Split Decision

I feel like I've been avoiding this post all week, but I still feel compelled to write it so I will.  I also feel like I've had to write too many like this, where real life outside our household gets to be a little too much and this blog serves as therapy to get it all out somewhere safe-ish.  A little over a week ago, the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, which turned abortion laws back over to individual states.  As things go in this very divided country, that means that about half of the states now have strict laws banning and criminalizing abortion.  Despite being a Christian, there is so much about this that doesn't settle well with me.

On one hand, my heart feels completely split down the middle because as a Christian I do believe abortion is wrong--it is ultimately a form of murder.  Left alone and even minimally cared for, that embryo/fetus will become a living, breathing baby.  Every baby is special in God's eyes, and playing god over that doesn't feel quite right.  I don't love that our society doesn't take sex more seriously.  It can be a big deal with serious consequences, and because birth control isn't perfect, technically every encounter is risky and should be treated with such seriousness.  Having a little self-control isn't such a terrible thing to ask, but I get it--I've been there and it's hard, but it's still important to be responsible as much as humanly possible.  I also wish our society didn't seek out abortion as often as it does.  I know Hollywood might be an extreme case, but it seems like everyone has a story of when pregnancy "wouldn't have been the right time".  In fact, I was watching a Real World Reunion show for the LA season, and I think at least three of the four women there had had one--even though the one that did it on the original show basically walked through it alone.  Either everyone is terrible at birth control, or they have terrible luck, or they're just plain irresponsible.  That is the one part of this that frustrates the heck out of me.  It should be needed less--and while I know for some women it is empowering, it should still never be a happy event.  And I don't love that some of the techniques used are painful for the baby--burning it alive via saline or dismembering it.  I'd be fine if those methods had to go away--unless of course there's something I don't know about why those methods are used.  But at the moment, those still make me very uncomfortable.  I wish it was easy to have every unwanted pregnancy taken to term so that baby could be adopted, but sadly that's not how the world works, which I'll get into in a bit.  

But even though I personally don't like abortion, I am left very uncomfortable with the Supreme Court decision.  Why?  Because it was made under false pretenses, it is making Christianity part of legislation, it sets a terrible precedent, and it is not my place or anyone else's to make reproductive health decisions for other women.  I may not get an abortion myself, but it is not my place to say another woman shouldn't be able to because it is usually a very personal, very difficult decision.

For the court to go back on 50 years of settled precedent to take away an established right is almost unheard of, and in fact there is video footage of pretty much every judge from their confirmation hearings saying that Roe v. Wade is settled and there should not be any concern for it to be overturned.  But suddenly anti-abortion judges are in power and that goes out the window.  As such, it appears they all lied under oath, which to me should be grounds for dismissal.  They convinced Congress that was not something they would do on the court, and then they did it.  And while we're at it, why is the court get so political in the first place?  Why can't we have an even court, or better yet, not make major decisions based on personally colored interpretations of texts written 200 years ago, before anyone could imagine what our society would be like now.  To make matters worse, the day before they struck down a decades-old law in New York that makes carrying a gun much easier.  And in the week that has followed, a number of other interesting rulings have come through that are making their political persuasions quite obvious.  

One could argue that abortion is morally wrong on the grounds that even non-Christians would say murder is wrong.  But the problem is that science isn't totally settled on when a baby becomes a person, and even different religions differ on that topic.  You could argue the embryo becomes a baby when it is conceived, or when its heart starts beating, or when it can feel pain, or even at a certain day or week of gestation.  But most agree that "life begins at conception" is a decidedly Christian stance.  In many cases states ban all abortions or those less than six weeks, and to be honest, unless you're a crazy person with fertility issues like I was, you might not even know until six weeks (remember that two of those weeks are actually pre-conception, dating from your last period).  I knew right away with Carter but I didn't know until probably right around six weeks with Jacob and I was trying to get pregnant (but had temporarily given up hope).  Those restrictions are super limiting.  And not every state covers rape, incest, and/or medically needed abortions, which is already causing issues a week later.  Anyway, all this to say that many states are following a very Christian guideline and we are not a religiously-based government.  Not everyone in this country believes the same things about life and conception, and as I said, science is still a bit vague about it all.  But those state regulations that are based on that religous belief is what even non-Christians are forced to follow.  What's more, it gets very dicey when you try to assign personhood to a special-but-still primitive clump of cells.  It cannot survive on its own and early on it cannot feel pain or have clear cognitive activity, but these laws essentially give it as many rights, if not more, than a full-grown, living, breathing, established human.  I have a practicality problem with that.  Having a child is a very personal decision, very challenging physically and emotionally, and to ask anyone to go through with that--from a child to someone who has mental illness (and probably can't be on their meds) to someone who has physical issues that could be deadly in pregnancy--that is just not something I could do.  They made a mistake, yes...but should they have to deal with that forever?  That's a lot to ask.

A 10-year-old girl was just denied an abortion in Ohio.  It came from abuse and she now needs to go out of state to get the abortion.  She should have never been put in that situation in the first place, of course, but that's the thing with pregnancy--once the mistake has been made, there are very real consequences and very real humans and feelings involved.  If a 10-year-old girl can't legally vote, drive, or adopt, how is it OK to make her go through a pregnancy, childbirth, and potentially either young motherhood or the emotions of adoption?  I know abortions come with trauma of their own, but having gone through pregnancy and childbirth twice, I can say that doing that as a 10-year-old would cause some severe trauma itself.  When we were talking about it and Carter heard the age of the girl--a year older than him--the look on his face spoke for itself.  It's unfathomable for a girl to have to go through any of it, but the complex emotions of childbirth and motherhood (in person or managing the idea of adoption) is a lot.  And for her sake, she probably wishes all of this had never happened--and sadly abortion might be the easiest means to that end for her.  It's a scar she will forever live with, but it might be a smaller one if she doesn't have to go through nine months and full labor.  And keep in mind not everyone will have the means to travel to a state where they can have it done safely.  But they will now be forced to pay for their medical expenses regardless of whether they keep the baby or not, which is a whole other burden.

This isn't even getting into the fact that there are people who medically need abortion services or mentally should have the right to them.  Not every state has exceptions for miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy, when the fetus is not viable and/or miscarriage is not happening on its own.  Ectopic pregnancies can be deadly, but the laws either prevent women from having them removed or the laws are still so unclear that medical providers are hesitating to provide proper care for fear they will be prosecuted.  Some women need medications after a spontaneous abortion to ensure the body delivers all of the pregnancy components, and pharmacies won't fill the needed prescriptions because they could be charged with aiding an abortion.  There are fears women could be accused of causing a spontaneous miscarriage when abortion isn't available and charged with murder, even if that was not what happened.  And then there's obviously the fear of returning to the back-alley, coat-hanger abortions that killed so many women before Roe v. Wade came along.  And honestly, for a woman who has a much-wanted pregnancy and knows that her baby won't survive, she should have the choice how to deal with it.  If she wants to carry it, great, but if she doesn't--either because the emotions and physical reminders are too painful, or because she'd rather deliver a living baby and hold it for as long as she can--that is definitely something that should be her personal decision along with her doctor.  No one should be able to take those rights away from her at such an emotional time.  There's so much to this that was not well-thought-out, and women are going to be paying the price in countless ways.  Funny how Republicans insist gun laws won't stop gun violence but allow for these laws even though it's been proven they don't work either--and in fact, cost additional lives. 

As I said, I don't like that some women use abortions as birth control.  I may understand why they do, but it makes me sad.  The problem is that we can't necessarily pick and choose which ones to allow, but as long as there are ones needed like above, the right should be there.  I'd prefer we find additional ways to prevent the need for pregnancy, but ironically, the Republicans fight against most of those, too.  Universal health care and birth control alone would be hugely helpful to preventing pregnancy and the need for abortion, and social programs like subsidized child care could help women feel more comfortable keeping a baby, or at least carrying one to term.  But if it's going to cost them $10,000 to deliver under their health plan or $15,000 a year in child care, how are either of those things motivating?  That could lead women to financial ruin, which is especially concerning if they already have kids.  And don't even get me started on how men have no responsibility in any of this.  There is nothing wrong with birth control, and yet the Republicans equate it with abortion and fight against it.  In my mind, anything that reduces the net number of abortions is good, but banning them outright only leads to other problems.  I also find it ironic that a lot of people seeking out abortions are daughters of religious families who fear not being accepted.  The church is still not particularly welcoming to babies out of wedlock, and that guilt is part of the problem here.

This ruling also sets a terrible precedent for other rulings, as it falls under the same category as a number of other important cases, including birth control, gay marriage, interracial marriage, and even what happens in your own private bedroom (because gay sex was previously considered sodomy).  Justice Clarence Thomas specifically mentioned revisiting these cases (well, all except the interracial marriage one, which he has taken advantage of), so now there are serious concerns that those hard-fought battles will need to happen again.  And you know what pisses me off even more?  If you didn't already have enough proof that religion is clouding these decisions, anything related to the gay issues will clarify that completely because outside of a religious perspective, there is no reason gay people shouldn't have the same rights as straight people to marry and love who they want.  Religion is the only reason people should have any issue with those things (aside from their own weird insecurities, I guess), so if laws go back into effect preventing it, it's obvious their beliefs are clouding those decisions.  As with this decision, the laws would fall to the states, but the judges are making these rulings knowing that some states support their personal preferences and will take away rights from people who deserve them.  There's no reason these cases need to be "reinterpreted", especially when it means people will lose rights, rather than gain them.  

And I don't know about you, but I don't like what happens when Middle Eastern countries bring their religion into their laws, so I really don't want to see it here when this country is multicultural and has freedom of religion.  It's really making Christians look like controlling, overbearing jerks, and if Christians don't realize that this is doing more to drive people away from the church than anything, they're blind.  I've said here before that as a person who does not have the perfect knowledge and gentleness of Jesus, I do not feel comfortable calling people out on their sin.  It is not my place to judge, so I default to the most important of Jesus' commands, to love one another.  I will lead with love because running around convicting people will not show them Jesus' love and has no chance of bringing them to Christ.  Loving them in spite of things that might turn other Christians off?  That might give them a better picture of what Jesus' love is all about and give them a fighting chance to come to faith.  I can't fully understand how gay people fit into the church (though I did have a great conversation with a religious academic that suggested that scholars believe the sexual immorality references in scripture were aimed mostly at pedophilia that was common at the time, and that the mentions of "homosexuality" were only added years later in other translations.  I haven't verified but it was good food for thought.), but I do know I could never ask someone to deny that huge a part of themselves and forego a loving, fulfilling earthy relationship because *my* faith tells them to.  I just can't.  If God wants to tell them that, great.  But I don't feel like that message could ever confidently come from me.  So, anyway, my heart breaks for people like my cousin whose marriages (which may be almost as long as mine) may no longer be federally protected.

Someone posted something on Facebook aimed at Christians that said, "You're feeling powerful and vindicated because you didn't want someone to do something and acted your will on them.  Your joy isn't about God; it's about making yourself feel just."  And while I'm sure there are people excited about the lives that will be saved, ultimately it does come back to them wanting to force something on other people that don't believe the same thing, because it makes the Christian feel better about themselves.  And those little saved lives will face struggles of their own--from foster care, to improperly cared for pregnancies, to parents with severe mental health issues and financial struggles.  How many women will commit suicide, or how many partners will murder the mother of their unwanted child?  We already have so many foster children in this country.  I'm not saying it would better for them all to be terminated instead, but when you multiply that by the thousands, that's a huge burden on our society that we don't have the infrastructure for.  And while many of these infants will be adopted quickly and maybe never have to go into foster care, you better hope there is a massive pipeline of adoptive parents who can afford the tens of thousands of dollars it takes to adopt.  Maybe legislators should work on THAT problem.  Make adoption less expensive so everyone can do it and not just the rich.  Speaking of problems, women can likely get more jail time for an abortion than their rapist can get for raping them.  That is just plain wrong.  And can men be charged for causing an unwanted pregnancy if women can be charged for ending one?  These are valid questions that currently may not have very satisfactory answers.  

Let me put it this way: if this ruling had come with universal health care, birth control protections, child care subsidies, and other supports for pregnant women and new mothers--while also protecting the rights of women who physically need access to approved medical procedures that could save their lives--maybe I would have felt a little more joy and relief.  But we have taken away bodily autonomy without providing any additional supports for the women who will now have to go through nine long months of stress, medical bills, and a roller coaster of emotions.  Women will die--and often take their babies along with them--due to suicide, domestic violence, botched terminations, medical emergencies, and all the other things that already make our maternal mortality rate dismal.  I desperately wish we had a society that didn't need abortion.  But legislating it away is not going to solve those problems--it is only going to make them more complicated.  There is no true winner here aside from babies that may or may not get a happy ending, but there are definite losers caught in the middle that should have been taken care of on a federal level.  This decision is disappointing and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just got a little bit harder for one gender--never mind that we're supposed to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and that's clearly not the case either.  Up until about 15 years ago I never imagined this is how I'd feel about this topic, but parenthood and others' stories have a way of opening your eyes to realities you never imagined.  I am not pro-abortion--but I'm also aware that truly being pro-life is about more than birth and the babies that result.  Motherhood is too big a deal to go into it unwillingly or through a traumatic experience.  I hope people will take even more precautions now to prevent the need for abortion, but things need to change or even more lives--women who had full lives ahead of them who are loved by so many others--will be lost.  This is a step back for our country without any true steps forward...and the rest of the world knows it.