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.
“The numbers of protesters had dwindled substantially in recent weeks,” one reporter in Portland observed last week, “but reports of heavily armed, unidentified, camouflaged federal officers abducting people off the street into unmarked vehicles and meting out violence on the people of Portland have thoroughly re-energized the populace.”
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/trump-protesters-portland-troops-police-protests.html
You’re not upset about Trump occupying U.S cities with his uninvited private federal army, (with this administration they could be Russians for all we know) youre not bothered by what they’ve done there.
You’re upset with Portland (or any city now) for not welcoming them? Because anything less is a gift? Or is it that you think they should’ve hidden and/or laughed about what a sham it all was tucked away somewhere safe? Maybe you believe if everyone just behaved and didn’t say or do anything to upset Trump, he’d finally be a good boy and then no one would get hurt.
With the election coming up, when do you think it would be acceptable for Americans to take Trump and Barr’s occupation of U.S cities seriously enough to just even be alarmed by it?
Portland had dwindling numbers of protesters and Trump’s militia arrived uninvited. And now they’re being sent to other cities. They were coming no matter what (I think they were planning this back when they were talking about their solutions to homelessness in Democrat ran cities)
When do you think a protest is appropriate?
And regardless of who is responsible, do you believe that if violence occurs the reason for a protest immediately becomes invalid?
I agree, up to a point. But how about if instead of what seems to be a generalized opposition to racism and police brutality set of demands, the demonstrators focused on exposure to and opposition to voter suppression? How about if they popularized Shelby vs. Holder? How about if they created a nationwide effort to collect funds to allow ex-felons in Florida to vote, in the process exposing the persistent Republican efforts to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Americans?
The rioters consider their intentions so noble that their disastrous results do not matter.
Agree. We have hard enough of a time swatting down false reports or disassociating ourselves from right wing or police agitators so we don’t need to contribute to the problem.