The past two weeks have been a roller coaster ride of Supreme Court decisions for parties on both sides of the aisle. Obama's immigration plan gets stalled, but UT's affirmative action policy is upheld. This week, they also decided prohibiting individuals convicted of misdemeanor family violence crimes from owning firearms was not a violation of the second amendment--relieving domestic violence advocates but angering some gun rights advocates.
However, the case that has gotten the most attention this
week was its ruling on Texas' most recent abortion law. For those of you not
familiar with this law, one of the central mandates required abortion doctors
to have hospital admitting privileges (see full statute here). The result of this has been that about half of the
abortion clinics in Texas have had to shut down because they could not meet this
high criterion. One of these clinics initiated the current lawsuit against the
state, arguing that this law is not necessary to provide safe medical
procedures and places an undue burden on those seeking an abortion. On Monday,
the Supreme Court agreed with the analysis and struck down the law in a 5-3
decision.
As expected, many pro-life advocates are lamenting the
decision and directing their anger at the Supreme Court. I've seen comments
about the justices being "dumb" and "stupid," and
characterized as dictators and zealots. Some have even called for Texas to defy
the ruling. Is this apocalyptic and hateful language really necessary? I don't
think so. And here's why from a pro-life perspective:
1) This was not really about women's safety if we're
truly honest
Sure, you can argue that one of the benefits of the Texas
law would be increased women's safety because abortion clinics would have
higher medical standards, but don't be deceptive and claim that was the primary
motivation. As I've listened to pro-life individuals discuss the law prior to
this court case and after Monday's decision, it is clear that the primary
concern has been to reduce the number of abortions. After all, the proposal in
question came along with other measures to ban certain types of abortions and
make abortion more difficult to get. Furthermore, most doctors agree that the
hospital admitting privileges are not really necessary for performing an
abortion. The evidence seems to suggest that this was an answer in want of a
problem, unless of course you admit that the problem trying to be solved was
abortion itself. This leads to #2...
2) The Supreme Court is simply upholding what already
exists in our laws
The fact is Roe v. Wade is still the determining court case
that sets precedent for everything, and that court case decided that abortion
should be accessible by American women. This court decision means that any
future laws must not place an "undue burden" on abortion access. If
abortion is now considered a "right," then that means every women
must have access to such services. However, as a result of Texas' law, only
about 20 clinics remain open (down from about 40 when the law went into effect),
and more of those remaining clinics would have likely shut down in the near
future had the law continued.
Now, keep in mind Texas is a massive state geographically
(you don't really understand this until you live here), and as such 20 clinics
are very few. For example, the domestic violence agency I work at serves 8
counties (an area about the size of Hawaii and containing half a million
people) but there is not an abortion clinic in any of our counties.
Furthermore, this is a particular problem for those who are low income and lack
the finances or transportation to be able to travel to such a clinic, and they
would need to make several trips as well, not just one.
As long as Roe v. Wade is seen as valid, then it would seem
that this law is infringing upon the ability of many women to access an
abortion and must be struck down. The problem is not with the current Supreme
Court, but with the existing precedent of Roe v. Wade. If you are unhappy with
Monday’s decision, you should probably focus your efforts on overturning the
existing precedent, not complaining about the outcomes of that precedent.
3) Was Texas’ law really reducing abortions
that much anyways?
One of the arguments that helped get Roe v Wade passed in
the first place was that women will have abortions regardless of the law. The
problem, as it was argued, was that women were seeking illegal abortions and
putting both their lives and the lives of the unborn child at risk. Abortion
advocates argued that it was better to legalize this unfortunate practice and
thus be able to regulate abortions, rather than putting women’s health in
danger.
While our current culture has gone far beyond that original
vision (seeking abortions out of personal/preference reasons in addition to
medical reasons), there is certainly some truth to this concern. Indeed, in the
past year or two there have been numerous reports and account of many women
seeking illegal abortions in Texas. Some, who live near the Mexico border, are
buying cheap drugs and self-administering abortions without any oversight from
doctors. Others simply choose to neglect any prenatal care and allowed their
pregnancy to result in a miscarriage. Far from promoting women’s health and
medical safety, this Texas law actually has had some unintended consequences of
harming women’s health.
If we truly want to be “pro-life” for everyone involved,
then we cannot ignore these realities. Can we really argue that the negligible
benefit of forcing abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges is
pro-women’s health if that decision simultaneously drives many more women to
unsafe abortion methods?
Additionally, when we consider the increase in illegal
abortions happening, we have to ask what the net effect of the law actually
was. Those who really want or feel a need to get an abortion will find ways to
do so—legally or illegally. Did this Texas law really tip the scales that much?
And if the net effect was negligible, is there really much point in getting
worked up about such a law being struck down?
4) We are right to be
skeptical of pro-abortion cheering on this day
While I am not too shocked or horrified by the Supreme Court’s
decision, I also cannot join the cheering and celebration of abortion rights
advocates. The bottom line is that everyone on all sides should be grieved that
abortions are even necessary in the first place. Whether we are grieving the
loss of an unborn life, the fact that a pregnancy was unwanted, or the
circumstances that led to “needing” an abortion, all individuals—on the Right
and Left—should recognize that abortion is not a joyous thing. It is painful.
It’s unfortunate. If it is a “right,” it is not a right or freedom like any
others we enjoy. It is more along the lines of a necessary evil than liberty.
However, anger and bile will not change the conversation. Sadly,
we do live in a “throw-away culture” as the Pope has put it, but mocking or
cursing abortion advocates will not alter their opinions. Instead, we should
approach this issue with humility, refuse to participate in polarizing rhetoric
that is actually one of the forces that drives abortion rights groups to
celebrate, and mourn the loss of life and opportunity that was occurring under
the Texas law and that will continue to occur without it.
5) Finally, we must
seek out better pro-life strategies than legislating morality
One of the central reasons why I am not too upset by this
week’s decision is that abortion laws are generally ineffective anyways. Sure,
they might reduce the number of legal abortions happening, but you still must
account for the illegal abortions that occur under the radar. A number of studies
have also demonstrated that laws which simply restrict or ban abortions can actually
result in higher numbers of total abortions than situations with more open
abortion laws.
The real problem is that a law cannot change a person’s
heart or mind. A person who supported abortion before a law will continue to
support abortion even after it is banned. If you really want to end abortion,
you must win over people’s hearts and minds. The pro-life movement has often
done well at this, but it must do better. I believe the pro-life position has a
compelling narrative—that unborn life is valuable and precious regardless of
the circumstances. Science also seems to be on our side as the more we learn
about unborn children, the more we realize the continuity between life inside
and outside the womb. This naturally poses an ethical problem for abortion
advocates. If we could focus more on this compassionate narrative and excise
some of the hateful, condemning rhetoric that often accompanies it, this would
likely do more good than any restrictive law.
Finally, abortion opponents need to shift their focus away
from abortion legislation to legislation that addresses the ROOT CAUSES of
abortion. There are two reasons for this. First, simply restricting or banning
abortion is merely a Band-Aid solution in that it only acknowledges the
symptom, not the sickness. Second, shifting our focus in this manner can
actually create common ground with the pro-choice side. Let me explain.
What are the primary reasons a person would seek an
abortion? Lack of money/resources to care for a child, lack of access to birth
control, teen pregnancy, rape, and medical complications with the child or
mother. The amazing thing about each of these causes is that neither pro-life
nor pro-choice advocates want these things to happen. They are all bad
situations. What would the conversation look like if, instead of trying to
limit or ban abortions outright (thus angering the other side), we instead came
together to find meaningful legislation and practices that reduce poverty,
reduced teen pregnancies, deterred sexual assaults, and promoted medical
research to fix pregnancy complications and genetic defects. Surely there is
enough common ground on these issues to get the conversation going.
If we actually came together around the root causes of
abortion, then we would actually see abortion rates drop without needing to
limit access to abortion. If we stuck with the simple narrative that unborn
life is precious, there would be less need for abortion clinics as more and
more people become convinced of this truth.
So am I saddened by this week’s court ruling? Yes, but only
in the sense that it serves as a reminder of the continuing desire and need for
abortion as well as of the continuing polarization in this debate. I am not
angered because I think the Court is sentencing babies to death or anything like
that. The Supreme Court has simply acted in accordance to its legal
obligations. It is up to us on the ground to change the conversation so that
such rulings and arguments ultimately become irrelevant.
