Let’s start with the basics, for those who have not been following weeks of heated commentary in the mainstream press.
On today’s docket at the U.S. Supreme Court is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case out of Mississippi some say is designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that legalized abortion.
It involves a 2018 Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, with few exceptions. If decided favorably, states with more restrictive laws (i.e. Texas) would be able to enforce them. Abortion would not be outlawed, but it would be greatly limited — which is why it’s annoying to hear broadcasts, such as the Fox TV item featured at the top of this post, saying the case could “end Roe v. Wade.”
Well, not quite. Because of its new “heartbeat” law, abortions in Texas are down 50% from what they were this time last year, to give you an idea of what may lie ahead.
As for me, I’d like to think that SCOTUS would actually make a decisive ruling on something that has divided the American public for 48 years and resulted in 60 million abortions. These justices have dithered a lot in similar cases and I’m guessing they will bail on this case as well — as they did with Masterpiece Cakeshop case in 2017 in refusing to rule on the merits of the case. I do realize the makeup of the high court has shifted since then. I’m guessing they’ll refuse to give Dobbs a definitive ruling and base their decision on some technicality.
So yes, I’m a pessimist. Key members of this court appear to shun clarity. But at least abortion is on the table again in terms of public discussion, with religion as one of its many permutations, which makes covering this case important for religion reporters.
On the left, this Slate piece argues that abortion rights are in dire peril:
On the eve of Dobbs — before a tsunami of protesters descend upon the court, before nerve-racking oral arguments before a partly empty courtroom, before months of tense deliberations behind the velvet curtains — the smart money counts five votes to gut Roe. …
Once again, the parties have asked the court to go big or go home: Abortion providers, the Justice Department, and Mississippi agree that the court must either strike down the 15-week ban or overrule Roe, Casey, and the rest.
Elsewhere in the journalistic firmament, much of what I am seeing is apocalyptic Handmaid’s Tale imagery should the justices indicate they may restrict abortion further.
Most of the coverage avoids faith issues, with the exception of this Associated Press story, which focuses on the views of the Religious Left. Those who follow changes on the religion beat may recognize the byline as belonging to Holly Meyer, until recently religion reporter for The Tennessean.
On the day the Supreme Court hears arguments in a Mississippi abortion ban case, Sheila Katz plans to be at a nearby church.
It is where the Jewish organization she leads is helping to host a morning interfaith service in support of abortion rights. That gathering, and a planned rally outside the court, are among the ways the National Council of Jewish Women and like-minded faith groups are challenging the erosion of abortion access in the U.S.
“We’re going to start together as diverse groups of faith, to pray and learn and sing together,” Katz said. “That feels like the right way to send the message that we are doing this work because of our faith and not in spite of it.”
For the other side of the coin, look to this Washington Post feature about a “maternity ranch” near Dallas where struggling new mothers –- who otherwise have little support for a new baby -- could live during the first year of their baby’s life.
The growing sense among evangelical Christians was that the end of Roe v. Wade was no longer a dim possibility but a near certainty. The time had come for the next phase — a new era in America when the church would establish a kind of Christian social safety net where motherhood was not only supported but also exalted as part of God’s plan for the universe.
Well, that’s spreading it on a bit thick, I think. For starters, religious groups have been building this kind of support network for decades. This is a new chapter in a very old religion-beat story.
But yes, in a news culture in which activists in the pro-life movement (most of them women) are unjustly criticized for not caring for women after a baby is born, here’s yet another group that wants to help out. The story tells of a recent church meeting.
She was there on a Sunday after the heartbeat law took effect, when her pastor addressed questions that he was getting about the proper Christian response to women who become pregnant after being raped or trapped in abusive situations.
“My heart breaks for that,” he told the congregation. “But the answer can’t be, ‘Well let’s kill the baby.’ The church’s answer is, ‘Let us come alongside you and love you and walk with you and help you in any way we can with our money, with our houses, with our homes.’ ”
As she heard the words, Aubrey felt a wave of encouragement. It was exactly what she and her husband, Bryan, were already trying to do.
Do read the story, as it shows a side of abortion opponents that most media don’t cover.
There’s been plenty of coverage out there about abortion clinics in Texas coping with the new law, so it’s nice to see what those Dallas suburbanites and their non-denominational megachurches are up to.
FIRST IMAGE: Photo from a Baptist Press feature about protests against Planned Parenthood.