Would the real pro-life candidate raise your hand?

I present the following moral dilemma. Which is the true pro-life (read: anti-abortion) candidate?

Candidate A: 

He says he is pro-life on abortion.  However, he wants to reduce abortions solely through the mechanism of making abortion illegal. It is questionable how many opportunities this person will have once in office to address this issue. However, there may be some small legislative battles that can be fought.

However, he does not support legislative measures to improve rights and standards for workers and he is against any notion of a social safety net. He fears these would reduce "incentive to work" and interfere with the workings of the "free market." He believe people are poor and struggling principally by their own choice rather than through a lack of opportunity or systemic pressures of any kind.

Candidate B: 

He says he is pro-choice on abortion. He wants to "keep abortion legal" as part of his political platform. If the opportunity were to come up, he would support legislation further cementing abortion as part of our legal structure.

However, he supports policies addressing poverty and social alienation, such as higher wages and abundant social services. He wants to keep families together rather than see them split through mass incarceration or immigration enforcement. His policies promote strong workers rights, robust maternity/paternity leave and healthcare for all.

Which of these deserves the "pro-life" vote?

As the above illustrates, the issue is not so simple. Both candidates can claim that they are pro-life on abortion.

Candidate A wants to make abortion illegal but his other economic and social policies only serve to intensify the reasons people choose abortion in the first place. In other words, while working to make abortion illegal, he may create an environment where more abortion happens in the meantime.

The reverse is true for Candidate B. He clearly wants abortion to be legal, but his other policies directly alleviate the stressors that drive people to consider abortion. Fewer abortions may actually happen as a result of his policies.

If you vote pro-life, is your goal to reduce the number of abortions or is it to make abortion illegal? Those are not the same thing. Ideally perhaps you would want to do both, but those are not usually available options in the current partisan U.S. political climate.

It also highly questionable whether making abortion illegal would actually stop actual abortions from happening--probably some but not all. People could travel or find an underground provider.

The above illustrates a rough snapshot of the two primary political parties in the U.S. Usually, it has been assumed that the "pro-life" candidate is the one who wants to make abortion illegal. But if that person also promotes policies that may actually increase abortions, then that changes everything--especially when you consider that making abortion illegal may be an unrealistic goal at this time in history.

As a Roman Catholic, we are taught that the intentional taking of innocent human life is always wrong and should never be supported. So how do we apply that teaching to the two candidates above? Having legal abortion does not require anyone to have an abortion, but it does make it easier. In a very likewise, parallel manner, having good economic and social safety net policies does not force anyone to carry their pregnancy to term, but they make it much easier to do so. It has often been assumed that the person who merits the pro-life vote is the candidate who strives to make abortion illegal, but I hope the above illustrates that this should not be taken for granted. This becomes even more complex as there are many other ways that life is threatened besides abortion--the death penalty, euthanasia, war, immigration, poverty, etc.

Putting too much energy into legislative battles while supporting policies that drive people to consider abortion in the meantime is profoundly short sighted, to say the least. This is what gives the pro-life movement a bad name. This is what causes people to point out its hypocrisies. By having a single-minded obsession with making abortion illegal, they turn their backs on very effective ways of saving lives right here today. They support politicians and policies that may actually increase abortions. 

Some have told me this isn't a fair critique of the pro-life movement. They say it IS invested in pregnancy centers, prenatal support and so forth. While I know this to be true, I also know that the phenomenon of the "one-issue voter" tells us where the real priorities lie when the rubber meets the road--it's about legislative action.

Some Concluding Thoughts

I am not suggesting that the pro-life movement should simply give up the struggle for legislative support for pro-life positions. However, I do think it is counter-productive to attempt that when grassroots support for this legislation has not reached a high enough mark. There are many who resign themselves to thinking we should "keep abortion legal" and just try to reduce as many as possible. No, I am absolutely not saying that, but I also don't believe that legislative victories will yield the results the pro-life movement expects. But I am saying that as a strategy I think pro-life voters could prioritize reducing the numbers of actual abortions by alleviating the stressors, promoting a culture of life in the minds and heart of people and put legislative goals on the back burner. This is very feasible. Even though poverty is a huge, complex problem, we know from history that big improvements can be made in the short term with immediate results. We know what those stressors are and we know there are effective ways of addressing them.

What If Roe v. Wade Were Overturned? 4 Recommendations for the Pro-Life Movement

Justice Anthony Kennedy is stepping down from the U.S. Supreme Court. President Donald Trump is poised to appoint Justice Brett Kavanaugh who could tip the scales and possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

The pro-life crowd is excited about the possibilities--not only of overturning Roe v. Wade but an even more ambitious dream of a Constitutional amendment in their favor.

However, the single-minded determination of the pro-life movement to abolish legal abortion has blinded many to the complexities of the situation as well as other avenues of being pro-life. It is unlikely that overturning Roe v. Wade would deliver the results they anticipate.

I write as someone committed to protecting life from conception to natural death but standing outside the formal pro-life movement. Let's think through some likely scenarios:

What would happen if abortion were illegal? 

First, abortion would not automatically become illegal nationally just with a Supreme Court ruling. That decision would go to each and every state. The issue would continue to be complex at both the federal and state levels, as this link details. A simple outcome is not realistic.

In states that criminalize abortion, women of means who want an abortion will simply travel to another state or country to have to procedure done. That would be fairly easy to do. It isn't the 1950s anymore--even global travel is relatively simple and inexpensive.

In addition, there will no doubt be an underground market of abortion providers for those of lesser means.

Despite that, making abortion illegal will almost certainly stop some abortions and save some lives--but only in the short run, in my opinion. I have doubts about whether that would be true in the long run.

A culture with illegal abortion would be a lot like the prohibition of alcohol in the 1930s. An illegal market would thrive and it would also come with other secondary negative consequences. When alcohol was illegal it created an environment that allowed mobsters like Al Capone to proliferate. It wasn't just the prohibition of alcohol itself but rather the whole underground culture that went along with it that was the problem. Something similar would probably happen if abortion were to be illegal again. The whole effort will so thoroughly hated by so many people that a Constitutional amendment will indeed come, but I predict it will be on the pro-choice side. In other words, legal abortion will return with a vengeance and it will be legally cemented more than ever before. The pro-life movement will be set back decades, if not permanently.

How do I know this?  It's easy:

I've done a lot of grassroots organizing. You always have to build a base before you attempt to pass a law. That's just Grassroots Organizing 101. Otherwise, the law won't be accepted by the people and passing it will just erode the credibility of our institutions (government, law enforcement, etc). Forcing a law upon people who clearly do not want that law will end in disaster.

A law will not stand unless the hearts and minds of the people have been opened to support it. After all, a law is only an attempt to codify the will of the people, especially in a representative democracy. Perhaps some obscure laws can be pushed through by a small group of determined activists unbeknownst to the rest of the population. But the issues around abortion impact so many people in such a visceral way that any laws around it must have the support of the people. That is simply not the case right now.

We know that over two-thirds of Americans favor some access to legal abortion. The pro-life movement need not despair, because those same polls also show that similar numbers want some limits on abortion. There is a lot of room for growth here, but the culture is not ready for a dramatic law reversal, yet. However, there are many life-saving things that can be done in the meantime.

Trying to force people to change their behavior by imposing a law on them is short-sighted and would only have limited success. You have to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the people.

Recommendations for the Pro-Life Movement:

In light of the above, here is a strategy I would recommend for the pro-life movement. None of this requires anyone to change their beliefs about abortion. It is simply a prescription for a different method of approaching the issue. This is not a "watered down" approach. In fact, I believe this may very well be more successful than current methods.

1. Work to reduce the number of actual abortions by addressing the drivers. We know what the drivers are. There are social factors--such as social stigma, shame, isolation and social pressure. There are also economic factors, such as access to health care, job security, ample pay, reliability of child support, maternity/paternity leave, etc. We know we can reduce abortions by directly impacting these factors. Let's do that. I even think both pro-choice and pro-life supporters could join together on this.

One example of a social factor: Much of Christianity may be staunchly anti-abortion, but it is also staunchly shame-based when it comes to a pregnancy that occurs outside of certain parameters (marriage, etc). It may preach an anti-abortion message from the pulpit and have some success convincing people. However, the fear of facing scorn and shame from family and community members may drive others to consider abortion, thereby neutralizing the pro-life preaching.

Economic factors: We know that there are legislative solutions that increase rights for parents in the workplace and a safety net for people who fall on hard times. Many women say they would not have chosen abortion if they didn't fear losing their ability to care for themselves and their families. They simply don't see a way forward. Can we help them?

2. Build a grassroots support for a culture of life. The current pro-life movement is never going to do that. Admittedly, it has done the impossible: It has engineered a cultural stalemate. That's amazing given that many assumed the pro-life movement would have disappeared by now. However, it will never really "win" as it is now. But a holistic, consistent ethic of life approach can build the credibility the movement needs.

I know that sounds counter-intuitive, as it seems few Americans hold a truly consistent ethic of life, but it is the only position with sound theology--the individual wins when the community wins, and visa versa. Current ideological debates have the mother pitted against the unborn child in a zero-sum scenario. America is individualism on steroids, but one individual's freedom often impacts another individual's freedom. We have to be realistic about the limits of individualism and instead embrace a communitarian vision that seeks the common good. A new paradigm is needed, or perhaps an old one. 

3. Limit legal interventions for now. The movement can spend some energy on legislative outcomes but should limit its focus on extreme cases for now, such as late term abortions. You could argue that Roe v. Wade as it stands now allows for more abortions than most Americans would support, and that is a fair point. I'm not a big believer that we can address abortion legislatively, but if folks want to go that route, the key here is to only advocate for legislation when grassroots support has reached a critical mass.

4. Reconsider legislative approaches for the future. Once that grassroots culture of life from #2 above has been nurtured and grown, there may come a time in the future to introduce legislation around abortion once again. However, if the culture of life were really strong, a law might not even be needed.

Hypothetical question: Does it really mater if abortion is legal or not if no one has one? I get it that the laws on the books say something about who we are as a people and what we value, and some would argue that if something is legal there are people who will utilize that option. But there is no law preventing anyone from supporting and safeguarding life right here and right now.

Conclusion

Many in the pro-life movement have been so focused on trying to make abortion illegal that they have become blinded to these other realities. I am convinced that a law at this time would be mostly unsuccessful and certainly unsustainable in the long run. I am also doubtful that this is an issue that can be addressed primarily legislatively.

The focus on making abortion illegal while ignoring the drivers just gives credence to the notion that the movement is more about shaming women than saving lives. This is especially true when the politicians who want to make abortion illegal are the same ones who are likely to increase the factors the drive people to consider abortion in the first place--withdrawing economic safety nets and chipping away at workers rights, for example. This puts people into impossible situations while others sit back and judge if they make the "ethical" choice or not. It feels like watching gladiators in the Roman coliseum. Let's not play games with lives! Instead, let's "create a society where it is easier to be good" (Peter Maurin).

Further, the focus on making abortion illegal is a way, I believe, for the pro-life movement not to get its hands dirty. To create a culture of life would require ALL of us to change, not just "those people over there." Most of us find it easier to point fingers than do the interior work on ourselves. If the pro-life movement wants to be successful, the only path forward is to embrace a consistent ethic of life. It will require everyone's "all in."

It's Time for a Pro-Life Rethink

The 45th Annual March for Life was held last week: Another year, another march and another long stalemate in these longstanding culture wars.

I've been observing the pro-life movement from both the inside and sidelines for years now and I've come to a stark realization:

The pro-life movement (overall) is not dedicated to the task of reducing abortions and saving lives. Let that sink in for a minute. Rather, the movement is focused on making abortion illegal. 

They may seem the same at first, but those are actually two very different goals. They require very different courses of action.

There are exceptions to this, of course, but I'm talking about overall trends in the movement itself, especially on the national level.

I understand why people would want abortion to be illegal. It makes sense for the unborn to have the protection of the law, pure and simple.

But you have to look no further than the prohibition of alcohol in the 1930s to see what happens when a law is forced upon a population that does not support it. Despite being illegal nationwide, many people still drank alcohol. An entire industry of organized crime, backwoods 'stills and urban speakeasies sprang up to meet the demand. This underground economy gave opportunity to gangsters like Al Capone and Machine Gun Kelly. The experience was such a colossal failure that it ended up killing the movement against alcohol. The movement not just for prohibition but also for temperance and moderation has been set back decades, if not forever. When is the last time you heard a sermon on temperance? I hope you have, but from what I can tell, they are much rarer than they used to be.

The pro-life movement can and must evolve into a movement that encourages a holistic culture of life—creating a society where abortion would simply not make sense anymore to anyone. Other options and other ways of looking at unplanned, unwanted or problematic pregnancies would be so prevalent. That's going to require everyone's "all in." Making abortion illegal is actually easy by comparison—it doesn't require most of us to change our lives, attitudes or behaviors. We can sit back and judge "those people" from what we think is a safe moral distance.

It is worth asking whether making abortion illegal in this time and place in history would have the net effect of saving lives. Those with resources would simply go abroad to have the procedure done (it's not the 1950's anymore, flights are readily accessible anywhere). There would no doubt be an industry of back alley abortions outside of any kind of regulation or oversight. Offenders could be punished by the law, but I wonder how many additional lives would be lost by botched procedures? Despite that, I'm sure that abortions would probably be significantly reduced  if it were made illegal, but that could get negated when you look at the long-term trajectory: Eventually, our pro-choice culture would revolt against this legislation, putting such strong nails in the coffin to make it hard to ever resurrect it again, with the pro-life movement no doubt in full retreat and unable to mount much of any resistance at that point (just like with the prohibition of alcohol). If by some miracle Roe v Wade were overturned and each stated voted against abortion, it still wouldn't stay illegal for long and that's the piece I never hear anyone mention.

Making abortion illegal would punish people (mainly women), but it may not stop abortions from happening. Those on the pro-choice side often accuse the pro-life movement of being punitive toward women. Making abortion illegal without an underlying culture of life to support it could potentially have that effect.

However, changing the goal of the pro-life movement from "making abortion illegal" to "saving lives" would be very freeing—and at the same time, challenging. Everyone would have to do their part, not just people in difficult pregnancies. It would be about nurturing and supporting people in all stages of life, rather than making life as difficult as possible as some kind of a moral test to see what they will do—we can all do some pretty rotten things when pushed to our limits.

It might also ease some of the tunnel vision. The pro-life movement has thoroughly been used and taken advantage of by politicians. They appreciate the votes but give very little in return outside of occasional showmanship and lip service. Pro-life voters are held hostage because of the distant possibility that politicians might actually do something about abortion rather than just use it to win elections and then play political football with later, always blaming the other party for failures. Pro-life voters have shown they will support the most vile candidates who do the most vile things in office (including murderous policies) in exchange for the *possibility* of anti-abortion legislation.

Stopping abortion does not have to happen legislatively. In fact, it probably cannot happen that way if it is going to be a sustainable cultural change. In our current cultural context, a legislative overturn of Roe vs. Wade would be punitive but not corrective, judgmental but not life-giving.

A final note: If the movement is going to carry the name "pro-life," then it must be a champion of just that—life. All life, all the time, everywhere. From conception to natural death. Otherwise, it is the "anti-abortion movement" but not the "pro-life movement." Words matter, and we need to be honest about what we are about.

In some ways, the anti-abortion movement has no choice. The moral strength of the movement is based on the fact that abortion is the taking of life. It is the taking of life that is wrong. Abortion is simply one instance where the taking of life happens. But if abortion is wrong, then the taking of all life is wrong. Moral theologians make distinctions and add qualifiers such as the "intentional" taking of "innocent" life, but the faith teaches us that all life has dignity. Activists need to pick and choose which causes to dedicate their limited time, talent and treasure toward, and some may chose abortion and not other issues. But it is important when doing so not to deny the legitimacy of other issues. If the pro-life movement is going to carry that name, then it needs to step up to the plate and be a champion of life itself. Those are big shoes. Either fill them or just call yourselves what you actually are. And by supporting other issues, such as ways to reduce poverty, reform immigration and address injustices in the criminal justice system, we may find that rates of abortion also go down in the wake.

My recommendation: The pro-life movement could get out of its stalemate by focusing more on saving lives than making abortion illegal—a subtle but significant distinction. This involves creating a widespread, holistic culture which is life-affirming from conception to natural death. Addressing poverty, immigration, criminal justice and wage theft are proven ways of reducing abortion rates, as well as simply being good neighbors who reach out to the people around us. You may never know how many abortions you might prevent by being a good mentor, neighbor, uncle or teacher, but statistics say you would be directly alleviating the stressors that people claim are the primary reasons that drive them to consider abortion. The movement would have an easier time seeing these connections if it adopted a truly holistic, consistent ethic of life.

Addendum:  I am not suggesting that the movement should entirely give up its goal of making abortion illegal—not at all.  But if that is going to be successful, the culture has to be willing to accept it or else a purely legislative change without the support of the people would most likely seriously backfire and send the movement back decades.