Abortion in this election

Whenever I think of the intersection between faith and politics, the pro-life movement is the first thing that comes to my mind. Sure, fiscal policy, defense policy, etc… all demonstrate this intersection, but the pro-life movement gets the most attention from faith-based advocates in American politics. However, what is interesting is that the movement seems to have become a secondary issue in this election. In all reality, only one candidate – Mike Huckabee – bases much of candidacy on abortion, euthanasia and stem-cell research policies. So, why is it that the pro-life movement is and public debate on the specific understanding of the right to life seems to be losing its preeminence in US elections, especially when it is so foundational to democracy?

Though much of its fall off of the radar screen may be attributed to the rise of other issues in our society such as immigration, healthcare reform and the war in Iraq, I think the pro-life movement’s predominant strategy of “flooding” the Supreme Court has had negative impacts on the strength of the movement from a policy perspective. Because overturning Roe v. Wade is such a lofty goal, it seems that other more tangible and incremental issues have begun to absorb many pro-life advocacy efforts. This is seen particularly in an earlier post that demonstrated how evangelicals – one of the most active pro-life groups – have begun to see poverty issues as the most fundamental concerns in this election, not abortion. Perhaps one reason for this is that fighting poverty is multi-faceted. There are numerous fronts, and many battles to be fought – some incredibly large, others small enough for an individual to enact change. These movements seem to combine the transcendent cause with ability to see success on a practical level, and so, as a movement, they are quite appealing. They not only draw supporters, but also keep them active and engaged in the policy arena.

However, The pro-life movement has very little grass roots initiative other than the presidential election and thus Supreme Court nomination. There is really only one battle to fight from a policy perspective in the pro-life movement as it stands – overturning Roe v. Wade through “flooding” the Supreme Court. It is a movement that engages only a minority of its members past voting, leaving the majority almost floundering. Where ending poverty is about creating policy that permeates society to make poverty not an issue in America, the current abortion strategy seeks only to remove the possibility of an abortion. It needs to address the deeper societal questions. Within American society, abortion is an answer to many of what are seen as “problems” of pregnancy. Policy that addresses these motivations among citizens to get an abortion, would ultimately aid in creating a society that does not demand it. Initiatives such as universal childcare seek to address many of these issues of seeing pregnancy as an interruption in life. The pro-life movement is in dire need of a holistic approach. Reversing Roe v. Wade would not end the pursuit of abortions, as it is becoming more and more culturally conditioned as time goes by. But rather, this lofty goal, coupled with a policy strategy that seeks to right many of the injustices in society that lead to abortion being sought as an answer would be not only more beneficial for the society as a whole, but also more effective for the movement. Simply removing the option does not remove any of the injustices that lead to people seeking it; we need to create a just society if we ever wish to see abortion illegalized in the future.