Did Voters Reject the Pro-Life Position?

After Mitt Romney's defeat at the hands of President Obama, the GOP is trying to figure out what hit them. A president who has overseen a bad economy, an unpopular overhaul of the health care system, and two stunning disasters (and ensuing coverups) in which the administration's mismanagement resulted in the deaths of Americans (Benghazi and "Fast and Furious") should have been easy to defeat. Or that's what Republicans thought. And he won.

It's easy to critique mis-steps in the Romney presidential campaign. Armchair quarter-backs never throw interceptions. There was the 47% comment, the self-deportation comment, the too-combative tone here, and the too-conciliatory tone there. But were there deeper problems--fundamental positions Romney held that were simply rejected by voters? Was the fatal flaw Romney's pro-life position, or even the broader pro-life position of the Republican Party as a whole?

Dan Calabrese thinks so.

In a winnable red state Senate race, Missouri's Todd Akin makes an astoundingly stupid statement about rape and pregnancy. He is toast. In just-as-red Indiana, Senate candidate Richard Mourdock makes a slightly more defensible but still incredibly stupid statement about rape and pregnancy. It ultimately costs him the race, and all the conservative triumphalism over the primary takedown of Richard Lugar turns to gnashing of teeth as the seat flips to the Democrats.

Why did these fiascos occur? They occurred because the standard Republican position on abortion, while admirably principled, becomes almost impossible to defend when a skilled and determined questioner starts drilling down into the details. Ask a pro-life Republican what kind of prison sentence they would recommend for a woman who gets an abortion? Good luck getting a clear and confident answer. Rape and incest? I'm with you when you say that God still loves that baby, but get into the details of how you enforce the law that forces the woman to carry the child to term when she doesn't want to? It's a disastrous debate moment just waiting to happen....

How, then, might Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock have answered that question about rape and pregnancy if not hogtied by the right-to-life movement to find some way to defend an all-encompassing abortion ban? Maybe like this:

"Rape is an unspeakable evil, and I cannot imagine the anguish of a woman who finds herself pregnant as a result of being raped. Now, do I believe the child conceived as a result or rape is loved and valued by God? Yes. Do I believe that child deserves death? No. Any woman in that circumstance who would choose to bear that child and give birth would be a hero in my eyes, and should be a hero in everyone's eyes. But as far as the law is concerned, there is no way we will ever see a political consensus in favor of a law that would force such a woman to make that choice, and I have no intention of trying to create one."

Was the presidential election a referendum on abortion? The Obama campaign tried to make it a referendum on contraception and abortions for rape victims, using the "War on Women" rhetoric. Romney of course never opposed contraception at all, nor abortion in rape cases, yet the rhetoric of his opponents implied he was an anti-contraception Catholic who wanted to ban it for everybody. Calabrese's advice wouldn't help Romney. Romney already followed it and still lost.

The fatal problem for Republicans Tuesday appears to be that they were unable to mobilize their conservative base. Rush Limbaugh said:

We didn't lose the election on Tuesday because we're pro-choice or pro-life; we did not lose the election because single women hate us and don't like us. That's not why we lost. We might not be getting a majority of those votes, but when three million of our own people don't show up, it doesn't matter who on the Democrat side we're not getting.

Abortion wasn't the key issue that kept conservatives home. Romney failed to convince conservatives that he would reduce the size and scope of government significantly. He spent more time in the debates telling the American people all the programs for which he was going to preserve or increase funding, and many conservatives felt his vision was a more fiscally-responsible implementation of socialist policies than the president's implementation, but not a fundamentally conservative vision.

Independent (former Republican) voter Jody Luck wrote on her Facebook page:

[N]o one president or politician is going to be able to reverse the laws already in place.  It is a non-winnable issue in the short term. By even engaging in these discussions, we merely open up politicians to be attacked by “the others.”   When conservative politicians are asked about their pro-life stance, the clear answer should be that it is already the law of the land and not within the presidential scope of power to change it.  I have heard several commentators this political season remark that instead of the Republicans forcing the focus to be on the economy, they allowed the Democrats to continually turn the focus on “women’s rights.”  I honestly believe that conservatives did lose votes on this point.

Again, this is an issue that should be legislated since it does do measurable harm to another person, however, it is not within any one politician’s scope to correct it, so to lose an election over this point seems short-sighted. It’s a process. We need conservative representatives in place so that when a conservative president is elected, he is free to appoint and have approved, conservative judges.

While Luck is right that no politician can abolish abortion in the short term, she is wrong about candidates needing to disengage from the issue or downplay it.

First, if we elect politicians who don't make their pro-life position clear, it will be a non-issue, and there will be no political progress, because politicians know that we, the pro-life voters, don't expect anything from them on this issue.

Second, if a Republican presidential candidate abandons the pro-life message, the pro-life voters will stay home or vote third-party. The Whigs tried that on the slavery issue, and that's why the Whig Party is in the history books, and the Republican Party is alive today.

Third, one politician (particularly the president) can take at least one significant step to fight abortion by cutting funds to Planned Parenthood, and Romney pledged to do that.

Fourth, conservatives lost votes on the abortion issue not because they were pro-life, but because they allowed their opponents to define the issue.

So how should pro-life candidates define the issue in a way that is truthful and convincing?

Calabrese is right that anyone who takes a principled pro-life stand needs clear, medically-accurate, reasonable, and compassionate answers. Pro-life candidates need to turn the debate back from the hard cases like rape/incest/fetal anomaly to where the law is, and go on offense. "I believe all life is sacred, regardless of the circumstances of conception, but my opponent wants abortion to be legal as a method of birth control through all three trimesters, and he even supported the barbaric practice or partial-birth abortion."

Pro-life candidates shouldn't hang their heads and stand courageously as martyrs for an extreme cause. No. Show how extreme the opposition truly is. Don't let the debate linger on the hard cases. Take it back to the majority of cases. President Obama repeatedly criticized Romney for wanting to defund Planned Parenthood, falsely claiming they perform mammograms. Romney looked like the extremist and failed to demonstrate that Obama is the real extremist, shoveling tax money to an organization that is documented to cover up sexual abuse and sex trafficking; an organization that urges minors to try group sex and other risky practices; an organization that makes most of its money from killing babies; an organization that was founded to control minority populations and still kills a disproportionate number of black babies.

Republican candidates get used to debating the minor differences with each other in primaries, and when a pro-life candidate goes up against someone like President Obama, he forgets that the issue is not the exceptional cases. The issue is that the pro-abortion opponent thinks every baby is fair game for the abortionist's suction machine and scissors. That's extreme.

To the extent that this election was a referendum on abortion, it was ruined by candidates who failed to frame the debate and allowed the opposition to incorrectly define the differences in their positions.

Pro-life candidates must think through and defend their positions better, largely by going back on offense against the extremism of the pro-abortion position, but they must not abandon the pro-life cause. Doing so would be both moral cowardice and political suicide.

#

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Me Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Me Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

How to End Abortion

Ever since Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton forced legal abortion on the entire United States, pro-life people have been trying to end it. Not to minimize the efforts of persuading individuals to keep their babies (after all, that's what our billboards are all about), at some point we need a law that bans abortion. Here are some ways to get there.

1. Supreme Court
The most obvious solution is to change the Supreme Court justices until they will overturn the laws and court decisions upholding abortion, and either ban it or allow states to ban it. We've been trying that ever since 1973. We're closer than we've ever been, but with the current administration, any progress looks blocked for several years.

2. Constitutional Amendment
An amendment to the U.S. Constitution either banning abortion or allowing states to ban abortion is another obvious solution. But constitutional amendments require overwhelming popular and legislative support. This cannot happen until a large majority of the people demand an end to abortion.

3. U.S. Congress
If Congress simply bans abortion, the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional (see point 1). But Congress could first remove it from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, opening the door to either state bans or a federal ban.

Congress could also declare that personhood under the 14th Amendment vests at fertilization, and therefore abortion is banned. This undermines the reasoning of Roe vs. Wade. It is difficult to say what the Supreme Court would do with such a law. But with the current composition, it is likely the majority would find some reason to overturn it.

Both of these questions should be asked of every candidate for U.S. Congress (House or Senate).

4. State Legislatures
The state legislatures can pass a law or constitutional amendment declaring that personhood vests at fertilization, and therefore, abortion is illegal. (Doing it outside the context of abortion, as some current "personhood legislation" does, doesn't really accomplish anything, because it will not be interpreted by the courts to apply to abortion unless the law is explicit.) Just like a federal ban based on the personhood of the unborn, a state law would likely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Then the state legislatures would have the opportunity to assert their 10th Amendment reserved powers and defy the U.S. Supreme Court and federal government. That would require the legislature and governor being willing to go without federal money for roads, education, unemployment, welfare, and every other kind of federal aid. It might require a willingness to call up the National Guard to resist Federal Marshals ordered to keep abortion facilities open.

Such a move would require a governor and a majority in the legislature with unusual courage. It would require a majority of citizens to stand with their state leaders and deal with the loss of federal funds. I don't think it would require secession--just a state (or a few states) willing to assert their constitutional powers (popularly called "states' rights").

Every candidate for state representative, state senator, or governor, should answer whether he is willing to stand up to the federal government to protect the unborn.

5. Revival
I've listed every plan I'm aware of to make child murder illegal in our country, or even in a single state. All approaches require widespread popular support, which can only come as a result of spiritual renewal, or revival. Revival is not a fifth option I am suggesting. It is necessary for any of the approaches above. So let's get on our knees before God; then go out and arouse our friends, neighbors, and families to a holy hatred of this child slaughter; and pursue not one of these strategies, but all of them.

#

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Leaving God out of Ethics: Dangers of the Woman-Centered Approach

In an argument, most people who are trying to persuade their opponents will use arguments that make sense to their opponents--not necessarily the most compelling argument to them personally. It just makes sense to appeal to the reasons that matter to the person you hope to persuade. But if we spend all our effort making the secondary arguments convincing, we risk forgetting our primary reasons, and sometimes we lose the moral high ground.

Slavery

In the struggle for the abolition of slavery, some opponents of slavery tried to show the South that slavery was detrimental to their economic system in the long term. That argument may have persuaded a few slave-holders to liberate their slaves. But William Lloyd Garrison and other abolitionists had to convince the public of the evil of slavery before the tide would turn against slavery. Ultimately slavery was wrong because of how it harmed the slaves and because God declared man-stealing to be wrong, not because of the economic impact.

Homosexual "Marriage"

The current debate over same-sex marriage is another example where the opponents of same-sex marriage risk losing the moral high ground when they spend most of their time showing how homosexual relationships are harmful to the people involved and to children in their home, or when they argue about where acceptance of homosexual "marriage" would lead. These are valid points, but homosexual marriage is wrong because homosexuality is wrong. And we know that because God said so.

What is messed up in broader conservative thinking on the subject is this argument that I hear from traditionalists like Bill O'Reilly: People can do whatever they want in private, and that's fine. But don't call it marriage. Let's grant some kind of civil union that gives the legal rights of marriage, but save the term marriage for what it has always meant--a man and a woman.

The real main objection to same-sex marriage is that it legitimizes a wrong behavior. If we really thought men having sex with men was a great thing, why not call it marriage? The logically consistent ground for my side to hold is that homosexuality is wrong because God said so. It's fine to research all the harmful effects and show those, but that's not what makes it wrong.

Abortion

In the abortion debate, we care about both the mother and the baby (as well as the father if he is involved at all). We know that abortion is wrong because it murders an innocent baby. We also realize that abortion harms women emotionally, spiritually, and often physically.

We are trying to persuade women not to abort their babies. When talking to them, it makes sense to take the woman-centered approach and emphasize how abortion is a bad decision for them. Of course most pro-life counselors also share the facts of fetal development, and some pregnancy centers can show the mother her baby's heartbeat on ultrasound, so the mother can get all the information about how an abortion will impact her and her baby.

The culture, however, will never be persuaded to turn against abortion simply because it harms women. If a woman wants to take that risk, why should we stop her, the argument goes. We must persuade our culture of the evil of abortion and the sanctity of life. The campaign against partial-birth abortion, while saving relatively few lives, did a good job of showing the horror of abortion and turning the public against at least some abortions. The pro-life case is one that is built on God and His absolute truth. We can appeal to the cultural acceptance of the self-evident truth that murder is wrong without making it a religious argument, but ultimately our conviction that murder is wrong is based on God.

Let's use the woman-centered approach to persuade women and to show our true concern for women. But we should never be ashamed to say that abortion is wrong because it murders an innocent human life made in the image of God. That is the moral high ground.

--
Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

The Post-Election Road to Pro-Life Victory

The recent election is a significant setback for the legislative efforts of the pro-life movement. We have the most pro-abortion president ever, one of the most pro-abortion Congresses ever, and a defeat for several ballot initiatives that would have protected life. But the pro-life movement is not conquered.

The pro-life movement is still strong, and we need to focus on continuing to lay the groundwork for the ultimate triumph of life. We fight this war on four fronts primarily: Political, cultural, personal, and spiritual. I believe the path forward in each area is clear.

Political

The loss of power by the Republican party is a rejection of a party that failed to carry through on its promises of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. It is also the rejection of a party that happened to control the presidency during an economic downturn. It is not a rejection of conservatism or the pro-life agenda. Abortion was simply not a major issue in this election, compared to the economy and world turmoil. So those involved in a political party need to push it to embrace and promote a pro-life agenda.

That agenda at the state level needs to include both incrementalism and aiming for our ultimate goal. We need to fire a barrage of regulations and limitations at the abortion industry. We also need to work for a Personhood Amendment in every state where it is remotely possible. If you favor the incremental approach, fine, but be supportive of the efforts of the purists. And if you favor an all-or-nothing approach, that's fine, but don't sabotage the incrementalists.

The "pro-life purists" who opposed the South Dakota abortion ban this year because it had an exception for rape and incest have blood on their hands. May they repent of this evil. What would you think of a lifeguard who refused to save nine drowning men because he couldn't save all ten?

At the federal level, we need to mount a vigorous defense. Even strongly pro-abortion congressmen want to get re-elected. We must inundate Congress with our voices of opposition to pro-abortion legislation, such as the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).

Cultural

The successful education campaign about partial-birth abortion and the resulting ban which was upheld by the US Supreme Court may have saved relatively few lives, but that effort showed Americans that abortion can be horribly cruel and ghastly. The vast majority of Americans oppose it because of that campaign. Now we have to show the country that other types of abortion are also cruel and ghastly, until we build a consensus that all abortion must be stopped.

Winning the hearts and minds of the country is not just about the horrors of abortion. It is also about the beauty of God's gift of life. Personally, I think showing ads of a 14-week ultrasound with a clearly visible skeleton, arms and legs waving, and obvious heartbeat, would do much more than showing the gruesome results of abortion. That's the approach that Let Her Live takes with our pro-life billboards in the immediate vicinity of abortion clinics.

We cannot achieve lasting victory in the political arena without building the cultural support for it.

Personal

The crisis pregnancy centers that help pregnant girls and women in difficult situations save thousands of babies every year. They deserve our full support in both money and time as volunteers. If you are in the medical profession and can help a crisis pregnancy center move to the medical model, where it can offer ultrasounds under the authority of a medical doctor and qualified nurses, please do so. So many women become attached to their babies when they see it on ultrasound.

We will never achieve cultural support for life without continuing to offer loving care to women in need.

Spiritual

If we want power, we must have prayer. God's people must humble themselves before him and seek his face. I'm talking about brokenness over our sin and over our callous disregard for our fellowman. There is no room for harboring pet sins. God must have total rule in our lives.

We can be as active as we want, but we will never defeat the forces of evil in our own strength. Until the hand of God moves, we will gain as much ground as if we are running on a treadmill. I think that's how some people feel about the pro-life movement. I'm not talking about spending ten minutes in prayer every day and spending one or two sentences asking God to save babies and end abortion. We must earnestly plead with God to see His will accomplished in the fulfillment of His Word.

The 40 Days for Life campaign is doing good, but we must not pray during those 40 days only. We need to make it a habit of our lives to seek the face of God. For many, picking one day every week to fast and spend extra time in prayer would be in order.

Achieving Victory

I've addressed the fronts of this war from the top down, but victory comes from the bottom up. Spiritual renewal leads to touching the lives of individuals with the love of Christ, which leads to a culture that grows to respect life and eventually demands laws that reflect their values. Whatever front you are fighting on, do not give up. And make sure that you do not neglect the spiritual arena, for it is the key to victory on every front.

--
Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.