Roe v. Wade gone. Why I hesitate to cheer.

Share

The greatest evil. A stain on our nation. A reason for the decline of America. When I was growing up, this was how abortion were described to me. When it came to politics, I unblinkingly supported Republican "pro-life" candidates and could not fathom how anyone who called themselves a Christian could possibly vote for any Democrat who supported abortion rights. But more than anything, I and those around me longed for the day when Roe v. Wade would be overturned. It always seemed like a pipe dream, but it was a cause worth fighting for. If only this heinous court case could be thrown out, abortion could be illegal again and millions of babies could be saved.

And so, today, as the dream has become reality with the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, my younger self would be rejoicing.

But, I am not so young anymore.

Yes, I am still pro-life, but lived experience and complexity of our world means I have mixed feelings about this day, and even a bit of anxiety.

For starters, let's keep in mind what this legal decision does not do--make abortion disappear. Abortions happened before Roe and they will continue after today. You can't legislate your way out of a challenge like abortion. In fact, the actual impact of the Court's decision today may be fairly minimal. Contrary to the belief of some who celebrate today, the overturning of Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal in the United States. Instead, it pushes the decision on abortion back to the states. So, while conservative states will outlaw abortion, moderate and progressive states will largely keep abortion rights intact and may even choose to expand those rights. The fact is, many conservative states have already enacted strict abortion laws and have seen numbers plummet over the past decade as those laws have limited who can get an abortion and have shut down countless abortion clinics. Rather than ending abortion in places where they are happening unchecked, this legal decision only ends abortion in the places where they were already becoming rare.

If this legal decision miraculously made abortion nonexistent in the U.S. then it would be easier for me to rejoice. But, that will not be the reality. Yes, even a small decrease in abortion numbers would be good, but we also have to ask about the cost.

Second, it's hard for me to rejoice because of how we got here. It's no secret that evangelical Christianity has been a primary driver in the fight against abortion for the past three decades. And, I think this is rightfully so as the Christian faith clearly declares that all humans are made in the image of God and science has increasingly shown there is little division between a "fetus" and a human being. It's hard for anyone who has seen a 3D ultrasound and listened to the heartbeat of a child a mere few weeks old to deny that it is a human life.

However, in our efforts to reduce abortions, white evangelical Christians have sold their souls to political devils without concern for the consequences when it comes to pursuing anti-abortion legislation. The rise of Donald Trump and Trumpian politics in Christian circles is a perfect example of this. Despite the countless moral and character failings of politicians like Trump, many Christians were content to jump on board for the sake of a legal blow against abortion. As one friend of mine who voted for Trump put it, "It's all about the Supreme Court."

Even beyond Trump, Christians backed Republicans as they made increasingly questionable moves to secure a "judicially activist" court of their own making. From stonewalling a qualified court nominee for months on end during Obama's final term, to sticking with a nominee with concerning sexual assault allegations against him, to rushing through their own nominee in the final hours before an election and contradicting their own previous arguments, Republicans seemed willing to do whatever it cost to secure a court majority willing to pursue their own agenda.

Of course, these behaviors are not unique to Republicans (one could look at Democratic efforts to pack the court with more justices), but the underlying point is the rule of modern politics is that the ends justify the means. It doesn't matter what you say, who you back, or how dirty and bloody your hands get, as long as the end results turns out in your favor. With Trump, we were willing to excuse vulgar language, fear-mongering, sexual immorality, lack of self-control, questionable policy, xenophobia, racist language, and more, all for the sake of ending abortion. While there's little hope for that attitude to change in politics, Christians ought to follow a higher standard. For Christians, we leave the ends in God's hands and ensure that the means are Christ-like, humble, and point to the Kingdom of God (read the Sermon on the Mount if you need a reminder of this).

As I've said before, the strange alliance between white evangelical Christians and Trumpian politics has eroded trust in Christians and the witness of the Church almost more than anything else in recent history. I have friends whose children are questioning their faith because of the behaviors they see from "Christians" in the political arena. So, on a day like today, it's hard to get excited about the babies that might be saved when there certainly are a whole lot of bodies in our wake that we made on the way to get here. To cheer today after so much ugliness and un-Christlike behavior is like rewarding bas behavior. It's like telling a child "good job" for helping clear the table when he pushed all his siblings down and yelled at them to do so.

We can also turn this concern to the future. Now that Roe has been overturned, what is the next target our political lords will point us Christians at? The only thing that's certain is that there will be another target. Much of this fight was not just about abortion, but also about power. Republicans can count on evangelicals to vote for them as long as the support the fight to end abortion. Now that the dream of overturning Roe has been realized, they will need something else to energize us. After all, we're already hearing about how the Left will be motivated to vote during the midterms because of this massive defeat. Republicans will need a counter issue. Will the topic be same-sex marriage? Critical Race Theory and civil rights? Immigration? Whatever it will be, there will always be some political interest to pull our strings and corrupt our Christian witness with "necessary" ethical and moral sacrifices for "the cause."

The problem with not caring about the means on the way to our goals is that there are always unintended consequences. What will those unintended consequences be here? 

One potential consequence is the legal ramifications of this decision in other areas. In making its decision on Roe, the Court's majority pointed to the lack of a "Constitutional" protection for abortion. Without getting into a deep philosophical legal discussion about the best interpretations of the Constitution, it should be noted that an "originalist" reading of the Constitution has its limitations because there are many things generally accepted today that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Just because something is or isn't in the Constitution doesn't make it morally acceptable (after all, the Constitution in its most "original" form allowed slavery).

For example, interracial marriage is not directly addressed in the Constitution. Neither is access to birth control by married couples. Yet, the freedom to choose both of these things has been enacted and protected by the court in the past. Does the decision concerning Roe v. Wade today open up the door to reverse countless decisions like this because they are not "constitutional"? Could a whole host of decisions be turned back to the states? If so, this could easily open up the door to many discriminatory practices returning in society. And in case you think this is far-fetched, consider that Justice Clarence Thomas has already hinted that these types of decisions could be on the table in the future in the aftermath of today's decision. Could our enthusiasm to end abortion open up other pitfalls for us and our neighbors?

This leads to a third concern over today--will Christians step up? Growing up, abortion was often presented as a sick practice sought by women and parents who didn't want their babies. Or, in cases where parents wanted to keep their babies, it was doctors who malevolently suggested abortion in difficult circumstances of malformations and disease. Feminists were also to blame because they placed working life above family life.

However, as I've grown older and listened to countless stories (and even faced an unplanned pregnancy myself), I've come to realize that the situation is more complex. Yes, there are women who simply don't want their babies for selfish reasons, but there's usually much more to it than that. Many women who seek abortions already have children, but might be in situations where they really would struggle to care for another child. Indeed, studies have shown that existing children whose mother is denied an abortion for a new child are more likely to experience developmental delays and poverty. Other women have been raped and either are not ready to have a child, fear the child will remind them of the rape, or live in a state that will give the rapist parental rights and continued access to the victim. 

Then, many others face the impossible choice of wanting a baby, but the baby develops a health condition which makes viability of the child nearly impossible. In these situations, we must remember that, despite our amazing advances in medicine, childbirth is still a risky process for the mother. Indeed, one friend of ours nearly died during the birth of her first child with an otherwise healthy pregnancy. In situations where giving birth becomes even riskier for the mother, how do you easily choose between your life and the life of a baby who will likely die even if everything else goes well? It's a difficult decision, and every couple and woman is different in how they will handle it. Some will accept the risk to their own life and pray their child also lives or will do so to hold their child for its few minutes of life. Others will look at the probabilities and not want to chance it. These are incredibly painful and difficult personal choices that are hard to legislate or create one-size-fits-all solutions for.

With all this complexity, though, one theme is consistent: tragedy. The hidden truth few want to acknowledge (because it doesn't fit our political mantras) is that no one really wants abortions to have to happen. An abortion always signals a tragedy or disappointment of some kind. No one is intentionally getting pregnant just so they can get an abortion (which is why comparing abortion to "murder" is problematic). Even someone pursuing abortion for selfish reasons to preserve their career is not particularly happy about having to actually get an abortion. An abortion represents a miscarriage, health problems, poverty, teen pregnancy, rape, career and family plans upended. There's always pain and disappointment in the background. Even for those who have no problem with an abortion and will get one without a second thought, the actual abortion is still likely an inconvenience they'd rather not have.

So, I return to my question--will Christians step up? We claim to be "pro-life," but will we step up and support the women and families of those we are now forbidding from getting an abortion? Now that Roe is overturned, will churches begin emphasizing adoption and foster care as a pressing concern for its members in the same way it emphasized voting against abortion? Will we be there to take the child as an alternative to abortion when a women cannot care for that child?

Will we aggressively seek to alleviate poverty and racial discrimination that create situations of disparity in society? If these forces drive people to seek abortions, let us walk alongside people to give them options besides abortion.

Will the church stand firmly against rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, or will we continue to ignore these very issues among our own clergy and congregations, permitting the very culture that is one cause of abortion?

Will we advocate for better and more accessible medical care for everyone so that those facing impossible choices also have the best doctors and treatments at their disposal? Or will we be content with millions of uninsured women and turn a blind eye to their plight?

And perhaps toughest of all, are we ready to stand with families who have lost a mother to a pregnancy gone wrong that an abortion could have prevented? Are we ready to explain to the surviving children that their mother's life is a small sacrifice for saving thousands of other children like them?

While I'd love to believe that the church will step up in the coming years and truly be "pro-life" for the lives of those who will be affected by today's decision, truth be told, I'm not holding my breath. Certainly, there are many Christians who volunteer or work at crisis-pregnancy centers, foster and adopt, or offer individual support to neighbors who are contemplating abortion. But I've also seen too often over the past years how the church has ignored offering these types of support and has marched on single-mindedly against legal abortion and LGBTQ rights. Rather than stepping up to actually make abortion unthinkable, I fear many Christians will be content with the legal win and will move on to the next legal battle (like overturning Obergefell v. Hodges).

All this may sound like I am pro-Roe or pro-abortion, but that is not necessarily true. Incidentally, today is my middle daughter's birthday. On a day we celebrate her birth, I do recognize that today's decision will result in some lives being saved and born. Some children will have the chance to live just like my daughter. That is a good thing.

However, the question remains--what kind of life will they live? Will it do any good to bring them into this world if they live a miserable life? Will it do any good for the church if our actions continue to alienate that child whose life we "saved"? Just as importantly, what harm are we doing to women when all we care about is a legal restriction and ignore complexities? I would love to see abortion rates drop. I don't think a child should be killed simply because their father is a rapist. I believe that a poor woman can have options besides abortion. However, I also know that withholding abortion in these situations without also giving support to the women affected or ignoring their concerns and wishes is to be complicit in their suffering.

At the end of the day, I'm hopeful that some good may come of this, but also fearful that unintended damage will also follow. My emotions are complex, much like the issue of abortion itself. But, at the end of the day, I will simply commit myself to the same task I had before today--loving my neighbor as myself. I will open up my home to foster children. I will work to fight poverty in my community. I will pray for those who are pregnant. I will speak out against laws that create unnecessary hardships for those in my community. I do these things because, at the end of the day, it's not good enough to be anti-abortion, I must be pro-life. I do these things because I am not called to merely care about the ends, but to ensure my means speak witness to the risen Christ and not merely a lust for political power.

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.

Is seeking Social Justice Unorthodox?

Earlier today, I stumbled across an article by a Christian on the possible influence of the Emergent Church upon the politics of the U.S. (it was also written before last year's election). In this article, she bemoaned Emergents' rejection of "anything the 'Christian Right' may have focused on." In particular, she raged against the fact that Emergents are pursuing many forms of social justice instead of taking a harsh stance against key religious right issues like abortion and marriage. As she puts it:

"The more socially minded leaders they follow have convinced them that it is all right to set aside issues such as abortion or same-sex marriage and replace those with ridding Africa of AIDS. This cannot be ignored."

While I would agree with her that we cannot ignore the issues of abortion or homosexuality, why is the basic assumption here that it is an either-or pursuit? Why can't we take on a more holistic approach to being "pro-life" and protect life both here and abroad. Let us protect life due to natural causes and human ones. Furthermore, even if we had to sacrifice some cause, it could quite possibly be argued that AIDS or hunger or child soldiers kills many more people than the gay community. If we are truly concerned about people's souls and "spiritual poverty" as the article's author puts it, then shouldn't seeking to save the lives of those who are dying without ever knowing Christ rather than addressing our pet sins take precedence?

In summary, it seems that this author simply cannot understand why many of us are some concerned with these issues of social justice. Instead of recognizing how the whole Bible, from front cover to back, addresses these same issues of justice, she can only seem to relegate such attitudes to a "social gospel" or even worse to "socialism." While I admit, there is a danger of neglecting good theology for a more works based gospel or for a "social gospel," this author again makes the assumption that you can't have both. Why can't we both affirm the creeds of orthodoxy and also be prompted to seek justice and the Kingdom of God here in our world?

The last point that I found extraordinary was this author's fatalism toward social issues (with the exception of course of her own two that she thought were important.) The following is an extended quote from the article:

"It remains to be seen if these young people who are Emergent Church enthusiasts or followers of the pied pipers of the "Religious Left" will actually solve the problems for which they have a burden....But thanks to the Fall in the Garden, every square foot of grass on either side is full of weeds, and there is really no panacea for the world's desperate problems except for the Lord's return. That does not mean that until that time some of the issues being raised should not be attended to. But expectations should be kept relatively low."

So apparently, the Holy Spirit did not come at Pentecost. Apparently, the Kingdom of God cannot be seen at all until Christ's return. Apparently, Christ's first coming did nothing except ensure that we could go to heaven and be cleansed of sin. I'm sorry, but as I read the words of Christ, I have to believe that He also inaugurated the Kingdom of God. That gives us hope for today, not just for the future. Jesus also didn't wait for His return to help others; He began the healing work of the Kingdom while He was here. Granted, this world will never be perfect until Christ returns. We can't fix every problem. But neither can I simply wait around and watch a dying world continue in its pain when I have knowledge of Christ. While I will keep expectations realistic, I also know that God is breaking into our world already and that His Spirit empowers us. Thus, I won't hang my head in low expectations and brace myself until Christ's return. As our lord taught us to pray: "May Your Kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven."

To read the article go to: http://www.worldviewtimes.com/article.php/articleid-3786