Every election year the urgent call to vote our evangelical pro-life values is sent out to all the faith. Yet this imperative isn't reflected in the record of the officials given the mandate to end abortion in this country. Nor does the court-centric strategy reflect the very real complexities of the issue.
Since the early 1980s, the only strategy adopted to tackle the problem has been to elect Republican presidents every four years to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court. This strategy is based on the false belief that overturning Roe v. Wade would outlaw abortion. The truth is much more complicated.
Overturning Roe v. Wade would only shift the onus onto the states. As a result, the strategy would shift from a federal focus to a state-by-state strategy, which would require electing conservative governors, legislatures, and justices to create new individual state laws. Not only would this strategy take unknown years to accomplish, but its effectiveness is highly questionable.
States that attempt to pass restrictive abortion legislation already tend to have low abortion rates. Larger states, where the majority of abortions take place, are far less likely to pass restrictive laws. In addition, individuals can also cross state lines. Thus, Roe v. Wade's demise would result in a minimal reduction in the actual abortion rate.
The question still remains: Do those elected to fight for the rights of the unborn truly work to change the laws, or have they simply used the issue to galvanize Christian collective action every four years? History shows the rhetoric doesn't match the record.
For example, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which effectively banned a procedure used in late-term abortion, is commonly touted as a victory for the pro-life movement. In truth, by banning a single procedure rather than the practice of late-term abortions themselves, the procedure is merely replaced by others that may be more dangerous for the woman. The net result is a reduction of potentially zero abortions.
Also, when Justice Samuel Alito was appointed to the Supreme Court, the pro-life movement considered it a major victory. However, from January 2006 when Alito was sworn in to January 2007 when the Democrats took control of Congress, the "pro-life" Republican Party held control of all three branches of the U.S. government; Roe v. Wade was not overturned and no major legislation was passed.
As an evangelical who believes life begins before birth, I believe our presumed party alliance has become an abusive relationship. If we as followers of Christ truly believed in the agenda of life, why have we not taken seriously the proven correlation between poverty and increased abortion rates? Why have we not spoken out on supportive health care for women and children? Why have we not cried out about preventative education to minimize unplanned pregnancies that frequently lead to termination? And why, oh why, do we not see war, torture, creation care, or the death penalty also as fundamental issues of life?
The question is, will evangelicals expand their understanding of social influences and actually work towards healing the causes, or just wait around to outlaw the symptom?
Matt Dunbar is the director of advocacy and organizing for New York Faith and Justice.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!