Were You Prepared?

I wasn’t, for the leak of a first draft of the Supreme Court decision on the Mississippi abortion case. Late June, early July was a long time away, and I was counting on two panels to be sponsored by Catholic Organizations for Renewal (COR) on May 18 and 25 for more information. But flipping through channels Monday night I zipped by Rachel Maddow and heard her say that a majority of the court was going to reverse Roe v. Wade.

What to write about this week? One friend said to me that half your readers will be angry no matter what you write about this. Others said write about something else. I thought about how easy I found it to write about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – that was clearly wrong and I could think about it in terms of my high school friends. This is a more complicated issue, but I could start with my experience, limited as it is, as I did then.

A fellow graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania whom I knew from aerobics class asked if she could talk with me. She needed to tell someone she was going to have an abortion that day. She had a job lined up that she had competed for and won. She could not focus on another child, move her family, and prepare to teach at a new institution. But she was conflicted. I listened. I saw her later at a conference and she still had only one child.

A close friend called in a panic. She could not manage another child, either, with her job and family situation. Fortunately, she wound up not to be pregnant, but the fear was overwhelming enough to discuss the kind of things she and I didn’t usually talk about.

Both of these married women were professionals and had the financial, knowledge, and health care resources to have a choice about bearing a child. The disappearance of the right to abortion would not have affected them except in terms of easy access. But they are not the pregnant people who would be most affected if this decision does come to pass.

Thinking about these friends eased my own anxiety; I am not good anticipating anger. I thought about my other friends who are deeply committed to the “womb to tomb” seamless garment of life Catholic theology. I know they approach all issues from a caring perspective, not a condemning one. Some of them may have had to make such a decision and perhaps decided differently than my two examples; many of them never had to.

My usual method for these blogs is to look at the progressive Catholic press, and that gave me my theme: Who was prepared? America had five articles on their feed on Tuesday, two on Wednesday, one on Thursday. NCR had one on Wednesday and two on Thursday, though both of the latter approached abortion obliquely. Commonweal and La Croix International had nothing as of mid-afternoon Thursday; there’s a summary paragraph in The Tablet.

I always hope other COR organizations will come to me. Of course, Catholics for Choice (CFC) did, and so did Call to Action (CTA):

We acknowledge that this statement may startle our members and supporters. However, we can no longer pretend that the politicization of abortion—and its separation from all issues related to healthcare and a consistent ethic of life—doesn’t have damaging effects on our communities. This most recent, devastating news represents another turn toward state-sponsored violence, racism, and misogyny in the United States. We invite Catholics to lean into the conversation. We cannot remain silent. 

CTA continues with twelve bold points of analysis and action. New Ways Ministry wrote about the faith of a Catholic mother of a transgender child, and the CORPUS blog recycled a Thomas Reese article from September 2020 about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s reservations concerning Roe.

What about the Catholic press? For NCR on Wednesday, Brian Fraga did some real reporting, including bishops and politicians and then moving on to Jamie Manson of CFC and Emily Reimer-Barry, a Christian ethics professor at the University of San Diego, who said:

We should think about this through a framework that offers supports for women, and those supports should come before the sacrifices. But we don't see those supports right now; those supports are not already in place even though the pro-life movement has had over 50 years. 

According to Fraga, “she also told NCR that much of the country’s debate around abortion rights, including in Catholic contexts, have tended to ignore or downplay women’s rights to autonomy, as well as the impacts of structural racism and socioeconomic factors that are often at play when women face difficult decisions pertaining to keeping a pregnancy. She said portions of Alito’s draft seemed ‘totally out of touch with the realities of legal landscape and the everyday challenges that pregnant and working moms face right now.’”

I appreciate getting a theologian involved. Think about this when you read about the second article on Thursday.

Thursday’s articles suggest to me that NCR was, like me, unprepared for the leak. At least the editors didn’t go back to the archives; rather, two strong articles expand the conversation. Michael Wright supports overturning Roe but says “As evil as the scourge of abortion is, it is not the existential threat to human life — born and unborn, innocent or otherwise — that climate change is,” and provides examples of other cases and issues that are coming before the Court and Congress. “The single-issue approach to so-called ‘religious right’ politics in recent decades amounts to using ends to justify means — something the church itself, as stated in the Catechism, considers immoral.” 

In the second article, new NCR staff reporter Katie Collins Scott writes about disparate outcomes when Black women go to hospitals for pregnancy treatment and birth. “While Catholic health care leaders have launched ambitious initiatives to reduce inequities, some researchers, reproductive rights advocates and Black women, including [Mississippi interviewee Laurie Bertram] Roberts, suggest Black women are being disproportionately harmed by the religious directives that inform Catholic-based care.” There’s lots of data here, as well as horrible examples, links to guidelines, and careful statements from critics and providers. It’s really substantive. Collins Scott ends with “termination” and “abortion,” which allows me to segue to America.

It took me a long time to subscribe to America because of its anti-abortion editorial policy, but when they opened a digital-only possibility I signed up. I certainly was using enough of their articles even as I critiqued them. The eight articles about Roe did not surprise – except for one item.

Holly Taylor Coolman’s first two points in a December 2021 article resurrected on Tuesday are:

1. Be very clear about the distinction (once widely recognized) between “abortion” and “termination of a pregnancy.” Abortion is never necessary to save the life of a mother. However, a procedure that does not “directly target the life of the unborn child” but results in the termination of a pregnancy sometimes is. (If that does not make sense to you, please watch this.) Advocate for policies and laws that allow for termination of a pregnancy when necessary.

2. Take note of the way in which anti-abortion policies and laws can sometimes result in unjust suspicion toward, and even possible prosecution of, women who have miscarried. Advocate for policies and laws that account for this and would prevent it.

Some of you will be angry that I include a link to the traditional John Paul II understanding of a mother only having a body and not a life, but I hear many lawmakers advocating against abortion to save the life of the pregnant person or the victim of rape or incest. Certainly, the law should make exceptions in these cases, even if the distinctions made here are those subtleties that make theology a game of fine points, not real life. I didn’t watch the video. I don’t expect I’d agree with it, and it’s an hour long.

The rest of Coolman’s twelve points are what most of the other articles say, more or less: don’t think your work is over. Remember Catholic social teaching that supports families and people in need. Give both time and money. Rachel Lu’s article on motherhood is very long and echoes some of these themes. Gina Vides tells the Gloria Purvis Podcast how poor women in California don’t really have a choice, and how the Los Angeles Archdiocese tries to help them. Two Catholic News Services articles round out the Tuesday offerings: a basic report on the leaked draft and an obituary for a prior spokesperson for the Bishops Pro-Life office, Deirdre McQuade.

Wednesday’s articles are only slightly more nuanced. Charles Camosy startles me with this comment: “Religious institutions are uniquely positioned to help dial down the temperature on this issue. Contrary to popular opinion, religion can and does serve as a moderating force in U.S. politics.” This is followed by Michael O’Loughlin, demonstrating the opposite with predictable comments from bishops. He also quotes two lay people, balancing Jamie Manson of Catholics for Choice:

The alleged decision, decimating fifty years of the court’s own opinions, is an affront to our nation’s judicial process and devastating to the people whose lives are jeopardized by the court’s actions.

with gloating from Brian Burch, the head of Catholic Vote. O’Loughlin concludes the article with no comment about this:

A recent poll conducted by The Washington Post and ABC News found that a majority of Americans, 54 percent, want the court to uphold protections afforded by Roe vs. Wade. Among U.S. Catholics, more than half, 55 percent, express the same view.

It’s taken this long to find anything like another side in America. Thursday, Simcha Fisher examines her feelings as a pro-life person, rejecting those who are “anti-woman and anti-immigrant and anti-poor people—and the reason they think so is because the most public faces of the pro-life party cannot seem to stop saying so.”

There is more than one side to this issue, and you have to go beyond the Catholic press to find it. I have gone on too long but I do want to respect the comments about last week’s blog, for which I was very grateful. I imagine those people asking now, “What does this have to do with women’s ordination to the priesthood?” Justice. Ms. Magazine arrived Wednesday with one definition on the cover: “Patriarchy. A social system in which males dominate and hold primary power.” Understanding systems that disadvantage women and non-binary people gives us insight into the opposition that we face as we defend our cause.