13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.
There is a key phrase in Galatians chapter 1, as Paul reviews some of his personal history; we can read these words:
14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace,
16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood...
Last week, a group of seven Presidential candidates gathered at the library in California bearing the name of Ronald Reagan for a debate, based on various reports, against each other, the frontrunner for the nominee who was absent from the proceedings, the incumbent for the office, and...the moderators.
That would include Fox host Dana Perino, who not only served as press secretary for George W. Bush, but reportedly was fresh off a stint at a Clinton Foundation event in which she introduced the former First Lady, Secretary of State, and former Presidential aspirant.
Perino, just like Fox colleague Martha MacCallum, asked a question about abortion that seemed to imply that a pro-life position, embraced to some degree by most, if not all of the candidates in the field, is a losing position. Here's how The Washington Stand described Perino's exchange with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis:
DeSantis rebutted Perino, who asked how he could “win over independent, pro-choice voters in Arizona,” if the state ballot has a referendum on abortion.
“The same way we did in Florida,” DeSantis replied.
He noted the 1.5 million-vote margin and said, "We were winning in places like Miami-Dade County, Palm Beach, that nobody thought was possible, because we were leading with courage and conviction.”
This comes on the heels of MacCallum's decree in the first debate that essentially opposition to abortion being a "losing issue" since the Dobbs decision, according to the Washington Stand, which said:
In an effort to bolster her point, she referred to several recent state referendums on abortion. While the six states MacCallum noted might have voted either to endorse abortion or to kick the can down the road on the question, 25 states — that’s half the country, for those who are counting — have enacted pro-life legislation since the Dobbs decision in order to protect the unborn. Furthermore, every single governor who backed pro-life legislation has maintained his gubernatorial seat...
MacCallum's question led to a tedious discussion between former Vice-President Mike Pence and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, both former state governors, about the prospect of a national 15-week ban on abortion. The New York Post noted that Haley, while claiming to be "unapologetically pro-life," stated:
“It will take 60 Senate votes, it will take a majority of the House,” she said, suggesting it will be difficult, if not impossible, to pass such restrictions before arguing for finding areas of “consensus.”
“Can’t we all agree that we should ban late-term abortions?” she asked. “Can’t we all agree that we should encourage adoptions? Can’t we all agree that doctors and nurses who don’t believe in abortion shouldn’t have to perform them? Can’t we all agree that contraception should be available? And can’t we all agree that we are not going to put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty if she gets an abortion?”
Former VP Mike Pence, a staunch evangelical Christian, took issue with Haley’s lukewarm statement on the issue.
“To be honest with you, Nikki, you’re my friend, but consensus is the opposite of leadership,” said Pence, who has said a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy should be the “minimum nationwide standard.”
“They didn’t just send it to the states only,” he added, referring to last year’s Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. “It’s not a states-only issue, it’s a moral issue.”
Another aspect of the life discussion in the first debate resurfaced during the second. The Post related an exchange with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who had signed a "heartbeat bill;"
“Just to be clear, governor, would you sign a six-week ban federally?” Bret Baier asked DeSantis.
“I’m going to stand on the side of life,” the 44-year-old answered. “Look, I understand Wisconsin is going to do it different than Texas. I understand Iowa and New Hampshire are going to do it differently, but I will support the cause of life as governor and as president.”
DeSantis used the Florida six-week ban in the second debate to draw a contrast with recent comments of former President Donald Trump, according to The Washington Stand:
“I reject this idea that pro-lifers are to blame for midterm defeats,” said DeSantis. “The former president — he’s missing in action tonight — he’s had a lot to say about that.”
DeSantis referred to comments by Trump that the Florida heartbeat bill was a "terrible" thing.
Trump “should be here, explaining his comments to try to say that pro-life protections are somehow a terrible thing. I want him to look into the eyes and tell people who have been fighting for a long time,” DeSantis stated. “We’re better off when everybody counts, and I think we should stand for what we believe in.”
Pro-life leaders have, to say the least, been disappointed in recent comments from Trump, who has delighted in his contribution to appointing three pro-life judges and overturning Roe v. Wade. And, it could be his latest comments are an indication of his transactional approach to governance. The Washington Stand related that:
“I would sit down with both sides, and I’d negotiate something, and we’ll end up with peace on that issue for the first time in 52 years,” President Trump told Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press” Sunday. When asked directly whether he will sign national legislation protecting unborn children from abortion beginning at 15 weeks, he replied, “I’m not going to say I would or I wouldn’t.”
It does seem unlikely that there is any agreement to be had between people who support abortion in all nine months of pregnancy and those who believe in the sanctity of life and want to limit abortion. The Washington Stand article states:
Pro-life leaders found the president’s comments concerning. “We’re at a moment where we need a human rights advocate, someone who is dedicated to saving the lives of children and serving mothers in need. Every single candidate should be clear on how they plan to do that,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, told The Washington Stand exclusively. “It begins with focusing on the extremes of the other side — and ambition and common sense on our own.”Tony Perkins of FRC, which sponsored the summit, said about the Meet the Press comments, “Quite frankly, it was a bit troubling..."
Trump’s comments came just a little over 24 hours after he dubbed himself “the most pro-life president in American history” at the 2023 Pray Vote Stand Summit in Washington, D.C.
President Trump thinks pragmatism is possible when it comes to abortion, but history and present-day circumstances suggest otherwise. Mr. Trump may pride himself on his ability to negotiate deals, but there is no deal that zealots determined to enshrine the right to kill preborn children will accept. Radical advocates repeatedly deny that they support abortion up to birth—i.e., late-term abortion—but none ever tell us at what point they would accept any restrictions whatsoever.He went on to say:
Even so, debate over such limits raises a question: why can a baby be saved at four to nine months’ gestation, but not at one to two months? It’s still a baby.
When it comes to abortion and the protection of innocent life, during this campaign political calculation is inevitable, even expected. But if we want to make America a less hostile and more civil society for everyone, we must start by respecting human life at all stages of development. Abortion is erasing the future and eliminating boys and girls who would grow up to become men and women who would cure cancer, invent life-saving technologies, solve impossible problems, compose symphonies, and help create a more beautiful culture and society.
The former President is attempting to respond politically and, to borrow a variation of Daly's word, pragmatically. But, abortion is more than a matter of politics or negotiation. Pro-life people across the nation, while involved in crafting responses in the lawmaking process, also recognize that this is a moral, spiritual, and deeply personal issue. It's a matter of life over death, light over darkness. And, before and after Dobbs, those who belong to the pro-life movement, many of whom are devoted to the love and Lordship of Jesus Christ, are speaking truth and showing compassion to women and their families in crisis pregnancy situations.
We have to understand that life is a winning position, the winning position! And, as the title of Marjorie Dannenfelser's pre-Dobbs book suggests, Life Is Winning. And, the approach to those who oppose the sanctity of life and support the termination of babies' lives at any point of pregnancy is not to compromise, but to pray and educate. The majority of Americans, as Dannenfelser points out, favors a 15-week limit on abortion: “You’re standing with the majority of people, 70% when you talk about a 15-week limit. And that not only is closer to the right thing to do, but it’s also the politically smart thing to do,” as the article notes, "especially 'when you contrast that with an unlimited abortion position...'" And, I think that in survey after survey, there is significant support for restrictions on abortion indicates the views of the American people and even the American conscience that U.S. citizens are not comfortable with the taking of life in the womb.
I am not endorsing a candidate here - there are many alternatives who would still fall into the camp of being "pro-life." Nor do I have all the answers...as for me, I would love to see abortion totally banned in our country, and believe that Alabama's Human Life Protection Act, banning abortion in most cases, without exception, is the right way to go. I think that's a "north star" for pro-life policy. The pro-life movement, however, also realizes the limitations in some states, as well as nationwide in enacting this type of legislation, although a significant number of states, The New York Times places that number at 14, which have enacted similar protections. But, we have to be convinced in the moral clarity of our cause, be rooted in the compassion of Christ, and devoted to pointing out the extremism of those who have shifted dramatically from "safe, legal, and rare," to "unlimited availability."
No comments:
Post a Comment