The Content of Abortion Laws

Thoughts on the recent Wisconsin Right to Life March

The Limits of Public Protest

At the invitation of the students in my college group at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I attended the Right to Life March at the Wisconsin State Capitol.

Right up front let me say, I am not a fan of public protest. While I think we have a

human right as well as a constitutional right as Americans to assemble and voice our opinions on matters of public concern—or of no concern for that matter—I am dubious about public rallies. Truth be told, they always feel more like a Friday afternoon high school pep rally than a serious political act.

More significantly, public protest appears to me to be an at least implicit acknowledgment that the participants no longer believe in reasoned debate and the ability to convince others.

Mind you, this state of affairs doesn’t necessarily have to reflect poorly on the protestors. We have seen instances when civil authorities are indifferent or even actively hostile to reasonable debate about the concerns of the citizenry. The civil rights protests in the 1960’s are a good illustration of citizen protesting when government officials have abandoned a commitment to reason and civil debate.

But the Right to Life rally was a different matter.

Being Right Isn’t Enough

The pro-life side has recently experienced a great—if mixed—victory with the overturning of Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. As for the pro-choice side, it’s far from clear that the Dobbs decision has done them as much harm at all.

For all their substantive differences, what I found interesting is that both sides at Saturday’s rally shared a seemingly unshakeable conviction in the righteousness of their position. Both sides engaged me in conversation asking me my thoughts about abortion. What I found though is that neither side was actually all that interested in what I thought except insofar that I ratified their conviction that the matter is settled.

When I asked, I was direct (and hopefully charitable) in saying that abortion was a morally bad thing. But I was less than supportive of the prudence of public protest or the various policy positions about which I heard.

I wondered if maybe a public protest was the best way for the pro-life side to accomplish what I was told was their goal of preventing women from having abortions. This is, or at least it seems to me, better accomplished by listening to women who are struggling with the morality of abortion. This listening is always personal and large, loud protests undermine this.

As for the pro-choice side, they seemed adamant that—as an Orthodox priest—I had nothing to add to the conversation. They were convicted that my only reason for being at the rally or to be dubious of legalized abortion is because I’m trying to impose my views on women. Nevertheless, I was pressed to offer my policy views.

Policy is Hard, Especially for the Righteous

In both cases, though, no one seemed particularly interested in examining their own reasons for the abortion policies they supported publicly. Both sides seemed to me to have forsaken reason and civil discourse in favor of, well, virtue signaling.

Jonathan Turley summarizes the consequences of forsaking reason in favor of moral posturing for the abortion debate. He writes:

The question is what politicians on both sides have to say about specific restrictions and not just about the right.

Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler on Thursday swatted down questions about late-term abortions as being “disingenuous.” Instead, he insisted these are questions involving “painful, emotional and even moral decisions.” They are. But they also involve the very legal questions addressed in past Supreme Court cases, including Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding Congress’ right to ban late-term abortion techniques.

He goes on to say

…the issue is whether a woman has a constitutional right to late-term abortions. The answer to that question can help understand the meaning of this right and any balancing of interests recognized in cases like Roe. (While states could adopt a more permissive approach under Roe, it stressed that the state had a powerful interest later in a pregnancy to protect the life of the baby.

The legal “question is whether a woman has an absolute right to demand such an abortion and, if not, why? Even if [late term abortions are ]statistically rare, the answer is legally significant in understanding the meaning of this right.”

Policy Questions for Pro-Choice Advocates

This certainly was something I heard among the pro-choice advocates when I pressed them on what they did—and didn’t—mean by wanting to keep abortion legal.

Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion whenever she wants? Should the government pay for abortions? Does the fetus have any rights? What about the father?

Policy Questions for Pro-Life Advocates

In some ways, the pro-life position might seem to have an easier time of things because they reject anything like a right to abortion. But this doesn’t exempt them from having to do the hard and often uncomfortable work of reflecting on the limits of their own legal arguments.

For example, if abortion is morally the equivalent of homocide (which is the patristic and so Orthodox position) should women who get abortions be arrested and tried? If not, why not?

Additionally, who else should be tried? The doctor who preforms the abortion? The nurses and surgical staff who assist? The clinic employees? And again, if so why, if not why not?

As I said above, public rallying against abortion may help win the policy battle and even change some hearts and minds. But it is unlikely to achieve in any significant measure the goal of convincing particular women to not have an abortion. One need only listen to the counter-protests to see this.

The Challenges Facing OST in America

The abortion debate in the US highlights the challenges faced by OST. As Turley points out, moral clarity doesn’t easily translate into public policy decisions which are always a matter of trade-offs. In our quite understandable political and cultural alliance with Christians in other traditions, we need as Orthodox Christians be mindful of what we might describe as a translation problem.

First there is moving from moral position to public policy. When gently challenged on this neither pro-choice nor pro-life advocates had answers or indeed gave any evidence of thinking through the concrete policy implications of their moral positions. While this can inspire one to “take to the streets,” it does little to promote civil discussion.

Second, the abortion “debate” (again as Turley suggests) seems to mostly be the fruit of what the Church calls the passions. People are moved by strong emotions that (as I mentioned above) cause them to fall far short of the goals they pursue.

Here the Orthodox ascetical tradition might be of value in promoting civil discourse if we can learn how to apply it to public debates. I suspect it is easier for a spiritual father to guide an Emperor, than the Church to foster a disspassionate approach to policy.

Not that I didn’t try. I did but when I didn’t annoy or distress those I spoke with, my words seemed to just fly over their heads. And this for me is the lesson from Saturday.

Saturday’s Life Lesson

At least those American —whether Christian or secular— who are political acitivists are not prepared to hear, much less embrace, the ascetical and sacramental vision of the Church. They are almost wholly locked into a Protestant or secular moral model that tends to stiffle rather than foster common action rooted in mutual forgiveness and understanding.