National Republicans drew some attention to this Yahoo News interview with Georgia's Democratic gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams, in which she casts her abortion support as a matter of her Christian faith. Viscerally, I'd imagine such framing is profoundly off-putting to many Christians, but that wasn't the only problematic element of the answer she offers. Here's the clip:
Democrat Stacey Abrams claims abortion until birth is right because of "the free will that the God I believe in gave us." pic.twitter.com/fNY29cC1Z4
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) August 4, 2022
"Abortion is a medical decision. It is medical care. It is what helps a woman who's had a miscarriage actually navigate that space. It's technically a spontaneous abortion. It is what happens in an ectopic pregnancy, but it is also a decision that women make because they are not ready to be mothers. It is a medical decision. And while your faith tradition may tell you that you personally do not want to make that choice, it is not my right as a Christian to impose that value system on someone else, because the value that should overhang everything is the right to make our own decisions, the free will that the God I believe in gave us."
(1) Activists often cast abortion as healthcare, plain and simple, as Abrams does here. But basic, black-and-white 'healthcare' does not generally entail the deliberate ending of a human life. One can support legal abortion, at least to some extent, and also recognize that the moral and ethical calculus around the question -- especially on elective abortions -- is something rather different and apart from routine care or procedures.
(2) A miscarriage, which is often deeply sad to an expectant mother, is not an abortion. The former represents a natural or non-intentional loss of a pregnancy. The latter is a proactive choice to terminate a pregnancy. Conflating miscarriage and abortion is bizarre rhetorical sleight of hand, seeking to obscure the meaning of words and blur obvious differences between the two events. Abortion, the intentional ending of a human life, does not 'help' a woman whose unborn child or fetus has already died.
(3) Ectopic pregnancies are non-viable. The baby cannot survive. But such pregnancies are a grave threat to the mother's life. That's why all abortion limits in America offer exceptions for saving the mother's life, under which ectopic pregnancies unequivocally fall. John McCormack has covered this strange, issue-fogging talking point in detail. Abortion advocates who push misinformation and fear on this front appear to be conceding the weakness of (or at least highlighting their doubts about the strength of) straightforward arguments in favor of elective abortion-on-demand.
(4) On her points about imposing values and free will, I've addressed the severe shortcomings of those arguments in the recent past. Virtually all laws impose values on society, to one extent or another, and quite a few of those laws explicitly or arguably have roots in Judeo-Christian ethics and morals. Progressives have no problem imposing their values on Americans on any number of issues. And yes, though we have free will, that does not mean our choices are free from consequences. People can freely make wrong or even evil decisions. No one would argue that we shouldn't "impose" our values on society by not criminalizing and prosecuting rape, for example. It would be immoral to say that we can't outlaw that act because we don't want to force anti-sexual assault morals on others -- or shrug that if you're against rape, just don't commit one. Rapists have God-given free will. That doesn't make their crimes any less heinous or unacceptable. I'm not comparing violent felonies like rape to abortion, but the whole crux of the abortion debate is if and when the unborn human life is worthy of legal protection. We don't allow some people's desires and choices to violate the rights of other people. That's the core tension on abortion, which Abrams and others try to avoid grappling with altogether.
(5) Unless I've missed something, and I doubt I have on this, Abrams' abortion stance is the same extremist position that her national party has nearly universally embraced. Their view is that there should be zero limitations on abortion whatsoever, meaning legalized elective abortion-on-demand, all the way to the moment of birth, for any reason, financed by taxpayers. This is an appalling view, and a deeply unpopular one. Abrams, who has major ambitions, has adopted this radical line, as demanded by major donors, hardcore activists, and the deep-pocketed special interest groups in the abortion lobby. It's grotesque on the merits, as far as I'm concerned, but it's particularly odious being wrapped in the veneer of religious faith. I'll leave you with my interview this week with Abrams' opponent, Gov. Brian Kemp -- who took plenty of political shots at her, of course, but also went after Sen. Raphael Warnock's pro-Biden voting record in Georgia. That's notable:
ICYMI - @BrianKempGA Slams Abrams, Warnock For Embracing Biden Policies: ‘They Need To Own What They’ve Created’https://t.co/Q11ON8xXeL
— The Guy Benson Show (@GuyBensonShow) August 9, 2022
Join the conversation as a VIP Member