Every election cycle the refrain is repeated: the Republican Party needs to sever ties with the Religious Right. And every time the Republican Party has a setback with regard to electoral matters, the first thing many suggest is the “need” to jettison the social conservative wing with its pro-life stance. The strategy appears simple even though it is terribly misguided. One could argue that it was the addition of social issues, but especially opposition to abortion, that originally led to the election of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States. But many pundits now believe social conservatives need to go if the Republican Party is going to have a hope of future electoral success.
I have been a Republican for as long as I have been politically aware and unless there is some major shift that I do not see coming I will remain so. Like a sports fan roots for their team, I root for the Republican Party to win elections. But quite frankly, I couldn’t care less whether the party opposition to abortion makes winning elections “more difficult.” It is the right position to take. And, after all, this is the Republican Party we are talking about – the political party that opposed the brutal slavery of African-Americans no matter the political “consequences” because it was the right position to take and this is the political party that supported civil rights for all during the segregation era (never mind that this is not taught in high school history classes) because it too was the right position to take. So we Republicans ought not to shirk back from our history of being on the right side of history on the major social issues – including the major social justice issue of our day.
But I long for a day when abortion will be as unthinkable or even more unthinkable to support politically as the brutal slavery of African-Americans is today. Abortion is the number one cause of death for African-Americans today, but abortion also is killing those of every other race and ethnicity and it is killing both baby boys and baby girls. I long for a day when every political party in the United States will defend these innocent lives.
I am an abolitionist and not afraid to be consistent in advocating for the preservation of innocent life. One of the most depressing inconsistencies among many Republicans is the rape and incest “exceptions.” Why is it right for us to murder the child for the sins of the father? Akin and Mourdock lost their elections for the United States Senate and their losses have been attributed to this issue. Certainly the Republican Party establishment went running away from them. Even the Presidential nominee distanced himself from this position saying that he supports exceptions for such cases. To be sure we want to show compassion to the woman who has been attacked – and to speak out for justice to be done – but the child is also an innocent and deserving of legal protection too. Who will speak for the unborn child?
What is necessary going forward is not for the pro-life candidates to put the issue on the back burner but for them to articulate clearly and eloquently the case for life. Making that case is more difficult when one is arguing that life is expendable for certain exceptions. And to be sure we need our candidates to be more eloquent and educated than Akin and Mourdock were for the cause. (May they continue to defend life using whatever opportunities this election provides.) We need pastors to take up the abolitionist cause from the pulpit. We need people to join the abolitionist movement and even run for office in order to have the platform to speak the truth concerning the unborn. We need pro-life candidates like the five women who came forward to the defense of Mourdock in Indiana who all are alive today because their mothers did not have an abortion even though their fathers were rapists.
This is not a time to remain silent. If anything, this is a time to speak more persuasively and, yes, loudly. If we do not speak out, then blood is on our hands too. It is not enough to be “personally pro-life.” Such a position is actually cowardice. We are not only to avoid murdering our innocent brothers and sisters, we really are our brothers’ and sisters’ keeper. “You shall not murder” makes explicit what we are not to do, the positive implied command is that we are to preserve life. As John Ensor says, “Pilate was also personally pro-life” (Innocent Blood, p.55). But Pilate was not willing to protect the innocent Christ Jesus from death.
Christians preach grace. We certainly will extend that grace to those who have taken innocent life. But Christians also do social justice.
Are we simply going stay quiet? Are we going to stand by and do nothing? God forbid! May it never be!
Recent Comments