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.
I think having one video for the party was good and probably long enough. It felt a bit safe and incomplete though, with some preaching to the choir in there.
I’d like to see informative specific topic videos added to this. It wouldn’t hurt to go outside of the usual way of communicating these things. There are more options for political messaging than just playing it safe or being crude.
a couple suggestions: with reproductive health, rather than only mention abortion, that topic should include programs Democrats support for women who choose to have a child but also can’t afford it – like low or no cost prenatal (and pediatric) care. Other programs democrats support for kids would be good too add too. (WIC, SNAP and free lunches…etc) Make sure you have some white people in there.
There should be something about how democrats are supportive of dads too. Whether with education or job placement programs or any kinds of assistance for themselves and their family. That could be about the economy but also in general supporting the existence of a strong safety net is being for the health and welfare of all families. Restricting and or removing it makes the country less safe by creating desperation on many fronts.
And Democrats, the American dream or dreamers could include a visual of kids in classrooms or adults wanting to go to school and trying to figure out how to pay for it.
You could go a long way with that theme. You arent separating DACA youre including it.
“no matter who they are or who they love” should add a visual of a traditional relationship or family set up too.
With health care, choosing between food and treatments wasnt entirely accurate because food is much cheaper.
George Entenman makes goods points about greater inclusion of images of people. I would add a photo of President John Kennedy, something on unions, and making progress on past accomplishments.
The themes are strong but there isn’t a central theme to bring them all together, it’s a collage of stories rather than a focused theme. Having seen Pete Buttigieg speak, he draws freedom into the equation of everyday life.
It requires freedom to get a fair shot without being discriminated against based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference.
It requires freedom to enjoy an environment of natural beauty not bound by corporate greed and eminent domain.
It requires freedom for a woman to decide how she handles her reproductive health.
It requires freedom to be able to have a health care system where you feel comfortable going to see a doctor and not to decide whether or not to see them based on cost.
It requires freedom to not have your entire adult years burdened by student loan debts.
It requires freedom to have a labor/supply chain based on the premise that labor is driving force in the economy and not corporate greed.
It requires freedom for a person who works full-time to have a wage that is able to provide proper resources to them and their family.
It requires freedom for students to be able to enter a school and feel safe.
Etc., etc., etc.
Of course, a follow-up video should be based on the premise on how we intend to provide those freedoms to our society (which it currently lacks).
“What’s your take?”
Move it to the fing top.
Given how badly the party has done lately maybe a better approach would be compare and contrast with Republicans on the issues that Democrats are actually good at. This would also reflect the reality that a lot of people are voting Democrat just because Republicans are terrible.
This ad actually captures pretty well what a lot of people think about the party nowadays
Summary Translation of the “We are Democrats” ad
We are the NYC party (Statue of Liberty opening)
We think we have done very well for the American people for a very long time (For decades opening)
A very specific and limited proposal like the Dream Act is as important as the American Dream as a national value
Pandering to individual demographic groups
Pandering to individual one issue constituencies
One minute in before talking about economic issues
Mention of LBJ?
Affordable Care Act as non-plus ultra of healthcare
The New Deal is not self-explanatory
The economic recovery was no universal recovery and has very little in common with the policy program of the New Deal
Platitudes about wages
Platitudes about social change
Empty overpromising
I’m all for everything shown in the ad, but I think it makes a terrible mistake in not having more white people in it. Is this supposed to make white working people feel included? Is that one old photo of a woman holding a Social Security check supposed to appeal to the residents of retirement communities? Where is a small business owner, male or female? Where is a young tattooed person hard at work on a computer? Where are scientists who are losing the gov’t support they need for basic research? Where is a sense of optimism, of possibility? We need to fight the forces of evil, but we need to have hope and opportunity too.