Huh? Rod Dreher makes a lot of assumptions.
The cartoon implies that religious objection to abortion may have been a reason behind the Supreme Court's recent decision. Was it merely coincidence that the five members of the Court who are Catholic voted in a 5-4 majority to support this anti-abortion law, and the four non-Catholics voted against? Perhaps Mr Dreher can lay out non-religious objections to abortion. Maybe he can even find something in common why these five justices and no others ruled together in the majority in handing down this anti-abortion ruling. Mr Auth's thought-provoking cartoon forces the reader to at least consider the possibility that religion did play an important part, if not the only part, in this decision.
And from where does Mr Dreher draw his assumption that the cartoon implies that religion should have no bearing on discussions of public morality? It was a judicial decision, a legal opinion on whether a particular law is Constitutional or not. Why should one's religion have a bearing that? Like everyone else, the justices are more than welcome to let their religion influence their discussions of public morality, but when it comes time to hand down a legal opinion they ought to let the US Constitution determine their decisions, not church teaching on morals.
