What's the Best Way To Combat Abortion?

The following is an interesting column from Sojourner's Magazine, written by J. Christopher LaTondresse, who works in the inner-city streets of D.C., about the underlying factors that contribute to the out of control abortion rate in our country.

Tackling Abortion: The Cruel Connection (by J. Christopher LaTondresse)

There is a cruel link between poverty, race, and abortion in America. Unfortunately, many pro-life advocates fail to meaningfully address this connection.Aside from age (the abortion rate is highest among girls under the age of 15) the most predictable indicator of whether or not a woman will have an abortion is her income level and ethnic background.Before Roe vs. Wade decriminalized the procedure, many American women still had abortions, though the procedure was radically unequal in its accessibility and application. Those with available resources traveled abroad for safe procedures while low-income women relied on dangerous illegal clinics operating in the poorest neighborhoods in America.As someone who lives and works in such neighborhoods in Washington D.C., I can tell you that simply making something illegal does not keep it from happening if there is a serious demand for it – as evidenced by the rampant drug, weapons, and prostitution trades still plaguing these communities.I strongly believe in the sanctity of human life from conception until natural death; that all human beings are created in the image of God and are therefore of immeasurable worth. However, I also believe that we should spend more energy advocating policies that might actually reduce the abortion rate and spend less time challenging a judicial precedent unlikely to be overturned.

This is especially true if criminalizing the procedure does little to reduce the abortion rate and actually puts more lives at risk, as a recent study and the personal experiences of those who have lived and worked in these district neighborhoods much longer than I have would suggest.Tackling poverty, providing healthcare for all low-income women and children (especially for prenatal and postnatal care), reducing teen pregnancy by promoting abstinence and making contraceptives widely available, and increasing the child tax credit for low-income mothers and families—all represent solutions that, as part of an integrated approach, would curb unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions.

Americans on both sides of the argument have been trapped in an endless debate. Continuing liberal and conservative politicking has failed to meaningfully address the issue. Meanwhile, the abortion rate essentially stays the same.

This tired exercise continued as the entire lineup of Republican presidential hopefuls addressed the Values Voter Summit in Washington D.C., an event co-sponsored by the Family Research Council Action, Focus on the Family Action, and other conservative Christian organizations.

In a room filled with the would-be kingmakers of evangelical politics, the candidates touched on issues ranging from gay marriage to the future of federalism, but the single issue gaining the most traction with the crowd was clear. Candidates hoping to do well with this audience had to address abortion—specifically, offering their best plan to eliminate it once and for all. I was disappointed to hear the same old polarizing terms that have gotten us nowhere in the past 30 years.

Many people agree that the estimated 3,500 abortions taking place in America every day are unfitting for any caring society. Significantly reducing the number of abortions in this country—ideally to zero—should be an urgent moral priority for those of us who take the sanctity of life seriously.As we move into the 2008 presidential election cycle, let's quit demonizing each other and get to work meaningfully addressing the cruel connections underlying America's heartbreaking abortion statistics. The most important debate is not between "pro-life" and "pro-choice," but between those who will continue to be demagogues on this issue and those who will choose to pragmatically work together to save unborn lives.

J. Christopher LaTondresse is the special assistant to the CEO at Sojourners. For the most recent U.S. abortion statistics, visit: U.S. Center for Disease Control.

Feminists For Life: Not An Oxymoron!

Recently, I have been asked about the link on my side bar: Feminists For Life. To clarify, it's not Feminist For Life as in "I will be a feminist for my entire life," but feminists taking a stand for life, namely unborn life. It is a feminist pro-life organization (no, that's not an oxymoron) that engage in creative and practical endeavors to bridge the gap of injustice between struggling women and the sanctity of unborn life.

The Feminist For Life website seeks to reclaim the old-time feminism of being pro-woman without being anti-men or anti-family. They seek the reemergence of a feminism that sought after equality and justice for women in the work place, the home, and society without emasculating men, without shunning femininity, or without demeaning family life. Feminists For Life keep tabs on the latest pro-life gains and provides information about charity organizations and emotional, financial, and educational resources for women experiencing unplanned pregnancy to give them a REAL options that don't include taking the life of their unborn child. They aim to get ALL the information to women about the physical and psychological effects and risks of abortion. They reach out to college campuses across the country. I admire this organization because they have broadened the pro-life movement beyond just lobbying Washington and protesting abortion clinics. They are meeting the needs of desperate women, arming them with the truth coupled with support, fighting for job security, equal pay, adequate housing, health care, educational opportunities and other vital resources to equip women to successfully raise their children and lead full lives.

The Feminists For Life website also tells the story of early feminists like Alice Paul, Elizabeth Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony, all of whom led movements for women's suffrage and other women's rights and were also adamantly pro-life. The site is a helpful reminder of the true roots of feminism and a fantastic resource for getting involved in the new pro-life movement.

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."--Elizabeth Stanton, founder of The Women's Movement, 1873.

But Are We Really Pro-Life?

Abortion. It's the hot-button issue that has virtually transformed most Christians into "single issue voters." Whatever else a candidate may be about, if he/she is "pro-life," then he/she is our candidate! But are any of us getting the feeling that we've been duped? Are any of us catching on to the fact that far too many politicians on both sides of the coin use the issue of abortion as a political litmus test? Or use their "pro-lifeness" to deflect from their other stances that aren't very life-friendly? Just because a candidate is "pro-life," doesn't necessarily mean they are going to do anything about it. I'm against people having mullets, but that doesn't mean I'll pursue outlawing them.

If Christians are serious about being pro-life, then we have to ask better questions and require more than just a "pro-life" stance. We MUST abandon the prevailing mindset of all that matters is getting a "pro-life" President in the White House and that merely getting abortion outlawed on paper will stop abortions (however, it is imperative to get it outlawed to show as a nation we do not condone abortion, but I'm referring to actually solving the problem, not the mere condemnation of it). Legislation alone will not and cannot solve abortion.

Before abortion was legalized, 27% percent of American women were still getting abortions. When America had overwhelming "pro-life" leadership with Reagan as President and a Republican Congress, abortion was not eliminated. Not only was abortion not eliminated, but abortion rates went UP. During the Clinton Era (I know some of you will hate to hear this) abortion rates declined significantly. But why? Because Reagan was evil and Clinton was good? Not at all, but it's their policies on OTHER issues that played a part in increasing/decreasing abortion rates.

The problem with the abortion issue is precisely that we've made it a single issue. We've elevated it to such a high priority that we EXCLUDE and neglect an entire host of other moral issues that are connected to eradicating abortion (do not be mistaken, abortion should be top priority because it is so vile and damaging to the unborn, the women who get them, and the society that allows it, but it won't be achieved without tending to other issues).

Anyone who studies abortion rates will discover that they are intricately intertwined with poverty rates, unemployment rates, and prevailing social conditions. Over 2/3 of women who have abortions are living below the poverty line. Sometimes we like to paint the picture of women getting abortions as elite feminist Nazis who kill their unborn without a care in the world. But the reality is, the majority of women getting abortions are poor, backed into corners of desperation.

I contend that we cannot call ourselves pro-life until we start responding to the conditions that contribute to abortions. The pro-life stance needs to broaden, not because abortion is somehow irrelevant, but because it is SO important, SO vital that we must broaden our stances on other LIFE issues to ensure the elimination of abortion. We can't claim to be pro-life and only pursue the outlawing of abortion. We have to take on poverty reduction, education reform, job security, economic climates, and other life issues that don't necessarily affect the unborn, but do indeed affect life: such as war and caring for the environment, etc.

Joel C. Hunter, the pastor who left the Christian Coalition because they feared broadening their agenda to poverty-reduction and caring for the environment would make them seem "liberal," said,

"if we are going to care for the vulnerable, we ought to care as much about the vulnerable outside the womb as inside the womb."

This is vital, not because poverty and abortion are issues in competition with one another for our commitment, but because they are irreversibly connected. Both need to be dealt with to be truly pro-life.

I think actress Patricia Heaton has the right idea about the proper combination of speaking and acting on pro-life positions. She's not silent about her convictions, but also works to provide options for desperate pregnant women in the form of adequate housing, funds for education, job security, and community support; something the pro-life movement on a whole is lacking.

Presidential-hopeful Mike Huckabee once said

"I believe life starts at conception, but I don't believe it ends at birth. We've got to be concerned about a child's education, safe neighborhoods, health care, better schools, clean air and water, the access to a college education. To care about a child's entire life, that is pro-life."

There is a valid criticism of pro-lifers that care for the unborn and stop caring about their fate once they are born. Birth is not the finish line in the pro-life race. Let's be pro-life in a way that utilizes both talk and action, both individual and corporate responsibility, both justice and compassion.

Here's a site to a good article that connects the dots between abortion and social conditions. http://ww.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3198