I was in the gym when the news broke that the infamous, nonetheless controversial, ruling that granted abortion access nationwide was overturned in the summer of 2022. This was the moment conservatives, Christians, and all pro-life groups had been longing for— to have such a victory for life meant no more federal sanctioned disregard for human life in the womb. The overturn gave the issue back to the states, but with the overturn this led many to ask the question, “What now?”
The Pro-Life movement before the overturn, had one singular, concentrated goal: overturn Roe vs. Wade, and they succeeded. This of course is not to neglect the grassroots work that was being done at the state level, however the attention was on the federal side of things. If you could get the issue back to the states, then you could pass an outright ban on the abortion procedure, right? Not exactly.
It turns out the right to life has only intensified. It seems less organized too, as different Pro-Life groups appear to have different ideas about having one common goal. There are some who want to ban abortion federally, while some want to address it at the state level. Then there is debate about what are reasonable restrictions, what is the strategy, what is morally right, and campaigning, etc. There was even recent outrage about Trump’s view on abortion, citing that it was immoral and politically stupid. Why do things seem complicated on a such a clear black and white subject?
Lack of support
This is more nuanced than the subtitle suggests, however there needs to be a harsh reality check for the Pro-Life movement. State constitutional measures to outright ban or severely restrict abortion access, nonetheless federal, is widely unpopular. In the state of Kansas, where the electorate is heavily Republican and conservative, failed to pass a constitutional amendment that stated the access to abortion was not a right, by the large margin of 59% to 41%. There have also been seven states that attempted to do similar amendments to their constitutions and failed every single one. That said, this is where it becomes complicated: The New York Times polled the restricting abortion access to some capacity has a net majority among Republican voters. 33% out of the majority 56% favor strict abortions, which begs the question of why they failed to pass it even in states like Kansas? Gallop polls show that the majority of both Independents (52%) and Democrats (60%), favor abortion access to some capacity. Thus, these voters, in even the most politically conservative states, outnumber Republican voters, and even among Republican voters, the number of voters in favor of outright banning abortion stands at 11%, according to Gallup. This is not foregoing the lessons from the last several elections as well, given what polls show does not always reflect at the ballot box. All these things considered, it is fair to assess that the majority of Americans are Pro-Choice.
Secularism
Secularism cannot be underestimated. The pace of the growing amount of Americans identifying themselves as “non-religious” has an upward trajectory, whereas those who identify as Christian has dropped to 65% from 77% in 2009. That is not the only factor however, as only 17% of Christians in America today claim the inerrancy of the Bible, and out of that 17%, only 37% are pastors who echo this belief. This begs the question of whether 65% of professed Christians polled is more of a “feel good” number than an actual reflection. When the majority of the Church does not believe in the inerrancy of scripture, God’s Word, they become susceptible to the winds of the culture (2 Peter 2:1). Christianity played a pivotal role in creating the American culture upon her foundation, however one must come to the harsh reality that the majority of Americans base their morality on one’s “own understanding,” instead of the Creator of the universe.
Personhood
This is one of, if not the biggest challenge, for the Pro-Life movement— the debate of personhood. Is a fetus a person? The United States considers a newborn a “person,”yet there is not a universal agreement of what defines a person. Biologist consider the beginning of humanity to be at conception, but as to the question of personhood, that is where the distinction and the disconnect lie. “Person,” has to do with the individual, whereas “human” is the species term. And when people think of “individual rights,” that can be translated as “personhood rights.” Thus, what makes a person an individual worth protecting? The Biblical worldview would look no further than Psalm 139 to define personhood—that it is from conception, in absolute terms. However for the postmodernist thinker, this is a relative matter. English philosopher, John Locke, defines personhood as, “a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places." This of course has many flaws, as a child or a newborn nonetheless, does not have that capacity of reasoning early on. Of course, there are more ideas about personhood on the secular side of things, however the majority of Americans see the world through a relative lens, and it is therefore an open casket of debate. Those who see the world through the lens of religion, especially Biblical Christianity, are the minority of the population—another tough pill to swallow.
What now?
The first thing the Pro-life movement needs to agree upon is the end goal. What is the end goal? It is no secret that my hope is for the procedure to be banned all together federally, however America is not ready for such a ban. That is what Pro-Lifers need to recognize, if that is indeed the end goal. The expression, “take what you can get,” could not be truer here. Pro-lifers need to start small and take a victory lap now that it is in the hands of the people of the states. I say this, fully aware of the barbaric abortion laws that still exist in states like California, New York, and Illinois. However, achieving justice happens in small increments. This approach is what led to the reversal of Roe vs. Wade. There were other cases over the years building up to June of 2022, that gave more rights to the state to decide how to regulate abortion. This is progress, but postmodernist thinking is rampant in our culture and has obscured the idea of personhood. This way of thinking will take generations to reverse.
The baseline should be to disconnect it from taxes. If there is a population that genuinely believes it is their right to “terminate” the pregnancy, then it should be out of their own pocket, not out of the pockets of taxpayers. This process can begin by updating the Hyde Amendment to prevent any taxpayer money, for any case anywhere, from paying for an abortion. This includes Title X, which currently pays for women to have abortions. Making these adjustments to the Hyde Amendment would permanently take the issue out of the federal government’s hands. The next step then, on the state level, should be for Pro-Life organizations to push for an end to all state-taxpayer funds going towards abortion and their clinics, such as Planned Parenthood. Ironically, the vast majority of Americans are not in favor of taxpayer money going towards abortions. If the Pro-Life movement rallied for this, it would be an easy win. The idea would be to kill the market for this industry to begin with, before asking secular Americans to outright ban the procedure.
Then, it is a matter of the domino effect. Of course, this must be done at the state level first, but there also needs to be a conversation to define personhood over humanhood. The most depraved Pro-Choice supporters recognize that the fetus is human, however they only see him/her as a clump of cells instead of a person. If Americans cannot universally agree on the definition of what makes an individual a person, then the status quo debates will live on in a vicious cycle of repeating the same talking points. The biology is on the side of Pro-Life, however we need to win the philosophical aspect of this debate first. If people recognized that the fetus is more than just a bodily human, but also a *person,* then public opinion will sympathize more with the fetus’ right to exist. The morality of the issue will then follow suit upon the recognition that the fetus is indeed a person. That said, we are still left with the mother—what happens with her?
Gaining sympathy for the fetus’ personhood is not an exclusive situation from the mother, but they are in fact, interrelated. If people could see the child as a person, it would create a deeper and more genuine sense of compassion for the mother because there would be a sense of urgency to care for the one carrying the person. This is where the Pro-Life movement should encourage innovation to really change the perception of what it means to be either Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. Pro-Life, needs to be focused on creating a system that allows mothers (and fathers who are, and should be, involved) to feel safe in having the child. Perhaps it is merely science fiction at this point in time, but there could be a push to have serious advancements to improve the incubator technology that would allow a fetus as young as three weeks old to live and grow outside the mother in case it is a life, rape, or incest situation. That would dramatically change the idea of what it means to be Pro-Choice. What if that 5 year old girl that was raped, had the safe option to have the fetus live in an incubator instead of having the life-threatening decision to carry the child or not? This would require a paradigm shift in healthcare that promotes the protection of life for both the mother and the fetus.
Ultimately, this can only be achieved by trusting God’s truth. There must be a strong trust in God’s power to speak truth to a postmodern generation, hostile to God. This starts at the church level. Could it be argued from a secular point of view? It could, however if the basis of the definition of personhood relies on human understanding, then the foundation is already shifting sand. Re-emphasizing the belief that the Christian Bible is the inerrant word of God would stabilize the foundation of having such a philosophical debate of what it means to be a person, including the personhood of the fetus. If the deconstruction of truth transpired due to the lack of trust in God’s truth, then how are we to speak truth by injecting the same poison of distrustfulness into our souls? Only by the influence of God can the fetus have a chance to be considered a person in this generation.
The road ahead is challenging for Pro-Lifers. The workload has increased tenfold since the overturn of Roe. vs Wade. Could we have hard stances on abortion? Yes. Could there also be grace for those who feel uncomfortable with such hard stances? Yes. Could there even be grace for policies that don’t necessarily fall in line with the hard stance of abortion restrictions or a complete ban of it? Absolutely, because more than one thing can be true at the same time. Pro-Lifers need to reorganize and create a blueprint to figure out the direction in this post-Roe vs. Wade era. Our mission should be to create the big picture, define smaller, practical goals so as to give encouragement to life’s defenders, and most importantly, trust God’s timing in bringing out truth in order for justice to occur overall. The personhood of the fetus depends on it.
Author’s Note: Anything underlined is a link for you to click on if desired. Readers are encouraged to educate themselves and seek other sources for information. Additionally, please share this with friends and family members, along with hitting the “Heart” button to reach more people!