Abortion and Marriage Equality: It's about the sex

Yesterday, the Supreme Court suspended Trap Laws in Texas while the case against them is being considered in federal court. As their effective date was tomorrow, the only impact was anticipatory – and this action signals the likely outcome of the federal action – that the laws will be ruled unconstitutional under the undue burden test imposed by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

As you can guess from my columns, I often debate Right to Lifers in social media after they see what I write. Of late, I have been in a debate over whether their movement is a fraud designed to win elections rather than save the unborn.

 While trap laws theoretically would reduce the availability of abortion, their value is mainly to direct yet another opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade to the Supreme Court Docket. This is amply demonstrated by the conduct surrounding the Partial Birth Abortion Act, which has not really stopped any abortion from occurring (not the dearth of prosecutions), but as you could see from the Amici briefs, was entirely about urging the Court to overturn Roe. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito followed Justice Kennedy in ruling PBAA constitutional under the Commerce Clause (which they were loath to use on Affordable Care Act mandates). Justice Scalia was all set to get rid of Roe and two new Bush Justices were going to help him. No dice.

The Texas case is yet another opportunity, but with no new Justices on the Court, one can only conclude that the possibility of this case will be used as a campaign issue to select another pro-lifer to the Court – even though these are in short supply. This does not matter. What matters is that it covers the National Right to Life Committees line that abortion is a relevant issue above all others. This keeps volunteers working and little old ladies writing checks.

Discussions with Right to Life true believers inevitably come around to the fetus as innocent life. This is shorthand for them for pre-gastrulation blastocysts, post-gastrulation embryos and second and third trimester fetuses. It's like arguing about killing puppies – all emotion and the resolution that there ought to be a law. Of course, the reason abortion is legal is not due to innocence or the lack thereof, but to danger,both danger to the mother from a pregnancy that may hurt or kill her (and some chromosomal abnormalities will do that), that a pregnancy with no hope of a live birth is best ended early or that banning abortion results in such danger to the mother from septic abortions by unqualified practitioners or self-performance that restriction is a danger itself.

There is, of course, a way out. Give a much larger Child Tax Credit, say $1000 per month per child – or more– so that having the baby is always a better option than abortion and adoption is not necessary. Of course, if you propose this the people who say that we are buying off women to not kill their children – they can’t see it as removing a hazard. Other provisions for young families are necessary too, like paying for the education of both parents, with marital benefits and a stipend, plus supportive day or night care. Then these same pro-lifers really hit thereof on incentives. These are the same folks who want welfare benefits cut so welfare mothers don’t keep popping out babies. Keep going and you will find them talking about personal responsibility – and avoiding sex if you don’t want to get pregnant – both teens and adult married and unmarried women.

The contradiction on personal responsibility regarding abortion and regarding money and sex is lost on them. It’s really about restoring a puritanical sexuality to women’s lives. Sorry, but that ship has sailed – either pay adequate benefits or rest assured that God will hold you are responsible for abortion as anyone, not because you failed to enact restrictions but because you failed to do what it takes without doing so, even though that was the best solution.

You can see the same view in their reaction to gay marriage. In reality, their objection to gay marriage is that it makes the society complicit in sodomy. All the scripture they cite against gay marriage is on the sex. Indeed, the gospel provisions in Matthew, once you get past the restating of the Genesis passage on sexual diversity, is completely supportive of family autonomy – that is once a couple is married,,they are one flesh and no longer members of their family of origin. This speaks exactly to what started the move to marriage equality – the deplorable behavior of hospitals, particularly Catholic ones (since reversed by policy) in kicking same sex spouses out and deferring to surviving family members. There was not just a single incident, the problem was endemic and a great many lawyers and justices, and now the Supreme Court, has solved it.

In reaction, there are is the predictable response about God reigning vengeance on the nation for what it has done, but I don’t think God cares about our system of family law per se. They believe it’s the sex. Of course, that case was settled ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas and few think it’s a good idea to put government back in the business of policing gay bedrooms, even if this rarely happened and was often due to some other circumstance. Of course, that such enforcement happened atall is what was really shameful – which is why the Reactionaries are attacking marriage. Still, we all know it’s about the sex.

If you read the reaction of Catholic bishops on this and their focus on procreation – even though no marriage where the bride is older than her mid-forties – and such unions exist – will have nothing to do with fecundity. The only Canon Law impediment is a lack of functionality (which again, for gays, they find icky –unless their gay – and they pretend by protesting loudly). It turns out the Sacrament of Marriage is between the couple. The celebrant is merely a witness. Gay marriage should be no different and it has not been for a long time. On employees, the Church has never raised an eyebrow about employing heterosexuals in civil marriage, although it condemns such unions for Catholics. There should be no difference for civilly married gay employees. Indeed, it’s bigotry to treat them differently if neither form is morally acceptable. So, in conclusion, it’s about the sex.