Choosing Life

If you had to choose between outlawing abortion and reducing the incidence of abortion, which would you choose?

I am at odds with some of my fellow Democrats. Judging from the dialog, many view abortion as a simple health-care decision. It seems more than that to me. "Choose life" still seems like a decent catch phrase, and I can't see myself wishing someone to have an abortion.*

But I am also at odds with Republicans. Many of them emphasize outlawing abortion but mostly refuse to do much—if anything—more, as I've previously posted. I sometimes wonder if Planned Parenthood, in spite of providing abortion services, hasn't done more to reduce abortions than Right to Life. They provide health care, birth control, pre-natal counseling, and sex education, all of which can alleviate fears that parenthood presents. One way to reduce abortion is to enact some form of universal health care. 

The question I pose above is hypothetical; it's not necessarily a matter of one or the other. The ambitious 95-10 Initiative, which aimed to reduce the incidence of abortion by 95% over 10 years (and was shunned by Republicans and Democrats alike) advocated for stricter laws and better support for pregnant women and new mothers.

When it comes to our votes, though, the question is not hypothetical. Pretty much, we can choose one or the other. The next time someone asks how you can support abortion, it's fair to ask them the same question. Then ask which is to be preferred, a legal ban or a reduction in abortions.

I am not intimidated when accused of murdering babies, especially by people who can't be bothered to care for those babies or their mothers. Vote for a law if you must, but accept that I prefer the options of prevention, care, and support. These are more effective at reducing abortion, don't endanger mothers, and are more just; it's the better way to choose life.

-------------------

*This is not to say I think it should be illegal, but that's a subject for another post.

The Judge

[TOC: all blog posts]

Some have said all of Trump's immoral behavior is worth it, because he nominates conservative judges.

Many Evangelicals and other Christians hope conservative judges will overturn Roe v. Wade. It could happen, but some conservatives doubt it. I doubt it, because the issue has been such a motivator for the conservative vote. Would Republicans want to get rid of this incentive? Some would, but not the crafty ones.

Conservative judges also fairly consistently vote in favor of providing influence for the rich, while ruling against the disenfranchised. I'm thinking, for example, of Citizens United and the travel ban. Perhaps you have better examples. Let's agree, at least, that conservative courts tend to be business friendly, and businesses with the most influence are the largest, most profitable ones.

Another side of conservatism has been to reduce funding for the poor. In this case I'm not talking about courts and judges so much as conservative politics in general and the Republican Party. The right also votes against concerns for the environment in favor of business, and the effects of an unhealthy environment take a greater toll on the poor than on the rich.

The persistent favoring of rich over poor has put me off from the Republican Party for some time. Because I felt strongly about abortion, I still often voted Republican. Until I concluded that I was being manipulated.

Many conservatives decry sex education and impede the provision of contraceptives. In the US, we don't offer much in the way of health care for mothers. We require them to get a job to qualify for assistance, and then don't provide child care. The primary reason given for having an abortion is that the mother or family cannot afford to have the child. Sex ed, child care, better health care, and contraceptives could reduce the incidence of abortion, but more and more we simply blame the poor for being poor and pregnant and convince ourselves that a little cruelty will teach them their much-needed lessons.

There is much talk about the evils of abortion with very little effort to do much about it.

Nonsense, you say, we support laws against it.

But where do those laws get us? Abortion is illegal in Argentina, yet the rate of abortion there is much higher than here. Simply having laws won't cut it. Laws do achieve stigmatization, and I suspect that is the goal. To criminalize women in rocky straits, we cheer for a president who has defrauded thousands of people, abused women, lied without ceasing, and boasted about all of these as accomplishments.

Let's suppose Roe v. Wade is overturned. What then? Those who want an abortion may have to travel to another state. If abortion were banned nationwide, they might have to go to another country. That would reduce abortion—for poor people. People of means could travel for the procedure; only the poor could not.

Which, come to think of it, makes an abortion ban the perfect Republican solution: only the poor are affected.

I guess a conservative judge would help ensure that poor people had fewer rights and rich people had more opportunity. So, if one believes that this is the divine order, then one might do just about anything to get such a judge.

Is this our witness? Don't expect it to appeal to those who labor and are heavy laden.

A Pro-Life Vote

Evangelicals have been criticized for being one-issue voters. I don't see this criticism as valid. We would applaud someone who voted against Germany's National Socialist Party strictly for its stance on the Jewish population. Our perspective has been that a stance against abortion is equally valid.

Unlike the Nazi policy, pro-choice advocates are not calling for the elimination of fetuses. They are saying that the decision should belong to the mother with advice from her doctor. However, no one supports rights of parents to abuse children. And this too seems analogous (other than the doctor's input).

So how can a pro-life evangelical vote for a Democrat who is pro-choice?

I've thought that it was inconsistent. But then I started to wonder what effect my vote was having. I was listening to the hearings for John Roberts, who seemed to be arguing quite convincingly that he was not about to overturn Roe v. Wade. It got me thinking that it might not be in the best interest of the Republican Party to overturn that decision. How would the issue motivate pro-life voters? It would be a blow to the party.

Meanwhile, I was uncomfortable with what I viewed among Republicans as a bias in favor of our richest citizens. I was willing to cast a  presidential vote that would change the Supreme Court on the abortion issue. But now it looked as if that wasn't going to happen, but decisions in favor of the wealthy might. I felt manipulated.

Donald Trump's evolution towards a pro-life stance has corresponded with his Republican political aspirations. Perhaps he is now concerned about the issue. Perhaps he is more concerned about the votes it can almost guarantee. But will Supreme Court nominees who want to overturn Roe v. Wade ever be approved? Not if even a few Republicans don't want to give up the vote motivator.

If we are truly against abortion, we must do what we can to reduce the number of them. We can continue the awareness campaigns, but we must also support contraception (for those not religiously opposed) and encourage sex education. During the current administration, abortions have dropped by 13 percent after peaking in the previous one. There seem to be many reasons for this drop, but increased availability of contraception and sex education have been among them. You can argue that abstinence is effective contraception, but to depend on it as the only contraception method for young people certainly doesn't work. If we are serious about abortion, we should be arguing about which policies and education will help reduce the incidence of abortion.

We could be working with many pro-choice supporters to reduce abortions. Why aren't we? Because they want a more liberal Supreme Court? Who suffers for our lack of action?

Yes, I would like to hear Democrats pledge to support policies to keep the incidence of abortion on its downward trend. I'll be advocating for that support both before and after I cast my vote for Hilary Clinton.