A Massachusetts federal district judge rejected last week a challenge to a state law requiring a 35-foot buffer zone around driveways and entrances of reproductive health care facilities.

In a Boston Globe article last February, Angus McQuilken, vice president of public affairs for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts is quoted saying: “For too long, patients and staff had to endure in-your-face screaming and harassment just to get to doctor’s appointments. This 35-foot zone is more than reasonable.”

In a 75-page opinion by U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro in McCullen v. Coakley (D MA, Aug. 22, 2008), the court rejected First Amendment, Equal Protection and Due Process challenges.

In denying the Free Speech claim, Judge Tauro wrote: “The Act does not regulate speech, expression, prayer, singing, worship or display of religious articles. It merely regulates where such expression may take place, i.e., outside of a clearly marked buffer zone during the normal business hours of an RHCF. The Act also applies to all non-exempt persons equally. As a result, this court is ‘bound to conclude that the regulation does not discriminate against a particular religion or religious practice.’ ”

In a different context, but same legal principle, the Supreme Court has said: “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability.’ ” Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

Thus, not withstanding my strong support for free speech rights, I would expect that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit would uphold the District Court’s decision should the plaintiffs appeal.

The New York Times provides a disturbing look at the state of legalized abortion in Mexico City.

When Mexico City’s government made abortion legal last year, it also set out to make it available to any woman who asked for one. That includes the city’s poorest, who for years resorted to illegal clinics and midwives as wealthy women visited private doctors willing to quietly end unwanted pregnancies…

Since the city’s legislature voted for the law in April 2007, some 85 percent of the gynecologists in the city’s public hospitals have declared themselves conscientious objectors. And women complain that even at those hospitals that perform abortions, staff members are often hostile, demeaning them and throwing up bureaucratic hurdles.

In other words, abortion was made legal, but actually having access to abortion, especially for poor women, could not be guaranteed in the face of so many health providers refusing to perform the procedure or refusing to treat patients with respect and dignity.

Women in the United States struggle with lack of access to abortion as well, even though the legality of the procedure is protected by the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling. And new regulations (in PDF) released by the Department of Health and Human Services (and previously discussed on this blog here) may make the situation worse. While the exact implications (particularly whether or not they will apply to pharmacists) are not yet entirely clear, the broad language of the regulations could lead to some unfortunate results, especially in areas of the United States where access to abortion and other family planning services is already limited. The regulations state, in essence, that a medical institution could lose federal funding if it discriminates against medical personnel that refuse to perform certain procedures due to religious or moral objections. While it certainly is true, as HHS states, that medical providers do not have an obligation to leave their personal beliefs aside in their work, on the other hand, I can see some disturbing possibilities in these regulations, including but not limited to:

- Would a family planning clinic be forced to tolerate the presence of a doctor that refused to perform essential services of the clinic, including abortion? Would a family planning clinic be forced to reckon with lawsuits from anti-choice doctors who were not hired for open positions because refusing to hire an anti-choice doctor would constitute discrimination?

-Would a family planning clinic be forced to tolerate the presence of other staff that refused to perform essential tasks of their job? What if the appointment scheduler refused to serve patients that called to make appointments for abortions?

-Do these new regulations protect pharmacists that refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or the morning after pill? Does it protect their ability to discriminate against some patients (for example, refusing to prescribe birth control to unmarried women) because of a supposed religious objection?

-Just how broad will the enshrined right to refuse to provide medical services be? While the California Supreme Court recently held that medical providers in California cannot discriminate against LGBT patients on religious grounds, it appears to me that these HHS regulations might open the door to discrimination of this nature. Does this mean that medical providers in California complying with state law would run afoul of federal HHS regulation?

There are many more unanswered questions with these new rules (which, by the way, have entered their 30 day public comment period; see the above link to the regulations for instructions on how to submit comments). While freedom of conscience for medical providers is important, access for patients to medical care and constitutionally guaranteed medical procedures is essential to maintain the health of society. It is already so difficult for women in many parts of the United States to access their right to safe and legal abortion; any additional obstacle will only hinder this access further. We must be careful as we proceed, or we risk ending up with a morass like that of Mexico City — a guaranteed right without protection of access, worth no more than the paper it is printed on.

Guest post from Intern Jesse:

While browsing in Kramerbooks, I decided to glance at Francis Collins’ The Language of God. I had heard that it was an interesting book trying to show how science and religion could coexist – Collins is a well-respected geneticist as well as a religious man. However, when I opened up to a random page, the first thing that I saw was this:

“Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual worldview provides another way of finding truth. Scientists who deny this would be well advised to consider the limits of their own tools…”

Collins’ point simply doesn’t follow. To say that there are limitations to science lends no credibility to spirituality’s ability to find truth. It would be like saying, “Space shuttles are not the only way to get into orbit around the Earth. Pogo sticks are another way. Engineers who deny this would be well advised to consider the limits of their shuttles.” Sure, shuttles have things they can’t do, but that does not mean pogo sticks can go into orbit.

But let’s not just make fun of the statement, let’s go deeper and examine the idea behind the claims. Sure, there limits to what science can tell us. It addresses the “hows” of the world, the physical laws and the positive truths. It can’t answer what our purpose is, how to treat each other, or what to eat for breakfast (I’m partial to Special K). But just because science can’t answer those questions doesn’t mean that spirituality can. It means that we don’t know the answers. Collins needs to present evidence to support his claim that spirituality is “another way of finding truth,” not just point to science’s limits.

And spirituality has not shown that it is another way of finding truth. Different people pray and ask God whether gays should be allowed to marry – and they get wildly different answers, although they profess to be absolutely certain to have learned the truth. The problem is that the word ‘truth’ implies a universal, objective fact that is independent of the observer. Religions try to provide those answers by appealing to divine authority – telling us that a particular way of life is best because God says so. But it is our perspective that gives things value. A painting is beautiful if we find beauty in it, not because there is something inherently beautiful about it. And a life is meaningful if we find meaning in it. We must recognize that there is not an overarching ‘truth’ to be discovered, and that it is up to us as a society and as individuals to decide how to treat each other, how to live our lives, and what to do for breakfast.

“A descendant of mine other than a child of mine who marries outside the Jewish faith (unless the spouse of such descendant has converted or converts within one year of the marriage to the Jewish faith) and his or her descendants shall be deemed to be deceased for all purposes of this instrument as of the date of such marriage.”

The wording above has created a bit of controversy in Illinois. Max Feinberg, who died in 1986, stipulated in his will that any of his grandchildren who married outside of Judaism would be considered dead for the purposes of his will. The Illinois Supreme Court may now get involved after an state appeals court (read the full ruling here in PDF) ruled that the above clause is invalid. The appeals court cited previous Illinois case law which invalidates any provision that “acts as a restraint upon marriage or … encourages divorce.” The wording is from an 1898 Illinois Supreme Court case, and the majority decision in that case cited other cases in which an Illinois court invalidated a provision in a will that had to do with the heir’s marriage.

At first blush, this decision seems to fly in the face of the idea that a person can dispose of his or her money as he or she see fit. One of the deciding judges admitted that she saw honoring the will as a way that would “open a door toward bigotry”. I hate to say it, but that door has been pretty wide open for a long time, even in the cases of wills, though it’s just usually not stated in this manner. How many LGBT people have been disowned? Or people who married outside their race? Or even married a Jewish partner? Are these wills illegal and should they be?

Does the State’s desire to protect marriage outweigh a person’s write to plan their estate as they choose? Does preventing bigotry outweigh the individuals right to bestow money as they choose at the time of their death? This case really highlights these difficult issues. This is an important question for Humanists to consider. Is freedom from bigotry more important than individual rights? Or is the case of a will somehow different from the everyday freedoms we hope to enjoy?

The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the California Supreme Court ruled doctors cannot withhold care to gays and lesbians based on their religious beliefs. The case concerned a lesbian couple that was denied fertility treatment by Christian doctors. The court ruled that California’s civil rights law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation extends to medical care, and that doctors must not deny a procedure to some that they offer to others.

I think this ruling strikes a good balance between the right of doctors to practice medicine in a way that doesn’t violate their faith and the right of patients to receive medical care indiscriminate of their sexuality. The ruling does not dictate that doctors must perform any procedure they find incongruent with their faith, only that if they do offer a procedure they must do so for everyone.

Think of it this way, using race instead of sexuality: it’s the difference between refusing to artificially inseminate anyone because of religion as opposed to refusing to artificially inseminate a particular person just because they’re black. At that point I don’t think your religion should protect you anymore.

The New York Times reports on new projections from the US Census Bureau:

The census calculates that by 2042, Americans who identify themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander will together outnumber non-Hispanic whites. Four years ago, officials had projected the shift would come in 2050.

This has already occurred in several states (including Texas, and my home state of California).

This news will predictably bring out the usual litany of racists and anti-immigrant types that think the door should have been shut just after their ancestors arrived here. It is a good time, however, for all of us to reflect on what kind of America we would like to see in the future. This topic is positively crying out for input from humanists.

Humanist Manifesto III provides a good starting point:

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

After all, America’s diverse cultures represent a variety of religious and ethical viewpoints. We’ll never reach any kind of consensus over religion. But what better way to encourage national cohesion than to create an atmosphere of mutual respect, equal protection, and civic engagement?

As America’s population becomes more culturally and religiously diverse, the unfortunate perpetuation of the myth that the United States was founded as a Christian nation will sound more and more exclusionary. And the need for humanists to promote their shared values – values that are not exclusive but rather focus on building a just and equitable society that respects diversity and prevents the entanglement of church and state – will be more crucial than ever.

One of the most interesting articles in the news this week came from the Deseret News, a Salt Lake City-based newspaper that, obviously due to its location, covers a lot of Mormon-related issues. After all, 62 percent of Utahians are Latter-Day Saints, according to a 2004 study.

So it seems natural to weigh in on the LDS’ reaction to the recent U.S. Tenth Circuit court case filed by American Atheists against the display Latin crosses on Utah Highways, of which the Appignani Humanist Legal Center, the legal arm of the American Humanist Association, filed a friend-of-the-court brief. Especially after learning that Mormons never display the symbol of the cross–not on their churches, or books, or clothing, or around their neck on a chain.

Robert A. Rees, former editor of the LDS publication Dialogue, has this to say:

He said there are “no good reasons” why Mormons could not make the cross more central to their religious experience and that rejecting the cross is “illogical and unnecessary.”

“Mormonism has no single identifying symbol.” Rees said. “Where is our Mormon Star of David?”

He stressed the absence of the cross is one of the “very large stumbling blocks” why other Christian churches consider Mormons non-Christian. Mormons aren’t even neutral about the cross, as church beliefs seem to identify it as a symbol of the apostasy. Some songs in the LDS hymn book refer to the cross and that’s the only way the symbol is openly celebrated, Rees noted.

He said the cross symbol has been found in Crete — dating from 1500 B.C. Mesoamerica also has included some symbols of the cross. Rees’ research revealed that many early LDS members had Puritan roots and Puritans swayed away from religious symbols.

He said the Encyclopedia of Mormonism states that Mormons prefer the good news of the resurrection and choose not to dwell on his death, but the living Jesus Christ.

Rees also quoted the late President Gordon B. Hinckley in the April 2005 Ensign Magazine, where he said: “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”

But times may be a’changing, as Rees stated, “I’d like church members to rethink the cross as a negative symbol. It can challenge us to reexamine the beauty of God.”

I’m doubtful that the LDS church will be in any rush to join our friend-of-the-court brief in this case. But Rees makes some interesting points on how the cross can be viewed differently by other Christian religions. It’ll be up to the court to decide if such a religious symbol on public property violates the First Amendment.

Michael Leavitt, secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services, responded on his blog to concerns that a proposed HHS regulation would surreptitiously redefine abortion to include a variety of contraceptives, such as birth control pills, the morning after pill and the IUD. He claims:

An early draft of the regulations found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review. It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true.

This statement, however, has failed to reassure pro-choice organizations. As quoted in the LA Times, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Cecile Richards, said:

“Secretary Leavitt’s vague comments on the draft HHS rule do nothing to reassure Americans that the administration is not considering redefining abortion to include forms of contraception, thereby jeopardizing women’s access to basic healthcare.”

The regulation in question is allegedly intended to protect the religious freedom of health care workers. It would deny federal funding to any medical institution that did not accommodate the beliefs of employees by allowing them to decline to perform any medical treatments or work (including dispensing prescriptions) to which they morally object. Included in an earlier draft of the regulations was a redefinition of abortion that would have included a lot of contraceptives, including birth control pills and IUDs. Now it appears that the Bush administration is backtracking on this aspect of it.

But even without this redefinition of abortion included (assuming that it ultimately isn’t), pro-choice groups still object to other provisions of the proposed regulations. As Reuters reports:

The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association said it was concerned the proposed regulation would target 37 state laws.

“These laws mandate the availability of EC (emergency contraception) in emergency rooms, bar pharmacies from flatly refusing to fill prescriptions and mandate coverage of contraception when other prescriptions are covered,” the group said in a statement.

The organization goes on to state:

“Given that at least 17.5 million women in America are in need of publicly funded contraceptive services … we believe the department should be working to increase access to these crucial health care services, rather than working to limit them.”

On this day, 63 years ago, warfare on planet Earth changed forever.

EyeWitness to History provides us with a firsthand account of the devastation of Hiroshima from a doctor living a mile from the epicenter of the explosion:

Suddenly, a strong flash of light startled me – and then another. So well does one recall little things that I remember vividly how a stone lantern in the garden became brilliantly lit and I debated whether this light was caused by a magnesium flare or sparks from a passing trolley.

Later in the account he describes a scene of horror:

There were the shadowy forms of people, some of whom looked like walking ghosts. Others moved as though in pain, like scarecrows, their arms held out from their bodies with forearms and hands dangling. These people puzzled me until I suddenly realized that they had been burned and were holding their arms out to prevent the painful friction of raw surfaces rubbing together. A naked woman carrying a naked baby came into view. I averted my gaze. Perhaps they had been in the bath. But then I saw a naked man, and it occurred to me that, like myself, some strange thing had deprived them of their clothes. An old woman lay near me with an expression of suffering on her face; but she made no sound. Indeed, one thing was common to everyone I saw – complete silence.

Today the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be commemorated all over the world. As the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons reminds us, 26,000 nuclear weapons still exist in the world today, and the potential for another Hiroshima or Nagasaki is never removed until every last one is dismantled.

When activists cross the line into extremism, the border between causes becomes blurry.

Two firebombs targeting UC Santa Cruz biologists appear to mark an escalation in violence by militant opponents to animal research, a transition from threats and harassment to acts of terrorism and attempted homicide, authorities said Monday.

The San Francisco Chronicle goes on to report:

Early Saturday, and just minutes apart, firebombs destroyed a car outside the campus home of one researcher and torched the front door of another, who had to flee with his wife and two young children by lowering a ladder out a second-story window. A third researcher received a threatening telephone message around the same time, police said.

The article notes this as a new wave of violence and intimidation targeting scientists that use animals for some of their research. In fact, fliers publicizing the names and home addresses of UC Santa Cruz researchers alleged to be testing on animals had appeared in the city of Santa Cruz prior to the attacks.

Now, if some of this sounds familiar, it is because we have seen these types of tactics before. The National Abortion Federation notes in its History of Clinic Violence:

What began as peaceful protests with picketing moved to harassing clinic staff and patients as they entered clinics…This foundation of harassment led to violence with the first reported clinic arson in 1976 and a series of bombings in 1978. Arsons and bombings have continued until this day.

And, in fact, anti-abortion extremists have long published the names and home addresses of abortion clinic workers, such as in the infamous Nuremberg Files.

The causes might be different, but fanaticism brings the methods closer and closer together. And along the way, the message of the fanatics is lost in the hatred and the fire, until only the violence remains.

In the meantime, the rest of us can continue to work to create a society safe and free from fanaticism, governed by reason, and respectful of science.