Catholic mothers, scholars urge US bishops to listen to women on abortion | National Catholic Reporter

Catholic mothers, scholars urge US bishops to listen to women on abortion | National Catholic Reporter By Katie Collins Scott

The stringent anti-abortion activism of many U.S. Catholic leaders, including the bishops' conference, has ignored the complex lived experience of women, the realities of racial and economic inequities, and the importance of personal discernment in moral decision-making.

This assessment — coupled with a call for "brave spaces" where women can share their stories about pregnancy and parenthood — was articulated by Catholic mothers, scholars and advocates during an unusually frank panel discussion April 18. The online event, titled "Catholic Women: Reclaiming Debates about Abortion and Reproductive Justice," was organized by Faith in Public Life, a progressive interfaith nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. The event came a week after the organization published a letter highlighting similar points.

Mollie Wilson O'Reilly, a mother of four and editor at large for Commonweal magazine, said during the discussion that a miscarriage and subsequent emergency medical procedure helped her realize that as a Catholic "I'd been told a story that wasn't true, that wasn't taking into account the actual real-life experiences of people like myself, and that the story was undervaluing the lives of women."

Jeanné Lewis (Courtesy of Faith in Public Life)

O'Reilly was also among the more than 30 Catholic women scholars, theologians and advocates who signed the recent open letter. It urges elected officials to support robust social policies for families, calls for more thoughtful conversations about abortion, and says it's critical for the church to hear women's voices on reproductive issues in an organization that is led by an all-male clergy.

Nearly 200 individuals have since added their name to the statement.

"We are moved by compassion and conscience to say clearly that laws and policies celebrated as 'pro-life' by our Church leaders often hurt women and demean our dignity," it reads.

Jeanné Lewis, interim CEO of Faith in Public Life and moderator of the April 18 panel, said Catholics' conversations about abortion are often held "privately or in whispers or avoided altogether," while the rhetoric from church leaders is "too simplistic." The letter and the panel were ways to amplify a nuanced discussion within the public sphere, she said.  

Catholics must "wrestle with interconnectedness and the complexity in which we live," said Lewis.

'Anti-Asian Racism' names the sin of white supremacy in Catholic Church | National Catholic Reporter

'

SOLIDARITY RITUAL, PHILADELPHIA {2021}

Anti-Asian Racism: Myths, Stereotypes, and Catholic Social Teaching //National Catholic Reporter

Joseph Cheah

192 pages; Orbis Books

$26.00

Servite Fr. Joseph Cheah is hopeful that telling Asian American-centered stories will help communities and individuals begin to understand the ways in which racism and white supremacy have shaped history. In his latest book, Anti-Asian Racism: Myths, Stereotypes, and Catholic Social Teaching, Cheah takes a wide and integral view on how Catholic social teaching can inform the way Catholics engage in the work of anti-racism in the context of Asian American communities. 

In a recent interview for NCR, writer Clarissa V. Aljentera spoke with Cheah about his research and writings. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.    

NCR: The intersection of anti-Asian racism and Catholic social teaching is important to note, especially considering that the principles of Catholic social teaching don't explicitly name racism. How important was it for you to tell the story of racism from the lens of an Asian American? 

Cheah: While Catholic social teaching doesn't explicitly name racism, it talks a great deal about the dignity of the human person and the church has the responsibility to protect the dignity of the human person through social ministry. It does that by surrounding each person with human rights and human responsibility. Each person has a right to live in an anti-racist society where the dignity of the human person is accepted and respected. Likewise, each person has an obligation to educate themselves, to examine their own thoughts and actions.

KEEP READING 

Judicial Immodesty: 191 guns is not too many. Illinois can't bar possession - Judge MCGlynn

Common sense is a terrible guide to law.  Almost as bad as the expertise of the passionate... the sort of know it all superiority of the gun afficionado which we see at Eugene Volokh's blog   Thus we have a District Judge striking an Illinois law, thus allowing the plaintiff gun enthusiast (understatement) to buy an assault rifle - like one user did last night in D.C.   - GWC  

 Caleb v. Raoul

By Stephen P. McGlynn

U.S. D. J., S.D.Illinois

April 28, 2023

In no way does this Court minimize the damage caused when a firearm is used for an unlawful purpose; however, this Court must be mindful of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. While PICA was purportedly enacted in response to the Highland Park shooting, it does not appear that the legislature considered an individual’s right under the Second Amendment nor Supreme Court precedent. Moreover, PICA did not just regulate the rights of the people to defend themselves; it restricted that right, and in some cases, completely obliterated that right by criminalizing the purchase and the sale of more than 190 “arms.” Furthermore, on January 1, 2024, the right to mere possession of these items will be further limited and restricted. See 735 ILCS 5/24-1.9(c). Accordingly, the balance of harms favors the Plaintiffs. 

DOJ appeals to 7th Circuit

Christopher Hill - interviewed by Penelope Corfield

 Penelope Corfield interviews the brilliant British historian Christopher Hill.

Never a Trace of Red - Conrad on Gorsuch and Immodest Modesty - Yale Journal on Regulation

Oh, the shark, babe, has such teeth, dear
And it shows them pearly white
Just a jackknife has old MacHeath, babe
And he keeps it, ah, out of sight
You know when that shark bites with his teeth, babe
Scarlet billows start to spread
Fancy gloves, oh, wears old MacHeath, babe
So there's never, never a trace of red.

Mack the Knife, Bobby Darin

Composed by Kurt Weill

Lyrics by Bertolt Brecht

The Beggars Opera

Neil Gorsuch has a pen knife which he wields so as to leave no trace of red.  Jamie Conrad explains. - GWC

Immodest Modesty, by Jamie Conrad - Yale Journal on Regulation

Fans of Justice Neil Gorsuch have consistently celebrated his “judicial humility,” his abhorrence of inserting “personal preferences” into judicial decisions, and his “critic[ism] of judicial activism.”  The Justice himself has remarked on the “modest[y]” of the court since he joined.  (Akil Amar, who regards himself as a liberal, managed to fit “modesty” and “humility” into the same sentence in talking about Gorsuch.)  The Justice is also a marvellous prose stylist, edging out Justice Kagan (in my view) as the best writer on the court.  The Justice deploys that writing skill at almost magical levels in his concurrence on April 14 in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, as he “arrogates to [him]self a power to control the jurisdiction of lower federal courts” even as he complains that that is what the majority is doing.  

The issue in Axon Enterprise, as described by the majority, was whether Congress, in enacting the relevant structures of the Securities Exchange Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, had implicitly substituted an “agency-then-court of appeals” form of review of agency action for the district court review form prescribed by the “federal question” statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.  The majority — comprising every justice except Gorsuch — applied a 29-year old Court precedent that contains no dissents to conclude that Congress had not intended to supplant district court review.  Gorsuch concurred, but excoriated the majority for not junking the 1994 decision.  In a sentence, Gorsuch’s core position is that Section 1331 says district courts “shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under” federal law, whereas neither the Exchange Act nor the FTC Act (nor any other federal statute) “speaks otherwise” in such comparably absolute language, so Section 1331 wins.  

But then Gorsuch devotes way more space to a broader argument that determinations of implicit substitution require judges to “guess” (his italics), using a test that is “judge-made”(mine).  He harshly derides as “fabricated,” “incoheren[t],” “magic” and a “contrivance” a test that asks “whether: (1) ‘precluding district court jurisdiction’ would ‘foreclose all meaningful judicial review’; (2) the plaintiff ’s claims are ‘wholly collateral’ to the statutory review scheme; and (3) the claims are ‘outside the agency’s expertise.’”

So Justice Gorsuch thinks the whole notion, dating back a half-century, that Congress can implicitly create alternative forms of federal jurisdication is wrong, as are the dozens of his colleagues and predecessors who have signed onto such decisions through the years.  And that it’s fine to upend well-established administrative enforcement mechanisms across the federal government, at least until Congress goes back and inserts “notwithstanding section 1331 of title 28, United States Code” into a dozen or more statutes.  But if Section 1331 “provides [such] a clear answer,” how come (i) no one had this realization before, and (ii) the other eight current justices remain so benighted?  One might be forgiven for thinking “well, that just his opinion.”  

But you would be wrong, according to Justice Gorsuch.  He explains why in this remarkable passage from his concurrence to Kisor v. Wilkie: 

KEEP READING

2 College Students in China Were Disciplined for Giving Out Pride Flags. Can the Law Help Them? – Darius Longarino - The Diplomat

2 College Students in China Were Disciplined for Giving Out Pride Flags. Can the Law Help Them? – The Diplomat

2 College Students in China Were Disciplined for Giving Out Pride Flags. Can the Law Help Them?

The case illustrates the intersection of a tightening grip on LGBTQ expression, especially on college campuses, and the determination of some young Chinese to fight for more space.

By Ding Yuan and Darius Longarino

April 28, 2023

 

 

 

The rainbow flags and accompanying note that landed two Tsinghua University students in trouble.

Credit: Weibo

ADVERTISEMENT

In February, two Tsinghua University students filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Education seeking to overturn punishments they had received for distributing rainbow flags on campus. The students, identified only as Huang and Li, had marked the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, and Transphobia (IDAHOT) last May by leaving 10 rainbow flags in a campus supermarket along with a handwritten note saying “Please take ~ # PRIDE.” The university quickly identified the students using security camera footage, and dispatched staff to “educate” them “out of concern.” After the students refused to engage, the university administration launched an investigation.

Tsinghua concluded that Huang and Li violated university rules by distributing unauthorized “promotional materials” that “created a harmful influence,” and they did not “heed dissuasion.” The university gave Li a “warning” and Huang a “severe warning,” claiming the latter had used misleading and insulting language when posting about the incident on social media. The disciplinary actions prohibited the students from receiving postgraduate recommendations and scholarships for six months, and were recorded in their official dossiers.

KEEP READING

The Professional Price of Falsehoods | Knight First Amendment Institute

The Professional Price of Falsehoods | Knight First Amendment Institute

What role should professional organizations play in responding to lies and misinformation spread by those within their ranks? 

BY QUINTA JURECIC

MARCH 23, 2023

Gun Violence Is Actually Worse in Red States. It’s Not Even Close. - POLITICO

Gun Violence Is Actually Worse in Red States. It’s Not Even Close. - POLITICO

isten to the southern right talk about violence in America and you’d think New York City was as dangerous as Bakhmut on Ukraine’s eastern front.

In October, Florida’s Republican governor Ron DeSantis proclaimed crime in New York City was “out of control” and blamed it on George Soros. Another Sunshine State politico, former president Donald Trump, offered his native city up as a Democrat-run dystopia, one of those places “where the middle class used to flock to live the American dream are now war zones, literal war zones.” In May 2022, hours after 19 children were murdered at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott swatted back suggestions that the state could save lives by implementing tougher gun laws by proclaiming “Chicago and L.A. and New York disprove that thesis.”

In reality, the region the Big Apple comprises most of is far and away the safest part of the U.S. mainland when it comes to gun violence, while the regions Florida and Texas belong to have per capita firearm death rates (homicides and suicides) three to four times higher than New York’s. On a regional basis it’s the southern swath of the country — in cities and rural areas alike — where the rate of deadly gun violence is most acute, regions where Republicans have dominated state governments for decades.

If you grew up in the coal mining region of eastern Pennsylvania your chance of dying of a gunshot is about half that if you grew up in the coalfields of West Virginia, three hundred miles to the southwest. Someone living in the most rural counties of South Carolina is more than three times as likely to be killed by gunshot than someone living in the equally rural counties of New York’s Adirondacks or the impoverished rural counties facing Mexico across the lower reaches of the Rio Grande.

Vermeule and Casey: Comstock Act Bars Mailing Mifestiprone

People of the State of New York v. Margaret Sanger

The Supreme Court - by a seven - two margin - has stayed orders of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and a Texas U.S. District Judge, thus allowing the abortifacient drug Mifepristone to stay on the market until the fast-tracked appeal is resolved. [The DOJ and Danco on September 8th filed petitions for certiorari.]

Defenders of the decision below would apply - as does Judge Kacsmaryk - the Comstock Act which bars the use of the mails to send abortion-causing medicines.  That law had been rendered moot by the Roe v. Wade declaration of a constitutional right to abortion in the first trimester.  But that right is no longer recognized by the Supreme Court, which left the matter to the states.

Justice Samuel Alito, dissenting, has proven Boston College law and theology professor Cathleen Kaveny to have been prescient. She wrote in Commonweal that the Opinion for the Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health  would bring division, not resolution.  A state by state battle was invited by the Dobbs decision. But, as  I have discussed , the fetal personhood argument​ has a bright future.  Alito said as much in Dobbs - that an absolute abortion ban (except to save the life of the mother, presumably) would be subject to soft `rational basis' review.

The Supreme Court has stayed pending appeal the order of Amarillo, Texas-based U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk. He declared void the FDA grant of permission to market the abortifacient drug mifeppristone.  One element that remains unresolved is the status of the Comstock Act of 1873, 18 USC 1461.  It bars the mailing of obscene materials, and included in its prohibitions  anything that would produce an abortion. It is under that act that birth control crusader and Planned Parenthood founder  Margaret Sanger was charged, as Michelle Goldberg writes today. 

But two prominent scholars Adrian Vermeule of Harvard and the young Irish scholar Conor Casey  defend the opinion of Judge Kacsmaryk that the Comstock Act makes mailing an abortifacient drug a violation of federal law.  Vermeule and Casey, in an essay titled Natural Administrative Law on the Post Liberal blog on April 12 say that the Comstock Act should be enforced according to its plain terms  - that it means just what it says: 

 “Every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use;” and

* “Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose.”

 Vermeule and Casey explain: 

• Our point is simple. The Comstock Act, as relevant here, is positive legislation that implements and supports a fundamental precept of natural law: abortion is an intrinsic evil, the intentional killing of an unborn child. As such the court’s interpretation of the Act is fully consonant with background principles of higher law, which inhere within the semantic meaning of the Act. Conversely, FDA’s interpretation squarely violates the Act, whose plain meaning tracks and implements the natural law, and thus transgresses even the generous deference for administrative determination of positive law that is recognized by the classical legal framework. 
• Indeed, in principle, the Comstock Act should be construed generously, not narrowly, in order to promote its remedial purposes, [emph. added] which are fully in accordance with the natural law. In this case, however, such an approach is unnecessary; the ordinary meaning of the statute, within which the precepts of the natural law comfortably inhere, fully suffices to establish the unlawfulness of FDA’s action. Congress not only specifically prohibited the use of the mails to promote “abortion,” but also legislated more generally against “indecent and immoral” uses of the mails; morality is itself incorporated into the positive law by its very terms.

(Note again that this does not implicate the much-debated question whether judges exercising the power of constitutional review can apply the natural law directly to invalidate governmental action, a question on which classical theory offers nuanced considerations. This case, rather, features the much easier situation in which Congress itself has instructed the judges, through both a substantive federal statute and the APA, to enforce limits on agency action, including moral limits — and thus a situation in which the natural law is relevant as an interpretive aid). [emph. added]

In the view of Vermeule and Casey the FDA's approval - with Roe erased, should not be read to apply only to mailing to states where its use for abortion is unlawful.  The statute draws no such line. The "natural law is, of its own force, the binding law of every political jurisdiction, including every target state."   The natural law  "is deemed to inhere in precepts of positive law."  Vermeule and Casey turn to natural law philosopher John Finnis whose amicus brief in Dobbs urged that the 14th Amendment must be understood to recognize the unborn as persons entitled to its protection. It is hard to see Neil Gorsuch, Amy Barrett, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito voting to limit the plain language of the Comstock Act now that Congress is no longer tied to Roe's recognition of a personal right.

In 1873 the Comstock Act was addressed to dangerous, untested drugs and devices.  The FDA has a wealth of evidence that Mifepristone is safe for lawful use as intended.  Despite the "leave it to the people" theme of Dobbs, championing the right of state voters to permit abortion against "the intentional killing of an unborn child" is unlikely to be persuasive to the Court's five conservative Catholics.  Nor to Neil Gorsuch, whose doctoral dissertation was supervised by John Finnis [then at Oxford University]. Prof. Corey Brettschneider observed five years ago that Gorsuch's views on euthanasia and assisted suicide are consistent with his mentor's.

DOJ OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL

Justices hear “true threat” protected speech case

Justices hear “true threat” protected speech case

By Amy Howe

e Supreme Court heard oral argument on Wednesday in the case of a Colorado man who was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison for stalking based on the Facebook messages that he sent to local musician Coles Whalen. At issue in the case is how courts should determine what constitutes “true threats,” which are not protected by the First Amendment. At the end of nearly two hours of debate, the justices generally appeared skeptical of Colorado’s contention that courts should use an objective test, that looks at whether a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence. But it wasn’t entirely clear what test the justices might adopt in its place.

Representing Billy Raymond Counterman, John Elwood urged the justices to eschew the objective test on which the state courts relied to convict his client. He emphasized the negative effects that would flow from such a test, noting that “[c]riminalizing misunderstanding is especially dangerous in an age when so much communication occurs on social media, which brings together strangers in an environment that removes much of the context that gives words meaning.” The objective test, Elwood added, would also chill even legal speech, because speakers will not want to risk prison time if their speech is perceived as a threat.

Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser countered that adopting Counterman’s subjective intent standard would “enable more harm and less valuable discourse,” because “a serious expression of an intent to cause unlawful physical violence directly causes life-changing harm and does not contribute to the marketplace of ideas.” In particular, Weiser stressed, “requiring specific intent in cases of threatening stalkers “would immunize stalkers who are untethered from reality” and “allow devious stalkers to escape accountability by insisting that they meant nothing by their harmful statements.” “This matters,” Weiser continued, because “threats made by stalkers terrorize victims.”

Describing the various references to the speaker’s intent as “confusing,” Justice Samuel Alito tried to clarify exactly what rule Elwood was proposing.

They cleaned up BP spill, are sick and want Justice ~ Guardian

 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/20/bp-oil-spill-deepwater-horizon-health-lawsuits

In Supreme Court: Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine opposes U.S. motion to stay anti-FDA mifestiprone order

 

The dubious but so far successful group of anti-abortion doctors who obtained an order voiding the FDA's 20 year old approval of the abortifacient drug mifestiprone has filed its reply to the U.S. Department of Justice motion for a stay.

The New Judicial Power Grab by Josh Chafetz :: SSRN

 

The New Judicial Power Grab

St. Louis University Law Journal, Vol. 67, Forthcoming

19 Pages Posted: 10 Jan 2023 Last revised: 19 Apr 2023

Josh Chafetz

Georgetown University Law Center

Date Written: January 10, 2023

Abstract

The judges are out of control. While judicial institution-building is nothing new in American history, the John Roberts-helmed judiciary has engaged in a remarkable power grab. This self-aggrandizement has not received the attention it deserves for at least two reasons: first, scholarly and public discourse about the courts, taking its cues from judges' own self-presentation, remains overly focused on doctrine and insufficiently focused on the courts as institutions. Second, and relatedly, the true scope of the phenomenon becomes apparent only when one looks across doctrines, rather than within them.

Accordingly, this essay, prepared for the St. Louis University School of Law's 2022 Childress Symposium, considers the new judicial power grab in three discrete areas: election law, congressional oversight, and administrative law. The essay focuses not only on the outcomes of cases, but also on the remarkably dismissive rhetoric that judges use toward other institutional actors, combined with rhetoric meant to obfuscate the judiciary's institutional character and present it as a disembodied, neutral voice for an apolitical law. The result is a judiciary that is currently in the process of amassing a striking amount of power at the expense of other governing institutions.

Keywords: judicial power, separation of powers, imperial judiciary, election law, congressional oversight, administrative law, major questions doctrine

Suggested Citation:

Chafetz, Josh, The New Judicial Power Grab (January 10, 2023). St. Louis University Law Journal, Vol. 67, Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4321887 

Abortion rights Dashboard - KFF

Abortion Rights Dashboard - KFF

 

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the federal constitutional standard that had protected the right to abortion. Without any federal standard regarding abortion access, states will set their own policies to ban or protect abortion. The Abortion in the United States Dashboard is an ongoing research project tracking state abortion policies and litigation following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Be sure to click on the buttons or scroll down to see all the content. It will be updated as new information is available.

KEY FACTS

LEGAL

MEDICATION ABORTION

COVERAGE

RELATED HEALTH

Legal Challenges to State Abortion Bans Since the Dobbs Decision | KFF

 

Legal Challenges to State Abortion Bans Since the Dobbs Decision Kaiser Family Foundation

Mabel Felix , Laurie Sobel , and Alina Salganicoff Follow @a_salganicoff on Twitter
Published: Jan 20, 2023

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Print

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court of the United States decision in Dobbs returned the decision to restrict or protect abortion to states. In many states, abortion providers and advocates are challenging state abortion bans contending that the bans violate the state constitution or another state law.

These challenges generally fall into three categories:

• Broad Constitutional Challenges: In Ohio, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Utah, among others, the abortion ban challenges include claims that state constitutional protections, such as liberty, due process, and privacy rights encompass a right to abortion.
• Health Care Amendment Challenges: Some state constitutions were amended to include a right to make health care and health insurance decisions in an effort to block the ACA’s individual coverage mandate. In Wyoming and Ohio, abortion advocates argue that this amendment includes the right to make a decision about whether or not to have an abortion.
• Religious Freedom Challenges: In Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Utah, and Wyoming people from various religious backgrounds argue abortion bans either unduly infringe on their religious exercise or violate state constitutional protections against the establishment of religion.

A number of state courts have responded favorably to many of these arguments and have temporarily blocked several bans while litigation on their constitutionality is ongoing. In time, these challenges will reach each state’s highest court, which will be the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of state-level abortion bans.

Introduction

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the legal landscape at the state level has been activated as never before. With the aim of restricting access to abortion, many states moved swiftly to lift court orders previously blocking bans, revive dormant pre-Roe bans, certify “trigger” bans, and enact new laws. Lacking federal protections, abortion providers have been on the front lines challenging these bans in state courts, questioning their constitutionality, not under the United States Constitution, but under each state’s constitution. Since the Dobbs decision, 23 states have tried to implement a complete ban or a pre-viability ban. In 6 states, these laws are currently blocked by courts. For an overview of the current legal status of abortion across the country, please see our abortion dashboard.

Although State Constitutions are similar to one another in many respects, each state has its unique judicial history and binding precedent, with State Supreme Court rulings diverging on liberty, privacy, and due process protections. Additionally, some states have amended their constitutions to include different abortion protections, while others have moved to assert that their constitution confers no right to abortion. Given these differences, abortion bans and restrictions that may be unconstitutional in some states may be constitutionally permissible in others. As a result, the types of challenges on state constitutional grounds have varied in states banning – or attempting to ban – abortion access, including those where the question of a constitutional right to abortion had never reached their highest courts, the ultimate arbiters of the constitutionality of state laws.

Despite the variety in the types of legal challenges to abortion bans, a few patterns in the approaches have emerged in the abortion litigation landscape. In this issue brief, we present an overview of some of the types of challenges presented in state courts since the Dobbs ruling in June 2022 and highlight some of the novel strategies that are being used to defend access to abortion in states that have enacted abortion bans.

Background