Should We All Become Single-Issue Voters?

After an initial spike in recorded cases after Roe v. Wade,
total numbers have thankfully been in steady decline ever
since, regardless of which party has been in power.

Faced with an array of pressing concerns over how the nation treats its immigrant neighbors, how to make healthcare accessible and affordable during a pandemic, and the apocalyptic effects of global warming, many of the friends I love and deeply respect cast their ballots primarily on the basis of which party promises to do the most to restrict abortions. 

I welcome and support their concerns. I well remember when it was mostly Roman Catholics who vocally opposed abortions, based on church tradition going all the way back to the Didache, a first century document which states, "Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant."

Yet prior to the conservative political movement that followed the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, most evangelical Protestants in the US either had little to say on the subject or actually defended the right of a woman to choose.

For example, in a November 8, 1968, edition of Christianity Today, Dallas Seminary professor Bruce Waltke made the case that scripture is largely silent on abortion, and that “the Bible does not equate the fetus with a living person," but adds that "it places value on it” (CT, Vol. XIII, No. 3).

And in 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention actually passed a pro-choice resolution, committing themselves “to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”

Soon after the Roe v. Wade court decision, the highly respected fundamentalist pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, W. A. Criswell, made this surprising statement: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

Meanwhile, most U.S. Anabaptists like myself have remained committed to a consistently pro-life or “whole-life” stance, including being opposed to war, the death penalty, torture and euthanasia. And in 2007 my denomination (Mennonite Church USA) adopted the following statement regarding abortion:

• Human life is a gift from God to be valued and protected. We oppose abortion because it runs counter to biblical principles.

• The fetus in its earliest stages (and even if imperfect by human standards) shares humanity with those who conceived it.

• There are times when deeply held values, such as saving the life of the mother and saving the life of the fetus, come in conflict with each other.

• The faith community should be a place for discernment about difficult issues like abortion.

• Abortion should not be used to interrupt unwanted pregnancies.

• Christians must provide viable alternatives to abortion that provide care and support for mothers and infants.

• The church should witness to society regarding the value of all human life.

Professionals whose ministry involves dealing with the moral dilemmas of abortion and reproductive technologies need our support.

Many of us have been heartened by evangelicals becoming more "pro-life" over recent decades. But it is also true that conservative movements in the ’70’s used the issue for political purposes, effectively persuading many Christians to oppose candidates like evangelical Jimmy Carter in favor of Ronald Reagan, for example. This was in spite of Reagan, a Hollywood star and a divorcee, having supported some of the most liberal abortion policies in the nation when he was governor of California.

Ever since, majority of evangelicals cite their desire to decrease the nation’s abortion numbers as the primary factor affecting their vote. Interestingly, there were enough such Mennonite voters alone (several thousand) in Sarasota County, Florida, in the year 2000 to help eke out a George W. Bush win in that state over Al Gore, where a razor thin margin of 537 votes in that state decided the outcome.

Neither candidate was a perfect choice, of course, but what might have been the far reaching consequences of that particular election on other important issues? For example, had more Sarasota Mennonites simply stayed at home on election day, would the nation have become mired down in the two longest wars in US history? Would the Kyota Climate Accord have been ratified by the United States, thus helping mitigate some of the devastating effects of climate change we see today? Would a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court have decided the Citizens United case differently, the one that gave corporations the same ability to influence elections as individual citizens? And could the national debt have been reduced rather than significantly increased due to the effect of the Bush tax cuts and the staggering cost of waging two unfunded wars?

We may never have definitive answers to such questions, but rather than automatically leaning toward becoming largely single-issue citizens, should followers of Jesus make sure we support “whole-life” policies across the board? These should certainly include honoring and protecting precious human life in the womb, but also keep in mind that there are more commands (36 in all) to welcome and protect the lives of aliens and strangers in our midst than about any other single issue in the Torah.

We also need to hear the words of Catholic Sister Joan Chittister, who writes, "I do not believe that just because you are opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed... And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth... We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”

Thankfully, there has been a steady decline in the number of reported abortions in the US since the spike following Roe v. Wade. And this has been equally true under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and in both Red and Blue jurisdictions.

Together we must continue the work of prayer and persuasion in our efforts to see that trend continue, not necessarily through criminalizing abortions and driving them underground, but by joining together to decry abortion as a form of birth control, by making better education and healthcare available to all, by expanding options for people waiting to adopt children, and by making men fully and equally responsible for the care and support of the children they father.