|
Another
Side of Pro-Life: Rev. Mark Stringer First Unitarian Church of Des Moines 1/9/05
Meditation for 1/9/05O Spirit of existing life, new life, and life yet to be… We
know you when we grapple with the tough choices even
when we feel most lost, afraid, and alone. And remind us to be gentle with ourselves, to
forgive those choices we regret,
Amen.
Reading
“Women
Know”
We women know when it is or is not the right time to bring a child into the world.
We use our heads and our hearts to see clearly the pros and cons of our three choices: parenting, placing for adoption, or having an abortion.
We know better than anyone else what we can and cannot handle emotionally, physically, financially, and mentally.
We have wisdom enough to know our own limits and strength enough to admit them.
We act out of compassion when we wait to have a child until the time when we can give it the kind of life every child deserves.
We act out of love when we consider what we would be taking away from the child or children we already have if we brought another child into our family now.
We take care of our spiritual well-being each in our own way, trusting our faith to provide: Infinite Love, Complete Understanding, and Boundless Compassion
Women throughout all time and throughout the world have made the decision to have an abortion, whether or not abortion was safe and legal. Women have risked their own lives to avoid bearing a child they could not adequately care for.
Women in the past drank teas made from parts of plants known to cause abortion. In desperation, some inserted long, thin objects into their cervix, and others douched with poisonous liquids to cause an abortion. Some methods cost women their lives.
Childbirth, miscarriage, and abortion are all part of women’s lives. Women of childbearing age from every generation, occupation, income level, race and religion have had abortions, including great-grandmothers, grandmothers, mothers, great-aunts and aunts, sisters, daughters, best friends, teachers, ministers, doctors, and daycare workers.
And when others use TV commercials, billboards, bumper stickers, speeches, and sermons to make us feel guilty about having an abortion,
We
women know the truth: That given certain circumstances abortion is the most morally responsible and loving choice we can make.
SermonThis morning I thought I was going to do another one of those tap dances on thin ice that I try to do from time to time. As this month marks the 32nd anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, I thought I would carefully meander through the morass of the debate over a woman’s right to reproductive choice, trying to leave space for the various viewpoints that might be present in the room this morning. After all, abortion is a tough subject. Always has been and probably always will be. It’s tough because it cuts to the core of our existential uncertainties about this life we share…particularly the questions of when life begins and when an existing human life has the right to terminate a potential human life. But the more I thought about it, the more I researched the facts, the more I investigated what even an objective observer would have to note is the anti-choice movement’s all-out attack on a woman’s right to reproductive freedom and, I contend, moral autonomy, I began to lose my patience…my stamina for tap dancing, you might say. I guess I am just too weary to tap dance. I am weary of the wrestling with language and theology that is at the heart of the debate over a woman’s right to have a safe and legal abortion when she and her doctor agree it is appropriate. I am weary of the over-simplification of difficult moral questions and the implication that those who dare to consider ethics as circumstantial must be immoral. I am weary of the black-and-white certainty of people who due to religion, ignorance, or moral expediency seek to inflict their narrow views on others. So be warned: I will probably crash through the ice this morning. If I get you a little wet in the process, I not only trust that you will let me know, but I welcome the opportunity to hear from you. After all, any sermon I deliver from this pulpit is intended to start a dialogue…not finish it.
Before I get too far, I must confess something else. I am 37 years old. I share my age because I think it is important for you to know that I have never known an America where women did not have the right to legal and safe abortions. Perhaps this is why, until recently, I believed that the Roe v. Wade decision would never be in danger of being overturned. I simply have not been able to imagine an America where women would not have the right to determine what happens with their own bodies. After doing some research and being forced to read some of the writing on the wall, I’m beginning to see that I have been naïve…or at least painfully unappreciative of the battles that have been fought not only to bring us to the Roe v. Wade decision, but to protect the reproductive rights that the landmark ruling established. My understanding of the abortion debate grew after I was asked by the Des Moines chapter of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice to lead a service for the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade two years ago, which was incidentally held in this church. Even though I was somewhat intimidated by the offer to preach at this service, I knew that I had to say, “yes.” I had to say “yes” because soon after I began serving as the minister of this church, I discovered that I had become the minister of a church that historically had been a real thorn in the side of the Des Moines anti-choice movement. I knew this not because the members had told me, or because I had researched it. Sure, I could have guessed that this would be the case, since Unitarian Universalism is a religious movement devoted to protecting the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals and to advancing freedom of belief, and all of the UU churches I have attended have had members who have done their part to see that the reproductive rights of women are protected. But, I didn’t have to guess. l learned of the pro-choice history of this church because one of the people who has worked to eliminate reproductive choice in this town told me about it.
This woman actually came to my installation service here just over three years ago. She sat in one of these very seats and sheepishly looked around, seeing faces that she recognized from the trenches of the abortion battle. Why had she come? Well, this woman who had done more than her share of working to eliminate reproductive choice, this kind, bubbly woman, was my wife’s aunt. She came to support her niece and nephew, and I really respect her for coming. After the service, she reflected about how the persistent effort by those in the pro-choice movement had ultimately worn her out. A staunchly conservative Catholic, she felt that her faith called her to take a stand against what she and others in the anti-choice movement call with their characteristic inflammatory rhetoric “the right to kill an unborn child.” More than just her religious faith compelled her to fight against choice, though. She and her husband are adoptive parents who love their adopted daughter as their own. To imagine that this child, now a successful young woman, could have been aborted as an embryo or fetus was—and no doubt still is—a troubling thought that sparked her long-fought battle against abortion. While I think I can understand why she feels so committed to her anti-choice position, dare I suggest that her emotional attachment to her adopted daughter and her conservative brand of patriarchal faith might be blinding her to the complexity of decision making that other women face…other women who do not share her faith tradition…other women who do not have the resources, support, emotional stability or good health to carry a pregnancy to term…other women who should not have to adhere to her subjective morality.
But the good news for people who believe reproductive choice is an essential freedom is that in every turn in her crusade, she and her anti-choice companions have been met by people who would not be deterred in their efforts to see that a woman’s right to reproductive choice was protected. So as we acknowledge the anniversary of Roe v. Wade this month, I am proud to have the opportunity to carry on the legacy a full generation in the making…a legacy crafted by many people of faith across Des Moines and this nation who have done their part to defend the right that each woman in this country has to secure a safe and legal abortion.
For without this persistent effort…without vigilance in conveying the real facts of the matter, the people working so hard to eliminate reproductive choice might have been more successful…people like my wife’s aunt, people like some of our elected officials and governmental appointees, people who, I have no doubt, are driven by what they believe are noble, faith-inspired, conscientious instincts. These people might have deterred more women from making their own reproductive choices. They might have been able to impose their own religious ideologies on people of all faith.
So what are the facts of the matter?
The movement to legalize abortion came about not as a careless whim eventually okayed by bloodthirsty justices of the supreme court. It was, simply put, a compassionate attempt to help prevent botched abortions. A few statistics I have found: --Before the Roe v. Wade decision illegal abortion led to an estimated 5,000 deaths a year and over half of those who died were women of color. --Now, of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the US each year, only six result in the mother’s death. --You may find it interesting to note that in Mexico, where abortion has been illegal--yet performed at the rate of 1.5 million times a year—140,000 women die each year from botched abortions.
Some of those in the anti-choice movement oppose the Roe v Wade decision because, they say, it made it possible for women to choose abortion at any time. So here’s another fact: the myth of “abortion on demand” has little to do with the decision as it was articulated in 1973.
Roe v. Wade was actually a compromise ruling, adopted by a 7 to 2 majority of a conservative court. The decision said: --states may not regulate abortion in the first trimester --states may regulate abortion in the second trimester only to safeguard women’s health; and --states may regulate abortion in the third trimester to protect a viable fetus, except when the woman’s life or health is in danger.
Roe v Wade, therefore, did not establish abortion on demand, as though women could then decide to have an abortion at any time in their pregnancy. In fact, the Roe decision made it more likely that women having abortions would do so earlier in their pregnancies. In 1973, only 38% of abortions were performed at or before eight weeks of pregnancy. Today, 91% are performed during the first 12 weeks and just over 96% take place during the first 15 weeks.
Another rhetorical distortion utilized by those opposed to a woman’s right to consider all options when pregnant include “abortion as birth control,” which implies that abortions are sought by careless women who did not use contraception. However, at least one study shows that in the mid-1990s nearly 60 percent of the women who had abortions became pregnant while using some form of contraception.
Opponents of Roe v. Wade also contend that religion and the Bible oppose abortion. At the risk of making an all too obvious point in a world where religious extremists throughout time have been inflicting violence on those who view matters of faith differently than they do, we don’t all hold the same religious beliefs. Followers of the Jewish faith, to name just one example, are explicitly taught that life begins at the moment of birth…not before. Therefore, in cases where a mother’s life is in danger, termination of her pregnancy is not merely permitted, but required. Clearly Jews should not be held accountable to others’ religious dogma. In fact, to do so would be to go against the teachings of their own faith.
But even if we could assume for a moment that we all adhere to the Bible as the one true source of divine revelation, there is no certainty that we would see eye to eye. For while people will often quote the Bible as though its authors speak with clarity and assurance, this is simply not the case in many matters, including abortion. Bible passages can be interpreted numerous ways, especially on complex moral issues. In fact, some of the same passages quoted by the anti-choice movement could be interpreted by others as proof that God would want abortion to be a safe and legal option for women.
Ultimately, the question as to when does life really begin is not a question of biology as much as it is a question of theology. Theologians throughout history have wrestled with this question and come up with many different answers. As the Supreme Court wrote in its Roe v. Wade decision: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of [human]… knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
Nevertheless, opponents of choice persist in declaring their stance as undeniable truth, and therein lies the primary problem with their position. To claim that aborting a fetus is no more acceptable than killing a human is certainly their right. However, to insist that the protection of the fetus must be insured by coercion through law is to assume that a theological point of view must be imposed on people who, in good conscience and faith, simply cannot agree with it. And this, I think, is where the anti-choice crusaders lose their credibility and their supposed moral superiority. Let me be clear: I agree that people should be free to interpret scripture as they see fit…after all, I adhere to the UU principle of “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” And I most certainly would not want to contend that my or anyone else’s personal take on the mystery and origins of our shared existence is any more valid than the next person’s. But I always reserve the right to protest whenever I believe people are being forced to accept one group’s interpretations of an ancient text as unequivocal truths…particularly if one of the spokespeople for that group just happens to be a president who describes his opposition to choice by bandying about clever and misleading phrases like promoting “a culture of life,” as though a pro-choice position is equivalent to promoting a culture of death.
Of course, the descriptor “pro-choice” is an affront to many people who oppose abortion. What choice does the aborted fetus have, they ask? Why do you use “choice” when you should be calling yourselves “pro-abortion”?
Let’s get real here. I contend that there are few in this country…if any…who are truly pro-abortion…even the doctors who perform the procedure…especially the doctors who perform the procedure. Furthermore, I find it difficult to believe that any woman, faced with an unwanted, untimely, or unsafe pregnancy, would consider having an abortion with joy. Of all the women I have known who have had abortions, I can safely say that none of them relished the idea. It was a difficult choice made at a difficult time. Indeed, abortions often, if not always, are accompanied by feelings of grief and loss…and sometimes even shame.
Frankly, I am troubled by the title “pro-life” for those who oppose choice…as though the decision that a woman who is considering abortion faces is simply for life or against life…in other words, for life or for death. But let me be clear about this, too: A woman deciding whether or not to end a pregnancy is making a choice between life and life. Her choice is against potential life or against existing life. There are often no easy answers in these circumstances and no completely good choice to be made. No woman would ever desire to be faced with this often times agonizing choice, yet the choice is one faced by millions each year.
Particularly disturbing to me is the anti-choice camp’s trumpeting of the so-called “partial birth abortion” ban. The rhetoric in support of this legislation has bordered on insanity. First of all doctors do not use the term “partial birth abortion.” It is a politically motivated, emotionally-charged name given by opponents of choice to a rare late-term procedure used almost exclusively when the fetus is not viable or when the mother’s life is in danger. The ban on this procedure is being portrayed by the anti-choice movement as a means to protect the fetus from a grisly murder at the hands of a careless, insensitive, and indecisive woman. Apparently forgotten in all this hoopla is the all-but-certain reality that no woman would ever desire this procedure. One has to assume it is an emotionally difficult and thoroughly unpleasant experience reserved for cases when there is ample reason to protect the mother’s life or to spare the fetus from undue suffering. All the ban on this procedure has done is take away an option that might be needed to protect the mother’s life.
Again, the discussion should not really be about women seeking abortion, as if it is something that women truly desire…a simple procedure of convenience or a means of birth control. The discussion should be about freedom: freedom for women to follow their own inherent moral conscience and to make tough decisions in difficult circumstances; freedom for women to have access to safe and legal medical care and to confidentially consult with doctors who are willing and able to consider all options; freedom for women to disregard the easy answers of people who wish to impose their theological biases as law and to belittle the struggles that every woman who has ever considered abortion must face. Freedom.
Now freedom is a word we hear a lot these days. Curious that we should be hearing the word freedom so much when there seem to be so many threats to our freedom all around us. Here are just a few examples beyond the obvious ones like the Patriot Act and the recent tenure of John Ashcroft: Consider… --A House and Senate controlled by members of the Republican party, a party which, despite the fact that a majority of Americans favor some form of choice for women, has had anti-choice policies in its platform since 1980. --A number of seats on the Supreme Court soon to be vacated and likely to be filled with justices who may seek to restrict a woman’s right to choose. --The recent appointments of opponents to reproductive choice to positions in the federal government that do not require public hearings or even disclosure. One infamous example is the appointment and re-appointment of anti-choice gynecologist W. David Hager to a Food and Drug Administration panel that oversees reproductive health medicines. Hager reportedly has refused to provide contraceptives to unmarried women, has opposed emergency contraception, and was said to have described recommendations to use condoms for disease prevention as “almost malpractice.”
And let’s not forget the many pending legislative measures that will seek to restrict access to abortions in the coming months through --restrictions on public funding of abortion that deny access to poor women --restrictions on minors’ access to abortion that prevent young women from receiving adequate, confidential health care --abortion ban legislation, that deny women access to needed procedures and that are unconstitutional because they do not provide exceptions to protect women’s health --measures granting unprecedented legal status to embryos and fetuses, separate and apart from pregnant women, which undermine a woman’s right to privacy and fail to protect pregnant women and --restrictions and regulations that are imposed on abortion clinics but that are not imposed on other health care providers and facilities where comparable outpatient surgery is performed. [list of legislative measures adapted from plannedparenthood.org] Certainly, there are dark clouds looming over all of us who believe that a woman’s right to freely choose what happens to her own body is far more important than the political and religious ideology of a bunch of mostly white men and the people who blindly trust them. But those dark clouds do not have to be permanent fixtures in our lives.
A great place to begin to clear these clouds would be for us to continue efforts to educate those of my generation and younger who do not know what it is like to live during a time when abortion is illegal. We haven’t seen what it is like to have to travel out-of-state, or worse, to have to sneak around to find renegades willing to break the law in often times less than safe and or sanitary conditions. We don’t have the memory of when coat hangers were the closest thing to medical tools for some desperate women. And we don’t have the memory of the tragedy of botched abortions or the medical after-effects of illegal abortions.
My generation needs to hear the stories of people who know what it is like to live in a country where a woman’s right to choose is restricted. We need to hear the perspectives like the one shared by a doctor who has performed abortions, who said, “I respect these people who have picketed outside my office for 25 years, in and out of snowstorms. Obviously they believe in what they are doing and are very persistent. At the same time, I have taken care of many of their wives and children and even some of the people on the picket line who suddenly find themselves in a very different situation than they ever thought possible….I know what would happen if these picketers outside my office were successful politically—a lot more tragedy, a lot more deaths. I saw what it was like when it was illegal. Look—we have saved tens of thousands of lives, maybe hundreds of thousands.”
We
need to keep reminding all of the anti-choice
crusaders out there that as long as there have
been pregnancies, there have been abortions, and
that regardless of the restrictions placed on a
woman’s reproductive rights, there will
continue to be abortions. Consider that
each year there are around 46 million abortions
worldwide…20 million of which are
illegal. The question that we should all
be asking then, is do we want these women…
The choice, at least for the time being, is ours…may we defend the right to keep that choice ours.
So what can we do? We can help to ensure choice by working to increase access to family planning, and by supporting responsible sexuality education, prenatal care, and legal abortion. After all, don’t we all believe that every child should be a wanted child? And isn’t this the real pro-life stance?
This month we have reason to acknowledge and celebrate a generation of faithful reproductive choices, choices made possible by the Roe v Wade decision, choices that are the right of every woman. May we do all we can to insure that the next generation has these same choices. May we do all we can to, keep abortion safe and legal, and pray that no one we love ever needs one.
For more information visit www.RCRC.org and www.plannedparenthood.org
|