A pro-life candidate?

Share

As has been the case for years, one of the top issues for many evangelical Christians has been their "pro-life" convictions. Indeed, some have argued that this is the "single issue" that can automatically disqualify a political candidate from getting a Christian's vote if they answer incorrectly.

In this wacky political season, many pro-lifers have found themselves backing Donald Trump for President primarily for the reason that Hillary Clinton is a pro-choice candidate. "We can't let her win," they argue, "lest we concede to the continuing murder of millions of babies."

Now I consider myself to be pro-life as well, and I too shake my head at how some progressives go past simply advocating for abortion access to nearly celebrating abortion itself, but I have serious qualms about this "But Hillary!" position.

Most pro-lifers who are behind Trump will admit they don't really care for Trump. I for one think Trump is a completely amoral candidate on every front--the very antithesis of Christ-like character. However, I also recognize the fears and concerns of many of my fellow pro-lifers in choosing not to vote for Trump. For those who feel they absolutely cannot vote for Hillary because of her position on abortion, many have rationalized voting for Trump by pointing out that he claims to be "pro-life," he will perhaps appoint a Supreme Court Justice sympathetic to the pro-life movement, and that he might permit restrictive laws on abortions in order to appease his conservative base.

 However, if this issue is the only real reason you have for voting for Trump, here are a few points to consider as you decide on how to vote this November. (What I am about to say is certainly should not be taken an endorsement of Hillary or any other candidate, but is simply intended to help Christians and other pro-lifers think through all the facets of this election.) So here we go:

1) Is Trump really pro-life, or is this just pandering?

Some have pointed to comments of Trump's that seem to indicate a sympathy for the pro-life movement. For example, last January Trump said, "I'm pro-life and I have been pro-life. It's an issue and a strong issue." He has also stated that he's become more pro-life in recent years after discussion with friends. However, in these same discussions, Trump also revealed that he "absolutely believes" in allowing abortions in instances of rape, incest, and medical necessity. Many conservative pro-lifers would likely take issue with the first two of these exceptions.

During the primaries, Trump also waffled on his stance toward Planned Parenthood. When asked by Fox News in October if he would defund Planned Parenthood, Trump replied, "I do not want to say that because I want to show unpredictability...You can't just go around and say that. But Planned Parenthood absolutely should be defunded." Likewise, when asked on Meet the Press if he had ever donated to Planned Parenthood, Trump stated, "I don't know, but it's possible." He went to say that the abortions "have to stop," but then took a (surprisingly) mature stance on Planned Parenthood by pointing out that abortion is only one of the many services provided by the women's health organization. Finally, there are several comments from Trump in 2011 about how his views on abortion had "changed" and he is now pro-life.

However, perhaps we should take all of this with a grain of salt when we consider that his pro-life comments in both 2011 and 2015-16 came in the midst of possible and actual Presidential runs by Trump. Now, I don't know Trump heart (perhaps he has changed his mind), but it seems awfully convenient for the candidate to have "changed" at the exact moments he would be needing evangelical votes, a fact even more suspicious given the noticeable silence on the issue in the years between the 2012 and 2016 elections.

One must also raise the question of trustworthiness when you look at the whole trajectory of Trump's abortion comments. In a 1999 interview, Trump had this to say:

"Look, I'm very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject, but you still--I believe in choice. Again, it might have a little to do with a New York background, because there are some different attitudes in different parts of the country...but again, I am strongly pro-choice, and yet I hate the concept of abortion. I am pro-choice in every respect, but I just hate it."

It's fascinating to me that here Trump articulates a view extremely similar to that of Vice-Presidential candidate, Tim Kaine, whom some pro-lifers have criticized for supporting pro-choice policies despite being "personally against abortion." Even more ironic is that Kaine roots his personal opposition to abortion in his Christian faith, whereas Trump just chalks it up to personal preference.

Then you have comments like in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, where he says, "I support a woman’s right to choose...When Tim Russert asked me on Meet the Press if I would ban partial birth abortions, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no." To be fair, he goes on to say he has developed reservations about partial-birth abortions, but does not denounce his pro-choice stance. Similarly, in 1999, he stated, "I believe [abortion] is a personal decision that should be left to women and their doctors."

In a 2010 interview, when asked if he was "pro-choice" Trump told ABC:

"I am--well, I don't want to discuss right now, but you will be shocked when I give you that answer....Well, you will be very surprised when I give you--I'm going to make a decision [about running for president]. And when I make that decision I'll let you know about that. But, I think you'll probably be surprised."

Then, less than 3 months later, while weighing a presidential run as a Republican, he suddenly announces to a pro-life political group that he's "pro-life." Needless to say his record is inconsistent. Even recently, despite his growing "concern" for the abortion issue, many have observed that he is the only Republican presidential nominee in modern history to not mention or address abortion in their nomination acceptance speech. This checkered history gives me pause before lining up behind him as the "pro-life option."

**Update 10-19-16: In the 3rd Presidential debate, in what should be a warning sign to pro-life evangelicals, Trump refused to answer whether he personally wanted to see Roe v. Wade overturned. When pressed about his personal opinion, he simply  stated that he would appoint pro-life judges which would have the effect of sending the issue "back to the states." However, he repeatedly avoided answering the moderator's question of whether he personally wanted to see Roe v Wade overturned.

2. Replacing Scalia won't necessarily solve the problem

Another argument for supporting Trump is that he "promises" to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia, who long supported pro-life causes. However, we must consider a few caveats with this positions.

First, given Trump's inconsistent record on abortion and his tendency to say what people want to hear, is there really any guarantee Trump will nominate such a justice? His business record also speaks to a history of broken promises. On a personal level, there are likely countless other issues that matter more to Trump than abortion (such as his power and status), so how much will he actively seek out a pro-life justice?

Second, just replacing Scalia won't magically change anything. The most recent Supreme Court abortion decision saw Texas' abortion restrictions get struck down by a 5-3 vote. Even if a Scalia-like justice had been on the Court, the anti-abortion law would still have been struck down. And just hoping another justice dies is no guarantee either. You would need one of the more progressive justices specifically to die. Do we really want to support a man of Trump's character for such speculative reasons?

Third, and perhaps most importantly, simply getting a court to uphold abortion restrictions or overturn Roe v Wade will not miraculously make abortions cease. Some people seem to live in the misunderstanding that abortions were not happening prior to 1973. They were; they were just occurring illegally in secret. Likewise, if we waved a magic wand and made all abortions illegal tomorrow, abortions would still be happening. When much of the population identifies as pro-choice, and when a high percentage of abortions are carried out by women in desperate situations, we must realize that changing the legality of abortion will have little impact on these 2 driving forces of abortion. As Randall Balmer has observed, our goal should not be to make abortion illegal, but "to make it unthinkable."  Which lead to my third point...

3. Cutting abortions is more than bans or restrictions

For those who care about protecting the unborn, we need to look beyond the simplistic answers of just overturning Roe v. Wade or finding ways to restrict access to abortions. I've written about this more in depth elsewhere, but we need to look at the bigger picture. The fight to restrict or ban abortion by legislation is an expensive, time-consuming, and politically divisive endeavor that often does little to curb abortions. Some studies have even suggested that abortion rates are higher in countries than criminalize abortions. Indeed, on average, countries in the world that ban abortions have an abortion rate of about 37 abortions per 1,000 women (comparable to the U.S. rate at the time of Roe v Wade), whereas the abortion rate in the U.S. in 2011 had fallen to only 17 per 1,000 women.

The likely reason for this is because the legality of abortions has less impact on the reduction of abortions than actually addressing the root causes of abortion. For instance, one of the most important actions that can be taken to reduce abortions is to ensure that all women have adequate access to birth control. It's difficult to terminate an unwanted pregnancy if you never get pregnant to begin with. Indeed, this seems to be one of the biggest differences between nations with high or low abortion rates.

As I've stated before, if Christians are serious about truly reducing abortion, we need to do more thinking about how to best prevent unwanted or dangerous pregnancies. Even better, when we do this we actually find ourselves in agreement with pro-choice individuals in many cases, which means more can get done politically. That's not to say we should never address legal restrictions on abortion, but such actions are relatively pointless until we do the work to address the root causes.

So, rather than just voting for Trump because we feel that's the choice that will best allow us to legislate against abortion, perhaps we should be asking which candidate(s) best address the real drivers of abortion. Which candidate would best reduce poverty (which is a huge driver of abortions)? Which candidate could best reduce sexual assaults? Which candidate could best promote access to birth control and women's healthcare? Which candidate could help reduce teen pregnancies? Which candidate can best reform the foster care system or promote adoptions?

When we actually ask these questions, we may decide that Trump really is not the best option for a "pro-life candidate." Many evangelicals, such as Shane Claiborne and Greg Boyd, have argued during previous elections that pro-life Christians might actually support Obama rather than a Republican. Although this seemed backward to what many conservative Christians felt, their arguments were that they believed Obama would do more to help alleviate poverty than McCain, which in turn would reduce the rate of abortions. So, even though McCain paid lip service to the pro-life stance and Obama advocated for the pro-choice cause, ironically Obama could be the better vote.

Incidentally, those like Claiborne and Boyd may have been proven right. In looking at trends in abortion rates, the number of abortions actually plateaued from 2005-2008, during the "pro-life" Bush administration, after years of decline. However, from 2008-2011, abortion rates saw a rapid decline once again during Obama's first years, falling to their lowest levels since Roe v Wade went into effect. Furthermore, it does not appear that this decline can be attributed to tougher anti-abortion laws as a majority of the current laws did not go into effect until 2011 and the decline was seen more or less uniformly across states with both liberal and conservative leanings. Rather, it seems the decline is mostly attributed to better access to contraception and to economic forces.

Does this automatically mean Clinton should get the pro-life vote? No. But it does mean pro-lifers should consider all candidates (including even 3rd party) and ask who would best address the economic and social drivers of abortion. It might even mean we disqualify Trump from our vote since his lack of coherent, well-formed policies and the potential damage from some of his economic policies might actually increase abortions.

4. Is government the object of our faith?

Finally, the way some Christians are responding, you would think that Clinton is planning on going out and taking an ax to pregnant women herself because she loves abortions. In reality, a Clinton administration will likely have a similar impact as the previous several administrations--a gradual decline in abortions. However, the way many are reacting makes me question whether those Christians have placed too much faith in government.

The truth is that much of the work in reducing abortions happens on the ground independently of who is President. State laws that affect poverty and access to birth control/healthcare can have a greater impact on abortion rates than what a President says or does. The loving work of volunteers and staff in crisis pregnancy centers to meet the needs of desperate mothers can do more good in reducing abortions than millions of dollars spent on pushing legal restrictions on abortion. And, collaborative work with both the Left and Right to address root causes of abortion is something that should be able to happen regardless of which party wins the White House.

My concern is that supporting Trump out of a fear that a "pro-choice" candidate might get elected is putting the cart before the horse. Electing a "pro-life" President will only do limited good if you haven't changed hearts and minds. It will only do limited good so long as the root drivers of abortion persist. These latter points are things with which a President Trump would not help. Meanwhile, a vote for a President Trump is certainly a vote for narcissism, sexism, hedonism, greed, corruption, and anti-intellectualism.

------

So, I cannot tell you who you should vote for in November. Perhaps you vote for Clinton because you think she can best address the economic drivers of abortion. Perhaps you just cannot vote for a candidate who vocally supports abortion, so you write in the name of a different candidate, or avoid any compromise and vote for a 3rd party, like the American Solidarity Party, that centers itself around a pro-life platform. Or perhaps you decide neither major party is pro-life and you won't waste your vote on a losing 3rd party so you abstain and refuse to soil your conscience. Whatever your vote, I just strongly caution you against voting for Trump simply out of pro-life convictions when everything else about him seems to speak to the opposite of a Christian ethic. Yes, politics will always involve compromise for a Christian, but where do you draw the line? When it comes to pursuing a pro-life agenda, we need to realize that there are a variety of options out there. Don't buy into the lie that Trump is the only one.

Don't Get Angry at the Supreme Court

Share

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.