Saving Lives or Changing Laws?
Article adapted from episode content.
A prevailing narrative suggests that passing laws against abortion is futile, claiming women will seek dangerous illegal abortions regardless of legal restrictions. This viewpoint often posits that laws cannot change hearts, and thus, efforts should instead focus on ministering to individual women facing unplanned pregnancies. While assisting women is undeniably crucial, as evidenced by the proliferation of pregnancy centers nationwide, which now outnumber abortion clinics more than two-to-one, the assertion that legal action is ineffective or inappropriate for Christians to pursue is fundamentally flawed. Contrary to popular belief, empirical evidence demonstrates that laws restricting abortion are highly effective in reducing abortion rates.
The Data-Driven Decline in Abortion Rates
A recent article in the Des Moines Register highlighted the impact of Iowa’s six-week heartbeat bill, which effectively bans abortion after six weeks. The key takeaway from this report is a sharp, statewide decline in abortions in Iowa following the implementation of this restrictive law. This directly contradicts the widespread, yet false, claim that abortion rates have universally increased since the overturning of Roe v. Wade by Dobbs.
While it is true that abortion rates have risen in states that actively promote “abortion tourism” – advertising services, offering to cover travel, lodging, and procedure costs for women from states with restrictions – this selective reporting obscures the broader picture. The critical question is not whether some women will travel to other states, but what the data indicates within states that have restricted abortion. In these states, the data consistently shows that abortion rates plummet when restrictive laws are passed.
This decline is attributable to several factors:
- Public Inclination to Follow the Law: Most people are generally inclined to abide by legal statutes.
- Law as a Moral Teacher: Laws serve as a “moral teacher,” influencing public perception and behavior. When an act becomes illegal, society tends to draw moral conclusions from that prohibition.
Consider the historical shift in public attitudes toward smoking in the United States. Thirty years ago, smoking was widely accepted in public spaces like restaurants and airplanes. The significant change in societal norms, where smoking in crowded areas is now frowned upon, directly followed the enactment of restrictive laws. These laws, initially banning smoking in establishments and later in public outdoor and indoor areas, taught lessons about public behavior. Similarly, laws restricting abortion are teaching society that intentionally ending unborn life is wrong, leading to a reduction in its occurrence.
The argument that laws cannot restrict behavior is illogical. If behaviors like spousal abuse, theft, or rape were legalized, their occurrence would undoubtedly increase, not decrease. The same principle applies to abortion; making it illegal reduces its incidence. If a national law were to ban all abortions (with exceptions for life-threatening situations to the mother, which are not considered abortions as they do not involve intentional killing), the national abortion rate would drop significantly, despite a small number of individuals traveling abroad for the procedure.
Debunking the Medical Emergency Fear Campaign
A prevalent piece of propaganda, even spread by some Christians, falsely claims that pro-life laws force women to die by denying necessary medical procedures for conditions like ectopic pregnancies or by prosecuting women for miscarriages. This is demonstrably false. Laws restricting abortion consistently include allowances for medical emergencies where the mother’s life is at risk. The Des Moines Register, a non-conservative paper, explicitly states that these laws permit such medical interventions.
The distinction lies in the intent behind the procedure. In an abortion, the physician intends the death of the innocent unborn human being. This intentional killing is the core definition of abortion in the pro-life view. Even prominent pro-abortion advocates acknowledge that abortion involves the “violent destruction of a human fetus”. For instance, Dr. Warren Hern, a leading abortion doctor and author of a textbook on abortion procedures, candidly describes the dismemberment of a fetus during an abortion.
However, in cases like an ectopic pregnancy, where the embryo implants outside the uterine cavity and cannot survive, the physician’s intent is not to kill the embryo. Instead, the physician’s intent is to save the one life they can: the mother’s. In such situations, the embryo will die regardless of intervention, and without intervention, the mother’s life is also at risk. Removing the embryo in this pathological location does not worsen its outcome, as it would die anyway. Therefore, procedures to address ectopic pregnancies, or other life-threatening medical emergencies, are not considered abortions because the primary intent is not the death of the unborn, but the preservation of the mother’s life. Claims that women are left unprotected or prosecuted for miscarriages under these laws are simply untrue.
The Closing of Abortion Clinics
Another significant consequence of restrictive abortion laws is the plummeting number of abortions performed by organizations like Planned Parenthood and the subsequent closure of their clinics. For example, Texas, with its restrictive abortion laws, has seen the closure of a notorious mega-Planned Parenthood center near Houston. This indicates that these laws are working exactly as intended: reducing the number of abortions and limiting the infrastructure that facilitates them. Abortion providers naturally gravitate towards states with more permissive laws, where they can continue to operate “wholesale” abortion businesses.
Beyond “Unthinkable”: The Moral Imperative of Illegality
Some Christians argue that instead of making abortion illegal, the focus should be on making it “unthinkable”. While making abortion unthinkable is a desirable outcome, it is not sufficient. The flaw in this argument is evident when applied to other morally reprehensible behaviors: no one would suggest that spousal abuse should remain legal just because we wish to make it unthinkable.
The law serves a crucial purpose: to restrain evil acts perpetrated by “heartless individuals”. As Martin Luther King Jr. famously stated, “The law can’t make the white man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me”. Similarly, while the law cannot force everyone to love unborn fetuses, it can prevent countless instances of them being “butchered and thrown in the dumpster”. Even if a law doesn’t change a person’s heart, it can restrict their harmful behavior.
Furthermore, a society that merely reduces evil without making it illegal remains deeply immoral. Imagine a society that reduced slavery but still kept it legal to own humans as property. Justice demands that intentionally killing the unborn be not only unthinkable but also illegal. This stance often requires Christian leaders to demonstrate courage in the face of cultural critique, which often misinterprets “being nice” as affirming all behaviors, including those considered evil.
The current culture, tragically, embraces the idea of treating children as “sacrificial instruments” to be killed on a whim. Christians are called to both love women facing abortions and, in the name of love, call out the evil of their actions. While methods matter—screaming “murderer” at clinic doors is counterproductive and alienating—a more effective approach at that critical moment is to offer help. Later, after a life has been saved, then the conversation can shift to the moral implications and the solution found in the Gospel.
It is vital to communicate the truth—that abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being and is therefore wrong—but to do so tactically, aiming to reach women at a heart level to help them make life-affirming decisions. Allowing abortion to remain legal, even while attempting to reduce its occurrence, is not a moral good because it permits the intentional killing of unborn humans.
In conclusion, the empirical evidence is clear: laws restricting abortion are effective in reducing abortion rates. They work by influencing behavior and by closing the avenues for the procedure. The narratives claiming otherwise—that laws don’t stop abortion, that rates are rising nationally, or that women are endangered by these laws—are demonstrably false. Pro-life efforts must encompass both compassionate support for women and robust legal action to protect the unborn, grounding our arguments in facts and sound moral reasoning.
For those seeking to delve deeper into these arguments and effectively defend the pro-life position, resources such as “The Case for Life” (second edition) and the “Prolife 101” course are available to equip individuals to persuasively advocate for the unborn.