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.
From Sarah Lai Stirland’s Obama Campaign Used Spanish-Language Phone Banking, Texting to Get Out the Potomac Vote in Wired today:
“Online groups have also helped Obama. MoveOn.org, whose members recently endorsed Obama, raised $500,000 for him. MoveOn also created an online Endorse-O-Thon widget that enabled its members to engage in a peer-to-peer online endorsement campaign by sending out 500,000 e-mails and Facebook messages to their friends recommending the candidate.”
On Facebook over the last day, an order of magnitude more people have added themselves as supporters for Obama than Clinton: 15,000+ to 1,400. Hard to know what percentage are eligible to vote but it’s a pretty impressive ratio.
Also I’ve been tracking the views on the “Yes We Can” video’s on YouTube. It’s up over 2,000,000 views, with the most popular instance having entered the top 10 of videos about Obama.
http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=81#comment-492 has statistics for those who are interested in playing along at home.
Add the endorsement to the fact that Obama has been outperforming the polls in each state primary by 7-8% – when the votes are finally counted. That includes Hillary’s AMAZING NH, NV and FL wins… Hold on to your seats America – it’s Obama time!
There’s a fascinating thread in the Obama discussion groups on Facebook tracking the number of people joining the group. The trend started a couple of days ago, and really accelerated today. Worth checking out.
http://www.facebook.com/board.php?uid=6815841748
One of the things I’m very curious about is the synergies betwee MoveOn’s network-style organization and the Obama campaign’s use of social network sites like MySpace and Facebook. A thread just started in the discussion group on Obama’s Facebook profile … any idea where this is likely to be discussed on MySpace?