Will the Real Pro-life Party Please Stand Up?

Joel Hunter is a conservative, Republican megachurch pastor in Central Florida. He's giving the Democrats some free advice, if they care to hear it: Even if you stick with Roe V. Wade, you can show evangelicals that you are the pro-life party by showing us how you will actually reduce abortions--and how you will support "life" in other areas besides abortion. From Steve Waldman's Beliefnet column today:

Hunter makes a practical argument: providing women with economic help in carrying babies to term can actually reduce the number of abortions more, and more quickly, than focusing on overturning Roe v. Wade. "With eight years of Bush the abortion rates have not declined. Every indication is that with financial support and different forms of supporting pregnant mother and then some post birth help also we could come close to 50% reduction in abortions. That's huge. That's huge."

Continuing with the same culture war paradigm is therefore morally dubious. "If we insist on keeping this an ideological war we're literally not saving the babies we could save. The Democrats have a huge opportunity here to really steal the thunder from those who are seen as traditionally pro life."

Keep a look out for other Christian leaders popping up with the same message. What's causing this is the failure of the Republicans to significantly reduce abortions, even with 20 years of Republican presidency since the rise of the Christian right. Many Christians are finally getting fed up.

In my opinion, the Republican line on abortion--the singular focus on banning it--was just a cynical ploy. I know that many GOP leaders were sincere, but overall the strategy was simply to oppose abortion symbolically while doing nothing to reduce abortions in real life. Moreover, there is evidence from history and from around the world that banning abortion would not even reduce abortions (have we ever banned anything successfully?).

Pro-life Christians are finally getting this. If the Democrats take Joel Hunter's advice, and stand up as the real "pro-life party," they will not find formerly Republican Christians falling into lock step with them. Many of these Christians are so burned by their experience with the GOP that they will not join another party. However, in their pro-life calculations at the voting booth, many will choose the Democrat.

But how many? That depends on Obama, and if he will take Joel Hunter's advice. If Obama can boldly articulate a pro-life platform to reduce abortion, care for children and families, reduce arms and prevent war then he could bring about a seismic shift in electoral politics that makes the "Reagan Democrat" phenomenon look like nothing.

For many pro-choice advocates, that will feel like a concession. But has the status quo stand off worked any better for them over the past few decades? Abortion is still legal, but access to safe abortions for women who choose them has all but disappeared for many working class and rural women--right alongside other medical and social services. For sure, embracing a politics of "life" is a risk for pro-choice advocates. But Christian leaders who reject the status quo are taken an arguably greater risk: with their own congregations, with their national reputations and with anti-abortion extremists.

Only one thing is certain: It's going to be fascinating to watch how change and risk will be embraced or rejected by various advocates on both sides of the debate through this election and an Obama presidency.

Comments

[bheartlib]

Why are 'pro-choice' people automatically relegated to the 'I want an abortion' contingent? I can state here and now, with no reservatio­ns...than no woman in her right mind EVER WANTS an abortion!! Pro-choice is just that...eac­h woman chooses when she will become a mother. If that means she uses birth control, or emergency contraception, abstinance, or an abortion..­.it is her choice. There are millions of scenerios, there are millions of stories. They are all personal, and they all belong to each single woman alone. Some are financial, some are physical, and some are emotional. But they are all private. Pro-choice people have always tried to prevent the need for abortion by making women able to control their own bodies. Why isn't emergency contraception available 'behind-th­e-counter'­? Why aren't our children taught how to protect themselves from STD's and unwanted pregnancy? Abstinance only does NOT work. Why are insurance companies not forced to pay for contraception as they are paying for Viagra? How can hospitals and pharmacies be allowed to deny women their rightful birth-control medications? How can it be that anyone thinks they can dictate what I do with my body? Amazing.

[Danny]

This issue, the "pro-life" movement, has to be confronted with the real dilemma of overpopulation of the planet. They, in their cocoons of Texas, can't make the rules for the rest of the planet.

[mattheweste]

There is no over-population issue. You need to look at recent trends in global population projection. It is likely that world population will stabilize within a few decades and before the present population even doubles again.

Under-population is more likely to be an issue eg. in Europe where population growth is already negative and has been for a while. Aging population plus decreasing population means problems with social security.

[RISwampyankee]

Zack Exley has clearly stated the centerist position but for the religious right, it has never been about abortion or babies. It's about sex and making sure that every non-procreative sex act is punished as harshly as possible. If this were about babies, every pregnant woman would have access to quality medical care before birth and quality child care after birth. It's about punishing women economically if they carry to term and keep the child and verbally raping a woman if she seeks an abortion.

[speedingpullet]

LOL - I wonder if the huge 'debate' over reproductive rights would be different if it was men who got pregnant?

You can bet that it would be a non-question if that were the case ;-)

No - I'm not a man-hater. Just a 'what if.....?' moment.

[mattheweste]

You sound like a man hater and that was a deeply sexist statement.

There's no "what if" about it because we know that men are treated far worse than women when it comes to reproductive and family rights. We also know that when it comes to men there's no such thing as "his body his choice".

[Mariel]

Not true, RIS. Most of those against abortion are against killing a life they believe was created by God. They believe none of us has the right to kill an innocent life. It is not about punishing a woman for getting pregnant, although that could occur in the minds of some bad people.

[LeftRight]

And yet they not only support war, but they tend to support the death penalty. I'm not saying that EITHER of those are wrong, but to claim to be "pro-life" and then justify talking ANY life is hypocritical!

[bungalotis]

When will the pro-life Christians realize that they are in the minority on this position? Although nobody is really into abortions, nobody is interested in banning abortions again except pro-life Christians. Therefore politicians will only give them lip service on this indefinitely. If Christians want to reduce abortions then they need to elect politicians that they think will make people's lives better. Apparently abortions go down when people think they can support the coming children (see Freakonomics ... not exactly a "liberal" interpretation of this issue).

[BOHICA]

As noted, the Republicans have been in control, with a few breaks during the '90s, in excess of 20 years. Believe me, if they sincerely wanted an end to abortion there would be one. They make pious noises about how 'pro-Life' they are, all the while using this issue as a diversion from what's really doing on. It's like the man behind the curtain.

[chrismolla]

Here we have a mega-church pastor coming around to something resembling a reasonable position. It makes me think of some of the pro-choice camp's better attempts at sloganeering. "Pro-child, pro-family-pro choice" is one. "Every child a wanted child" is one I liked better. The great hypocrisy on the part of the Right has always been that, while they are so rabid about equating abortion with murder, they have no interest in the children their crusade has saved once they're in the world, much less the mothers who bear them. Support for children and mothers - and families in general (whatever their formation) - is, for progressives, a no-brainer.

Now let's see if these newly-awake Christians follow through on some of the implications of this new thinking, like providing these children with solid educations, healthy food, etc., support for mothers - single or otherwise - as they balance jobs with parenting, and support for these mothers as they strive to improve their lot through continued education of their own.

Let's also not forget one of the best abortion preventatives of all, easy access to contraception and family planning information.

There's an opening here for progressives to reframe this debate. Let's not squander it.

[berkawoo]

I can't imagine the pro life far right ilk ever being pragmatic about abortion. But if more of them were to be pragmatic they would be supportive of education and access to all methods of contraception. Which could genuinly reduce abortions.
That would include abstinence which is unrealistic, but also include the more reliable methods of birth control. This would never happen because their mindset is about controlling and diminishing female sexuality. Also a mindset of ignorance and fear that the W.Bush/Che­ney neocon thugs have successfully used to stay in power. One big problem is that voter turnout is so low for various different reasons which enables this ilk of necons to stay in power and continue their abuse and the love of power over the best interest of the USA and the WORLD.

[electroman76]

Zack come on are you serrious? To quote you "But how many? That depends on Obama, and if he will take Joel Hunter's advice. If Obama can boldly articulate a pro-life platform to reduce abortion, care for children and families, reduce arms and prevent war then he could bring about a seismic shift in electoral politics that makes the "Reagan Democrat" phenomenon look like nothing." How can you do all that in 4yrs 8 if youre lucky?????? Reduce arms and prevent war?? That has proven impossible time and time again the answer to arms is more arms especially when you are nuero uno and carry the banner of freedom. Constant threats will come please Zack you should know that by now. If arms reduction was possible then why did the Soviet Union build itself back up in a militant non humanitarin way??? Or are you suggesting that by the US reducing arms world peace is going to break out???? Please I would love to hear are real logical legitimat answer to all this because the only thing I can think of when someone talks of world affairs is a certian DOORS song that goes "The future's uncertian and the End is always near" For real wake up on this one neither McCain or Obama is going to get the world to all sing anytime soon. In fact it's highly likely that we will be talking about many of thees thing on the world stage again in 4yrs.

[electroman76]

The truth is that the number of abortions yearly will likely never change! I know 4 diff women who had them and they were all young at the time 18-20 and in all cases the decison haunts them as much as 21 yrs later in one case my Aunt. The only way to help this problem is to strengthen family values and for parents to be closer to their kids during formative yrs. Obama Even then it's not fullproof. Also the nanny state Obama proposes to create is not going to help matters. However the one thing Obama bettter change is his disturbing support of late and partial birth abortions. This view is not going to get him far with many people outside the most radical of voters. I can be very liberal on many things this is one that really troubles me and is personally wrong.

[slaxx]

umm...i don't know very much about these bills, but i would honestly have to think that it was because there were other provisions in the bill that he disliked (such as they didn't have provisions to protect the life of the mother). i don't think anyone supports late term abortions, unless to protect the mother. we can't take these things at face value but really have to research them to find out why and what it's all about.

[truthynesslover]

Anouther truth is late term and "partial birth abortions are alreadt rare.Bette­r healthcare and cotroception would make them even more so.F Y I.My cousin had a late term abortion because the baby was already dead and the doctors advised it. How many in the statistics are like that do you think?

[TheAlchemist]

The abstinence only policy is a failed policy.

People have sex.

They need to be educated.

One drop of lubricant on the inside of the condom minimizes breakage (and incidentally enhances male stimulation).

Preventing unintended pregnancy sure beats abortion.

[kuastar]

RE "One drop of lubricant on the inside of the condom minimizes breakage"

Wouldn't that allow it to slip off easier?

[LeftRight]

No, it's already too tight, it just makes it slide AROUND better, not OFF better.

[Nyla785]

Can we be honest here? This ProLife issue is soo dead now. Under the Republican engineering of our economy , no one can afford these extra children. And even as a nation we can't afford the extra social services extra children will require. Foster care doesn't handle them well now!
ProLife policies are now just a theoretical exercise, having nothing to do with real life. And those that promote them pretend to be so 'moral'--but are totally 'immoral' in how they choose to ignore the children after birth.

[sunworshipper]

I would like to respond to the person who said that "the vast majority of aborted babies are black". I don't know where that person got the statistic but I can assure them, from my work as a volunteer in a women's reproductive health clinic, where many abortions are performed, that the vast majority of patients I see are actually white or hispanic. Also, if anyone who opposed abortion bothered to look into the many tragic and difficult circumstances in which women choose to have an abortion, and the tough decision-making process most of them have gone through, they may change their minds about restricting its availability, and leave it to those women to make the best choice for their own lives. I am personally not in favor of any legal restrictions or impediments to early abortion whatsoever and believe the decision should be entirely in the hands of a woman and her health care provider.

[speedingpullet]

Bravo sunworshipper - I've been fortunate enough never to have been in a position to make that choice, but I know a few women who have - and its been one of the most difficult decisions that they've ever made.

And, take heart, there's always someone who will descend to the 'race issue' when talking about anything. Ignorance breeds fear.

[ebethgay]

According to the CDC "The abortion rate for black women (29 per 1,000 women) was 3.0 times the rate for white women (10 per 1,000) whereas the abortion rate for women of other races (21 per 1,000 women) was 2.1 times the rate for white women."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

So there is disproportion among the races, and I believe this disproportion is actually due to economic factors instead of any predisposition towards abortion among racial lines.

I am pro-life on all fronts: abortion, unprovoked war, death penalty, and gun violence. As with other ways that life is extinguished, abortion is preventable. Obviously abstinence isn't the answer, so birth control education and access is crucial to eliminating unwanted pregnancies. Yes, there are instances where abortion is the "least worst" solution, but through education, open-mindedness and acceptance towards single mothers and their children, and programs designed to provide birth control (and if needed child care support), I think there is common ground to be found between pro-life and pro-choice advocates.

[slaxx]

the problem is that it seems like most pro-lifers are solely concerned with overturning roe. roe v. wade should not be overturned. women who wish to get abortions will get abortions, whether it's legal or not. making it illegal may make abortion less common, but it wont stop it and it will breed a whole host of fiscal and social ills.

of course we all want to reduce abortions (especially woman - NO WOMAN wants to get an abortion), but it seems like it's the policies of the dems that actually work toward that end by supporting birth control, sex ed, social programs, etc. it's the policies of the repubs and the religious right that make abortion much more common. abortion has complex causes and it's the causes that need to be worked on but for some erronous reason, all the focus is put on abortion itself and not what causes it.

[guajiro]

I totally agree with the gist of this article and hope my idea is taken seriously. How about getting those groups from the Religious Right and empowering them by making them responsible for the adoption of babies whom might otherwise have been aborted. It is capitalistic self interest at work here. They should be responsible for finding mothers who might not want to abort and find ways to make sure she carries the baby to term and then have a parent for the baby already lined up. This would help tremendously and would, as a side benefit, reduce the scope/size of our government in our lives.

[slaxx]

or we could just totally ignore them. we already have adoption and it obviously isnlt the answer. abortion is a heart wrenching decision that women don't make lightly. and any woman that does take it lightly shouldn't be reproducing anyway.

also, over half of christains are pro-choice and a little less than half support gay marriage. the religious right doesn't care about these women and their lives, otherwise they wouldn't be constantly fighting to have a blanket ban on women's reproductive freedom. it's about control. they simply want others to live up to their "moral"/religious values and have no problem forcing it on anybody. just don't ask them to lift a finger to come up with REAL solutions because it ain't gonna happen.

[isis]

I noticed that the Right to Life group in my state donated only to republicans even when a pro-lifer democrat ran for governor. people should see them as the partisan sham they are. You can support legal abortions and not have one or recommend them. They are just a way to keep women safe and talking about their reproductive health.

[ContraEgoiste]

I believe that this is a reverse approach, we don't need to push our leaders to be more religious or cater to religious zealots. what our onus should be is to educate the religious electorate that:

- Sex is not evil.
- That contraception is not evil.
- That teenagers are going to have sex.
- That sex education is the way to guide teenagers to a mature and safe way to approach sex.
- That a woman has the right to decide when and if she wants to become a parent.

When the above was being practice, as opposed to the now puritanical abstinence hypocracy and blindness, the rate of pregnangcies, stds and abortions were going down.

Pushing a religion test or pushing our candidates towards religion is a dangerous precedent that we are only bound to regret. I rather loose those closed minded votes than cater to the sham and irrationality of the megachurches and especially their snake oil salesmen leaders.

[dutchman]

How America has come to believe that the most beautiful thing two (or more) people can do together is "dirty" and "evil" is beyond me, and I think one of the more severe social pathologies affecting the US today.

I personally think it's why there is so much domestic violence - and worse; people in the US (especially in our beloved Red States) have developed such a warped view of the powerful desires we're all born with. All of us - everyone. The pope even.

The US has some of the highest teen birth rates in the industrialized world. Compare it to most of Europe, where the teen birth rate is vastly lower, but in an environment that is much more mature and open about sex.

And I don't think it's an accident that in countries like Sweden, Germany and The Netherlands that have famously open attitudes about sex, women do so much better. They participate more in the labour pool, make more money, hold more governmental posts (look at Merkel) and certainly get physically abused, much, much less. Oh, they also get fewer abortions.

Sex should be responsibly celebrated, not irrationally condemned.

Dutchman

[slaxx]

good post. i think that the religious right needs an education. they seem to think that abortion occurs in a vacuum, either that or they just don't care. i think that abortion and abortion rates are a reflection of the state of women in a society.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Yes I quite agree with your article.

Nobody really favors or encourages abortions, what we want is for woman to have choices if an unwanted mistake occurs.

But there is no reason why Obama cannot take a more humanitarian approach to this divisive and highly moral issue. Make a serious attempt through education, abstinence and contraception to reduce abortions, keep them legal but make them rare.

Obama/Clark