Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, webbles said:

... I think the polls should focus more on specifics about abortion instead of just asking about Roe ... .  Because it appears that most people don't actually know what Roe [or, for that matter, what Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health] ... actually did.

Ya think?!  Ya think?!!! :blink: :shok:<_< 

"Omigawrsh!  Omigawrsh!  The Supreme Court just outlawed abortion nationwide!!!" :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: 

 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment

Is there any real, appreciable difference between abortion and infanticide or killing a very young person, say, >/= 3 years old, or, pick whatever number you wish (but why that number?  Why does a young person of that age "acquire" self-hood while others do not?)

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Popular opinion is that once a person is born it then becomes wrong to kill that person.  Before birth it is considered a legal option except where the law forbids it regardless of popular opinion.

I know that ... Good grief, it's not as though I just landed on this planet or fell off of a turnip truck, or something. :rolleyes: 

https://www.equip.org/article/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/

Link to comment
2 hours ago, webbles said:

... I think the polls should focus more on specifics about abortion instead of just asking about ... [Roe v. Wade, or, for that matter about Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.]  Because it appears that most people don't actually know what Roe ... actually did.

 

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Ya think?!  Ya think?!!! :blink: :shok:<_< 

"Omigawrsh!  Omigawrsh!  The Supreme Court just outlawed abortion nationwide!!!" :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: 

 

 

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Not exactly.  The SCOTUS declared the US Constitution doesn't give anyone any right to abort a pregnancy which makes it a state issue rather than a federal issue.  So now each state decides how they want to handle the issue.

Yes, I know that, too ... :rolleyes:<_<  But that's not what the proponents of unfettered abortion on demand say that the decision holds.  That's my point.*

*Go find somebody else to condescend to.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Oooooohhh!  You knew that already.  I didn't know you already knew that.  I thought something had happened to you to prevent you from knowing that.  I think you might be amazed by what some people don't know.

 

I was only trying to set the record straight, in my own way.

You would probably be well served by reading more of the threads to which you wish to contribute.  In this case, had you done so, I think you would have been apprised better of what I know and what I don't know.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You can quote someone verbatim and still rip the person's words completely out of their context.  That's what you did.  I stand by my accusation.  I retract nothing.  Deal with it.

Just one note to your observation about me. I have had the opportunity to watch Justice Thomas sitting on the bench in the Supreme court and it is also part of what shapes my feelings about him. 

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, mtomm said:

Just one note to your observation about me. I have had the opportunity to watch Justice Thomas sitting on the bench in the Supreme court and it is also part of what shapes my feelings about him. 

OK.  To each, his or her own, I suppose.

P.S.: To me, your observation seemed remarkably personal if it is based primarily on how someone is perceived to behave on the bench.  I'll never have tried enough cases to know (yes, that's a giant understatement), and since I'll never have appeared before the Supreme Court at all, I have a sample size of exactly zero to base such an opinion on, myself, but it seems to me that one ought to be quite wary of presuming to know what a judge or a justice is thinking based on his or her behavior or demeanor on the bench.  But, again, to each, his or her own, I suppose.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Obehave said:

That's a novel idea.  Read more of the threads before responding to anyone in particular.  Or maybe the entire thread, or the entire board.  I'm sure there are a lot of things I don't know about you, yet.

Sounds too much like work to me, though.  I don't mind a clash in communications like this with you every now and then.

Right.  Why bother attempting to find out where someone is coming from before making a comment that convinces readers and contributors who do that that your comment is grossly ill-informed?  Golly, you're right.  That is too much work.  (At the very least, you might consider asking a question: "Your comment makes it seem as though you believe ...  Is that right?"  But, you're right.  Too much work!  Easier to spout ignorant crap ... :rolleyes:)

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Do you have a problem with ALL people who are grossly ill-informed?  I don't.  It makes it easier to have conversations with people, and gives me more to talk about, when I see people who don't seem to know much about what I am talking about.  

I just took what you said at face value.  Now I am sensing that you enjoy being sarcastic. If I had sensed that beforehand I would have been more prepared for your response but this way I found out first hand through my own experience with you.

If your main reason for being here is to save people from what you see as their own ignorance, I think you'll have a tough time finding targets.  Generally, people don't view themselves as ignorant, and they tend to lack patience with people who, wittingly or not, take a condescending "More Knowledgeable Than Thou" attitude toward conversations and interactions with them.  But if that's what floats your boat ...

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I am ignorant of many things and I know for a fact that all other mortals are too.  None of us knows everything.  I am here to share what I think and believe as well as to glean whatever bits or bunches of truth and goodness I can from whoever has any.

President Gordon Hinckley said repeatedly in sermons and interviews: "Bring with you all that you have of good and truth which you have received from whatever source, and come and let us see if we may add to it."

President Joseph Smith said: "We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons.

I already knew what you just told me.  Do you have anything else, anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy?  Is it okay with you if I try to add more to any discussion I join? Even if you've already heard it before?

Hey, if taking a condescending "More Knowledgeable Than Thou" approach to conversing with your interlocutors is what floats your boat, have at it.  (I'm not optimistic regarding your prospects for success, but, on occasion, I have been known to be wrong, so ... have at it.  Good luck.)

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, mtomm said:

Just one note to your observation about me. I have had the opportunity to watch Justice Thomas sitting on the bench in the Supreme court and it is also part of what shapes my feelings about him. 

I'm curious about a few things:

First, Justice Thomas is somewhat famous for not asking questions during oral argument (while he is "sitting on the bench in the Supreme Court").  See here:

Quote

Supreme Court advocates had to adjust to a hot bench in which justices would often interrupt counsel mid-sentence. In recent years prior to the pandemic, the norm became eight of the justices asking at least one question during a typical oral argument. Thomas was the exception. His reticence on the bench, which was not as noteworthy early in his tenure, became for court watchers a distinctive trait. At one point, the justice went over a decade without asking any substantive questions from the bench, and it made headlines when he broke his silence.

Thomas explained his general approach toward oral argument in 2012:

[Attorneys] have 30, 40 minutes per side for cases that are important to them and to the country. They should argue. That’s a part of the process. … I don’t like to badger people. These are not children. The court traditionally did not do that. I have been there 20 years. I see no need for all of that. Most of that is in the briefs, and there are a few questions around the edges.

On a personal note, he added, “Maybe it’s the Southerner in me. Maybe it’s the introvert in me, I don’t know. I think that when somebody’s talking, somebody ought to listen.”

So my first questions are:

Question No. 1: Did you form an opinion about Justice Thomas during his years and years of not speaking during SCOTUS proceedings? 

Question No. 2: If so, what sort of opinion did you form based on his silence?

Question No. 3: How can you form an opinion of a person when they are not talking?

Question No. 4: Until May 2020, SCOTUS sessions were notable insofar as they were not broadcast.  And since May 2020, only audio broadcasts have been made.  How has this affected your capacity to form an opinion about Justice Thomas?

Next, the COVID pandemic changed how SCOTUS operates (from the same link as above) :

Quote

After the pandemic struck and the court adopted a new format of taking turns eliciting questions from each justice by teleconference — and, significantly, making it accessible by livestream — it enabled the general public to hear Thomas as the inquisitive justice his colleagues and law clerks know behind closed doors. When the court pioneered the new format over two weeks in May 2020, Thomas asked a total of 63 questions. Seventeen of them came in one day in which the court heard cases involving wide-ranging subpoenas for President Donald Trump’s financial records, and they included several probing questions on implied legislative powers that counsel struggled to answer.

Joseph Palmore, who served as an assistant solicitor general under President Barack Obama, called Thomas’ participation the “biggest positive of the sitting,” adding, “He is a skilled and substantive questioner, and his colleagues often picked up on his questions to ask follow-ups.” Thomas remained an avid questioner through the following term, nearly always using his allotted time. He thrived in a format that was structured precisely for the orderly presentation of questions by justices.

Echoing other veteran Supreme Court advocates, Gregory Garre, who served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush, called the justice an “excellent questioner” whose questions “are clear, fair and focused on resolving the heart of the dispute before the court, not tangential issues.” He added, “Often, his questions have a practical element to them, testing the real-world ramifications of a party’s position. He’s not trying to set traps or debate academic issues.”

So my next set of questions are:

Question No. 5: Do you agree or disagree with the foregoing assessments of Justice Thomas relative to his asking questions from the bench?

Question No. 6: What other factors (besides his participation in SCOTUS hearings) did you take into account when forming an opinion of Justice Thomas?

Question No. 7: Last week you mentioned that you "remember his confirmation hearings," that you "believe Anita Hill," that "the actions she described {and attributed to Justice Thomas} are evil," and that you are "not ashamed for calling him evil."  May I ask why you found Anita Hill to be such a credible witness?  

This 2016 article outlines of some of Hill's apparent credibility issues.  A sampling:

Quote

In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.), former reporter Stuart Taylor Jr. says the movie Confirmation leaves out details to portray Hill as completely truthful and Thomas as “a desperate, if compelling liar.” Taylor is now a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

”While it is hard to believe Anita Hill simply made the whole thing up,” Taylor writes, “she was far from credible—and the behavior that she alleged was inconsistent with everything else we know about Clarence Thomas.”

According to Taylor, the movie:

• Ignores that Hill left out some of the most shocking allegations against Thomas in her initial written statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee and in her initial FBI interview. Hill claims FBI agents said she didn’t need to discuss things that were too embarrassing; the agents denied it.

• Fails to mention that Hill denied five times that a Democratic staffer told her she might be able to force Thomas to withdraw without being publicly identified. After conferring with her lawyers, Hill agreed that she had been told this.

• Doesn’t mention Hill’s “implausible claim” that she followed Thomas from the Education Department to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission because she feared losing her job. “Avoiding this problem,” Taylor writes, “the film mentions only her alternative, and less than plausible, claim that Judge Thomas’ offensive behavior had suddenly ended, only to begin again at the EEOC.”

• “Takes at face value” Hill’s claims that the 11 phone calls she made to Thomas after leaving the EEOC were for professional matters or to return his phone calls. The movie didn’t include a message taken by Thomas’ secretary: “Just called to say hello. Sorry she didn’t get to see you last week.”

• “Tries to erase the fact” that no one else has accused Thomas of sexual harassment or dirty talk.

• Presents another former EEOC employee as a credible witness who decided not to testify. In reality, then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Joe Biden feared the woman’s testimony would backfire because of credibility problems.

See also here:

Quote

Prior to Hill's testimony, nearly twice as many Americans said they found Thomas more credible than Hill (48% to 26%), but as the hearings progressed, public opinion fluctuated.
...

During his testimony, Thomas called the hearing a "travesty" that "should never occur in America." He also accused those who opposed his confirmation of racism, saying, "From my standpoint as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks."

He went on to refute all Hill's claims, and by the end of the hearings, the public was once again twice as likely to believe Thomas over Hill (55% to 27%). The day before the vote was to take place, 58% of Americans said they favored the Senate confirming Thomas, while 30% were opposed.

And from this website:

Quote

Twelve women who were former colleagues of Thomas testified strongly in support of him. Several of these women testified about their own experiences with sexual harassment at other jobs, and testified about Thomas’ “scrupulous” treatment of women and extraordinary sensitivity. Several of these women were friends of Anita Hill. Not one co-worker of Hill testified in support of her allegations.

Hill’s four alleged corroborating witnesses provided very weak testimony. One witness told Committee staff that the alleged harassment happened before Hill ever worked for Thomas. Another witness claimed that Hill had no political motives to oppose Thomas because she was a conservative who fully supported the Reagan Administration’s civil rights policies. This representation was false. Angela Wright, who many claimed would provide similar testimony as Hill, declined to testify because of serious credibility issues related to her motives and her previous efforts to falsely accuse a supervisor of racism.

The three reasons Hill gave to explain why she followed Thomas from the Department of Education to EEOC were exposed as completely false. Contrary to her claims, she was a career employee with job security at the Department of Education. She knew Thomas’ successor (Harry Singleton), who stated that he would have welcomed Hill to continue working at the Department.

Hill remains the only women to ever claim that Thomas discussed pornography at the work place. She remains the only person to testify that Thomas sexually harassed her.

See also this recording of Nancy Altman's testimony in favor of Justice Thomas.  A transcript:

Quote

My name is Nancy Altman. I consider myself a feminist. I am prochoice. I care deeply about women’s issues. In addition to working with Clarence Thomas at the Department of Education, I shared an office with him for 2 years in this building. Our desks were a few feet apart. Because we worked in such close quarters,

I could hear virtually every conversation for 2 years that Clarence Thomas had. Not once in those 2 years did I ever hear Clarence Thomas make a sexist or offensive comment, not once. I have myself been the victim of an improper, unwanted sexual advance by a supervisor.

Gentlemen, when sexual harassment occurs, other women in the workplace know about it. The members of the committee seem to believe that when offensive behavior occurs in a private room, there can be no witnesses. This is wrong. Sexual harassment occurs in an office in the middle of the workday. The victim is in a public place. The first person she sees immediately after the incident is usually the harasser’s secretary. Coworkers, especially women, will notice an upset expression, a jittery manner, a teary or a distracted air, especially if the abusive behavior is occurring over and over and over again.

Further, the women I know who have been victimized always shared the experience with a female coworker they could trust. They do this to validate their own experience, to obtain advice about options that they may pursue, to find out if others have been similarly abused, and to receive comfort. Friends outside the workplace make good comforters, but cannot meet the other needs.

It is not credible that Clarence Thomas could have engage in the kinds of behavior that Anita Hill alleges, without any of the women who he worked closest with—dozens of us, we could spend days having women come up, his secretaries, his chief of staff, his other assistants, his colleagues—without any of us having sensed, seen or heard something.

Additional witnesses here:

Quote
  • J.C. Alvarez, Special Assistant to Thomas at the EEOC, colleague of Hill at EEOC: “As his professional colleague, I traveled with him, had lunch and dinner with him, worked with him, one-on-one and with others. Never did he ever lose his respect for me, and never did we ever have a discussion of the type that Ms. Hill alleges. Never was he the slightest bit improper in his behavior with me.”
  • Nancy Fitch, Special Assistant Historian to Thomas at the EEOC, colleague of Hill at EEOC: “As I told the FBI agent who interviewed me on Tuesday, October 1, I trust Judge Thomas completely, he has all of my support and caring earned by 9 years of the most positive and affirmative interacting, not only with me, but with other staff and former staff, men and women….”
  • Diane Holt, Personal Secretary to Thomas at the Dept. of Education and EEOC, colleague of Hill at both agencies: “At no time did Professor Hill intimate, not even in the most subtle of ways, that Judge Thomas was asking her out or subjecting her to the crude, abusive conversations that have been described. … Additionally, I never heard anyone at any time make any reference to any inappropriate conduct in relation to Clarence Thomas.”
  • Phyllis Berry-Meyers: Special Assistant to Thomas at the EEOC, colleague of Hill: “Anita Hill indicated to me that she had been a primary advisor to Clarence Thomas at the Department of Education. However, she seemed to be having a difficult time on his EEOC staff, of being considered as one of many, especially on a staff where others were as equally or more talented than she.”
  • Patricia Cornwell Johnson, Director of Labor Relations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: “I work in an area that is dominated by men and I have never met a man who treated me with more dignity and respect, who was more cordial and professional than was Judge Clarence Thomas.”
  • Linda Jackson, Social Science Research Analyst, EEOC, colleague of Hill at both agencies: “I believe I know the basic nature of this man better than most people in this room. I believe, unequivocally, Clarence Thomas’ denial of these allegations. This is a very honorable man who has the highest respect for women.”
  • Lori Saxon, Confidential Assistant to Thomas, Dept. of Education, colleague of Hill: “I was the confidential assistant to Clarence Thomas. … My office was just down the hall from Anita Hill’s during her tenure at the Department of Education. I never saw any harassment go on in the office.”
  • ...
  • Anna Jenkins, Secretary in the EEOC’s Office of the Chairman, colleague of Hill: “I had daily contact with Anita Hill and Judge Thomas. … Judge Thomas’ conduct around me, Anita Hill, and other staffers was always proper and professional. I have never witnessed Judge Thomas say anything or do anything that could be construed as sexual harassment.”
  • Janet Brown, Worked with Thomas in Sen. John Danforth’s Office: “I don’t subscribe to the belief that men, because they are men, don’t understand sexual harassment. My husband, my father and my brother understand it. Clarence Thomas understands it. And because he understands it, he wouldn’t do it.”
  • Sandra Battle, Attorney, Office of Civil Rights, Dept. of Education, colleague of Hill: “In my presence, Judge Thomas always acted in a professional manner and treated all employees, including Professor Hill, with the utmost respect.”
  • Patricia Healy, Office of Civil Rights, Dept. of Education, colleague of Hill: “During the time Mr. Thomas was with OCR, I had no reason to believe he would sexually harass any employee. Mr. Thomas appeared to me to be a private person, devoted to his son. His dealings with me were always professional and I grew to respect him for his support of civil rights.”
  • Pamela Talkin, Chief of Staff to Thomas at EEOC:  “Judge Thomas was adamant that the women in the agency be treated with dignity and respect, and his own behavior towards women was scrupulous.”

Men who engage in sexual harassment seldom do it just once.  Think of Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Matt Lauer, Louis CK, Bryan Singer, Les Moonves, Charlie Rose, James Franco, Danny Masterson, and so on.  

Question No. 8: Have you factored in any of the foregoing into your assessment of Hill's credibility?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

Also, while I don't have a reference, I have heard Justice Thomas attribute his predilection for listening much more than he tends to speak in oral argument to the fact that, in his early years, he spoke a form of nonstandard English for which others ridiculed him.

P.S.:  While this is not relevant to Justice Thomas's approach to oral argument, in light of the fact that the conversation has turned to the Anita Hill episode, I can't resist adding that Justice Thomas has something (albeit a dubious distinction) in common with Your Humble Correspondent: Both of us have been accused of sexual harassment.  Personally, I would take much the same approach with Anita Hill that I would take with my own accuser: If either one of them told me the sun is up, I would have to fight very hard to resist the urge to look out the nearest window ... just to be sure. 

#Metoo?  Truly, any woman (in fact any one ) who has been the target of genuine sexual harassment has my sympathy.  #BelieveWomen?  Okay.  I don't think that assessments of credibility ought to be based primarily on sex or gender, but, okay: I don't think that most women would lie about such a thing.  However, I do think that assessments of one's credibility ought to be based on evidence.  The more evidence one has to support one's claims, and the higher the quality of that evidence, the more credible those claims should be deemed to be.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment

Regarding Justice Thomas's assessment of the utility of oral argument, I wonder, how many novel arguments (arguments not included in briefs and not raised in courts below) actually are advanced during oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court?  I know, in some cases, that if an issue wasn't raised in the court below, counsel is barred from arguing that issue during subsequent appeals, but I'm not sure how (if at all) that rule would affect oral argument at the Supreme Court level.  Is the mere fact that a Justice asks a question on a topic that counsel hasn't addressed previously sufficient to "open the door"?  If so, how often does that happen?  I'm not convinced that it is all that frequent.

I wonder what thoughts any of the more legally erudite among us have on the matter.

Link to comment

Consent is a legal term here, correct?

If so, minors don’t have the ability to consent and it is standard to give the power of consent to the parents, correct?  Only in extreme cases does the state remove it, including allowing parents to reject some possibly life saving medical procedures iirc.
 

It is not a straight extrapolation because the state in insisting the right-in the rare circumstances when it does—can remove the child from the custody of the caregiver which is not the case in pregnancy. 
 

But what are the limitations of parental rights for medical procedures?  Out of curiosity. Do they vary by state?

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Is there any real, appreciable difference between abortion and infanticide or killing a very young person, say, >/= 3 years old, or, pick whatever number you wish (but why that number?  Why does a young person of that age "acquire" self-hood while others do not?)

The more I think about this issue I realize there is no rational gestational age at which to draw a line and say “this baby is now human.”  Most people feel drawing the line at conception is too extreme so many laws draw an arbitrary line somewhere else.  
 

I see a lot of people arguing that whether to call a fetus a human or not is a philosophical issue.  I would respond by saying that any philosophy that states that a person isn’t fully human is not a moral philosophy.

This is why the bodily autonomy argument doesn’t work for me.  There’s a separate human in the equation.  I’m more likely to be persuaded by necessary evil arguments.

Edited by Rivers
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Durangout said:

This topic already has 44 pages.  Its a hot topic.  It make people angry and bitter on both sides.  This will never get resolved, and includes issues of morality, sex, family, freedom, life, and death. Why wouldn't it make people on all sides angry and bitter?

Link to comment

An interesting Trib article: Latest from Mormon Land: Will abortion and same-sex marriage be polarizing in the pews?

Quote

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson, the church announced that its position on abortion “remains unchanged” and then greenlighted members to “participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.”

Some years ago (in 2015), Elder Christofferson "reaffirmed {} that Mormons who support gay marriage are not in danger of losing their temple privileges or church memberships — even though the Utah-based faith opposes the practice," but that "individuals in the {Church} would be in trouble only for 'supporting organizations that promote opposition or positions in opposition to the church's,'" but also that expressing support for same-sex marriate on social media sites "is not an organized effort to attack our effort, or our functioning as a church."

I think the two situations reflect, in some sense, departures from the Church's standard MO, but the situations are nevertheless fairly different from each other. 

In the former situation the Church is encouraging ("greenlighting") members, as it always has, to participate in the political process, but the departure from the Church's MO is that it is encouraging members to participate in a particular way, namely, "in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.”  That seems to be a reference to political efforts to place constraints on elective abortion, as this would "protect life."  The part about "preserv{ing} religious liberty" is a bit confusing to me, as I'm not sure how religious liberty is directly implicated in the abortion debate.  Any thoughts?

In the latter situation (from 2015), the Church (technically Elder Christofferson, though I think he was speaking authoritatively) was allowing members to publicly express support for same-sex marriage (within some parameters) with no adverse consequence to their membership rights.  Here the departure from the Church's MO is that it was allowing (not the same, I think, as "greenlighting") support for same-sex marriage despite the Church's stance in opposition to it.  Support for SSM, then, seems to have a sort of privileged status that apparently exempts it from question 7 in the TR interview: "Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" 

Quote

Of course, nothing was preventing Latter-day Saints from doing so previously. Church leaders have always encouraged members to be involved in civic affairs.

But with that extra endorsement for engagement from the church and as the hot-button abortion debate shifts to the states, the once-settled issue (Roe v. Wade had protected abortion as a constitutional right for nearly half a century) is now going to be front burner once again.

Yep.  The Church has always reserved to itself the right "as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church."  Abortion fits the bill.  The Church has, in years past, also spoken under this rubric about issues like immigration and race relations.  All of these topics have both substantial moral and legal/political/social dimensions.

Quote

Add to that, fresh hints from the high court that the Obergefell ruling (legalizing same-sex marriage) could be the next to fall and even more policy polemics could be in the offing.

"Policy polemics."  Sigh.  The Trib's gonna trib.

I don't recall the Trib using such risible terminology when the Church expressed moderate views on immigration, likely because the Powers-that-Be at the Trib liked that position.  But where the Church's position does not jibe with the Trib's, the Church is characterized as engaging in "policy polemics."

Also, I think the bit about "fresh hints from the high court that the Obergefell ruling (legalizing same-sex marriage) could be the next to fall" is politicking alarmism.  The majority went out of their way to differentiate and distinguish the outcome of Dobbs from Obergefell.  Specifically and emphatically (emphases added) :

Quote

The Solicitor General suggests that overruling Roe and Casey would threaten the protection of other rights under the Due Process Clause.  The Court emphasizes that this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.
...
The most striking feature of the dissent is the absence of any serious discussion of the legitimacy of the States’ interest in protecting fetal life. This is evident in the analogy that the dissent draws between the abortion right and the rights recognized in Griswold (contraception), Eisenstadt (same), Lawrence (sexual conduct with member of the same sex), and Obergefell (same-sex marriage). Perhaps this is designed to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights, but the dissent’s analogy is objectionable for a more important reason: what it reveals about the dissent’s views on the protection of what Roe called “potential life.” The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a “potential life,” but an abortion has that effect.
...
Unable to show concrete reliance on Roe and Casey themselves, the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decisions would “threaten the Court’s precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights.” Brief for United States 26 (citing Obergefell, 576 U. S. 644; Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558; Griswold, 381 U. S. 479). That is not correct for reasons we have already discussed. As even the Casey plurality recognized, “[a]bortion is a unique act” because it terminates “life or potential life.” 505 U. S., at 852; see also Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is “inherently different from marital intimacy,” “marriage,” or “procreation”). And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right.  Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. 
...
Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell.  Post, at 4–5, 26–27, n. 8. But we have stated unequivocally that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Supra, at 66. We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed “potential life.” Roe, 410 U. S., at 150 (emphasis deleted); Casey, 505 U. S., at 852. Therefore, a right to abortion cannot be justified by a purported analogy to the rights recognized in those other cases or by “appeals to a broader right to autonomy.” Supra, at 32. It is hard to see how we could be clearer. Moreover, even putting aside that these cases are distinguishable, there is a further point that the dissent ignores: Each precedent is subject to its own stare decisis analysis, and the factors that our doctrine instructs us to consider like reliance and workability are different for these cases than for our abortion jurisprudence

SCOTUS: "The Court emphasizes that this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

SCOTUS: "{T}he Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decisions would 'threaten the Court’s precedents {in, inter alia, Obergefell}.  That is not correct for reasons we have already discussed."

SCOTUS: "And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right."

SCOTUS: "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

SCOTUS: "{W}e have stated unequivocally that '[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.'"

SCOTUS: "{R}ights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion."

From these statements the Salt Lake Tribune gleans "fresh hints from the high court that the Obergefell ruling (legalizing same-sex marriage) could be the next to fall..."

Quote

That polarizing prospect has a Wheat & Tares writer, for one, worried about these touchy topics spilling over into Latter-day Saint chapels and (further?) dividing members.

“This matters to me because mixing politics and church has been the worst thing to happen to my church experience,” Elisa writes in a recent blog post. “While I disagree with the institutional church on many issues, I’ve long felt that my local experience is pretty good and as long as I focus on Jesus and my own congregation, I can get by just fine.”

I'm not sure why the Trib is treating the opinion of a blogger to be particularly noteworthy or newsworthy.  Anyway, the blogger continues:

Quote

But that changes when local congregations get commandeered for political fights (as happened during Prop 8) or when such fights unavoidably impact them (as happened during the Covid mask/vaccine debates).  As I learned during Covid, it actually doesn’t matter much whether I oppose the Church’s official position (as with marriage equality) or I agree with it (as with masks and Covid)–it’s miserable either way.  Jesus leaves the building.  
...
Now that reproductive choice is an open issue again–subject to campaigning and convincing and sign-posting and legislating–my ward members’ beliefs about it are likely to impact my own reproductive rights and those of my sisters and daughters and friends (especially because I live in the Theocracy of Deseret).  If gay marriage no longer receives federal protection, my brother’s marriage may not be valid in his home state; again, my ward members’ views on the issue may actually end up directly impacting my family and friends.  So it’s no longer something I can just look away from or agree to disagree or live and let live.  It’s very personal and it concretely impacts my own life and family.  

Hmm.  A few thoughts here:

First, I think the Latter-day Saints need to become more resilient.  "Jesus leaves the building" is overwrought and unserious.

Second, the Roe crowd seem perpetually unaware of how out-of-touch they sound when they focus solely on "reproductive rights and those of my sisters and daughters and friends" with nary a thought of or comment about the other issue at the core of the debate: the life of the unborn child.

Third, the blogger's comment theorizing about if "gay marriage no longer receives federal protection" exposes a pretty blinkered view of how the law works. It seems pretty clear that she has not read Dobbs, or worse, that she has read it but is materially distorting its (non)impact on Obergefell for polemical purposes.  And while I don't see Obergefell at any risk in the foreseeable future, questions about its long-term prospects arise from the inherent risks in using SCOTUS to enact unenumerated rights, as opposed to using amendment or legislative processes to enact massive legal changes in the country.  

The blogger continues:

Quote

Likewise, although people on the other side of these debates may be glad that they can influence public policy to conform to their views on abortion and gay marriage, I have to imagine that at least some of them at least still would prefer the issues not take over our Church meetings.

I think it's pretty fair to say that most Latter-day Saints don't want politicking in church meetings, from any political viewpoint.

Quote

I imagine there may also even be people out there who believe that the Church is correct in its stance on abortion and gay marriage, but that the free exercise of religion and principles of limited government mean that those things should still be legal for others who believe differently.   

That is certainly a valid perspective. But then so is the one that posits that protecting the lives of unborn children is an entirely appropriate use of the Police Power vested with the several states.

Quote

So, the two questions on my mind are: 

1. Will the Church get involved in legislative battles over abortion and gay marriage as it did for the ERA in the 70’s and gay marriage in the late 90’s and early 2000’s?  

Part of me thinks (hopes?) that the Church learned a hard lesson after Prop 8–it may have won a short-term political victory, but it lost a tremendous amount of goodwill.  Likewise, with Covid, even encouraging members to wear masks and get vaccinated–which should not have been particularly political to begin with–created problems for the Church with its members on the far right. 

This seems rather inconsistent.  The Church can take a stand on a particular issue, or not.  She seems to have been unhappy about the Church taking a stand on Prop 8, but seems on board with the Church taking a stand on COVID restrictions.  In other words, the lodestar of whether the Church should take a stand on an issue or not is . . . whether that stand conforms to this blogger's personal preferences and expectations.

Quote

That said, the Church continues to support anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion groups domestically and abroad, and continues to file amicus briefs in opposition to LGBTQ rights in the United States.  I’m not sure that Nelson cares much about public opinion on this point.

"Nelson."

Telling, that.

Anyhoo, I think Pres. Nelson cares about public opinion.  That's pretty obvious, as protecting the reputation and standing of the Church in society is an important part of the Church's efforts to fulfill its various divine mandates.  That said, I think Pres. Nelson and the other leaders of the Church do not view "public opinion" as dispositive, as the final say on right and wrong, as the arbiter of morality and God's will.

Quote

While I doubt that the Church’s level of involvement will be as intense as it was during Prop 8, I can imagine it will continue issuing statements in favor of gay marriage-restrictive and anti-reproductive choice policies and that it will at least subtly encourage members to vote accordingly.

I'm not sure what she is referencing here about the Church "continu{ing}" to issue "statements in favor of gay marriage-restrictive {policies}."  

As for the Church "issuing statements in favor of ... anti-reproductive choice policies" and "subtly encourag{ing} members to vote accordingly," she seems consternated about this.  Again, it seems pretty out of touch to be alarmed by the Church . . . continuing to do what it has long been doing.

Quote

2. Will Church members be disciplined for public advocacy and financial support to pro-marriage equality or pro-choice groups and causes?  

Whether or not the Church encourages or mobilizes Church members to fight to restrict reproductive rights legislation or bans marriage equality–or tries to stay out of the fray apart from reiterating its own policy–it is certain (in fact, it is already the case) that Church members will mobilize on either side of the issues on their own initiative. 

I think the Church will not do much in terms of legislation.

Quote

On the other hand, many Church members have publicly voiced opposition to Dobbs, limitations on reproductive rights, and Justice Thomas’s suggestion that marriage equality should be revisited.  I’ve actually been quite surprised at the number of active Church members–mostly women–who have been outspoken on these issues.  For my part, I have given and will continue to give vocal, financial, legal, and any other support I can to fight for reproductive rights and marriage equality.

Will this get me and other pro-choice, pro-marriage equality members in trouble?  I don’t know.  Elder Christofferson is often quoted as saying that members won’t be punished for holding their own beliefs about gay marriage, but some leaders seem to draw the line at public advocacy.  Recent changes in the vetting and retention of BYU faculty suggest that, at least for Church employment, private beliefs are enough to land you in hot water or out of a job. 

I suspect the Church will continue to bend over backwards to accommodate members of the Church whose personal/political viewpoints on controversies like abortion and SSM are, to varying degrees, incongruent with the Church's doctrines and teachings.

However, I also suspect that some members of the Church (those who subordinate and work against the Restored Gospel in favor of personal/political views, who crave public notoriety/attention/adulation, who have lost track of the meaning and significance of covenants, etc.) will work very hard to push against even these accommodations, will become belligerent and adversarial, will end up leaving the Church (on their own or through a membership council), and will eventually end up doing a few pat-on-the-back interviews with John Dehlin and Radio Free Mormon.

That's a dispiriting thought, but we've seen this progression over and over and over.  Kate Kelly.  John Dehlin.  Jeremy Runnels.  Denver Snuffer.  Sam Young.  Bill Reel.  

Anyway, back to the Trib article:

Quote

A new entry in the church’s General Handbook could help nip such meetinghouse friction.

“Political choices and affiliations should not be the subject of any teachings or advocating in church settings,” it cautions. “Leaders ensure that church meetings and activities focus on the Savior and his gospel. Members should not judge one another in political matters.”

The questions then become: Do abortion and same-sex marriage fit into this “political” rubric? And even if they do, will leaders and members heed the handbook’s counsel?

I think particularized discussion of these topics "fit into this 'political' rubric."

I also think most members will follow the handbook's instruction.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Danzo said:

Most of the people who were  horrified by the alleged behavior were quite fine with William Jefferson Clinton's behavior toward women and his wife's defense of him.

Not among church members and friends I know, immorality from anyone is not excused.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not among church members and friends I know, immorality from anyone is not excused.

Unfortunately, even church members I know seem to excuse immorality  when the person is on their side.

Donald Trump seems to be the most recent example.  Utah seems pretty supportive (although one of its senators doesn't seem to be as seduced)

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Unfortunately, even church members I know seem to excuse immorality  when the person is on their side.

Donald Trump seems to be the most recent example.  Utah seems pretty supportive (although one of its senators doesn't seem to be as seduced)

 

Yes, that is rather disappointing to me.  I would prefer addressing him (or anyone else) as the lesser of two evils if they felt the need to vote for him (them) rather than downplaying his (their) blatant immorality.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, that is rather disappointing to me.  I would prefer addressing him (or anyone else) as the lesser of two evils if they felt the need to vote for him (them) rather than downplaying his (their) blatant immorality.

I could understand it a little bit better if the people who choose him as the (perceived) lesser of the two evils, if they continued to criticize his immorality. The biggest problem I see is that there seems to be no loyal opposition anymore. None of his supporters that are willing to publicly say no to him.  Of course it is easy for his enemies to criticize him, what takes true courage is for his supporters to be publicly critical. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...