There are few controversies that divide the nation more than that of abortion. Elections turn on this single issue. Pro-Choice and Pro-Life advocates are so dug-in that even the thought of finding common ground is unthinkable. In this article I hope to reflect on how we arrived at this place, and attempt to suggest a possible path forward.
I was surprised to learn that abortion was considered normal in early American history. According to British Common Law, they were permitted until “quickening.” That is, when the mother begins to feel movement in her uterus. Few in the 1700s disagreed, not even the Catholic Church. The determining factor was the female experience of what was happening in their own bodies. Abortion was not even called abortion. People said things as: “the pregnancy slipped away” or “the menses has been restored.” Opinions changed in the mid-1800s, and by 1880 abortions were universally banned, except for “therapeutic reasons.” It was up to doctors and lawyers to distinguish between legal and illegal. In a practical sense, this meant that wealthy women had access to legal abortions; poor women did not.
Throughout the 1950s and 60s, the push to legalize abortion intensified. One could say that Republicans at the time were more pro-choice than Democrats. Through the efforts of the Republican governor, Nelson Rockefeller, abortion became legal in New York. Three years later, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was a women’s constitutional right. First Lady Betty Ford commented:
When the Supreme Court voted to legalize abortion and, in my words, bring it out of the backwoods and put it in the hospitals where it belongs, I thought it was a great, great decision.
Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court decision was not particularly controversial. It didn’t even make the front page of the New York Times. There were opponents of course, mostly Catholic Church priests and bishops. Evangelicals were not particularly concerned.
This brings us to the 1976 presidential election when Gerald Ford was running against Jimmy Carter. The following quotes are taken from the two respective party platforms:
Democrat: We fully recognize the religious and ethical nature of the concerns which many Americans have on the subject of abortion. We feel, however, that it is undesirable to attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court decision in this area.
Republican: The question of abortion is one of the most difficult and controversial of our time. It is undoubtedly a moral and personal issue but it also involves complex questions relating to medical science and criminal justice. There are those in our party who favor complete support for the Supreme Court decision which permits abortion on demand. There are others who share sincere convictions that the Supreme Court’s decision must be changed by a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions. Others have yet to take a position, or they have assumed a stance somewhere between polar positions. … The Republican Party favors a continuance of the public dialogue on abortion and supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children.
Both political parties recognized the difficulties of the issue. The Democrats were ready to accept the Supreme Court’s judgment; Republicans held a variety of positions. Some agreed with the Democrats; others wanted to establish a constitutional amendment to nullify the decision. Some didn’t know what to think. Before moving on, I’ll think it useful to interject some context and a few of my own thoughts.
In 1920, the 18th amendment was added to the US constitution. It prohibited the manufacture or transportation of alcohol beverages. The purpose of this amendment was laudable. Men would go to the taverns on payday, drink themselves drunk, spend much of their weekly paycheck, and then stagger home late at night to their wives who were working hard managing their families. My dad told me about one of his friend’s fathers. He would often sleep on the streets on Fridays with urine all over him and clothing largely undone. This was a major reason why my dad never consumed alcohol. Sometimes men would engage in bar fights, leading to arrests. Both the religious and secular wanted something to be done. It was a crisis. Hence the amendment.
As is often the case, popular opinion and legislation lead to unintended consequences. Organized crime took notice and supplied what became illegal. They created large-scale gambling and prostitution enterprises. Gang hits were common as mafia crime families staked out territory. The country ultimately realized that the prohibition amendment was a disaster. It was revoked in 1933, only 13 years after its inception. This was the first time that such a thing happened in American history.
We can learn from this. If people are determined to drink, they will drink. Laws will not work if there is not a national consensus for them. Enforcement becomes impossible. Regardless of what one thinks about abortion, I do not believe that a constitutional amendment will work. Neither will overturning the Supreme Court decision. The rich will find a way around the law. The poor will take matters into their own hands.
This does not mean that the Church should disengage. Emphasize that life is precious. Support with compassion those who have abortions or find themselves in trouble. Provide prenatal care and affordable adoption services. Teach our children the importance of single lifetime partnerships. All of this is non-partisan. It allows the Church to be a positive caring witness while spreading knowledge of God’s restored kingdom to the world.
So, let’s get back to the abortion debate. As a Christian in 1976, I could have voted for either political party depending on other issues. At that time, I never anticipated the fight that was just over the horizon.
So, what happened after 1976? Jerry Falwell, Francis Schaeffer, and others formed a coalition with Catholic bishops and priests to found the Moral Majority movement. In 1979, they successfully convinced the Reagan campaign that they could deliver the evangelical vote. All that was needed was for Republicans to more directly support the pro-life position. Establishment Republicans were dubious, but it worked. Over time, more and more evangelicals switched their allegiance from Democrat to Republican.
The first skirmish concerned judges. Republicans began to appoint judges who they thought might reverse the Roe vs. Wade decision. They also actively promoted a new constitutional amendment designed to protect the unborn. The Democratic Party responded. They fervently opposed these efforts, but couched their language in the hope of keeping their share of evangelicals onboard. They also began proposing policies that would lower teen pregnancy and thereby reduce the need for abortions. These included sex education curricula in schools, family planning services, and providing free contraceptives. Republicans did not unilaterally disagree with these things, but fought over the details.
The battle continued. Republican majority states began passing laws to regulate abortion access. These included forbidding late term abortions, requiring abortion doctors to have hospital access privileges, and compelling parental notification. Democrats opposed any and all restrictions, fearing a slippery slope that eventually would lead to entirely eliminating abortion rights. Over time, fights over judges became bitter and hostile. Any judge that could potentially rule the wrong way was declared extreme. Appointments now are confirmed with purely partisan votes.
The divide intensified as Democrats began to realize that bringing evangelicals back into their voting base was a losing battle. So, they went further. They fought to require abortion and LGBTQ+ services be included in Health Care plans, which they now declared as a right, not a privilege. Additionally, some jurisdictions passed laws declaring that abortion should be legal up to the point of birth, and in a few cases even beyond. Foreign aid was not immune from the Democrat – Republican war. Would aid be granted if it was used to promote abortion? Republicans say: No; Democrats: Yes! Should aid be granted to countries that prohibit abortion? Republicans say: Yes; Democrats: No!
Meanwhile, the American populace are bewildered as they observe the political wrangling. In 2020, the conflict raged. Nationally, there are no pro-life Democrats and no pro-Choice Republicans left. This is a litmus test for party membership. Disagree and you will be ousted at the next primary election. What is next? Perhaps it is time for both sides to calm down and find some common ground.
I’ll conclude this article with my thoughts on the matter. You are free to agree or disagree. That is your choice. I think we can acknowledge though, dialog is lacking and needed. Perhaps this can be a starting point.
As a Christian, I value the sanctity of life. There are many things about abortion that I dislike. I am confident that I agree with most Americans when I say that it is not a good thing. I wish it would never happen. I support some reasonable regulations. For example, I would want to know if my teenage daughter was contemplating such a procedure. I can’t even comprehend the pain my family would experience if something went wrong leading to her death.
It is not good to use abortion as a means of contraception, a way of controlling the gender, or guaranteeing the baby will be a perfect specimen. I find it problematic when a family planning person persuades a young mother to abort because of her financial status. Real compassion and support are needed, not necessarily the easy immediate solution. It is her decision and that should not be subject to manipulation.
Forced abortions for population control or ethnic cleansing are atrocious practices. I recoil at the sale of fetal body parts. I hope it never comes to these things in our country. I am disturbed that almost half of abortions occur in black communities. I don’t like it when many, maybe the majority, of women have abortions because of pressure put on them by their male partners.
Despite all of this, I don’t believe it is reasonable to go back to the days when the rich have access, and the poor don’t. If politicians would take this off the table and stop playing political games, just maybe we can find some common ground.
Perhaps no solutions are forthcoming. If so, let’s start with the Church. As the Bible teaches, “Take the plank out of one’s own eye so we can help our neighbors with the splinters in theirs.” Let the Church find her prophetic voice. Call out both sides as they get more and more extreme. In the meantime, do what we can to support the vulnerable in their time of need. We need less hypocrisy and judgment and more compassion.
Thanks for listening,secondlooknow.com
Yes, we need compassion.
Aside – Jerry Falwell & Francis Schaeffer in the same sentence? Oh rats. I had no idea.
BTW, you’re a brave man, Dan.
Perchik might not agree that “All of this is non-political.” He told Hodel, “Everything is political.”
We want to make this a one-sided fight. Its either woman’s health/reproductive rights or Right to Life/protection of the unborn. Another false dichotomy. As a believer I am called to love all people. That includes the unborn and women. If we as believers show the value of life by ministering to those who are vulnerable and care for infants AFTER they are born, we will create a culture of life. If we improve woman’s health and bring the Gospel to people, hearts will change. Abortion and abuse will find no home in such a reality.