Faith’s Common Ground in the Right to Choose

Pictured above are women demonstrating in support of legal abortion at a rally in Rio de Janeiro to commemorate International Women’s Day in March (Picture taken by Mauro Pimental/Agence France Presse/Getty Images). Evidently conservative trends away from freedom of choice is occurring outside the United States as well and causing confusion in the process. Recently a Brazilian judge urged a 10-year-old rape victim to stay pregnant “a little while longer”. The rape victim who was asking a court to authorize an abortion “found herself sitting under a crucifix in the courtroom in southern Brazil, across from a judge and prosecutor who repeatedly urged her to continue the pregnancy.” The 10-year-old was apparently asked additionally if she wanted to name the baby and if she wanted to adopt the baby “instead of letting him die in agony?” (Note reference: Brazilian judge urges rape victim,10, to stay pregnant “a little while longer” by Marina Lopez, The Washington Post, Page A8, July 3, 2022.) I think we would all agree regardless of whether our position is Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, none of these questions are suitable for a child, no less a child who has already been traumatized by rape. While pastoring I had the experience to minister to a woman who was forced to submit to an abortion when she was 13 and was still traumatized by it many years later. I believe these decisions of choice are issues with physical, emotional and psychological implications that when approached with the blinders of religious doctrines we do more to harm the cause of Christ in an individual’s life than to help them, especially for a 10-year-old child. It appears to me that it is not only the child in this case that is in a state of confusion but the whole legal and religious construct around the child is confused as well.

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe on June 24, the Texas’ State Attorney advised prosecutors that they could now enforce a 1925 law that banned abortion in Texas describing it as a “100% good law”. However, a judge in Harris County, Tx., granted a temporary order to allow clinics to offer abortions without criminal prosecution until at least July 12 when arguments will be presented. The Texas State Attorney then appealed the lower court decision to the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas Supreme Court then blocked the lower court ruling allowing for civil but not criminal enforcement of the ban. “The flurry of litigation has thrown abortion clinics and patients in Texas into disarray, with many people rebooking and canceling appointments and travel plans as they scramble to navigate the new legal landscape.” (Note reference:”Tex. court stops order on abortion resumption” by Adela Suliman, Page A9, the Washington Post, July 3, 2022.) The legal landscape assuredly will be tenuous and dynamic as each state plays out its legal interpretation of the recent overturning of Roe. Rumors are being heard that some states are considering the including of prosecution of anyone crossing state lines to procure what is deemed an illegal abortion procedure. If such legislation is passed it may affect corporate health policies like those of Levi Strauss & Co. described in the above picture. Our nation has entered a season of confusion and possible consequences for procedures that have been legal and widely practiced for many years.

Faith is driving many decisions in this cycle of legal interpretation. While the position of many faith communities regarding “choice” is common knowledge, a recent Florida lawsuit has cast a view of a faith community position that is perhaps less known. A lawsuit filed by the Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor of Boynton Beach contends the new Florida Law prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks that took effect July 1 violates Jewish teachings. Jewish teachings state abortion “is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman” and for other reasons. “As such, the law prohibits Jewish women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and this violates their privacy rights and religious freedom. People who “do not share the religious views reflected in the act will suffer” and that it “threatens the Jewish people by imposing the laws of other religions upon Jews.” (Note reference: “Florida’s new abortion law violates religious freedom, a synagogue’s lawsuit says”, June 15, 2022, The Associated Press.) This introduces an interesting context to recent events. This lawsuit contends that this faith congregation is being violated in its constitutional right that “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.” (Amendment 1 of the Constitution) Suddenly, after extraordinary measures to assure all Americans their second amendment gun rights, we find a large block of Americans are finding their first amendment religious rights being threatened. It is logical to think that if Jewish communities feel threatened, it is highly likely that other faith communities may feel the same. A quick search on Wikipedia states “although opinions among Islamic scholars differ over when a pregnancy can be terminated, there are no explicit prohibitions on a woman’s right to abort under Islamic law”. We may be in for a very interesting season of challenges and contention due to the recent developments regarding the “right to choose.”

Because faith is so integrally involved in these decisions over “choice” I would like to offer an example in which faith was involved in a similar political situation. I believe it is a little-known fact that one of the key advisors in the design and eventual passing of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA or more commonly known as Obamacare) was a Catholic Nun named Sister Carol Keehan. Sister Keehan had a background in nursing, a master’s in health care finance, and she served as head of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, which comprises roughly six hundred hospitals and sixteen hundred long-term care and other health facilities in all fifty states. Soon after the election of President Obama in November 2008, Sister Keehan and her staff were brought in to help craft the ACA. Sister Keehan explains how she and President Obama, coming from different faith perspectives, were able to merge their efforts into a successful outcome. “One of our principles was health care is a human right and everybody needs to be in it. We were not getting everybody health care with the ACA. But it didn’t violate our principles, because it said that we can take a giant step forward or we can take no steps. On the other hand, there is the principle of no federal funding of abortion, of euthanasia. And we were very satisfied with that in the bill.” (Note reference: “American Prophets” by Jack Jenkins, P. 18-20, Harper One, 2020.) In other words, Sister Keehan was not afraid to compromise in some of her personal doctrinal beliefs of faith for the greater good of providing health care to millions of Americans.

It is estimated that there are thirty thousand or so varieties of Christianity. The common thread throughout all these varieties of faith is the person of Christ. Many believers profess a personal relationship with Him, others trust in His compassion and often see Him as a justification for their worldviews and politics. (Note reference: “The Universal Christ” by Richard Rohr, Page 11, Convergent Books, 2019.) It is clear that the issue of choice has effectively polarized the evangelical community of faith politically. The problem is this political polarization has driven a wedge in the evangelical community of faith. Not all evangelical Christians share the same interpretation of scripture or the same application of faith in their worldview. Not all evangelicals define the beginning of life at the same time. Not all evangelicals view the repercussions of these social decisions in the same way. This is true with many other aspects of our faith. Some evangelicals believe in total abstinence of alcohol consumption, many do not. When I was a young adult, a large segment of the evangelical community did not believe in birth control. Now it is widely accepted in many forms. This issue of choice having been politically polarized has continued to cause divisions in community at all levels, including families.

I have had two recent experiences with close family members that illustrate the dilemma we are facing with this issue of faith and choice. I was raised Catholic, and many members of my family are still practicing Catholics, some very devout in their faith. A recent discussion with one family member pertained to another family member (deceased for more than fifty years) who had elected to terminate a pregnancy. My relative’s doctrinal belief that the punishment for that decision was still ongoing fifty years later was extremely upsetting to her. I gave her assurance that we cannot know the circumstances affecting her relative’s decision, and we cannot possibly comprehend the mind of God. Those arguments did not give her any peace of heart or mind that I could tell, due to her deeply held doctrinal beliefs.

A second example involved a relative of mine unleashing a tirade on social media about some comment our President made about a woman’s freedom to choose. Both are examples of how our doctrinal views over the issue of choice not only create division in communities of faith and families, but in many cases, they cause great pain, anger and frustration to those trying to live by those doctrines. My faith speaks to an understanding of Christ that would not require any follower to feel the hurt, anger and hateful frustration that my relatives were experiencing because of their doctrinal beliefs over choice. This is where I draw the line between doctrine and faith. When my belief has to be subject to a doctrine that I can no longer embrace in my heart, I have crossed over from faith to religion. Christ was against the religion of the Pharisees. It was the reason He turned over tables in the temple when they had turned a place of worship to a place of enterprise. That is what I feel politics has done to our faith. Those who steer the political machines of our nation have drawn many from the faith communities into the realm of religion in support of a political outcome.

We as a people of faith can do better than this. We cannot continue in this same manner. We must embrace the attitude of Sister Keehan and put aside our doctrinal allegiances for the sake of the greater good. We have the freedom of our faith to live in the liberty of the Spirit of God to get along, to compromise, for the greater good. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3: 17). Let’s use that liberty to come together, resolve our differences in a manner acceptable to all of our faith. Find that common ground of faith that we all can embrace. If not, we will retreat into our respective areas of religion and the divide will grow greater and greater. That is exactly what the politicians want. That was never the plan of Christ.