Your thoughts on the Judge Kavanaugh Hearings

SixOfWands

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 11:19 am

Fox wrote:

Did you actually think that no one was going to call out this whopper?

No, Kavanaugh did not refer to birth control as "abortion-inducing drugs." He was referring to a specific case, similar to the Hobby Lobby case, in which the plaintiff (Priests for Life) did not want to be forced to provide certain types of birth control for their employees -- specifically, the morning-after pill and certain types of IUDs. So Kavanaugh's description was in reference to specific drugs or devices that in fact or in belief cause the abortion of a fertilized embryo.

Moreover, he found that the government had a compelling interest in forcing the employer to provide the specific coverage because of the overriding goal of providing equal access to health care under the ACA!

His final step was to evaluate whether a solution could be found that achieved both the goals of the ACA (equal access to health care) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (protecting religious interests). His opinion supported finding such a compromise.

In short, (a) Kavanaugh was referring to a very select type of birth control to which the plaintiffs objected, not his own opinions, which don't matter anyway; (b) he found there was a compelling interest in the government mandating equality of access to health care; and (c) he argued in favor of compromises that achieved equality without violating existing law.

So what is it you object to? That certain methods of birth control are considered objectionable within certain religions? Um, that would include Judaism. That people should have equal access to health care? Well, I guess the Democratic Socialists better not count on your vote. Or that people's religious beliefs should be respected whenever possible? That seems like something Jews would be concerned about.

I realize that HuffPo and Vice are trying to make a round tablecloth fit a rectangular table, but anyone who actually watches Kavanaugh's response to Senator Cruz will see that he's not out to confiscate your birth control pills. That's Milo and Gavin. Smile

Did you think I was not going to call out YOUR whopper?

Kavanaugh was asked about his dissent in the Priests for Life case, which involved the ACA birth control mandate. He said they (PFL) would have been required to fill out a form that would "make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs" that they objected to. Actually, the case involved ALL birth control, not merely the IUD and morning after pill. Thus, those "abortion-inducing drugs" were nothing more than birth control. But in any case, scientifically and factually, neither the morning after bill nor the IUD are abortifacients.

And yes, that's troubling.

In very large part because its just plain wrong, factually and scientifically.

In the PFL case, at issue was a provision that allowed employers to fill out a form stating that they didn't want to fund birth control, and wanted to government to do so for their employees. PFL refused to fill out the form, saying it made them complicit in providing birth control. Kavanaugh agreed in his dissent.

Kavanaugh was not arguing about people having equal access to health care. That's clearly not the Republican platform in any case.

BTW, this was reported in every mainstream news source. CBS. Time. USA Today. Business Insider. The Week. Just looking at my news feed.

Cheiny

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 11:26 am

SixOfWands wrote:

So, if someone denies something, you don't think that documents should be produced to support that.

Hmmm. I don't recall your horror at Clinton being forced to produce her emails. She said she didn't use the server for anything confidential. Wasn't that good enough for you?

What more could Obama have done to press for hearings. The Republicans refused. They controlled the process. Done deal.

In any case, Roe v Wade isn't "strong precedent" because right wingers keep attacking it. Not for any other reason. I'm not sure why Jews aren't more upset at the prospect of its being overturned. Unlike Christians, we believe that there are circumstances in which women should have abortions. Our religious rights could be impacted.

Clinton erased her emails with bleach bit. Are you sure she’s a good example?

Cheiny

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 11:30 am

Fox wrote:

Wow, you are quite informed! Thanks for debunking the Democrat hijinks and hysteria. I’d say, the person who said, “you’re no constitutional scholar,” was wrong!

SixOfWands

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 11:58 am

Cheiny wrote:

Indeed, and I don’t understand how any religious Jew could think otherwise! Dems (particularly Hilary Clinton) are pro late-term abortion, meaning in the 9th month the woman has a right to basically murdering a fully formed, feeling baby! I’m shocked that any religious Jew could support that party and everything they stand for.

You're so sadly ill-informed that I'm starting to feel bad for you.

Less than 1.5% of abortions are "late term" (20 weeks or later). And they almost always relate to severe fetal abnormalities. Women who find out, after 20 weeks, that their babies would be forced to live short lives in constant pain. Or would have no real cognitive abilities. Or would be stillborn. Or that she could be put on a heart-lung machine at birth, but you would have to make the decision of when to let her go.

How can you not feel for these women?

princessleah

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 1:16 pm

Cheiny wrote:

The investigation into Trump has nothing at all to do with his pick for Supreme Court, or Kavanaugh himself. The investigation has not affected Trump’s ability to make a sensible pick for Supreme Court judge, and Kavanaugh is highly competent, deserving and admired by everyone (even dems who suddenly changed their minds about him when he became Trump’s pick).
While I’m sure the issues you cite are important to you, the truth about what the dems are doing is that they wouldn’t confirm any Trump nominee even if the pope himself was up for the position. The process going on is just their way to waste time and try to somehow push it off until after midterm elections, in their hope that they might win and then put in their own nominee.

Just want to clarify this... did you mean that you believe Congress nominates supreme court justices?

Fox

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 1:23 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Kavanaugh was asked about his dissent in the Priests for Life case, which involved the ACA birth control mandate. He said they (PFL) would have been required to fill out a form that would "make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs" that they objected to. Actually, the case involved ALL birth control, not merely the IUD and morning after pill. Thus, those "abortion-inducing drugs" were nothing more than birth control. But in any case, scientifically and factually, neither the morning after bill nor the IUD are abortifacients.

Yes, and no. It's not entirely clear whether PFL objected to providing all contraceptives or only certain ones. The problem is that ACA mandates don't distinguish between those that are problematic for Roman Catholics and those that are not.

If I'm not a Constitutional scholar, I'm for sure not a Roman Catholic theologian (though the costumes are pretty cool!), let alone knowledgable about all the different streams of Catholicism and how they each would view providing contraceptive measures deemed non-abortifacients to non-Catholic employees.

SixOfWands wrote:

And yes, that's troubling.

In very large part because its just plain wrong, factually and scientifically.

In the PFL case, at issue was a provision that allowed employers to fill out a form stating that they didn't want to fund birth control, and wanted to government to do so for their employees. PFL refused to fill out the form, saying it made them complicit in providing birth control. Kavanaugh agreed in his dissent.

I would suggest you think this through very, very carefully.

Actually, the Rabbinical Council of America did so, and filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of PFL.

Their primary point was that it should not be up to the secular courts to determine whether a sincerely-held religious belief was right or wrong, factual or scientific. If Roman Catholics sincerely believe that certain types of birth control constitute abortion, our government should respect that. And by the same token, our government should respect our belief that flipping a light switch on Shabbos is considered "work" (an example they used).

They also made the point that religious minorities and super-minorities are especially vulnerable to lack of knowledge and understanding on the parts of people who write and/or enforce laws, and that courts must consider the impact on these groups.

You may think PFL are wrong, and I may agree with you. So what? As Jews, we should be delighted that Judge Kavanaugh recognizes that minority religious groups with beliefs or practices that are unpopular or unfamiliar to the larger populace must still have their sincere religious beliefs taken seriously.

SixOfWands wrote:

Kavanaugh was not arguing about people having equal access to health care. That's clearly not the Republican platform in any case.

Um, right. He found that the government has a compelling interest in seeing that they do. That's very different. This has nothing to do with public policy, let alone Republicans. The man apparently doesn't even vote!

SixOfWands wrote:

BTW, this was reported in every mainstream news source. CBS. Time. USA Today. Business Insider. The Week. Just looking at my news feed.

Which is why it's increasingly a mistake to rely on anything other than original documentation. The bad news is that mainstream news sources are often inaccurate and misleading. Sometimes because of bias, but more frequently because of deadlines and laziness. The good news is that Twitter, Gab, etc., can elevate the voices of people who know what they're talking about.

Cheiny

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 3:30 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

I actually can’t believe frum people are so pro abortion. We are not talking about extreme cases, or life threatening danger to baby or mother. What about all the 15 yr old girls who get pregnant? What about late term abortion? So if there are few, that makes it ok? Even one case of a fully formed, fully feeling baby being murdered, and yes at that stage it’s more like murder, is too much.

SixOfWands

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 3:40 pm

Cheiny wrote:

Actually, we are talking about extreme cases and life threatening situations when we're talking about abortion after 20 weeks.

But let's not let facts get in the way.

Tell me. If you were pregnant, and you learned, at 23 weeks, that your baby's organs were all grouped near the lungs, causing one lung not to develop and the other to collapse, if you knew that the baby could not survive for very long, but would be in pain for whatever time it had. How would YOU feel? Would you bring that child to term? And if not, how dare you force other women to do so.

There have been women here who have faced that terrible decision. And who, with the guidance of their rabbis, and their families, have aborted. You tell THEM that you can't believe that a frum person is so pro abortion. You tell them that they shouldn't have a choice.

No one is pro-abortion. We want women to have information and access to birth control. We want them to have choices. But yes, there are times when we want abortion to be an option.

Fox

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 3:51 pm

Cheiny wrote:

I actually can’t believe frum people are so pro abortion.

I think the abortion issue is problematic for most of us because neither the pro-life nor pro-choice side as they exist in public life really represents a Torah approach.

The fact is that there are circumstances in which the termination of a pregnancy is not just permitted, but is actually halachically required. For that reason, most of us recognize the need for some degree of access to abortion.

At the same time, the Torah doesn't regard the termination of a pregnancy as a casual lifestyle choice. Even when halachically required, it's a sad, difficult thing. There are women on Imamother who have been halachically required to terminate pregnancies, and my heart goes out to them. From my own experience with a complicated pregnancy, I know that such questions usually go up the chain of poskim, often to one of the gedolei hador.

Ironically, as I mentioned in the "Jane" thread, that's approximately how most Americans see it. They realize that there are times when pregnancies must be terminated, but they don't like equating it with going to get a mani-pedi, either.

Fox

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 4:09 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

To bring this back around to Judge Kavanaugh's opinions on religious accommodation, a fairly common scenario is that a woman whose child shows signs of serious illness is often pressured by her insurer to terminate the pregnancy. BTDT.

They don't want to incur the expense of a sick child who may or may not live long, so they intimidate the woman as much as possible within the letter of the law. Just as an example, my insurer used to send messenger-delivered letters denying coverage approximately 30 minutes before Shabbos. I discovered that other parents would get similar letters right before holidays or similar occasions. When my lawyer would call on Monday morning, the threats were always a "mistake" or a "misunderstanding." But, of course, my peace of mind was shattered over Shabbos and the weekend.

So it's important to me that just as women have a mechanism for a halachically-mandated abortion, we also have judges who would be willing to tell an insurance company, "You may not intimidate someone into terminating a pregnancy simply because you believe it's no big deal."

Aylat

Sat, Sep 08 2018, 4:18 pm

Cheiny wrote:

The investigation into Trump has nothing at all to do with his pick for Supreme Court, or Kavanaugh himself. The investigation has not affected Trump’s ability to make a sensible pick for Supreme Court judge, and Kavanaugh is highly competent, deserving and admired by everyone (even dems who suddenly changed their minds about him when he became Trump’s pick). While I’m sure the issues you cite are important to you, the truth about what the dems are doing is that they wouldn’t confirm any Trump nominee even if the pope himself was up for the position. The process going on is just their way to waste time and try to somehow push it off until after midterm elections, in their hope that they might win and then put in their own nominee.

They definitely wouldn't want the pope - he would overturn Roe v Wade!