I received a celebratory e-mail message from NARAL this morning that may
help explain the result:
*North Dakota voters defeated Measure 3, the anti-choice ballot
initiative.*What an amazing win!
North Dakota voters understood that freedom of religion is already
protected in the U.S.
Behind NARAL's many inaccuracies lies a hint of what I believe may be the
sociological basis for answering Eugene's question. What follows is purely
speculative on my part, so just treat it as a hypothesis.
The initial RFRA push was, speaking broadly, in line with a sense by
evangelical
NARAL and Planned Parenthood spent a lot of money in a small market to
defeat this. They did not spend that kind of money in Alabama, so far as I
know. There have been shrill opponents in of state RFRAs in various
legislatures, but I am not aware of this kind of effort by NARAL or Planned
The website of the coalition opposing the measure http://ndagainst3.com/
suggests some reasons for the loss in North Dakota. The major newspapers in
the state opposed it, as did the bishop of the Western North Dakota Synod of
the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. (North Dakota has a
I meant to say that Vance's point about the fears of Muslims and Sharia law
is surely also part of the explanation. The evangelical rank and file
conceives religious liberty mostly in terms of their own religious liberty -
they are certainly not the only ones, but as Vance notes, they are an
The truth is that gay rights and child protection communities went all out in
North Dakota. Most Americans when they understand that a RFRA opens the door
to discrimination or child sex abuse or medical neglect quickly cool on the
extremism of a RFRA. The difference is public education
RFRA opens the door to child sex abuse or medical neglect? Really?!
--Don Clark
Nationwide Special Counsel
United Church of Christ
In a message dated 6/13/2012 3:55:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
hamilto...@aol.com writes:
The truth is that gay rights and child protection
I should clarify that I was not attempting to address the North Dakota vote
specifically, which of course could have been influenced by a number of
particularized factors, but was addressing Eugene's broader question of why
the RFRA enactment engine nationally seems to be sputtering.
On Wed, Jun
Nor for Native Americans abused by Catholic priests. For them, religious
liberty has meant less freedom, not more.
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
Eugene's division of RFRA and non-RFRA jurisdictions is also oversimplified.
There were RFRAs like Alabama's, where there is no substantial before burden
(that was another fault with North Dakota's formulation). But as RFRAs
developed, the dangers of permitting large classes of individuals to
It opens the door to churches using RFRA as a defense to discovery, liability,
and penalties in chid sex abuse
cases. And that means less deterrence. Their lawyers embrace the First
Amendment and RFRAs to avoid responsiblity for child sex abuse all the time.
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul
The sweeping generalities of these statements are breathtaking
-Don Clark
Nationwide Special Counsel
United Church of Christ
In a message dated 6/13/2012 8:30:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
hamilto...@aol.com writes:
It opens the door to churches using RFRA as a defense to
Their lawyers embrace the First Amendment ... to avoid responsiblity for
child sex abuse all the time. So should we repeal the First Amendment?
Do courts accept these arguments?
Art Spitzer
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:28 PM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
It opens the door to churches using RFRA as
I used to think that religious groups using the First Amendment as a defense in
child sex abuse cases
was breathtaking. It is just a fact.
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
In 3 states, the courts continue to give religious groups First Amendment
protection from abuse claims.
Missouri, Wisconsin, and Utah. A majority of states have rejected such
arguments. A number have not
yet ruled. The three states to embrace such a theory have misread the First
Amendment,
And does it work?
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:58 PM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
I used to think that religious groups using the First Amendment as a
defense in child sex abuse cases
was breathtaking. It is just a fact.
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Well, now we are getting somewhere
Assuming the representation of the data is correct:
A majority of states have rejected a constitutional argument that opens
the door to child sex abuse, and only three have embraced it.
And North Dakota's proposed RFRA - which we can be certain
17 matches
Mail list logo
