“We’ve misidentified the problem. We have a cultural narrative that abortion is the problem. Well abortion is the solution that women bring to a prior problem. If you start with abortion is the problem you are far too late.”
For a long time—long before the recent leak of a U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion suggesting the Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade—I’ve wished we could have a more nuanced cultural conversation about abortion. A conversation that would fully respect the rights of women without having to deny the sanctity of life before birth, that would trust women while embracing that women have different perspectives on the topic, that would center the equity issue of discrepancies in healthcare based on wealth and race, that would have as its goal creating the best outcomes for both women and children. Such a conversation feels like a pipe dream.
As a lifelong Catholic, I’ve been steeped in the theology of a "consistent ethic of life," the reason for which Catholic teaching opposes abortion as well as capital punishment and aspects of capitalism that strip human dignity and leave people impoverished. If applied consistently (it rarely is), it promises to defy neat political categories in defending life and human dignity in all its forms.
For many years, I wanted to believe that this elegant moral framework could work politically. When I listen to politicians focused on protecting fetuses at all costs (including costs to the women that carry them), yet unwilling to muster the same level of will to address the racism and gun access that killed ten people in Buffalo and traumatized millions more last weekend, I know that it can’t. With no room for nuance, I have long since landed on the political side of supporting the right to choose. Studies show that making abortion illegal does not reduce the prevalence of abortions (some data even shows that abortion rates go down when it is legalized); the practice just becomes more dangerous. Plus making it illegal causes numerous additional harms.
For many, of course, the political stance against abortion follows from deontological ethics more than factual analysis. When we make abortion legal, we condone it societally, a moral wrong from this perspective. It is not an unreasonable point of view if you believe abortion is murder, but we could have long debates about ethical theories without making a dent in the actual issue. Even if you land somewhere different politically, I hope we can all acknowledge that millions of women feel disrespected and terrified in anticipation of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Whatever one might say about the Court’s role and the intricacies of legal analysis, it feels to many women that a group of six people, mostly men, may soon strip us of our right to make a very significant choice about our own bodies and lives. And once left to state legislatures, many women will be left with only bad options. This is not pro-life.
Bill Clinton once suggested abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare,” and the phrase became a mainstay of the Democratic Party’s narrative on the issue for decades. In recent years, politicians have largely dropped the word “rare” after some activists argued that it stigmatizes those who have abortions. Political strategy has a particular set of dynamics geared at political outcomes. I defer to those orchestrating strategy to protect women’s reproductive rights on whether “rare” became a barrier to the desired outcomes.
But beyond the politics of it, what would it look like if those who would like abortion to be rare (whether we are pro-life or pro-choice politically) focused on making it so, in an actual sense? No stigmatizing or moralizing, just curiosity about what actually works. For one, it would require acknowledging that abortion rates in the U.S. have fallen for over 30 years while it has been legal. That should matter. And maybe we can do even better.
I often use the quote from Rev. Dr. Peters above in talking about social innovation. Applying an innovation framework means seeking to understand problems systemically, and sometimes redefining the problem helps us arrive at better solutions. Someone who sees abortion as the problem sees outlawing it as the solution. Simple. Too simple. Abortion is a solution for women. That’s why they fight for it and even celebrate it. And that’s why outlawing it does not actually have the desired impact and creates numerous negative externalities.
Making abortion illegal is not a response rooted in understanding the real problem. If we take an innovation approach, we have to set aside our ideologies and emotions and go much deeper. We have to understand who has abortions and why and who doesn’t. We have to listen to and empathize with both those who make the choice to have an abortion and those who don’t. If we did so, we would become invested in women’s experiences and their well-being (as well as that of transgender men, intersex persons, anyone with the ability to bear children). We would devote our time and resources to improving women’s healthcare and access to contraceptives, education, and power. We would come up with solutions that reduce economic and gender inequality and empower women to help create more and better options for their own health and reproductive lives. Addressing problems systemically inevitably creates positive externalities, and it allows us to see new solutions.
Contrary to popular belief, people and institutions of faith have very diverse viewpoints on abortion, with many embracing it (e.g. in Judaism, a fetus becomes ensouled only at the moment of birth). I know I’m not alone among people of faith (and faith institutions) in believing that if the Court overturns Roe v. Wade, it will have a devastating impact on the health and well-being of women, children, and families in the U.S., primarily those without resources. We will take a monumental step backwards as a country, denying the hard-fought rights of women to control their own bodies. I also recognize that people I respect, as well as the formal teaching of my own faith tradition, have a different perspective. If we can find common ground in redefining the problem and seeking authentic solutions, maybe we can build a path to change beyond the political tug of war.
To that end, do you know of innovative faith-based approaches in the space of reproductive rights, gender equality, or women’s healthcare, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere? If so, please share in the comments or at info@innofaith.org.
Author: Danielle Goldstone
Photo is of a sign outside the United Methodist Building, across the street from the Supreme Court in Washington, DC.