A Solomon's Choice on Abortion: Let Compassion and Justice Prevail

In the Hebrew Scriptures, God grants King Solomon "a wise and discerning mind," so that he would have "discernment in dispensing justice." (1 Kings 3:16-28)

What follows from there is a complex story of two women, mothers of two similarly aged boy children, one of whom has died in the middle of the night. One of the women says her son is alive, and that the other has tricked her by placing the dead child in her arms. The other woman says, "No, the live one is my son, and the dead one is yours." They argue incessantly before the king.

Solomon steps forward and asks for a sword. To find the true mother, he exclaims, "Cut the live child in two, and give half to one and half to the other." The real mother, "overcome with compassion for her son," reveals herself by saying, "Give her the child; only don't kill it." The other, revealing her deception, says, "Cut it in two."

I fear that those of us who support health care reform and reproductive justice for women are being put in the position of the real mother. We know that millions of Americans will benefit from health care reform, but we are being asked by some to sacrifice our own rights in order for a reform bill to pass. Surely that is the position many House Democrats found themselves in last week.

But what about those House members who supported the Stupak amendment, placing new restrictions on abortion services - then voted against health care reform? That group included all of the Republicans but one, and a number of conservative Democrats. Like the other mother, their commitments were to their own interests, rather than to passing health care reform for all.

One can't help but think of the U.S. Catholic bishops as well. Through their support of the Stupak amendment, they intervened to inject their particular religious doctrine into health care reform, rejecting the rights of women themselves to apply or reject the principles of their faith in making decisions about their pregnancies. The bishops are making a similar move in the District of Columbia, where they are threatening to end Catholic social service programs if the city council authorizes civil marriage for same-sex couples.

In order to impose their narrow religious perspective on the rest of us, the bishops would deny health care and social services to people in need, and would stand in the way of urgently need health reforms. It appears they would prefer that the child be cut in two.

The hero of the Bible story is Solomon, who created a context where justice and compassion would prevail. So, too, must our national policymakers. I call their attention to this principle of justice from the Religious Institute's Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as Moral Decision: "No government committed to human rights and democracy can privilege the teachings of one religion over another. No single religious voice can speak for all faith traditions on abortion, nor should government take sides on religious differences."

The Senate first, and then the House conferees and the President, must not ask women to choose between health care reform and their right to abortion services. One in three women in their lifetime will need both. We need to assure that the final bill increases health care coverage overall without denying access to safe, legal abortion services.

Let us pray for wise and discerning minds.

 

Comments

[Jottie]

Well put, and excellent points. One caveat: you insist that women should not have to choose between health care reform & access to abortion services--and, of course, we shouldn't!--but abortion IS health care, and I think this point cannot be stressed enough.

There has been a lot of talk about health care reform & the Stupak amendment in particular that seems not to grasp this essential point. Even President Obama, in his insistence that this "is not an abortion bill," shows a tragic lack of understanding. Reproductive services--­including, but by no means limited to, abortion--are integral to women's health, and health care reform that does NOT fully include them is a sham.

[isjois]

Many Christians don't understand their Christ.

Jesus never discussed abortion or homosexuality. He repeatedly taught love. He fed, healed and loved people. He asked us to do the same. He asked us to care for the poor and marginalized.

It was the pharisees who legislated morality - not Jesus. But, today too many Christians are fighting for things that Jesus was silent about...and silent about things that Jesus fought for.

Christians need to pick up the Bible and get to know who their Christ a little better.

[Jan Carlsson-Bull]

Your analogy is so on-target, Debra. The irony is that not only will anti-choice folks all but stand in line to be the "false mother," they will continue to refer to themselves as "pro-life," even though they will undermine comprehensive health care that supports life and reproductive choice that, I contend, also supports life.

Yet another possibility, even worse, is that Solomon's choice will and is morphing into "Sophie's choice," whereby the loving mother succumbs to a completely untenable choice and loses all her children. With reproductive choice and health care reform both lost, we will need to somehow find the will and the way to begin again.

How to transcend the horrific prospects of Solomon's choice and Sophie's choice and cultivate a mindset and a "soul set" in which we might all be loving parents beyond the moats of our belief set?

Rev. Dr. Jan Carlsson-Bull
Unitarian Universalist minister

[Zanti]

It seems to me that you're painting all "anti-choice folks" as bent on denying abortion rights to women, but I haven't observed that to be case--Jim Wallis, in particular, belies that stereotype. I'm a pro-choice Christian who doesn't care for the Hyde Amendment, but I fully recognize that folks on the other side of the issue run the gamut from decent, freedom-loving people to narrow-minded ideologues determined to tell others what to do.

I would never want to portray them all in terms of the latter. It amounts to assuming the worst about someone simply because he or she doesn't see eye to eye with me.

[Jeany]

As I tried to comment on the Wallis post, access to the FULL panoply of health care (translation, pro-choice) is a matter of life and death for women. The consequences of conception are deeply asymmetrical, and excuse me, we are not lesser beings. I'm old enough that I have stories of friends and acquaintances whose lives were ended, or changed forever by an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, and I want Wallis and his ilk to wake up to reality and STOP giving aid and comfort to those men who want us to just shut up and keep on breeding.

[Blueslyn]

How do the Catholic Bishops feel about vasectomies and tubal ligations? Should we ask Jehovah's Witnesses to weigh in on paying for blood transfusions? How about Christian Scientists on about any treatment protocol? We need religious leaders to speak out on matters of conscience and assume moral leadership for members of their faith traditions. The crafting of national healthcare policy must not be held hostage to the varieties of religious dogma that exist in our free society.

[vincentlachina]

The tragedy for us who advocate for reproductive justice for women is that too many legislators, bishops, and extremists are perfectly happy being the false mother. They would allow the 'baby' to be split in two as long as their wants were met. Sadly, we can now begin to see the real face of the enemy, and that frightens me. A wise philosopher once said, "May God protect us from the things men do in the name of God." I couldn't agree more, and I am praying for protection!

[illit]

"The bishops are making a similar move in the District of Columbia, where they are threatening to end Catholic social service programs if the city council authorizes civil marriage for same-sex couples. "

sounds good to me

all tax support - i.e. 'tax-exempt' status should be removed from all religious organizations - including tax deductions for religious contributions

I see no reason for me, a tax paying non-believer, to subsidize religion.

[Zanti]

Makes sense to me--punish religion across the board for the behavior of the Catholic Church.

We can follow up by going to neighborhoods where crimes occur and tossing everyone in jail.

Then we can punish all taxpayers for those people who cheat on their returns.

Then we can... (To be continued)