Today’s blog post was long planned to be an article about Junípero Serra, who was canonized five years ago on September 23. But then Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18, and among other things, that has occasioned the re-escalation of the abortion wars.
From De-escalation to Re-escalation
On September
5, I posted “De-escalating the
Abortion Wars,” in which I contended that currently many
Catholics and conservative evangelicals are talking about a wide range of
important ethical social issues and not focusing primarily on abortion. I
thought/think that was a good sign.
But then RBG
died.
And DJT immediately
announced plans to nominate her replacement—and in complete reversal to the
stance most Republican Senators took after Justice Scalia died in February
2016, Sen. McConnell announced that the Senate would hold confirmation hearings
before the November 3 election.
Consequently,
there was quickly a re-escalation of the abortion wars.
Vilifying
RBG’s Position on Abortion
In supporting
DJT’s pledge to nominate a conservative, “pro-life” successor to Justice
Ginsburg, some of his staunch supporters began attacking RBG’s position on
abortion.
The most
abhorrent Facebook post that I saw in that regard was on Sept. 24 by a woman
who was one of my missionary colleagues in Japan—and a post that was “liked” by
another colleague and longtime personal friend.
That post
showed an image of Hitler, accompanied by the words, “Supported the murder of
11 million Jews.” Below that image was one of Ginsburg with the words,
“Supported the murder of 60 million babies.” The woman who made that post
commented with just two words: “Trump only!”
Sadly, the recently
deceased Supreme Court Justice who was so highly praised by so many people
across the country was vilified by conservative evangelicals, and others, in
ways that were untruthful, unkind, and, yes, unchristian.
Verifying
ACB’s Position on Abortion
Last Saturday
(9/26), DJT publicly announced that he was nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett
as RBG’s replacement on the SCOTUS.
The news
media and social media have had a plethora of news articles and opinion pieces
about Judge Barrett (ACB), so there is no need to duplicate information about
her here.
But I want to
focus on ACB’s position on abortion as that is partly what has re-escalated the
abortion wars this month.
Democrats and
many Independents, but perhaps only a few Republicans, are fearful that ACB’s confirmation
to the high court will likely help overturn the Affordable Care Act. She might
also help DJT win re-election, if the outcome of the Nov. 3 election is
contested, as it may well be.
Further,
since ACB is known for her “radical” proclivity to overturn laws rather than
honoring them as precedents, her position on the Court could also endanger the
right of same-sex couples to marry and the constitutional protections against
discrimination based on gender that RBG championed.
But abortion is
clearly the main reason many conservative Christians favor Judge Barrett’s confirmation
to the high court now—even though a 9/24 poll indicates that a majority of U.S.
voters think the winner of the Nov. 3 presidential election should nominate the
next Supreme Court justice.
Barrett was a top contender for the empty seat on the SCOTUS in 2018, and of all those on
DJT’s list as potential nominees, Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post called ACB
(in this 7/4/18 opinion
piece),
“The Trump Supreme Court pick who’d pose the biggest danger to abortion rights.”
I was greatly
saddened by the death of Justice Ginsburg for many reasons—and one of the main
reasons was because of her death triggering the re-escalation of the abortion
wars. What a shame!
Comments have to this point been few, which is a bit puzzling, as it seems to me this is a significant issue that calls for discussion. The first comments received were from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:
ReplyDelete"Yes. That is sad, Leroy. You don’t mention the key figure in the haste to replace Ginsburg--Mitch McConnell. He is also the one who blocked Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland and secured the election of two more opponents of Roe v. Wade. That was a major factor in Trump’s election. God help us if Donald Trump is reelected!"
Dr. Hinson, actually I did write that "in complete reversal to the stance most Republican Senators took after Justice Scalia died in February 2016, Sen. McConnell announced that the Senate would hold confirmation hearings before the November 3 election." At first, I thought that was abject hypocrisy--by McConnell and the many other Republicans who agreed with him in 2016. But then when they said that whichever party holds power in the Senate has the right to decide when to hold confirmation hearings, I saw there was some difference. I don't necessarily agree with that position, but there is nothing we can do about that now--except to vote to elect Democratic Senators in the Nov. 3 election, and I certainly hope you people in Kentucky will vote McGrath in.
DeleteNext I received a long email with the following thoughtful comments from Thinking Friend Tom Nowlin in Arkansas. (Because of the length, Tom's comments have to be posted in two separate posts.)
ReplyDelete"Thank you, again, for such a thought-provoking piece.
"It’s times like these that I think fondly of Dr. Paul Simmons, the most articulate and compassionate Christian ethicist I ever had the privilege of knowing and studying under. I place Christian ethicist Dr. Glenn Stassen, with emphasis on peacemaking, a close second.
"Regarding the abortion debate, the matter itself is so fraught with contingency and variation. Sound bite theology – with its reductionisms and conflations – could never touch the very real complexities involved, much less contribute to constructive thought. Many say they practice only 'orthodox theology,' regardless of faith tradition. The truth, however, is 'lived religion' rarely conforms to 'orthodox' idealism. Religions are lived at the edges of life, precipitating often heart-rending decisions, where there often are conflicting moral claims (for example, stealing money/food to feed one’s family). Human life is messy and does not always lend itself to binary thinking. And yet, decisions must be made. Joseph Fletcher’s 'Situation Ethics' is not the same as moral relativism as is often assumed/thought; situational ethics is 'lived' religious ethics.
In the case of abortion, much depends on how one conceptualizes life and when life is thought to begin. I have found it helpful to always define concepts and terms before discussions begin. There are always built in assumptions in our conceptualizations, and unless identified and acknowledged, these often impede real dialogue and communication, and we simply talk past one another.
"For example, I am old enough to recall the First Baptist Church Dallas Fundamentalist preacher W. A. Criswell arguing in support of a resolution on limited abortion in the annual Southern Baptist Convention. For Criswell, abortion was not always the termination of human life, as Catholics have historically believed. That was before the rise of the caustic rhetoric of the Moral Majority and the political uniting of Southern Baptist Protestants with Catholics in the U.S.
"Yes, there actually was a time with Protestants differentiated themselves from Catholics, at least far more than today in American life. Many today, however, in Protestant life are more 'Catholic' than they realize, assuming life begins at conception, not strictly a historically correct Protestant position/belief. In short, many religious practitioners simply have not studied abortion and the hard ethical issues, not even 'studied' missionaries, and where 'lived religion' happens.
"Last, I am mindful of the intersectionality of ACB – a white woman expert in the law who reportedly happens to be a devout 'practicing' Catholic, versus a white woman expert in the law and comparative religion/theology/ethics, which she is not. Based upon her past decisions and writings, I am not convinced that ACB is as self-aware of her own subjectivities and thus capable of bracketing out her own views and not imposing them upon others. I am always surprised when supposedly 'well-studied' individuals are unable to acknowledge their own subjectivities and at least strive toward an objective understanding. Only time will tell with ACB."
From TF Tom Nowlin, part two:
ReplyDelete"As example, I am a firm and committed theist. Yet, I do not confuse my conceptualization of ultimate reality (I believe ontological reality exits) with reality itself. Only the constructs of reality in my thinking are real. There are other conceptualizations of this reality, and I respect them and their adherents. In this world, and America, we must all learn to live together in peace. Part of living in peace with others is vouchsafing the right of others to be able to choose how best to live their faith, their life, according to their conceptualizations and understandings. Not even among Christians is this 'lived religion' the same.
"I, therefore, am pro-choice. Pardon what may seem like mere rhetoric to some, I do not see myself as pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. There really is a difference. And far more could be said. I believe as Americans we can all support the right of a person to choose consistent with their faith tradition, which may be different from my own, etc. And, yes, I do agree with what are called 'late-term abortions' which should only be extremely rare, such as in the case of brain dead fetuses due to hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (61%), intracranial hemorrhage (8%), congenital malformation (6%), central nervous system vascular injury (6%), meningitis/infection (7%), non-accidental trauma (4%), and other (7%). Is it humane to insist that a mother carry a 'brain dead' fetus full-term so that it 'die' within minutes of not being able to maintain its own biological functions? Is it more ethical to force parents to watch this 'child' suffocate before their very eyes immediately after delivery? These are decisions that are best left to the woman, her significant other, her doctor and clergy person. Unfortunately, what we are seeing is the unnecessary intrusion of government into the life decisions that only the individuals involved should make. I have never seen or heard of any mother who had an abortion with a smile on her face."
Tom, thanks so much for your long, thoughtful comments. I hope many will read your comments, and I will encourage that when I link to this blog article on Facebook tomorrow.
DeleteI have just received these strong comments from Thinking Friend Truett Baker in Arizona:
ReplyDelete"Quite frankly, I am tired of this whole Trump mess and disgusted with Christians who support this pathological liar, woman-chaser and conceited beyond description, man. The notion that Judge Barrett may have agreed to rescind Obamacare and Wade v. Roe in exchange for being offered the SC judgeship, is disgusting and so Trump-like and says a lot about Judge Barrett's character. This coming election will be a referendum on the character of America and it frightens me."
Thanks for your comments, Truett, but I think perhaps you are mistaken about Judge Barrett. As I understand it, she has been opposed to Obamacare for the past several years and is against abortion, and thus Roe v. Wade, because of her strong conservative Catholic beliefs. I do not agree with her position on these issues, but I do not think her character is under question. Rather, I think DJT found a very intelligent judge with beliefs that are strongly held by conservative evangelicals (and Catholics) and nominated her to please his base.
ReplyDeleteThis morning I received the following fairly lengthy comments from Thinking Friend Dan O'Reagan in Louisiana:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for your always predictable opinion. The problem with Roe v. Wade is that it is not a law made in the legislative branch of government, but a law made by the Supreme Court. Instead of interpreting a law, the Supreme Court made the law. Justice Barrett knows that such a law could not be passed by the current legislature, but the courts should wait on the legislative branch. Highly charged emotional words and exaggerations on either side are not helpful.
"My position has not changed since seminary – no abortions EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. This is the position of fraternal orders like the Masons. A Doctor friend told me that today medicine has progressed until the third option is longer a valid reason. So, if people want abortion, they should wait on Nancy Pelosi should write the law first.
"This case started out in Dallas, Texas, while I was pastor 30 miles away in Fort Worth. Jane Roe is the fictitious name for the real live Norma McCorvey. a girl with Indian blood and that allowed her to get 'special treatment.' So the 'Roe' is really McCorvey. The Wade is for Henry Wade, the District Attorney for the Dallas jurisdiction. The attorney for Norma McCorvey was a well known abortion advocate, who had herself already undergone an abortion procedure while it was still against the law. 'Jane Roe' mentioned that there were many falsehoods passed off as truth during the hearings. Through the years, the provisions for Roe v. Wade have been whittled down. It started out in the first trimester of pregnancy, then it moved to viability, then it moved to any time for any reason.
"Though Judge Amy Coney Barrett now resides in Indiana, she is native of Louisiana. She is originally from Metairie, Louisiana. Metairie is a suburb of New Orleans. Of course, as a good Catholic girl, she attended Catholic schools in New Orleans. At that time, the Catholic church taught that the Church, not the state, was the proper place for Catholic children to be educated. Everybody is free to draw their own conclusions from that. Further, the church had the right to educate the children.
"Opposing abortion is not a knee-jerk, predictable reaction anymore because both Protestants and Catholics both oppose and support abortion rights. I am just glad that my Catholic dad and my Baptist mom didn’t believe in abortion, because I am the fourth child and they only wanted three.
In my 65 years of ministry, I have preached approximately 6,500 sermons, with 2,500 of them being in Japanese. Though I have mentioned abortion in my sermons many, many times, I have only preached one entire sermon on the subject of abortion and that was with opposition because some parents in my congregation were apprehensive that it might be an indiscreet, X-rated sermon, not suitable for children’s ears.
"In my 65 years of ministry, I have counselled with three women who had abortions, and were feeling guilt. They all three said it was a painful mistake, and if they had it to do over again, they would not do it."
Dan, thanks for taking the time to share comments about yesterday's blog post
DeleteYou started by referring to my "always predictable opinion," and your response was also just what I would have expected--but I don't see any problem with us old guys being consistent with the opinions we have developed through the years on the basis of thinking about the implications of our faith and about what seems to be reasonable, true, and good.
I was happy to read and to consider your comments seriously, and I hope you read and seriously considered what I wrote. There are several specific comments you made with which I take issue, but I won't take the time to do so at this point.