The Evangelical Pro-Life Movement: Its early history, its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 3)

The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision back in 1973 essentially legalized abortions across the country, especially during the first two trimesters of a woman’s pregnancy. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was not much difference on abortion in the Republican and Democrat parties. There were many pro-choice and pro-life advocates in both parties. That changed in the 1980s beginning with the Reagan presidency. Republican presidential candidates promised, that if elected, they would appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe. Pro-lifers, especially evangelicals, became a major constituency of the Republican Party. In contrast, the Democrats became staunchly pro-choice. For over four decades abortion has been one of the most important political issues. Many people are “single-issue” voters and are, therefore, a “safe, solid voting block” for their respective parties. These “single-issue” voters seldom criticize their own party on other issues, even when criticism is warranted. In my opinion, these voters are naively allowing failed policies and character flaws to go unchecked.

During his presidency, Trump appointed three judges to the Supreme Court (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett). In their Senate hearings, they affirmed that they would accept Roe as settled legal precedent and, as a result, hardly anyone across the political landscape thought Roe would be overturned. Nevertheless, these judges broke their promises, and joined the other conservative justices in overturning Roe through the Dobbs decision in 2022. This action returned the abortion issue to every state. Since then, seven states have put abortion on the ballot. In each of these states, the pro-choice position has won, including in conservative “red” states like Kansas and Ohio. (Democrats affirm that their pro-choice position turned the expected Republican “red wave” into a “trickle” in the 2022 midterm elections.) In other places, state legislatures enacted laws regarding abortion access and/or restrictions (for example, no abortions after six weeks, or exceptions like rape, incest, or the life of the mother).

These actions have spurred political activism by Democrats and Republicans. Some politicians, from both sides, have made campaign promises that they would bring federal legislation to Congress (either abortion access or abortion restriction, respectively). There are so many hoops to go through, that a nationwide access or restriction bill is quite unlikely to be implemented. For example, it would need 60 votes in the Senate, and there are neither 60 pro-choice nor 60 pro-life senators.

Abortion will be voted on at the state level. In the upcoming elections in November, at least five states (including Nevada and Florida) have constitutional amendment proposals on the ballot. If passed, they would enshrine abortion rights into their state constitutions. In at least five additional states, including Arizona, similar proposals are in the pipeline and will probably make the ballot. It is likely that the pro-choice position will win in most of these states. Nevertheless, it is an open question to what extent this will help the Democrat presidential, senate, and congressional candidates in their particular races. This depends on the number of Republicans who are, in fact, pro-choice voters.

I encourage all my readers to be alert during this election season. Lies will be flying all around. Let’s use our best discerning skills. Vote well…vote wisely.

The Evangelical Pro-Life Movement: Its early history, its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 1)

In my posts this week, I will address the Evangelical Pro-Life Movement. Today I will look at its early history. In Part 2, I will analyze some pertinent Biblical passages and in Part 3 I will explore the role abortion politics might play in the upcoming election.

History – We all know that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision took place in 1973 and essentially legalized abortions during the first two trimesters all across the country. Prior to that, states had their own policies. In my state of Ohio which prohibited abortions, those women who wanted an abortion would usually go to New York. Although most evangelicals are today in the pro-life camp, that was not the situation in the 1960s and 1970s.

In 1968 the evangelical flagship magazine Christianity Today (CT) co-sponsored a conference with the Christian Medical Society to analyze the ethical aspects regarding abortion. The final resolution illustrates a lack of consensus. “Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed, but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.”

Carl Henry, the founder and first editor of Christianity Today (and one of my professors at Trinity) stated, “a woman’s body is not the domain and property of others”. The second editor of CT was Harold Lindsell. He also took a somewhat pro-choice position. He affirmed, “if there are compelling psychiatric reasons from a Christian point of view, mercy and prudence may favor a therapeutic abortion.”

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is not only the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, it is also one of the most conservative. Therefore, a look at the history of its stance on abortion reveals some surprises. At their 1971 Convention, the SBC delegates passed a resolution calling for the national legalization of abortion. They reaffirmed this pro-choice position in their 1974 and 1976 conventions.

W.A. Criswell was the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas (the largest SBC congregation). Shortly after the Roe decision was announced, Criswell issued the following 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.”

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family who later became a staunch anti-abortionist, admitted in 1973 that the Holy Scriptures did not address the issue of abortion and therefore it was acceptable for a sincere evangelical Christian to believe that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being.”

Francis Schaeffer and other leaders of the Religious Right, tried to enlist Billy Graham in their antiabortion crusade in the late 1970s, but Graham, the most famous evangelical of the last century, turned them down. Graham affirmed, “I’m for morality, but morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice…. Evangelists cannot be closely identified with any particular party or person. We have to stand in the middle to preach to all people, right and left.” (I believe that his son, Franklin Graham, should have listened to his father’s words of wisdom).

The quotes mentioned above should not be interpreted as necessarily justifying either a pro-choice or a pro-life position. Here they illustrate that followers of Jesus can and do disagree on important issues, including abortion. In Part 2, we will explore the most pertinent Biblical passages.

Trump is Unbelievable! (Part 4) The facts don’t support his claims about the 2020 election being stolen

For the last four years, former president Trump has repeatedly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen. He claimed that he actually won the election, but irregularities in key battleground states cheated him out of his victory. In addition, he has required that Republicans who want his endorsement in state elections must agree with him, that is, they must also become “election deniers”. The official results revealed that Biden won the electoral college 306 to Trump’s 232 electors. Biden won the crucial battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.

Fact #1 – As was his legal right, Trump appealed the election results in courts across the country. Frequently, these courts were headed up by judges that Trump himself had appointed. Trump lost every appeal!

Fact #2 – When he was president, Trump picked William Barr to be his Attorney General. Throughout his presidency Barr consistently favored Trump in every legal decision. Nevertheless, Barr did not agree with Trump about the 2020 election results. After investigating the results in the key states, Barr concluded, “We have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

Fact #3 – The most important example comes from the state of Georgia. Although usually a Republican state, elections have been more competitive in the last decade. The Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, the official in charge of overseeing the election, (and a conservative Republican with an impeccable reputation) announced that Biden won the election in Georgia. Republicans demanded a recount. Raffensperger implemented a hand recount/audit of the 5 million votes that were cast, and the recount confirmed that Biden had won. On January 2, 2021, Trump telephoned Raffensperger and pressured him to overturn the election. Trump begged, “I just want to find 11,780 votes.” Not only did Raffensperger refused to become complicit in Trump’s crime, he had taped the phone call as evidence. The transcript of the phone call as well as the tape itself are available online for everyone to see and hear.

The 2020 election was not stolen by the Democrats. Trump’s phone call demonstrates that, in fact, Trump tried to steal the election, but was caught red-handed.

Dear MAGA readers, if you value the truth, do not spread Trump’s lie about a stolen election. Have the courage and integrity to face the facts. Trump lost.

Trump is Unbelievable! (Part 2) The facts won’t allow us to believe his promises about the budget

In my post yesterday, I addressed Trump’s failed attempt to resolve the “border crisis”. In his 2016 presidential campaign, he promised to build a wall along the 2000-mile U.S. border with Mexico. In fact, he only constructed 52 miles of new wall.

Today I will shine the light on his grandiose claims for the U.S. economy. He affirmed that during his presidency (2017-2021), our country’s economy was the most successful in the history of the world. He promised that during a second term, he would unleash the economy and it would grow even faster. He promised to cut taxes for the wealthy, just like he did in his first term. Although he has made these fantastic, unbelievable affirmations, he has conveniently chosen to omit talking about the budget. What happened to our national budget and our national debt during Trump’s presidency? What happens when you cut your income (via tax breaks for the rich) and continue to spend like a drunken sailor? Here is the sad truth.

Fact #1 – The national debt increased more under Trump than in any other four-year presidential term (Source – The U.S. Department of the Treasury). The debt under Trump increased by 8.18 trillion dollars (Trillion with a T). By comparison, let’s look at the debt increase under the three previous presidencies. These presidents each served two terms for a total of 8 years. Therefore, a four-year average needs to be calculated for comparison purposes.

Bill Clinton (1993-2001) total increase 1.4 trillion dollars. Four-year average 0.7 trillion dollars.

George W. Bush (2001-2009) total increase 6.1 trillion dollars. Four-year average 3.05 trillion dollars.

Barack Obama (2009-2017) total increase 8.34 trillion dollars. Four-year average 4.17 trillion dollars.

Joe Biden (2021 to the present) total increase 6.17 trillion dollars. Extrapolating to four years would lead to about 7.2 trillion dollars. Increases in our debt have happened under both Republican and Democrat administrations. None have been especially good at living within a budget. All have claimed extenuating circumstances (wars, Covid, etc.).

Fact #2 – Trump’s businesses have not generally been successful. Trump University failed and was a disaster. His real estate deals were kept afloat by overestimating properties’ worth to obtain loans and underestimating their value for tax purposes. As a result of this tax evasion, Trump is now barred from doing business in New York.

I invite my readers to check out these figures.

In my post on Monday, I will continue my series on the unbelievable Trump. I will analyze Trump’s affirmations about crime in the United States, especially about crimes allegedly committed by undocumented immigrants.

Trump is Unbelievable! The facts won’t allow us to believe his promises about the border and the budget

Biden and Trump both have records to run on… or to hide from. God has given each of us a brain and a conscience to evaluate their actions as a former or current president. I will analyze Biden’s record in upcoming posts, but in my writings today and tomorrow, I will address Trump’s promises and practice in two areas: the Border and the Budget.

The Border

Ever since his escalator descent when he began his first presidential campaign in 2015, the southern border has been one of Trump’s principal issues. A major thrust of his solution to the “immigration crisis” was his promise to build a wall along the two-thousand-mile border between Mexico and the United States. In fact, the phrase “Build the wall… Build the wall” became the standard chant at MAGA rallies. Last night, Trump promised that he would complete the wall, although he had already “finished most of it”.

Fact # 1 – During his previous four-year presidential administration, Trump built a whopping 52 miles of new wall (according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection report). He had the full authority of the White House and a Republican controlled Congress, yet he only constructed fifty-two miles of new wall. We should evaluate people, and especially presidential candidates, by their “fruits”, that is, by their actions (or in this case, inaction). Given this fact, it is incredible that anyone would believe Trump’s words about the border.

Fact # 2 – Earlier this year, the conservative Republican Senator James Lankford was the main author of a tough immigration bill in the Senate. It included everything that Republicans wanted in immigration legislation. Republicans were in favor of the bill… until they weren’t. What happened? Trump urged Republican officials to vote against the legislation. Trump did not want to solve the “immigration crisis”; he wanted the crisis to continue as a political issue for his campaign. This was pure hypocrisy.

In my post tomorrow, I will analyze Trump’s promises about the budget and the national debt. Meanwhile, seek the truth, follow the truth, live the truth. Do not believe lies, whoever they come from.

Which J. D. Vance should we Believe? The Author of Hillbilly Elegy or the Republican Vice-President Nominee?

Several years ago, I belonged to a reading club. Our group read J. D. Vance’s famous little book Hillbilly Elegy which came out in 2016. It was an excellent book! Vance compelling told his family’s story against the backdrop of people from Kentucky (my dad’s home state) who, for economic reasons, migrated to Ohio (where I was born and raised). His book was intensely personal and factually accurate.

At that time, he also made several sharp criticisms of Donald Trump who was running for president. Given Trump’s comments about immigrants who came from “sh.thole” countries, Vance correctly denounced Trump as a racist. Given Trump’s daily and dangerous lies, Vance said he was “unfit” for office. Vance affirmed, “I am a never-Trump guy” and “I never liked him”.

Somewhere along the way, Vance had a “political conversion”. He retracted all of his criticisms of Trump. Without a shred of credible evidence, he seconded Trump’s claim of a stolen 2020 election. (Remember, Trump appealed to dozens of courts, as was his right, but lost every appeal, even with judges that he had appointed). Vance has changed his positions to match Trump’s on all major issues (the border, Ukraine, abortion, etc.). For Vance’s newly discovered support of Trump, Donald supported him in the 2022 Senate race in Ohio which Vance won. Vance is now Trump’s VP nominee.

I believe that people can, and should, change their minds and their positions when the factual evidence compels them to do so. That is why I write these posts on my blog. Nevertheless, our changes should always be towards greater truth, not towards greater falsehoods. I fear Vance’s changes have been made due to his political ambitions.

So, who should we believe? The younger Vance who wrote and spoke with integrity and with a concern for truthfulness, or the more recent nominee who peddles “stolen elections” due to his personal and political ambition? I prefer the earlier, more honest version.

The Supreme Court and Total Audacity

The Supreme Court and Total Immunity

When Donald Trump made his claim for the total immunity of presidents, I thought it was an outrageous attempt by a guilty, out-of-touch liar making a last-ditch effort to avoid serious criminal convictions in the courts of Georgia, D.C., and Florida. I still believe that. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s ruling last Monday was even more outrageous. It essentially declared that all U.S. presidents are above the law, transforming the presidency into a monarchy.

SCOTUS tried to make a distinction between official, governmental acts (for which the president would be immune) and private, personal actions (for which the president could be criminally liable). At a superficial level, this sounds reasonable, but it is fraught with problems. Almost any action, if it involves any part of the governmental apparatus, can be declared official and, therefore, provide grounds for immunity.

Weaponizing the Federal Government – In the last decade, both Republicans and Democrats have accused the other side of utilizing the instruments of the government (The Department of Justice, the IRS, etc.) to take down political opponents. The prosecution of Hunter Biden and the current charges against Trump are examples of this alleged weaponization. Nevertheless, under the new SCOTUS ruling, if a sitting president gave the order to the DOJ, that act could be an official governmental action and, therefore, the president would be immune.

Trump – Applying the SCOTUS ruling to the cases against Trump, he would probably be declared immune from the charges leveled against him for his actions/inactions regarding the insurrection of January 6, 2021. He could be declared immune from charges for the mishandling of secret government documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. He would probably be immune from the charge of overturning the election results (eg. phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger) and so on.

Historical Precedent – This SCOTUS ruling goes against all examples in our U.S. history. The founders of our country and the signers of our Constitution had just fought a long war to break free from the “total immunity” of a king. They gave no hint that a president would be “above the law”. They knew that power can lead to corruption and that absolute power “corrupts absolutely”, and therefore they put restrictions and limits on the presidency. Former president Nixon would be provided immunity for his Watergate crime under this ruling.

Crazy Audacity – Trump made another crazy claim. He stated that he made his appeal to the Supreme Court not merely for his own protection, but also to protect Obama and Biden from criminal prosecution. It is tragic when people believe such self-serving lies. No president is above the law. Not Obama. Not Biden. Not Trump.

Dear Joe…. Thank you for your service. It is time to step aside.

Dear Joe,

First of all, thank you for your service in public office, as a Senator for 36 years, as Vice-President under Obama, and now as President. You have served well and have a strong legacy. Even when they disagree with you, in their heart of hearts, even your critics acknowledge your concern for the most vulnerable in our society. Your wisdom in international challenges has been welcomed and appreciated. You have stabilized our economy with growth and job creation, and you have lowered inflation.

Nevertheless, I think it is time for you to step aside and give the next generation their opportunity. The main reason is not your diminishing physical ability and mental acuity. (That happens to many of us.) I believe you would serve well if you had four more years in the White House. The problem is that so much attention is given to your occasional verbal gaffes, that the unethical character and flawed actions of ex-President Trump receive little attention. For example, in the “Debate”, Trump told more than 30 serious lies, but these are hardly mentioned.

I believe that Trump is very dangerous for our country (he is a convicted felon who is guilty of sexual assault, trying to steal the 2020 election, invoking a riot in our Capitol, and supporting autocrats around the world, including Putin in his invasion and war against Ukraine. The most consistent aspect of his character are his lies.) In “normal” courts he would become convicted again and again, but due to the actions of the stacked Supreme Court, Trump will not be tried again before the election. The best scenario for the country is that Trump loses the election in November. Joe, you are no longer the best candidate to beat Trump. Other Democrats (Whitmer, Harris, Newsome, and others) are now better prepared. For the good of our country and the world, step aside.

I Really Want To Respect The Supreme Court…, But Its Conduct Makes It Difficult

Healthy societies have institutions (schools, local, state, and federal governments, the police, legal courts, news sources, etc.) that are generally respected by the majority of the population. I strive to respect these institutions in the United States, but this does not mean institutions get a free pass. I take their actions and affirmations seriously because we humans, individually and collectively, are responsible for our words and deeds. Our Supreme Court does not have the approval nor respect of our citizens. Polls consistently show that less than 40% of Americans approve of the Supreme Court. Part of the problem is due to its rulings, but there are other issues of “process” that have led to this low respect. I will address the content of unsatisfactory rulings in future blog postings, but I will briefly point out two problematic processes.

In early 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Leading Republican senators (McConnell, Graham, et al) refused to even bring the nomination to the Senate. They argued that nominees should not be approved by the Senate during a presidential election year. In October 2020, Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court even though early voting had already begun in some states! Instead of being consistent with their 2016 policy, Republican leaders brought her nomination to the Senate. This was blatant hypocrisy! Instead of denouncing this hypocrisy, many “pro-lifers” applauded it. They appealed to the unethical maxim of the “end justifies the means” (conservative justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade). I am disillusioned with leaders like McConnell and Graham who pushed through this nomination out of season, but also with those “Christians” who supported this double standard.
Over a period of twenty years, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has received millions of dollars in gifts from conservative billionaire Harlan Crow. He was required to report these gifts on governmental financial disclosure forms, but he did not do so. Although every other court in the United States has a Code of Conduct which specifies actions that are permitted or prohibited for their justices, the Supreme Court has no such Code and has repeatedly refused to implement such a code.

Although we affirm that “no one is above the law”, these two examples show how some SCOTUS Justices have demonstrated they are not subject to the norms of everyday citizens. In upcoming posts, I will analyze how Monday’s ruling on Trump’s claim of “total immunity” is extremely dangerous for our country.

Cognitive Dissonance and our Political Polarization

Back in the 1950s, Leon Festinger popularized the psychological theory of “cognitive dissonance”. This dissonance occurs when people experience two or more values, beliefs, practices, factual evidence, choices, etc. that are in conflict with each other. This often produces stress. Humans frequently strive to reduce this stress by “maximizing/minimizing” or “re-interpreting” one of these factors to bring it into consonance with the others.

This cognitive dissonance can easily be observed in our political polarization. On Thursday evening there will be a televised debate between Biden and Trump. The debate has not yet occurred. The candidates might perform poorly or well. They might make mental gaffes or perhaps they might be clear and insightful. Even though the debate has not yet happened, our minds are hard at work and we “know” which candidate “won” the debate. Trump’s supporters will claim that he won the debate and explain away any defect. Those who support Biden will do likewise. The truths spoken in the debate get lost in the shuffle, because “my preferred candidate is obviously the better public servant and must have won the debate. My favorite news source (Fox, MSNBC, etc.) agrees with me, so, it is clear that my candidate won.”

Another example is the role of chanting at political rallies. It is common for MAGA supporters to chant “Build the wall! Build the wall!” as the solution to the immigration crisis. The fact that most people at the rally are chanting the same slogan gives the impression that a wall must be the right answer. Nevertheless, it drowns out the dissonance of the weak points of the argument. Trump had four years to build the wall, but he did not do it. In addition, a wall might slow the flow of immigrants, but it would not stop the drug traffic. The drug trade is so lucrative that “better” methods will be used: boats, airplanes, drones, tunnels, and the border with Canada.

On the other side of the political divide are the pro-choice advocates who chant “My body, my choice! My body, my choice!” There is some truth in the chant, but here again, the chanted slogan drowns out the weakness of their position. At some point in the pregnancy, the fetus acquires some human rights. Pro-choice advocates are quite reticent about assigning a point in time for these rights, but Roe stated that it was at the beginning of the third trimester.

Our society is in trouble. The third of the population on “my side” thinks the third on the “other side” are crazy and bereft of any moral compass. Many have therefore resolved, “I won’t listen to my opponents. I will choose only those news sources and friends that agree with me.” Such a life is not worth living, because in such a world, big and small truths get drowned out.

Is there a way out of this morass? There is, but it is a road infrequently traveled. It means respecting the essential humanity of my opponent and accepting as much of her/his arguments as my conscience and integrity permit. It means accurately describing their positions and not distorting them. Are we up to the challenge? I have a deep hope in God, and a flicker of hope for all humanity because we are all created in God’s image.