Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Friday, May 12, 2006

Radio MoJ?

Well, probably not.  But news that Sirius is launching a Catholic radio channel raises all sorts of interesting programming possibilities for MoJ personnel.  (Who wouldn't tune into Michael Perry hosting a weekly call-in show on human sexuality?  Or Bainbridge and Sargent hosting a show on corporations and social justice, or Penalver and Garnett on political conservatism and Catholic social thought?)  Instead, though, the channel will undoubtedly stick to the basics.  Why?  Because, as Amy Welborn explains, the alternative "would shatter the image that church folks are determined to promote: that Church is a nice boring place full of nice boring people who all get along all the time...no matter what Acts of the Apostles says."

Rob

Abortion

New York Times
May 12, 2006

Colombian Court Legalizes Some Abortions

By JUAN FORERO

GOTÁ, Colombia, May 11 — Colombia's highest court has legalized abortion under limited circumstances. The decision is expected to embolden women's rights groups across Latin America to use courts in their countries to try to roll back some of the world's most stringent abortion laws.

In a 5-to-3 decision handed down late Wednesday, the Constitutional Court overturned Colombia's complete ban on abortion and ruled that the procedure would be permitted when the life of a mother was in danger or the fetus was expected to die or in cases of rape or incest. Women's rights organizations in places as varied as Argentina and New York hailed the ruling.

"This is a triumph for Colombian and Latin American women," said Mónica Roa, a lawyer in Bogotá who brought the suit on the grounds that by banning abortion, Colombia was violating its own commitments to international human rights treaties ensuring a woman's right to life and health.

The court, explaining its decision Thursday night, said the life of a fetus could not be put ahead of the life of a mother and called the complete abortion ban "disproportionate" and "irrational."

Advocates of abortion rights say both arguments are applicable to other Latin American countries as well.

Ms. Roa's suit was backed financially by Women's Link Worldwide, a Madrid-based group for which she works.

But opponents in this heavily Roman Catholic region saw the decision as akin to legalizing murder. Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, Colombia's highest Catholic Church official, told RCN radio here that the decision was "an attack on human life."

"The depenalization of abortion is a judicial stupidity," Cardinal Trujillo said. "The Constitutional Court does not have the right to say there is or there is not a crime. This is a bad decision, the fruit of international pressures that disrespect many Colombians."

Colombia's conservative government, led by President Álvaro Uribe, has strongly supported the Catholic Church's position on abortion.

Women's rights groups and human rights organizations have been mounting challenges in Latin America in courts and on the streets to laws that in most cases permit abortion only when a woman has been raped or her life is in danger, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, in New York. Abortion has been banned in Chile and El Salvador. In the region, it is readily available only in Cuba and a few English-speaking Caribbean nations.

The parliaments of some countries, like Argentina and Uruguay, have begun to debate proposals to loosen abortion laws. In two recent cases, international human rights commissions told Peru and Mexico that they had violated their own laws by not permitting two women — in Mexico, a rape victim, and in Peru, a teenager whose fetus was severely malformed — to receive abortions.

With Colombia's decision, several groups across Latin America that have been pressing for looser abortion laws see new opportunities to use the courts, many of which are changing and are seen as becoming more independent.

"This decision influences and makes one think that other countries will advance on this issue," Susana Chávez, director of the Center for the Promotion of Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Peru.

In Buenos Aires, Mabel Bianco, president of the Foundation for Studies and Research on Women, said the Colombia decision could propel plaintiffs to demand that governments adhere to the international treaties they signed requiring that they ensure a woman's right to health care.

"I think this decision will prompt countries in Latin America that have stringent legislation to reflect that abortion is not ideological, but a health care issue," Ms. Bianco said.

Groups advocating changing the laws argue that the abortion laws in Latin America are counterproductive. Latin America has a higher rate of abortion than even in Western European countries where abortion is legal and widely available.

Four million abortions, most of them illegal, take place in Latin America annually, the United Nations reports, and up to 5,000 women are believed to die each year from complications that arise from the procedure. At least 300,000 illegal abortions are believed to take place in Colombia each year.

The court's ruling will not be easy to put into effect, as health authorities ponder such thorny issues as how to confirm that a woman seeking an abortion was raped.

The Catholic Church hierarchy and some groups opposed to abortion vowed to fight on.

"We are calling for civil disobedience, so Colombians do not follow these practices," said José Galat, the rector of the Gran Colombia University. He has paid for full-page newspaper advertisements criticizing abortion rights advocates. "We're going to call for a referendum to let the people decide if abortion should be legal or not because the court cannot impose this."
_______________
mp

Thursday, May 11, 2006

CST Down Under

Have Catholic social teaching's dual warnings against unbridled capitalism and centralized paternalism finally found a national economy to call home?  Financial Times reports:

It is a developed country that enjoyed faster economic growth than the US over the past decade. Yet it also offers universal healthcare and other social welfare benefits that the US does not. Unemployment is similar to America’s, but without the glaring income disparities that characterise US growth. It is a country that seems to have achieved a sweet spot, combining the vigour of American capitalism with the humanity of European welfare, yet suffering the drawbacks of neither. And it manages this while keeping a consistent budget surplus. That country, rolling into its 16th year of uninterrupted growth, is Australia.

Rob

How to write to Amnesty International

P.S. Here is Amnesty International's e-mail address, in case anyone else wishes to comment on the current proposals for AI to take a stand in favor of an international right to abortion and against, as I understand, any rights of conscience that impede access to abortion.  [email protected] 

Comments must be received by May 20.

I apologize for the blue type in the posting below. I don't know why it does that sometimes.

From my letter to Amnesty International

As a long-time supporter of Amnesty International (most recently in an unsuccessful attempt to get a student chapter started here at this law school), I write to urge caution in adopting the proposed positions favoring reproductive rights. The essential problem is that the world is increasingly divided over whether such positions would be steps toward or away from universal human rights. That is, state enforcement of abortion rights would not just be something that conservatives might object to—like support of gay rights, for example—but rather would undercut your credibility with many of your natural constituencies. Many would see you as coming out against certain fundamental human rights, namely the universal right to life as well as the right of conscience-based refusal to participate in violence, something that could not easily be said regarding gay rights or almost any other cause AI might wish to support. [An international right to life before birth is recognized in the U.N. Dclaration of the Rights of the Child and in the American Convention on Human Rights.]

Even on the Left, such an endorsement is problematic. What I mean is this: Some  on the Left not only consider abortion rights an anti-communitarian expression of extreme individualism, a claiming of private ownership of the next generation, but also see rights-talk (in  the context of the real world) as hostile to care and concern for the needs of women. Catherine MacKinnon, for example, has written of the way “privacy” language thrusts women back to private oppression (where males will decide to abort their wanted children) and away from public equality. As with the so-called right-to-work, the individual freedom to abort is in reality a freedom for the powerful more easily to oppress the weak—especially in the third world.

Only after women have achieved true equality could it be argued that abortion would be truly their own right rather than that of their male oppressors.

Evil or Simply Wrong?

Yale law prof Stephen Carter defends the ACLU in Christianity Today:

I think the ACLU is wrong to oppose religious expression in the public square, but being wrong is not the same as being evil.  More to the point, the ACLU is often right about the First Amendment's free exercise clause, taking on fights that others refuse. It might surprise some critics that the ACLU defends the free speech and free exercise rights of, well, Christians. . . .

Yet I must confess that, although I am pleased to balance the record, defending the ACLU is not my primary purpose here. I am more concerned about a habit of mind that seems to be growing among my fellow Christians, both political liberals and conservatives. That is, we seem to mimic the secular world's conflation of disagreement with wickedness, as if not sharing my worldview places my critic outside the realm of rational discourse.

Rob

Fighting for Justice (One Tote Bag at a Time . . .)

As Mother's Parent's Person's Day approaches, we must be wary that we don't thoughtlessly discriminate on the basis of age, gender, or parental status in our celebration of the day.  As always, lawyers are leading the way in heightening our sensitivity.

Rob

It wasn't pleasant, but I did it ...

In the environs of my Atlanta neighborhood, there are several gay and lesbian couples raising children.  After reading, early this morning, Patrick Brennan's post of yesterday (here), I went across the street to inform two of the couples, as they were packing their children off to school, that contrary to the illusion that grips them, they and their children really aren't families after all.  They seemed skeptical.  I suggested that they study "natural law" more assiduously.
_______________
mp

NEWS FLASH: Religion Returns to France!

... and to Sweden and Germany too!  Check it out for yourself:  Click here.

Thanks to MOJ-friend and Trinity College (Dublin) law prof Gerry Whyte for this link.
_______________
mp

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

"That would make the angels weep"

The title is a gem stolen from a sentence studding Jo McGowan, "To Welcome a Child: Gay Couples & Adoption," Commonweal, May 5, 2006.  What/who, you may ask, would inflict as much upon the angels?  Answer:  "The recent decision by Catholic Charities of Boston -- under unwarranted pressure from both the bishops of Massachusetts and from the Vatican -- to refuse to allow gay couples to adopt children."  The aforementioned decision, the persevering reader learns, "is a disgrace to all that the church stands for."  Wow.  Eventually, the peroration :  "Love is rare enough in this world of violence and meanness. Can we truly consider rejecting it because it comes from people of the same sex?"  That's grand, but please back up a bit for the richest line in the piece:  "Gay couples, having staked everything on love in a world that is often hostile toward them, let alone tolerant, are better suited than most to the challenges of caring for children who need unconditional acceptance."

I'm sorry, but, first, where is the evidence that gay couples' love makes them "better [though,breaktakingly, not best] suited than most" for caring for unwanted children?  Second, and related, please God that each of us could say that he or she has "staked everything on love."  But are members of gay couples categorically those individuals?  My reading is less clear.  Third, the Catholic and natural issue isn't really, is it, that the aforementioned/hypothesized love for a child is "from people of the same sex," but rather whether, for this purpose, the child is loved as a member of a family?  Two or seven people giving love, however blessed that phenomenon, do not a family make.  It's a signal achievement of our modern culture to deny that groups, such as families, amount to more than an aggregate of the members.  Finally, the local ordinaries' and the Holy See's exercising authority concerning the works of "Catholic Charities" cannot be the problem.  For the reasons suggested above, their doing so was not "unwarranted" (though I confess uncertainty as to the traditional meaning of "unwarranted").

I wouldn't have bothered, except that Commonweal should have done better.