By / Jan 5

In 2020, “medication” abortion—abortion via pills rather than surgery—accounted for the majority of all United States abortions for the first time in the pills’ 20-year history.1

Reinforcing access to these medication abortions was one of the Biden administration’s first responses to the fall of Roe. President Joe Biden “directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to identify all ways to ensure that mifepristone [one of the two drugs used in pill-based abortions] is as widely accessible as possible”2 in the very same statement in which he asserted a right to engage in interstate abortion trafficking.3 

These are the emergent twin frontiers of the pro-life legal battle: abortion pills and abortion trafficking. 

These abortions aren’t as “safe and effective” as they’re made out to be, either.4 Abortion pills are four times more likely to land vulnerable mothers in the emergency room than first-trimester surgical abortions.5 Surgical abortions pursued out-of-state can be risky, too, as the side effects can be severe for mothers. Women undergoing out-of-state abortions risk being stranded away from family or friends while they suffer potentially extreme pain, bleeding, 6 grief, or anxiety.7

However, these two abortion strategies have become the preferred ways for the federal government and regulatory agencies to advance abortion after the Dobbs ruling—thereby hampering pro-life legislators at the state level.8 

The text of the Dobbs decision was clear: the court sought ultimately to allow “each State to address abortion as it pleases.”9 It specifically rendered judgment that no “right to abortion” is derived from the U.S. Constitution. 

In other words, while it was a tremendous pro-life victory that allows elected officials to make laws protecting children in the womb, Dobbs emphatically did not end abortion in the United States. Much of the fight to protect vulnerable little ones remains with us.

Remembering why we advocate for abortion’s end

That’s why it is essential that legislators, activists, and Christians remember why we “address” abortion at all: to end the ongoing massacre of innocent, human life in the womb. 

As early as six weeks,10 a heartbeat of about 110 BPM is detectable in the womb—no matter how hard pro-abortion activists may fight to revise longstanding, uncontroversial medical consensus.11 By 12 weeks, all of the little human’s major body systems are present and reflexes begin to develop.12 At 18 weeks, children can hear their mothers’ heartbeat.13 In the last trimester, they can taste—and smile or grimace at—the flavors of the food their mother eats.14

This is not simply a political or campaign issue. This is not just the states’ legal responsibility. This is the gravest human rights abuse in our society. These are children. They always have been and always will be. Children were at the heart of the pro-life movement from its inception—as individuals sought to protect these vulnerable neighbors from the abortion provider’s hand—and they remain there to this day.

A legislation rundown

Yet there is legislation on the books in aggressively pro-abortion states to expand the legal killing of these children. Seven states have no gestational limit on abortion whatsoever,15 and another 26 states16 only limit abortions at or around the point of “fetal viability,” generally between 22 and 24 weeks.17

Given the fact that 91% of U.S. abortions occur in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy,18 viability protections translate into unrestricted abortion access for the vast majority of women who desire an abortion. In other words, many of the children who may have been killed under Roe may also be killed under Dobbs.

The state-level response to Dobbs is varied, and a range of pro-life strategies are before the courts at this very moment.Thus far, six states responded by introducing “personhood amendments,” amendments to their state constitution that would permanently enshrine the human child in the womb as a legal person.19 The Dobbs decision explicitly sidestepped the question of fetal personhood, so these amendments—and the litigation battles they spawn—are breaking new legal ground.20

Other states, like Missouri, are exploring protecting children from abortion traffficking.21 Following a model like Texas’ novel S.B. 8 law, Republican Missouri Rep. Mary Coleman introduced legislation that would allow private citizens to sue anyone they knew had pursued an out-of-state abortion.22 

Additionally, 19 states required abortion pill providers be present for the administration of the first dose, making out-of-state “telemedicine” in these cases effectively illegal.23 Part of this provider requirement is often a guarantee of emergency care for women undergoing “self-managed” abortions—a surprising stipulation if they are in fact as safe as proponents make them out to be.24

However, international providers are untouchable by current federal regulation.25 One such provider, Aid Access, is based in Europe and provides medical abortions to Americans in states where life is protected.26 It’s run by a pro-abortion activist and was actively pursued by the Trump administration’s FDA for providing “unapproved” forms of the drugs used in medical abortion, but continues providing abortions-by-mail to this day.27 Aid Access claimed it received more than 10,000 requests for the abortion pill regimen in the week after the Dobbs decision.28 

International pills pose deep and dangerous risks for women who may not have consulted their own doctor who knows their medical history. An incorrect dose could lead to a hemorrhage, for example, or if a woman is Rh negative and doesn’t receive Rhogam at the time of her abortion, she could be putting herself at serious risk in future pregnancies. 

The work before us 

The future of the pro-life movement is growing much more complex. We are not merely fighting to protect women and children from a badly-reasoned 1973 Supreme Court precedent. We are fighting to defend them against international activists, other states, domestic activists, and even the current administration. Addressing the use or expansion of abortion pills and abortion trafficking, in all their forms, will become essential as we seek to protect human life in the womb in America. 

But there is another side to this picture. Legally protecting children in the womb alone fails to address the very real and pressing needs of vulnerable mothers all over the nation who are in desperate need of material, emotional, and social support. So—as voters, as members of the pro-life movement, and as Christians—we must rally around women, as well. 

We need to find a way to restore motherhood to its rightful status as a role to be celebrated, cherished, and protected. 

It will take charity, humility, and tireless work from all parts of the pro-life movement in order to do so: part legislative, part community-based, part spiritual ministry, and part prayer. 

But it is possible. And it is imperative that we work to realize it. Millions of children in the womb and their mothers depend upon us, now more than ever. The legacy of the pro-life movement hangs in the balance, and we cannot afford to lose momentum or clarity.

So work and pray. Pray in gratitude for each life rescued by existing abortion restrictions, many enacted by the Dobbs decision. And work fervently to rescue children in the many states where their lives are not yet protected or valued. The very fabric of our society depends upon it. 

View the latest issue of Light magazine here.

By / Sep 18

In the aftermath of legalized same-sex marriage, Americans may soon face a new ethical dilemma: commercial surrogacy. As Christopher White reports in his article on The Public Discourse, Surrogacy and Same-Sex Marriage: A Tale of Two Countries, the issue of “marriage equality” is morphing into the question of “family equality.” As White observes, “While many consider the contest over same-sex marriage in the United States to have been settled by the Supreme Court, the debate over surrogacy is just beginning.” Within the last decade, an increasing number of homosexual couples, especially gay men, are turning to surrogates in order to have genetically related children.

Ireland, where the legalization of same-sex marriage occurred just weeks before the U.S., is no stranger to this ethical question and gives some insight into the cultural debate. Days before Irish citizens voted on the referendum, the concern over third party reproduction made headlines. Those voting “Yes” assured the public that surrogacy and same-sex marriage were two separate issues. Those voting “No,” however, feared that the right to marry would lead to a demand for the right to procreate, despite the obvious biological impossibility. Discussing commercial surrogacy, in which a couple hires a woman to carry an embryo, Ireland’s Iona Institute, a Catholic organization, claims it exploits women. The 2013 Iona Report states, “In surrogacy, the woman rents her body. This should at a minimum alert us to the very strong possibility that surrogacy is a new form of exploitation and trafficking in women. In surrogacy, the child is treated as a commodity, the object of a legal agreement. The aim of surrogacy is to fulfil [sic] the desire of adults, to enable foreign parents to satisfy their wish for a child at any price.”

Contractual surrogacy isn’t the only problem. Even without a legally binding agreement, the definition of parental origin, or “parentage,” comes into play. In Britain where surrogacy is legal (as long as it’s not a commercial, business arrangement), a High Court judge settled a parental rights dispute of one homosexual couple and their surrogate in May 2015. Since the child belonged to the mother (artificially inseminated by her gay friend), she was not legally required to give up her parental rights. The homosexual couple had to apply for a parental order to legally become the child’s parents. But, according to the birth mother, she always intended to keep her baby, and after giving birth, refused to give the infant to her gay friend. She even implied the two men would not be good parents, something the judge called “homophobic and offensive.” The judge ruled in favor of the gay couple, requiring the woman to relinquish her rights as a mother.

Despite the growing number of homosexual men who make use of it, White notes that many people of the LGBT community actively oppose the practice of surrogacy.

People like Julie Bindle, a lesbian feminist in the UK. Bindle observes, “[C]ommercial surrogacy is fast becoming the preferred route for gay couples to have children, so much so that the trend is now known as the ‘Gaybe’ revolution.” Like many others, Bindle is outspoken in her disapproval of surrogacy among would-be homosexual parents, calling it “reproductive trafficking.” For Bindle, the problem isn’t a gay couple’s desire to have a family, but to demand a family in which the children are biologically related. In her scathing commentary, she says, “If gay couples want children, why on earth do they have to go down this exploitative route rather than adopting a child? The answer raises a profoundly troubling question about the attitudes of too many gay and lesbian couples. Fixated by vanity, imbued with overweening self-regard, they want to create a child in their own image, meeting a checklist of ideal characteristics.”

Bindle isn’t alone. Famed feminist author, Germaine Greer, accused Elton John and his partner (who have two sons through surrogacy) of “deconstructing the concept of motherhood.” According to Greer: “We now have a ‘genetic’ mother, who supplies eggs. It depends entirely on where she is if she is going to be allowed to know what happens to the eggs.”

And the question of “where she is,” brings up another issue. In India, where commercial surrogacy is permitted, women offer themselves as surrogates for cash. The nation’s multi-million dollar surrogacy industry, also known as “reproductive tourism,” allows travelers to hire a low-income woman to carry their embryo. It is, quite literally, a rent-a-womb business. For most surrogate women in India, the practice is done to pull themselves out of poverty. Recently, India started regulating commercial surrogacy, forbidding same-sex couples and single parents from contracting a surrogate. As Arthur Caplan argued in a New York Times debate last fall, the ethical problem is not with “altruistic surrogacy.” Rather, “it is paid surrogacy that gives me ethical heartburn, especially paid surrogacy that involves travel to other nations to find poor women to bear babies. The problem is exploitation.”

Here in the U.S., laws on surrogacy contracts vary from state to state. New York, for instance, prohibits all surrogacy contracts, while in California, both surrogacy and pre-birth orders of parentage are permitted. States like Texas, Illinois, and Florida allow surrogacy with certain conditions, but the adoptive parent(s) must apply for legal parentage after the baby’s birth. For now, individual states have determined the ethical boundaries for surrogacy. But with the legalization of same-sex marriage, we’re not far from legislating commercial surrogacy as a prerogative for same-sex couples.

California already has. Two years ago, Governor Jerry Brown, signed a law that required insurance companies to provide “fertility treatments” to same sex couples in California. Tom Ammiano, who drafted the law, claimed, “To restrict fertility coverage solely to heterosexual married couples violates California’s non-discrimination laws.” The law ensures “the same access to insurance coverage for fertility treatments as heterosexual couples.” For lesbian couples, in vitro fertilization is a biological option. But for homosexual men, the right to have biologically related offspring logically requires a surrogate.

White’s article also points to an op-ed in the LA Times written by Douglas Nejaime. Just after legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S., Nejaime observes, “While lesbian couples have long used donor insemination to have children, gay male couples have increasingly turned to surrogacy, and most commonly gestational surrogacy, in which the surrogate carries a child genetically related to another woman — an egg donor — and one of the men.” For Nejaime, supporting gestational surrogacy contributes to family equality. He continues: “The battle over LGBT equality is far from over. But the court’s embrace of marriage equality takes a stand for sexual-orientation equality, and it should mean that ultimately lesbian and gay families will receive equal treatment under the law.”

The ethical dilemma surrounding surrogacy, same-sex couples, and “family equality” is the logical progression of same-sex marriage. If a same-sex couple is considered married with all that being married implies, and if biological procreation is considered a right for all married couples, then it follows that same-sex couples may legally demand the right to procreate. And since that is biologically impossible, they must look to other solutions, like surrogacy, to fulfill that demand.

Ultimately, the practice of surrogacy, especially commercial surrogacy, exploits women for their reproductive capacity. It uses women’s bodies for the sake of having genetically related offspring. And, it reduces a woman’s role in raising a child to a nine-month pregnancy.

Commercial surrogacy separates female biology from women’s maternity. As this issue continues to develop, we must affirm that motherhood is an indispensible role in the life of a child, one that entails so much more than biological birth. And, as same-sex couples attempt to form genetically related families, we can never forget that every child is worthy of being raised by a father and a mother. Finally, we must reject any practice that exploits women for their reproductive capacity. A woman’s womb is sacred; it should never be for sale.

This article was originally published here.