Edited by Judah Ivy, Director of the Seattle Abolitionist Society
It’s no secret that there’s a divide in the “pro-life” movement. To be honest, it’s less of a divide than people think. There are really two separate movements. On one hand there is the pro-life movement; which has for 40 years been advocating for strict regulation of abortion, willing to meet the pro-abortion crowd half way, which eventually ends up in legislative surrender. On the other hand, we have the abolitionists who seek not to regulate, not to manage or compromise, but to secure the total abolition of human abortion. I could go into the nitty-gritty of the slander lobbed at the abolitionists by both the pro-life and pro-abort crowd (interestingly, much of it sounds the same no matter who it comes from), but that would really take far too long to cover. What I will say is this: Abolitionists, abolition minded people like Rebecca Kiessling, and almost-abolition minded groups like Georgia Right To Life were raked across the coals last week for daring to oppose the terrible compromise known as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Erick Erickson (a traditional pro-life-for-some Republican) even went so far as to call groups and individuals who will not compromise the “Westboro Baptist Church of the pro-life movement.” This is the guy who doesn’t want us to compromise on taxes but is willing to compromise on who lives and who dies, revealing plainly the idol he truly worship$.
Washington pro-life blog Life of the Party, this author, and (very recently) Live Action have all explained why we cannot compromise with incrementalism on the issue of human life, so there’s really no need to get into that. There is a need to go into what kind of “incremental” bills we may be willing to support. Here’s the deal though, such bills aren’t really incremental; they are wholly separate from the specific issue of abortion. This is important, so I’ll repeat it: The kind of legislation that I’m talking about here is wholly separate from the issue of murdering human beings.
Let’s start with an easy one, shall we? Public funding. I would like to see all public funding pulled from all abortion providers for quite a few reasons. We’re told that tax-payer money, even when it goes to murder mills, isn’t used to fund abortions. In fact, I was just told this by a Planned Parenthood volunteer during the Seattle Abolitionists Society’s last mission trip to one of their facilities. This is a lie. Money is a fungible commodity. If you give me ten bucks, I take that 10 bucks and put it in my wallet. It then becomes indistinguishable from the other money that is already in my wallet. It doesn’t matter if the money that you gave me is specifically earmarked for gasoline; I can take it and buy bacon covered maple bars. As long as I do buy gas, you’ll never concern yourself with whether or not I used the specific money that you handed me to buy that gas. So, we’ve established that tax payer money, huge amounts of money, in fact $542 million; is actually used to fund abortions. The real issue here is not that people are paying for abortions; it’s legal, so someone’s going to pay for them. The real issue is twofold: First, it’s a violation of the right to conscience for (recent polling suggests) half of the taxpayers in the United States. Second, sending huge sums of money to a private, for-profit company is bad financial stewardship. Can you think of a better way that our government might spend $542 million? I sure can! Add to that the problem of Planned Parenthood -and I’m sure most other child sacrifice centers- allegedly defrauding the tax payers (I’m supposed to say “allegedly” because the particular case that I’m about to bring up has not yet been settled). In Washington State alone, Planned Parenthood has (allegedly) defrauded Washington taxpayers out of $377 million! According to Lifesitenews.com, a whistle-blower discovered “repeated false, fraudulent, and/or ineligible claims for reimbursement’ to Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services and its Health and Recovery Services Administration, which runs the state’s Title XIX Medicaid program.” How was this fraud committed? Planned Parenthood over billed the state for emergency contraceptives and abortifacient drugs. Yup, you read that right; abortion causing drugs. We do publicly fund abortion.
Abolitionists could also potentially support bills that would seek to end the industrial and research use of the babies killed through abortion. I’m sure we’ve all heard about Pepsi Co. and their use of aborted “fetal” cells in the testing of flavor enhancers. They claim to have stopped the practice, but how many other companies are involved in this type of activity? These babies and their cells are also used for many different types of medical and scientific research. These innocent human beings are sold after their murder and used. Wisconsin and Oklahoma have debated bills that would ban this type of research. Clearly the sacrificed child cannot consent to having his earthly remains sold at auction and used for who-knows-what.
Neither of these two examples would lead to the abolition of human abortion. Neither would they force an abolitionist to take a stand in opposition due to a compromised foundation. These ideas stand on their own, separate from the issue of abortion. Instead, they deal with fiscal responsibility, rights of conscience and medical ethics. If such legislation were to be introduced, at either the national or state level, it would behoove the drafters and introducing legislators to handle it as such.
Of course, a far more courageous statesman would simply skip these games and move right to the introduction of personhood legislation (legislation recognizing all human beings as legal persons); and not just introduce it, put aggressively push it. If we would move to only introducing this type of legislation, the conversation in the various states, even the whole nation, regarding abortion would dramatically change and would be a complement of the work that abolitionists are doing to engage the culture; not simply those walking into an abortion “clinic.” To be clear, abortion will not be ended by legislation alone, and we should not put our hope or faith in it. Our hope and faith must always rely solely on God’s divine providence in which legislation is only a means.
For more on incrementalism and compromise, check out the following articles:Follow @RClaytonStrang