Thankfully, the presidential debates are over and it seems (dare I say it) that Donald J. Trump finds himself in a deep, dark, orange hell hole of failure. (Sad!) While I could comment on any number of exchanges from
last week's debate, I would like to discuss this:
WALLACE: And now let’s talk about abortion.
Donald, will your judges overturn Roe v. Wade?
TRUMP: Maybe? Yes. Probably.
CLINTON: (cracks knuckles) First off, no. Second
off, I support Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood. It is nice that this is
finally coming up at a debate with a woman in it. Do you think that women do
this for fun? This is not fun. This is a decision you get to make about your
own life and your own body, with your family, taking your faith into account,
and I can’t imagine why you would want the government making it for you.
WALLACE: Ah, but didn’t you support partial-birth
abortions?
TRUMP: I read somewhere that a baby can — you can
just RIP a baby out of a lady’s tummy at nine months! In the ninth month. On
the final day.
CLINTON: I think you’re describing a C-section.[1]
The abortion portion. I
am actually glad for this opportunity because I have been mulling over a blob
about the pro-life/pro-choice debate for a while now. I find the treatment of
the issue incredibly frustrating.
Full disclosure: I was
raised in a Catholic family and attended Catholic school through twelfth grade.
I went to Mass every Sunday up through college. My friends sometimes refer to
me as Catholic Correspondent Claire O’Connor. Despite the Church’s many flaws,
I believe it is a force for good in the world and in my life. Even if I were to
up and become an atheist tomorrow, the tenets of Catholicism as I learned them
will always be deeply ingrained in me. “Love one another as I have loved you.”
“Men and women for others.” “Others first, self last, God always.” That is the
Catholic Church I know and love and am grateful to have been grounded in.
I have lots of Catholic
friends and family on Facebook (and in real life). Every so often, I see a post
go by pledging support for the only “pro-life” ticket (Trump Pence) or
denouncing Hillary Clinton as a baby killer or decrying Tim Kaine’s betrayal of
his Catholicism. These posts disturb me and highlight what I believe is flawed
about pro-life/pro-choice debate.
We have a problem if the
framing of one issue—an issue that is and should be important to
Catholics—leads Catholics to vote for a ticket that is fundamentally at odds
with Catholic values. There is nothing Catholic about the Trump Pence ticket.
Their entire campaign has been to demonize the “other”—the same “other” that
Catholics are taught to serve and put before themselves. Mexicans, Muslims,
refugees, the disabled, the poor—we are meant to include them all. The word
“catholic” means universal. “Others first, self last, God always.” When has
Donald Trump ever put himself last?[2]
But, you say, Mike Pence
is a professed servant of the Lord! Indeed, he sets that wonderful Christian
example of enabling cruelty (as do all other supposed Christian leaders who do
not disavow Trump). But Mike Pence’s record in perverting Christian values goes
back farther than his joining the Trump ticket. He championed the Indiana
“Religious Freedom Restoration Act”, which allows businesses to deny service to
gays and lesbians on the basis of religious objections to LGBT lifestyles.
Where in the Bible does Jesus say “Serve others, except those whose behavior
you find offensive”? Jesus sought out the people society called sinners. He
dined with them, he washed their feet, he lifted them up. Christians supporting
these “religious freedom” bills might do well to read up on the Pharisees next
time at Bible study—perhaps the Lord might open their eyes to some striking
similarities.
But let’s get back to
abortion, shall we? Just what everybody wants.
In my experience,
Catholic education very effectively drives home the point that the pro-life movement
has the monopoly on morality in the abortion debate. It took me a long time to
even question that notion. But I once I did, I realized the debate is not so
black and white. The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are
inadequate to encompass the nuance of this debate.
The pro-life movement’s
two goals are to 1) overturn Roe v. Wade and 2) shut down Planned Parenthood.
In other words, they believe making abortion illegal and eliminating the poster
child of abortion providers will end abortion. That is simplistic, naïve, and
wrong. Neither goal addresses why women seek abortions. It is assumed that, if
legal access to abortion goes away, abortion will go away. This is a willful
denial of the fact that women will seek abortions even if their access is limited.
And without the protection of the law, these abortions would bring greater risk
to women's health and well-being.
Shouldn’t the goal of
the pro-life movement be to reduce the number of abortions to an eventual zero
without jeopardizing the lives of women? I don't see them approaching the problem from this mindset. They would rather moralize the issue. I have a sneaking suspicion that, were the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe v. Wade and the government to stop funding Planned Parenthood, the
pro-life movement would declare victory, pack its bags, and go home. At best,
they would be blissfully unaware of the women who would still seek dangerous
abortions. At worst, they would believe these women deserve their fate.
The statistic you’ll
never hear from pro-life people is that abortions have decreased steadily just
about every year since 1990, and they are at the lowest number since the
government started collecting data after Roe v. Wade.[3]
Additionally, today almost no women die during abortions, whereas before Roe v.
Wade, the mortality of women during abortions is estimated to have been 17%
(and probably higher, as that percentage was calculated from only reported deaths).[4]
Is there room for the lives of women in the hearts of pro-lifers?
What if the pro-life
movement were to shift its attention from supporting politicians who pay them
“we’ll reverse Roe v. Wade” lip service to supporting politicians who believe in
comprehensive sex education for women and men? I think they
might find that a better investment with better results. But I suppose to do that, they would
need to accept that humans have sex outside of marriage. :-O
I hope this election
will lead Catholics to reexamine the "pro-life" litmus test. Perhaps
they'll realize it's a term by which politicians realize they can hold hostage
a portion of the Catholic and Christian vote. Our vote is worth more than that,
and we should award it to politicians who deal with reality, rather than to
those who would pontificate from a position of willful ignorance.
This treatise is hereby
concluded. I thank you all for your time and respectful consideration. I will
probably never discuss abortion on the blob again.
[1] Erin and I enjoy Alexandra Petri's articles in the Washington Post. (How do I get her job..) Her debate
recaps were great and much more enjoyable than the real thing.
[2] Or had “God always”, for that
matter? The man who claims the Bible is his favorite book called II Corinthians “Two Corinthians”, for Christ’s sake. If we can thank Trump for one thing in
this election, it’s for exposing the hypocrisy of the evangelical vote.
[4] 17% of all deaths due to
maternity/childbirth in 1965.
Illegal abortion was even riskier for non-white women. “In New York City in the early 1960s, one
in four childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion; in
comparison, abortion accounted for one in two childbirth-related deaths among
nonwhite and Puerto Rican women.”
For more reading, https://www.guttmacher.org/about/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue
