Jewish leaders, both in synagogues and in public life, are taking a prominent role in opposing the abortion restrictions imposed by Governor DeSantis and the Republican-dominated legislature. Soon after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, a synagogue filed a lawsuit claiming that the state’s abortion restrictions violated their religious liberties. Now, DeSantis has suspended Andrew Warren, the Hillsborough County attorney, for saying that he would not enforce the abortion laws; Warren is Jewish.
The purpose of the First Amendment—which protects freedom of religion and forbids an “establishment” of religion—is to ensure that every American may practice his or her own faith (or none at all), and that no faith may use government to impose its beliefs on others.
Unfortunately, the current Trumpist Supreme Court takes the position that freedom of religion may be wielded to enable some to impose their views on others. The abortion issue is an example of that: Catholics, evangelical Christians, and fundamentalists of other religion oppose abortion. The Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning Roe V Wade imposes the religious views of these groups on others who don’t share their views.
A just resolution would be to allow every woman to make decisions with her doctor. Those who oppose abortion should not have one. Those who disagree should follow their doctors’ advice.
In Florida, Jewish groups have actively fought for their beliefs, which are violated by the Dobbs decision.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ratcheted up the fight over the state’s looming 15-week abortion ban Thursday when he suspended a Tampa-area state attorney who had vowed not to prosecute violations.
The move also vaulted yet another Jewish figure into the fight’s foreground.
Andrew Warren, the state attorney for Hillsborough County, had joined more than 90 other attorneys nationwide in pledging not to prosecute individuals who seek or provide abortions in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that had guaranteed abortion rights.
“Criminalizing and prosecuting individuals who seek or provide abortion care makes a mockery of justice,” the letter said. “Prosecutors should not be part of that.”
Warren, who has said that his Jewish identity has shaped his government career, joins other Florida Jews in prominent positions in the fight to protect access to abortion: A South Florida synagogue making a religious freedom argument spearheaded the first lawsuit filed against Florida’s abortion ban, and a Jewish political activist who came to prominence by protesting against DeSantis’ pandemic rules has signed on to represent the congregation.
DeSantis is betting that his alienation of Florida’s large Jewish population and its large LGBT population will be overcome by courting evangelicals, Catholics, and rednecks.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I have always believed that the question of the beginning of life is fundamentally associated with religious beliefs. My good friend and world-renowned scientist, Ralph, laughs at the question of the beginning of life. He says life is a continuum. But ethically, we must define the beginning of life in order to delineate social responsibility in regards to that life.
Since this is a decision based on the individual perception of ethics, it is a private decision that unfortunately falls on the woman, who gives life by carrying the new life herself. I do not understand how she must do this, being as how I am not capable of carrying new life myself. Thus, I fear, we cannot remove this burden from each individual woman. We are forced by this condition to be supportive of her decision. We may support her, argue with her, even criticize her ultimate decision, but it is nonetheless hers. In concert with her doctors and close confidants, she must make this decision. Many women will look to their faith to make it through this process. As such, amendment 1 guarantees her right to privacy of thought. Society has an equal right to offer opinion and advice generally, to make argument, but she has the right to decide.
I agree one hundred percent with this. It took me a long time (vestiges of a Catholic high school education and growing up in a regressive area of the country) to figure out that I had no interest whatsoever in the decisions a pregnant woman must face unless I was involved. And even then, my interests go way in the back seat. I do not see how anyone can impose their beliefs on anyone going through an intensely personal experience. I posted it here before, I think it’s worth repeating Pete Buttigieg’s remarks on this to question if late abortions should be allowed:
“[Women who get abortions in third trimester] represent[ ] less than 1 percent of cases. So let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it’s that late in you pregnancy, then almost by definition, you’ve been expecting to carry it to term. We’re talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or the viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they made seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made.”
It definitely isn’t a scientific decision.
Science and technology can inform the decision (eg, about the likelihood of seriously even fatally debilitating disease if a fetus is brought to term), but they can’t “decide”.
Pretending that it’s a scientific issue only further clouds an already cloudy issue.
The evangelicals and rednecks are strongly supportive of DeSantis and his personally intrusive policies. While abortion limits have alienated most liberals and many women, DeSantis is also targeting trans individuals as well. The state medical board is considering “delaying gender-affirming care for adults and banning it for youths.” While we can argue all day about this proposal, it highlights another case in which a conservative administration is stepping in between a decision that is generally made between a doctor and a patient. The GOP used to be a party that defended “individual liberties.” Now they are the party that allows conservative religious beliefs to shape policies and impose them on others. I hope the Florida Jews prevail in their lawsuit
I hate the idea that any one religion can impose its doctrines on the whole population. Live and let live is a good standard.
As long as nobody else is harmed or exploited in the process, live and let live is the best policy.
Uh….’rednecks’?
You know, of course, that the term was invented to demean people that grew food to feed people in the cities, right? I suggest that ‘city people (particularly White ones) grow their own food and see how red their neck gets. Or, see if they can actually grow any food at all.
Meanwhile, I just picked a pot of French ‘haricot verte’ and I’m steaming them in butter with a touch of onions right now. Plan on that with chicken cacciatore. Turns out I didn’t raise the chicken (neighbor did) or the olives, but all tomatoes and onions are mine (as well as herbs and garlic). Yeah, we ‘rednecks’ are really stupid.
But, I’m now a ‘subsistence’ farmer, so eat your heart out.
Some time ago, the issue of whether redneck was a derogatory term came before a court. The court decided that it was not.
The descriptor, calloused hands, may fall into the category of working class snobbery.
Linda, I want to reply to your comment, however there was no why to directly ‘reply’. I hope you get this.
Firstly, a ‘court’ doesn’t decide on the meaning of words. Popular usage does that. Secondly, if ‘redneck’ had no negative indication, why would ‘retired teacher’ have used it?
Many words have both a descriptive and an avaluative meaning. Descriptively, ‘redneck’ means people with red necks. Also people who raise food. However, no matter what a ‘court’ says (few judges understand semantics), the evaluative meaning is ‘negative, bad, and maybe stupid’. I think you know, Linda, that it’s a term almost always used to demean rural (and often Southern) people.
There was a time when ‘nigger’ simply meant ‘Black’ (remember Mellville?) However, later usage made it ‘offensive’. To call either a Southerner or a rural person a ‘redneck’ is like calling an African-American a ‘nigger’. The word is a mixed evaluative, and the ‘descriptive’ content is usually not the point.
Yep Daedalus….look what the word “Deplorables” did for us in 2016. Words DO matter. I’m tired of the name calling.
I’ve tried to be a quasi subsistence farmer for a while now, but it seems that only the squirrels and the voles (or moles?) are reaping the benefits of my red neck. Thank goodness for my local fruit stand and their red necked and dirty workers!
I have no solution for the voles. I don’t grow potatoes. They don’t seem to like Daikon. I think blacksnakes love to go down for voles, however they are getting harder and harder to find. Another trick is a rat trap baited with part of a nut (pecan or walnut) placed by an active hole (Perhaps where they just pulled in a plant. Toss in some small pieces of nut into the hole). It’s a constant war (and the voles will probably win in the end).
Squirrels? I assume in your fruit trees. The trick is to ‘thin’ the critters during the winter (410 shotgun, but make sure of your background. Don’t hit your neighbor’s window). I don’t worry too much about squirrels going extinct. I made ‘squirrel and dumplings’ a few times, and it was delicious, however the process of skinning and cleaning a squirrel is rather tedious. (Use half the amount of meat called for in a ‘chicken and dumplings’ recipe). Also, I’m diabetic, so ‘dumplings’ are now off the menu.
If squirrels were only as smart as crows, this would be much easier. All you need for crows is to hit one, and then let it lay there. The other crows will find it and ‘mourn’, after which they will go away for several years. I hate to shoot a crow because they seem to have a far more ‘civilized’ (evaluative meaning) society than we do, yet I also like to eat.
The equivalency doesn’t hold up. “Red necks” weren’t, in general terms, brought to the country as slaves. While the derivation of the term may have related to work, “red necks” today are seen as having a piece of the economic pie.
We could sample the general public and ask them which of the two descriptors they would prefer to have applied to them.
Well, as a Southerner and sorta, kinda rural, none of my friends like being called ‘rednecks’, particularly by someone from the megapolis (Boston through NY/NJ and down to DC). As I said, there is NO descriptive message being sent, only the evaluative one (You’re stupid and deserve to be dominated by me, the Ubermench).
Pretty much the same message sent by using ‘nigger’.
In the case of the African-American, this attitude was necessary in order to defend slavery. In the case of the rural South, this was (is) necessary in order to defend the stripping of resources (timber, coal, land) in order to defend the brutality of Eastern capitalism.
Nobody ever uses ‘redneck’ as anything other than a pejorative. Same with ‘nigger’.
Does the poor, rural White Southerner suffer as much as the African American? Well, no. This is because the ‘redneck’ can ‘pass’ (not be noticed, as long as he/she can learn to ‘correct’ their accent). According to Zinn, this was the reason the Brits needed Black slaves. The Irish and English servants simply disappeared and ‘passed’ into normal society somewhere else. Skin color, therefore, was more useful in a larger land in order to preserve the rule of the powerful.
That, however, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a similarity between one evaluative slur and another.
Test: Give me 5 synonyms for ‘redneck’.
Daedalus– love the farming stories. The squirrels conquered me, 1st in Brooklyn, then in NJ. They operate in concert, and their taste changes from season to season like girls into Paris fashion, so planning ahead is a waste of time. We coexisted more or less peacefully for a few years in Brooklyn. I resented the time required to sprinkle cayenne after every rain. But I was thankful they disliked tulips. Then one year they arbitrarily overcame their distaste and bit each blossom off just as it opened, so that I had a double border of decapitated stalks. My NJ Waterloo: the year I returned from vacation in August to find a giant bite taken out of every single tomato. Much as I hated the gaudy look of crown imperials (skunk lily), I enjoyed planting a few every year just to frustrate the little bastards.
Daedalus– the word “redneck” leaves me with a pleasant & affectionate image: my dad. He always had a red neck, & arms from short-sleeve border to fingertips, from hours daily on tractors and backhoes and bulldozers. In swim trunks he looked like he was wearing a white T-shirt. I think he used that pejorative word occasionally himself, to castigate those with rigid country ideas he mostly left behind in IN when he joined the navy at 17, then headed East.
If Alito gets this case, prepare for The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to crop up in his historical analysis.
Yikes. Even that thought makes me sick to my stomach
Omg, you are prescient!
I only write what I see.
The current Supreme Court ruling on abortion not only violates the 9th Amendment, it violates the religious rights of many citizens: The Bible gives commandments on a very, very long list of more than 600 laws on everything from divorce to gluttony — yet the Bible says nothing about abortion. Why is that? If abortion was even as important as gluttony, it would have been mentioned in the Bible.
But,the Bible is silent on abortion: Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, which includes the 10 Commandments, NONE — not one — comments on abortion. In fact, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25 clearly shows that causing the abortion of a fetus is NOT MURDER. Exodus 21:22-25 says that if a woman has a miscarriage as the result of an altercation with a man, the man who caused miscarriage should only pay a fine that is to be determined by the woman’s husband, but if the woman dies, the man is to be executed: “If a man strives with a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet there is no harm to the woman, he shall be punished according to what the woman’s husband determines and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if the woman dies, then it shall be life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” Ex. 21:22-25. So, the Bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being — the mother — but not for the death of a fetus, indicating that the fetus is not yet a human being.
There are Christian denominations that allow abortion in most instances; these denominations include the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church USA. The United Methodist Church and Episcopal churches allow abortion in cases of medical necessity, and the United Universalist Association also allows abortion.
Most of the opposition to abortion comes from fundamentalist and evangelical Christians who believe that a full-fledged human being is created at the instant of conception. In short — that is a religious BELIEF and religious beliefs cannot be recognized by the government under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of our Constitution. Moreover, the belief that a fetus is a human person, complete with a soul, is a Christian interpretation of the Jewish Bible — the Old Testament. But, Jewish scholars whose ancestors wrote the Old Testament and who know best what the words mean say that is a wrong interpretation of their writings.
Christians largely base their view that a fetus is a complete human being and that abortion is murder on the Jewish Bible’s Psalm 139: “You knit me together in my mother’s womb…You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born.”
Who better to translate the meaning of Psalm 139 than the Jews who wrote it? And Jewish scholars point out that Psalm 139 merely describes the development of a fetus and does not mean that the fetus has a soul and is a person. In fact, the Jewish Talmud explains that for the first 40 days of a woman’s pregnancy, the fetus is considered “mere fluid” and is just part of the mother’s body, like an appendix or liver. Only after the fetus’s head emerges from the womb at birth is the baby considered a “nefesh” – Hebrew for “soul” or “spirit” – a human person.
Fortunately the Bible is not the law of the land. The Constitution says nothing about abortion. I agree with you that reproductive rights should be based on the 9th amendment. There are areas of personal Liberty where government should not intrude.
quikwrit– I was surprised you left Catholics out of the para starting “Most of the opposition to abortion..” They’re the ones the fundamentalists & evangelists borrowed it from, thanks to the manipulations of Paul Weyrich & other “new right” politicos starting in 1979. Until 1980, opposition to legal abortion was seen by conservative Protestants as “a Catholic issue.” E.g., the Southern Baptist convention stated & reaffirmed its position on abortion 5 times between ’71 and ’79: “we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” There were also a number of Baptist articles published just after Roe v Wade calling it a needed line drawn between church & state.
Of course even the Roman church did not adopt its current position until an 1869 bull by Pius IX, codified into canon law in 1917. There was a brief [2-1/2yr] period in the 16thC under SixtusV when all abortion was deemed murder—withdrawn by his successor. So, for 1,866 yrs the position was that abortion was unethical, but not “murder” until sometime 40-90 days after conception [the time of “quickening” or “ensoulment.”]
It would be more accurate to say that less than half of US Catholics support abortion bans.
“According to 1995 survey by Lake Research and Tarrance Group, 64% of U.S. Catholics say they disapprove of the statement that “abortion is morally wrong in every case”. According to 2016 survey by Pew Research Center, 51% of U.S. Catholics say that “having an abortion is morally wrong”. …
“Like Americans overall, Catholics vary in their abortion views, with regular Mass attenders most opposed”
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/05/23/like-americans-overall-catholics-vary-in-their-abortion-views-with-regular-mass-attenders-most-opposed/
Just because a citizen in the US is a Catholic, it doesn’t mean they want to ban all abortions.
Agree 100% with your final sentence, Lloyd.
Adding, IMO, the SCOTUS’ Roe decision had 100% to do with religion (as did the Espinosa, Biel and Kennedy decisions).
Do Americans gain traction for religious freedom by omitting the mention of a sect whose leaders have fought for 50 years to overturn Roe? And, omitting the name of the sect that the majority conservative justices are members of? How about the sect of Leonard Leo, who secured their positions for them? Or, do the omissions embolden them and, the cover, facilitate their successes?
If there had been greater awareness of the build-up of political strength, would the nation be where it is today?
That last sentence needs to say, “Just because…..It doesn’t mean they want to ban any (not all) abortions.” Why should another family, or religion, have the right to tell someone else what to do about something like this?
Like the addition.
Linda– “If there had been greater awareness of the build-up of political strength, would the nation be where it is today?” Definitely food for thought. It is amazing to me that most of this political strength was built up by the efforts of two men: Paul Weyrich and Leonard Leo.
Weyrich was a Catholic’s Catholic: after 2nd Vatican Council he switched to the Melkite Byzantine Catholic Church—orthodox easterners who are under the umbrella of the Roman pope. Not sure whether that was an objection to de-latinization of rites, or just a better fit, so he could be a ”father-deacon” though married with family. But anyway, politically, good lord– The guy founded both Heritage Foundation and ALEC! And immediately organized the politicization of Christian evangelists, who were 70% non-voters & mostly unregistered during Johnson and Nixon years, ushering them into the Republican party.
“Leo, a Catholic ultraconservative, came to the conclusion that righteous religion would never win at the ballot box.” [Katherine Stewart, New Republic 7/11/22 article] “’He figured out 20 years ago that conservatives had lost the culture war,’ said Leo’s former media relations director, Tom Carter. ‘Abortion, gay rights, contraception—conservatives didn’t have a chance if public opinion prevailed. So they needed to stack the courts.’” He is now the recognized power broker of the judicial system, mostly via leadership of the Federalist Society.
Bethree,
If Diane posted your comment, it would be new info. for her readers and it would benefit those fighting against the right wing.
Americans should be sobered by the knowledge that (1) Catholic organizations are the nation’s 3rd largest employer, a ranking achieved through taxes (2) that much of Republican voting in central states is steered by Catholic PR (3) that there are extensive links between the Koch network and conservative Catholic power brokers and, (4) the SCOTUS majority jurists render verdicts for Catholic theocracy.
A Steve Bannon-like operative can be expected, again, to deliver a President who fronts for the religious alliance of conservative Catholics and protestant evangelicals. When that operative employs the machine created by his sect, the deliberate refusal to name his religion will put another nail in the coffin of democracy.
Back in the early 1980s, I took a college class where one of the assigned books was “Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy: The Origins and Evolution of a National Policy” by James Mohr.
I was young enough that to me, it felt as if the time before the right to choose was the law of the land was long ago history, like the Viet Nam war. I was alive, but too young to have any real awareness of the political battles being waged. The abortion issue was decided law, like the abolishing of slavery, and I studied it as history, not as if the law itself was “debatable” with an equally valid argument to be made that both sides could be right.
And that book was a revelation to me, because I had no idea that there was a very long period of time in earlier US history when there were not abortion restrictions, and I had not understood how much the justifications for the restrictions were not as much religious but more about protecting white protestant supremacy. I haven’t re-read that book in the last 40 years, but I wonder why it seemed to have disappeared as a reference.
On the Amazon website, there are some quotes from editorial reviews I assume are from 1979 or 1980, when it was first published:
“Should be an eye-opener to those who think that religious objections were at the root of anti-abortion legislation and equally to those who think that abortion has been a matter of life and death.”–Carl N. Degler, Stanford University
“A superb example of the way history can inform a current contentious controversy.”–Journal of American History
“Mohr makes it abundantly clear that Supreme Court decisions of the 1970s were not a modern weakening of moral standards but a return to what Americans believed and practiced a hundred years ago.”–The Christian Century
“An altogether lucid review of American abortion policy in the 19th century.”–Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, The New York Times
“The history of how abortion came to be banned and how women lost…rights previously thought to be natural and inherent over their own bodies is a fascinating and infuriating one.”–Chicago Tribune
In 2022, how would you describe the goal of the abortion restrictions and threats to birth control? Anticipating, it’s anti-woman not, about protestant evangelicals nor conservative Catholics?
I’m not NYC, but I’d say it’s all about power. As someone pointed out, abortion isn’t even mentioned in the Bible. So, it’s about creating a society where the ruling class calls the shots, and everyone else ‘bows down’. It also helps to divide one faction against another. The object is to enforce servitude.
You know, “United we stand, divided we fall”.
I partially agree with you. The handmaiden, Amy Comey Barrett, IMO, believes genuinely that her Church should be at the center of political and social decisions because God’s law, which only her Church has a right to impose, is above man’s law.
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Scalia before them, were/are about the power.
Hi Linda, that’s a good question. I agree with you on the religious influence on the current debate.
Smart move. I think the Pastafarians should do the same.
Out of curiosity, did the senators questioning the nominated SCOTUS jurists ask them what the punishment should be if they lied with the intent of advancing their religious beliefs? If the senators didn’t ask, was that because they were similar to the rest of us and didn’t know how much power conservative Catholics like Steve Bannon and Leonard Leo had amassed?
Professing to be not particularly religious, but trying to understand, I have a question that I have not yet seen an answer to: If an abortion occurs, either by way of miscarriage or clinical means, and assuming a soul is present, what would happen to that soul?
The assumption of a ‘soul’ is rather a large one. It’s a myth from several thousand years ago invented to explain human consciousness and make humans feel good about killing other animals. There is absolutely NO evidence for a ‘soul’. Why would one ‘assume’ it existed?
In fact, modern neuroscience is far more believable. Not perfect, mind you, but at least an attempt to put such ‘soul’ nonsense into an observable framework.
It’s always great when Christians tell Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and Jews what to believe, and make punitive laws to force us into believing it. Nothing bad ever happens because of that. The Supreme Christian Court justices are geniuses.
Sorry, I misspelled gene-asses.
Ha!