The Overturn of Roe v. Wade: A Lost Opportunity?
- Get link
- Other Apps
Evangelicals, and the Republican politicians we support, have squandered a once-in-a-generation opportunity posed by the overturn of Roe v. Wade. First, let me lay my cards on the table. After all, this is my blog and my opinion. I believe that abortion is nothing short of murder—the murder of people who are the most voiceless and, perhaps, the most marginalized of our society. I will set aside the politics of how we came to have a Supreme Court that was brave enough to take on the “settled” matter of abortion in the Roe v. Wade precedent. The machinations behind Donald Trump’s nominees (especially in the matter of the death of Justice Scalia during the waning days of the Obama Administration) is undoubtedly a matter worthy of discussion, but one I will save for those more into partisanship than I am.
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
(2022), the Supreme Court recognized that, contrary to the badly-decided 1973 Roe
decision, the U.S. Constitution nowhere guarantees abortion as a “right.” It
will be no surprise to the reader when I say that I believe Dobbs was a
good call. However, Dobbs did not outlaw abortion outright. The Court
recognized that as a matter outside its jurisdiction and tossed it back to the
individual States to decide. Another good call, in my opinion. Thus, the
pro-life movement had a chance to bring about regulations that would
significantly curb the murder of voiceless unborn children. In many cases,
however, Dobbs has proven an opportunity squandered.
In many states, the overturn of Roe meant that
so-called “trigger” laws would go into effect. Alternatively (as in the case of
Michigan, where I live), laws on the books in 1973, when the Court decided Roe,
would again go back into effect. In still other states, lawmakers
emboldened by Dobbs would move to pass legislation putting strict limits
(or outright bans) on abortion. Such restrictive laws are where the pro-life movement—and
the Republicans we elected—shot ourselves in the foot, sacrificing good on the
altar of perfect.
Many laws enacted or proposed in the wake of Dobbs restricted
abortion in extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or the mother’s life. Left-wing
pro-abortion advocates—who view abortion as a near-religious sacrament—used such outliers, which account for a minute fraction of abortions performed, to muddy the waters. Further, abortion proponents made healthcare
professionals fear that if they treated such conditions as an ectopic pregnancy
or provided a D&C in the wake of a miscarriage, they could wind up in jail.
In fact, no law—either in effect in 1972 or triggered by Dobbs—ever prevented
such medical treatment.
Before the November 2022 round of elections, I read a New
York Times article with many women explaining how losing their “right” to
an abortion affected them. One woman in the article, an unmarried 25-year-old,
complained that she was “too young” and had not yet reached the career and
financial goals she desired. Frankly, I had little sympathy for this young lady,
who came across as selfish and irresponsible. She chose to have sex and didn’t
use birth control. Invariably, when my wife and I practiced that habit, we ended
up with a baby—whether we were trying or not. (Even when we weren’t trying, I
might add, those babies were, and remain, a tremendous blessing in our lives
who have made us proud.)
Outside of the abortion-on-demand camp, many reasonable
people might agree that people should live with responsibility for their
actions and choices. They would oppose abortions for the sake of convenience—which
do constitute the majority of abortions. And they are mortified by so-called “late-term”
abortions. But many people who are neither avowedly pro-life nor pro-abortion
get a little squeamish at the prospect of forcing an 11-year-old rape victim to
carry through with a pregnancy resulting from the attack. They are further
enraged to hear that this poor girl would have to travel to another state to
receive an abortion. Even as a staunchly pro-life person, I cannot help but feel
horror and substantial internal conflict between my own values over such a
story. While cases such as these are outliers, many people opposed to convenience
abortions would desire to keep the procedure open in such cases. The
pro-abortion crowd recognized this hesitation and effectively used the outliers
to cause a backlash against highly-restrictive abortion rules (whether perceived
or actual). The pro-abortion lobby moved quickly, using the backlash against
the outliers to see referendums passed, amending state constitutions to
enshrine unfettered access to abortion.
Of course, the failure on the part of the pro-life camp
is two-fold. First, we failed to counter the false narrative that any abortion
restrictions—either dating from recent times or pre-Roe—ever denied necessary
health care, such as treatments for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. We
could have seen abortion restrictions that many people would have seen as
reasonable had we allowed for the outliers. But instead—and this was the far more
significant failure—we demanded it all, the “imperfect” we could have achieved,
over and against the “perfect” we’ll likely never reach. I would like to see an
America that never kills unborn children. But I would rather see a significant
reduction in abortions rather than see unrestricted abortion once again set in
stone, thanks to an overreaction to our demands.
I don’t know if our nation is really more
polarized than ever. But it is polarized. And given the all-or-nothing
mentality of both the Left and Right on almost every issue, I don’t have much
optimism. Still, I think that appealing to reasonable people in a Christ-like
way would be a far more effective means for evangelicals to speak about the
issues that divide our nation. Indeed, there must be a better, more
God-honoring way than the vitriol that today characterizes the MAGA Republican Party
to which so many evangelicals have pledged allegiance.
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment
All comments are moderated. I welcome respectful disagreement with my posts. Such discussions can cause me to consider perspectives I hadn't examined before. However, I also reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. Why? Simple enough, this is MY blog, with MY thoughts, and I want to have a civil conversation that is, at all times, God-honoring in nature.