With respect to the study to which Michael linked yesterday, a few thoughts:
First, on the issue of "mov[ing] beyond the stalemate over Roe v. Wade". As I wrote here, yesterday, while it would be a good thing, certainly, if legislators in both parties could unite behind sensible social-welfare programs that result in fewer abortions -- a good start, perhaps, would be for Sen. Obama to endorse the Pregnant Women Support Act; and while it is certainly true that overturning Roe would not end abortion; it is, in my view, a mistake to think that the wrong that is Roe can be shrugged off as a stalemate or that the issue here is only the number of abortions:
Yes, overruling Roe would not end abortion (though it would certainly make a difference). This side of Heaven, I'm afraid, nothing will. The problem with Roe, though, is not just that because it facilitates wrong choices by private persons; it is also, and fundamentally, at odds with our constitutional structure and with democratic self-government. As long as Roe is the law, We the People are not allowed to write into law the conviction — assuming that it is or becomes our conviction — that the unborn child ought to be protected from lethal private violence. The debate is cut off; the conversation is silenced; the "dialogue" that is so often celebrated by the same people who are enthusiastic about Sen. Obama is distorted.
What is at stake in the abortion debate — and, as someone who has known and admired Doug Kmiec for years, I am sorry that he seems to be forgetting this — is not only reducing the number of abortions and helping women considering abortion to find their way to a different choice (though, of course, such reductions and help are important, and one wishes that Democrats for Life had more influence); it as about repairing the damage done to our political community, and to our constitutional order, by a decision that declared that the Constitution itself disables citizens from protecting in law the most vulnerable among us.
Even if we focus specifically on the number of abortions (and not on Roe), it seems worth noting that if, on the one hand, we have evidence that social-welfare programs can reduce the number of abortions, it seems, on the other, quite likely (to put it mildly) that public funding of abortion, and the other provisions of the Freedom of Choice Act (which will certainly become law if Sen. Obama is elected) will increase the number of abortions. In the press release, issued by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a spokesperson is quoted:
“This new research suggests that the Pregnant Women’s Support Act is exactly the kind of sound public policy that can lead to lowering the abortion rate in America,” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats for Life, referring to legislation in Congress aimed at reducing the abortion rate. “This discussion will prove that hope and change are possible in Washington if we focus on creating solutions based on shared values,” she said.
Again, "solutions based on shared values" sound great. The Freedom of Choice Act -- a dramatic roll-back of anti-abortion legislation, a mandate for public funding of abortion, a threat to conscience and religious freedom -- is not such a solution. But, it's coming.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Story here:
China's most prominent "underground" Catholic bishop was arrested on Sunday, August 24: the day that also saw the closing ceremonies of the Olympic Games in Beijing.
Bishop Julius Jia Zhiguo of Zhengding was taken into custody by several police officers at Wuqiu cathedral. No immediate reason was given for his arrest, and authorities have not disclosed where the aging bishop is being held.
The 73-year-old Bishop Jia, who heads an active diocese of over 100,000 Catholics in the Hebei diocese, spent 15 years in prison, from 1963 to 1978. Since his release he has been re-arrested at least 12 times; ordinarily he has been detained for a few days of interrogation each time. He has been living under house arrest since 1989.
During the Olympic Games, Chinese Christians had been warned not to organize public worship. About 1,000 Catholics in Zhengding defied those orders to join Bishop Jia for a Mass celebrating the feast of the Assumption at Wuqiu cathedral on August 15. . . .
I'm as happy as anyone about Michael Phelps, Coach K. and the "Redeem Team", etc. But . . . the Olympics-related whitewash given to China by the press, the IOC, by too many governments, and by corporate sponsors is, well, disgusting.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
"A U.S. bishops' aide welcomed a draft of federal regulations aimed to beef up existing legislation protecting health care providers' right to conscientiously object to participating in abortions." More here.
Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies is a well known expert on questions relating to faith-based social services. After reading this MOJ post (see also this one) about the recent decision in the North Coast Women's Care case, he sent me this comment:
The North Coast Women's Care decision is troubling for its easy subordination of the religious and conscience rights of doctors to the supposed right of a patient to have a desired procedure performed without inconvenience. And it is troubling for its easy reliance on the Smith decision's odd logic that, as long as the legislature did not set out to prohibit some exercise of religion, the fact that the exercise is suppressed just the same is not so important.
Still, the decision seems to me a bit more complex than some commentary suggests. The legal rule at the center of the case, the California Unruh Act's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and multiple other bases), applies to business establishments, including health care practices. That is, the case is not only about the freedom of medical professionals to exercise their best judgment, but also about the duty of institutions to ensure nondiscriminatory treatment of patients. The decision strangely suggests that the doctors' religious freedom has been honored because they can continue to believe whatever they wish, even though they are prohibited from acting in accordance with those beliefs by not providing an infertility treatment to unmarried women. And it proposes an inadequate way for the doctors' to align their actions with their beliefs: they can simply refuse to provide the treatment to every woman.
But there is another sentence in the decision: the doctors can avoid the conflict between their conscience and the sexual orientation nondiscrimination requirement by making sure that every patient wanting the treatment will receive "full and equal" access to the procedure through some other physician in the practice who does not object to performing it. It seems, in fact, that the doctors did try to arrange for an alternative provision of the procedure but that the accommodation did not go smoothly because of an unintended mix-up. A mountain was made out of that molehill.
Nevertheless, the sentence is important: what is key is access to the procedure, not a requirement that every doctor must perform every procedure, including those to which they have deep moral and religious objections. Good thing: surely we want our medical professionals to be motivated by high ideals and deep convictions. But for this to be a realistic solution, something more is needed than this sentence. Why must the referral be to some other doctor within the practice? (Note the hint in the concurring opinion that a doctor with a religious objection who works alone should be able simply to refer a patient to some other practice. What then about a faith-based practice in which all of the doctors have a conscientious objection to performing certain procedures?)
The state desires to root out sexual orientation discrimination. But it is constitutionally bound to honor the free exercise of religion. To accomplish both will require something more than putting clashes before judges. The legislature ought to fashion a remedy (which might require amending the Unruh act). To honor doctors' religious objects while ensuring that patients have access to all legal procedures the legislature could place the burden of ensuring access elsewhere than on the medical practice itself: on the state regulatory agency (to make sure that a diverse set of clinics is available in every geographic area), on the state itself (it must provide itself, or contract for, services that otherwise would be inaccessible), the health insurance provider (to ensure that such a service is available in the network or will be covered by an out-of-network clinic), or the employer (make arrangements to pay for the service if the insurer does not). And even if the burden is on the medical practice, why shouldn't it be able to meet the access requirement by making a referral?
True, in all of these instances, the patient might not have instant and easy access to the desired service. But why should that be the standard, if the only way of achieving it is by trampling on the constitutionally protected freedom of religion?
I'd like to see commentators and legislators give this unfortunate decision a very careful analysis and not just line up in favor of it or against it.
(Hey, that rhymes.) Here is an interview with Archbishop Chaput, on conservative-talk-radio-host Hugh Hewitt's show, about the former's new faith-politics-citizenship book (which was mentioned, here at MOJ, a few days ago), the Pope, World Youth Day, vocations, the scandal, etc., etc. A bit:
Well, you know, people sometimes pigeonhole me as a conservative, and I hope what I am is a Catholic. And I preach the Gospel honestly without compromise, and that cuts to the right and to the left, because the Truth is supposed to set all of us free from our parties and from our prejudices or whatever. So I think people who want to follow the Gospel will offend people on all sides of the political spectrum.
- - - -
HH: Archbishop, in Chapter 10, you write this, and I think maybe it’s one of the core messages. “The Catholic Church exists to make Jesus known, the bring the will of men and women into alignment with God’s will through a relationship with Jesus Christ, the son of God, the Church has a vital role in building peace and reconciliation, promoting justice and defending Creation, but she does that first by proclaiming the whole council of God.” Again and again throughout Render Unto Casear, you’re very careful to say you know, the Church has got a key mission here, which is to get the Gospel out there.
CC: That’s right, and you know, in terms of our engagement in the world around us, whether it be political in that broad sense, or in a more narrow sense political, is about loving our neighbor. That’s why it’s foolish for Catholics to think they can enter into the political world without bringing their faith with them, because we’re required by our faith to engage the world so that human dignity will be supported, and the common good will be served. It’s a more complicated way of just saying we have to love our neighbors as ourselves. And God commands us to do that, so we just can’t work towards our personal salvation, or you know, just wait for God to save us. God also throws us back into relationship with our neighbors if we truly love Him.
HH: And you also at the very beginning of the book, though, having understood that Christ is at the center of your mission and the Church’s mission, you write, “People who take God seriously will not remain silent about their faith. They will often disagree about doctrine or policy, but they won’t be quiet. For Catholics, the common good can never mean muting themselves in public debate on foundational issues of faith or human dignity. Christian faith is always personal, but never private” That’s going to raise a lot of eyebrows. You’re asking the faithful to be explicit in what they believe and why.
CC: I think it’s important. You know, one of the examples I used to underline what I’m trying to say there is to tell a believer that he must be silent in public is like telling a married man he must pretend to be single when he’s at work. And if he does that, he won’t be married very long, because he’ll find somebody else, or his wife will be very disappointed in the fact that he doesn’t love her publicly. And I think our relationship with God is a relationship as a spousal love. You know, He loves the Church as a bridegroom loves his bride, and that it’s important for us to let people know that, not in a way that’s in their face or offensive, but then also to live out the consequences of that, which is to love our neighbor. We can’t say we love God who we can’t see if we don’t love our neighbor who we do see. And that’s political life. Political life is about loving our neighbor. . . .
UPDATE: Another interview, this time with ZENIT.
Continue reading
Monday, August 18, 2008
Here is the opinion in the North Coast Women's Medical Care Group case. According to Bill Duncan, of the Marriage Law Foundation,
The California Supreme Court has just issued a unanimous opinion that a doctor who refused, because of religious objections, to provide a specific artificial insemination procedure for a woman in a same-sex couple (he referred her to another physician) cannot claim a constitutional religious exemption to the state statute banning discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." The court said that even under the highest level of protection of religious liberty, the doctor would lose because the state has a "compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to medical treatment irrespective of sexual orientation, and there are no less restrictive means for the state to achieve that goal." One justice said that interest includes ensuring "a right to full medical assistance in establishing a pregnancy."
(HT: Kathryn Lopez)
So, does the state's "compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to medical treatment irrespective of [sex]" override a medical professional's religiously based objection to performing an abortion?
Check out this conference announcement:
THE LEGAL SCHOLAR’S CALLING
October 10 - 11, 2009
Hyatt Regency Washington on Capital Hill
Washington, D.C.
Professors from around the world will gather at the Sixth Annual Christian Legal Scholars’ Symposium to discuss what it means to be a Christian legal scholar and to examine the implications that a Christian worldview has on the teaching and practice of law.
The Symposium will begin Friday, October 10 at noon with a luncheon address on “The Christian Vocation of the Legal Scholar.” After lunch, a panel of international law professors will share stories about the intersection of their faith and their academic and legal careers, illustrating the depth and breadth of God’s global work in and through the law. The remainder of Friday afternoon and a full session Saturday morning will be devoted to Christian jurisprudence, beginning with an address by renowned political philosopher J. Budziszewski, followed by panels on the implications of jurisprudence for religious freedom issues and the culture of life.
The Christian Scholars’ Symposium is a part of the Christian Legal Society Global Convocation (October 9-12).
Here's a new paper, with a very long title, on SSRN, written by Kristin Fortin, a former student of mine, that should be up the alley of many MOJ-ers:
The Servant Leader Where the Modern Lawyer Should Be and How the Modern Lawyer Can Get There: How the Professionalism Paradigm Fueled by a Lawyer's Ethical Obligation to Inform Clients about Alternative Dispute Resolution Can Revive the Lawyer's Sense of Self, Sense of Vocation, and Sense of Service
Abstract:
Lawyers need a particular ideal that embodies their skills, qualities, and aspirations - a model to emulate, a standard for judging professional development, and a source of pride in being a lawyer. To accomplish this, the legal profession must function within the professionalism paradigm and re-create the lawyer of practical wisdom who serves clients by informing them of all their options in resolving disputes. The most important step in this movement is to recognize that every lawyer ought to have an ethical obligation to counsel clients about alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as an alternative to adversarial proceedings. By enacting this ethical obligation, lawyers will reacquaint themselves and the law with the professional ideal of putting the client first in a meaningful way. . . .
