It is no accident that the 2018 anniversary of Roe v. Wade
came as Congress shutdown the government and children’s health insurance was
one of their bargaining chips. Congress is dysfunctional because many were
elected by single-issue voters. Often that issue is abortion.
Those who support a woman’s right to choose are generally
not single-issue voters. Abortion matters but so do a broad range of quality of
life issues. They attempt to apply a sense of morality to a basketful of issues
rather than just one.
Most conservative Christians place bets on a single issue,
abortion. In the process, they elect candidates who marginalize the poor, support
tax cuts for the wealthy, budget cuts for education and healthcare, and
slashing the social safety net. Ironically, they elect pro-life politicians who
care little about the child’s quality of life.
Maybe we all need to look at the abortion issue differently,
starting with pro-choice voters.
What if Congress passed the law I am about to describe and
the Supreme Court upheld it. This hypothetical law allows mothers to kill their
children for any reason at any time within nine months following the child’s
birth. Maybe she got a girl when she wanted a boy. Perhaps the child had
serious health problems or disabilities. It could be the mother decided she
just didn’t want to be a mother.
In any event, this hypothetical law dictates the final
choice is hers. Even the father, could not interfere. The law protects the mother’s
right to choose.
Pro-choice voters would call that murder. The child was
living and now is dead, under the law of the land.
That law might convert many of us into single-issue voters.
Horrified by the deaths of thousands of these young lives, I’m betting that
many of us would cast aside our concerns about a myriad of other issues, just
as pro-life voters have, and find candidates who would vote to end this
outrage.
That’s how the pro-life side of this debate feels about the nine
months preceding birth. If you believe life begins at conception, as they
believe, abortion during the time the fetus spends in the womb is as much a
murder as if the parents killed the child during the nine months after birth.
The debate over a woman’s right to choose to have an
abortion is the longest continuing civil war in human history. It started before
Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court may have thought it had ended the controversy.
However, that decision was just another battle in the war. It merely deepened divisions.
The debate is bitter because middle ground is hard to find.
Gandhi saw it “as clear as daylight that abortion should be
considered a crime.” Margaret Sanger thought no woman could call herself free unless
she controlled her body. The Catholic writer Ronald Rolheiser says abortion is
a sign of “something wrong in the culture,” such as poverty, lack of
healthcare, and livable wages.
The goal we share is to reduce the numbers of abortions. The
most certain way is to assure pregnant mothers that they aren’t left alone in
an uncaring community. Last year the number of abortions fell considerably and
could be reduced even more if young mothers didn’t feel abandoned to raise their
child in poverty or without other necessary resources such as adequate wages,
safe and affordable child care and healthcare, and a living wage.
However, many single-issue abortion voters too often support
candidates who oppose “safety-net” protections for families.
Maybe that is the middle ground. What if pro-life and
pro-choice voters worked together to find candidates who, regardless of their
position on abortion, care about ending poverty, feeding hungry kids,
guaranteeing affordable healthcare, assuring parents are paid livable wages and
have access to safe, affordable child care as well as quality education?
What if they joined forces to promote the right to a quality
life for all children? That will reduce the number of abortions and give
meaning to the right to life.
No comments:
Post a Comment