Virginia Jews and Their Differing Views on Abortion – Don’t Ask Public Radio

by James C. Sherlock

Another day, and more intentionally misleading headlines in Virginia. This one from Radio IQ, written by Sandy Hausman.

Jewish community leaders will fight attempts to restrict abortion in Virginia

From the text.

Delegate Eileen Filler-Corn, the only Jewish woman in the General Assembly, organized an online gathering to discuss her religion’s view of abortion and of efforts by Governor Youngkin and his political allies to further restrict access. (emphasis added.)

Falls Church Rabbi Amy Schwartzman said amen.

“It is truly an outrage that women are being stripped of their fundamental right to make essential healthcare decisions free of governmental interference. Pregnant individuals must be able to make ethical decisions based on their own beliefs and medical best interests without government officials imposing their personal religious views on others,” she asserted. “It is devastating to hear our governor has aligned himself with the court’s religious authoritarians in denying freedom of religion for not only the Jewish community but for all of those whose beliefs allow pregnant individuals their full rights.”  (emphasis added.)

Rabbi Schwartzman leads a reform Jewish congregation. An official definition of Reform Judaism:

Reform Judaism maintains faith in the Covenant between God and Israel as expressed over the generations in the teachings of an ever-evolving Torah and tradition. (Emphasis added.)

Filler-Corn and Schwartzman believe what they believe, have a constitutional right to do so, and I wish both women well.

The issue is that there is not a word in the article about the views of other Jews, those who are members of conservative and orthodox Virginia congregations.

The omission misleads.

Virginia’s Jewish community is about 1% of the population of the state, so the average reader will see that headline and deduce that our Jewish citizens favor unrestricted abortion.

Some do. Reform Jews may. Some don’t. Conservative Judaism does not. Orthodox Jewish communities do not. Jewish religious tradition does not.

See the tracing of the Conservative/Orthodox religious view of abortion here. The summary offered:

Under normal circumstances it is forbidden to take the life of an unborn child, and it may be akin to murder (depending on the stage of pregnancy and birth).

As long as the unborn remains a fetus, it does not have a status of personhood equal to its mother, and therefore may be sacrificed to save the life of the mother.

In any case where abortion may be necessary, it is of paramount importance to consult halachic and medical experts as soon as possible.

Life of the mother. Certainly an exception supported by virtually all, and certainly by the Governor.

So Ms. Hausman has offered Rep. Filler-Corn’s and Rabbi Schwartzman’s views as the views of the entire Jewish religion. That is not true, and certainly both of those women know it. But they did not write the article. Ms. Hausman did.

Unfortunately, one-sided opinions presented as news represents the state of the practice by many reporters.

They should, but won’t, stick to the editorial/op-ed pages.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

50 responses to “Virginia Jews and Their Differing Views on Abortion – Don’t Ask Public Radio”

  1. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    Once again, Sherlock has ventured upon thin ice to assert his view of others. Nothing said by Filer-Corn and the rabbi are contradicted by the quote describing another sect of Judaism:

    “As long as the unborn remains a fetus, it does not have a status of personhood equal to its mother, and therefore may be sacrificed to save the life of the mother.”

    His foray into the numbers game of the Jewish population in Virginia only exposes his biases. Protestant sects as Jewish ones have differing views on abortion. The personhood distinction from life at conception in determining the content of laws on the subject are crucial. And, yes as another commenter has noted freedom from religion is also essential to the First Amendment.

    Brain death is accepted both medically and ethically to terminate life saving measures. Brain life which medical research indicates occurs at six months offers a criterion for compromise to accept a personhood standard.

    Sherlock can believe what he thinks he interprets of the views of others but not place himself in the position of the one-sided opinions he attempts to decry.

    1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      And all those differing views could have and would have been taken into account had the United States enacted federal legislation just like most other major nations. But we believe in emanations and penumbras.

      Congress needs to do its job.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Congress has no more legal basis to either ban or authorize abortions than SCOTUS did, unless it starts by amending the Constitution to create some basis. No way that’s getting approved by enough state legislatures.

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          I don’t buy that. The Dobbs decision didn’t ban abortion. It reversed the Roe decision that abortion was a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Many laws are enacted in reference to areas not covered by the Constitution.

          You assume the US Supreme Court would strike down a national abortion law. I see no basis in that belief.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Congress has no more legal basis to either ban or authorize abortions than SCOTUS did, unless it starts by amending the Constitution to create some basis. No way that’s getting approved by enough state legislatures.

      3. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Another option would have been for the Court to simply let the precedent stand. There was no compelling reason to overturn Roe other than judicial arrogance toward precedent. Having offered in Senate testimony that seemed to preserve precedent and Roe, a conscious decision was made to assert judicial power not restraint.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          As in the original Roe decision. This court found it to be wrongly decided. Vote early and often.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            And that conclusion rested upon thin historical precedents similar to those in Heller. All “found” by justices who seemed to pledge fealty to judicial precedent.

        2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          Roe was overturned because it was wrongly decided and unsupportable. The late Justice RBG would have told you that. What is your recommended standard (rule of law) that should determine when a poorly decided case should be overturned and when it should not? It strikes me that your argument is “Heads, I win; tails, you lose.”

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Justice Ginsburg did say that, however just last week he indicated she “may only be legally credible. Clearly indicating he believe he has more legal prowess than the late Justice.

            “James McCarthy • 8 days ago
            While RBG’s critique may be legally credible, it in no way matches Justice Alito’s meander through history to conclude Roe was wrongly concluded. The 50 year precedent could have been sustained. The dissembling, at least misleading, Senate testimony by members of the new majority clearly reflects the politicization of the Court. Once a decision is rendered and endures tests over a half century, its alleged political cast is virtually diminished. Time May tell whether Justice Alito wrongly concluded.”

            From his comments it’s clear that unless the answer is derived from his opinion, it’s wrong.

  2. Fred Costello Avatar
    Fred Costello

    An option that is never mentioned when the mother’s life is in danger: Try to save both lives. With this option, the direct killing of one is avoided.

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      You have to reach viability before that is an option. This discussion has been focused on time before that point.

  3. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    Unfortunately, one-sided opinions presented as news represents the state of the practice by many reporters. They should, but won’t, stick to the editorial/op-ed pages.

    Last year NPR instituted policy that explicitly allows reporters to advocate on issues in their reporting. Since then it is naive to expect anything else from public broadcasting. It ain’t the news anymore. Although they did announce the policy, it would be more honest if the propaganda came with a label, but that might make it less effective.

    The wonderful part is that we all get to pay for that whether we agree with the reporter’s opinion or not.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Other than not adverting to possible differences among Jewish sects, the complained of “one-sided” seems far too inclusive. The reference to “her religion” in Filer-Corn’s online gathering cannot be said to be universally exclusive. Methinks Sherlock focused on a red herring as a clue in the mystery.

      Also, we should not hold every reporter to the standard of journalist. If what was reported is accurate, where’s the beef with the reporter? If it serves some nit pick, attack the speaker of the statement.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Nice deduction Watson, and it’s sorta his M.O. He thought he saw something shiny.:)

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Yeah, as I have learned. Criticisms get buried in straw man responses and a tumble of words. A keyboard from hell.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Powered by an unguided muscle.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            I was about to rent Elmer Gantry to view when I realized how much the character reminded me of Sherlock. I need more distance from hucksterism to enjoy the flick.

  4. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    Perhaps it has to do with our freedom FROM religious dictates in our public life. It is a cornerstone of our Republic.

    Many of the religious kooks who founded our country were fleeing from persecution by state sponsored religions. They did not want that replicated here.

    We are guaranteed free exercise of religion. Like other rights that has limits where it bumps up against the exercise of the rights of others. One place where that happens is when religious beliefs favor choice or life. Our laws are secular, religious tests do not apply.

  5. For what it’s worth, this Pew Research Center poll finds that 83% of Jews say abortion should be legal in “all/most” cases, while 15% say it should be illegal. Seems clear that most Jews support the women’s right to abortion… but that the sentiment is far from unanimous.

    But Sherlock’s larger point stands. This is really a story about VPM implying that all Jews agree.

    For what it’s worth, I question the binary nature of the poll, either for or against. It allows for no subtlety or nuance in views. I think of how I would respond. As an atheist, I support the women’s right to choose… until the fetus achieves personhood, the definition of which could be debated endlessly. I could answer the poll by saying I believe making abortion legal in “all/most cases,” which I do, while still supporting Youngkin’s 20-week limit on abortions in Virginia. I’d bet a significant number of Jews feel the same way I do.)

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Then, Sherlock should focus his complaint about VPM without asserting some intimate knowledge of Judaism and its various sects. Youngkin’s views are truly not material since they are politicized and now speaking to potential national aspirations. A recent poll of Catholic laity indicated 67% favored retention of Roe versus the Church’s hierarchy. While the Dobbs decision strongly suggests a theological principle about life at conception, the voting populations among Jews and Catholics are not confidently on board with life at conception.

      1. Joan van Avatar
        Joan van

        Please cite the poll.

      2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Thanks as usual, James. I asked only for balanced reporting, but then you know that. BTW, our son, his wife and their two kids are practicing Jews. Hebrew school was a godsend during COVID. Never closed to in-person instruction. I may have written on that subject as well.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Nah, that’s not what your peroration concerns or suggests. BTW, I count Black friends among mine. No assertion was made of your religious biases only your attempt to denigrate those beliefs expressed by others as suspect. You persist in being closed to criticism without acknowledging possible error. Pass along your apology to Ms. Munson to JAB for forwarding to her.

          1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Was it my writing of “Filler-Corn and Schwartzman believe what they believe, have a constitutional right to do so, and I wish both women well.” that put you on the scent of my denigrating of the beliefs of others?

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            No, it was your misleading attempt to demonstrate your straw man.

          3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Denigrate the beliefs of others? Point to such denigration in the article above. I point out what she did not report.

            I often denigrate the actions of others. Like the woman who wrote the article. All journalists do. So do you.

            But I welcome all to believe what they wish.

            You really do live inside your own head.. It’s nice out. Get out of the house and enjoy.

          4. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Not reporting a piece of information hardly constitutes one-sided opinion. Citing some apparent and non-existent distinctions among Jewish sects while criticizing some who alluded to them is the picture you painted. I am sitting on my deck enjoying the Sun. Let some light into your dark channels. Post your apology to Ms. Munson for all to see.

          5. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            “non-existent distinctions among Jewish sects”? You are the gift that keeps on giving.

            BTW, do we have to capitalize “sun” now? It is truly hard to keep up.

            Finally, readers want to know. Are you Mr. Munson?

          6. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Ah, not a nik or a pick passes your attention. Do I recall a comment yesterday where you statedI”I define” instead of decline? I knew it could not be a mistake emanating from your rectitude and perfection. It’s understandable that you are not pleased with my gift offerings as your bully uplift has not been heartily challenged. Ms. Munson was polite enough to attempt to correct your characterization of her and her opinion. Crickets on your end is more than poor sport, eh, chap?

          7. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            I saved the best for last. Did you really just write that some of your friends are Black? Thanks for that. Me too.

            That tees up the question – Does the color of their skin signify their position on anything?

            Do you ever ask them their positions on any of progressive dogma?

            Do they all support abortion on demand at any stage of gestation? Do they support transgender activism in kindergarten? Do they insist on informing you of their preferred pronouns? Do they support the chaos in Virginia’s inner city schools? Will they support keeping gang members in schools with their children? Are they marching in front of Supreme Court justices’ homes? Do they support no jail time for those who commit violence near or in their homes? Do they oppose attempts by Virginia Republicans to establish Health Enterprise Zones in the poorest neighborhoods? Do they own personal fire arms?

            I could go on. But skin color does not signify political beliefs. Neither does religion.

            Which was the point of this article.

            If you had read it.

          8. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Your assertion of personal involvement with Jewish family members prompted my aside about Black friends. Your personal relations add no weight to your opinions. Why you shared is your business.

            The straw man questions you pose are not relevant to the primary discussion but further reveal your usual deflection tactic.

            Yes, you could go on speculating what my beliefs may be. As I noted in a previous reply, you can slick some of the people some of the time.

            The point of your article, like JAB’s characterization, appeared to be about the implications of the reporter’s story. You determined that you were experienced enough to instruct readers on the distinctions among Jewish sects on abortion.

            Ms. Munson, I fear, must live with the innuendo you rained upon her.

    2. CJBova Avatar

      71% of those in the Pew Survey were Democrats. That would tend to influence the responses. Also, there was no option for secular Jews, who would tend to be less traditional in outlook (if not overtly non-religious) and likely to respond as being liberal.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Secularism and religious beliefs are not mutually exclusive nor inclusive. Polls are directional not definitional. Your inference about the Dem cohort cannot be deemed to conclude any influence on the results.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          Deep.

          1. Ken Reid Avatar
            Ken Reid

            There is a schism among American Jews over politics much less the abortion issue. Orthodox Jews (of which I am one) follow “halacha” (the law) on what is permitted as far as abortion. It’s rabbinical, not medical, so there are exceptions to save the life of the mother , etc. Liberal Jews like Schwartzmann and Eileen (who attends a Reform synagogue) do not follow halacha, and a number of Conservative (big C) Jews, which at one time was the largest movement in Judaism in the US, also do not follow halacha to the T. some 75% of Jews define themselves as liberal and Democrat; the rest are Orthodox or Conservative and vote GOP and as such are more pro life than pro choice. Bingo! THe more religious you are, the more conservative you are. The lay press doesnt know this so they clump Jews in one category like they do with African Americans and Latinos. and, we all know the media is liberal and is looking for any story it can get its hands on to show that the Dobbs decision is the most evil act of the Supreme Court ever. In my view, and that of Ben Shapiro, who has an excellent video of this issue on YouTube, most American Jews are liberals first and Jews 2nd or 3d; liberalism as Norman Podhoretz wrote in the book “Why are Jews Liberal?” is the religion of most American Jews.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Some truth here. Whatever religious persuasion one associates to is likely, not definitely, to be pro-life as the Pew research indicates about Catholics. I’m not sure were I Jewish that I would look to Shapiro or Podhoretz as either religious or political experts.

          3. JayCee Avatar

            There is no direct reference in the Hebrew Bible to an intentional termination of pregnancy. However, Numbers 5:11–31 refers to the Ordeal of the bitter water, which has been interpreted by some biblical commentators as an ordeal that produces a miscarriage in an unfaithful wife, thus verifying or falsifying a charge of adultery. Further, Exodus 21:22–23 refers to a birth or miscarriage as a result of a violent altercation where a pregnant woman is injured, either intentionally or unintentionally, causing her to either give birth prematurely or to miscarry, and reads: “And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart (i.e., stillbirth), and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.”

            The ancient Jewish historian Philo taught that the term “harm” refers exclusively to the child, and whether a fine is imposed or capital punishment depends on whether the fetus has sufficiently formed.[1] According to Rashi and other Talmudic commentators, the term “harm” refers only to the mother, and traditionally, unless the mother was harmed too, only a fine was imposed for causing a miscarriage.[1]

            In mainstream rabbinic Judaism, the Biblical passage is one of several key texts that substantiate the later rabbinic prohibition on most cases of abortion. However, others have argued that abortion is not considered murder and that “Jewish law does not consider a fetus to be alive.” To support such a view, it is suggested that this verse shows “that the fetus is not a person. The primary concern is the well-being of the person who was injured.”[2]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion

          4. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Just the facts, ma’am.

  6. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    The double effect principle versus consequentialism. I remember that debate from philosophy class at VT. A riddle that may never be solved. Modern medicine has reduced the number of times this can be debated to a mere fraction of what once was.

  7. John Harvie Avatar
    John Harvie

    “Virginia’s Jewish community is about 1% of the population of the state…” Where is this from?

    Surprising in view of the large numbers of new residents from northern and western states especially to NOVA working for the Fed Govt. Suspect 1% now too low.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      It’s irrelevant to the discussion.

    2. Ken Reid Avatar
      Ken Reid

      1% is about accurate. We’re only about 1.6 percent of the US population.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Thus, only about 86,000 Virginians would be affected. Some might think that a small price to pay for compromising religious beliefs. Quelle dommage.

        1. Ken Reid Avatar
          Ken Reid

          i erred. in Va. it’s 1.8 percent, or 150,000 — most in Nova https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/virginia-population

  8. JayCee Avatar

    Who the hell does Eileen Filler-Corn think she is? She does not speak for the jewish community. Most jews I know abhor murder. The ten commandments are sacred as is human life.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Well, she is Jewish which provides some insight.

      1. JayCee Avatar

        Barely. She is an embarrassment to many Jews.

Leave a Reply