The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Is common ground possible in the abortion wars?

By Penna Dexter - Sep 9, 2008 - 1 -

Every four years each political party sends seasoned activists to the table to write a party platform for convention delegates to pass. Words are carefully chosen, positions painstakingly framed. The document, though not binding on candidates, provides a blueprint for policies advocated by the party. Each platform plank provides a standard against which voters can measure the policies politicians support and oppose, the laws they pass, and the stances they articulate. Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, no other plank in the platform of either major party has received more scrutiny or generated more controversy than the one concerning abortion.

This year Rev. Jim Wallis hoped to inject the concept of “abortion reduction” into the platform of his party, the Democratic Party. Pitching the idea as a way to garner the votes of Americans who want abortion to remain legal but want to see its numbers reduced, Wallis argued that, “Taking abortion seriously as a moral issue would help Democrats.”

Wallis decried the shouting match: “One side shouts ‘baby killer,’ the other side yells ‘misogynist’ . . . That’s not helping very much.” He explained to Newsweek his belief that pro-lifers and pro-choicers can find common ground in providing aid to low-income women, preventing unwanted pregnancies and making adoption easier.

Jim Wallis is the founder of Sojourners, a network of liberal Christians. During a conference call prior to the Democratic National Convention, he told religious leaders that the proposed party platform supported “more explicitly than ever” a woman’s decision to go ahead with her pregnancy “and offers her practical support to have her child.”

Pro-life liberals like Wallis are convinced that many women have abortions for economic reasons, so providing them with support could actually reduce the number of abortions. Expressions of this support are articulated in the platform, and there is a welcome mention of adoption. But during platform negotiations it became clear that the pro-choice forces would not agree to strong language demanding a reduction in the number of abortions. The previous platform stated, “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” The term “rare” was dropped this year. The plank reads:

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports 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.”

The abortion reducers in the party have to be disappointed. There is nothing in this language advocating common sense legislation requiring parental notification or waiting periods. In the states where they have been implemented, these laws have been wonderfully effective in reducing abortion. Even the proposed conscience language—noting that people of good conscience can disagree on abortion—was rejected.

Platform writers sought to steer clear of criminalizing doctors who perform abortions and to avoid stigmatizing women who have had them or seek them. There was a concerted effort not to signal that having the baby is preferable. Jim Wallis’s effort to include a moral statement failed. The family planning services and comprehensive sex ed programs that are encouraged are aimed at providing information about all options including abortion, minus moral suasion. The support for women who do choose life is commendable. If there’s any progress, that’s it.

Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly has worked for decades to keep the Republican platform pro-life. She says this year’s platform is the most pro-life it’s ever been. It reads as follows:

“Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

“We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life.

“Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.”

(The platform continues with language affirming the sanctity of life for the disabled, the ill and the elderly.)

Certainly Republicans and Democrats can agree that women carrying their children to term should be affirmed and supported. But the common ground that previously existed on “making abortion rare” no longer exists. The two major parties’ platforms are further apart on protecting the sanctity of human life than they have ever been. The goal is elusive. We can only hope and pray that some day both major political parties will be pro-life.

Penna Dexter is a conservative activist and an announcer on the syndicated radio program “Life on the Line”. She currently serves as a consultant for KMA Direct Communications in Plano, Texas, and as a co-host of “Jerry Johnson Live,” a production of Criswell Communications. She formerly was a co-host of Marlin Maddoux’s “Point of View” syndicated radio program.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to protect the sanctity of human life. If you would like to learn more about this issue, additional resources are available here. If your church is interested in purchasing bulletin inserts or other materials on the sanctity of human life, please visit our online bookstore and erlc.com.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Life, Abortion

• Subscribe
• Donate
• Feeds & Podcasts
• Internships

Recently

• As the House moves to a vote, Dr. Richard Land affirms his opposition to health care bill
• ERLC Letter Urges Congress to Oppose Health Care Bill
• Rewriting the Rules to ‘Pass’ Health Care Reform
• LIFE DIGEST: Shooter of pro-lifer found guilty of murder
• Land: Baptists have religious liberty legacy