Common ground on abortion: Rooted in evangelical history
A doctoral candidate at Rice, Blake Ellis, posted a really interesting article over at History News Network yesterday. One of his contentions is that tactics like the removal of family-planning services from the stimulus bill have made it clear that "the goal of the anti-abortion movement is not a reduction in the abortion rate, but rather strict control over the private sexual decisions of the country's citizens."
While FPL has worked with a host of pro-life leaders who are interested in reducing the abortion rate (CLURT, Real Abortion Solutions), we've also witnessed pro-life obstructionism, which seems hell-bent on policing morality and private decisions than actually preventing abortions. Extreme right-to-life advocates claim that common ground solutions are just smoke-and-mirrors, covering up President Obama's actual agenda to "promote unlimited abortions... and force [taxpayers] to pay for abortions." Of course, neither of those claims is grounded in reality--Pres. Obama has repeatedly emphasized his desire to reduce the number of abortions. and we have numerous statutory impediments to government funds going towards abortions (like the Hyde Amendment).
(And don't get me wrong, we've also encountered critics on the left .)
But what's so fascinating about the HNN piece is that it challenges our assumptions about conservative evangelicals--especially about more "old-school" evangelicals. (Obviously, much has been said about the changing of the guard and the younger evangelicals' broader agendas.)
Ellis claims that historically many evangelicals haven't agreed with being fiercely political about abortion, even within quite conservative denominations. One of his examples is Foy Valentine, who pushed the Southern Baptist Convention "toward a liberal stance on issues of race and poverty and opposed Farwell's near-exclusive focus on opposing abortion rights" in the 1960s and '70s.
And... get this...he was a proponent of abortion reduction, through prevention and support for women and families. According to Ellis, he advocated for sex education in churches and made clear that Baptists should play a role in reducing the number of abortions in the country.
And in 1971, at an annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, Baptists overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling for "legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother."
Ellis concedes that many evangelicals leaders and denominations have taken a harder right turn on abortion since then, but makes this final point:
...The actions of these Baptists serve as a reminder that the alliance of southern evangelicals with anti-abortion ideologues was neither inevitable nor unavoidable; and it may be reversible. ...Progressives can build new alliances that might undermine the power of Christian Right leaders who would apparently rather block government support for poor women than work to actually reduce the number of abortions.
That's what we're trying to do. Thanks for Ellis for reminding me that's it possible and right to find common ground on this issue.
Comments
Thanks so much for linking the article. I definitely appreciate the feedback AND your willingness to find common ground on this issue. I hope we can all do a lot more of that in the future.
Best,
Blake Ellis
Posted by: Blake Ellis | February 20, 2009 5:08 PM
It took Barack Obama all of three days to reverse the Mexico City policy on providing funding to organizations that perform abortions overseas. Do you not think that repealing the Hyde Amendment is on the agenda, especially with Democratic control of both houses of Congress?
My strongest issue with Mr Ellis's article is his pervasive demonization of the motives of the "Christian Right". People who believe that abortion should not be tolerated in a civil society, not merely curtailed at the edges through well-meaning social policy, are not inherently hypocritical or intent on controlling private sexual practices. Such demonization of one side of the debate casts his analysis into doubt, because it seems to lack any objectivity in understanding the legitimacy of the perspectives of those on both sides of the discussion.
To take Obama's statements about his distaste for abortion at face value, while impugning the motives of those who are skeptical of him seems a little biased to me. Some actions that COULD reduce the number of abortions might be undesirable for other reasons, and the pro-choice side should not be allowed to dictate what is and is not acceptable in this regard. Seeking common ground is a worthy goal, but it is neither a complete substitute for political action nor a mandate for whatever might be suggested in that mold.
Posted by: Sam Spencer | February 20, 2009 5:32 PM
Sam, I am flattered that you not only posted your comments over on facebook but that you followed my link and posted them here.
I said my peace when I responded to your comments on facebook. So I will just enjoy the fact that you feel strongly enough to post your comments here as well. In a perverse way, I get some satisfaction out of the fact that you got so riled up.
As I said before (and Janine implied) your thoughts are appreciated. However, my article was intended for a scholarly audience, which may account for your distaste for it. You take me to be slandering the movement against abortion rights. I have had several academics tell me that I gave conservative Christians far too much credit. I guess I fall somewhere in between, I think rank-and-file pro-lifers are often well meaning. But the leadership's refusal to fully support sex education and government-funded birth control is hypocritical and calls into question their professed concern to reduce the incidence of abortion.
I'm now going to gather other links where the article has been mentioned to send to you. Why stop at facebook and this blog?
Posted by: Blake Ellis | February 25, 2009 1:11 PM
Cristina Page makes a strong (and perhaps a bit incendiary!) argument at RH Reality Check that the pro-life movement is more focused on a moral agenda than actually preventing abortions: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/02/24/prolife-movement-reveals-proabortion-stance
Cristina makes the same point you do, Blake... the rank-and-file probably has better intentions than their leadership, who refuse to endorse contraception, even when a staggeringly high number of women use (and need) it.
Posted by: Kristin | February 25, 2009 4:24 PM
Great point, Kristin. In my larger work, I go into more detail about the differences between the rank-in-file (who are often well intentioned and genuine) and the leadership.
Fyi, here is a link on how family planning services actually do prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions:
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2009/02/23/index.html
Posted by: Blake Ellis | February 25, 2009 7:27 PM
Blake, if you read our new entries on the blog, you'll see I blogged about that Guttmacher study yesterday! :)
Let me know what you think: http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/2009/02/preventing_unintended_pregnanc.html
Posted by: Kristin | February 25, 2009 8:49 PM
Kristin, you are one step ahead of me! I just read your post, and I agree 100 percent. The pro-life leaders who resist contraception are out of step with just about everyone. I'm glad their power seems to be waning.
Posted by: Blake Ellis | February 25, 2009 11:26 PM
