In July 2018, I wrote an article about Trump’s Supreme Court nomination Brett Kavanaugh. There was much excitement about him among those who are opposed to abortion because he claims to be Catholic. I cautioned and said the Kavanaugh should not be trusted because he has supported abortion before, and that if the opportunity came and he viewed it as politically expedient he would not hesitate to support it:
Something that is disturbingly consistent with American “Catholic” Supreme Court Justices is that for the most part they are not Catholic at all, or if they do practice, their adherence to the zeitgeist comes before the practice of their Faith. In this way they are no different than Protestants, for the Protestant Revolution beginning with Luther made good citizenship and adherence to the social ethos of the time synonymous with religious piety. Ethics are good, but only so far as they align with morality. While one should not strive to be unethical, it is possible to be unethical but moral. Likewise, one also must avoid being immoral in the name of being ethical.
The fact that he supports infanticide – so far as one can tell based on past experience- is a warning sign.
Has he changed? We do not know. Even if he says he has changed, given the ability of American justice nominees and politicians to completely change their position in the name of holding on to what power they have or may obtain is a consistent problem.
Nobody really knows what this man is thinking or going to do.
Sure enough, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to hear a case about defunding Planned Parenthood, and Kavanaugh stood with the liberal justices and in so doing has allowed for abortion to continue:
Planned Parenthood will continue to receive Medicaid funding in Louisiana and Kansas after the Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear cases in which the states sought to stop the organization from participating in the program.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case leaves intact lower court decisions that allowed Planned Parenthood to continue to receive Medicaid funding.
The issue at question was whether individuals on Medicaid who received medical care from places such as Planned Parenthood have the right to challenge a state’s decision to cut off funding from the organization.
In Louisiana, U.S. District Judge John deGravelles ordered the state to keep funding Planned Parenthood in 2015, and in 2016 a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit upheld that decision. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Kansas had upheld a lower ruling finding that Kansas was wrong to cut off funding from Planned Parenthood.
“We are pleased that lower court rulings protecting patients remain in place,” Planned Parenthood President Leana Wen said in a statement. “Every person has a fundamental right to health care, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much they earn.”
Louisiana sought to cut off Planned Parenthood following the release of videos in 2015 that purported to show Planned Parenthood staff discussing the sale of fetal tissue. Planned Parenthood has denied any wrongdoing.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented from Monday’s decision not to hear the case, saying that they believed the court did not get involved because the issue of abortion was at play.
“What explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood,’” Thomas wrote. He argued that the court should have taken up the case in order to resolve the question over whether an individual can challenge state decisions regarding Medicaid.
Four justices are needed to accept a case. The decision is the first on abortion to come before a more conservative Supreme Court with the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Medicaid is jointly funded by the state and federal government, and covers low-income people, pregnant women, and people with disabilities.
The challenge mirrors others occurring at the federal level. The Trump administration is considering cutting off abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, from family planning grants that pay for birth control, testing of sexually transmitted infections, and screenings.
In Louisiana, U.S. District Judge John deGravelles ordered the state to keep funding Planned Parenthood in 2015, and in 2016 a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit upheld that decision. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Kansas had upheld a lower ruling finding that Kansas was wrong to cut off funding from Planned Parenthood.
“We are pleased that lower court rulings protecting patients remain in place,” Planned Parenthood President Leana Wen said in a statement. “Every person has a fundamental right to health care, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much they earn.”
Louisiana sought to cut off Planned Parenthood following the release of videos in 2015 that purported to show Planned Parenthood staff discussing the sale of fetal tissue. Planned Parenthood has denied any wrongdoing.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented from Monday’s decision not to hear the case, saying that they believed the court did not get involved because the issue of abortion was at play.
“What explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood,’” Thomas wrote. He argued that the court should have taken up the case in order to resolve the question over whether an individual can challenge state decisions regarding Medicaid.
Four justices are needed to accept a case. The decision is the first on abortion to come before a more conservative Supreme Court with the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Medicaid is jointly funded by the state and federal government, and covers low-income people, pregnant women, and people with disabilities.
The challenge mirrors others occurring at the federal level. The Trump administration is considering cutting off abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, from family planning grants that pay for birth control, testing of sexually transmitted infections, and screenings.
In Louisiana, U.S. District Judge John deGravelles ordered the state to keep funding Planned Parenthood in 2015, and in 2016 a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit upheld that decision. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Kansas had upheld a lower ruling finding that Kansas was wrong to cut off funding from Planned Parenthood.
“We are pleased that lower court rulings protecting patients remain in place,” Planned Parenthood President Leana Wen said in a statement. “Every person has a fundamental right to health care, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much they earn.”
Louisiana sought to cut off Planned Parenthood following the release of videos in 2015 that purported to show Planned Parenthood staff discussing the sale of fetal tissue. Planned Parenthood has denied any wrongdoing.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented from Monday’s decision not to hear the case, saying that they believed the court did not get involved because the issue of abortion was at play.
“What explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood,’” Thomas wrote. He argued that the court should have taken up the case in order to resolve the question over whether an individual can challenge state decisions regarding Medicaid.
Four justices are needed to accept a case. The decision is the first on abortion to come before a more conservative Supreme Court with the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Medicaid is jointly funded by the state and federal government, and covers low-income people, pregnant women, and people with disabilities.
The challenge mirrors others occurring at the federal level. The Trump administration is considering cutting off abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, from family planning grants that pay for birth control, testing of sexually transmitted infections, and screenings.
Federal funds are banned from going toward abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, or if a woman’s pregnancy threatens her life, but the Medicaid program in 15 states pays for abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. (source, source)
The man said he supported abortion before.
Why is anybody surprised he is supporting it now?
Many people in the US believe strongly in the idea of “exceptions”, and that each person should be looked at as an individual. This is not a bad idea in the absolute sense, as one should evaluate each person based on what one knows, and that too often generalities can result in wrong assumptions.
However, one must also not forget that generalities are important and good because they are often times accurate, as they are based on collective patterns of behavior rooted in real fact. There is a reason why one associates certain characteristics with certain groups of people, because if one looks at a large body of said people, one will see these characteristics repeated among them with enough frequency to notice a pattern in said group as opposed to other groups.
For example, not all Americans look like the man below:
However, by comparison, one would be challenged to the limits of one’s capacity to find such a person in an equivalent cultural context in most other parts of the world, save maybe parts of the UK, Canada, or Australia.
The idea here is that for all of the claims about “individualism” and “no stereotypes,” the saying that “a tiger doesn’t change its stripes” is because most people remain consistent in their views. People can change and do (St. Paul in the Bible, for example), but this must be evidenced by a change in behavior and action. When St. Paul became a Christian, he did not still persist in following the old Jewish rites and rituals, but adopted those of the Faith as he genuinely converted and this is evidenced by his actions.
There should be no surprise with Kavanaugh. He supported abortion before, there is no change to say he stopped supporting abortion, so why would anything change now?