What It’s Like Inside One of Texas’ Last Abortion Clinics

RH Reality Check takes us inside an abortion clinic and compares it with the new "ambulatory surgical center."  A district court blocked part of the new law, which might have limited standing power, but is appreciated.  The video is appreciated especially to give you an inside look for the tens of thousands in Texas who will get an abortion in the next year and others.

You Matter

Rev. Joe: Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe

I found this a galley version of this book on the library free chart. Appreciate the aim of the book -- not as much to criticize religion and/or belief in God specifically, but to positively provide a sort of "how to book" (though at one point it resists the term) on being good as a humanist. Found the book too much of a trudge and doubt whatever final touches a "clean copy" of the book might have applied changed much there.

Torasco v. Watkins, protecting the right to be a notary public without needing to declare a belief in God, involved a humanist.  He later was involved in a cause that has been cited on this blog:

He became a humanist counselor, with the authority to officiate at weddings in some states. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his challenge to Virginia laws that favored ordained ministers and prevented him from officiating at weddings there.

Torasco was the case that fifty years old had this footnote:

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id. at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.

I have see the Ethical Culture Society of NY, e.g., label itself as a "religion" though some secular humanists etc. rather not use the label. The book is a bit wishy-washy -- it basically notes that "religion" has a common meaning that suggests a belief in the supernatural and such (even Buddhists often believe in things like reincarnation) that humanism would not include. All the same, some have such broad and ultimately symbolic meanings of "God" (it's "nature" or an "ultimate concern"* etc.) while still being part of "religions." Unitarian-Universalists, e.g., also are accepted as a "religion" even if humanists are involved.  I covered this before.

Still, there are things that come up over and over again and being good without God as well as (especially some of the places I read online) the problems with "religion" is one of those things.  My immediate reaction often is that it often doesn't matter.  A broad meaning of "religion" includes many people, even if it doesn't include every atheist or humanist.  Torasco itself speaks of a "freedom of belief and religion," which would include (like freedom of speech includes the right to be silent) the choice not to have one. Finally, we can consider certain aspects of religion (like conscience or the ability to set up congregations of like believers, be it Catholics or humanists) as a sort of "penumbra" that cannot merely be (see Establishment Clause) left to theists or if you like "coreligionists."**

One thing the book does is show that a person can do "religious" like things while being a humanist -- as seen above, humanists preside over weddings. A good episode of Army Wives involved an officer choosing a sort of humanist alternative to a christening/bris type ceremony. One chapter provides a humanist translation of the Ten Commandments though noting a bit more is necessary for a good life. The overall purpose of life is said to be to uphold and promote human dignity.  These sorts of things where "spirituality" might come up -- that's a word for those who think "religion" is a bit too rule based or something.

A book on the views of different religions on abortion (Sacred Choices)  noted "sacred" is not necessarily deistic -- an example of a newborn child being sacred is cited. A comprehensive view like this with emotional connections, rituals and ultimate purposes to me looks like a "religion."  But, like the book, even if it is not, the term need not be a bad word. Many with a religion are overall good people.  That is the most important thing and though its technique was a bit "eh," the book's heart was in the right place.

So, good luck being a humanist chaplain at Harvard, and it's nice that since the book's writing, you have been married. Not sure about the involvement in yet another reality show though.  No one's perfect, right?

---

* [ETA] I saw a few people criticize Justice Kagan's dissent in the Town of Greece v. Galloway prayer case for ignoring non-theists (it did honor theist separatists) while some noted even their advocate at oral argument admitted atheists couldn't really be covered (later on, a secular humanist provided an invocation).  The concern was notable though she did provide this broad view of "religion":

These are statements of profound belief and deep meaning, subscribed to by many, denied by some. They “speak of the depths of [one’s] life, of the source of [one’s] being, of [one’s] ultimate concern, of what [one] take[s] seriously without any reservation.” P. Tillich, The Shaking of the Foundations 57 (1948).

As Epstein noted, more effort needs to be provided to include humanists and the like in the conversation here in regard to interfaith efforts and the like. If some better formulated legislative prayer practice could be allowed in a constitutional matter (a dubious supposition), it must include non-theists. And, as suggested above, it has been done.

** As Justice Douglas once noted:

It is true that the First Amendment speaks of the free exercise of religion, not of the free exercise of conscience or belief. Yet conscience and belief are the main ingredients of First Amendment rights. They are the bedrock of free speech, as well as religion.

See here -- guess I'm a few weeks early for my yearly thing here.

Please Place Seat In the Upright Position ...

I don't have an occasion to travel on airplanes but the recent news item on reclining seats does seem to address my "don't be a dick" principle. It is a somewhat trivial case but these things (1) add up and (2) assholes tend to be so in bigger ways too.

Rizzoli & Isles

I read over at IMDB that a new hire on the production team influenced the end of the Rizzoli pregnancy subplot. Notice, for whatever reason, some better episodes of late. Yesterday's episode as a whole was very good, including a lot of character stuff. Fans probably excited to learn Maura's sleeping habits. Angela subplot a bit thin, but nice ending.

Skinner Again

I provided some links, including to other writings by the author of the book just cited.  One, to highlight it, included a bill out of California to add more protections against non-consensual sterilization of prisoners.  A 1970s case involving protecting safeguards for all women in that area was covered in Women and the Law: Stories. Also, the fiction book Necessary Lies covers the era well, using poor whites in North Carolina.  Prof. Nourse warns the limits of science continues to trouble us but this area in particular still is important.

One interesting aspect of her argument is that the often criticized "Lochner Era" was on the whole rather supportive of state power ("police power") upholding most legislation. There was a special concern -- especially at times (see, e.g, under CJ Taft) -- for certain types of labor legislation (and price regulation -- railroad rates, e.g., was a major concern) because it threatened the "free labor" philosophy of the era that was an honest reflection of one thread of 1850s Republican Party thought ("free labor, free land, free men").  But, the Lochner trope is overused.

Justice Souter once noted that Lochner (like Nourse, I like to focus on not Holmes' famous dissent, but Harlan's, who accepted substantive due process while still arguing the hour law was reasonable) was correct enough on the basic point that a law can be "arbitrary," but wrong on the reasonableness of the specific economic legislation often in question.  As Nourse notes in her book, Justice Douglas et. al. thought "substantive due process" applied to old fashioned property right talk.  Others ares willing to use that term, but think the problem is the merits. As Nourse notes in her "Two Lochners" article:

rights are vessels of history in two senses of the word. They are vessels in the sense that they are lessons of the past that help guide our future. They are also vessels in the sense that they are containers of memory, and in particular, memories of grave political danger, adopted by majorities to prevent themselves from repeating the lessons they have learned.

Prof. Nourse argues that the Skinner case is important in part as the one bringing the concept of "strict scrutiny" to laws of a particular type. The ruling was decided on equal protection grounds -- the infamous sterilization case of Buck v. Bell ridiculed that but by 1942 some history lessons had developed. This by the way is a problem with ridicule of "living" constitutionalism.  It is simply absurd really to deny that over time the basic principles of the Constitution will develop in certain ways that past generations will not readily expect. The document sets the basics; the particularly is ongoing.  Self-government in the long run is furthered.

Skinner is usually cited these days as a privacy case -- procreation and marriage is cited as "one of the basic civil rights of man." The dissent below also flagged that sentiment. This counseled the "strict scrutiny" particularly since the sterilization was assumed to be permanent. The combination of due process and equal protection continues to this day as shown in the same sex marriage litigation. Two justices also cited procedural due process concerns (Jackson supported both arguments)  directly -- the assumption a criminal convicted three times of certain crimes should not be enough; there should be a hearing putting the state to its proof. But, the seriousness of the burden still matters -- cf. a case involving a $20 hobby kit being broken in prison, to cite an actual USSC matter.

Concern for substantive liberties has a long history; substantive due process is not just an invention of this era.  Justice Harlan in an unanimous decision on the point cited the fundamental nature of property in a 1890s case that incorporated the Takings Clause, discussing "substantive" due process:

But a state may not, by any of its agencies, disregard the prohibitions of the fourteenth amendment. Its judicial authorities may keep within the letter of the statute prescribing forms of procedure in the courts, and give the parties interested the fullest opportunity to be heard, and yet it might be that its final action would be inconsistent with that amendment. In determining what is due process of law, regard must be had to substance, not to form. This court, referring to the fourteenth amendment, has said: 'Can a state make anything due process of law which, by its own legislation, it chooses to declare such? To affirm this is to hold that the prohibition to the states is of no avail, or has no application, where the invasion of private rights is effected under the forms of state legislation.'

The state supreme court below in Skinner:

"Due process" has a dual significance, as it pertains to procedure and substantive law. As to procedure it means "notice and an opportunity to be heard and to defend in an orderly proceeding adapted to the nature of the case before a competent and impartial tribunal having jurisdiction of the cause." 12 Am. Jur. 267, § 573; 16 C. J. S. 1156. In substantive law, due process may be characterized as a standard of reasonableness, and as such it is a limitation upon the exercise of the police power. 6 R. C. L.  [**127]  433-446; 11 Am. Jur. 998, 1073-1081; 16 C. J. S. 1156.

Legal citations included to show the principle was standard at the time, not "an oxymoron" as some might put it.  The majority, if only by one vote, however put a high test to holding a law as "unreasonable" -- "clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt in error," which sounds almost higher than what is required to put someone to death in a criminal trial.  But, there was and is a respect for the democratic process here, certain safeguards still present. The court here was less concerned with a sterilization law that picked and chose among its victims.  The dissent, including someone who had voted to uphold an earlier sterilization law with arguably somewhat better individualized review, did not buy this:

True, the laws providing for the sterilization of insane persons and habitual criminals usually provide that there be a finding that the accused is a probable potential parent of offspring that will be insane or criminal, but the fact that other statutes make such provision does not mean that they must do so. For some reason, not known to us and with which we should not concern ourselves, our Legislature thought such provision not necessary or proper. It may be because it thought such a finding could not be based upon satisfactory proof. The Legislature should be allowed some latitude on this question.

Happily, the USSC did "concern" themselves on the point, particularly because it ran against more than one particular constitutional safeguard against such "class legislation." From the bans against nobility and  "corruption of blood" to the direct concern about equal protection in the 14A (seen in some fashion to also be applied against the federal government), there is a particular concern against invidious class legislation.  Eugenics is an attempt for a sort of nobility, which is a basic violation of our founding principles.

As seen by the citation to procreation, there is also a particular concern for certain liberties. Civil and criminal law treat classes of wrongdoers differently and the result can be severe loss of liberty, often wrong-minded in nature.  But, eugenics touched a particularly troublesome area. As seen in cases like Meyer and Pierce (education of children), particular liberties are of special concern, including those not expressly enumerated. These too, if by lines that might be complicated in various ways, also are a concern for the courts.  Ultimately, we are best on guard to not merely rely on them, especially since there is an "Overton Window" affected by public opinion and current practice, however imperfect as reflected by an elite here well tenured judiciary.  All the same, substantive liberty counts.

A final word on the book is that it is particularly noted that the case arose out of prison litigation with support of the warden.  This adds to the colorful nature of the story -- these legal case studies (as Justice Brennan once told Nat Hentoff -- tell them stories!) are often particularly interesting for the background, which should not be missed for the specific legal details.  Both are important and it is left for those to tell them well.

In Reckless Hands: Skinner v Oklahoma and the Near-Triumph of American Eugenics

Not sure about the subtitle, but this is a good book on an issue that still has bite.  The author (blocked when nominated to the 7CA, in effect filibustered in a way still possible even now) has written more on the legal issues related to the case, including equality and Lochner Era rights talk.  Good use of a case as a snapshot of large issues. ETA: A 1942 commentary.

"The Reclamation of Torture"

A good discussion, by a lawyer of a victim, including how the past tense makes it easier. He does welcome being open but not half-measures:

To acknowledge that we tortured people in our custody is all to the good. Indeed, we should do more than acknowledge it; we should make a careful and complete accounting, and if the Senate report is ever released, we may go far toward precisely that. But to imagine that all this was the product of a past that bears no connection to the present is foolish. Worse, if we reclaim torture but ignore the public institutions and political assumptions that led to this behavior, we are willfully ignorant. And if we fail to see that they are with us still, in surveillance that accepts no limit, drones that observe no boundaries, and a war that cannot end, we are truly blind.

I agree it is easy to say "it's all in the past" but do welcome use of the "t" word, which wasn't used in part because of its moral and legal imagery. Some was like "just can't figure out where the line is!" and like those who make "marriage" small (just to make children the old fashioned way!), wanted to cheapen and downplay something that horrified for centuries. Only something akin to the rack would be clear enough for them, though there were cases of people hung up and suffering something not too far from that. Basically, "torture" is something "illegal" that wasn't done (or now "done" but "what is past is past").  The present matters too. 

It is all to the good to call Obama, e.g., out for making excuses and ignoring treaty obligations, especially if blame is shared for society in general who share the sentiment. The buck stops with him but along with past wrongs like slavery or racial segregation, singling out him at some point misleads.  There is no realistic chance he is going to put things on the line and in effect say that Bush and Cheney should be in the dock. The President is not some savior who is going to jump far outside of the public on this subject though it would be nice if he did. And, I think it somewhat unfair (only somewhat -- really, the comments of a few strongly denouncing him doesn't cancel out the normal line which except for now and then ignores it) to single out only one part of President Obama's remarks.  POTUS said we "tortured" and “we did some things that were wrong." The past tense is noted, but even that is too much for some people.  He didn't say it was justified because of 9/11.  It was "wrong" and it was "torture."  This is notable though you know ... FERGUSON.

That is the bare minimum necessary to reduce mistreatment, including torture, in the future.  You need to say it is wrong -- not too long ago, the official line was that it was right and saying waterboarding was illegal was just so hard.  Also, the Senate report is notable in itself -- it might not seem like much, but these investigations are official accounts that put on record what happened. It's sort of like bashing the MSM and using them as source material.  Again, it isn't enough, but it is part of the bare minimum. It also provides an oversight role for the legislature, members of whom will continue to feel an obligation or at least right to see what is going on at least to some degree. This too will on some level serve as a check.

It is all very depressing and on some level what is done seems so trivial, even when it takes a lot of work and a bit of courage to do them. Thanks for those who fight the good fight, present tense.

The Fosters

There are so many shows on pay channels these days along with "regular" television plus the Internet and I watch less original programming than in the past. Still, this is one of the few I do watch, though have been liking it less of late. The "summer finale" on the whole was good, with multiple subplots and good acting. The Callie stuff however ended up on an annoying place, including now tedious repetitive "just can't get adopted" complication.

Reforming Pardons

A sentencing expert and judge both support a NYT editorial pushing Obama to reform pardoning policy. For whatever reason, yes, it looks like he has been deficient. To be fair, the Administration has shown "mercy" to criminals in various respects.

"Rules for birth-control mandate after Hobby Lobby"

More tweaking since a reasonable line between profit and non-profit isn't good enough for SCOTUS. Prediction: selective concern for religious beliefs as this tweaking in ways that make providing benefits more complicated is applied in the real world. ETA: And, yeah, at some point, what's the point? The other side isn't acting with good faith (pun not intended).

Greenhouse on Halbig Trooferism

Balkinization and Scott Lemieux are two places to read up on the latest on attempts to kill the PPACA. SL's latest refers to a recent Linda Greenhouse column and one key point she makes is how even taking a case for en banc would wipe the D.C. 2-1 win for confusion off the books. This would leave the PPACA win as the sole case. No circuit split.

Shark! Shark!

Tara Reid was lousy but this was overall a fun movie that was better made than one might think. A bit near the end underlines you really can't take it seriously.

"Mommy and Momma: Determining Parentage in the New Family"

Good discussion on changing ideas of parenthood ... not from the clueless who selectively apply "tradition" as a way to discriminate against gay people. Meanwhile, one of many non-Rick Perry fans who find the indictment dubious. See also, comments.

How About Never -- Is Never Good For You?: My Life in Cartoons

Lol. I'm reading the memoir and though it is a bit too jokey/thin at times, it is overall an enjoyable read that mixes bio and commentary with a lot of cartoons.

Rev. Joe -- The Color of Rain

As noted, the book was pretty religious, not surprising since its publisher is listed as one which "delivered transformational Christian experiences." If it works, okay, but I do favor a more toned down approach, especially with talk of cancer being a "win win."  More of a "God" as metaphor (sort of like poetry) sort of person myself.  Movie more my speed while including a religious presence often not present in television programs.

Ferguson -- Not Craig

I think Lawrence O'Donnell at times is the evening MSNBC program that focuses too much on "cable bait" current news stories, but its coverage of the events in Ferguson is appropriate. There has been a lot of coverage on this important ongoing story, which is a sort of microcosm and warning. Some remarks provided in a blog thread are suitable here: 

The situation warrants a complete picture look - federal/state roles, civil rights, guns, 1A issues, etc.  It seems telling to me that Art. 1, sec. 10 bars states from having "troops" except by special permission. 

The militarization is a concern. The "2A remedy" relevant to me is not primarily to arm the protesters (though I think people do have an individual right to keep arms by a variety of routes). It is the proper use of force and organization of it. For instance, an organized militia with public servants in control positions could be a useful device in controlling a situation of this sort, including locals from the community. 

Shag's concern for militarization also is part of the conversation. Both state and federal "government" is part of the problem there. Police is supposed to be "militia" in nature, not "military." Anyway, there are a lot of parts involved here.

The importance of using some finesse is seen by how tensions was cooled (at least somewhat)  when control shifted. This also shows the limits of local control in certain contexts even if calls for Obama to get involve (via Art. IV federal action?)  directly might not be necessary.  Obama's remarks about stepping back as was his remarks that both looting (see comments for this aspect which is at times not covered in the commentary) and mistreatment of reporters is not proper behavior. 

The whole thing, including the death of the teenager by the police is tragic,if sadly not overly surprising.

The Color of Rain

I was overall impressed, especially by the lead actress, with this Hallmark film about a youngish couple who fell in love while helping each other deal with the loss of their spouses.  The book is a bit more religious (somewhat heavy-handed, the publisher makes this unsurprising for those in the know), but pretty good. The couple alternate accounts.

RIP Bacall -- Cats Everywhere Miss You

"College Sports Should Be Treated as a Source of Funding for Nonprofit Universities, Not as a For-Profit Business"

Dorf on Law economist specialist discusses this subject some more, including how college education is "compensation" and not providing proper education can be a big concern without that changing. Likewise, we can worry about athletes' health and other things without treating them like professionals. I have seen some unbalanced comments on such subjects.

Rizzoli & Isles

After Lena on The Fosters obtained a therapeutic abortion mid-term, Rizzoli had a miscarriage on her show while getting hurt in the line of duty (later she helped the witness get a foster mom -- connections!). It was let out her mom had a miscarriage before having Jane. Left unsaid but notable -- Jane had the right to choose to endanger herself.

RIP Bacall

Court hands off feud about murder appeal

Among the mundane batch of summer orders was this matter.

RIP

RIP Robin Williams

It seems somewhat harder when people you grow up with die especially in apparently tragic circumstances (suicide). As one person on the radio noted, his antic style actually turned me off somewhat though note his talent there, while his dramatic work often was his best.

Update: A reminder -- it isn't just important when movie stars do it.

The Supreme Court Needs To Pick Up The PACER

It might be somewhat behind schedule & they should have more audio (at the very least opinion announcements, public events after all), but the USSC has gone far regarding their website. But, they do not do well with orders and other filings. SCOTUSBlog at times links stuff not on the website. Bench statements given to reporters should be public too.

String of same-sex marriage rulings broken

The seven page state judge opinion is rather thin for its outlier status. It partially is based on not wanting to avoid Baker v. Nelson (which few really take seriously) but does touch upon the merits. Again, rather thinly. The next money ruling might be the 6CA decision.

RIP Bel Kaufmann

The author of Up the Down Staircase died recently at 103, after having a long and interesting life. Per my last book, she too is from Russia, but more emigrant than immigrant. The thirty-year anniversary copy of the book has a good intro. The book is pretty good too though somewhat repetitive. Snapshots of the school jungle from the perspective of a new teacher; the vet who befriends her is in effect BK's alter ego. Vaguely recall seeing movie.

Fun Package

I was given one recently -- not a great fan really, but looks nice and is practical with dip potential and that big pit. Looks fun, especially for certain animals. Will try a smoothie or something one of these days.

Snow in May

I saw this collection of short stories (taking place over a span of decades, an interconnected series of snapshots from various perspectives) by a Russian immigrant reviewed in the NYT, the last longer for no real apparent reason (perhaps it is based on something her own grandfather told her about?). Very good with an interesting open-ended nature. The link provides further writings (including reviews) as well as interviews (including audio).

Civic Action at a Federal Detention Center

Dr. Carpenter is an expert on human rights but when she visited a detention center (or whatever you want to call it) for Central American refugees with family she was more a representative of the public at large as she further clarifies in comments in the version of her account at her old blog. The detailed personal account makes me again miss her involvement at LGM -- her replacements don't provide the same product.

Rizzoli & Isles

The whatever you want to call new character seems to fit in pretty well. And, the episode, including Rizzoli being trapped with a witness, was a good one. Down to a few bits of dialogue, including between Korsak and Maura. Coming attractions suggest the plot continues and at least one question isn't quite answered. Definitely one of the best episodes.

"Same-sex marriage issue reaches the Court early"

VA supports SSM rights but for various reasons, supports a stay. One reason is dubious -- the USSC granted a stay when the state supported a ban. Another is based on the unlikelihood of the USSC ruling against SSM. The third reason is to quicken things along. State law apparently allows someone else to appeal, thus state nonaction is not simply a win for SSM. The petition ends, alluding to a final USSC ruling: "We are nearly there."

Serve Out Your Term

I thought it was horrible that Palin resigned as governor in effect because she was bored with the job. Eric Cantor doing so a few months early isn't so blatant as half-term Palin, but it still isn't ideal. Isn't it sort of a duty to serve out the term you were elected for except for special circumstances (e.g., appointment to another office)? Well, I think so.

"Undue Burden" Has Some Bite

The Casey ruling had some charms -- it did a better job than Roe of fleshing out the right to privacy & hooking it here to equal protection, e.g., but its "undue burden" language (if used at times before) was meant to and did open up more regulations. This helped the recent onslaught of TRAP laws that (to me unconstitutionally) single out abortion clinics. But, sometimes it has bite. Continues to be a "will it be too much for Kennedy" game.

Joe Whines About Prices

I took someone out to dinner recently to thank her and the bill was over $60 for two people. This is really somewhat mid-range for your Manhattan eatery. Dangers include: drinks, dessert and at times starters. Meanwhile, multiplex price over $14 now. There are more reasonable ways to go, surely, but she likes the place and it's worth it for a special occasion.

Saying It Aloud Is Something

Even before I came into office, I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values. I understand why it happened. I think it's important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the twin towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And, you know, it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots, but having said all that, we did some things that were wrong. And that's what that report reflects.

It might not sound like much, and on some level it is not, but it matters.

Trading Deadline

Rays' Price deal seems a bit weak. Red Sox did a good job looking to the future. Seattle got a steal thanks to Rays/Tigers. As have arrived. Yanks - Drew? Why? Phils stupidly did nothing. Mets did nothing but that's okay really. If they do nothing via waivers, that would be sorta annoying. Should get something for Colon (and get rid of a bit of dead weight).

The Shunning

Saw the sequel first & it was weak (stupid subplot dominates; new actress okay). This was rather good.  There is a third book (no film yet), but it sounds worse than the second.