Chapter 1: Who Needs Strategy?
Strategy: a plan of action designed to achieve
an overarching goal
Tactics: specific steps designed to achieve
specific goals, usually interim goals
Tactics without strategy is just noise before
defeat.
The bull snorted. “Look
at that fool with his red flag! Doesn’t he know what I can do? I’m gonna rip
everything into tiny bits!” The cow watched and chewed some more. This looked
familiar, but it didn’t look good.
The pro-life movement is
operating without a coherent strategy. Most pro-life leaders are fixated on an
interim goal, reversing Roe v Wade, without any plan for what comes
next. Their tactics are not attached to a long-term strategy – and are, in
fact, disruptive and destructive of any long-term strategy.
With foaming mouths and
red-eyed rage, most pro-life Republican leaders insist on looking just one step
ahead.
I don’t know why this is
hard to grasp: a coherent strategy must look ahead. And looking ahead, it must
be:
·
international, not limited to 5% of those in danger
·
nonviolent, aiming for peace between generations
·
organized to grow not shrink, build bridges not walls
·
respectful of the oldest and wisest leaders and allies – that is, the
Catholic Church
·
responsive to the Gospel
·
unswervingly committed to an alliance with mothers and prospective
mothers
·
peaceful and protective, not militaristic and dominating.
Chapter 1: Who
Needs Strategy?
nine brief
insights
About Vision (#1) 11
Current pro-life
“strategy” is nonsense (#2
Dump the Dems,
Dump the Nation (#3)
Movement by
movement, state by state (#4)
“Decruiting”
Obvious Allies (#5)
Single Issue
Silliness (#6)
Make Gestures, or
Changes? (#7)
Corrupting Even
Pregnancy Aid (#8)
Consistent ethic
of hospitality (#9)
The pro-life
movement in the United States, as it developed after the Supreme Court
decisions in 1973, had three main branches: (1) pregnancy aid or help for women
and couples facing an unplanned pregnancy, (2) education, and (3) political and
legislative (and judicial) efforts to restore legal protection for unborn
children. Since the 1970s, I have argued that a fourth branch is necessary –
not as a minor addition, but as the heart of the whole movement. That fourth
branch is nonviolent direct action, which was later called the “rescue”
movement. These ideas are set out in Emmanuel, Solidarity: God’s Act, Our
Response.
I have also
argued that the educational work of the pro-life movement is misguided.
A key problem is that we have misunderstood our opposition almost completely,
for decades. The opposite of a pro-life position is not a pro-choice position;
it is, rather, eugenics. Pro-lifers have argued that life begins at conception,
and demanded that “pro-choicers” explain when they think life begins. That
question makes sense to pro-lifers, but does not make sense to a huge portion
of the world. If you accept that the question makes sense, then the pro-life
answer also makes sense. But if you believe that life is a continuum,
then there’s no clear “beginning.”
This total
misunderstanding of our opposition, going back decades, suggests that we
haven’t been listening. We have taken a reasonable position, and repeated it
over and over. It is a reasonable position – but it’s based on
assumptions that the rest of the world doesn’t share. So our position, however
reasonable it is, remains completely irrelevant to many people – who have long
since abandoned any effort to engage in serious dialogue with us, because they
think that we are incurably narrow-minded and dogmatic. It’s impossible to
carry on a dialogue with people who refuse to listen. These ideas are set out
in Roots of Racism and Abortion: An Exploration of Eugenics.
I argue also that
the political approach of the pro-life movement has been misguided. Just
as our educational approach has been narrow and insulated from contact with
real challenges, so also our politics has been narrow, based on purity and not
outreach. We have worked with like-minded people, and denounced people with
other views. This habit has reduced us bit by bit, and now most pro-lifers are
content to seek a mere affirmation of slogans, without much subtlety. This has
made it possible – in fact, easy – for unscrupulous demagogues to manipulate
us.
And indeed
demagogues found us out. In the 1960s, Republican strategists discussed how to
respond to the ideas embraced and taught by the Second Vatican Council, the
whole “Social Gospel.” The challenge was that the Democratic Party seemed to be
in tune with the Council in many ways, seemed to be the obvious vehicle for
those who wanted to press forward toward peace and justice. To avoid watching
the whole Catholic Church move as a block into the Democratic Party, Pat
Buchanan – an early and prominent advisor to President Richard Nixon – urged
that the Republicans respond to this existential threat by focusing on
abortion. If the Republicans had a monopoly on the pro-life movement, that
would answer the Democrats’ appeal as the voice for peace and justice. Buchanan
was prepared to split the Catholic Church in order to rescue Nixon’s party.
It is my view
that the pro-life movement must be rebuilt, from scratch. It must be based
squarely on a solid foundation of nonviolent action. It must understand and
respond to eugenics, and stop fussing about feminism. It must set out to grow,
building alliances and coalitions that are as broad as possible, not as pure
(and narrow) as possible.
I understand that
these positions of mine make me a pariah in the Republican-dominated pro-life
movement. But I have a vision of a pro-life future, and a strategy for getting
there. Do you?
Current pro-life “strategy” is nonsense (#2)
It baffles me,
listening to intelligent pro-life leaders explaining what we need to do. Almost
all the time, they assume without explaining that reversing Roe v. Wade
will end abortion. But will it? Asking people to examine this assumption is
like attacking Scripture or explaining the flat earth or banning chocolate.
Many pro-lifers just can’t face the question.
We have to face
it. Erasing Roe v. Wade is likely to save some lives; but it’s possible
that it won’t save a single life. Reversing Roe doesn’t provide legal
protection of children; it just sends the question back to the states. Some
states will enact protective laws immediately. But some won’t – not in the
foreseeable future, and not without the help of a reformed Democratic Party. If
Roe disappears, anyone anywhere in the country who wants an abortion can
still get one, but it may require more travel time, which may be a nuisance and
may mean extra expenses.
The semi-strategy
that grips the minds of most pro-life national leaders is another cheap
solution. And like all cheap solutions to social evils, it will fail.
Some states are
not clearly pro-life, nor clearly pro-choice. The fight in those states won’t
be about ending abortion; it will be about making abortion inconvenient. How
far must a woman travel to get to an abortion clinic?
It is possible
that abortion in the middle of the country will be seriously inconvenient, that
women or couples between the Mississippi and the Rockies will have to figure
out how to get to Denver for an abortion. Women in west Texas or North Dakota
seeking abortion will face serious new obstacles – a long day’s drive in each
direction, plus lodging for a couple of nights.
That, friends, is
the sum total of the current goal of the pro-life movement, stated honestly.
That’s not protection for children. It’s little more than bragging rights
(among pro-lifers) for the states that make abortion inconvenient. But it’s not
protection.
Tell me if I’m
wrong.
Tell me what
prominent pro-life leader is talking about the difference between protecting
babies and reversing Roe v. Wade. Name the pro-life leader who is
talking about how to protect children nationwide, after Roe disappears.
There are some
people urging Trump to assume dictatorial powers, and just issue a proclamation
protecting the unborn. I can’t take this seriously; it’s just fantasy. The
United States has ways to change laws, but that’s not one of them.
The current
“strategy,” if we can call such a short-sighted effort a strategy, is to get
rid of Roe. To do that, the pro-life movement is determined – is
desperate! – to get pro-lifers on the Supreme Court. I hear that part. I
understand it. But then what?
I say that
there’s a real strategy available. Its solid foundation is a campaign of
nonviolence. The scope is global. We should not contract into a small group of
conservative Republicans; we should expand deliberately and proactively, aiming
to include all people of goodwill, especially people in other movements of
social justice.
If you demonize
and alienate all the Democrats in the country in order to get your pro-life
Supreme Court, what’s your next step? You haven’t ended abortion, and you have
absolutely no chance of passing protective laws in 15 states. You have erected
new barriers to growing the movement, and now you are stopped dead, far far
short of real protection.
And that’s the
current dreamy thing, kind of a semi-strategy, lodged firmly in the back of the
minds of most pro-life leaders.
Dump the Dems, dump the nation (#3)
The simplest
criticism of a pro-life Democrat is the judgment that it seems impossible – or
almost impossible – to persuade the Democratic Party to return to its former
pro-life stance. And if the party can’t be changed, then a Democrat who remains
in the party is choosing freely to stay with a pro-abortion organization.
Right?
That sounds
sensible.
However, isn’t is
also clear and obvious that persuading the nation to return to its
former pro-life stance also seems impossible, or almost impossible? Aren’t the
challenges involved in persuading Democrats to adopt a pro-life stance similar
to the challenges involved in persuading the nation to do so?
Actually, no.
They aren’t “similar.” They’re the same.
If you say that
it’s impossible to change the Democratic Party, that includes another
assertion. You are saying that it’s impossible to change the country,
that we will always step aside when children are in danger. You are announcing
your opinion that the pro-life movement has failed permanently.
Unlike you, I
fully intend to work towards a pro-life nation (and world). I don’t expect to
see it in my lifetime, but I haven’t given up. You have – and you demand that I
give up too. You don’t think the pro-life movement can succeed, and then you
have the gall to denounce me as a traitor because I haven’t given up. That
strikes me as a little weird.
A single party
can tinker with the law and make temporary changes. But to make a deep and
permanent changes, we need to get other major parties on board. This is not a
complicated idea.
Right now (in
2020), many pro-life leaders are hopeful about changes that the Supreme Court
might make. For years, almost the entire pro-life movement has been focused
sharply on a single goal: change the Supreme Court so we can reverse Roe v.
Wade. That goal seems to closer and closer. And (say some) that goal can be
– indeed, has been, almost! – achieved by one party, the Republican
Party.
The two Justices
appointed by President Trump assured various Senators that they would respect
the principle of “stare decisis,” the idea that past decisions of the Court
should not be reversed carelessly, especially if they have been quoted
extensively in other decisions. Maybe the two men were equivocating, or maybe
they have changed their minds. Maybe they will vote to reverse Roe v. Wade.
But suppose they do? So what? Will that save one child, help one mother, bring
peace to one family? Maybe, maybe not.
Reversing Roe
isn’t the same as protecting a child. Assume there’s a reversal; what then? A
reversal will send the matter back to the states. It’s likely that most states
will pass laws to protect children – most, but not all. If 15 states scattered
across the nation opt to consider abortion to be a right, then any woman or
couple in the country who wants an abortion can still get one. They may have to
travel a bit; it may take some hours longer; it might be a little more
expensive. But abortion will remain available, throughout the country, for
anyone.
That’s victory?
Are you kidding?
If you want to do
better than that, you need a national change, and changing the Democratic Party
is a detail. But if you’ve given up on the Democrats, you have given up
completely.
And: NO, I will
not join you in your despair.
Movement by movement, state by state (#4)
The unexamined
assumptions of the pro-life movement today include that the key to the struggle
is political, involving national and state politics. I reject that assumption:
I think politics – that is, electoral politics and legislative or judicial
changes – is secondary (or third or fourth). But when we do look at politics,
I’m not on the same page. Why national, not global? And even when we set aside
global issues and look only at national politics, I’m still not on the
same page as most pro-lifers. National politics is shaped by what happens state
by state, but also by what happens movement by movement.
If you want to
change a nation, you can struggle to elect the right people, state by state.
That’s not stupid – but it’s not the only way forward, and it’s not necessarily
the best way forward. For example, if you had to make a choice – that is, you
had to decide where to allocate money and time – would you rather win Illinois
or the labor movement? Would you rather win California or the feminist
movement? Texas or the peace movement? New England or immigrants? It does make
sense to think about how to win state by state, but it also makes sense
to think about how to move forward movement by movement.
Take Eagle Forum,
for example. When I was working full-time to build pro-life nonviolent action,
Eagle Forum came after me. Around 1980, the Pennsylvania chapter gave
uncomplimentary awards to Juli Loesch and me. I forget the details, but one of
us got the Benedict Arnold Award, and the other got something like the Judas
Award. They didn’t like us. Why not? We were solidly and undeniably pro-life!
The problem was, Eagle Forum was pro-life – but was also involved in fights
about feminism and nuclear weapons. I worked loudly and proudly with people on
both sides of those national debates – but my own view was clear. I thought
(and think) that sexism was an evil that was eroding away in our time (as Pope
John XXIII said in Pacem in Terris); I considered myself a pro-life
feminist. And I thought (and think) that nuclear weapons could not be used with
“discrimination” (avoiding civilian deaths) and – following Vatican II – that
the indiscriminate destruction of civilian populations was a crime meriting
unequivocal condemnation. So my views on peace and justice were a challenge to
Eagle Forum. But not to the pro-life movement!
Eagle Forum
worked hard to get rid of the peace activists and feminists in the pro-life
movement. Who was helped by that?
Cooperation was
and still is possible. I started pro-life sit-ins (later called rescues) in New
England. Our first action was at Planned Parenthood in Norwich. Around the same
time, I was also arrested at Electric Boat in Groton, CT, protesting the
construction of nuclear subs. But much of the preparation for the sit-in at
Planned Parenthood – weekly meetings to pray and reflect on Isaiah’s “songs of
the suffering servant” – were in the kitchen of an engineer who worked at
Electric Boat. So I was arrested at his work site, but he and I were able to
cooperate in planning a sit-in at Planned Parenthood.
The pro-life
movement can and must – and once did – bridge gaps. We need veterans and peace
activists. We need feminists and traditionalists. We need environmentalists and
industrialists. Writing off one movement after another was a disastrous
mistake.
To expand, the
pro-life movement must break free of the stranglehold of any narrow partisan
who wants to coopt us – in this case, the Republican right.
“Decruiting” obvious allies (#5)
One of the
dumbest blunders in American history is unfolding now. The pro-life movement,
in desperate need of allies, is deliberately alienating 40 million potential
allies. What great strategic plan includes such lunacy?
To me, it seems
obvious that a determined movement with a serious mission will work to expand,
not shrink. To protect children (in the USA for a start, but then the world),
we need to build a solid social consensus that life begins at the beginning,
not in the middle. But most pro-life leaders today are intent on a specific
political strategy – to protect the unborn, we have to change the law, and the
only way to do that is to change the courts, and the fastest way to do that is
through a determined and muscular Republican majority. So pro-lifers must join
the GOP, and then make sure the party is uncompromising.
That’s not pure
crazy, but it’s close. It’s ignorant and un-democratic. It’s ignorant: this
strategy – change a massive entrenched social evil by education leading to
legislation – has no precedent in history, which suggests strongly that it’s
impossible. But also, it’s un-democratic, and I want to focus on that for a
moment.
Decisions in a
dictatorship don’t require persuasion and cooperation and coalition-building,
but decisions in a democracy do. Our nation is based on ideas about equality
and human rights – and liberty. We don’t believe that the legitimate power to
govern is delegated by God to a king. We are committed to the idea that the
authority of a government, to be legitimate, must be based on the will of the
governed. To make a deep and permanent change in the law, ending a massive and
deeply entrenched evil, we need a campaign of nonviolence that changes hearts
and minds: that’s first, logically and chronologically. Then, in a democracy,
we persuade and cajole and build coalitions based on respect and cooperation.
That’s how democracy works.
It seems to me
that pro-lifers have lost track of this idea that is basic to American history.
If we are going
to work within a democracy, we need to expand. And indeed, it seems to me, we
have an obvious opportunity that we must seize, not discard. The culture of Latin
America is changing, but it is not yet as thoroughly pro-abortion as our
culture. And Muslim society is under systematic pressure from eugenicists
promoting abortion, but Muslims – in general, globally – are not as likely to
promote abortion as post-Christian Westerners. So it would make sense to work
carefully and deliberately to recruit immigrants. We have about 40 million
potential allies in each generation of immigrants. Do we want their help?
It is
stupendously stupid to ally ourselves with xenophobes! We are not just
neglecting a massive opportunity to recruit; we are, as a movement, working
hard to de-cruite! We are allied with people who want immigrants to stop coming
here! In fact, we are combing the country for millions of people – our natural
allies! – to send away!
Like King Canute,
xenophobes work to reverse an unstoppable tide. That’s stupid and destructive.
But also, from a sharply focused pro-life perspective – neglecting the
God-given right to migrate and focusing only on how to expand the pro-life
movement – we are engaged in an effort to deport our allies.
We might as well
erect billboards at the border: “Pro-lifers, we hate your guts! Go away!” That
is our message to the children of Guadalupe – who are pro-life until we decruit
them.
Why do pro-lifers
do this?
For decades, most
pro-lifers have fended off the approach taken by the Catholic Church to
abortion. That is, most pro-life leaders have avoided requests for consistency
– and have denounced the “seamless garment” approach. Pro-lifers have said that
we are and we must be “single issue.” I think this has been a grave strategic
mistake. But more simply, I think it’s nonsense: the pro-life movement has never
been a single-issue movement. From the beginning, the pro-life movement has always
addressed multiple issues.
Consider.
The pro-life
movement in the 1970s had a manual that covered a lot of ground fast – what
conception and embryonic and fetal growth look like, what the different methods
of abortion look like, and a list of associated questions. This pocket-size
manual, Jack Willke’s Abortion Handbook, the principal teaching tool of
the movement for a decade or two – and it covered abortion and euthanasia.
It was principally about abortion, but the decision to include euthanasia
helped to make clear that we were “pro-life” and not just “anti-abortion.” The
movement insisted that we fought to protect humans from “conception until a
natural death.” Abortion and euthanasia: that’s two different issues. That’s
not multi-issue, but it’s not single-issue either. The major
national organization, National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), used Willke’s
handbook, and his approach. So did the first large splinter group, American
Life Lobby (later American Life League).
There was an
influential organization in Minnesota that took a somewhat different approach.
The Human Life Center emphasized that Planned Parenthood had moved from
advocating contraception and criticizing abortion to advocating both without
much fuss and bother. They emphasized that abortion is rooted in an attitude
toward human sexuality. They argued that if you accept that sexual activity is
private matter, and that its meaning is up for grabs. If sex and birth drift
apart in theory and in practice, with sex for fun and IVF for babies – and if
we accept an apparent commonsense proposal that good fun can’t cause great
damage – then abortion follows. This approach was common – not as common as the
NRLC approach, but not rare – and it was even less single-issue.
The Eagle Forum
was a well funded and well organized member of a conservative coalition – and
it was a major anti-abortion organization. But recall: they were anti-abortion,
anti-feminist, and pro-nuke. And their conservative coalition is still visible
and vibrant, although it’s changed a smidgeon: now it’s anti-abortion plus
anti-gay and pro-gun.
Pro-life liberal
coalitions didn’t thrive. Rev. Jesse Jackson, before he turned pro-choice, said
that the mentality of slavery and the mentality of abortion are the same:
treating a person as a thing. It was an interesting argument, but it remained
just a debater’s argument, and never became a coalition. (Ask Jesse why not.)
Similarly, many
pro-lifers compared abortion to the Holocaust, for two reasons. First, abortion
involves killing huge numbers of people while society looks on and refrains
from interfering. And second, abortion produces corpses that end up in the
waste stream, or in labs, or in crematoria. The cremation of millions of
innocent victims looks like a holocaust. However, many Jewish leaders expressed
opposition to this linkage, and it never became a coalition.
In the early
1980s, Juli Loesch championed a “consistent” life approach, embodied in the
organization she founded, Prolifers for Survival. Her idea was embraced by
Cardinal Bernardin, who spoke about a “seamless garment.” And now the idea is
carried forward by the Consistent Life Network.
Conservatives
promote a single-issue approach when they want leftwingers to go away. But the
movement has never been single-issue. Never.
Make gestures, or changes? (#7)
When I worked
with Human Life International, one of the hard lessons I learned was about how
many “pro-life” leaders were intent on changing laws, just laws, without any
regard for actual practice. In Mexico, for example, abortion was illegal, but
was also advertised openly in the Paginas Amarillas, the Yellow Pages. So what
did pro-life leaders want? Enforcement? Nonviolent direct action? No, no, no.
Pro-life leaders, in general, were content to protect their toothless,
meaningless, hypocritical laws.
Faced with a
slaughter, do pro-lifers want to make gestures, or make changes? That is, do we
want to wave a flag and talk to each other? Or do we want to engage with our
fellow citizens and work to change minds and hearts?
One of the
clearest examples of this choice was when the Me Too campaign got underway. It
was not a pro-life initiative, but it did get at the some of the roots of the abortion
movement, and pro-lifers should have supported it. The abuse of women is among
the most powerful forces pushing towards abortion. Me Too challenged that
force. Where were we?
Pro-life leaders
often support chastity education, pushing back against the idea that sex is
natural and delightful and everybody should play, struggling to re-assert an
ancient idea that sex is related, somehow or other, to babies, and therefore
probably belongs within the context of conscious and future-oriented
commitment. Great ideas! But can we do it?
When John Paul II
was Pope, I read his weekly meditations that became the basis of his “theology
of the body,” and I thought it was all brilliant. And I accept the teaching of
Gandhi, that peacemaking requires self-control – in his words, that
“brahmacharya” (chastity) is indispensable in a campaign of “satyagraha”
(nonviolence). Gandhi was not a flower child. But how do we get from here to
there? In post-Christian America and Europe, nonproductive sexual activity is
deeply rooted and flourishing, like kudzu. And in many countries – including
Saudi Arabia and India, recently prominent examples – there’s a rape culture.
It’s daunting.
The Me Too
campaign stood up against that rape culture. It challenged male domination and
sexual oppression, and made a real impact. India is visibly changed, and even
the Saudis have taken notice of the global changes that are underway. Sure, I’d
like to do more: Me Too is about consent, not chastity; it has nothing to say
about consensual extramarital sex. But from a pro-life and pro-family
perspective, it is such a huge step forward! Where were we?
Pro-lifers who
have spent time outside abortion clinics have seen coercive abortion unfolding.
A car pulls up, an angry guy gets out and grabs a crying woman, and pulls her
along. You hear the shouts: “We arready talked about this and we’re gonna get
it done now, goddammit.” This doesn’t happen every Saturday morning at every
clinic, but it’s common. Sometimes a pro-life agenda and pro-choice agenda flow
together: if the woman can choose, the child can live.
The whole Me Too
campaign was about freedom from such oppression.
Where were we?
Corrupting even pregnancy aid (#8)
Is it true that
the Republican Party is pro-life and the Democratic Party is pro-abortion? I
say no, that’s nonsense. Look at pregnancy aid.
The healthiest
part of the pro-life movement is pregnancy aid – thousands of volunteers
offering their time, their cash, their homes, their everything-they-got, to
help women and couples facing an unplanned and for now unwelcome pregnancy. I
admire these folks, immensely. However, even this healthiest part of the
movement is undercut by the pro-life movement’s links to Trump and his savage
opposition to immigration.
Around the world
in 2020, there are 65 to 70 million people on the road, fleeing from war or
gang violence or rape or starvation. These refugees and stateless persons and
homeless migrants are not welcome in the USA. Before Trump, about two million
people came into the country annually, half with legal documents and half
without. Trump has worked hard to bring that number way down – fighting
“illegal” immigration, and reducing legal migration by half, and even trimming
our welcome for refugees – refugees, for God’s sake! – to a few thousand
annually. Amidst the worst refugee crisis since World War II, the wealthiest
continent has refused to participate in building and maintaining safe havens.
There’s a detail
in the refugee crisis that is significant to the pro-life movement: that 65
million refugees includes about a million pregnant women. So there are a
million pregnant refugees: need they say more to be considered women facing
crisis pregnancies? These million women in crisis pregnancies are not welcome
within several thousand miles of a proud American crisis pregnancy center. And
what do American pro-lifers have to say about this scandal? Nothing. Our crisis
pregnancy centers are for Americans, not for foreigners. With eyes wide open,
American pro-lifers turn away a million pregnant women carrying a million
babies, in crisis.
How can you help
them? Not all want to go to America, believe it or not. But some do, from Latin
America, and they show up at our southern border. They don’t need diapers; they
need advocates who will help them get across the border and out to family or
friends or employers. To put this another way: if you support Trump’s decisions
about Latinos coming north – a blanket ban instead of screening that lets
pregnant moms into the country – you oppose pregnancy aid.
Millions of
refugees are stuck in camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and elsewhere. You can
support the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. They aren’t
anti-abortion, but they will help women in crisis. To put that another way: if
you are so paranoid about Socialism that you think the UN is demonic and you
won’t cooperate with the UNHCR, you oppose pregnancy aid.
Do you want to
help pregnant moms in Africa? Support Catholic Relief Services. To put that
another way: if you are paranoid about CRS, you oppose pregnancy aid.
Do you want to
help moms in concentration camps in China and North Korea? Nancy Pelosi, not
Trump, has had her eye on forced abortion for 30 years. It’s hard to pressure
those brutal governments, but it’s possible, and it has been done. By Pelosi.
In other words, if you refuse to cooperate with Pelosi, you oppose pregnancy
aid.
I understand that
what I’m saying isn’t popular among pro-lifers. But when you look at the plight
of pregnant refugees honestly, it seems that the pro-life movement has
abandoned its mission, even the clearest and purest part of its mission –
pregnancy aid.
It used to be
clear for pro-lifers: if there’s a pregnant mom and an unborn child in danger,
drop everything and help. Nothing matters more. But now, there’s a higher
priority. Mother and child in danger? Um, are they refugees? Then walk away.
Consistent ethic of hospitality (#9)
I’ve been working
since 2012 to link abortion and immigration. I was startled when I saw the huge
gap between what Scripture and the Catholic tradition say about hospitality, on
one hand, and what people think about it on the other. It seems to me that most
people consider hospitality to be a decoration, like flowers on the table, not
a matter of immense and eternal significance, like justice and truth. There are
many links between them.
First, and most
obviously, the next generation in the USA (or anywhere) will come from births
and immigration. To shape the future of a society, you want to control these
two sources of new life. And so the eugenics movement, a conscious effort to
construct a new and improved human race, set out to control both as well as
possible. Restricting immigration and expanding abortion are major
accomplishments of the eugenics movement.
Second, the eugenics
movement in the 1920s launched three major initiatives:
·
sterilizing the “feeble-minded,”
·
outlawing “miscegenation” (marriage between people of different ethnic
backgrounds), and
·
restricting immigration.
Then in the
1960s, members of eugenics societies in Britain and the USA launched – and led,
funded, housed, and promoted – the abortion movement.
Both immigration
restrictions and abortion are about hospitality to people who show up in our
lives on their schedules, not ours, capable of altering our lives substantially
even if inadvertently. On one hand are the unknown un-named unborn, and on the
other are the undocumented unwashed displaced.
Third, it is
almost impossible to construct an argument for restricting immigration that
isn’t also an argument for global population control. And global depopulation
schemes include forced abortion. In other words, restricting immigration in the
USA – the global haven for refugees for the past several centuries – leads to
more abortion overseas. Reports of increased miscarriages among pregnant women
being held for deportation are horrifying in themselves; but they are only the
tip of the iceberg.
Fourth, both
abortion and restricting immigration are ways to turn away from the creative
initiatives of the Lord, who always cherishes us but also, almost always,
challenges us. When the uncomfortable Other shows up in our lives, we are
invited to meet God. In the carefully repeated words of Jesus, “Whatsoever you
do for the least of my people, you do for me.” In Scripture, when angels show
up, they always say, “Do not be afraid,” because people are always
scared. These words apply when any celestial messenger – or baby, or stranger –
shows up. We are always startled, puzzled, worried, afraid – always. And the
Lord asks us to trust him – always.
Fifth, many
pro-lifers find a call to care for the unborn and for worried or disturbed or
reluctant mothers in the words about care for widows and orphans throughout
Scripture and history. But in the Old Testament, we don’t find just a pair,
widows and orphans. Almost every reference to this pair includes a third; it’s
a trio, not a pair. Of the 21 references to widows and orphans in the Bible, 18
refer to widows and orphans and strangers. The Lord demands that we
intervene to help (1) mothers without supportive husbands, and (2) children
without caring parents – and also (3) anyone without a home, without a
supportive society.
Immigrants and
babies change our lives – but the changes, on balance, are joyful and delightful
and enriching and wonderful, now and forever.
