Religion & Law

As I read John Garvey, I believe he is contending that the Hyde Amendment is based on Madisonian principles. He is suggesting that persons should not be compelled to support ideologies to which they are opposed. I doubt this is defensible. My tax dollars are used to support wars to which I am morally opposed and a defense department that has supported American materialism and exploitation. I resent this, but I do not think it violates Madisonian principles. The Madisonian principle applies to support of religion, not to activities that a segment of the population regard as immoral.

If the Hyde amendment is defensible, it is because there is a significant difference between precluding the criminalization of abortions and subsidizing them. One can not criminalize the making of most movies, but this does not mean they deserve a subsidy. On the other hand, if the decision whether to have an abortion is best left to a women's decision (an assumption most people on this site deny) and not merely the absence of a significant enough state interest to justify criminalization (an assumption also not shared by most on this site), denying the option to poor women by refusing to subsidize is to my mind not well supported by the existence of moral opposition, but the question whether to defer to that opposition is only confused by calling it Madisonian.