Roe v. Wade overturned?

[Dan Fienen]

Perhaps, since neither side - over years - has moved 1 cm towards accepting or in many cases understanding the other; and (should this seem to happen) new objections to either side rise like swamp gas; and since the discussion always calls forth the desire to body-slam Brian to a wing-nut littered garage floor; I suggest the non-discussion just stop.
   Brian and I support the ELCA statement and it's implications. Others don't. Status est
   The above posts are examples of why I will not discuss abortion in this forum.

I understand, discussions are so much easier when you're assured from the get go, that you'll be agreed with. Personally, I find much to agree with the ELCA statement, although not everything. What I find difficult to stomach is the attitude that while someone may disagree that many of the babies being killed shouldn't be, they will support the killing anyway.

Not quite. Many of us don't believe that legislation is the best way to try and reduce the killings.

Must there be only one way to try and reduce the killings. You have made a number of suggestions for efforts that could help reduce the number of abortions including better sex education, more assistance to mothers and families, and more readily available contraceptives. Why not try all of them? Why should legislation be ruled at as though it is either implement the other efforts or legislation.


Is it only abortion where you don't believe that legislation is a good idea to reduce bad behavior, or do you in general believe legislation isn't a good idea? Do you believe that legislation is not the best way to try to reduce racism and so should not be implemented. That education about the evils of racism, economic and social disincentives towards racism are a better idea so that civil rights legislation should not be enacted? What about gun control laws? Perhaps a better idea than gun control legislation would be better firearm education and better safety features on guns? Then we wouldn't need gun control legislation.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Perhaps, since neither side - over years - has moved 1 cm towards accepting or in many cases understanding the other; and (should this seem to happen) new objections to either side rise like swamp gas; and since the discussion always calls forth the desire to body-slam Brian to a wing-nut littered garage floor; I suggest the non-discussion just stop.
   Brian and I support the ELCA statement and it's implications. Others don't. Status est
   The above posts are examples of why I will not discuss abortion in this forum.

I understand, discussions are so much easier when you're assured from the get go, that you'll be agreed with. Personally, I find much to agree with the ELCA statement, although not everything. What I find difficult to stomach is the attitude that while someone may disagree that many of the babies being killed shouldn't be, they will support the killing anyway.

Not quite. Many of us don't believe that legislation is the best way to try and reduce the killings.

Then you are Denying Settled Science(TM). Even those who lament the fact acknowledge that legislation is quite effective:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2772683

How effective has the "war on drugs" been at reducing drug addictions and deaths?

Can you cite real science to support a more effective alternative?

Colorado. https://cdphe.colorado.gov/fpp/about-us/colorados-success-long-acting-reversible-contraception-larc#:~:text=The%20Colorado%20Family%20Planning%20Initiative,whether%20to%20start%20a%20family.

[David Garner]

Perhaps, since neither side - over years - has moved 1 cm towards accepting or in many cases understanding the other; and (should this seem to happen) new objections to either side rise like swamp gas; and since the discussion always calls forth the desire to body-slam Brian to a wing-nut littered garage floor; I suggest the non-discussion just stop.
   Brian and I support the ELCA statement and it's implications. Others don't. Status est
   The above posts are examples of why I will not discuss abortion in this forum.

I understand, discussions are so much easier when you're assured from the get go, that you'll be agreed with. Personally, I find much to agree with the ELCA statement, although not everything. What I find difficult to stomach is the attitude that while someone may disagree that many of the babies being killed shouldn't be, they will support the killing anyway.

Not quite. Many of us don't believe that legislation is the best way to try and reduce the killings.

We should try that with murder and see how it works out......

[Brian Stoffregen]

Perhaps, since neither side - over years - has moved 1 cm towards accepting or in many cases understanding the other; and (should this seem to happen) new objections to either side rise like swamp gas; and since the discussion always calls forth the desire to body-slam Brian to a wing-nut littered garage floor; I suggest the non-discussion just stop.
   Brian and I support the ELCA statement and it's implications. Others don't. Status est
   The above posts are examples of why I will not discuss abortion in this forum.

I understand, discussions are so much easier when you're assured from the get go, that you'll be agreed with. Personally, I find much to agree with the ELCA statement, although not everything. What I find difficult to stomach is the attitude that while someone may disagree that many of the babies being killed shouldn't be, they will support the killing anyway.

Not quite. Many of us don't believe that legislation is the best way to try and reduce the killings.

We should try that with murder and see how it works out......

We have. It is illegal to murder. Laws haven't stopped it. Do you think that a law that prohibits people from owning guns would help?


When abortions were illegal, they still happened. I know a lady who had one around 75 years ago. It left her unable to have children.

[MaddogLutheran]

Perhaps, since neither side - over years - has moved 1 cm towards accepting or in many cases understanding the other; and (should this seem to happen) new objections to either side rise like swamp gas; and since the discussion always calls forth the desire to body-slam Brian to a wing-nut littered garage floor; I suggest the non-discussion just stop.
   Brian and I support the ELCA statement and it's implications. Others don't. Status est
   The above posts are examples of why I will not discuss abortion in this forum.

I understand, discussions are so much easier when you're assured from the get go, that you'll be agreed with. Personally, I find much to agree with the ELCA statement, although not everything. What I find difficult to stomach is the attitude that while someone may disagree that many of the babies being killed shouldn't be, they will support the killing anyway.

Not quite. Many of us don't believe that legislation is the best way to try and reduce the killings.

We should try that with murder and see how it works out......

We have. It is illegal to murder. Laws haven't stopped it. Do you think that a law that prohibits people from owning guns would help?


When abortions were illegal, they still happened. I know a lady who had one around 75 years ago. It left her unable to have children.

Nobody here has claimed that making abortions illegal will eliminate ALL of them.  Likewise, nobody has claimed that laws against murder can prevent all murders.

You need to stop the gaslighting of responding as if people have made the statements you can imagine, instead of their actual arguments.

David's point is being played out in real time right over the past couple of years:  laws against murder haven't been repealed, but as a consequence of Defund the Police advocacy, police in major metropolitan areas have backed off on their enforcement presence, and murder rates have risen.  Someone previous posted a link which I think indicated that abortion rates dropped when greater restrictions on it came into force.  This is the great lament of pro-abortion advocates:  that women who want to get abortions won't be able to.  How does that not translate into fewer abortions?

Perhaps you could elaborate on what other approaches would "reduce the killings".  As I commented upstream, when people consider casual sex as widely acceptable and abortion is secondary (or even primary) birth control, it's no surprise that abortions might be "popular".  Anticipating your possible answer, why would anyone think that wider access to birth control would "reduce the killings"?  Specifically, how exactly is birth control not widely accessible right now in a way that hypothetical greater access would make any difference?  Just speculating about an unlikely solution is not a serious counterargument.

[Dan Fienen]

Perhaps, since neither side - over years - has moved 1 cm towards accepting or in many cases understanding the other; and (should this seem to happen) new objections to either side rise like swamp gas; and since the discussion always calls forth the desire to body-slam Brian to a wing-nut littered garage floor; I suggest the non-discussion just stop.
   Brian and I support the ELCA statement and it's implications. Others don't. Status est
   The above posts are examples of why I will not discuss abortion in this forum.

I understand, discussions are so much easier when you're assured from the get go, that you'll be agreed with. Personally, I find much to agree with the ELCA statement, although not everything. What I find difficult to stomach is the attitude that while someone may disagree that many of the babies being killed shouldn't be, they will support the killing anyway.

Not quite. Many of us don't believe that legislation is the best way to try and reduce the killings.

We should try that with murder and see how it works out......

We have. It is illegal to murder. Laws haven't stopped it. Do you think that a law that prohibits people from owning guns would help?


When abortions were illegal, they still happened. I know a lady who had one around 75 years ago. It left her unable to have children.

Since laws against murder haven't stopped murder, do you argue that we shouldn't have laws against murder? That is your argument against having laws against abortion.

[MaddogLutheran]

How effective has the "war on drugs" been at reducing drug addictions and deaths?

The problem with many such claim about alternatives is that you can never actually test them.  Much like the pandemic, it's really challenging to speculate about alternative mitigation approaches in the aggregate.

Specifically with respect to the war on drugs, just because drug use exploded doesn't mean that it wasn't effective.  You can't know, and it's rather likely given underlying socioeconomic conditions, that drug usage would have been even higher without any "war".  Unless of course, like is happening recently with fentanyl, the product kills the customer base.

I notice that no one on the left claims the Great Society's "War on Poverty" was a failure, despite poverty exploding.  (One area such New Deal programs were measurably successful was elderly poverty.  Of course that just has shifted the problem generationally, TBD.)  The interesting thing about the War on Poverty, the disintegration of minority families coincided with greater welfare programs.  Cause and effect?  People have strong views on that, for sure.  That and abortion being legal are all inter-related, in ways I found fascinating but alas I cannot trust our sociological ivory tower experts' conclusions because they have a political stake interpreting any such analysis.

[David Garner]

Perhaps, since neither side - over years - has moved 1 cm towards accepting or in many cases understanding the other; and (should this seem to happen) new objections to either side rise like swamp gas; and since the discussion always calls forth the desire to body-slam Brian to a wing-nut littered garage floor; I suggest the non-discussion just stop.
   Brian and I support the ELCA statement and it's implications. Others don't. Status est
   The above posts are examples of why I will not discuss abortion in this forum.

I understand, discussions are so much easier when you're assured from the get go, that you'll be agreed with. Personally, I find much to agree with the ELCA statement, although not everything. What I find difficult to stomach is the attitude that while someone may disagree that many of the babies being killed shouldn't be, they will support the killing anyway.

Not quite. Many of us don't believe that legislation is the best way to try and reduce the killings.

We should try that with murder and see how it works out......

We have. It is illegal to murder. Laws haven't stopped it. Do you think that a law that prohibits people from owning guns would help?


When abortions were illegal, they still happened. I know a lady who had one around 75 years ago. It left her unable to have children.

You're right.  Murder is illegal, and people still murder.  I bet if murder was not illegal, less people would murder.  At least that's what you're arguing.

Try it out.  Your state can go first.

As for your last sentence, that might be the worst advertisement for legal abortion I've ever heard.

[JEdwards]

Perhaps, since neither side - over years - has moved 1 cm towards accepting or in many cases understanding the other; and (should this seem to happen) new objections to either side rise like swamp gas; and since the discussion always calls forth the desire to body-slam Brian to a wing-nut littered garage floor; I suggest the non-discussion just stop.
   Brian and I support the ELCA statement and it's implications. Others don't. Status est
   The above posts are examples of why I will not discuss abortion in this forum.

I understand, discussions are so much easier when you're assured from the get go, that you'll be agreed with. Personally, I find much to agree with the ELCA statement, although not everything. What I find difficult to stomach is the attitude that while someone may disagree that many of the babies being killed shouldn't be, they will support the killing anyway.

Not quite. Many of us don't believe that legislation is the best way to try and reduce the killings.

Then you are Denying Settled Science(TM). Even those who lament the fact acknowledge that legislation is quite effective:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2772683

How effective has the "war on drugs" been at reducing drug addictions and deaths?

Can you cite real science to support a more effective alternative?

Colorado. https://cdphe.colorado.gov/fpp/about-us/colorados-success-long-acting-reversible-contraception-larc#:~:text=The%20Colorado%20Family%20Planning%20Initiative,whether%20to%20start%20a%20family.

The war on drugs is a red herring, since I provided direct evidence of the real-world effect of legal restrictions on abortion rates. When there is direct evidence that "A" is effective, one can't refute that evidence by changing the subject and arguing that "B" is ineffective, no matter how many parallels you claim to see between "A" and "B".

I agree with you that the data from Colorado are encouraging, although the figures do show a that there was a similar trend nationally during the same time period. The proper way to tease out the effect of the Colorado initiative would be to do a difference-in-differences regression, which was not done.

Peace,
Jon

[Dan Fienen]

Perhaps, since neither side - over years - has moved 1 cm towards accepting or in many cases understanding the other; and (should this seem to happen) new objections to either side rise like swamp gas; and since the discussion always calls forth the desire to body-slam Brian to a wing-nut littered garage floor; I suggest the non-discussion just stop.
   Brian and I support the ELCA statement and it's implications. Others don't. Status est
   The above posts are examples of why I will not discuss abortion in this forum.

I understand, discussions are so much easier when you're assured from the get go, that you'll be agreed with. Personally, I find much to agree with the ELCA statement, although not everything. What I find difficult to stomach is the attitude that while someone may disagree that many of the babies being killed shouldn't be, they will support the killing anyway.

Not quite. Many of us don't believe that legislation is the best way to try and reduce the killings.

Then you are Denying Settled Science(TM). Even those who lament the fact acknowledge that legislation is quite effective:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2772683

How effective has the "war on drugs" been at reducing drug addictions and deaths?

Can you cite real science to support a more effective alternative?

Colorado. https://cdphe.colorado.gov/fpp/about-us/colorados-success-long-acting-reversible-contraception-larc#:~:text=The%20Colorado%20Family%20Planning%20Initiative,whether%20to%20start%20a%20family.

1)  It may well be that more effective and convenient contraceptives are being developed, and that education and government support programs may reduce the number of abortions. But why should that preclude adding legal disincentives to the mix, with proper exceptions for those relatively rare tragic circumstances where abortion is needed? To enact laws against abortion should not be an alternative to doing the other things that have the potential to reduce the demand for abortion.


1)a) You and the ELCA may still be in the mode of making abortion safe, legal, and rare but you appear to be in the minority in the pro-choice movement that celebrates abortions and are attacking and vandalizing clinics and other institutions that provide care for pregnant women and mothers but do not push abortion. Planned Parenthood who advertises itself as the premier health care provider for women usually does not provide prenatal care for pregnancy except for abortion. If you want a pap smear, pregnancy test, or other women's health care, they are there for you. If you want an abortion, they are all over it. If you want to bring the child to term, you're on your own. They may make a referral but generally speaking they are no longer interested.


2)  Making abortion legal, enacting laws protecting the right to abortion, enshrining it in the Constitution as Michigan recently did in its state Constitution, in the eyes of many makes it moral. We may assert that what is legal is therefore moral is fallacious, but many do think that way. The legality and especially having abortion readily available may even negate the other efforts that you suggest should be done to reduce the number of abortions. Why bother preventing pregnancy when it can be readily terminated when it happens? Why bother being responsible in one's sexuality when abortion solves the consequences of being wild and irresponsible so easily and legally? If it were really immoral, they why is it a legal right supported by so many famous people and role models?


3)  What does it say about America that at its founding, slavery was not only legal but the right to own slaves as property was enshrined in the Constitution? I know what the Project 1619 tells us it says, as well as the movements to remove the names and images of our founding fathers from public life. What does it say about America that the killing of unborn children is to be enshrined in law, was made a Constitutional right, and celebrated as a great victory for freedom and blessing to women everywhere?

[Charles Austin]

From The NYT today:
Pro-life clergyman admits using leaked Supreme Court decision in 2014;
"What we did was wrong," he says now
As the Supreme Court investigates the extraordinary leak this spring of a draft opinion of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade, a former anti-abortion leader has come forward claiming that another breach occurred in a 2014 landmark case involving contraception and religious rights.
  In a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and in interviews with The New York Times, the Rev. Rob Schenck said he was told the outcome of the 2014 case weeks before it was announced. He used that information to prepare a public relations push, records show, and he said that at the last minute he tipped off the president of Hobby Lobby, the craft store chain owned by Christian evangelicals that was the winning party in the case.
   Both court decisions were triumphs for conservatives and the religious right. Both majority opinions were written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. But the leak of the draft opinion overturning the constitutional right to abortion was disclosed in the news media by Politico, setting off a national uproar. With Hobby Lobby, according to Mr. Schenck, the outcome was shared with only a handful of advocates.
   Mr. Schenck's allegation creates an unusual, contentious situation: a minister who spent years at the center of the anti-abortion movement, now turned whistle-blower; a denial by a sitting justice; and an institution that shows little outward sign of getting to the bottom of the recent leak of the abortion ruling or of following up on Mr. Schenck's allegation.
   The evidence for Mr. Schenck's account of the breach has gaps. But in months of examining Mr. Schenck's claims, The Times found a trail of contemporaneous emails and conversations that strongly suggested he knew the outcome and the author of the Hobby Lobby decision before it was made public.
   Mr. Schenck, who used to lead an evangelical nonprofit in Washington, said he learned about the Hobby Lobby opinion because he had worked for years to exploit the court's permeability. He gained access through faith, through favors traded with gatekeepers and through wealthy donors to his organization, abortion opponents whom he called "stealth missionaries."
   The minister's account comes at a time of rising concerns about the court's legitimacy. A majority of Americans are losing confidence in the institution, polls show, and its approval ratings are at a historic low. Critics charge that the court has become increasingly politicized, especially as a new conservative supermajority holds sway.
   In May, after the draft opinion in the abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, was leaked in what Justice Alito recently called "a grave betrayal," the chief justice took the unusual step of ordering an investigation by the Supreme Court's marshal. Two months later, Mr. Schenck sent his letter to Chief Justice Roberts, saying he believed his information about the Hobby Lobby case was relevant to the inquiry. He said he has not gotten any response.
   In early June 2014, an Ohio couple who were Mr. Schenck's star donors shared a meal with Justice Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann. A day later, Gayle Wright, one of the pair, contacted Mr. Schenck, according to an email reviewed by The Times. "Rob, if you want some interesting news please call. No emails," she wrote.
   Mr. Schenck said Mrs. Wright told him that the decision would be favorable to Hobby Lobby, and that Justice Alito had written the majority opinion. Three weeks later, that's exactly what happened. The court ruled, in a 5-4 vote, that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance covering contraception violated their religious freedoms. The decision would have major implications for birth control access, President Barack Obama's new health care law and corporations' ability to claim religious rights.
   Justice Alito, in a statement issued through the court's spokeswoman, denied disclosing the decision. He said that he and his wife shared a "casual and purely social relationship" with the Wrights, and did not dispute that the two couples ate together on June 3, 2014. But the justice said that the "allegation that the Wrights were told the outcome of the decision in the Hobby Lobby case, or the authorship of the opinion of the Court, by me or my wife, is completely false."
   Mrs. Wright, in a phone interview, denied obtaining or passing along any such information. A representative for Hobby Lobby would not comment. Beyond sharing Justice Alito's statement, a spokeswoman for the court declined to answer questions about Mr. Schenck's account or its investigation.
   Mr. Schenck was not present at the meal and has no written record of his conversation with Mrs. Wright. But The Times interviewed four people who said he told them years ago about the breach, and emails from June 2014 show him suggesting he had confidential information and directing his staff to prepare for victory. In another email, sent in 2017, he described the disclosure as "one of the most difficult secrets I've ever kept in my life."
   The court deliberates about the fundamental rights of Americans — like access to contraception and abortion — behind closed doors. Mr. Schenck's campaign offers insights into the court's boundaries and culture, and into efforts to draw the justices closer to communities that are devoted to particular outcomes in critical cases.
   In interviews and thousands of emails and other records he shared with The Times, Mr. Schenck provided details of the effort he called the "Ministry of Emboldenment."
   Mr. Schenck recruited wealthy donors like Mrs. Wright and her husband, Donald, encouraging them to invite some of the justices to meals, to their vacation homes or to private clubs. He advised allies to contribute money to the Supreme Court Historical Society and then mingle with justices at its functions. He ingratiated himself with court officials who could help give him access, records show.
   All the while, he leveraged his connections to raise money for his nonprofit, Faith and Action. Mr. Schenck said he pursued the Hobby Lobby information to cultivate the business's president, Steve Green, as a donor.
   It is unclear if Mr. Schenck's efforts had any impact on legal decisions, given that only Justices Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas proved amenable to the outreach, records show, and they were already inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade. That decision was only reversed this year after the addition of new conservative justices altered the court's ideological makeup. But Mr. Schenck said his aim was not to change minds, but rather to stiffen the resolve of the court's conservatives in taking uncompromising stances that could eventually lead to a reversal of Roe.
   Mr. Schenck, 64, has shifted his views on abortion in recent years, alienating him from many of his former associates, and is trying to re-establish himself, now as a progressive evangelical leader. His decision to speak out now about the Hobby Lobby episode, he said, stems from his regret about the actions that he claims led to his advance knowledge about the case.
   "What we did," he said, "was wrong."
The whole story here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/19/us/supreme-court-leak-abortion-roe-wade.html

[Donald_Kirchner]

An anti-abortion mover-and-shaker, now a converted, "enlightened" progressive, alleges a double-hearsay allegation that all the other parties absolutely deny.

"gaps" "strongly suggest"  <yawn>  Must he a slow news cycle for conservatives and libs with "Who cares?" stories.   


https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/drew-barrymore-done-everything-in-bedroom

[Matt Hummel]

The article Charles shared is interesting and potentially disturbing. One question would be "Are these friendships one sided?" That is to say, with whom do the progressive justices dine? Is this actually business as usual, or is it truly, finally, Hilary Clinton's white whale, The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?

The former bothers me. The latter is truly problematic.

[Fletch1]

Today's Daily Devotions from Lutheran Hour Ministries seems quite on point (emphasis mine).

... Fletch1

"God Help Us!"
November 19, 2022
Proverbs 14:34 - Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.

The important process of governing a democratic nation—with its many promises and challenges—is a concern shared by all its citizens.

When the campaigning and slogan shouting have subsided, God's message for the upbuilding of our nation must be proclaimed with bold determination. For national blessing depends not upon political parties or some charismatic leader—be they altruistic or self-serving—but upon God Almighty. Without Him, sooner or later, a nation's cracks and fissures will appear; divisions will widen, and the nation will greatly suffer on account of it.

But by what means, then—and this is the crisis question of the hour—can we secure for ourselves and for our nation this exalting, uplifting righteousness? How can we curb sin and selfishness when the present scene resembles nothing more than a jungle desperate with snarling, snapping creatures, slinking in suspicious circles, ready to spring at each other's throats?

We survey the best of what our nation's leaders have to offer and what they lack is glaringly obvious. They possess no divine power to penetrate the soul, to purify our corrupt nature, or to defeat the dominion of sin that saturates our entire being. And where that leaves us is the message you will hear in one form or another, week after week, through the mission and outreach of Lutheran Hour Ministries.

To overcome sin for you and me, to break the curse of death in our lives, to free us from the horrors of hell, our Heavenly Father did not simply overlook our sin. Instead, our all-loving, all-compassionate God sent His only Son, the divine Christ, to live His life of mercy among men that hated Him, to bless those who cursed Him, to bleed for those who crucified Him, and to bear on the cross the weight of my sins and yours.

This is the most vital message in all of mankind's long history. In this is life; in this is hope; in this is heaven and our eternal blessing. Receive it, believe it, cherish it, though the earth quake around you and the skies above collapse. This is the endless grace God calls His "gift." It is available to each of us—not as a thing for us to earn and not attainable at any price. "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

This is what our country needs above every program or proposed panacea. This is what God has done for us through Jesus Christ.

WE PRAY: O Heavenly Father, as the One who makes and breaks the nations of history, be with us in these trying times. In Jesus' Name we pray. Amen.

From "Building a Better Nation," a sermon excerpt from Rev. Dr. Walter A. Maier, the first Speaker of The Lutheran Hour.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Thank you!