Elizabeth Kirk, research associate and lecturer at CUA’s Columbus School of Law. / Catholic University of America
Denver Newsroom, Oct 5, 2021 / 00:01 am (CNA).
This December, the US Supreme Court is set to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case that many experts say presents the most momentous test yet of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide. At issue is the constitutionality of Mississippi’s 2018 law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
As with any high-profile Supreme Court case, dozens of amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs have been filed both in support of and in opposition to the Mississippi law.
What follows is a Q&A with Elizabeth Kirk, a research associate and lecturer at the Catholic University of America and one of the signers of an amicus brief supporting Mississippi’s abortion law.
The brief lays out an argument that abortion has hurt women’s advancement; that women were making strides toward equality before Roe; and that abortion is not necessary for women’s socioeconomic success.
Kirk is a research associate and lecturer at the Catholic University of America, where she also serves as the Director of the Center for Law and the Human Person. Her scholarly interests are in the area of law and the family, and in particular the intersection between law and the Catholic intellectual tradition.
CNA: The amicus brief you signed lays out an argument that contrary to the Supreme Court’s rulings, abortion has not facilitated women’s advancement, and in reality, has hurt women. Can you walk me through the brief’s argument and evidence?
EK: There are 80 briefs in support of the State of Mississippi in the Dobbs case, each one articulating a different relevant argument. The focus of this particular amicus brief relates to the claim made in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) to justify upholding Roe: “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”
The authors rebut this claim, summarizing the empirical evidence relating to women’s historical achievements and their participation in society in the last half-century, and demonstrate convincingly that the Casey premise is false, i.e., that there is no causal link between the availability of abortion and women’s participation in society.
Furthermore, the authors point out that the data actually suggest some correlation between abortion and negative consequences for women, such as the feminization of poverty and declining levels of happiness.
Finally, the authors make the point that the argument that women need abortion to participate necessarily takes the male reproductive experience as the model for economic and social participation, and that this lopsided view has prevented meaningful accommodation of women, including their experience of pregnancy and motherhood, in the workplace and other spheres of society.
How did it come about that you signed the amicus brief in this case? Have you signed amicus briefs in similar cases in the past?
The amicus brief drafted by Teresa Collett, Helen Alvare and Erika Bachiochi was written on behalf of professional women and women scholars who hold doctorate degrees, as well as prolife feminist organizations. Any woman who fit that description and supported the brief’s argument was welcome to join. I know the drafters personally and was honored to sign.
I have testified in state legislatures on matters related to abortion, but this is the first amicus brief I have signed on the topic. I joined previous amicus briefs in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia [a significant case related to religious freedom] and Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, a companion case to Bostock [a 2020 decision that a federal ban on sex discrimination also protects sexual orientation and gender identity].
Many are saying the Dobbs case has a chance of overturning Roe v. Wade. Do you agree?
Certainly. This case presents this question to the Court: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” Under the governing precedents of Roe and Casey, there is a constitutionally protected right to abortion and states may not place an “undue burden” on it before viability. So, the question presented goes to the heart of the matter.
Of course, there are a number of ways the Court could handle this case short of overturning Roe and Casey. For example, it may affirm the constitutional right itself, but articulate a different test than the current “undue burden” test, or it may reconsider the role of viability in evaluating laws restricting abortion.
Many people are talking about what a “post-Roe” country could look like. What could the legal landscape of the United States look like, in terms of abortion law, if Roe is overturned?
A post-Roe legal landscape will better reflect the different views our pluralistic society holds on abortion. If Roe is overturned, all this means is that abortion regulation will again become the province of the states (as it was before 1973) and different states may be more restrictive or more permissive, as their constituencies demand through the legislative process.
We already know that some states, either legislatively or judicially, allow abortion in almost every instance. For example, New York and Illinois have very permissive abortion laws. The state supreme court of Kansas recently found a natural right to abortion in its state constitution which will likely invalidate many of its state restrictions on abortion. Overruling Roe would have little impact on the law in such states.
Some have speculated that since abortion rates are highest in places that already have such permissive abortion laws, if Roe were overturned, the national abortion rate would not be impacted dramatically. Those seeking to promote a culture of life, and a culture that supports women and embraces pregnancy and motherhood, would still have work to do.
Of course, overturning Roe would give more latitude to those states that wanted to protect human life more vigorously than is possible under the Roe/Casey regime. Pro-life advocates would need to persuade legislators and voters of the wisdom of this and to be creative about laws, policies, and initiatives to help women and families welcome children more readily.
Do you ever feel you are treated differently from others because you are a pro-life woman?
Frequently, I experience the presumption that, because I am a professional woman with an advanced degree, I must be pro-choice.
We hear a lot about the pro-life position being “anti-science” or “anti-intellectual.” Do you face this accusation often? If so, how do you respond?
I do not experience this accusation often. I think many people today, familiar with incredibly detailed ultrasound photos of their siblings or their own children, are reluctant to deny the obvious humanity of the unborn child.
Rather, I experience more frequently the arguments that (1) the pro-life position fails to promote women’s equality (refuted in our brief); (2) women’s healthcare includes abortion access (which depends on the faulty premise that fertility and pregnancy are “diseases”), or (3) the pro-life movement only demonstrates concern for unborn children (which Helen Alvaré has convincingly called the “lazy slander of the pro-life movement”.)
Have you always considered yourself to be pro-life, or was there a moment or event that convinced you of the position?
For me this has always been a very personal matter as I was the child of a “crisis pregnancy” and my husband and I were blessed to adopt our four children, three at birth through private placements by their birth families and the littlest one through foster care.
The reality of the pressures that my mother, and the birthmothers of our children, may have experienced has informed my thinking about how we might best respond generously to women in need to support them and their children.
[…]
Having matriculation from the Mr McCarrick school of pink collegiate, His Eminence, McE is the last one to speak about creating an atmosphere of polarization…
Nothing says “PLEASE UNDERSTAND WE ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY” any better than having a panel discussion on “civil discourse” involving His Eminence Cardinal McElroy, a man who asserts that he is a Christian Shepherd, and denounces all Christians who accept the teaching of Jesus and his apostles as tantamount to being “deplorables,” simply motivated by what McElroy declares to be nothing other than “animus.”
So if anyone fails to conform to the sexual revolution ideology held by His Eminence Cardinal McElroy and His Holiness Pontiff Francis, and dares instead choose to obey the Son of God, it is because such people are motivated not by devotion to Our Lord and The Truth and the well-being and salvation of others, including their own family and friends, but are simply “haters” (to quote their mutual spokesman Rev. Martin) and “backwardists” and “children” and “stupid” (to conjure just a few labels employed by the Pontiff Francis).
As to taking sides in matters where some “new-office-holding-members” of the CHURCH DIVERGE from “the mind of Christ,” a quote from one of the Pontiff’s earlier predecessors comes to mind:
“Whether it is right for us to obey men rather than obey God, you be the judge.”
Interesting “weather” we’re having, isn’t it?
It’s REMARKABLE that the very men who spent the last 10 years showing their contempt for those who would remain “united” in Christ, and reject the alternative on offered to “unite around them instead,” are now looking to the near future, and are suddenly concerned about “unity.”
What could possibly motivate such a course change? Are they looking ahead and worried they’ll be out-voted on something coming up soon?
It’s a pity that, not only do the above men fail to appreciate the divine word, but they even fail to voted appreciation for mere irony.
But Eminence McElroy does have the consolation that some of his audience reading Harvard Magazine this month will esteem him for “distancing himself” from Christ.
More dialogue? How about just stop persecuting us for wanting the Traditional Latin Mass, and leave us the hell alone? Would that work for you guys?
Tim, amen brother!
Very gutsy (or not?) to place Bishop Barron and Cardinal McElroy at the same table–actually two parallel and different universes, like the collision between matter and antimatter. And what do we get from this encounter? The ideological harmony of “dialogue”!
Good so far as it goes, but the missing ingredient, even more than mutual respect, is fidelity.
Barron is too bland and McElroy is too much of a company man. For both to suggest that what divides the Church today is only “ideological differences” seems an ideological attempt at some sort of middle ground.
So, yes to “civility,” and “dialogue” and “love” . . . but as the realist Fr. Werenfried van Straaten said, in reference to the mid-20th-century Vatican, and of such a dance step during the geopolitical Cold War: “No peace without justice, and (!) no justice without truth.”
Was it the clericalist balm of “fraternal collegiality” that enabled the spreading and unchecked Sexual Abuse Scandal?
More dialogue? How could there be more dialogue when, in fact, at least 70% of those who claim a Catholic identity don’t believe in Catholicism?
What about more catechesis? Accurate catechesis by faithful accurate catechists. If an exchange is required during that process well and good. What are we to “dialogue” about otherwise? Premarital intimacy? Divorce? Same-sex attraction? Abortion? Beyond accurate catechesis those issues are proper to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, to spiritual direction, or simply an exchange and counsel between a parishioner and their parish priest.
What actually requires dialogue? The reality of the Incarnation? The Divinity of Christ? The nature of the Most Holy Trinity? The Immaculate Conception? The Assumption? I’m unfamiliar with too many individuals, ordained or otherwise, who can plumet these Mysteries beyond what we have from the perennial Magisterium and the reflections of the saints.
Or shall we dialogue regarding the proper role of the papacy, the episcopate and the clergy class in their role to be evangelists, upholding the perennial Magisterium? Or are they to be the primary agents of the deconstruction of Roman Catholicism as they appear to regard themselves? At least the ones not hiding under their desks.
Why not just do your jobs — ecclesiastics and academic “theologians” — and otherwise be still? No one requires your sophomoric speculations. Just be and model utter fidelity to our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. We don’t require too much beyond utter fidelity, total conviction and genuine piety.
Very good, James. The only element missing is virtue—authentic virtue. Most dialogue would benefit by guardrails (also provided by the Magisterium) based on good and evil, virtue and vice, and how to imitate Christ. If Christian life were still the pursuit of holiness instead of the quest for affirmation and self-expression, the dialogue would open a world of beauty to the confused masses.
Accurate comprehensive catechesis inherently addresses the abandonment of vices and the acquisition of the virtues. The content of catechesis not directly bearing upon moral behavior in light of the Decalogue and the Beatitudes is provided to support the individual — the child, the adolescent, the adult — in conversion — in adopting a Roman Catholic perspective on human existence and its purpose. Catechesis is evangelization, it is the call to conversion and provides the rationale for such a life stance.
Both Bishop Barron and Cardinal McElroy, though distant on some mutual issues, have much in common insofar as intelligence and repartee. Fireworks are unexpected. Endless discussion on options is. Synodality in its ordinary table talk form is always the choice to end conflict and achieve unity when the players, at least these two know well east is east and west is west and the twain shall never meet. Not until the majority of the Church agrees on one baptism and one holy Catholic doctrine.
For that to occur at this stage of mutual polarity on the key issues, disordered sexuality, marriage and family, sin and repentance, personal sanctification v secularization there will be no peace since reconciliation is too incompatible. It cannot be done incrementally. There must be complete conversion. We’ve become two distinct churches within the Church united by name only. A reunification cannot be achieved by civil discussion as one bishop suggests. A strong willed pontiff firmly dedicated to Christ might succeed.
I wonder if Catholicism will fracture like Judaism, with Orthodox, Conservative and reform versions? Yes, we are polarized, but cracking the whip and issuance of ultimatums will not work. When you employ ultimatums, people might take you up on them. And not in the way you want. Do you really want for half the laity to walk?
Will, I think half the laity in the West have mentally walked away already. But that’s much more a First World issue. Elsewhere,the Church is growing and flourishing. And more orthodox.
If half of the laity are progressives, then yes, they should walk and not let the church door hit them on the way out. Then the church could get back to the business of being the church.
So we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Although I respect Bp Barron, I must demur when he says that theological differences in previous eras were carried on in a civil manner.
Let us consider the “dialogue” between Polycarp and Marcion: Marcion asked the bishop of Smyrna, “Do you recognize me?” Polycarp answered, “I recognize you as the first-born of Satan.”
Or, what is one to think of St Nicholas whacking Arius?
In eras when Christians took doctrine seriously, everybody didn’t always play nicely in the same sandbox.
Yo, Fr. Stravinskas, why so negative? Here, have a smiley button for your lapel!
And, more about Arius…Yes, the ecumenical Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) was about faithfully evaluating and then excluding (!) his contradictory ambiguity and doctrinal reductionism, not about syndodal inclusivity and forwardism…
A clarifying moment for the 1700th anniversary of Nicaea in 2025 and, likewise today, discerning truly the ambiguity of ecclesial and moral reductionism. But, who are we to judge? Or dialogue, or monologue, or whatever?
Don’t forget St. Jerome, especially to Pelagius!
Dear Fr. Stravinskas,
I agree with Bishop Barron’s desire for greater civility in theological discourse. You are correct, though, that there are many examples in Church history of uncivil theological exchanges.
The example of St. Nicholas whacking Arius at the Council of Nicaea is probably a legend as this article explains: https://aleteia.org/2021/12/06/did-st-nicholas-punch-arius-at-the-council-of-nicea/
Professor Christian D. Washburn, however, described a memorable example of uncivil discourse from the Council of Trent in his article, “Transformative Power of Grace and Condign Merit at the Council of Trent,” published in The Thomist 79 (2015), 183–184. Here’s the incident:
“From July 15th to the 23rd [1546], the council fathers discussed the issues dealing with the second and third stages of justification in eight general congregations. As they did, the theological battle among the council fathers over justification and merit became increasingly antagonistic, as illustrated in the infamous behavior of two bishops. Already in late June, Dionisio de Zanettini, known by his nickname Grechetto, the Franciscan Bishop of Chironissa, had accused the entire Augustinian Order of being infected by the teachings of Luther. Then during a speech to the general congregation of July 17th, 1546, Tommaso Sanfelice, the Bishop of La Cava, reasserted the theory of double justification and explicitly denied the value of merit. This only confirmed some of Zanettini’s suspicions about the extent of the infection. As the council fathers were preparing to leave, Zanettini insulted Sanfelice to another bishop, muttering under his breath that ‘he is either a knave or a fool.’ This sentiment was encouraged by the Bishop of Bertinoro, who added that he had often told Sanfelice that he ‘does not understand these things at all.’ Sanfelice overheard these remarks and reproached his insulter by asking, ‘What are you saying?’ Zanettini repeated his words: ‘Yes, you are either a knave or a fool.’ Sanfelice grabbed Zanettini’s beard, shaking him so violently that he was left with a handful of hair. Zanettini, unruffled by the violence done to his person, shouted, ‘I have said that the Bishop of La Cava is either a knave or a fool, and I shall prove it!’ Sanfelice had struck a bishop, a crime punishable by excommunication, and was immediately imprisoned in a local monastery.”
A colorful account of dialogue during Trent. And I think I get your surprising meaning…
Surely we are to notice how, instead of overly-demonstrative dialogue in centuries past, the equivalent today–instead of beard-pulling and imprisonment and possible excommunication–is banishment from the Vatican. As with Cardinal Burke. Or maybe Cardinal Muller when he was still Prefect for the CDF, and who was told to fire three of his best priests for no stated reason except that “I’m the Pope, I don’t need a reason.” Some dialogue! Some civility! “Backwardists” begone! As the adage goes: “Shut up, he explained!”
As you say, “there are many examples in Church history.” Thank your for this tutorial!
Well…considering some of those involved have been at the heart of spreading division and and even depend on it. How many times has McElroy demonized groups of the faithful? And America mag. routinely does the same. And the Jesuits? And Purvis is becoming a Catholic Al Sharpton, fomenting the narrative there is “systemic racism”, including in the church. (With no data to back it up with.) She basically has carved a niche for herself as self-appointed activist in this regard and it depends on furthering such narratives no matter what. It also includes now frequently inferring people who disagree with her are racist, etc. That’s not divisive right? Good luck with that! How about discussing the basics such as heterodox vs. orthodox, the most basic source of division.
I used to enjoy listening to Gloria Purvis on EWTN radio. I don’t know what happened but whatever the reason it’s a shame. She shared some really important things about her faith.
Everything isn’t about racism and “race ” isn’t even real science. But people really can treat each other differently according to our ancestry. If my ethnic make up was more apparent I don’t think I would have been hired for a single one of the jobs I’ve held. And I wouldn’t have had an opportunity to hear the sort of really distressing comments about “race” that people say when they think it’s safe to do that.
“Race” is bogus but racism is not. However it’s becoming generational. Young people care less and less about that. Thankfully.
On the contrary, I believe people of my generation care very little about race. We expect life to be a meritocracy. But the “woke” young people of today are obsessed with race and any other difference or identity they can twist into a rationalization for their failure to cope and succeed.
I see many young people today marrying folks of other ancestries and having families. No one seems to pay much mind to it except the elderly. And I live in the Deep South. Things change.
I hear what you say about Wokeness but that’s not as much a concern here and it’s seen as a separate issue I think.
I remember once while at the University I brought my composition to my teacher. My concern was a technique. She said “Anna, when you really have something to say, you will find the way how to say it – even if crudely it will be convincing”. My composition was empty and this is why it was unconvincing. I learnt that lesson and I believe it is universal. Rephrasing it, one does not need to proclaim “we need a dialogue in the Church”. It is as stupid as my composition because it has real substance. If one is desperate to discuss the matter he does, in whatever way.
I do not recall that iconoclasts (people who destroyed the holy imaged out of wrong theology) wanted to have a dialogue with those who defended the imaged. The first camp removed the icons and burnt them, the second hid them, often ricking own lives. Both caps believed they did the right thing. It took the Ecumenical Council to settle the matter via proclaiming that it is right and proper to depict Our Lord and that such images must be venerated.
From here follows that there is no such a thing as a vague “dialogue” and even worse “mutuality with synodality” (or synodality with mutuality, whatever you prefer) but the disagreements are examined in the light of truth (revelation). For example, there is no need for the opposite camps to engage in “a dialogue” about a possibility of ordination of women because we have an answer, in the revelation. There is nothing to discuss here! It is all about determining who is right and who is wrong via applying the objective measure, of the Person of Jesus Christ and the revelation.
But this is precisely what most people do not wish to do, i.e. to surrender own view to the examination against the revealed Truth. To surrender to the truth means losing all that this world esteems so highly – own “nicety” and own significance. The revealed Truth makes everyone very small and this is unbearable.
This is why when I hear the words like “we must engage in a dialogue” I feel like throwing up. For Christ’s sake, engage if you want, stop talking about that engagement.
They are now disturbed by the problem of division in the Church that they themselves created by tinkering with the perennial Teaching of the Church as well as its Tradition? These are the ones eho ought to be looking in a mirror: Bergoglio, McElroy, the USCCB, the Jesuits, America magazine, etc. Hypocrites all.
Bingo!
In my simple terms, the cultural divide is over the definitions of evil and sin, what is Right and what is wrong hence the Church must define the definition of Kingdom Building to either conform the world to God or conform their god to the World.
The TLM was and is the “loving” dialogue. Maybe some of those attending were ideologically harsh, but so what? The obvious problem for the other side of the “dialogue” is that the TLM was quietly, and one might say lovingly, taking over. The relative youth of the participants with their large families and children have been such a stark contrast with the septuagenarian-and-up attendees at the “ordinary form” masses that the handwriting was on the wall for anyone with eyes to see. Suppression was their last, withered gasp, a death rattle, and it won’t last.
What a nice, lukewarm panel. They are inadmissible. Revelation 3:16
At least the Pope still has a bit of the old bouncer: http://popefrancisbookofinsults.blogspot.com/
A fish rots from the head…
What a boring thing to cover with a story, more bishops talking dialog. If they are talking political divisions, politics has no business being discussed, past reinforcing teachings of past 2000yrs and telling people to vote for the candidate they see as aligning closest with those teachings. And reminding them no party can be trusted to not turn on a dime for votes and power.
As for dialog with those within the Church who disagree with the same 2000yrs of constant teaching, they can dialog all they want from outside the Church until they can accept those teachings and be readmitted. Dangerous species are best studied and possibly tamed outside the home. To bring them inside has predictable results which we see in the Church today.
Dialogue. Smh.There can be no dialogue in re: chastity, sin, damnation. These things are clear and have been clear since the beginning.
The fault lies in all of us, but it is up to the bishops to teach the fullness of the faith.
They haven’t done it, not for decades.
Also, lex orandi, baby. What happened to the lex orandi? Vatican 2.
“Suppression was their last, withered gasp, a death rattle, and it won’t last.”
It all depends on the next conclave. Could be interesting!
We’ve spent 50 years in “dialogue,” which is why we are in the mess we are in: the failure to teach clearly because that’s “rigid,” so let’s fudge everything. A Francis-McElroy specialty in “discourse,” but not in practice, where it’s VERY CLEAR where they are.
Being nice is not enough to achieve unity. Being charitable is not enough to achieve unity. We can be (and hopefully are) charitable even to enemies with whom we never reconcile.
Unity comes from One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism.
If you reject One Lord by allowing syncretism and Pachamamas and admitting other religions as equivalent means of pursuing God, you won’t have unity.
If you reject One Faith through heresy (a.k.a. cafeteria Catholicism), intercommunion, and ambiguous teaching on faith and morals, you won’t have unity.
If you soften the need for One Baptism by speaking and acting as though the unbaptized are as likely to be saved as those baptized Catholics seemingly in a state of grace, you won’t have unity.
If you have that framework, then all the liturgy wars and disagreements can be worked through rationally and charitably and with a lot of liberty in diversity. If we don’t agree on that framework, there is no means but force and tyranny.
Only Bishop Barron has the ears of the Gen Z Catholics and non-Catholic Christian youths, the rest of this motley crew of ex-hippies can sing “Kumbahyah” all they want but in 20 years it will be as if they never existed. The rallying song of my Gen Z kids and their peers is, “And They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Love”.
One of the great quips, made about “dialogue,” came from Joseph Ratzinger, in an aside to a friend when Rev. Rahner was holding court at another interminable meeting or conference:
“More monologue about dialogue.”
Newsmax tickertape reports Bergoglio says: “US Catholic conservatives “have a suicidal attitude.”
Dialogue?
With who?
The process of constant discussion on doctrine, praying for spiritual discernment, questioning perennial doctrine, never reaching a just revelation based resolution is in effect the Protestantization of the Catholic Church. Since the Roman pontiff supports this process, Synodality, bishops and cardinals are obliged to speak the truth of the faith for sake of the faithful, and press His Holiness on what’s occurred and continues to deteriorate the faith. That the Roman pontiff has with the office of the Chair the commission to defend and uphold the faith.
The choice of words needs a little correction.
When they say “polarization,” they should say “alienation.” When something is polarized, like a magnet, there is still a basis for unity and fruitful interaction.
When they say politics, they should say defined doctrine, or sacred teachings. Politicians may compromise on debatable policies. Apostles give the truth in it’s fullness.
When they say ideology, they should say the Catholic Faith.
When they insist upon civility and dialogue, I think of the example of Jesus cleansing the Temple, or the prophet Elijah meeting with the 400 prophets of Baal.
Bishop McElroy is a divisive presence in the Church because of his philosophies that are polar opposites of Church teaching.Ms Purvis show on EWTN was taken off air because of her stances on BLM.Bshp Barron is controversial in his teachings as well.They are part of the problem.
Bergoglio has striven hard to polarise the Church for political gain and to advance his Synodal Superlodge project for NWO, unhindered by Catholics.
How?
1) Bergoglio initiated the German Synodal Disaster with his C9 left-hand man Cardinal Rainbow Marx. Bergoglio is entirely responisible for millions of Germans fleeing the Rainbow Synodal Madness.
2) Bergoglio iniated a purge on Freedom to Worship for Catholics attending TLM first in China and then shortly after, the China-Deal went world-wide with Traditionis Custodes.
Bishop Daniel Flores got it wrong – he “emphasized the need to remember what Christ would do” he should have emphasized, what did Jesus teach us to do in the Gospels? Jesus is the Teacher, we are the students, it is up to us to get it right.