Representative Katherine Clark (D-MA), was the highest ranking member among 17 lawmakers arrested outside the Supreme Court today protesting the Dobbs decision overturning Roe. She proudly waved her green “DON’T BACK DOWN” bandana while led away by police.
After her arrest, Clark said: “The extremist Republican Party is determined to take us back in time and take away our rights. I refuse to stand on the sidelines as their rampage continues. I am furious and heartbroken, and I will proudly fight for our right to abortion and all our Constitutional rights. They can arrest me, but we won’t allow them to arrest freedom.”
Immediately after Dobbs, Clark said: “Overturning the right to an abortion brings us to the horrifying reality of government-mandated pregnancy — we are now living in a dystopian nightmare. Forced pregnancy is morally abhorrent, and this decision will set women back decades. But we are not powerless. We will fight.”
When I reflect of these acts of courage, I’m reminded that to sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men.
Power to you, Katherine, and all who fight for equal justice, truth and democracy.
I’m not sure where they were which would lead to arrest, but members of Congress shouldn’t be outside protesting – they should be inside legislating.
Bull! They were exercising their Constitutional right to peacefully protest the hateful delusions of Christofascists.
Didn’t say they didn’t have a right, but I’m not sure what a member of Congress saying “Look at me – I got arrested” accomplishes.
Among other things, it conveys to at least some of the public that the issue is worth getting arrested for.
To put it a different way — I’m not sure what a member of Congress could accomplish inside the Capitol yesterday.
John Lewis would beg to differ.
Katherine and her good friend, the late John Lewis, organized a sit- in protest on the House floor.
I’m guessing that a sit-in on the floor of the House meets the criteria that Christopher offered.
Was John Lewis ever arrested while a member of the House? I honestly just don’t know.
Of the 45 times he was arrested, 5 were as a sitting member of Congress. I think civil disobedience remains a powerful tool, especially when the filibuster is used to once again block needed progress to help poor Americans and people of color.
https://creativeloafing.com/congressman-john-lewis-adds-arrest-no.-45—at-least—to-rap-sheet
Which makes more sense as members of Congress trying to be heard in their own chamber.
Democrats can protest and legislate. The two are not mutually exclusive of each other.
It’s like walking and chewing gum at the same time. Dah?
I met Denise Provost in 2010 when I first moved to Somerville at a demonstration outside a now-closed Davis Square restaurant that had already been convicted of not paying its workers, was in violation of resulting court orders, and was still open.
She and I were walking the picket line and began talking. We have been friends ever since — our children both went to Somerville High at the same time, and both graduated from U-MASS Amherst the same day.
I view demonstrations like this as an important way that members of Congress can connect with real people facing real issues.
In my view, being outside protesting — and even being arrested — is a far better way of connecting to constituents than any of the countless “have-a-beer-together” events. I also prefer this to the now trite “town hall” format — an approach that was uniquely well-suited to Bill Clinton and was innovative and fresh when he began it thirty years ago.
I do hope that the buzz from these demonstrations has cleared by Thursday.
She’s been very visible in Revere where she has just bought a house and remains visible in Melrose where she used to live and which she initially represented in the state legislature. It is my hope that she and Hakeem Jeffries can someday make a great Speaker/Majority Leader team.
The Provost example is a bit different because she was not directly responsible for paying the workers. The more apt analogy would be if she were the owner or some other direct stakeholder who could make it happen. Don’t bother protesting what you yourself have the direct power to fix.
I’m not following your response.
Ms. Provost and I were demonstrating outside a restaurant that was flagrantly violating court orders and abusing its workers.
Our purpose was to ensure that potential patrons were aware of the abuses and violations, in hopes that the resulting loss of business would change the behavior of the owners.
None of the demonstrators arrested outside the Supreme Court have any ability to alter the Dobbs decision. Each of them has already done all they could to protect abortion rights.
I know of nothing that any of the 17 members of Congress could have been doing inside the Capitol that could have made any difference at all.
They could be legislating to protect abortion rights. To be clear I’m saying your Provost example DOES make more sense.
I believe that the statement they made by being arrested did far more to advance abortion rights than anything they might have said or done in the Capitol that day.
Fairly certain the House has already passed a law codifying Roe, per usual, the Senate is dragging its feet. I often muse how much better off we would have been under the Virginia Plan, it seems more voters would have had more power under that system than the present one.
It also is a nice bomb to throw at originalists since obviously Madison wanted a more representative system than the one he eventually compromised on. And that compromise itself is proof that the very foundation of our government is a living and evolving process and not something carved into marble. It’s infuriating. Oh and for the originalists and textualists out there, where is the filibuster or a 60 vote requirement ever mentioned?
Not sure how. IMO trying to get yourself arrested is a bunch of virtue signaling nonsense when you are in a position to do something more substantive. I suppose these are my own biases and tendencies showing – I’m just not a civil disobedience guy.
When did civil disobedience become virtue signaling nonsense?
When one is in a position to do something more substantive to fix the problem.
That’s MALARKEY as my friend, Joe Biden, would say!
She has done both.
I would amend the statement “Forced pregnancy is morally abhorrent, and this decision will set women back decades. But we are not powerless. We will fight.”
to say, “Allowing the government to deny the basic human right of body autonomy has stripped all Americans of an essential liberty that we must fight to regain.”
I think wrapping abortion rights around a much broader defense of bodily autonomy and right to privacy is the way to go. I also wonder if even teasing a 15 week minimal abortion right at the federal level could get some Republicans on board as the marriage equality surprisingly did. Or at least federal exceptions for rape, incest, and minors. The situation with that poor girl in Ohio is GOP barbarism at its worst, and something most pro lifers I know would never have countenanced.
According to multiple published reports, prohibiting abortion for victims of rape is a violation of the several international agreements on human rights that we’ve signed.
The GOP is taking us into the same vicious, dark and misogynistic corner that extremists took Islam.
The Roman Catholic church, in particular, has blood on its hands.
Why do you always go after the Catholic Church when this is issue is much more front and center of the Fundamentalist Protestant agenda?
The Roman Catholic Church has been driving anti-abortion extremism for DECADES. The alliance between the Roman Catholic Church and the right-wing GOP has been in place for a similar time.
Are any fundamentalist protestant organizations making headlines by their refusal to serve communion to elected officials? Have any Fundamentalist Protestant elected officials been forced to step down from their office on the direct and explicit orders of their church on this issue?
The Roman Catholic Church has, by its own choices and dogma, perpetuated an international all-male hierarchical control structure. So far as I know, that control structure has been absolutely silent about the Dobbs decision. The same control structure has been explicitly striving to reverse Roe since Roe was decided.
I harshly criticize the Roman Catholic Church on this issue because it remains a prime mover in the effort to remove the human rights of every American.
It appears that your desire to defend an explicitly patriarchal and explicitly misogynist institution greatly exceeds your desire to protect the right of women to make their own decisions about their body.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I am absolutely going to defend a woman’s right to choose, but I just don’t see Catholicism as the enemy bordering on bigotry you so often seem to.
How am I “putting words [your] mouth”?
This comment confirms my last paragraph.
How long would the anti-abortion movement last if the Pope issued an explicit condemnation of the Dobbs decision? What would happen if the Pope issued an ex-officio statement that ex-communicated every member of the church who participated in prosecuting a victim of rape or incest, or who contributed to the death of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy denied a life-saving procedure because of this decision?
You have harshly criticized Ms. Clark and others for “virtue signaling” because in you view they failed to effectively use the power of their office to address the issue.
EVERY ordained Roman Catholic — from the Pope all the way to each parish priest and every nun — has the ability to use the power of THEIR office to put an end to these abuses.
I’m disappointed that you defend the Roman Catholic church in the very same thread that you criticize legislators attempting to do what they can.
I’ve always seen anti-abortion as a side dish of Catholicism and the main course of Fundamentalism. Yes, a few bishops virtue signal over it, but having grown up around Catholics, attended a Catholic school, being exposed to their social justice teachings, and knowing plenty of Catholics including public officials who do not adhere to their church’s teaching on this I don’t generally equate the two in my mind. Plus, I see the Catholic motivation as being truly about a good faith desire to protect all life including opposition to the death penalty and euthanasia whereas the Fundamentalists seem a lot more retrograde drag us back to another century in their mentality. Fundamentalist Protestants are the political muscle on this one and I think if it were only Catholicism it wouldn’t be nearly as significant a part of our public discourse.
THERE is an example of denying the facts.
I invite you to offer even ONE elected Protestant forced to resign his or her office because of a directive from his her church. Just one.
The most obvious case I refer to is Robert Drinan, but there are of course others.
I don’t know what to tell you. In my lifetime the people who have banged the table the hardest on this have been Fundamentalist Protestants. Because Protestant church structure tends to be less hierarchical those generally no mechanism to force people out of office. The people who first come to mind on these matters are the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham, Ralph Reed, all Protestants. I believe the Christian Coalition and Moral Majority have had overwhelmingly Protestant supporters and membership. What I do know is that if you asked me without context to do word association and you said Fundamentalist I would say anti-abortion moralizers almost right away whereas if you were say Roman Catholic the church’s anti-abortion stance would be well down the list of things that come to mind.
“Banging the table” is different from explicitly coercing elected officials through threats of ecclesiastical discipline.
I know of no elected officials forced to leave office because Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell disagreed with their policies. I know of no Protestant church — including the extremist congregations you mention — who denied their sacraments to anyone.
We are not discussing word-association exercises. We are talking explicit, well-document interference between officials of the Roman Catholic Church acting in their official capacity and elected officials doing their best to represent their electorate and stay within the bounds of the constitution.
Four of the five Supreme Court justices appointed by George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump are Catholic.
The Federalist Society played a major role in Mr. Trump’s nominations. Leonard Leo, the executive VP of the Federalist Society in charge of those nominations, is a member of Opus Dei.
This is no table-pounding word-association exercise.
These are Roman Catholic officials doing all in their power to coerce elected officials to impose their extreme religious beliefs on every American.
Denominational distinctions are relatively irrelevant at this point. I would argue that there are fundamentalist Catholics and mainline Catholics, just as there are fundamentalist Protestants and mainline Protestants. There are far fewer of the latter rather than the former in modern American Protestantism while Catholicism is roughly split down the middle on social issues hewing closely to the median voter on most of these issues. There’s a solid majority of American Catholics in favor of marriage equality for example, and a literal 50/50 split on abortion.
The bigger problem is that fundamentalists have taken over the Republican Party and one branch of the government (yes all the 6 justices who voted to overturn Roe are baptized Catholics and it is relevant, although Gorsuch and Thomas attend Protestant churches with their spouses, and Sotomayor a liberal dissenter is also Catholic). It is hard to read Alitos decision and not see the handiwork of the 50 year alliances between conservative Catholics and evangelicals on this issue.
The folks who helped make Catholics and Evangelicals Together, who founded First Things which is now totally Trumpist, and who signed the Manhattan Declaration. Evangelicals like Falwell and Weyrich getting together with Catholics like Buckley and Schafly
So short version, I would argue that while the hierarchy has a mix of moderates and conservatives now thanks to Francis, most of the American leadership including the Cardinal Sean are vocally anti-Roe
as is the Pope. That said, the folks left in the pew are largely split along the same party lines most of the country is.
Unlike the Protestants, for cultural and ecclesial reasons we are not sorting ourselves into politically realigned churches. Although I would argue my friend in Michigans parish where it’s a traditional Latin mass, women wear head coverings, and the vibrant Catholic school he teaches is something out of another century compared to my Boston parish where openly gay men and women are in visible positions of church leadership and there’s a big BLM banner outside and equal exchange coffee at coffee hour. It has the flavor of a UCC or UMC church I would’ve attended with my wife’s family back in Chicago. So same church but really similarly split into a traditionalist/fundamentalist wing and a mainline/progressive wing.
I think Tom, Fred, and Linda Greenhouse are overrating the influence of the church and it’s power while Christopher is underrating it. At the end of the day half of the church, the wealthier and whiter half I might add, is clearly invested in the right wing project to Make America Gilead Again. The other half are the Hispanic churches in Lawerence and Lynn that are doing the work of feeding the poor, sheltering people from ICE, and educating kids in safe and affordable alternatives to failed public schools. My affluent urban parish is arguably part of both worlds.
Ironically it is likely I am leaving the church Christopher is defending to join the one is he attending. If my sister in law and brother in law move in with us, partly over the Dobbs decision but also due to a plethora of other factors that make Massachusetts more livable than Kentucky, I have a feeling First Melrose UCC may be the landing spot. They are very attached to the the UMC, but the parishes in our area are quite small and not as family oriented. There is also a feeling that the UMC is taking too long to decide the LGBT question and UCC got there a good decade or two earlier.
As we say, no matter who you are or where you are on life’s journey, you are welcome at a UCC church! (We certainly don’t subject Communion to a litmus test of issues.) I’d never join the Catholic Church as I have too many differences, but the preponderance of my experience leads me to respect it.
At the end of the day, the wealthier and whiter half is the half that controls the institution.
The fact remains that, unlike ANY Protestant denomination, even the literal REAL ESTATE of each and every Roman Catholic parish is owned by the national/international control structure.
That’s why the following is far more relevant to the Roman Catholic Church:
The real estate — land and buildings — of each and every Roman Catholic Church is owned by the Diocese, which is in turn ultimately controlled by the Pope.
No Protestant denomination is structured this way. A Roman Catholic priest who allows a local parish to vary from established doctrine does so at the whim of the Diocese that owns that parish.
This is in stark contrast to, for example, the Episcopal denomination. Each Episcopal church owns the land and property of the church (struggling parishes are sometimes put in receivership of their diocese). No Episcopal diocese has the power to force decisions in any of the parishes that comprise it. An Episcopal bishop has less, rather than more, power than a parish Rector. The “head” of the Anglican Communion — the Archbishop of Canterbury — has less actual power than any other office in the entire international institution.
The bottom line is that in the Roman Catholic Church, actual wealth and power — as in literal ownership — is exclusively held by the ordained clergy and the institutional Roman Catholic Church.
Whatever happens in the pew of any parish happens at the forbearance and whim of the anti-abortion institutional Roman Catholic owners.
That is a fair point. It is also worth noting that the RC Church is bankrolling an amendment in Kansas that would overturn the state Supreme Court decision codifying abortion rights and bodily autonomy. Not just the local church but national bodies like the USCCB and KofC. And since it is technically a non-partisan ballot issue they can make unlimited donations without running afoul of restrictions on church involvement in political campaigns.
It also has done more damage globally on lack of access to sex education and contraception than the evangelicals as we consider the radical abortion bans in Poland and Hungary as well as the lack of contraception across Catholic parts of the developing world, particularly in fighting the spread of AIDS in Africa and population control in places like the Philippines which have far more people than can be properly nourished, housed, or educated. That will be the red state future imposed on our country by an ignorant court driven by fides ad fidem rather than stare decisis.
I guess where I differ is I think the institution lost a lot of its soft power after the sex abuse crisis, not just locally, but across the country. The days where cardinals could sway elections are surely over. Their power to persuade ordinary voters in the pews has long waned.
I think you are right that at the elite levels they have a much stronger influence on swaying the judiciary by creating pipelines where conservative Catholic jurists could become the Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe. There is no accidental coincidence there, this was a decades long strategy that paid off.
Precisely. That’s what I had in mind when I wrote upthread that the RCC has blood on its hands.
There’s also Sonia Sotomayor and of course the President and the Speaker. I roll my eyes at denying Communion but that is an internal matter. You mentioned Fr. Drinan being forced to choose between his priesthood and elected office, but that was because he as a priest was an official representative of the Church. There are lots of pro-choice Catholic elected officials who remain in their positions, church teaching notwithstanding.
There are many pastors and preachers — Rafael Warnock comes to mind — who have held elected office.
NONE of them has ever been forced to step down.
JFK was the first Catholic elected president. A major concern prior to his election was that he would serve the Pope rather than the people of the US.
The experience with Fr. Drinan shows that this concern is legitimate.
I stand by my statement that the Roman Catholic Church has blood on its hands.
The way you’ve treated the Catholic Church I’d be afraid you would be one of the ones who had that concern about JFK. That to me is inappropriate bigotry just like not voting Romney because he’s Mormon or someone else who may be Jewish, Muslim, etc.
You refuse to admit the distinction I’ve been talking about this entire thread!
No person in the Mormon church has or claims any authority over Mitt Romney. No Mormon has ever been refused a sacrament in the Mormon church — to my knowledge — because of any policy, position, or vote that they they have made. The same is true for Jewish and Muslim faith traditions and organizations.
Jewish synagogues and Rabbis do NOT claim or attempt to exert any authority over their members. Jews are not expelled from Temple because of something they say or do outside of Temple.
Like it or not, the Roman Catholic Church DOES do that, and HAS done that repeatedly and publicly. It is a hallmark of their role in American life for the last fifty years.
Not surprisingly, the New York Times published an opinion piece yesterday (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/22/opinion/abortion-religion-supreme-court.html) on this same topic.
The headline: “Religious Doctrine, Not the Constitution, Drove the Dobbs Decision”.
From the piece (emphasis mine):
Here is the conclusion of that piece: (emphasis mine):
The Roman Catholic Church is the only player in this issue that has always and still does claim absolute authority over every member and official.
It is the only institutional player that has always and still does treat women primarily as mothers — preferably of boys.
Its members on the Supreme Court refuse to even mention women in the Dobbs opinion. Women are not permitted to be ordained. The use of artificial contraception is a mortal sin. Roman Catholic dogma holds that ANY non-procreative sex is sinful and immoral.
NO other player is so powerful in US government. NO other player is so powerful in the US political system. NO other player has done so much in the past 50 years to harm women.
I have no issue with the religious beliefs of any candidate or elected official. Joe Biden is a Roman Catholic and I have strongly supported him. Mr. Biden has also clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly clarified that he opposes ANY effort to impose any religious belief or practice on any American.
My issue is with the Roman Catholic Church. My issue is with politicians and elected officials who conspire with the Roman Catholic Church in their collective attempt to impose their personal religious beliefs on everyone around them.
Your concern about bigotry is more appropriately directed at those who show such utter contempt for women and non-believers.
When I left the Catholic church in 1967 at the age of 17 over their support for the Vietnam war and degradation of women, I became a non-religious, secular humanist essentially citing the same reasoning you articulated above.
I turn 70 at the end of August.
I now feel that religious beliefs and religion are the single most toxic element in American and international culture.
American was in a decades-long war in Afghanistan that was, at its roots, about religion.
Religion is the common thread among the most pernicious attacks on personal freedom. Abortion, contraception, gay marriage, sodomy (that’s coming back as a crime, mark my words) — all of it springs from religion.
The Middle East conflict is about religion.
My antagonism towards religion is by no means limited to the Roman Catholic Church.
But that’s a different thread and probably belongs on a different site.
Your wisdom on the nexus of religion and politics has been profound and helpful to our collective understanding. Thank you for that.
There are those who would object to Romney in elected office on account of his Mormonism. There are others who are prejudiced against voting for Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians. They cite the same excuses – their loyalties may lie elsewhere; they may attempt to impose a “foreign” faith on the rest of us; some religious authority may be pulling the strings regarding their views. I see little to distinguish those attitudes from yours. I’m personally fine with a religious organization being a prophetic witness for how they believe society should be ordered. After all, my own United Church of Christ has offices in DC and is active in many state capitols for that purpose as well, though I do sometimes wish we were more successful.
Interesting that I enumerated specific issues:
Each of these is a major source of world conflict and has been for decades. Each of these is the direct result of religious belief, pitting believers against non-believers, often violently.
Each of these would be a non-issue in the absence of religious belief.
You answer that with a personal attack against me.
THAT pivot exemplifies why religion is such a toxic influence. You ignore my issue focus and pivot to a personal attack on me. I can only conclude that your need to defend religion is more important to you than basic courtesy.
Did YOU vote for Mitt Romney? My opposition to Mr. Romney had nothing whatsoever to do with his religion. I enthusiastically supported Barney Frank multiple times while I lived in Brookline. I attended Temple Beth Zion in Brookline for years.
I have rebutted your attack multiple times, including on this thread.
I already wrote the following:
Is some part of this unclear? Still you repeat the same meme and the same utterly false and insulting accusations.
Your own response shows the toxic influence religion has on virtually any issues-based discussion.
I’m sorry if you felt it was an attack on you. As you often say I was responding to your commentary which does make me a bit uncomfortable in this department. Of course neither of us voted for Romney, but not due to his religion and I suspect you have no problem voting for plenty of others on account of their faith. You did, however, suggest upthread that there may have been some validity to the concerns regarding JFK’s Catholicism. Yes, people misuse faith, but as one who is practicing myself I’m not going to go as far as to condemn religion as on balance toxic to our discourse. Plenty of good has come from activists of faith as well.
As soon as I heard about this, I knew it was performative and grifting. Where was Katherine Clark when pro-choice, progressive Jessica Cisneros was primarying the last anti-choice Democrat in the House, Henry Cuellar? Cisneros could have used Clark’s help (not to mention so many others!), esp. since Nancy Pelosi campaigned for Cuellar (despite his awful record – not just on choice but on gun control and unions too). I am still so angry about this.
The Examiner is a right wing rag, Cisneros was on the right side of the issues, but a flawed candidate. She tried and failed twice, time to move onto another progressive for that seat. Ideally one that can beat a Republican as South Texas is becoming redder and redder, as Myra Flores surprise victory showed. Wish her Democratic opponent got as much attention and money online as Cisneros. Or the 12 moderate candidates running in purple districts against election denying and Jan 6 enabling right wing Republicans. Cuellar getting defeated does nothing to save abortion rights, especially if Cisneros lost to the Republican. Keeping our majorities is what will codify Roe. That’s the prize.
Can someone please approve my comment? I’m guessing it’s “pending” b/c I provided a hyperlink?
It included an adjective that triggers the robot. I changed it to “awful” and approved the comment.