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.

Monday, July 21, 2008

More on the Quinnipiac poll

By Rick Garnett

Rob links (here) to a new poll, by Quinnipiac University, showing, among other things, that a majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in "all" or "most" cases.  This might be a bit Panglossian, and I don't mean to underestimate the significance of the fact that 20 percent believe abortion should be legal in "all" cases, but . . . I would like to see the results of follow-up questions to the "legal in most cases" answerers.  I suspect -- I'm not sure, but I suspect -- that most of these people, like most Americans, mistakenly assume that (a) Roe is more restrictive than it really is and (b) that a high percentage of abortions are procured in cases involving rape, incest, serious health threats to the mother, serious "fetal abnormalities", etc.  That is, I wonder if follow-up questions to the "in most cases" people would reveal that, in fact, many of these people believe that abortion should be regulated to a (much?) greater extent than it now is?

Another question in the poll, by the way, is relevant to the discussion / debate we've been having about Sen. Obama's proposed changes -- which would limit the ability of participating institutions to hire-for-mission -- to Pres. Bush's faith-based initiative.  So, the poll reports this result: 

37. Do you think that these faith-based organizations that receive federal money should be able to discriminate in favor of hiring people of their own faith? 

                        Tot     Rep     Dem     Ind     Men     Wom     Wht     Blk



Yes                     16%     27%      9%     15%     19%     13%     17%     14%
No                      77      67      84      77      75      78      76      79
DK/NA                    7       7       7       8       6       9       7       7
Yikes.  But, isn't it reasonable to think that this number is at least related to the power of the word "discriminate"?  No one tells pollsters they are for "discrimination," I assume.  But, what if the question were, "do you think that religious organizations that provide social-welfare services should have the right, even if they receive some public funds, to retain their religious identity and independendence"?  I think / suspect / hope that most people would say "yes."  And, *this* is what is at stake in the "discrimination" debate.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Funding for the Klan?

By Rob Vischer

Assume that the Ku Klux Klan opens a homeless shelter.  The shelter is open to all races.  Hiring is also open to all races, but prospective employees must affirm their belief in the racial superiority of whites. After two years of operation, there have been no complaints from shelter residents, who are not aware that the shelter is operated by the Klan.  (The Klan operates the shelter under another name to avoid controversy.)  Outside experts confirm that the shelter is serving the public well. 

For those who believe (as I do) that a religious organization should be able to hire employees who share the beliefs underlying the organization's mission without jeopardizing the organization's public funding, here's the question: should the Klan, with its racist-only hiring requirements, be eligible for public funding?

UPDATE: I believe that the Klan should be eligible under these circumstances, as does Jonathan Watson, though he adds some limitations based on what the funding allows the organization to do.

New public opinion data on abortion

By Rob Vischer

Quinnipiac University released a new nationwide poll on a variety of political/Supreme Court issues, including gun control, same-sex marriage, and the death penalty.  I was surprised by the decidedly pro-choice tilt of the results:

By a 63 - 33 percent margin, American voters support the 1973 Roe v Wade decision. But Americans remain divided on the issue of abortion:

    • 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases;
    • 38 percent say it should be legal in most cases;
    • 24 percent say it should be illegal in most cases;
    • 14 percent say it should be illegal in all cases.

UPDATE: Carter Snead provides data from another recent survey, reflecting how much the wording of a question matters.  (Check out question #19.)

Senator Clinton, contraception, abortion, and radical agendas

By Michael Scaperlanda

The response of Senator Clinton and others to the prospect of defining abortion to include the Pill and IUD is interesting.  She alleges that this definition is driven by a “radical, ideological agenda,” but she never advances an argument (at least not in the article posted by Michael P.) that these “radicals” are wrong.  Instead, she seems to argue that we can’t possibly consider the Pill and IUD as abortifacients no matter what the facts because to do so would impose a cost on women. 

Friday, July 18, 2008

Birth Control ... and Abortion: Which is Which?

By Michael Perry

New York Times, July 18, 2008

Clinton Vows to Fight "Insulting" Abortion Plan, By REUTERS

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A Bush administration plan to define several widely used contraception methods as abortion is a "gratuitous, unnecessary insult" to women and faces tough opposition, Sen. Hillary Clinton said on Friday.

The former Democratic presidential candidate joined family planning groups to condemn the proposal that defines abortion to include contraception such as birth control pills and intrauterine devices.

It would cut off federal funds to hospitals and states where medical providers are obligated to offer legal abortion and contraception to women.

"We will not put up with this radical, ideological agenda to turn the clock back on women's rights," the New York senator told a joint news conference with New York Rep. Nita Lowey, also a Democrat, at Bellevue Hospital.

"Women would watch their contraceptive coverage disappear overnight," said Clinton.

The planned rule is aimed at countering recent state laws enacted to ensure that women can get contraception when they want or need it. It also would help protect the rights of medical providers to refuse to offer contraception.

Clinton said she has written a letter with Patty Murray, a Democrat senator from Washington, to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt asking him to reconsider and reject the release of the proposed rules.

She also urged people to sign a petition on her website, www.hillaryclinton.com, against the proposed changes.

"Our first effort is to get the Bush administration to rescind the regulation, not issue in its current form," Clinton said. "If that doesn't succeed, we're going to be looking for legislative steps that we can take to prevent this regulation from ever going into effect."

A copy of a memo that appears to be an Department of Health and Human Services draft provided to Reuters this week carries a broad definition of abortion as any procedures, including prescription drugs, "that result in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

Conception occurs when egg and sperm unite in the Fallopian tubes. It takes three to four days before the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Several birth control methods interfere with this, including the birth control pill and IUDs.

"If enacted, these rules will make birth control out of reach for some women. That's a sure way to guarantee more unintended pregnancies and more abortions," said Anne Davis of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.

Human Development in the U.S.

By Eduardo Penalver

How are we doing on the human development front here at home?  Not too well it seems:

The American Human Development Index has applied to the US an aid agency approach to measuring well-being – more familiar to observers of the Third World – with shocking results. The US finds itself ranked 42nd in global life expectancy and 34th in survival of infants to age. Suicide and murder are among the top 15 causes of death and although the US is home to just 5 per cent of the global population it accounts for 24 per cent of the world’s prisoners. Despite an almost cult-like devotion to the belief that unfettered free enterprise is the best way to lift Americans out of poverty, the report points to a rigged system that does little to lessen inequalities.

“The report shows that although America is one of the richest nations in the world, it is woefully behind when it comes to providing opportunity and choices to all Americans to build a better life,” the authors said.  Some of its more shocking findings reveal that, in parts of Texas, the percentage of adults who pass through high school has not improved since the 1970s.

Asian-American males have the best quality of life and black Americans the lowest, with a staggering 50-year life expectancy gap between the two groups. Despite the fact that the US spends roughly $5.2bn (£2.6bn) every day on health care, more per capita than any other nation in the world, Americans live shorter lives than citizens of every western European and Nordic country, bar Denmark.

UPDATE:  As a point of information, the reference to a 50-point gap between black Americans and Asian Americans should be to the human development index, not life expectancy, which makes a great deal more sense.   (To put that in perspective, if the authors are using HDI in the standard way -- which they seem to be -- a 50 point difference is like the difference between living in Norway and living in Ghana.)  The actual gap between the life expectancy of poor black Americans and Asian Americans is closer to 15 years. 

Toward a Catholic Legal Theory of Time?

By Rob Vischer

Rick's question about the possibility of Burkean Christians raises larger questions about our understanding of time.  If we are progressively building the Kingdom in history, does that give us a more meaningful understanding of history than those who are simply "marking time?"  Legal historian Mary Dudziak suggests that time remains woefully undertheorized, but that our presumptions about time have an impact on the law:

In the scholarship on law and war, time is seen as episodic. It is sometimes seen as linear and progressive, but the most common feature is that time is episodic. There are two different kinds of time: wartime and peacetime. Historical progression consists of moving from one kind of time to another. Law is thought to vary depending on what time it is. The relationship between citizen and state, the scope of rights, the extent of government power are thought to depend on whether it is wartime or peacetime.

A central metaphor is the swinging pendulum – swinging from strong protection of rights and weaker government power to weaker protection of rights and stronger government power. Moving from one time zone to the next is thought to cause the pendulum to begin swinging in a new direction.

Maybe the episodic, pendulum-swinging view of history is more consistent with the (Protestant?) emphasis on our fallen condition ("the more things change, the more they stay the same . . .") than with the (Catholic?) confidence that we are actually building something?

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Commonweal Review of Religion/Politics Books

By Thomas Berg

I review books by E.J. Dionne, Mark Toulouse, and Garry Wills in the new Commonweal issue (I'm not sure if the link accesses the full article unless you have an online or print subscription).

Quotations on "The Human Condition"

By Thomas Berg

Thinking about Christianity and law starts with, among other things, a moral anthropology, an account of human nature and the human condition.  Here are a few thought-provoking quotes.  An example, from theologian Helmut Thielicke:

The power of temptation is not in its appeal to our baser instincts; if that were the case, it would be natural to be repulsed by it. The power of temptation is in its appeal to our idealism.

The monthly "Reflections" section of Christianity Today, which provides such quotes, is always a good reason for looking at the magazine.

How the Law on Funding and Religious Hiring Has Really Developed (Response to Martha Minow)

By Thomas Berg

Among the misconceptions used to challenge religion-based hiring in private programs receiving government funds is the idea that such hiring was prohibited until President Bush came along.  For example, when Barack Obama proposed his faith-based initiative earlier this month, Martha Minow was quoted in the Times as saying that

Mr. Obama would move to “return the law to what it was before the current administration,” in other words barring the consideration of religion in hiring decisions for such programs that receive federal financing.

“I don’t think there’s anything too controversial about that,” Ms. Minow said.  “Any religious organization that does not want to comply with that requirement simply doesn’t have to take the money.”

Leave aside the question whether it's right, or constitutional, just to say "don't take the money."  Prof. Minow's statement is misleading about the law before the Bush administration.  Religious organizations receiving funding have had far more freedom, all along, to consider religion in hiring than she suggests.

Continue reading

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive