Flipping through a recent Newsweek magazine, I came across the following comic. The sketch shows the upcoming Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito. Sitting behind a long table we see caricatures of various Senators; Kennedy, Specter, Leahy, and California's Diane Feinstein. Alito sits in front of the distinguished panel at his table before a microphone. Senator Feinstein says to the nominee, "Judge Alito, I intend to ask questions about your views on women's rights..." Alito replies, "Do you have your husband's permission??..."
We laugh at the exaggeration of this cartoon, but it hits on a concern that many of us share regarding a woman's right to choose, and by extension to determine the course of her own life. The Reform Movement shares this concern. At the recent biennial of the Union for Reform Judaism in Houston, more than 2,000 members of the Reform Movement, from more than 500 congregations in all 50 states, voted on several resolutions, including one opposing Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. In addition to objections over Alito's views on civil rights, civil liberties, and separation of church and state, the resolution emphasizes the threat that a Justice Alito would pose to reproductive freedom. Citing choice and women's rights, this document declared that Alito's confirmation would likely reshape American law and jeopardize the core values of our Reform movement.
It is moments like these I am proud to count myself as a Reform Jew. The principled stand of this resolution is a timely response to a debate that has once again reached a boiling point. I am proud of the commitment of our movement to core Jewish and progressive values during a generation of our country's debate around a woman's constitutional right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.
Since the Roe decision in 1973, abortion, more than any other issue, has dominated the political forces in this country. Jeffrey Toobin, in a recent New Yorker article, articulated the centrality of the issue. He writes, "Through eight Presidential elections and the nomination of 13 Justices, no other controversies involving the Constitution have generated as much discussion as the holding that women have a right under the Constitution to terminate their pregnancies."
I am of this generation that was born into an America in which Roe vs. Wade is a reality. For my contemporaries and those younger than I, it is hard to imagine an America with back alley abortions, an America in which women are not free to make a choice surrounding their bodies and their health. It is frightening to think about what America would look like and the dangers women would face with the erosion of the right to choose.
We all know women who have had to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy or to carry it to term. These women are our family, our friends, members of our community, some of us here tonight. They are terrified teenagers. They are mothers of children. They are victims of rape. For each woman, it is a difficult choice. For each woman, it is an individual choice. Each pregnancy comes with its own story and circumstances.
Our Torah portion for this week, Toldot, meaning generations, touches upon the highly personal and even existential nature of pregnancy. After having difficulty conceiving, our matriarch Rebekah becomes pregnant with twins. But, Rebekah does not anticipate the complexity of her specific situation. The text says that the children struggled in her womb. In pain, Rebekah cries out to God, "If this is so, why do I exist?" "Im ken, lamah zeh anochi?" (Genesis 25:22) Why, she asks, why am I experiencing such pain and suffering? Is it supposed to be like this? A midrash teaches that Rebekah went about to other women's houses and asked them: "Did you suffer so much when you were pregnant? It is when the other women respond in the negative that Rebekah cries, "If so why do I exist?" The midrash imagines her anguish as she exclaims, "If the pain of children is so great, would that I had not become pregnant!" (Bereshit Rabbah) Rebekah goes to the other women, but realizes that her situation is unique.
Our Torah portion is not about abortion. Rebekah gives birth to her twins, Jacob and Esau. But Rebekah's question in response to her pregnancy, both in Torah and midrash, underscores the highly personal nature of carrying a child. Jewish tradition has understood this implicitly in its attitudes towards abortion. Our tradition recognizes the wide variety of circumstances surrounding pregnancy.
As we face the current debate on abortion rights, we should consider the wisdom of our Jewish heritage. As Jews, we have been thinking about the issues surrounding abortion for at least 2,000 years. The common value that has bridged generations of Jewish law and thought is the preservation of a woman's health. The Talmud states, when a woman has difficulty during childbirth, the fetus is extracted from her womb, the pregnancy may be terminated, because her life precedes its life. (Mishnah Ohalot 7:6) In response to this law, the medieval commentator, Rashi, explains, that as long as the fetus has not emerged, it is not a nefesh, it is not a life with a soul unto itself. And so it is permissible to remove the fetus in order to save the mother's life.
Just as in our current debate, we struggle to define what the health of the woman means, so too, did generations of rabbis. Is health restricted to physical health, to dire life-threatening circumstances? Or, might health include the emotional and spiritual well-being of the woman as well? Jacob Emdem, a rabbi who lived in 18th century Germany, and is thought to be one of the eminent scholars of his time, broadly interpreted the meaning of a woman's health. He permitted abortion when he ruled, "As long as the fetus has not emerged from the womb, even if it is not a question of saving a mother's life, but only to save her from great distress." Emden's response regards a woman as a whole individual, a whole person. The health of her psyche is as essential as her physical well-being.
Judaism offers a spectrum of views on abortion. On the one hand, there is the narrowest position, which allows for abortion if a woman's physical health is in danger. In the broadest view, the notion of a woman's health includes all manners of distress—mental, spiritual, emotional, even economic considerations. As we look to the wisdom of Jewish tradition, we recognize that Jewish communities interpret the tradition differently.
There are some communities that stand by the most limited applications of Jewish law. Other Jewish communities, like the Reform Movement, embrace the more extensive circumstances under which an abortion can be performed.
Yet, the Reform Movement takes its interpretation a step further. As Reform Jews, we come back to Rebekah's "anochi," to the I, the individual, the personal context of our lives. The value that under girds Reform Judaism as a whole is informed choice. We affirm that the individual has the right to determine the course of his or her life, informed by the community and our tradition. If self determination is a core value of Reform Judaism, all the more so when it applies to the well being of our bodies and ourselves. If as Americans we believe that "All men are created equal" really means that all human beings share certain fundamental rights; if as Reform Jews we believe that women are counted as equals within our minyanim, our communities, then women must have rights as men do to govern our reproductive lives. This includes a woman's right to chose whether or not to have an abortion.
Our Movement's concern about Judge Alito's track record on abortion rights is not a hypothetical exercise. This week the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the New Hampshire law that requires a teen to notify her parent 48 hours before having an abortion. This is a case that the Supreme Court could very well decide with Judge Alito on the bench. I am deeply worried that in the coming generation, women will not have the same freedom to be in control of the most personal aspect of our lives. The Bush administration supports the New Hampshire law, a law that doesn't even have a provision for the health of the girl. Solicitor General Paul Clement told the court that such a provision is unnecessary saying, "it's literally a one in 1000 possibility that there's going to be an emergency." And, what about that one individual? What about her life?
No woman should have to ask, "Lamah zeh anochi?" "Why me?" to a problematic pregnancy, and not have the full range of responses within her reach.
No woman should be denied her right to choose.
