Supporting killing unborn human beings is "heroic," supporting natural familial bonds for children is "demeaning,"

Without Words to Describe

by Helen Alvaré 

The last few days of June and what they entailed for marriage, life, and liberty... Those of us who value life over death, vibrant religious exercise, and the good of natural marriage need to find our voice again even though the powers-that-be are redefining words arbitrarily and avoiding reason.

Several events at the end of June call to mind John Paul II's words in Evangelium Vitae describing the elements of a true humanitarian crisis. An act previously and nearly universally condemned, that hurts vulnerable lives, is celebrated as a "right" by people in the best position to protect those lives. How does John Paul II diagnose the cause of such a crisis? He identifies a serious misunderstanding of freedom--one that divorces freedom from solidarity, from reason and truth, and from the inevitability of human suffering.

Sadly, his observations fit painfully well the events of the last week of June.

First, legislator Wendy Davis filibustered a bill in the Texas legislature that would ban killing unborn children in the last twenty weeks of pregnancy and require abortion clinics to meet the medical standards required of other "ambulatory surgical centers." Had these standards been observed, they might have saved lives at the charnel house of Philadelphia abortionist and convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell. For her efforts, Davis was lauded by the press as one of the Democratic Party's "most popular politicians," and a "hero." The president of the United States joined the chorus of praise, tweeting "#StandWithWendy."

Second, on June 26, the Supreme Court issued two same-sex marriage opinions.Following upon the Court's holding in Hollingsworth v. Perry, same-sex couples are already obtaining marriage licenses in California, despite the votes of seven million Californians in favor of ballot initiative Proposition 8. The Court in United States v. Windsor struck down Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of one man and one woman. The majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy held that federal legislators (Democrats and Republicans) and President Clinton passed DOMA strictly for the "purpose" of "impos[ing] a disadvantage ... and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States." According to the majority, lawmakers intended to "demean" and "injure" same-sex couples, and to "humiliate" any children they were raising.

The majority did not devote a single line to the lawmakers' well-documented interests in assuring a special regard, nationally, for the wellbeing of children as a class, children for whom natural marriage is simply the only vehicle for tying their fathers to their mothers and to themselves, and indeed for preserving their entire historical and genealogical identity in this world. Not a line.

Instead, the Court declared that--in the opinion of five persons--marriage is rather about conferring a "dignity and status of immense import," about granting a "far-reaching legal acknowledgment" of "intimate relationships," and about "protect[ing]" "personhood and dignity." As Justice Scalia's dissent observed, the majority held that to disagree with their understanding of marriage is to be an "enemy of the human race."

Third, on June 28, the Department of Health and Human Services issued the final iteration of a health insurance mandate concerning contraception, sterilization, and early abortifacients. What did it decide?

It decided to force insurers to provide "free" birth control and morning-after pills to the employees (and their family members, including minor daughters) of religious employers, regardless of whatever conscientious objection the employers might have. HHS wrote that its decision "respect[s] the concerns of non-profit religious organizations that object to contraceptive coverage."

They did this despite hundreds of thousands of opposing comments and dozens of (mostly successful) lawsuits against the government. They did it despite the fact that the "scientific report" undergirding the mandate has no empirical data proving the oft-repeated claim that free contraception will prevent women's illnesses.

In sum, according to the powers-that-be, supporting killing unborn human beings is "heroic," supporting natural familial bonds for children is "demeaning," and forcing religious employers to insure (and really to pay for) services for their employees that they cannot in good conscience support is "respecting religious freedom."

My head is spinning. So is the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

............

Read more: www.thepublicdiscourse.com