The Right Way Forward on Abortion

 

Abolition or Incrementalism? Pro-lifers need each other because the goal is the same, an end to legalized murder.

 The SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) released a resolution over the summer decrying incrementalism on abortion legislation. What does that mean? Incrementalism is the idea that pro-lifers need to work to end abortion in stages. They vote for restrictions and limits, they try to defund programs that give money to clinics. They support politicians that introduce bills to limit its use.

 An incremental approach to anything is to chip away at it like ice on your windshield until it no longer exists. The hope is to make it so restrictive that it’s essentially outlawed. That’s the position favored by Scott Klusendorf of the TGC (The Gospel Coalition).

I’m not an expert on all the various state laws. I have noticed that some states like New York, loosened whatever restrictions did exist. Before 2019 the state outlawed abortion after 24 weeks unless the mother’s life was at risk.  After Cuomo’s bill there remains a fig leaf of a restriction. The baby can be aborted up to 24 weeks or more, but must be non-viable. But who decides viability? The language doesn’t define it, which makes it an easy law to abuse.

 Other states like Texas have all but outlawed the practice. Senate Bill 8 makes abortion after 6 weeks, roughly when a heartbeat is detected, illegal. Mississippi put a 15 week ban in place just this year. Red and blue states are going in different directions.  

The SBC thinks that making deals of any kind on abortion is (effectively) a sin. That’s unfair. If abortion were illegal and representatives signed legislation that allowed for it, that would be a different matter. They are also saying that their previous position of incrementalism, constituted sinful behavior. Ironically this resolution is issued after some big victories (in state like Mississippi and Texas) making their abolitionism a more comfortable position.

 They can thank incrementalism for the stronger hand. Small victories over the years provided the impetus to take a harder line.

The concern from the SBC is that politicians don’t hold the line on abortion. It’s a boutique issue that the ‘rubes’ insist on. They pretend to make deals when they’d rather fundraise or talk about tax breaks. That’s how I imagine the SBC sees it.

 In other words, it’s not an issue of morality for a lot of legislators even though they promise it is.

Here is the bottom line. The prolife movement needs hardliners like the SBC. They keep the squishy moderates honest by not letting them abandon the unborn to political expediency. But the hardliners need to realize how far the movement has come in restricting access. Some believe the easily available ultrasounds change the minds of women seeking abortions. Multiple states have laws that require a sonogram before making the decision to abort.

But Klusendorf believes abolitionists shoot themselves in the foot by ignoring the fallout if the Supreme Court upholds current federal laws.

Suppose that Roe and Casey survive challenge. Nevertheless, a state defies the federal courts and signs into law an abolitionist bill banning all abortions, without exceptions. What then? As more than one pro-life leader points out, a move like that is akin to secession. Don’t expect the federal government to look away. For millions of Americans, abortion is a sacrament that cannot be challenged. As happened with civil-rights integration in the 1950s and 1960s, troops will be sent in to enforce federal law. Abortion clinics will remain open. Then what?

Then What? I don’t think the SBC cares. Their statement is one of faith that God will sort it out. Do what’s right and the chips fall where they will, so to speak. I’m kind of with them on that.

Klusendorf thinks in strategic terms. He wants to move the ball 5 yards at a time.

The SBC doesn’t want to play anymore; especially since we aren’t playing the same game anymore. The Right likes consensus, and votes and specific language in their bills. The Left likes to throw 40 yard passes at a time. “Mandates for everyone, close the church doors it isn’t essential, pull your mask up! Immigration law… what’s that? Don’t like it, tough.”

Another big problem is how pro-lifers rank abortion. Almost all Republicans are pro-life but not all are PRO LIFE, you know? Anti-abortion efforts aren’t at the top of everyone’s list, making it more likely the issue will be with us for a while. There are other concerns of morality to fight for. Marriage is under attack, as is sex and gender confusion. Legal rights of parents to decide on medical treatments like mental health care and abortion are stripped certain states, like Washington, if the child is 13 or older.

Does anyone doubt that gender reassignment surgery for minors is next? I mean of course without parental permission.

The goal of the pro-life movement is to end abortion. Whether the Supreme Court will ever overturn Roe v Wade is anyone’s guess. The court upheld the basic right to an abortion in Casey, while allowing for restrictions. That was 1992. I’m not optimistic on this.

Supreme Court rulings have a trickle down effect on state laws. Their decisions can determine the course of legislation for another 50 years. But the pro-life movement has seen success due to incrementalism in just the last decade. January 2011 to July 2019 accounted for 40% of the new restrictions on abortions from states. That’s just the last decade.

Pro-lifers need each other.