Dear Friends, A Different Voice from on High

                                                                                                                              for Carol Gilligan

The Supreme Court is considering two of the most important cases on abortion since Dobbs (Moyle v. United States, Idaho v. United States). The cases are essentially one. At issue is the point at which the woman’s health can – legally – be taken into consideration. I put it in this neutral way because, obviously, there is no question. And the content of the case is of first importance.

Something else emerged in the oral arguments for the case, however. Well, maybe not else, but bringing the case out into the light of the world, the world in which people, and, in this case, women, actually suffer and die.

The Supreme Court, at present, has a lopsided “conservative” majority, 6-3. It also has a curious gender divide. All three of the “liberal” members are women; only one of the “conservative” members is. Don’t get too excited about that – there have been many men on the liberal side.

Now, concentrate on this one case: how close to death must a woman be before she is legally permitted to seek an abortion? All male members of the Court sided with the state of Idaho, not much of a surprise, not because they’re men but because they’re reactionaries. No surprise, equally, the three “liberal” members of the Court, three women, sided with the government.

Just left at this, the division could be one based solely on attitudes to abortion. But the one woman on the “conservative” majority, Amy Coney Barrett, in the oral arguments, at least, clearly aligned herself with the other women on the Court.

As all the experts keep reminding us – and rightly – a judgement in the hand is worth more than all those potential chickens, something like that, isn’t it? We’ll only know when we see what colour of smoke comes out of the chimney.

But … at this point the divide in the Court seems to be a gender divide. This is a good thing.

Carol Gilligan’s great book, In a Different Voice, was, for many us, a turning point, a new understanding, a new vision of the world. It has been subjected to criticism from all directions. It is still, for me, one among many many works, usually contradicting one another, that help me to steer the proper, impossible, course into the future.

If Barrett joins with Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, on Moyle v. United States, and Idaho v. United States, then, well, then what … I don’t know, but I do say: Thank you Carol.

Love and solidarity,

Bobby