Abortion, self-defense, slavery and the well-formed conscience

The sections dealing with abortion in the Roman Catholic catechism provide no exceptions allowing abortion, even in cases where the pregnancy threatens the mother with imminent death, and even in cases of rape or incest. But do other chapters provide exceptions? Perhaps. But such exceptions as might be provided in the chapters on conscience and self-defense, are narrow.

So, can a woman ever be justified in taking the life of her unborn child? (Note: we are discussing morality here; not “law.”).

On this matter, the Church’s catechism provides useful “guidance” to both those who’d say, “Yes,” and those who’d say, “No!”

I use the word “guidance” carefully. In the last instance, the catechism provides rules to guide the formation of the “well-formed” conscience. Why? Because ultimately every human must act in conformity with his/her own “well-formed” conscience — especially in grave or blood matters. On issues such as “conscience,” that catechism embodies the best analysis of popes, churchman, and theologians over the course of 2000 years, as well as scriptures.

The Catechism teaches that “conscience” requires every person to discern whether his proposed course of conduct will be good or evil. That judgment takes account of all relevant circumstances surrounding his/her act. It requires the person to utilize the means available, under the exigencies of the circumstances, to make an informed judgment. Once that effort has been made, the person must always obey the certain judgment of his/ her own conscience — regardless of what others may say.

"Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself, but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths. (§1776)

In addition to its teachings on conscience, the catechism also gives guidance on the issue of self-defense.

Under the secular principle of self-defense, a woman can do what is both reasonable and necessary to avoid the immediate threat of death or great bodily harm to herself. This principle of self-defense has been recognized in all societies from time immemorial and finds cautious support in the Church’s catechism.

“Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow. … Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.” §2264.

But can one incapable of “intending,” be an “aggressor?” Theologians have argued that issue through the millennia. Can a woman act in self-defense against the “unintended” acts of a fetus where there is a high probability that that pregnancy will cause her death? Few would deny her the right to use deadly force in self-defense to preserve her own life from death at the hands of a totally insane killer — a person incapable of intending to kill her, or even knowing what he is about to do. Is she not “bound to take more care of her own life? Is this not truly the realm of conscience?

Then there are sections on rape and slavery. Where conception occurs from rape or incest, because the crime does not end with penile withdrawal where pregnancy results, it is certainly arguable that the woman can defend herself and do what is reasonable and necessary to end the rape, forced pregnancy and enslavement. The Church recognizes that rape/incest “causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act.“ (§2356)

“§2414. The seventh commandment forbids … the enslavement of human beings … It is a sin … against … fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to [slavery].”

The sections on abortion, rape and slavery provide no remedies; but must be read together with those on conscience and self-defense.

The choice to act in self-defense, in the face of immediate death or great bodily harm, is the gravest choice that any woman can ever called upon to make. Especially here, she “must obey” her well-formed conscience. The catechism teaches, that conscience that “ever calls her to love,” permits the woman to love” her own life more, than that of her would-be killer [§2264). If she has done her best, under the circumstances, to fully inform her conscience, the Church teaches she is not culpable even if her judgment of conscience is wrong.

“If the ignorance is invincible, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to the person.” §1793.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 12, 2022 

Why does the Catholic Church condemn abortion?

Knowing the stance of the Catholic Church on abortion, why would anybody contemplating an abortion, consult its catechism? Where else can you find a succinct distillation of 2000 years of Christian moral teachings?

Most people who are pro-abortion, and, indeed, most people who are anti-abortion have never taken time to ponder the underpinnings of the Church’s teachings concerning abortion. But are its teachings today, consistent with those of the early church?

The Didache, generally thought to have been written in the late 1st Century, has been described as the oldest extant Christian catechism. It begins by teaching that “There are two ways, one of life and one of death.” In its second chapter, it condemns abortions: “thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born.”

Tertullian (c. 155 - 220 a.d.) in the 8th chapter of his Apology for Christians wrote,

“But Christians now are so far from homicide, that with them it is utterly unlawful to make away a child in the womb, when nature is in deliberation about the man; for to kill a child before it is born is to commit murder by way of advance; and there is no difference whether you destroy a child in its formation, or after it is formed and delivered. We Christians look upon him as a man, who is one in embryo; for he is in being, like the fruit in blossom, and in a little time would have been a perfect man, had nature met with no disturbance.”


On such texts, the church teaches: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.” “Abortion willed — either as an end or a means — is gravely contrary to the moral law.”

The church find support in its teachings in the Prophet Jeremiah, quoting God as saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you.”

And in Isaiah, “Before birth the Lord called me, from my mother’s womb he gave me my name …

“Can a mother forget her infant, be without tenderness for the child of her womb? Even should she forget, I will never forget you.”

Based on such passages, the church teaches 

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being, to life.”

From there, the Church goes on to teach, 

“The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.

“These human rights depend neither on single individuals, nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin."

Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.

The fundamental question here is not whether you agree with this op-ed. Nor whether you are a member of the Catholic Church. Nor even whether you agree with the catechism of the Church.

The fundamental question is whether, The church is right or wrong when it teaches that abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. And given the “irreparable harm done” to the innocent fetus-embryo-child “who is put to death,” whether “abortion is grave matter” and mortal sin.

And is the church correct when it teaches, “The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined.”

In a few days the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether abortion remains a Constitution right — a legal question. Whatever its decision, the moral question still remains.

But if the “abortion” chapter of the catechism provides no exceptions, does it do so elsewhere?

See my next op ed.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 5, 2022

Abortion, infallibility and the 'safer course'

Are you infallible?

Are you infallible in your belief that the child in the mother’s womb who is about to be killed is not a human being?

As I watch and listen to the protests, and to the assuredness of the pro-abortion press, my thoughts recur to Blaise Pascal’s “Wager.”

Pascal was a French philosopher and theologian, as well as a famous mathematician and physicist. Today, he is perhaps best known for “Pascal’s Wager.” Pascal argues that all human beings wager, by the way they live their lives, that God exists, or doesn’t exist.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live his life as though God exists. If you do, you will incur, at worst, a finite loss. You will deprive yourself only of one or more of the fruits of the deadly sins: illicit sex, ill-gotten gain, or worldly power.

If, on the other hand, God does exist, you stand to receive the joys of eternal life if you have led a life pleasing to God, or eternal damnation if you have lived a life that displeases.

So, as you take your pro-abortion stand, would you not be wise to ask yourselves the following questions?

Is there a God?

If so, does he reward good and punish evil? Forbid us to kill? Command us to “Love one another?” Tell us that human beings are created in his image and likeness?

If so, at what point does God think that the embryo-fetus-child, is a human being? If at conception, what is your liability if you kill it? If at 15 weeks, what is your liability if you kill it?

If God exists, what if God believes that killing the embryo-fetus-child is murder, even if you don’t?

I have always known that I am not infallible. While I do not know the precise instant when God considers the embryo-fetus-child to be fully human, I choose to wager that there is a God. For that reason, and because I believe he has said, “Thou shall not kill,” and commanded that we shall “Love one another,” I believe abortion to be a moral wrong. In that, I think I am not unlike Abe Lincoln who said that he believed “slavery to be a moral wrong.”

Am I infallible on the matter? No. Am I willing to risk an eternity in Hell for taking the innocent life of an unborn child, except in the gravest of circumstances? No.

I am, however, morally certain that the embryo-fetus-child is fully a human being the moment it can reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb — even if medical care is needed.

But I have also written before of the importance of act consistently with one’s own well-formed conscience. Given, however, what appear to be consistent divine and secular proscriptions against killing the innocent over the history of mankind, coupled with Christ’s command to love one another, the taking innocent life, but for the gravest of reasons, seems utterly inconsistent with acting consistently with a well-formed conscience. It you love your neighbor, can you kill him? Popes, theologians and catechists say, “Rarely, and only for the gravest of reasons.”

In the matter of taking human life, medieval popes, theologians and philosophers consistently counseled, as Pascal suggests, “take the safer course.”

In fire-arms safety training, you are taught that while you may truly believe you are killing in “self-defense,” your jury may think "murder.” When you abort a child believing you are justified, Pascal warns that you may be second-guessed by God.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 29, 2022

Free Speech in America. Whatever the Biden Administration Allows

 On April 27, 2022, President Biden’s Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Alejandro Mayorkas, told the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee that he had created a new “Disinformation Governance Board” (“DGB”) within DHS “focused on the spread of disinformation in minority communities ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.”

Joe Biden has decided he needs his own “Ministry of Truth,” if he is to have any hope in a particular “minority community” — the Hispanic community, where his approval rating has plummeted to 36%.

The idea is not new. Adolf Hitler had Joseph Goebbels as his “Minister of Propaganda.” Stalin had his Ministry of Truth. Putin has his today.

Biden’s original “Minister of Disinformation,” Press Secretary Jenn Psaki, has endorsed Mayorkas' rape of our First Amendment: "It sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation/misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities.”


Under our U.S. Constitution, Congress, presidents and judges have only those powers specifically granted to them by the Constitution. So, where does the Constitution say President Biden can establish “Disinformation Governance Board? A “Ministry of Truth?”

It doesn’t. And just to make doubly sure that it doesn’t, the First Amendment provides, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ..." 

That amendment has been interpreted by our Supreme Court as applying to Congress, the executive and the judiciary — even though it mentions only “Congress.” And at least since an 1857 Supreme Court decision, no creature of Congress or department of government has any power to do anything that Congress itself has no power to do.

 Even left-leaning Politico has expressed outrage at the Biden/Myorkas lurch toward censorship.

“Even President Barack Obama shortchanged the truth. Of 600 Obama statements PolitiFact checked during his administration, a quarter of them fell into the “red zone” of being false, mostly false, or “pants on fire” false.

“Not so long ago, 50 intelligence officials … assured the nation that the Hunter Biden laptop story bore “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” How did that work out?

“The idea that Covid could have come from a Chinese lab was similarly dismissed as disinformation; now it’s considered a legitimate possibility by the Biden administration.

“Meanwhile, we have documented proof (of Hunter Biden’s shenanigans) from The Washington Post that even Joe Biden can handle ….”

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) condemnation is scathing.

"The (DGB) amounts to a 'Department of Propaganda' from a government that appears fearful of its own citizens' free thoughts. …"

“This is the kind of thing that you see in dictatorships — this ‘Ministry of Truth,’ “They're afraid of the people. They're afraid that we might actually think for ourselves.”

Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis) has been no kinder.

“The Biden Administration has not proven itself to be a credible arbiter of ‘disinformation.’

“Instead, it has taken steps to silence information that is unflattering to this Administration under the guise of ‘disinformation.’

"For example, unnamed intelligence officials, the media, and social media platforms engaged in a coordinated effort to censor stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop and his questionable financial dealings under the false label of (Russian) ‘disinformation.’”

So, who exactly do the Democrats believe will engage in this “spread of disinformation in ‘minority communities’ ahead of the 2022 midterm elections?” Putin? Chairman Xi? Trump? Dastardly Republicans?

And why now? Desperation given Mr. Biden’s polling numbers? Fear of losing the House and Senate? Fear that Elon Musk means what he says about restoring free speech on Twitter?

That’s what Professor Johathan Turley believes:

“For years, the First Amendment distinction (government vs. non-government censorship) has been the focus of liberals who discovered a way to circumvent constitutional bans on censorship, by using companies like Twitter and Facebook.

Biden, Mayorkas and Psaki know that the “political” speech they are targeting, can’t be suppressed or cancelled, consistently with the First Amendment. But, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Over the life of our Republic, the Supreme Court has held that certain, narrowly-defined classes of speech are beyond the protection of First Amendment: obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, speech integral to criminal conduct, and speech that creates a clear and present danger.

Speech that hurts feeling (even if labeled "hate speech), misinformation, disinformation, erroneous speech and speech expressing disfavored views are all forms of protected speech (unless they are obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, etc). And opinions and/or beliefs never rise to the level of defamation or fraud.

In a free country, if you do not like my political opinions (or religious beliefs), your remedy is to refute them in the "marketplace of ideas." To rationally demonstrate by argument to your audience that your opinions are better than mine.

The totalitarian remedy is to shout down, "cancel,” and deny citizens the right to express political or religious opinions.

Freedom of speech, press and religion presuppose tolerance for the “objectionable” beliefs and opinions of others.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 22, 2022

Who Determines "Free Speech?"

Elon Musk has now bought control of Twitter. If Musk means what he says about free speech, the Biden administration will have lost a crucially important ally/henchman in its efforts to shut down any speech (political, medical and religious) that it disingenuously labels, “disinformation.”


There is a lawsuit afoot. Former President Trump has sued Twitter, alleging that he, and others, have been banished from Twitter. Trump alleges that Twitter is willfully participating “in joint activity with federal actors.”


Whether you like Donald Trump, or hate him, you had better pray to God that he wins. If he loses, your First Amendment right of “free speech” will be reduced to your “right to say what the government permits you to say.” The First Amendment will be reduced to ink on worthless paper.

To see the path on which Biden’s administration is taking us, consider this.


Host Mika Brzezinski interviewing Surgeon General Vivek Murthy on MSNBC, asked: "What do you think are the best ways to push back on misinformation about COVID that continue to be aggressively pushed, whether it be on Joe Rogan's podcast or all over Facebook?"


Had I been Murthy, I would have said, "We need to utilize the same media platforms, and carefully address what we believe to be misinformation, and explain to the American people why what we call misinformation is truly misinformation."


For any American who cares at all about our First Amendment "right of free speech," the remedy for real "misinformation" is "counter-speech;" not prior restraint, censorship, gagging.


Murthy knows that. Nevertheless, he reached for the traditional remedies of the Hitler/Stalin-types: prior restraint, censorship, gagging. Murthy wants Facebook, and Twitter, to do the government's dirty work for him. Look at Murthy's answer: “This not just about what the government can do. This is about companies ... recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation."


In a free country who gets to decide whether information is “disinformation?” The government? Giant social media platforms doing the government’s bidding?


Or do the citizens of a free country have the right to hear all sides of the issue, and then have the right to make their own decision as to which information is “accurate?”


Has anybody anywhere barred Murthy from appearing on CNN, FOX, NBC, Facebook, or Twitter to provide what he believes to be "accurate counter- information?" To rebut Rogan’s alleged "misinformation?"


Is the surgeon general, the sole arbiter of what is "accurate information?"


So, how does a "company like Facebook use the power it has "to limit the spread of so-called “misinformation?” Ask Donald Trump.


The gist of Trump’s lawsuit alleges: Twitter has increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, and willful participation in joint activity with federal actors.


Mr. Trump's suit is a class-action suit. It seeks to vindicate not only his rights, but the rights of others similarly situated.


President Biden and his henchmen, the likes of Vivik Murthy, know damn well that no branch of the U.S. government, has any right to impose prior restraint or censorship on the political or medical speech of any American, without first demonstrating to a court that a "clear and present danger” exists, which cannot be averted except by use of a prior restraint.


If the U.S. government, with experts like Dr. Fauci, can't win a Covid argument against the Joe Rogans of the world, then heaven help us in conflicts with China and Russia.


If, given Elon Musk, the Biden administration can no longer count on Twitter, et al, to do its bidding to shut down claimed “disinformation,” watch for the government try to do its own dirty work using the likes of Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas, and his Department of Homeland Security, with its new “Disinformation Governance Board,” run by its fruit-cake tzar, Nina Jancowicz.


In January of 1933 Adolph Hitler became the German Chancellor. On October 4, 1933, he decreed a new Reich Press Law. William L. Shirer describes its operation: "Section 14 of the Press Law ordered editors to 'keep out of the newspapers anything, which in any manner, is misleading to the public.'"

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 8, 2022

Running for Political Office in Illinois — a Cesspool of Lies and Character Assassination

Illinois politics has become a cesspool of lies. I posit that when politicians resort to lies, half-truths, innuendos and smear campaigns, elections become meaningless.

When voters are inundated with lies in campaign ads, reprinted in newspapers, and strewn across the radio and television, what chance does any voter have — Republican or Democrat — to vote for the best candidate?

Here’s an example: campaign ads are now airing for and against Richard Irvin, who has entered the Republican primary, as a Republican candidate for Governor.

Here is an excerpt from one of Irvin’s recent TV ads. [The bracketed materials, are print overlays across the audio/video portions of the ad].

“I went to Law School to become a “hands-on” prosecutor. Going on police raids. [“Prosecutor” “Back the Blue”] Taking back one street corner or apartment complex at a time. [Prosecutor” Took back the streets. Putting gang-bangers, drug dealers, and wife beaters [“Prosecutor” “Over 1000 Convictions”] in prison. I’ve seen it up close. “Defund the Police” is dumb, dangerous, and costs lives. And I believe that all lives matter. [“All lives matter”]. Every family should be safe. Running our second largest city, crime has come down since our police budget has gone up. I hired more cops each year.”

Now here’s the picture of the same candidate painted by the Democratic Governors Association.

“Richard Irvin’s real record on crime?

“For 15 years Irvin has been a defense lawyer profiting by defending some of the most violent and heinous criminals: Domestic abusers, and sexual assault. A kidnapper who molested a child. Reckless homicide. Even accused child pornographers.

“Irvin’s been getting rich by putting violent criminals back on the street.

“Tell Richard Irvin to stop pretending to be tough on crime, and start supporting policies that keep people safe.”

When I first saw Irvin’s campaign ad, I was immediately skeptical of Irvin’s claim that he had “Over 1000 convictions.” I suspected his “1000 convictions” were, in the main, pleas of guilty in minor traffic cases.

I was an aggressive young prosecutor for about 28 months, here in Rock Island County.

When I left office, I always said I had about 30 convictions in jury cases. I did not list among my “convictions," bench trial convictions, or convictions pursuant to pleas of guilty. And certainly not attending “motion hearings.”


On his Linkedin page, Irvin states: 

“Secured over 1000 criminal convictions. — Tried over 300 bench trials and motions, and 10 jury trials.

“10 jury trials” suggests 10 jury convictions. So, how many of the “300 bench trials and motions,” were mere “motion hearings?” Nobody has ever been convicted at a “motion hearing.”

How many of the “300” were serious cases, where the judge found the defendant “guilty” of a felony, or at least a Class A Misdemeanor?

But assume Irvin obtained convictions in 300 “bench trials” and 10 in jury trials. By my count, he is still 690 convictions short of 1000.

Is he enhancing his record by including among “his convictions,” cases where the defendant pled “guilty?” How many of those pleas were in speeding cases, or in cases involving other petty offenses? Indeed, of his “bench trial convictions,” how many were for “speeding?” Petty offenses?

In my opinion, no honest lawyer would ever include “motion hearings” when touting his record of “convictions.” No reasonable voter would ever imagine that an honest candidate touting his “tough on crime record,” would embellish his record of “convictions” by including pleas of guilty in minor cases

And if Irvin embellished his record as a prosecutor in this regard, are his other claims of “taking back streets” and “putting gang-bangers, drug dealers, and wife beaters in prison,” anywhere near the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Or is he grossly exaggerating his bona fides as a prosecutor?

But then, is the attack-ad against Irvin paid for by the Democratic Governors Association any less dishonest?

Is there really something wrong with an attorney acting as counsel for a defendant? Defending someone accused of kidnapping and molesting a child? Representing defendants accused of “heinous” crimes? Winning “not guilty” verdicts?

Is every person charged with a crime guilty? Presumed guilty?

And just how “rich” did Irvin get defending criminals? “Putting them back on the street?”


In my 26 years on the bench, I can’t recall even one local attorney “getting rich” defending alleged criminals. Most attorneys stayed clear of the criminal practice. All too often, [unless they were court-appointed], they got stiffed.

In my opinion, both of these ads are shameful, and intended to mislead the voters.


If a jury hears nothing but lies, half-truths, innuendos and character assassinations, reaching the correct verdict becomes a crap-shoot.


When politicians and their allies do battle in the cesspool of lies, half-truths, innuendos and character assassinations, elections become Russian roulette.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 1, 2022

What is a woman? What is our Constitution?

Do our U.S. Constitution and its amendments, especially the first 10 amendments that we call our "Bill of Rights," really protect our rights and our freedoms?

If you said, "Yes," you are terribly naive.

Our Constitution, as amended, is nothing more than parchment with words written on it. It can no more protect your rights and liberties than can a sheet of toilet paper.

The only thing that guarantees your rights and your liberties, is a commitment by all Americans to govern and live according to the words and meaning of our Constitution. Without that commitment and without consensus on that matter, your rights and liberties, and those of your children, will vanish like the last winter snows on a warm spring day.

Our Constitution was a great experiment. It was the first written Constitution.

Our founders realized it had to be "faithfully executed," if their liberties and those of their descendants were to be secure. To that end, the president, all U.S. senators and representatives, all governors, all members of the several state legislatures, all federal and state judges, before embarking upon their duties of office, take an oath to "support the Constitution" as the "Supreme law of the land."

But what does it mean to construe the Constitution and its amendments "according to its words and their meaning?"

Our Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument [the founders] have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted..."

And the court has warned, "Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day. This court was not created by the Constitution for such purposes."

Again, our Constitution today is nothing more than a piece of paper. It protects our liberties only to the extent that our president, Congress and court act to implement its words and meaning consistently with the intent of our founding fathers.

Consider the danger of a judge or judges ignoring the founders' intent, and re-defining the words of the Constitution to give them a "more enlightened meaning."

The words "due process" had a very specific meaning for the men who wrote our 5th Amendment. Once the intent of the "founders" is discarded, then are not all alternative "more enlightened" intents equally valid?

A simple illustration: President Joe Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court (She was confirmed on Thursday.)

At her confirmation hearing Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked the judge to "define woman." The judge answered, "I am not a biologist."

Was Blackburn's question a "gotcha question," or was she trying to get at something important? Does it matter how a judge defines the word, "woman?"

There is an NCAA swimmer, born a male, who is now dominating in women's swimming events. Should that swimmer be allowed to participate in NCAA women's sporting events? Is that swimmer now a "woman," because he now believes he is a "woman?" Because he has undergone gender confirmation surgery? For some other reason?

The answer to this question is critically important to every female participating in high school, college and professional sports. It is an issue that will ultimately be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the court defines "woman' as it would have been defined by our "founding fathers," today's women and their daughters win — especially those participating in school and professional sports.

If the judges decide that a former biological male can be considered a female, women will be displaced on their sports teams by males who now consider themselves females — biologically-born males who weren't good enough to win against male competition.

The University of Connecticut has a terrific women's basketball team. What chance do you think they would have against the Duke men's team, if to win a championship, the Duke men suddenly declared themselves women and were allowed to participate in the women's tournament?

Title IX was enacted to prohibit discrimination based on sex. In trying to insure women equality of opportunities with men, did Congress intend to include as women, men who had changed their sex? Did Congress intend to allow bigger, stronger former-male athletes, in the name of "equality," to dominate women's sports?

How the court defines "woman" is critically important. Once "original intent" is eschewed as the pole star for constitutional or statutory construction, all alternate intents become equally valid. Then, rather than the Constitution being the rule of law as envisioned by the founders, we substitute an ever-shifting rule of law reflecting "popular opinion or passion of the day." Toilet paper.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on April 9, 2022