For decades, the Pro-Life Movement was defined by the seemingly impossible goal of defeating the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973. Every Republican President since Ronald Reagan claimed to be opposed to this ruling but refused to appoint known opponents of Roe to the Supreme Court under the guise of judicial objectivity. Meanwhile every appointment to the Court by Democrats was a known and vocal supporter of Roe.
In fairness, please note that it is true that Reagan was the only sitting US President to write a book opposing abortion. After his death, Nancy Reagan did her best to block efforts to reprint Reagan’s book, but I think it is back in print. I know because I have an original copy of the book somewhere.
Anyway, Donald Trump comes along and appoints judges to the Court that eventually did away with Roe. This effectively blew up the Pro-Life movement. Many supporters of biblically based political movements are only fair-weather, short-term adherents to such efforts anyway. After decades of defining of victory as defeating Roe, the Life issue now looks very different. In the aftermath, many are asking if defeating Roe was just a pyric victory.
Some in the Pro-Life camp were hailing Trump as its champion during his first term and now many of these same people are claiming that Trump is the archenemy of Life in his second term. Folks, Trump hasn’t changed, just their definition of Life.
That is what I’d like to explore in the next few paragraphs of my blog post.
There is a relatively new group of people in the Pro-Life camp that seemingly didn’t exist up until the Supreme Court tossed out Roe. These folks call themselves “Abolitionists.”
For those not too up on the issue, originally “Abolitionists” were those people that wished to wipeout slavery in the years prior to the American Civil War. Part of the argument against slavery was that black folks were human too and the color of one’s skin did not diminish their value.
With the rise of Darwinian Evolution, many people had a “scientific” fig leave to cover their blatant racism. They asserted that the darker one’s skin color, the closer to apes that they must be. Some men were clearly genetically superior to others. These, so called, scientific facts were the basis of many mass genocides in the 20th Century. This included Hitler and his “Final Solution.”
Praising the same values and rubbing shoulders at cocktail parties with such Elites as those that later became the core of Hitler’s government, was Margaret Sanger, of Planned Parenthood fame.
Now in 21st Century America, there is a new Abolitionist movement. This one is to eradicate abortion in all its varied forms. Folks, in theory, I support the goals of the Abolitionists, but… and you knew there was one or I wouldn’t have much of a post today, but … these guys are going scorched earth on their fellow Christians more than the guys they claim to oppose.
I have spent, and yes possibly wasted, many years in the political world. In politics you meet people that generally fall into two categories, what is possible and what should be. Guys in the, what should be basket, say stuff that sounds really good if you don’t examine it very closely. One go-to phrase is, why should I ever have to vote for the lesser of two evils? The what should be crowd usually votes for long-shot third party candidates or not at all. Guys like Ross Perot, Ron Paul, etc. come to mind.
The quest for perfection before I’ll vote for them, is really dumb. Typically, the folks that whine about no candidates that are good enough for their vote in the General Election sat on their butts doing zero for anybody when the Primary process was underway. Thus, they claim moral superiority over the rest of us and did zero work or investment of their time, treasure, and resources to make their part of the world a better place.
They are worthless leaches that look down their noses at us, the unwashed masses.
A lot of rhetoric from self-identified Abolitionists is firmly rooted in the what should be bucket. Anybody that isn’t hip and up to speed on their issue is their enemy.
Folks, it took over fifty years to convince a ragtag group of Protestants that abortion was wrong. The Roman Catholics were the backbone of the fight for many decades and standing alone for most of the fight. I am hesitant to say that the Pro-Life side could ever claim a majority supported them.
Folks, the Abolitionists, in the minds of many, have moved the goalposts. Victory was always defined as overturning Roe v Wade. It’s done. Roe is no more, and many thought the fight was over.
However, like the proverbial hydra, the head that was removed from Planned Parenthood has spawned several others. I can think of three new fronts on the battle for Life. Think of Planned Parenthood as being the evil corporation in some Hollywood movie, since most villains in their movies are corporations, this analogy won’t be far from the truth anyway. Since surgical abortions are not in vogue anymore, they have been forced to diversify their portfolio of evil. Revenue and death is what they are all about.
Planned Parenthood is the biggest supplier of transgender drugs in the world. Planned Parenthood is knee deep in the abortion pills by mail business. And then there is IVF (in vitro fertilization).
I personally have seen nothing from the Abolitionists about the transgender drug distribution perpetrated on the youth of America by this organization dedicated to weeding out the unfit from society.
The other two categories have both been used by Abolitionists as battering rams to vilify President Trump.
On the one hand, the FDA is continuing to approve generic drugs used for mail order abortions while Trump and his appointees are trying to stop them; or so it appears. I think there are some rogue folks doing what they can to thwart Trump and give him a poke in the eye whenever they can. I’m not convinced that Trump and his administration are ok with mail order murder of the unborn. This issue is leftover from the Biden Administration, and I think it will be dealt with in due time. Putting the proverbial genie back in the bottle, will be difficult with both New York and California encouraging mail order abortions and allowing the drugs to be freely sent to other states. Yet another use of the Interstate Commerce Clause that disrupts its proper application.
Lastly, is IVF (in vitro fertilization).
I don’t know if this is true, but for many years it was alleged that IVF was typically needed because women that had abortions when they were younger, finally wanted children when they were older, and couldn’t have them.
IVF was never a centerpiece in discussions about abortion. It is always talked about as allowing people to be parents that otherwise couldn’t be. In an era of declining birth rates, being parents should be encouraged. Isn’t that, at least in part, the message of Charlie Kirk?
If people are not educated on the nuts and bolts of IVF, why would you expect them to question the process? Isn’t the fact that many couples can have children as a result of IVF a societal good?
Opposing IVF is the line-in-the-sand or litmus test for many Abolitionists.
Yes, technically, the Abolitionists are correct, but … the vast majority of folks they want to vilify are just ignorant not purposefully evil.
I think they are wrong for demanding a top-down political decision. I think they need to spend their time educating the church. Lord knows we need it.
If Covid proved anything, it’s that our seminaries are broken institutions and the vast number of people in pulpits are hirelings not shepherds.
Randy Stonehill wrote many years ago,
We take our loftiest intentions
And engrave them all neatly in stone
And once they’re safely up there
We’d prefer that they just leave us alone.
Randy Stonehill Stop the World 1974
Sadly, for most churches, this was the fate of their Pro-Life and Pro-Marriage statements. Add them to a document never to be heard from again and then these same churches could bury their heads in the sand. Somehow sermons never happen on the topic of Life, or Marriage, or abortion, or anything else that Satan is using to attack the flock. Such messages might disrupt the amount being contributed to the collection plate, and we just can’t have such controversy. After all, Jesus said, “my kingdom is not of this world.” Too often we have a milquetoast church not the militant one.
The gripes of the Abolitionists, as I understand them, are these: many eggs are fertilized but only a few are actually implanted into the mother. The rest are literally placed in a freezer as backups in case they are needed later. This is because extraction of sperm or eggs, depending on which partner needed the surgery, and subsequent implanting of the embryos is expensive. Second, multiple fertilized eggs are usually implanted. Often, at a later date, multiple children are then aborted to prevent the birth of too many offspring at once. A woman can only handle so many babies growing inside her at a time.
Since President Trump is trying to make IVF more attainable, the above (batch fertilization and implanting multiple embryos) makes him a mass murderer in the eyes of the Abolitionists. I think there may be more ethical ways of doing the IVF procedure, but the Abolitionists simply want the IVF procedure banned by law.
I have been involved in the Pro-Life movement in various ways for my entire adult life, and I can’t name one alternative to IVF that allows a married couple to bear children. No, I’m not going to allow a discussion on adoption. That is a different topic. I am talking about biological offspring. What is the alternative when “doing the baby dance” doesn’t result in children?
Gary North had a few phrases that he liked to use in his books. Two come to mind as I consider this topic.
“You can’t change just one thing.”
“You can’t beat something with nothing.”
I think the Abolitionists need to educate their own people (folks in their various churches and denominations) on the subjects that they are passionate about before expecting the rank-and-file pagans to fall in line just because they say so.
Discouraging use of the hormones utilized for mutilating transgender people and stopping the distribution of at home abortion pills are issues that many traditionally Pro-Life people understand. IVF is a much harder sell because it is more complicated and multifaceted. IVF requires an alternative while the other two issues do not.
Again, what are realistic alternatives to IVF?
Can IVF be changed to be more ethical?
Few people try to get the IVF procedure, as compared to the number of women using abortion as retroactive birth control.
Also, how many women are taking the at home abortion pills that aren’t even pregnant? I’d wager quite a few.
Guys, I’d really like to get on the Abolitionist bandwagon, but I don’t know where you’re going or how you plan to get there. The idea has merit. I just can’t figure out if you are a grassroots religious movement or a political one. Lastly, might I humbly suggest that you get like-minded Christians on board with your views on IVF before trying to burn President Trump in effigy for his.
