Hello Friends,
By way of a sort of follow-up to my post here Wednesday, I've posted some further reflections -- interrogative in the main -- over at Mirror of Justice, and hope that any of our readers here who might offer guidance will feel free and indeed encouraged do so. The question that I'm wondering about is this: Does the 'intervening choice' argument, which many view as decisively rebutting the charge that publicaly provided vouchers privately used to purchase parochial education constitute impermissible state 'endorsement' of religion, not carry over to the case of publicly provided health insurance assistance that might be privately used by some beneficiaries to procure abortions? In other words, is there any more reason to think the state 'endorsing' abortion than to think it 'endorsing' a religious tradition when its only function is to effect a financial redistribution in the name of justice, the beneficiaries of which then make their own unconstrained decisions in expending the funds?
Here is the post: http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/03/vouchers-abortionaffecting-legislation-and-intervening-causes.html .
All best and many thanks,
Bob
Comments