Washington Post Dana Milbank writes about the long game of Republicans, which culminated in Justice Alito’s draft decision overturning Roe V. Wade.
So Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell thinks the leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion overturning Roe is a “toxic spectacle” and an “attack.” Chief Justice John Roberts calls it a “betrayal.”
Cry me a river.
There is indeed a toxic spectacle and a betrayal going on here, but it isn’t the leak. It’s the betrayal of democracy by McConnell’s Republicans and the toxic spectacle of the Roberts court aiding it.
The reported 5-to-4 split on the draft shows that this cataclysmic ruling would be forced on the public by the narrowest possible majority. This means the ruling is possible only because of the seat on the court McConnell and his Republican colleagues effectively stole by refusing for 293 days to confirm — or even consider — President Barack Obama’s duly nominated candidate, Merrick Garland.
Republicans handed that seat in 2017 to Neil Gorsuch — in the process going “nuclear” and eliminating the filibuster so that only Republican votes were needed for confirmation.
Then, in a feat of astounding hypocrisy, McConnell’s Republicans reversed their pious claim that Supreme Court vacancies late in a presidency should be left to the “next president” and confirmed Amy Coney Barrett eight days before Joe Biden was elected president — essentially stealing a second seat.
Some justices reported by Politico to be voting to overturn Roe now stand accused by Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) of misrepresenting their positions on the “super precedent” during their Senate confirmations.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“There is no honor among thieves” applies to the Republican Party of today.
Wow. Yes! Well observed!
one con man knows another: YES
Have to win elections and have to play hardball. And playing hardball puts an even higher importance on winning elections.
absolutely!
I’m a pretty pessimistic guy in general, but I’m nowhere near as pessimistic about democracy or the Democratic Party’s chances. They just have to focus on the things that unite most people. The right to abortion with reasonable restrictions should be one of those things—even in most of the Deep South.
Nowhere near as pessimistic as many others I see, I meant to say.
Interestingly, to your point, Flerp, in deep Red Flor-uh-duh, most voters support abortion rights. Yeah, they are fundamentalist nutcases, many of them, but almost none of them hasn’t had a family member who got an abortion for reasons they understood.
Bob-
Interesting case in point- DeSantis’ press secretary.
She told the public that she was Catholic which was followed by her fret about being labeled anti-Catholic because she promoted right wing immigration views. Pinning down what she thinks about Draconian abortion laws proves difficult. I presume she narrows her scope to the issues that advance colonialism.
!!!
And so we enter the Jane Crow Era, thanks to IQ45 and Mullah Alito.
As the Court moves right, it begins to leave the libertarian right and head for the religious right. Will that wing of the Republican Party bolt for a third party? Will there be split? Or is there really no true libertarian in the Republican Party?
The last three justices have been cookie cutter conservatives, creating a five member cabal on the court that cannot behave free of their extreme philosophy. Milbank is correct; the Republicans Stole two seats with their tactics. But the problem goes much deeper. Moderates in the American system refuse to get involved with the electoral process the way conservatives do. By their very nature, moderates do not feel as intense about issues.
So what happens when women begin to die because there is not proper medical support for those forced to carry their pregnancies to term? What happens when a doctor refuses to intervene to save the life of a mother because he is afraid of a vigilante lawsuit? We are already losing more mothers during bad pregnancies than any other developed nation. I shudder to think where all of this is going.
As the Court moves right, it begins to leave the libertarian right and head for the religious right. Will that wing of the Republican Party bolt for a third party?
I don’t think so. Look at fascist Germany or Italy or Spain. Everyone even slightly to that side of things fell in line.
Yes, we already have the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world.
The problem is that one political party conducts themselves in the way that is necessary for democracy, and the other political party conducts themselves in a way that undermines and eventually destroys democracy.
The political parties have two separate and opposite goals. To preserve democracy or to destroy it.
It used to be that the differences in the political parties related to policy goals. Should government get involved? Should taxes be higher or lower? How do we use our military? etc.
The two parties were in agreement about democracy. There was a very fringe element that was far, far right, but they were way out of the mainstream and presented that way.
One of Putin’s great victories was infiltrating the Republican party with that fringe. There is a reason that the NRA became a propaganda organization funded by Russians to support far right candidates.
The other great victory was the far right billionaires controlling their media arms and bullying the so-called liberal mainstream media into legitimizing and amplifying their false narratives. Even the supposedly “critical” articles the mainstream media wrote about Republicans always accepted the right wing narratives. There was no journalism done to inform the public that what was said was not even true.
And the once-fringe element that no longer believed in democracy became the mainstream Republican party.
And every election now is about whether to preserve democracy or not. Not about policy goals. About whether to preserve democracy.
The Republicans know that. They present a united front with the goal of taking over this country in pursuit of power and accept no dissent.
I don’t think the Democrats can really compete. Contrary to the false narratives pushed by the far right (another example of how successful their propaganda is) that are repeated by some of us, Democrats allow dissent. They are good with debate and discussion. AOC and Pelosi disagree on some specifics, and how fast to move, but they agree about many things, most importantly about what direction this country needs to go.
And they agree that voting against Democrats to “send a message” is simply being complicit in helping the Republicans destroy democracy.
The Repugnican Party loves to talk about freedumb, as it supports telling women they can’t control their own reproduction, parents that they can’t protect their kids from guns, LGBT people that they can’t marry or sleep with the partners of their choice, Trans people that they can’t choose their gender identity, black people that they can’t be on an equal footing with white people, poor people that they can’t pay the tax rates of rich folks whose income comes from capital gains, everyone that they can’t assemble and protest and exercise free speech, teachers that they can’t teach the truth about our history, and on and on and on. They want to legislate all behavior that they don’t personally approve of, and they are just fine with using violence to do that.
And after they almost all fell in line with throwing out the results of the last election, it’s quite clear that they don’t support the freedom of the people to choose their own government.
It has become a fascist party. This is not an exaggeration. And what we’ve seen so far is simply the beginning. There is going to be a LOT of pushback, and when they get all the reins of power, they will use violence in response. State violence. Just like any other fascist autocracy.
Bob Your post is “best in show.”
I think like many other fascist publics, so many are just plain ignorant.
For instance, they are like Putin saying he is going to rid Ukraine of its Nazis. They seem not to even know what fascism is, and yet they bear all of its earmarks, as your note so clearly reflects.
Also, about “we Catholics.” As I have stated many times here, in many ways, it’s indefensible what the right wing “Catholic block” is doing to the country as they wrangle power to the old Church doctrines. I have always thought of many in the Church, but also so very many in other right-wing “blocks” in all of the other denominations, that in their hearts, they want to see the USA turn into a totalitarian theocracy, even though they have no idea what freedoms they and their religious institutions are already standing on and benefiting by. CBK
They will miss freedom when it’s gone.
Bob Shepherd As a psychological point, and though there is a long intellectual tradition in our own conservative thought here in the U.S., most (all?) GOP right-wingers that I know or listen to on the TV have an aversion to complexity of thought and to having to question and “think about things” (as someone else here suggested earlier).<–deadly to democracy?
As an unscientific comment: as a public, they seem, again, ignorant of their present political situation, its history, and its protections, and of the implications and potential outcomes of their thinking; and they seem dogmatic in their judgments. Trump just crystallized this way of being, as did the GOP when it pulled out of having debates. Get out your magic marker and make reality what you want with it.
Forget truth and the REAL reality (philosophy) and history (civics and history).
Are we pointing again to the struggles of the last 60 years or so of K-12 education, including and overlapping with teacher ed? And for philosophy, go back at least 400 years. .CBK
Well said, CBK
I agree with you 99%, NYCPSP. The exception is the Congressional runoff in Texas between Cisneros and Cuellar. He votes like a Republican; he is anti-reproductive rights. He is out of step with the rest of the party. But the Democratic leadership supports him because he is an incumbent. Maybe they want to show how broad minded they are, but I don’t understand why they wouldn’t cheer his ouster by a real Democrat.
Diane,
I agree with all your excellent points. The Democratic leadership should not support incumbents or should stay out of primary races altogether. But I also understand the rationale behind it.
One good thing is that this policy also benefits AOC and the Squad and Jamaal Bowman. If a challenger does win a primary and goes on to win the general election (or a progressive wins an open seat), the Democratic leadership also supports them because they are now incumbents.
I suspect many in the Democratic leadership would prefer Cisneros wins the runoff (as long as Cisneros is a viable candidate to win the general). But it’s a problem to pick and choose which incumbents to support so I guess they just made the decision to support all of them instead of none of them. That is arguably the wrong decision.
As much as I dislike Joe Manchin, he is still a very conservative Democrat instead of a Republican and his presence keeps Mitch McConnell from total power and controlling the Senate agenda. I just don’t think it is likely a more progressive Dem could win the general election, but I suspect we will see since Manchin may not run again.
The problem isn’t Manchin but that the Dems don’t have a big enough majority so that the most conservative members don’t matter. Would love to see them pick up seats in midterms, as unlikely as it seems.
Agreed. Maybe the Alito decision will motivate independents, suburban women, and Republican moderates to reject the Crazy Party.
Amen, Diane!
You nailed it, NYC PSP!!!
Your comment together with that on “anti-science aggression” reminds me of the Isaac Asimov quote, “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” You gotta admit, the cult has woven one ugly pattern that will soon be the required fashion.
Yes, correct, nycpsp. I connect that change in the Republican party with bipartisan govtl policy response to the double whammy of rise of 3rd-world global economy/ global trade [hence smaller pie for US], and the digital revolution, which put the pace of automation on steroids [between the two, quick deletion of 35% mfg jobs & soon deletion of low-rung white-collar jobs].
“Bipartisan” in the sense of Dem party bookending: Carter started deregulation off with a bang– and on the other side of 12 yrs of Republicans’ continued dereg, tax-cutting, union-busting & ushering in privatization of public services– Clinton continued what was by then entrenched neoliberal policy. It’s pointless to blame either Bush or Obama for continuing neoliberal policy, because by 2000, the fix was in. These policies had already trickled so much $$ to the top that the middle class had shrunk, the rich-poor gap was approaching banana-republic status, and we were firmly in the current paradigm: big $$ buying govtl policy to maintain/ increase its capture of national assets.
Though both parties have been crippled by these events/ policies, they settled out along warped versions of their originals. Republicans embraced the oligarchical model while selling it to voters as ‘conservative,’ i.e., selling tax-cutting and underfunding govt institutions as “small govt.” Oligarchy leads to autocracy, which is why the Republicans are headed inevitably in that anti-democratic direction. Dems keep trying to mop up the mess—never abandoning the neoliberal model entirely, but carving out expenditures here & there to keep the commoners from complete bankruptcy or dying in the streets. And they have in recent years a small progressive element, which pulls them a bit back toward the democratic model.
bethree,
The Democrats are now a party that includes progressives like AOC and the conservatives that might have been drawn to the old version of Republicans under Nixon or Ford or Mitt Romney. Pro-business but also pro-democracy. Pro-truth.
Jimmy Carter chose to promote neoliberal economic policies because he believed they would help. Twelve years after Republican rule, they who may not be named tried to get universal healthcare passed. They were abandoned for “not doing it the right way”.
Every time there is any effort by a Democrat to get progressive legislation passed and they struggle because of riht wing propaganda, there are too many on the left who help the right wingers by blaming the victims — the people pushing progressive legislation never do it “the right way”. I watched it happen in NYC when we were lucky enough to have a progressive Mayor who supported public schools and wanted to stand up to charters, and when the right wing shot him down for trying, the progressives helped to undermine him and legitimate the far right anti-public school folks by pushing their narrative that “he didn’t do it the right way”.
No wonder so many voters vote against their interests because the only narrative that gets amplified and legitimized by both sides is that democrats are to blame. Many of us on our side blame Republicans, but NO ONE on the Republican side blames Republicans, so blaming Republicans is always presented as a “partisan” view.
But when it comes to blaming Democrats, voters hear that “both sides” agree that Democrats are to blame. “Both sides” agree that lack of progress is the fault of Democrats.
No wonder they believe it.
No wonder they don’t blame Republicans. Blaming Republicans is a partisan view. Blaming Democrats is non-partisan. That gives it legitimacy and makes voters believe that the Republicans must be the only party to support because “even some Democrats” join Republicans in pointing out how evil the Dems are.
Ginny, a great recap of the past fifty years!
“The Tommyban” (led by Supreme Court JesticeThomas)
The Afghans have the Taliban
Religious law to give
And here we have the Tommyban
To tell us how to live
The former say “The rules were sent
From Allah up above”
The latter claim “It’s prime intent”
Of Framers of the guv”
The former make no bones “It’s God
Who sets the rules, for certain”
The latter claim “Just Framer law”
But God’s behind the curtain
Missed you, SomeDAM!
Welcome back, SDP!
We need your poetry to keep us sane.
A plug for insanity
My wish is not for sanity
Cuz sanity is plain
The bane of all humanity
Tis best to be insane
Cuz sanity is serious
And heavy on the heart
Tis best to be delirious
And play the loony part
bravo!
SDP has put on the antic disposition!
What do you read, M’ Lord? Why, words, words.
SDP,
It makes my heart happy to welcome you back.
We missed you.
DAM, I needed that.
(The Heavenly) Father Knows Best
I wish I knew the mind of God
Cuz then I’d know the Court’s
An unmatched mind that’s to applaud
An Oracle of torts
Stare decisis
Stare decisis
Settled law
Court decides this
Fatal flaw
“Pay no attention to the God behind the curtain”
The Roe v Wade Supremes
Were activist, it’s clear
But seeming Catholic themes
Are naught but baseless fear
SDP, you are on a roll today!
We’ve gone from Latin stare decisis to Yiddish, Oy vey!
Stare Decisis” (with apologies to Don McLean, Starry Night)
Stare, stare decisis
Latin for “What e’r we say”
Court decides the “settled” way
With “Ayes” that show the darkness in your soul
Shadows on the hills
Ban the doctors and their pills
Coatroom hacks that mother kills
Are destined for the women of the land
Now, I understand what you meant by “settled law”
And how you “settle” with a power saw
And how you lie to get your way
We would not listen, we did not know how
Perhaps we’ll listen now
A talented poet called someDAM
Whose verses are totally drum-WHAM!
Went off on vacation
Which caused us privation
He’s back! And we’re all just plumb-SLAM!
Good to see ya!!!
Haaa! Wonderful. And I agree entirely!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-abortion-history-the-right-doesn-t-mention/ar-AAX7ufq?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a679fa7a0c5c46a4c7dd3c6acf3f1936&fbclid=IwAR23uWo_Ulxcncq6RyRCY5cHqU7UA_mTi9A0HvadTvSaMUnX022SZlBMs5o
Fascinating history. Thanks, Bob. The irony of the issue is that I had a lot of discussions with people who found abortion a disturbing reality long before it became a hot button issue. Their points of view were not so much hostile to women as they were troubled over what medical science had placed in our lap as ethical questions.
Science raised the questions, but as in everything else, science can’t answer them.
Science can only inform the answers and the questions are only going to get harder to answer.
Some day, medical science may very well have the capacity to “nurture” a just fertilized human egg to completed development in an artificial womb. (chickens long ago figured out how to do this so why can’t we?)
And dinosaurs figured it out long before birds.
Surely, we are as smart as the dinosaurs, right?
Me too, Roy. Maybe it was already a hot-button issue in national politics but if so I was unaware in my college yrs [’66-‘70]. Basically I was dealing with the disconnect between what I believed as a Catholic, vs knowing people who had to go through it, knowing of their deep distress—but also observing their access to safe medical procedure due to $/ class, vs what I knew on the ground of unsafe self-measures & back-alley abortions, both of which were known to sometimes result in death. That really informed my eventual conclusion that law shouldn’t be calling this ‘murder’; should in fact butt out.
I learned more than a decade later, from my doc [female ob-gyn without an axe to grind], that even the safe medical procedure (especially if you had more than one) not uncommonly resulted in sterility due to scar tissue formed in the uterus making implantation of embryo less likely. I often thought about how this info was probably unknown to many women trying to make decisions. In this as in so many issues related to sexuality, scientific info, personal experience, conversation in general is suppressed, robbing people (especially women) of what they need to know.
How can the absence of acknowledgement that Weyrich was Catholic, be an unintentional mistake?
Linda “How can the absence of acknowledgement that” Biden and Pelosi, and so many others who have so many different views are “Catholic be an unintentional mistake?” CBK
Roy Turrentine writes: “. . . the irony of the issue is that I had a lot of discussions with people who found abortion a disturbing reality long before it became a hot button issue. Their points of view were not so much hostile to women as they were troubled over what medical science had placed in our lap as ethical questions.”
That’s why I think the “disturbing” point is this: lawful abortion or not, NO ON WINS either way. And either way, there is nothing left but contempt for the other side, regardless of one’s religious affiliation. As your note implies, it’s more a moral than a religious issue for very many of us.
Also, my bet is that more pro-abortion/access people than will talk about it think and feel horrible about it, especially late-term abortions. If so, honesty trumps politics and religious doctrine in that regard.
Though it’s not the total answer, there is NO SUBSTITUTE for fostering and bringing responsibility to one’s sexual life. We are still a democracy, and at the heart of the democratic spirit is not only its freedoms, but the responsible core: of people.
I never had to make a decision about abortion, but I cannot even imagine what that would be like. I’d never get over it, even if it were “necessary.” CBK
Fascinating link, Bob. Paul Weyrich, of all people. Co-founder of the Heritage Foundation and ALEC. So Linda is right, it all started with the Roman Catholics—sort of. [Wikipedia says after the Vatican II Council, he left the Latin Catholics to join up with the Eastern/ Greek/ Byzantine Church.] Evangelicals right up until the late ‘70’s [after Roe v Wade] considered abortion an RC issue not concerning them; they were OK with it (as documented in the linked article). Their defining issue until Weyrich got involved was racism: the IRS threat to Bob Jones University’s policy of excluding black students.
Yeah, Weyrich. Dr. Evil.
Topping the list of things I don’t want credit for is exposing the far reaching impact of the politicizing state Catholic Conferences and, the plotting of conservative Catholic power brokers like Leonard Leo in service to their religion. My pay grade is so low that, in any forum, I shouldn’t be providing new information. For me to get credit proves there has been a colossal failure of the liberal members of the Church, Democratic Party operatives, the media and defenders of public education, LBGTQ rights, women’s rights and abortion rights.
In a well-informed nation, for there to be resistance to my presentation of facts at this late date, reflects a systemic and catastrophic breakdown of checks and balances.
Or– at the very minimum– a failure of invetigative reporting.
bethree-
One critical area where minimization is occurring (it’s in evidence in the post’s thread of comments) is the blackout of discussion about the connected political networks of the state Catholic Conferences which were set up as the political arm of the bishops.
A second minimization tactic can be seen in the unrelenting efforts of some Church protecters to portray the Church as a gathering of various factions. The tactic protects the Church’s image as a spiritual entity instead of a political one. The guise implies factions have equal influence in the public square.
A third minimization tactic is the spin that the Church is losing members. Those opposed to theocracy should not be soothed by the notion. Growth in the total number of members in the U.S. over time casts the story in a different and concerning light.
All Americans should have the knowledge that Catholic organizations are the U.S.’ third largest employer. Encroachment into government services have given Catholic organizations vast tax revenues. Equally important, the Church gained exemption from civil rights employment law for its employees in one sector. IMO, there is certainty that other sectors will follow given the conservative Catholic majority on SCOTUS.
The U.S. is headed back to Ireland’s Great Hunger when 1,000,000 Irish died of starvation.
FYI ALL:
Op-Ed: The Los Angeles Times
Conservative Christians will regret overturning Roe. They’re sacrificing religious liberty to do it.
PICTURE OMITTED
Police officers watch protesters outside the U.S. Supreme Court. Four of the five justices poised to vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade are Catholic. But they are out of step with most American Catholics, who support abortion rights. (Andrew Harnik / Associated Press)
BY SHEILA BRIGGS MAY 11, 2022 3 AM PT
“The imminent overturning of Roe vs. Wade is a disaster for women. It is also a disaster for the Catholic Church, whose hierarchy in America has made opposition to abortion central to its mission.
“The American Catholic Church is deeply divided, and the bishops’ obsession with matters of gender and sexuality is driving these rifts. Most American Catholics oppose the overturning of Roe vs. Wade (68%, according to a 2019 poll by the Pew Research Center). The bishops pay no heed to their voice but instead seek to silence Catholics in public office who defend women’s reproductive rights.
“Ordinary Catholics feel condemned for their views and for the decisions that they and their families make around abortion, same-sex marriage and even contraception, coverage for which the U.S. Catholic bishops sought to exclude from the Affordable Care Act. Time and time again, the bishops have fought against women having control over their own bodies.
“It is therefore not surprising that the pews at Sunday Mass are emptying. Today, most young Catholics, who are confirmed in the church in their teen years, have ceased attending Mass by their mid-20s. But it is not just the young and women who feel alienated from the church. There is a disturbing awareness, crossing the lines of gender and age, that the church is not doing the right thing.
“The exodus from the church, fueled by moral doubts about the bishops’ actions and teachings, will swell if the Supreme Court proceeds to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Although the American religious group most opposed to abortion rights is white evangelical Protestants, not Catholics, four of the five justices who are poised to strip away abortion rights are Catholic. As the devastating effects on women’s lives become visible after the Supreme Court’s judgment, Catholics are going to feel increasing shame over what their church has done.
“As members of a longtime minority, American Catholics instinctively understand from their own history what their bishops ignore: At stake here is religious liberty.
“The American theologian John Courtney Murray was instrumental in the drafting of the Second Vatican Council’s ‘Declaration on Religious Freedom,’ promulgated in 1965. This was a momentous reversal of church teaching that had previously resisted religious liberty as it became enshrined in the constitutions of democratic societies, because, the church argued, religious toleration (of non-Catholics) would spread indifference to religion. In contrast, American Catholics had embraced a legal foundation for religious liberty because they realized that it protected them in a then-predominantly-Protestant society.
“Religious liberty is the historical foundation of all civil liberties because it allows for a political community in which those who participate may profoundly disagree with and dislike one another but still cooperate rather than seek to destroy one another.
“Religious liberty did not originate in a period of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue but in an early modern world of bitter religious strife and deadly conflict. For those who were opposed to religious liberty, far more was at risk in their own eyes than the life of an unborn child. They were protecting people’s souls from eternal damnation caused by holding and spreading wrong religious belief. This is why in the early Commonwealth of Massachusetts Catholics were hanged; they were endangering not only their souls but also the souls of others.
“Religious freedom carved out a private sphere in which individuals were free to hold any or no religious beliefs and to act on their conscience. In return, they were required not to impose their religious beliefs and the conduct that derived from their conscience on others. In contrast, the public sphere was to operate on empirically observable and rational norms, which would be self-evident to any reasonable person.
“Certainly, our understanding of the boundary between private and public spheres has historically evolved and been contested, but the distinction remains important. Many of these boundary shifts have come about through recognition of the rights of women. For example, domestic violence cannot be excused because it occurs in a “private sphere.” The overturning of Roe vs. Wade reverses that trend: It no longer protects women’s bodies from private abuse but subjects them to public control.
“Is it legitimate to shift decisions about abortion from the private to the public realm? No. Banning abortion does not rest on established medical and scientific fact and therefore cannot lay the claim on any reasonable person that it become part of public law.
“Precisely because the U.S. protects religious liberty, Catholics who oppose abortion rights do not have to justify their religious beliefs and their religiously motivated conduct to me or, more importantly, to a court of law. By the same token, a religiously motivated decision to not have an abortion should not be imposed on those of us who do not share the religious beliefs.
“The overturning of Roe vs. Wade would threaten religious liberty. If such a ruling remains in effect for any length of time, it will prevent hundreds of thousands, eventually millions, of women from acting upon their conscience. This will result in serious harm for women and their families — and one of the bulwarks of democratic society will be weakened.
“The greatest benefit of religious liberty has been that we have learned to live with people we really don’t like whose views we do not share. This has provided the bedrock for other civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association. If religious liberty is diminished, then we face a world in which competing private spheres compete for dominance over the public realm.
“Conservative Christians may feel confident that they can win culture wars against all who do not share their vision of society, but no group stays on top forever. Eventually they will lose sway, and they would then miss the protections for religious liberty once enshrined in American culture and law.
“Roe vs. Wade is part of a patchwork of laws that have protected the privacy of individuals against the religiously motivated incursions of others. Ultimately, there cannot be religious liberty for some but not for others. Either all of us enjoy it, or none of us will.
“Sheila Briggs is an associate professor of religion and gender and sexuality studies at USC. She is also on the board of Catholics for Choice, a nonprofit supporting reproductive rights.” END ARTICLE CBK
Ramifications for religious freedom will be miniscule in comparison to the ramifications regarding the country as a whole, particularly regarding relations and commerce between states allowing abortion and states banning it.
The legal battles alone will be enough to tie the state and federal court systems up in knots. And we are undoubtedly going to see large migrations from state to state and probably interstate boycotts as well, maybe even bans on travel between states.
If people think the animosity and polarization between blue and red states is bad now, they ain’t seen nothing yet.
The Supremes who wrote the draft are utterly clueless about the track they just sent the train down.
SomeDAM I am as woeful as you about the broader ramifications to our democratic culture of changing Roe.
I think perhaps the writer of the LA Times article was hoping, like I am and many other are hoping, that Catholics “out there” will read this and all the other articles that are also telling that broader story. Those many who read it, who already support access to abortion, will be heartened by such writings (especially the history); and maybe those who are not will gain some “broader” understanding of its very real and damaging implications. And as you imply, if Roe goes, the ensuing problems will be swift to manifest.
As the article suggests (and as Linda’s still overblown discussions have it right), there ARE factions in the Catholic Church and other evangelical Churches (and others) who really do hate all-things-secular (not to mention women), and where their version of “secularity” (in my view) is a misunderstanding of its place and need on the international stage.
I have always been aware of a backwards-looking desire in some in the Church for a totalitarian theocracy (theirs/whichever is in power); but, in fact, theocracies today remain harbors for tin-pot shallow-minded authoritarians and are prescriptions for violence like the world has never seen. There’s not a thing Christian about what would result. Putin is just another version of that same kind of corruption. He is apparently enamored with fulfilling some religious vision himself . . . just another historical expression of what hides in the so-called “religions” which is always anathema to democracy: the authoritarian’s libido dominandi.
And who can help but think: Where are/were these guys when the Church’s children are/were being sexually abused? In the light of THAT history, the hyper-focus on the aborting of children takes on a decidedly different hue. What’s up with THAT? And Yes, I remain Catholic and am warmed that (as the article states) so many are about change but are also voting with their feet. CBK
Nailed it, SomeDAM. And CBK, seeing this a lot among my young Latin-American friends. Their parents are Catholic. Some of them still have a kind of cultural Catholicism, but none go to church, and they will be quite clear with you about the reasons why: they are sickened by the Church’s positions on abortion, contraception, gay marriage, homosexuality, divorce, women in the priesthood.
You can’t keep them down on the farm after they’ve seen Pahree.