many “pro-lifers” aren’t even anti-abortion
By: Brendt Wayne Waters
Tags: Pro Life, Abortion, Money, Republicans

The conclusion of this article is a horrific accusation. It’s also, sadly, undeniable.

In my younger days, I would chafe whenever someone would refer to those of us with a pro-life ethic as “anti-abortion” or “anti-choice”. Framing the ethic as a negative was, at best, unhelpful — attempting to define us by what we were against, instead of what we were for.

THE FIRST SHOE DROPS

However, as the primaries for the 2016 presidential election staggered along, I started changing my mind. Several candidates came out in strong support of harmful and/or deadly actions against already-born persons. Sadly, these virulently anti-life stances earned them a lot of points with much of the pro-life crowd.

This hypocrisy culminated in the Republican nomination of the most anti-life candidate in the field, largely brought about by the ostensibly pro-life crowd. As evangelical leaders gathered to hear the newly-anointed candidate tickle their ears, former Marco Rubio adviser, Eric Teetsel, held up a sign that stated:

Torture is NOT pro-life.

pro-life. Racism is NOT pro-life.

pro-life. Misogyny is NOT pro-life.

pro-life. Murdering the children of terrorists is NOT pro-life.

But Teetsel was largely ignored by these leaders. They had found their king, and it didn’t even phase them when he practically quoted Satan to them while promising them earthly power.

From that day forward, I was careful to distinguish between “pro-life” and “anti-abortion”, because — sadly — they have very little overlap any more. That said, I was relatively OK with those who were merely anti-abortion. Common ground and all that. At least they are on the right side of that issue.

EXCEPT THEY AREN’T

A common statement that we hear from the anti-abortion crowd is that abortion is murder. Thankfully, the vast majority of them also recognize that killing the doctors who perform abortions is not an acceptable solution.

I am, to be honest, puzzled by this — to be frank — inconsistency, given the high prioritization of the unborn over the already-born in most of these folks’ ethics. But hey, I’ll take it.

But setting aside a “fire with fire” mentality, wouldn’t any right-thinking person do everything else in his/her power to prevent (or at least diminish) hundreds of thousands of murders every year? So, if there were policies that would diminish the demand/desire for these murders, shouldn’t any ethical person be in favor of them?

And yet, the vast majority of the anti-abortion crowd (which, elephant in the room, leans hard right) stands staunchly against such policies with more consistency than the daily sunrise.

Oh sure, they’ll push for an over-turning on Roe v Wade, and support “heartbeat bills” and rail against laws that widen limits on abortion. But that’s where it ends. Introduce legislation that would prevent thousands times more abortions than any of the criminalization bills they support, and it’s a hard pass.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

As Teetsel inadvertently noted, the self-proclaimed pro-life crowd isn’t pro-life. But they aren’t even anti-abortion. They are nothing more than anti-abortion procedure.

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS

You know what every non-criminalization policy has in common? They all require you to fork over some moolah. Or at least, your approval to re-direct some money from one of your pet projects (like yet another fighter jet) to the prevention of murder. And the right doesn’t want anything to do with that.

Even though I suspected this for quite a while, I was loathe to express it publicly. Not giving a tinker’s damn about the unborn but only caring about your wallet is a horrible thing to accuse a person of. And while only the tiniest bit of common sense is necessary to connect the dots and come to this conclusion, I didn’t want to level such an accusation without hard data.

(Un)fortunately, that hard data was given to us recently. In March, a bill was introduced in the Tennessee legislature that would require a woman “to prove citizenship status in [order] to obtain government prenatal care and women, infants and children food benefits.”

All of the services that this bill would restrict or limit would directly or indirectly prevent or diminish the demand for abortions. Yet a bill denying such services to some was introduced by Bruce Griffey, who has the gall to tout himself as “pro life”.

To be fair, it’s possible that Griffey (who also touts himself as a Christian) simply hates non-citizens with such a white hot passion that he’s willing to let babies die in order to fulfill his nationalistic views. But the much more probable and (slightly) more gracious assumption — and the only other explanation — is that he would rather his wallet be fatter, and if some babies have to die, well then, so be it.

Sadly, Griffey is not just an outlier. Rondell Trevino, director of The immigration Coalition, encountered some Christians who were protesting outside a Planned Parenthood facility. He thanked them for their stance and prayed with them. Then he asked them about their thoughts regarding Griffey’s bill. They were all for it, displaying exactly zero of the grace and mercy that God had shown to them. Even when he asked about the well-being of the baby, they kept bringing it back to the mother’s “sin”.

Another example: Thomas Horrocks notes that the (allegedly) Christian medical sharing program Medishare won’t cover maternity costs for unwed mothers. The excuse is given that this decision was made by the members, not by the company. If you think about it for two seconds, you realize that this makes it worse, not better. It does deflect blame from the company; but it simultaneously shows that the company has no resolve to stand up for what’s right. Or as Thomas put it, “‘I don’t want to pay for your sin’ is literally the polar opposite of Christlikeness.”

And a fourth example came about in May, with Alabama’s “heart beat bill”. Most of the press revolving around failed amendments went to the fact that an amendment allowing for abortions in the cases of rape and incest was voted down. The reason cited for this by the bill’s framers — particularly Terri Collins — was that the bill was purposefully designed to be challenged, with the goal of getting all the way to the Supreme Court, and used to overturn Roe v Wade.

It takes extremely little cynicism to come to the conclusion that this bill has nothing to do with saving the lives of the unborn and everything to do with Collins’ political legacy. This conclusion is strongly bolstered by the fact that she was ready to kill the bill altogether rather than see those exceptions added, arguing that they would weaken the bill’s ability to make it to the Supreme Court. Even if one cannot muster up the tiniest bit of cynicism, there is nothing in Scripture that says that the ends justifies the means.

But here’s what a lot of people missed. One of the other amendments was an expansion of Medicaid services to help low-income women who would now be required to carry the baby to term. This, too, failed. Unlike the rape and incest exceptions, adding such services would not have weakened the bill’s route to the Supreme Court one iota. The only thing it would have done is cost money to help guarantee the health and well-being of those who the bill affected directly, both mother and unborn child.

But, no. The legislature was unwilling to spend money on something so extravagant as the life of an unborn baby. There is no way whatsoever to argue that such people are pro-life or even anti-abortion. If it’s going to cost them a penny, it goes out the window.

THE CONCLUSION

We have heard many prominent luminaries in the pro-life community state that Donald Trump is the most pro-life president ever. I used to find this laughable for so very many reasons. But in retrospect, it ain’t funny; it’s tragic. And yet, it’s stunningly accurate.

The bottom — nay, only — line for Donald Trump (and his base) is the Almighty Dollar. The pro-life movement has shown itself to be just as crass. So yeah, if we’re going by 2019 terms, I am in full agreement. Donald Trump is the most pro-life president ever.

More’s the pity.

Note: If you’re going to “not all” me, save your breath. I know there are self-proclaimed pro-lifers who genuinely are exactly that. But they are either a small minority or criminally silent, such that my generalizations are more than fair.