Kerry up, 3 Bush, average Bush lead of 2%.
Of the 4 in Minnesota, 2 had Kerry up, 2 Bush, with an average Kerry lead of 0.75%.
Of the 9 in New Hampshire, 6 had Kerry up, 3 Bush, with an average Kerry lead of 3%.
So…each of those polls has both sides winning some of the time this past month. It’s hard for me to think of any of them as solid. And Wisconsin is probably the least solid of any of them.
Those 7 seem the key battlegrounds now, with the possibility of an Arkansas or Hawaii creeping in.
[Others states for which at least one independent poll has shown both both sides in the lead of at least 1% at some point last month, using only the most recent poll from the organization…:
Colorado, Bush 5, Kerry 1
Oregon, Kerry 7, Bush 1
That’s it. Hawaii, Arkansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and Nevada seem to have been close here or there…]
If all but the 7 listed above are considered solid, you’re looking at 228 EV’s for Kerry, 227 for Bush. Kerry can get the other 42 with Ohio, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and either Florida, Wisconsin, or [Iowa and New Mexico].
Looking at today’s state polls, I think Wisconsin is up for grabs, while Iowa seems to lean slightly–but not irrecoverably–to Bush. Giving Nevada and especially Arkansas to Kerry seems a little overoptimistic, but not impossible. Probably the most important–Florida and Ohio–are split down the middle (if you discount what I hope is the out-of-whack Gallup result in Florida), with new polls divided on who is ahead, usually within the margin of error.
I think general polls of battleground states weight their sample so that more people are sampled from the largest states, with many more Floridians than Oregonians, for instance. But the samples from each state are almost certainly too small to reliably extrapolate results from individual states.
Zogby’s rolling tracking is showing a Bush lead on the basis of one day’s result having Bush +7. He’s up 3 which means the other days in the survey have to net a +4 to Kerry. Once that Bush +7 drops out in 2 days, it will be back where it was most likely.
I don’t know what’s going on with Tipp.
WaPo seems to be going Kerry’s way as is Rasmussen a bit (It was B+3) last week. So things are looking better.
Mady: There’s nothing addressing an analysis of the early votes that I know of. Are California and New York having early voting this year? I know many of the Southern States do and some of the northern states do not. Could that be the discrepancy? Also, I don’t know if that figure is an estimate based on exit polling, or an actual count.
In the state polls, Race.com has taken PA, NH, NJ, ME from undecided to Weak Kerry.
Mady: I checked most of the recent polls in WI. They’re mostly from SV, a republican outfit. I’ll wait for some more credible polls there.
Same is true of Iowa.
Mady,
Steve Soto at Left Coast has an analysis of early voters and it’s great for Kerry. Typically, early voters are elderly women in western states (most early voting states are in the West) – and trend heavily Republican. I believe Bush beat Gore among early voters in 2000 by 55-44 or something. So if Bush only leads by 4 now among early voters (and with a sample size of 170 voters anyway) then Bush is doing poorly.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/
Also, a new Gallup poll (yes, Gallup) shows Kerry up 1 in Iowa. I have less confidence about Nevada but with OH and FL Nevada doesn’t matter.
Can anyone tell me a poll on how many 2000 bush supporters are not voting for him this time. Are the polls weighted in such a way that fails to this into account. There are many who simply will not vote for him this time. There are some who may not vote for Kerry but they are definitely not voting for Bush. This seems like it would be a significant thing to know.
I’m not sure, looking at the polls tonight most of which show Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nevada as pretty firmly Bush, where you find the information that those states will go to Kerry. Is it the potential for Democratic turnout, or some way of reading polling that I’m not doing? I’d love to believe with you, but I really think it is totally up in the air right now.
Also, no one addressed a question I had posted earlier–why is the voting that’s been done already showing a Repub lead? Any information on patterns, where people are voting early, which groups are?
probably Kerry
Wisconsin
New Mexico
Nevada
Florida
Ohio
Arkansas
Minnesota
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Oregon
New Hampshire
probably Bush
Colorado
Missouri
West Virginia
Virginia
Tennessee
Kerry is going to win BIG.
According to ABC (Noted Now) both campaigns are now putting resources into Hawaii, which seems to be genuinely in play. That is really not a good thing.
Kudos, commendations, and additional crown jewels to Ruy for being the best Donkey Rising, hands down, thumbs up!!
To Ruy and staff …. thanks a bunch! Many are greatful for your efforts. Including me.
Is it possible to give us some feedback on early voting? Either turnout or exit polling, or anything concrete? Anything more concrete on election turnout in general?
Again, thanks.
Do we know what Demo Corps. considers battlegrounds still? If it’s the entire 16 or so that originally existed (including WA, OR, etc), then this is not surprising or exciting.
Numbers that would be meaningful at this point should essentially be confined to PA, FL, OH, IA, WI, MN, NM, NV and possibly AR and CO. If these numbers include OR and WA and perhaps some others, then these aren’t that useful, since OR and WA will obviously inflate Kerry’s numbers since these are barely battlegrounds now. In fact, I’d argue that we could take PA off the list too to get a really good number of how Kerry is doing.
Here’s hoping that similar numbers exist for the states I mentioned.
-Jeff
Personally, I find the “battleground states” polls unenlightening.
America does not elect presidents nationally; it elects them on a state-by-state basis through the Electoral College. As we learned in 2000, it does not matter if a candidate racks up big vote-margins in one state (and win the national vote), only to lose a couple of others by mere handfuls and therefore lose the EC.
Subsequently, I honestly don’t care if John Kerry is building up a big vote-total in all 15 battleground states. Does this mean Kerry is doing well in all 15 battlegrounds? Or does it mean Oregon has gone whole-hog for Kerry while Kerry is losing the rest?
You can’t tell. Therefore, these polls are completely uninformative to me, and don’t give me any strategic information whatsoever.
I wish polling firms would stop doing them, and either do state-by-state polls which would give us real data by which to predict EC outcomes, or divert the resources to states (like Arkansas) which are seeing little polling but which might just well be coming into play (as the last Arkansas poll indicated).
Zogby has Bush up by 3 nationwide and also ahead in most of the battleground states…The brief lead Kerry had in the Rasmussen poll is gone and it is a dead heat again. Boy, I sure hope that all the good polls are the ones listed on EDM, but I can’t help but be a little nervous at this point. At least EDM gives me some hope though!