It’s time to discuss religion, because it’s no longer knocking on our door: Sam Alito just sent it into the house with a no-knock warrant and stun grenades that threaten to catch the place on fire
Excellent piece, Thom, on the legal background of rights regarding abortion, religion, gays, etc. I think the discussion & focus should be on the power grounds that most directly confront the hypocritical Repugs who claim to revere the life of an unborn child yet provide no health care, education, etc. for the child who has already been born. And this should be done via the legal avenue that already mandates that when a government takes control of a person's life--such as a person who is involuntarily incarcerated--, the government is legally obligated to provide food, housing, and medical services for the full term of the incarceration. I therefore propose that the first female of any age who becomes pregnant under any circumstance and is mandated by state or federal law to carry the pregnancy to term against the female's will...should file a lawsuit against the government that mandates such by outlawing legal abortions. I am no lawyer but I'd like to hear from one who knows about the rights of any incarcerated person to have access to housing, food, and medical care while so incarcerated. To me this is involuntarily servitude--and that is exactly what such governmental restrictions are upon a female who does not want to have child but is forced by governmental decree to do so. Under past practice, any unwilling mother has been responsible for the care, housing, food, clothing, & medical needs of the child. The government, however, that outlaws contraception and abortions should be held responsible for providing for 100% of the child's support (in housing, food, health care, and any other essential material needs) until that child is of legal age. The mother should also be compensated throughout this entire period as an indentured servant of the state. The Repugs might think twice about assuming such financial & legal responsibilities if given these conditions
when advocating their restrictions of commonly accepted human rights---like control over one's own body. It will hit them in their "conservative" pocket books where they will scream bloody murder...eh? Enough of the AWOL, dead-beat "Dads" who persist in controlling others !!
A brief addendum to my earlier comment: I forgot to include draftees into our military as another group who our government is mandated to provide with housing, food, clothing, & medical care as long as the draftee is forced to serve. Women forced to give birth against their will and raise that child until of legal age should receive the same governmental support as draftees.
More science, please. And let's face it, the improved science around pregnancy and birth control in the last decades is astounding. It has cut the abortion rate in my blue state by half. We will be providing for the neighboring states that choose to live in the 1950's. The angels-on-earth here are gearing up for the influx of women and girls that will need their help.
Each "true" religion claims to be a fountain of good but fails in so many ways by being rigid. The founding fathers created a government that was fluid, not another religion.
The opinion about to come down by the liars the Republicans sent to the Court absolutely begs for a discussion of separation of church and state. Abortion is a really stupid issue for Republicans to use to gain power; it will hurt them. Leaving out rape and incest victims shows just how cruel they are, and it is a MONUMENTAL mistake.
Thom: once again you have knocked it out of the ballpark. The words of Justice Alito; "The Supreme Court has no business recognizing a "right" that isn't rooted in the nation's "history and Traditions." In my opinion this is a ruse, a false flag, a try to convince us that all other rights we enjoy are safe from the ethno Theocratic, white nationalists mob. Not to worry sayeth his El SUPROMO. Andrew L. Seidel, writing in RELIGION DISPATCHES 5/3/22; talks about how and why the religious right will come after the separation of church and state. He points out- among other things- "the court has three church-state cases this term." In Carson V. Makin, the court is likely to say that states must fund religious education. That builds on two recent cases, Trinity Lutheran (2017) and Espinoza (2020). He also mentions another case Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. For years Republicans and corporations have tried to get rid of unions. Suppose they go to the court and the court rules the National Labor Relations Act is unconstitutional. What happens to all the federal agencies in place such as the EPA, the Food and drug administration, the CDC, etc. They may not be regarded as personal rights per se but they damn well have been established to protect our right to breath clean air; to see that the food we eat is safe; and our medicines are safe to take. I may be going a bit far with all this. However; I am firmly convinced if we do not stop these medieval dragons we will see all of the above and worse.
Everything about the right, and it's approach toward politics, social issues, economics, whatever, is control. They seek to control every sector of the social order. They desire to impose their will on everyone who disagrees with them. Their refusal to recognize exceptions in their laws against women's rights is the ultimate tell.
I agree; excellent piece. You've really got us thinking on the root issues. It seems to boil down to something you mentioned - whether the laws of a nation such as the U.S.A. should be secular, or religious? I believe their history was religious, but society has been increasingly moving toward secular. This is just my own observation, and not a judgment. I know where I stand, but the direction a nation will take is a different issue. It amazes me that your nation has held together (for the most part) for 250 years. That can quickly change though - all it takes is a leader with an oversized ego and poof! suddenly the bombs and bullets are raining down; we've seen hints of it recently in the U.S. I'll hope for a more positive outcome; that you'll continue to make it work somehow, without resorting to the violence. Again, thanks for the thoughtful insights.
I find it hard to get excited. 50 years ago, for a brief period, the SCOTUS stopped being corrupt for a while, plus it hadn’t been taken over yet by the NaziRepublican Party.
The non-corrupt 1972 SCOTUS kept getting abortion cases that had no solid law they could cite, so they kept telling Americans over and over and over to push the US congress to GIVE WOMEN FULL HUMAN RIGHTS.
Americans didn’t bother. Congress, of course, was too busy not prosecuting Nixon and the NaziRepublican Party for their crimes to do anything for women, and of course almost no women pressured congress to do their job.
For FIFTY YEARS we’ve been told that Roe was a stop gap ruling and would not stand up to serious challenge. THE SCOTUS HAS ALWAYS SAID SO, even when selling decisions.
For the entire 50 years, women represented the majority of voters, but the majority didn’t bother to act. By their actions, it is clear that most women really don’t care if they have any rights.
Today, people are simply being reactionary, freaking out after the corrupt SCOTUS did what they have said they would do, after Americans doing NOTHING to avoid this, for HALF A CENTURY.
Sorry, I refuse to expend any energy on this as long as most Americans continue to not bother to vote. Those that do vote won’t do a damn thing when the NaziRepublican Party cheats and steals the election for the 8th time in the last 50 years, then strips individual freedom and works to destroy America.
I’ve seen it 7 times, people. It’s not the fault of the criminals THAT WE NEVER PROSECUTE.
Forget abortion, the NaziRepublican Party will pass national laws that eliminate ALL personal freedom. When that happens, all I can say is read some Thomas Jefferson - y’all are getting the government you voted for.
I find it interesting that men are debating a woman’s right to her own healthcare decisions. My feelings are that religion has no place in our government, and that government has no place dictating women’s healthcare decisions. The argument comparing vaccine mandates by the government doesn’t fly. The vaccine mandates are a public health issue. Abortion is an individual woman’s private health issue.
Thom. Your arguments are compelling. But a factual matter still remains: both sides of the debate depend entirely on interpretations of both the law and morality.
Your moral arguments clearly privilege your feelings about these issues. But I’m still unsure of the basis for your thesis. Both sides of this debate use very similar kinds of rhetorical constructs. Both you and they express personal judgments and believe the respective moral conclusions are somehow true. The difference is that you criticize your opposition for basing their conclusions on a religious tradition. But they clearly see that your views are simply founded on a secular tradition. And philosophically, the basis of both traditions inevitably fall to subjective moral conclusions. That is, both sides entirely depend on some tradition for the validity of their moral beliefs. Your arguments simply remind us that you believe your interpretive principles of the law and morality are superior to theirs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the basis for your arguments are grounded in your belief about secularism. Logically there’s nothing that makes the belief in secularism more true than the traditions you criticize. You simply feel your moral beliefs are better moral beliefs. And you believe your interpretations of secular history ought to be the basis for our moral decisions going forward. But this rhetorical construct simply reveals a well-crafted circular reasoning. Your moral opinions are steeped in your interpretive beliefs concerning the morality of abortion. In the end you want us to abide by your interpretations because you so strongly believe in the veracity of your interpretations. The Pro-Life sides believes Justice Alito is doing this exact same thing.
If we are to live with the legal judgments that are given us, both sides must acknowledge the almost irreconcilable moral complexities of this issue. Therefore, it would seem that you’d be eager for a national referendum on the issue. Wouldn’t our vote be the most fair direction afforded us? If we don’t allow the people to vote, I fear we’ll end up with conclusions like yours: A conclusion that simply imposes moral preferences based on political agendas.
Progressives claim the certitude of their moral beliefs about abortion and believe the country favors a continuation of Row. If so, a vote might bring about the most justice for all stakeholders. The vote therefore may be the most important vote of the 21st Century.
So what am I missing? After reading your arguments I’m left a set of beliefs that appear to be almost a mirror image of those you condemn.
To me this is simple. Most Americans don't bother to vote, and those who do vote are mostly misinformed or uninformed. I personally find only about 5% of Americans know what is going on.
Government attracts the corrupt. As my wife always says, organized crime discovered they truly cannot fight city hall, so they BECAME city hall. For a solid modern example, look at Medallien, Columbia. The real estate developers tell everyone it's just "gotten safe" but in fact, the leaders of cartels matured and moved into running legitimate businesses and government. Yes, it's safe, but not because government did anything, it's because the criminals decided to accept lower returns for their own safety.
There are two means to fight corruption.
Method 2: Wait until the barn is burning down around you and get excited. Usually, this is the worst method.
Method 1: Stay involved, informed, and voting. Although we all wish it was, so we could put in capable people and forget about it, politics is not a spectator sport.
Historically women have always been at the mercy of male generated opinions, actions and laws; perhaps history is almost ready for women, on the basis of representing 50% of the population, to exert their will legally with their votes.
However, it does appear that the female vote has not overwhelming been in favor of the practice of using the abortion option, instead of birth control, or abstinence.
For many states in America, the plurality of votes, for one reason or another, simply does not support medical access to include unrestricted access to abortions. Maybe that is a canyon too deep and wide for such a mandate to be a federal decision.
Mr. Hartman's research is impeccable, as always; however, on this issue it is not shared by everyone.
It is interesting that he writes "Alito’s decision is an open assault on the right of bodily autonomy, the right to make ones’ own medical decisions, and the right to choose to have or not have children." In the Mid-term 2022 elections a lot of voters will be reflecting on how President Biden, the CDC, WHO and the pharmaceutical industry clearly assumed they had complete and unrestricted 'rights' to mandate the use of experimental medical procedures and immune system mRNA on everyone, men, women and little children.
Even respected scientists struggle with the co-existence of their religious faith and the current hypothesis of scientific understanding. Clearly, with the explosive global population growth, birth control is a sensitive issue, and using the abortion approach, for many reasons appear NOT to be something most cultures can reach consensus on, regardless of the narratives being used to justify it. Perhaps the learning curve is that a federation of states may be better off NOT forcing some issues, or considering suggesting that State's Rights may eventually have to govern on some issues.
Excellent piece, Thom, on the legal background of rights regarding abortion, religion, gays, etc. I think the discussion & focus should be on the power grounds that most directly confront the hypocritical Repugs who claim to revere the life of an unborn child yet provide no health care, education, etc. for the child who has already been born. And this should be done via the legal avenue that already mandates that when a government takes control of a person's life--such as a person who is involuntarily incarcerated--, the government is legally obligated to provide food, housing, and medical services for the full term of the incarceration. I therefore propose that the first female of any age who becomes pregnant under any circumstance and is mandated by state or federal law to carry the pregnancy to term against the female's will...should file a lawsuit against the government that mandates such by outlawing legal abortions. I am no lawyer but I'd like to hear from one who knows about the rights of any incarcerated person to have access to housing, food, and medical care while so incarcerated. To me this is involuntarily servitude--and that is exactly what such governmental restrictions are upon a female who does not want to have child but is forced by governmental decree to do so. Under past practice, any unwilling mother has been responsible for the care, housing, food, clothing, & medical needs of the child. The government, however, that outlaws contraception and abortions should be held responsible for providing for 100% of the child's support (in housing, food, health care, and any other essential material needs) until that child is of legal age. The mother should also be compensated throughout this entire period as an indentured servant of the state. The Repugs might think twice about assuming such financial & legal responsibilities if given these conditions
when advocating their restrictions of commonly accepted human rights---like control over one's own body. It will hit them in their "conservative" pocket books where they will scream bloody murder...eh? Enough of the AWOL, dead-beat "Dads" who persist in controlling others !!
A brief addendum to my earlier comment: I forgot to include draftees into our military as another group who our government is mandated to provide with housing, food, clothing, & medical care as long as the draftee is forced to serve. Women forced to give birth against their will and raise that child until of legal age should receive the same governmental support as draftees.
More science, please. And let's face it, the improved science around pregnancy and birth control in the last decades is astounding. It has cut the abortion rate in my blue state by half. We will be providing for the neighboring states that choose to live in the 1950's. The angels-on-earth here are gearing up for the influx of women and girls that will need their help.
Each "true" religion claims to be a fountain of good but fails in so many ways by being rigid. The founding fathers created a government that was fluid, not another religion.
The opinion about to come down by the liars the Republicans sent to the Court absolutely begs for a discussion of separation of church and state. Abortion is a really stupid issue for Republicans to use to gain power; it will hurt them. Leaving out rape and incest victims shows just how cruel they are, and it is a MONUMENTAL mistake.
Thom: once again you have knocked it out of the ballpark. The words of Justice Alito; "The Supreme Court has no business recognizing a "right" that isn't rooted in the nation's "history and Traditions." In my opinion this is a ruse, a false flag, a try to convince us that all other rights we enjoy are safe from the ethno Theocratic, white nationalists mob. Not to worry sayeth his El SUPROMO. Andrew L. Seidel, writing in RELIGION DISPATCHES 5/3/22; talks about how and why the religious right will come after the separation of church and state. He points out- among other things- "the court has three church-state cases this term." In Carson V. Makin, the court is likely to say that states must fund religious education. That builds on two recent cases, Trinity Lutheran (2017) and Espinoza (2020). He also mentions another case Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. For years Republicans and corporations have tried to get rid of unions. Suppose they go to the court and the court rules the National Labor Relations Act is unconstitutional. What happens to all the federal agencies in place such as the EPA, the Food and drug administration, the CDC, etc. They may not be regarded as personal rights per se but they damn well have been established to protect our right to breath clean air; to see that the food we eat is safe; and our medicines are safe to take. I may be going a bit far with all this. However; I am firmly convinced if we do not stop these medieval dragons we will see all of the above and worse.
Everything about the right, and it's approach toward politics, social issues, economics, whatever, is control. They seek to control every sector of the social order. They desire to impose their will on everyone who disagrees with them. Their refusal to recognize exceptions in their laws against women's rights is the ultimate tell.
I agree; excellent piece. You've really got us thinking on the root issues. It seems to boil down to something you mentioned - whether the laws of a nation such as the U.S.A. should be secular, or religious? I believe their history was religious, but society has been increasingly moving toward secular. This is just my own observation, and not a judgment. I know where I stand, but the direction a nation will take is a different issue. It amazes me that your nation has held together (for the most part) for 250 years. That can quickly change though - all it takes is a leader with an oversized ego and poof! suddenly the bombs and bullets are raining down; we've seen hints of it recently in the U.S. I'll hope for a more positive outcome; that you'll continue to make it work somehow, without resorting to the violence. Again, thanks for the thoughtful insights.
Because the Democrats let them.
I find it hard to get excited. 50 years ago, for a brief period, the SCOTUS stopped being corrupt for a while, plus it hadn’t been taken over yet by the NaziRepublican Party.
The non-corrupt 1972 SCOTUS kept getting abortion cases that had no solid law they could cite, so they kept telling Americans over and over and over to push the US congress to GIVE WOMEN FULL HUMAN RIGHTS.
Americans didn’t bother. Congress, of course, was too busy not prosecuting Nixon and the NaziRepublican Party for their crimes to do anything for women, and of course almost no women pressured congress to do their job.
For FIFTY YEARS we’ve been told that Roe was a stop gap ruling and would not stand up to serious challenge. THE SCOTUS HAS ALWAYS SAID SO, even when selling decisions.
For the entire 50 years, women represented the majority of voters, but the majority didn’t bother to act. By their actions, it is clear that most women really don’t care if they have any rights.
Today, people are simply being reactionary, freaking out after the corrupt SCOTUS did what they have said they would do, after Americans doing NOTHING to avoid this, for HALF A CENTURY.
Sorry, I refuse to expend any energy on this as long as most Americans continue to not bother to vote. Those that do vote won’t do a damn thing when the NaziRepublican Party cheats and steals the election for the 8th time in the last 50 years, then strips individual freedom and works to destroy America.
I’ve seen it 7 times, people. It’s not the fault of the criminals THAT WE NEVER PROSECUTE.
Forget abortion, the NaziRepublican Party will pass national laws that eliminate ALL personal freedom. When that happens, all I can say is read some Thomas Jefferson - y’all are getting the government you voted for.
I find it interesting that men are debating a woman’s right to her own healthcare decisions. My feelings are that religion has no place in our government, and that government has no place dictating women’s healthcare decisions. The argument comparing vaccine mandates by the government doesn’t fly. The vaccine mandates are a public health issue. Abortion is an individual woman’s private health issue.
Consider a new term, first introduced by Andrew Sullivan: Christianist.
https://the-wawg-blog.org/christian-is-to-christianist-as-muslim-is-to-islamist-religious-believers-vs-political-ideologues/
Thom. Your arguments are compelling. But a factual matter still remains: both sides of the debate depend entirely on interpretations of both the law and morality.
Your moral arguments clearly privilege your feelings about these issues. But I’m still unsure of the basis for your thesis. Both sides of this debate use very similar kinds of rhetorical constructs. Both you and they express personal judgments and believe the respective moral conclusions are somehow true. The difference is that you criticize your opposition for basing their conclusions on a religious tradition. But they clearly see that your views are simply founded on a secular tradition. And philosophically, the basis of both traditions inevitably fall to subjective moral conclusions. That is, both sides entirely depend on some tradition for the validity of their moral beliefs. Your arguments simply remind us that you believe your interpretive principles of the law and morality are superior to theirs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the basis for your arguments are grounded in your belief about secularism. Logically there’s nothing that makes the belief in secularism more true than the traditions you criticize. You simply feel your moral beliefs are better moral beliefs. And you believe your interpretations of secular history ought to be the basis for our moral decisions going forward. But this rhetorical construct simply reveals a well-crafted circular reasoning. Your moral opinions are steeped in your interpretive beliefs concerning the morality of abortion. In the end you want us to abide by your interpretations because you so strongly believe in the veracity of your interpretations. The Pro-Life sides believes Justice Alito is doing this exact same thing.
If we are to live with the legal judgments that are given us, both sides must acknowledge the almost irreconcilable moral complexities of this issue. Therefore, it would seem that you’d be eager for a national referendum on the issue. Wouldn’t our vote be the most fair direction afforded us? If we don’t allow the people to vote, I fear we’ll end up with conclusions like yours: A conclusion that simply imposes moral preferences based on political agendas.
Progressives claim the certitude of their moral beliefs about abortion and believe the country favors a continuation of Row. If so, a vote might bring about the most justice for all stakeholders. The vote therefore may be the most important vote of the 21st Century.
So what am I missing? After reading your arguments I’m left a set of beliefs that appear to be almost a mirror image of those you condemn.
To me this is simple. Most Americans don't bother to vote, and those who do vote are mostly misinformed or uninformed. I personally find only about 5% of Americans know what is going on.
Government attracts the corrupt. As my wife always says, organized crime discovered they truly cannot fight city hall, so they BECAME city hall. For a solid modern example, look at Medallien, Columbia. The real estate developers tell everyone it's just "gotten safe" but in fact, the leaders of cartels matured and moved into running legitimate businesses and government. Yes, it's safe, but not because government did anything, it's because the criminals decided to accept lower returns for their own safety.
There are two means to fight corruption.
Method 2: Wait until the barn is burning down around you and get excited. Usually, this is the worst method.
Method 1: Stay involved, informed, and voting. Although we all wish it was, so we could put in capable people and forget about it, politics is not a spectator sport.
Historically women have always been at the mercy of male generated opinions, actions and laws; perhaps history is almost ready for women, on the basis of representing 50% of the population, to exert their will legally with their votes.
However, it does appear that the female vote has not overwhelming been in favor of the practice of using the abortion option, instead of birth control, or abstinence.
For many states in America, the plurality of votes, for one reason or another, simply does not support medical access to include unrestricted access to abortions. Maybe that is a canyon too deep and wide for such a mandate to be a federal decision.
Mr. Hartman's research is impeccable, as always; however, on this issue it is not shared by everyone.
It is interesting that he writes "Alito’s decision is an open assault on the right of bodily autonomy, the right to make ones’ own medical decisions, and the right to choose to have or not have children." In the Mid-term 2022 elections a lot of voters will be reflecting on how President Biden, the CDC, WHO and the pharmaceutical industry clearly assumed they had complete and unrestricted 'rights' to mandate the use of experimental medical procedures and immune system mRNA on everyone, men, women and little children.
Even respected scientists struggle with the co-existence of their religious faith and the current hypothesis of scientific understanding. Clearly, with the explosive global population growth, birth control is a sensitive issue, and using the abortion approach, for many reasons appear NOT to be something most cultures can reach consensus on, regardless of the narratives being used to justify it. Perhaps the learning curve is that a federation of states may be better off NOT forcing some issues, or considering suggesting that State's Rights may eventually have to govern on some issues.