Making Abortion Illegal is not the Only Option
Americans have become accustomed to a bitter and acrimonious abortion debate that pits two vocal and well-funded minorities against each other. On the one hand, a staunchly anti-abortion “pro-life” movement pursues the unlikely goal of a legal ban on all abortions. On the other, an equally staunch “pro-choice” movement seeks to preserve the status quo of legal abortion, and tries, in many cases, to expand taxpayer funding of abortion services. When forced to choose sides in this debate, many Catholics understandably align themselves with the former crowd. And they do this despite the fact that for the most part, Catholics hold values similar to the majority of Americans – who have some degree of moral concern with the practice of abortion, but who for one reason or another do not feel comfortable making abortion completely illegal.
In recent years, however, Catholics have looked increasingly to a third option: a snowballing effort to unite a majority of Americans behind “common ground” strategies to reduce and prevent abortions. This approach seeks to address the root causes of abortion: often lack of health care, child care, jobs, and other economic supports that give women and families the tools they need in order to choose life. Catholics may be justified in voting for “pro-choice” candidates who support honest efforts to address abortion through such practical means.
History provides strong support for the argument that abortion reduction will ultimately prove a more effective route than abortion criminalization. In the 35 years since the U. S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, the largest reductions in the U. S. abortion rate occurred in the 1990’s, when a booming economy fueled a sharp decline in abortions. This decline has all but leveled off in recent years as the unemployment rate crept up and financial worries set in. A 2006 study by my organization, Catholics United, looked at data from Kansas and showed a clear correlation between availability of jobs, health care, and Head Start centers, and lower abortion rates. And a more comprehensive study using 20 years of national statistics, released this year by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, proves a link between economic supports for families and reduced incidence of abortion. None of these results are very surprising given that polls have found some three out of four women who obtain an abortion say they do so for economic reasons.
Whereas addressing the root causes of abortion shows tremendous promise, the traditional strategy of advocating legal prohibitions on abortion – primarily by overturning Roe v. Wade – has proven considerably ineffective. It is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will reverse its 1973 decision; indeed, even Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts has suggested that Roe may be “settled law.” And data shows that even an overturn of Roe would have only a minimal effect on the overall abortion rate, since the decision’s reversal would only return the power to criminalize abortion to the states rather than making abortion instantly illegal. A 2008 Catholics United study found that after Roe only a handful of states would likely institute total abortion bans, and that women living in those states could easily obtain legal abortions in neighboring states or illegal abortions in their own localities.
The wider world provides some interesting insight into the most effective – and ineffective – ways of combating abortion. Abortion is strictly illegal in Brazil, yet rampant poverty there drives one of the highest abortion rates on the planet: around 40 abortions per 1000 women, about twice that of the U.S. One of the lowest national abortion rates can be found in the Netherlands, where abortion is generally legal yet women have greater access to health care, flexible work schedules, maternity leave, and other essential components of a family-friendly economy.
One major political party has begun to embrace the abortion reduction cause. In an historic shift this year, the Democrats adopted platform language affirming support for “a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.” At the same time, the Republican Party rejected platform language welcoming bipartisan efforts to reduce abortions.
Catholics may in good conscience vote for candidates who favor legal prohibitions on abortion – including an end to Roe v. Wade – as the primary means of addressing the abortion issue. But so too can they vote for those who pursue efforts to reduce abortions by uniting Americans behind non-coercive strategies.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
No not for now it's need.
You are absolutely correct that making abortion illegal is not the only option. In fact, I would argue that it must not be. If we were simply to overturn Roe v. Wade and immediately pass a no exceptions federal ban on abortions now, the results would predictably look much like the days of Prohibition with disastrous results for countless women and babies. However, though I freely admit this point, to use this as a means of justifying continued unrestricted legal abortion is a cop out. As Catholics, our end goal should be no more abortions.
Since we agree that simply passing legislation is not enough, then we have our work cut out for us. First, it is important for each of us to understand that this fight is not about women's rights as the pro choice advocates claim. Rather it is about whether or not a human life, even an unborn one, is deserving of protection as a person under the law. To deny one group or another personhood, as Roe v. Wade does the unborn child, means they can be disposed of with impunity for any reason and by any means whatsoever. Allowing this to continue sets a dangerous precedent by which many people may be deemed nonpersons and disposed of. It is a person's humanity, not his utility, that should guarantee rights and protection under the law. These are the very principles our nation was founded on. It can be found clearly stated in the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
This said, one must also be concerned for these mothers who find themselves in desperate situations which might drive them to choose abortion. Obviously, as a nation we have failed these women. We have not provided them adequate support. That must change. If we are to turn the tide against abortion, these women need compassionate support, adequate health care, and options that enable them to continue their lives in dignity without putting their child to death. Many Democrats and Republicans, pro choice and pro life activists alike, have been working to engage in these kinds of services. However, this alone is also not enough.
So long as we deny the unborn child personhood, the unmitigated slaughter will continue, and we as a nation are guilty of grave sin. These little lives deserve the same protection as the rest of us, and it is here in the fight against abortion that we have the opportunity to guarantee the protection of law to all human beings, be they big or small, healthy or disabled, young or old. Anything less leaves us at the whim of judges, politicians, or the popular vote to decide who lives and who should die, a breeding ground for the likes of Hitler's Germany where large groups of people were targeted because of race, religion, genetic abnormality, and even such simple things as a less desirable hair and eye color. This cannot be allowed. We protect the lives of our pets, even stray animals, but offer nothing for our own children. Though other options can and even must be pursued, abortion must be made illegal, just as it is illegal to murder, to steal from others, or to beat and torture another because you disagree with his ideas. Directly causing his death is most certainly more a violation of the child's rights than carrying the baby to term could ever be for his mother.
I have one simple question:
If there is nothing wrong with abortion, then why do we need to reduce its use? The Democratic Party has time and again defended not only the right to abortion, or rather the right to choose as they state, but have stated that abortion is not murder, but just another medical procedure.
If this is true, then why all the work to reduce abortions? If they truly believe that there is nothing wrong with it, what is the purpose of this new dedication to reduction?
I think it is just an attempt to placate voters and appease certain members while still raking the millions of pro-abortion donor dollars and glowing endorsements from the major abortion providers and backers.
He mentioned that many people who lobby for the pro-choice movement tend to be extremists, as is the pro-life movement. But most of us are somewhere in the middle of these extremist views. Just because the pro-life movement states that it is "just a medical procedure", doesn't make it any less heart-wrenching to those who get an abortion, therefore the pro-choice movement tries to reduce them.
The statement issued yesterday by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is available at usccb.org, expressly rejects Mr. Korzen's argument that as long as we think that a candidate will help the poor, we can ignore the candidate's appalling record on abortion.
The Bishop's statement makes clear that Catholics must try to help the poor, but must always fight against the intrinsic evil of abortion.