Today, Explained - Roe v. Wade v. God

Episode Date: June 29, 2022

A rabbi, a priest, and an imam walk into the abortion debate. The priest wins. This episode was produced by Victoria Dominguez and Haleema Shah, edited by Matt Collette, fact-checked by Laura Bullard, engineered by Efim Shapiro, and hosted by Noel King. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained Support Today, Explained by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Two, four, six, eight, separate the church and state! On the day that Roe v. Wade was overturned, religion took some hits. Protests, chants, signs, keep your religion off my body. But a lot of religious people were furious about the decision, too. In a written response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the congregation Lador Vador says the United States Supreme Court's decision and Florida's own anti-abortion law criminalizes the practice of Judaism. A synagogue is suing the state of Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis and a handful of others, alleging the state's 15-week abortion ban infringes on the religious freedom of Jews.

This is an abomination and we will fight it with every fiber of our being. The Jews have an indomitable spirit. We're used to being oppressed, and we're used to fighting back. Coming up on Today Explained, religious law versus the law. Get groceries delivered across the GTA from Real Canadian Superstore with PC Express. Shop online for super prices and super savings. Try it today and get up to $75 in PC Optimum Points. Visit superstore.ca to get started. It's Today Explained. I'm Noelle King. So about that lawsuit, Rabbi Jen Lader serves as a spiritual

leader at Temple Israel in the Detroit area. She is currently, though, not in Detroit. Oh, right now I am in my hotel room in Jerusalem on my sixth day of COVID quarantine, overlooking the beautiful hills outside while trapped in my room. Okay. So some good, some bad. Yeah. Rabbi Leder, when you saw the news about this lawsuit, were you surprised? I was excited. It was so exciting to see some creative thinking and ways that we as a Jewish community who are activists, who are constantly looking for ways to make the world

a better place for those who live in it. It was exciting to see somebody trying to build a just society by presenting our religious freedom as a method by which to create major change. There's only so much we can do with rallies and posters and t-shirts and sermons from the BEMA, but to be able to do something that really could affect the laws in the country and affect people of all socioeconomic statuses, people of all religions, since this is coming down to the state level, it was really thrilling to see this creative energy coming from our community as a way to incite change. What does Jewish law say about abortion exactly? Jewish law is actually pretty clear about abortion. Historically, our most important law,

the highest mitzvah or commandment that Jews have is the preservation of life, is the saving of a life. And in our tradition, it is very clear based on sacred text that in the case of a pregnant person, the person who is pregnant, life is the one to which those laws are referring. There's a really interesting biblical precedent in the book of Exodus that's often used to illustrate this point. It's a case of two men fighting, and one of them knocks into a pregnant woman and causes the pregnant woman to miscarry. The man who caused that woman to miscarry is liable for damages, and it says that should harm befall the woman that he knocked into, should she die, for example,

then he would be liable for homicide. He would be on the hook for her life. But in the case of her miscarrying, he's not. So it serves as a proof text to us that when it comes to life, the preservation of life, what we refer to as pikuach nefesh, that in those cases, the person who is pregnant's life matters certainly above that

of something which is not considered alive until it takes a breath in Jewish law. Until it takes a breath. That's really, really interesting. The congregation in Boynton Beach, Florida is, and here I'm going to use their words. On their website, they describe it as what they practice, cosmic Judaism. And the rabbi says it is the Judaism of tomorrow that respects science, tradition, and spirituality. So I read that and I think, okay, this congregation could fairly be called progressive. Am I making a wrongheaded assumption, though? No, they certainly sound like a progressive congregation. Where does this congregation in Boynton Beach fit on the spectrum of Judaism,

which, of course, contains many, many multitudes, including some that would be more conservative than others? When it comes to Roe v. Wade, when it comes to reproductive rights, conservative and liberal Jews, and I mean that politically and not denominationally, are fairly unified and have been over the last 40 years. I was reading that in the last Pew study, 83% of American Jews supported Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion, which was higher than any other faith tradition and certainly higher than the general population. So for us, it's a fairly clear-cut issue, and it's not one that is politically divisive

within our congregation. I made this assumption that Orthodox Jews wouldn't necessarily support the right to an abortion. And I admit I was coming from a place of complete ignorance, and I assume that they would probably fall on the side of the evangelicals in this argument. You're saying that's not true, and it's a misconception that a lot of people have. Because the pro-life movements often herald religion as the banner under which they act, it doesn't mean that all conservative or more traditional religious traditions agree with that point. And for Orthodox Jews, even though, of course, they value life above all else, of course, it is not a matter which anybody takes lightly. There are cases in which a pregnant person would be absolutely mandated to have an abortion. And for abortion to become illegal in certain states removes their religious right to practice our faith in whatever denomination and whatever way people align. When it comes to abortion remaining legal in the United States, there is agreement because while the reasons that somebody who identifies as

a reformed Jew may pursue an abortion and the reasons why an Orthodox, someone who identifies as Orthodox may pursue an abortion, the fact remains that there are cases for both in which it is religiously mandated for someone to have one. If the mother's life is at risk, there's no question that that life takes precedence over the life of a fetus. And so denying that right to a woman or someone who is pregnant would mean that an Orthodox Jew would not be able to practice their faith in a way that allows us religious freedom in our country. When we say Jewish law, Rabbi Lader, what are we talking about exactly? So there's this whole idea that when you get two Jews in a room, you have three opinions. So we are

people who love to argue and love to debate. When we're talking about Jewish law, we're talking about an argument that's taken place over centuries, where we look at biblical text, we look at our sacred tradition, and sages have intergenerational dialogue trying to interpret these laws and make them relevant for the time and place in which they live. So there are collections of text, collections of interpretation by our most venerated sages throughout history that have taken biblical stories and biblical text and used those as the foundation for the creation of laws to govern the lands in which we live and the people who live in them. So for example, we have texts called the Talmud, which is like this collection of interpretations of the Torah and the laws that

sort of come out of that. So the law comes from a lot of different places and each community, each denomination interprets the laws in different ways and our need or requirement to follow them, which is a major difference between the major movements in America. These laws were written a long time ago, long before we human beings understood how a fetus develops, has the law been updated at all? So these aren't laws written out. These aren't commandments. We don't have a list somewhere that says, thou shalt abort a fetus if the mother's life is in danger. These are interpretations of stories and narrative and statements by sages that we've collected for many generations. Now, when we are talking about creation of laws and precedent for our community based on new

scientific information, things we might not have known in biblical times, you know, for example, can I make a cell phone call on Shabbat? That comes from a different group of texts called responsa. So each community has a panel of brilliant rabbis who take modern questions and use our foundational knowledge of Jewish history and Jewish text in order to form answers that hold fast to tradition, that take tradition into account, but also recognize that we live in a different time and place than we did when some of these conversations took place or didn't. So each community makes those choices for themselves based on their understanding of Jewish law and their understanding of our obligation to follow it.

I read an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle by a Muslim scholar who said, these abortion bans trample on the rights of Muslims' religious beliefs, too. So to me, that would signal kind of an interfaith push around reproductive rights. What do you think about that? I love it so much. I love that the conversation is being shifted away from the idea that anyone who is religious,

anyone who is religiously observant is pro-life. I think that the Muslim community, based on their understanding of their holy texts, is very much aligned with our understanding of our holy texts, and that we have a lot in common when it comes to reproductive justice and our understanding of the sanctity of life. And so it's really wonderful to take back the narrative that to be religious means to be anti-abortion and to help our greater American community understand that people of faith are often on the front lines fighting for social justice and fighting for change and using our voices to speak out for those who need support.

I anticipate a lot of excellent interfaith work between the Muslim community and the Jewish community, and honestly, the liberal Christian community as well, as we fight for access to reproductive freedom based on our interpretations of our faiths. to keep up with family, and Aura says it's never been easier thanks to their digital picture frames. They were named the number one digital photo frame by Wirecutter. Aura frames make it easy to share unlimited photos and videos directly from your phone to the frame. When you give an Aura frame as a gift, you can personalize it, you can preload it with a thoughtful message, maybe your favorite photos. Our colleague Andrew tried an Aura frame for himself.

So setup was super simple. In my case, we were celebrating my grandmother's birthday. And she's very fortunate. She's got 10 grandkids. And so we wanted to surprise her with the AuraFrame. And because she's a little bit older, it was just easier for us to source all the images together and have them uploaded to the frame itself. And because we're all connected over text message, it was just so easy to send a link to everybody.

You can save on the perfect gift by visiting AuraFrames.com to get $35 off Aura's best-selling Carvermat frames with promo code EXPLAINED at checkout. That's A-U-R-A-Frames.com promo code EXPLAINED. This deal is exclusive to listeners and available just in time for the holidays. Terms and conditions do apply. Bet MGM authorized gaming partner of the NBA has your back all season long from tip off to the final buzzer. You're always taken care of with a sports book born in Vegas.

That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM, a sportsbook worth a slam dunk and authorized gaming partner of the nba bet mgm.com for terms and conditions must be 19 years of age or older to wager ontario only please play responsibly if you have any questions or concerns about your gambling

or someone close to you please contact connex ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Today Explained, we're back with Asifa Qureshi-Londis, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School who specializes in American constitutional law and Islamic law. Perfect combo for this one. You wrote that San Francisco Chronicle op-ed saying, these abortion bans trample on the rights of Muslims, too. I asked Rabbi Jen later about this interfaith collab, and she was very excited about it. I sympathize with the sentiment, and I'm happy that she's excited about that. I mean, here's where I entered into this whole world. There was an amicus brief submitted in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health case earlier in the fall that was written by a coalition of interfaith, I think women's organizations, Jewish, Christian, a few others, and they wanted Muslim organizations to join that brief. And that brief was making the

argument that abortion bans, such as the one in Mississippi, infringed on the religious freedom of non-Christians and maybe other Christians in this country who didn't happen to agree that life begins at conception. And so I agreed with that argument, that there are lots of different religious faiths in this country. I'm very glad that there are. And the religious diversity in this country has lots of different views on when life begins. And so we also have lots of different views about when abortion is appropriate. And any laws that reflect only one of those many views, if it's restricting the others, then I believe that it's an infringement on the religious diversity in this country. So I'm glad that they are asking

a court to take a look at that. What does Islamic law say about abortion? As usual, there's more than one opinion. So Islamic law is made up of several different schools of thought. So the range of opinions on this question stems from different interpretations of the verses in the Quran that describe when life is breathed into the fetus. The Quran describes almost the evolution all the way through from the moment of, you know, just a cell to a fully formed unborn child. When that becomes a life with a soul is a question of debate. Because of that disagreement, you end up having variations on when the different schools say abortion would be appropriate. The most restrictive is the minority view, which is at conception, there's no permissibility for abortion except for saving the life of the mother. But it goes all the

way to some would go to 40 days, some would go to 80 days, some would go to 120 days. But it really depends on which school of thought you follow as to whether abortion is permissible. All schools allow for abortion to save the life of the mother at any time. Is 120 days into the pregnancy, is that a very old law or is that something new that is grounded in what science tells us about viability? Oh, it's very old. It goes back to the very first interpretations of the Quran by religious scholars. Wow. So, yeah, and I want to say something about the word law. In our English-speaking Western mind, when we say the word law, we think about state law. What I'm describing here is a different type of law. It is the rules by which Muslims live our lives. That, in a Sharia perspective, is a part of the overall rule of law in a Muslim society. There's another type of law that is not based on scriptural interpretation, but it is what the state or the ruler does. And that has a very different mission and purpose. And

traditionally, the purpose of state law is to serve the public good. And so that is what those laws are that the state is imposing on everyone is a very different question than what does scripture tell a Muslim to do in their life. So there's a very strong distinction in Muslim minds, at least classically speaking, that whatever you decide to do based on your own, which school of thought you decide to follow in your own personal life, that does not directly translate to what the state should be doing for everyone else. Yes, and your op-ed doesn't just suggest that abortion bans run counter to Islam, but also to other Christian viewpoints.

Talk about how Roe being overturned, in a sense, privileges certain types of Christianity over others. Well, to the extent that these laws are a reflection of or in agreement with one particular Christian view on when life begins, that is an enshrinement of that moral view into state law. And if it is enshrined in such a way that is a ban on certain types of abortions that other religions would allow, then that's an infringement on those followers of those religions practicing, fully practicing their religion. So when you take the most restrictive view of when abortion is allowed and enshrine it into state law, then anybody who follows a different moral view about

abortion is no longer able to fully live their lives according to their own spiritual guidance. It's worth noting that the Supreme Court never argued that life begins at conception. It leaves things up to the states. How do you see the Supreme Court siding with the Christian right if the Supreme Court deliberately didn't address the question? I don't make the argument that the Supreme Court, per se, was siding with the Christian right. What it does, it opens the door for the Christian right or any extremist, you know, moral perspective that is able to garner a majority in the state legislatures to then impose a particular religious view on the rest of us. So all the Supreme Court did was open the door to this being decided by democratic processes. And it very proudly said

that that's what it was doing. So I think that all Americans should be concerned when this is left to majoritarian politics. But what's so interesting to me, and again, this comes down to how the words minority and majority apply, is a majority of Americans did not want Roe versus Wade overturned. And a majority of Americans, they have nuanced views about abortion. It was a Christian minority that pushed for this and got what they wanted. Talk a little bit about that. So theoretically, that would mean if you leave it to the democratic know, gin up a population to vote for this that will not actually be reflective of the population's desires. And we've seen that happen in all kinds of elections where the people elected don't actually have the full popular vote, but yet they end up, because of the way that our politics works, they end up in power.

So when you have the power of the state imposing a particular minority view of abortion on the rest of us, that should be concerning to everybody. But it's particularly concerning to me as a Muslim who knows that laws are often made that harm Muslims because we are not either taken into account or that we have misunderstandings about what Islam is all about. So the laws are written to restrict us and our practices because our practices are misunderstood. As a constitutional scholar, what do you think this decision means about the separation of church and state? I think it's concerning because if laws are being motivated by a particular religious belief about life, then we could end up with a merging of those

two in a way that we haven't seen before. Let's imagine a religious view that's not dominant in America, but what if it was able to garner majority in a particular area? So let's say a majority Hindu population or a Jain population that believes that there is reincarnation or that all life is sacred, including animal life, should not be killed. If they were to be able to pass a law that would make it illegal to slaughter cattle for hamburgers or even kill insects in the most conservative views of Jainism, as I understand, that would feel like a real infringement on a lot of Americans who don't believe that those things are killing a life. And so to me, that is, if we could take our time to think through that thought experiment,

I think it helps us to understand why people who don't agree that this is, that life begins at conception, that laws that reflect that view would be such an imposition on us. You know that religion is a part of many movements to change law. The civil rights movement comes to mind. When does a faith-based movement become something that infringes on other people's freedoms? I have no problem with people being motivated by their faith to think about what laws would help society. So if you're against slavery because of your faith, then I think that's a good thing in society. If you're against racism because of your faith, I think that's a good thing in society. If you're against racism because of your faith, I think that's a good thing. When you bring those ideas into the public sphere and you advocate for laws,

I believe there has to be something beyond just that you believe it to convince the rest of us that we should make it a law for all of us. So if I happen to believe it, that's great. But when I try to get the whole country to legislate it, I need to make a case for why it serves the public good of everybody. Do you think we could see a new kind of religious liberty lawsuit where religious groups argue that as the country moves further right, their religious liberties are being violated? I hope that the America that I live in and that I love is also the America that everybody else loves, and that is the diversity of religions and races and languages and cultures that we have. I think it's our strength, and I think that whenever we pass laws that restrict that diversity and stifle it and blend us all together into one or press us all together under one, I think we lose something.

So these lawsuits, yeah, it's a little bit of turning on its head what religious freedom is about. Usually these people are arguing for religious freedom, and often it is religious freedom for Christian practices and accommodations. In this case, when you go all the way with having the law reflect Christian values, you may end up having that law oppress other religious values and practices. And I would think that that would be a loss for the country. I would also like to take it even beyond just religious diversity and say, I would like us all to talk about what is the purpose of lawmaking in this country? Is it to do the general good for as many of us as possible and the public good for all?

I think it does not serve the public good to have one view of when life begins and find into state law. I think the state should leave it to individuals to make those decisions on their own. That's the best way to keep the diversity alive. Today's episode was produced by Tori Dominguez and Halima Shah. It was edited by Matthew Collette and fact-checked by Laura Bullard. Special thanks on this one to Noam Hassenfeld, who hosts Unexplainable. Thank you.