Kamala Harris Goes to Church

(Atlanta Journal-Constitution photo)

Kamala Harris has had trouble attracting Christian, particularly Catholic, voters due to her pro-abortion stance, so she began the day at a Black church in Philadelphia:

Vice President Kamala Harris started her Sunday at services at the Church of Christian Compassion in West Philadelphia. She told the largely Black congregation that the “next nine days will test us—they will demand everything we’ve got.”

“In this moment, we do face a real question: What kind of country do we want to live in? A country of chaos, fear and hate, or a country of freedom, justice, and compassion?” Harris asked, adding, “The great thing about living in a democracy is we, the people, have the choice to answer that question.” Harris is spending the day in the Philadelphia area as polls show a tight race in Pennsylvania, the nation’s largest battleground state.

Vice President Harris is also trying to counter the anti-Christian impression of her "you guys are at the wrong rally" riposte when hecklers shouted "Jesus is Lord" and "Christ is King." (Her campaign asserts that she was responding to cries of "Lies! Lies! Lies!").

Despite her warm reception by the congregation, I doubt her appearance changed anyone's mind.

Just Maintaining the Status Quo is Hard

Whatever one's views on abortion, there's no question that its reduced availability has made it riskier to be an obstetrician gynecologist who has to worry about running afoul of the law, even if he or she strives to be compliant.

Surveying the legal landscape, medical students may decide that being an OB/GYN is too tough because of regulatory requirements. The coming decline in the number of doctors who provide pregnancy, childbirth, and women's health services (not abortion) is probably not what pro-life lawmakers intended.

Now comes another blow: Hospitals Shutter Maternity Wards Amid Falling Birthrates

The closures are broadening a swath of America without maternity units, commonly communities that are sparsely populated or aging. The trend threatens to worsen infant health and maternal death rates that have hit the highest level in decades.

Hospitals that are closing maternity units said they can’t recruit enough staff to safely operate. Hospitals with fewer births are less attractive to doctors and nurses, executives said. Births at OSF HealthCare St. James-John W. Albrecht Medical Center in Illinois declined to 120 last year from 184 in 2019.

It's a sad state of affairs in 21st century America that, whether a woman wants to see through or terminate her pregnancy, she has to travel a greater distance to ensure a healthy outcome for herself.

Putting the Boycott Out of its Misery

Prohibited states in red (local news matters)

We posted in February and October about how San Francisco's boycott of other States backfired in a tangle of red tape and higher costs. After seven years the Board of Supervisors repealed the law.

The boycott law was originally passed by supervisors in 2016 and first applied only to states that had restricted LGBTQ rights after the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country. Supervisors amended the law in subsequent years to apply also to states that placed new limits on abortion access and voting rights.

A central goal of the boycott was to put pressure on other states, but a recent report by City Administrator Carmen Chu’s office found that only one state had been removed from the list and none ever said they changed their laws because of San Francisco’s. Additionally, the report found that the law made city contracting a more cumbersome and expensivere process.

An earlier report from the board’s Budget and Legislative Analyst found that implementing the boycott had cost the city nearly $475,000 in staffing expenses. And the city was approving a large number of exemptions to the boycott anyway: Departments granted 538 waivers for contracts worth $791 million between mid-2021 and mid-2022, the report found.

If San Francisco had given any thought to how people change their thoughts and minds, San Francisco would have tried to engage in discussions and allay opponents' fears. Instead it resorted immediately to the bully-and-boycott approach. The latter failed, and I'm glad it did even though I agree with some of the principles that San Francisco espouses.

The Pity of The Preening

(Image from Brewminate)

Beginning in 2016 the City of San Francisco prohibited travel to and business with states that disagreed with progressive values. (The restrictions applied to the City and its employees.) The list of banned states that had different laws on LGBTQ, abortion, and/or voting rights has mushroomed to 30, and San Francisco has found itself greatly inconvenienced.

a new city report said the law has been ineffective and cumbersome....The report also found the law adds costs and complexity to city contracting...

“It’s an ineffective policy that complicates the business of San Francisco government and makes it very likely that we pay more than we should for goods and services,” [Supervisor Rafael] Mandelman said in an interview Monday...

Supervisors established the boycott in October 2016 when they approved a law that banned city-funded travel to states that had restricted LGBTQ rights in the wake of the 2015 Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The law also prevented the city from approving contracts with companies based in the banned states.

In subsequent years, supervisors expanded the boycott to include states that passed laws to limit abortion access and voting rights.

Your humble blogger believes that it is perfectly within the City's right to conduct its affairs according to its own moral code. But the City had another objective--to convert other jurisdictions to San Francisco values by withholding business. Accomplishment of the latter has been nil.

[City Administrator Carmet] Chu’s office said in its Friday report that it could not find any concrete evidence that the states targeted by the boycott had changed their laws because of San Francisco’s actions.

The law “has created additional administrative burden for City staff and vendors and unintended consequences for San Francisco citizens, such as limiting enrichment and developmental opportunities,” Chu’s report said. “Few, if any, other jurisdictions implement travel or contracting bans as expansive as the City’s.”

Lectures and threats rarely convert anyone to a cause, though San Francisco may have had a chance if it was excellent in its governance. However, its widely publicized failures in dealing with crime, homelessness, and drug use, plus the exodus of middle-class families and businesses, have put paid to that notion.

The pity of this preening is that it wasted money, squandered moral capital, and made fellow Americans less inclined to help San Francisco when it needs it, and that day will assuredly come.

The Education of San Francisco Leaders

Prohibited states in red (local news matters)

Beginning in 2016 the City of San Francisco refused to do business with--or allow its workers to travel to--states that don't comply with its views on LGBTQ, abortion, and voting rights.

The SF Board of Supervisors now realizes that governance through its idiosyncratic moral stances has only hurt itself. They asked the City Administrator to reconsider. [bold added]

“By prohibiting the City from doing business with half the nation, this policy has resulted in significant administrative costs and potentially far more significant contracting costs by limiting bidder competition,” the Tuesday letter said, adding that it is “also unclear if this policy has been effective in changing the policy-making choices of states subject to” the city’s ban.

Progressivism and wokeness will never be completely extinguished in San Francisco, but it's encouraging that San Francisco is willing to pull the plug on some policies that obviously aren't working.

Kansas Surprises

State Capitol - Topeka, Kansas

On Tuesday Kansas voters refused to overturn a state court ruling that found a right to abortion in the Kansas constitution:

One message is that voters are wary of extremes on either side of the abortion issue. A majority of the public supports a right to abortion at least up to several weeks of pregnancy. This is disappointing to those who believe life begins at conception, but it means the pro-life side has persuading to do if it wants to win the abortion debate.

That’s the burden of democracy, which is what the Supreme Court allowed to return on abortion in overturning Roe. Urging Congress to pass a national abortion ban, as some on the right want, looks like a certain loser—in addition to likely being unconstitutional. Abortion is an issue for the states to decide.

The reason that the outcome was surprising to most is that Kansas is "a culturally conservative state with 350,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats." The pro-abortion results were not surprising to this humble observer, however.

As I wrote in May:

State and local governance, aka federalism, is indeed messy and inefficient. Abortion-rights supporters seem to dread having to argue a case, in 34 jurisdictions no less, that they thought they had already won, but I suspect they'll find it easier than feared.

Everyone has had to wrestle with the meaning of fetal life for 49 years, and IMHO the majority across the United States has decided that it is less important than the health of a mother.

Perhaps it will dawn on both sides that the overturning of Roe was not an unmitigated defeat for abortion rights or a clearcut victory for the anti-abortion side. Where one Party rules, like in California, one side doesn't have to listen to the other, but in most States they will have to. Compromises will be reached, and, finally, maybe, after half a century temperatures will cool:

abortion never really went away after Roe; we won't like the heat for the next 3-5 years, but maybe things will cool off after legislators pass or reaffirm laws post-Dobbs, the people react, and the laws are adjusted again.

Another Reason to be Unsettled

Attendance was higher than normal during the long weekend.

On Friday, June 24th, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The following Monday the Episcopal Church issued a warning to its congregations throughout the United States.

Excerpt:

federal officials noted an emergence of “credible security threats” prior to the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade and have reached out to faith communities, including The Episcopal Church, to urge increased vigilance.

Canon [C.K.] Robertson says:

“They did not share specific intelligence, but rather asked all of us both to be cautious and to use our platforms to encourage peaceful responses to the decision.

The goal in all this is certainly not to incite panic in any way. But in light of the violence and tragic shootings we have continued to witness throughout the United States—including in one of our own churches—it is appropriate for all of us to be more intentionally alert in the days and weeks to come. This can mean churches connecting with local law enforcement about increased patrols, noting any unusual activity around them, and perhaps creating an emergency preparedness plan, if one does not already exist.

Again, the goal is not panic, but awareness and preparedness. For this reason, we have shared with you information that we received directly from federal authorities, with their request to pass it on to you and your congregations.”

There have been isolated reports about damage done to Catholic churches in other states but none recently concerning the Episcopal Church. Nevertheless, this unsettling news just gives us another reason to disregard the instruction to welcome strangers.

Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.----Hebrews 13:2

I Went to a Political Rally and a Game Broke Out

Brianna Turner (left) - WSJ photo

Politically active athletes have given up boycotts in favor of preaching their message when they visit states whose politics they abhor: [bold added]

State boycotts have quietly faded from popularity as a tactic, say activists, including those who successfully got NCAA and NBA events yanked from North Carolina six years ago over a law requiring people to use the public-facility bathroom corresponding to the sex on their birth certificates.

These days, activists have pivoted to accepting that such events will go ahead—while pressuring athletes and organizers to use the money and attention generated to support their cause. It’s a demand that could end up being even more challenging for teams and leagues.

As the abortion fight shifts to the states following last week’s Supreme Court ruling, that’s the approach that politically minded athletes are taking too.

For example, Brianna Turner, a power forward for the WNBA’s Phoenix Mercury, said that, rather than declining to play in areas with abortion restrictions, she wants to use her presence to promote her point of view.

Blocking events “is a tactic, but I think that maybe even better would be playing in the games and wearing shirts on the sidelines that say, like, ‘pro-abortion’ or ‘abortion rights are human rights,’” she said. Other ideas, she said, included using media availability around games to only talk about the issue.

I suspect that even some abortion-rights supporters just want to enjoy a game with their kids without being forced to explain what the rape-and-incest exception means.

We've already seen what excessive wokeness does to movie box office and TV ratings. If professional sports leagues want to turn off some of their audience, it's their right, so they should go for it.

The Miasma of Emotion

The priest mused about anger during the entire sermon.

Angry people were all over television raging about Supreme Court decisions, House committee hearings, war in Ukraine, social justice, etc. etc. He wouldn't condemn anger itself. In some cases it's justified, he said; it was a motivation to action. But he's found that if he holds on to anger long it makes him less effective.

For the past decade I've stayed away from television political channels, even those which favor my politics. The "debates" always favor one side of the issue, and opposing speakers very rarely present the strongest arguments for the other side.

But the worst thing about TV political channels is that they personalize issues by running and re-running video clips about injustices done to individuals.

(Image, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

If a network wants to strengthen immigration enforcement, it shows innocents who have been killed by illegal immigrants. If a channel wants to promote abortion rights, it features first-hand accounts of women who suffered horrifically before 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade. We can't help but be angry at people who directly or even indirectly result in others' suffering.

That's why I obtain news that has a political dimension from printed media and website articles. There's a better chance that some rational thought will poke through the miasma of emotion.

Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.--------Galatians 5:19-21

The Shoe Drops

Early detection of pregnancy will be more important (WSJ)

In 1973 nine men on the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that there was a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade.

On June 24, 2022, six men and three women justices in a 6-3 decision overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which challenged a 2018 Mississippi law:

Although the case before the court involved a 15-week ban, the overruling of Roe gives states broad latitude to regulate or prohibit abortion as they see fit. Many conservative-leaning states are poised to tighten access further, while some liberal ones have established permissive abortion regimes under state law. The decision could become a major issue in this year’s elections, as state and federal lawmakers look to position themselves in a post-Roe world.

Almost half the states have laws in place or at the ready to curtail or outlaw abortion, while others have laws that would preserve its legality. Questions on whether and how to limit abortions are expected to continue roiling state legislative debates.

The ruling, one of the most consequential in modern memory, marked a rare instance in which the court reversed itself to eliminate a constitutional right that it had previously created.

The decision also is a defining moment for a Supreme Court that is more conservative than it has been in many decades, a shift in legal thinking made possible after President Donald Trump placed three justices on the court. Two of them succeeded justices who voted to affirm abortion rights.

In anticipation of the ruling, several states have passed laws limiting or banning the procedure, and 13 states have so-called trigger laws on their books that called for prohibiting abortion if Roe were overruled. Clinics in conservative states have been preparing for possible closure, while facilities in more liberal areas have been getting ready for a potentially heavy influx of patients from other states.

The political battle now shifts to the States, which have a patchwork of laws ranging from a a near-total ban on abortion to allowing it up to childbirth. We discussed the map on May 3rd.

Just a few comments on this decision, which will undoubtedly cause millions of words to be generated in the months to come:

The leak of the draft opinion on May 2nd, whatever the leaker's motive, has had the benefit of removing the shock of surprise. Organizations, governments, and interest groups have had time to prepare for the after-effects of Dobbs.

The majority of Americans, IMHO, remain somewhere between the extreme positions and do not relish the prospect of abortion once again elevating itself to the top of national discussions.

The counter-argument is that, unlike other subjects, abortion never really went away after Roe; we won't like the heat for the next 3-5 years, but maybe things will cool off after legislators pass or reaffirm laws post-Dobbs, the people react, and the laws are adjusted again.

My very long view is that technology will defuse the downsides of pregnancy, childbirth, and child care that are the principal reasons for having an abortion. Eventually there will be a societal consensus that there should be more help given to mothers, and advances in medical science up to and including growing fetuses in the lab will eliminate the physical burden of pregnancy. In a hundred years people will wonder what the fuss was about.

The Coming Campaign Won't Be as Difficult as Feared

The Wall Street Journal publishes a map of where the abortion laws stand in each state if Roe v. Wade is overturned. The colors require explanation. [bold added]

Laws Restricting Abortions
States have three different categories of abortion restrictions:

Trigger Laws
Some states have so-called trigger laws on the books, which would ban all or nearly all abortions in the state if Roe v. Wade is overturned. The law would go into effect either automatically or by quick state action.

Pre-Roe Bans
A number of states have bans on abortion that predate Roe v. Wade. Such bans have been unenforceable for the past five decades, but states could look to revive them if Roe is overturned. The bans likely wouldn’t go into effect immediately if the Supreme Court abolishes federal abortion rights, leaving it up to states to decide. Instead, they would likely require some type of new state action, like an attorney general issuing an opinion saying that abortion was illegal in the state.

Post-Roe Restrictions
Instead of outright bans, some states have sought to set narrower limits on when abortions can be performed during a pregnancy. Many of these laws have been blocked in court, but could take effect if Roe is overturned.

Laws Establishing Abortion-Rights
Sixteen (16) states, plus the District of Columbia, have already passed laws establishing the right to terminate pregnancies. They're not identical; for example, California has Medi-Cal coverage for abortions.

State and local governance, aka federalism, is indeed messy and inefficient. Abortion-rights supporters seem to dread having to argue a case, in 34 jurisdictions no less, that they thought they had already won, but I suspect they'll find it easier than feared.

Everyone has had to wrestle with the meaning of fetal life for 49 years, and IMHO the majority across the United States has decided that it is less important than the health of a mother.

More Heat Coming

Barricades erected around the Supreme Court
building on Monday night (Daily Beast)

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, which means that abortion has been a constitutional right for nearly a half-century.

Your humble blogger has strongly resisted being drawn into the argument: each side has bedrock principles, stating an opinion would cause me to be hated by someone, and it's not a subject--to be callous about it--that affects me or anyone I know personally.

Within hours of the leaking of the draft opinion that would overturn Roe I've been forwarded angry texts, tweets, and emails by the pro-choice side. All this merely confirms my decision to stay out of the discussion.

By the way, what does it mean for Californians if Roe is overturned?

Yet even if the Supreme Court outlaws Roe, abortion would remain legal in California, where lawmakers have written its protections into state law.

Even in 1981, after the Legislature virtually eliminated Medi-Cal funding of abortions for poor women, the state Supreme Court ruled that California’s constitutional right to privacy required Medi-Cal to cover abortions just as it covered childbirth.

The state’s high court relied on the same privacy right in 1997 when it struck down a law requiring parental consent for minors’ abortions, similar to laws in other states that the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld under federal standards. Roe vs. Wade also relies on a constitutional right to privacy, which the Supreme Court declared in 1965.

So California will become a refuge for women seeking abortions if the Supreme Court overrules Roe.

The state began preparing last year for the likelihood of losing Roe vs. Wade and establishing California as a national leader in maintaining the right to terminate a pregnancy.

The anger of pro-choice Californians is not over their own rights being taken away. Like the transgender-bathroom and "don't say gay" children's education bills, we can't resist telling other states what to do.

The Founding: It's Not Just One Thing

John Trumbull took artistic license in his 1818 painting of the presentation of the Declaration of Independence to the Continental Congress.

Rabbi Meir Soloveichik muses upon its symbolism: [bold added]

while Jefferson is prominent, it is Adams, the chief advocate of independence in the Continental Congress, who occupies the center of the canvas. Every other founder’s physique is partially obscured, while Adams can be seen in his entirety. Most great paintings give us one focal point, but this one has two.

This is appropriate, because Adams and Jefferson can be seen as the two intellectual poles of the Revolution. Jefferson was an ardent admirer of the Enlightenment and believed that the American founding would “show by example the sufficiency of human reason for the care of human affairs.” Adams also appreciated the power of reason, but like Edmund Burke across the Atlantic, he emphasized the importance of religious and moral tradition in preserving society.

In 1776 John Trumbull thought Jefferson's position on the supremacy of reason was more important than Adams' emphasis on religion, but the murderous excesses of the French Revolution showed everyone what could happen if there were no moral counterweight to an absolutist government.

We see echoes of that government-religion conflict today in President Biden's support not only for abortion rights but for government funding of abortions. The latter was a bridge too far for the American Catholic church, which is debating whether to deny communion to the Catholic President. Your humble blogger believes that the legalization and public financing of abortion is properly a political issue, while granting or withholding communion is a matter to be worked out between the church and its members.

What is profoundly disturbing are statements by politicians that the church should be subservient to government, at least in this matter:

Rep. Jared Huffman of California, an “avowed nontheist,” responded: “If they’re going to politically weaponize religion by ‘rebuking’ Democrats who support women’s reproductive choice, then a ‘rebuke’ of their tax-exempt status may be in order.”

(Image source here)

The fact that Rep. Huffman feels free to threaten the Catholic Church with taxation--and potentially its destruction-- (“the power to tax involves the power to destroy") shows how far protection of religion and other First Amendment rights have fallen in importance to those who advocate the accretion of even more power to central government.

Nevertheless, despite such importunate statements, your humble blogger has, yes, faith that the principles espoused by Jefferson, Adams, and the other founders will prove to be far more resilient than present-day efforts to cast them aside.

May you and your loved ones, dear reader, have a restorative 4th of July.

Tears and Regrets

Chronicle film reviewer Mick LaSalle laments that "religion has become associated with conservative and right-wing politics" and praises recent films that depict the religious left.

we have seen three films featuring exceptionally warmhearted, religious protagonists — Fred Rogers (“A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood”), Franz Jägersträtter (“A Hidden Life”) and Pope Francis (“The Two Popes”).

Comments:

Tom Hanks as Mr. Rogers (Chron photo)

1) Mick LaSalle has completely swallowed the Hollywood/media stereotype of fundamentalist Christians as the conservative version of wokescolds. In my experience conservative Christians just want to be left alone and will likewise leave others alone. However, they will become politically active if society tries to change the way they speak or do their jobs or educate their children or mocks their faith.

(The exception may be abortion, though my sense is that the majority of Americans wished to leave the issue alone until activists from both sides tried to force people to choose between partial-birth abortion and a complete ban.)

2) Mr. LaSalle calls the protagonists "liberal" because they perform good works. I personally cannot believe that he believes that conservative Christians do not engage in acts of charity. I have seen extraordinary acts of generosity--performed by people who are politically conservative and not wealthy (and I have witnessed politically liberal Christians do the same). By the way, there is some evidence that conservatives give more money to charity than liberals.

3) The problem that I have with some on the religious left is that they support the expansion of State power as a shortcut to effect noble outcomes. Surely they know the risk. Man is fallen, man is sinful. Political leadership may initially be virtuous, but you won't always have a God-fearing philosopher-king in charge. Eventually corrupt people will hold the reins of power, and they will use it to their own ends. Other centers of influence and wealth, i.e., businesses, churches, and non-profits, will be targeted. It will end in tears and regrets.

Practical Lens

Exploratorium exhibit

The abortion debate has reared its head again, this time over undercover videos of Planned Parenthood officials making controversial statements. While partisans on both sides argue largely from principle, I daresay that the majority of the American public view the subject through a practical lens: if what is being killed is recognizably human, then the procedure should be restricted, if not banned.

Along the lines of the looks-like-a-baby measure, can you distinguish the human embryo? If it will help, the other four embryos are dog, chicken, skink, and zebrafish.

Rewarding Violence

I'm with the great muddled middle of Americans who won't go to either extreme of the abortion debate, that is, the best of a bad menu of choices is that abortion should be permitted with restrictions. If anything, I tilt toward the pro-life rather than the pro-choice side. However, I hated to see this headline:

Slain Kansas abortion provider's clinic to close

By murdering George Tiller an anti-abortion extremist not only eliminated a despised symbol but stopped future abortions from being performed. The killer got his way through violence and not by lawful means. I fear that like-minded individuals are absorbing the lessons of this event. Law enforcement should use deadly force, if necessary, to stop this terrorism from spreading.

And to those who nod in agreement but believe that, in the international arena, words without bullets can dissuade terrorists who have already succeeded through violent acts, I might ask, what makes their fanatics more reasonable than ours? It's a puzzlement.