Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Fall 2022 PDF
    • SUMMER 2022 ARTICLES
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • INSISTING ON LIFE
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
    • HLF In The News
    • LIBERTY TO DO WHAT? Hadley Arkes and Rusty Reno join George McKenna June 1, 2022 in New York
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2022
    • HOST COMMITTEE Great Defender of Life Dinner 2022
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 Dinner Ticket
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 STUDENT or PREGNANCY CENTER STAFF Ticket
    • DINNER JOURNAL ADVERTISING 2022
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
    • ISSUES IN HTML FORMAT
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Cart

Pastoral Reflections

1 Comment

Constitutional Miscarriage

12 Dec 2022
W. Ross Blackburn
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 

 

Having grown up in Michigan, I tend to follow Michigan politics. This year, the state’s midterm election ballot carried a proposal known as the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, which sought to enshrine a right to abortion in the state constitution. Here is the complete text:

Proposal 22-3: A proposal to amend the state constitution to establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make all decisions about pregnancy and abortion; allow state to regulate abortion in some cases; and forbid prosecution of individuals exercising established right

This proposed constitutional amendment would:

    • Establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make and carry out all decisions about pregnancy, such as prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion, miscarriage management, and infertility;
    • Allow state to prohibit abortion after fetal viability, but not prohibit if medically needed to protect a patient’s life or physical or mental health;
    • Forbid state discrimination in enforcement of this right; prohibit prosecution of an individual, or a person helping a pregnant individual, for exercising rights established by this amendment;
    • Invalidate state laws conflicting with this amendment.

Should this proposal be adopted?
[ ] YES
[ ] NO

The initiative passed. Its writer(s) ensured that it would.

 

How so?  Let me offer a few observations:

 

  • Abortion is framed as “reproductive freedom.” Who is against freedom? Alternatively, who is pro-slavery? Apparently, the person who votes “no”—because “no” would be a vote for “reproductive slavery.”

 

  • Traditionally the word procreate was used when referring to the begetting of a child. Reproduce refers to the same process—sort of, but not really. Procreation suggests a miracle, the word create being associated with the work of God. Reproduction suggests mechanical process, like a photocopier reproducing documents. The word chosen, whether procreate or reproduce, implies much about what is happening, or not happening, when a couple begets a child.

 

  • Note the kinds of things the initiative supports: prenatal care, childbirth, and postpartum care. None of these, to my knowledge, is threatened so as to require a constitutional amendment.  (Not even contraception is under threat, except, perhaps, contraception underwritten by taxpayers.) So why include them in this proposal? Perhaps because putting prenatal care et al. in the same category as abortion implies moral equivalence, thereby obscuring what is really at stake. Furthermore, a “no” vote could be seen to endanger a woman’s access to prenatal care.

 

  • The language of prohibiting abortion can sound like reasonable compromise. Cold deception is more like it. Abortion activists were quite happy with the companion decisions Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, because Roe’s stipulation that states could restrict later abortion to life and health of the mother was voided by Doe’s definition of health, which included “all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” Conveniently, it is the abortionist (the “physician” according to Doe) who determines if a woman’s health, so defined, is endangered.

 

How might the Michigan initiative have fared had it been presented to voters in straightforward language, stripped of distorting wordiness and euphemism? For example:

 

A proposal to amend the state constitution to establish the right for a woman to have her child killed in the womb. 

 

We’ve got to insist upon clarity in public speech, for “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Prov 18:21). And the pen.

 

 

80 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.
About the Author
W. Ross Blackburn

Dr. Ross Blackburn has been ordained for 20 years and has served as Rector for Christ the King for the past 10. He earned a Master of Divinity at Trinity School for Ministry, and a PhD in biblical studies at the University of Saint Andrews, Scotland. He and his wife Lauren have been married for 23 years and have five children.
As a member of Anglicans for Life's Board of Directors, Dr. Blackburn is a regular contributor to AFL's Lectionary Life App series, and writes for the Human Life Review as well as  Christian Publications.

Social Share

  • google-share

One Comment

  1. Peter Moody December 18, 2022 at 5:00 pm Reply

    The TV commercials opposing the amendment ran, in effect, as follows: You can always have all the abortions you want, but this proposal goes too far (allowing teenagers to get abortions without parents’ permission or knoWledge, etc). There was no hint of why abortion itself might be objectionable. Since the opponents took the “prudent” course, leaving the impression they were OK with abortion in the abstract, it is no wonder the yes side carried the day.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR

Recent Posts

Abortion activist attempts to expose crisis pregnancy centers—and fails

17 Jan 2023

An Abortion Clinic in Your Neighborhood

09 Jan 2023

“Benedict XVI, 95, Who Defended Doctrine, Dies.”                                                         — The New York Times, January 1, 202

04 Jan 2023

CURRENT ISSUE

Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott B G Carter Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Helen Alvaré Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kristan Hawkins Laura Echevarria Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Meaghan Bond Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Patrick J. Flood Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro W. Ross Blackburn Wesley J. Smith William Doino Jr. William Murchison

Pages

  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • TOPICS
  • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER

Follow Us On Twitter

Tweets by @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.