Can We Stop the Killing with Compromises?

Pragmatism in Pro-Life Politics

Ann Coulter points out in her column this week that certain pro-lifers in the movement are “people whose ideological zealotry outruns their rationality.” They are doing this, she writes, by “pushing wildly unpopular ideas” that in the process may get millions of more babies killed. This will happen, she suggests, when voters respond by electing Democrats to super-majorities across the country. She makes this point while identifying as a fellow “anti-abortion zealot” herself.

Rep. Nancy Mace made similar, but different arguments in recent weeks, predicting that pro-life was a losing issue for Republicans. She called for finding “middle-ground” with pro-abortion opponents. I find myself agreeing in part with their sentiments, but I sharply disagree with Mace that the middle-ground she is talking about can be reached on abortion. However, after a string of losses of pro-life ballot initiatives in several states, we must address this political reality.

Even reasonable, narrowly crafted pro-life initiatives such as Kentucky’s this past fall were defeated. That was one in which I personally participated. I attended a rally at the state capital, invited a speaker to my parish to explain it, put up signs, and voted for it. If anything, I thought at the time, it didn’t really do enough. All that it said was that the Commonwealth’s constitution had nothing in it about a right to an abortion. The vote did not create any new anti-abortion law. The whole idea was to keep the courts from deciding the issue, and keep it a matter for the legislature and voters. But the other side worked hard to sow disinformation about it.

And so it did not pass, and lesson learned. Many people are uncomfortable with adding further restrictions to abortion and that’s what they voted against. Pushing further against that at this time would seem to be foolhardy.

How Do We Balance Our Principles with Saving Lives?

The question of compromising, however, is problematic. Michael Knowles commented on Nancy Mace’s position on this matter in a recent podcast. He made the observation that compromising with the other side on abortion was a “splitting the baby” issue.

His point is well-taken. If abortion is intrinsically evil and kills at any age of development, how can you make compromises involving such an all or nothing principle? When exceptions are allowed, it simply eats at the central truth of why it’s wrong in the first place. This was why exceptions to abortion are so often fought over, the most notable being in cases of rape and incest.

The problem is that if we allow for these exceptions, we—the pro-life side—are saying that it’s acceptable that some babies can be killed. And when we allow for the exception, what’s to stop the other side from proposing another one and then another one. This is what allowed for abortion to be legalized in the first place.

Who’s the Real Pro-lifer?

At the same time, we live in a compromised world, where sometimes we must choose the lesser of two evils. If I’m faced with voting for a pro-life candidate who allows for exceptions to abortion and the opposition is rabidly pro-choice up until birth—I must support the former candidate. But some on our side don’t see it that way.

In Kentucky, we have had that problem in the pro-life movement for many years. Like today’s so-called "principled conservatives," these pro-lifers will not support anyone who does not match all of their specific criteria for being pro-life, one of which, for example, was being against the contraceptive pill. This steadfast holding to principles made it possible for the defeat of otherwise good pro-life politicians.

I saw this as more virtue-signaling than successful politics. I have yet to vote for an absolutely pure and perfect candidate for office. I don’t think one exists.

Being Shrewd as Serpents

So, what’s the answer? We must follow Christ’s admonition to his disciples when he sent them out on their own for the first time to preach the Gospel:

“Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.” Mt 10:16.

We need to be prayerful about how we address each political situation. In the pro-life political realm, we must look at the reality of our situation and be “shrewd” when it appears we will save more lives by compromising. Yet, we must also remain “simple” by not compromising our belief in the truth that abortion is murder. The compromise must not be with the truth, but how we target our efforts.

While, for example, it is true that the contraceptive pill is an abortifacient, and as such should be strictly regulated, this is not a political battle that can be won at this time (or the foreseeable future). This is a long-standing compromise we have made to not fight this battle, especially since many people in the larger pro-life camp would disagree.

As another example, as an outright banning of abortion pills is unlikely to succeed, perhaps we start by advocating against these pills being sent through the mail, that they must be prescribed only after a visit to a doctor. In fact, it is hard to imagine any other situation where a doctor could legally prescribe such deadly medication (certainly for the child but also potentially for the mother) without an office visit and proper tests performed. So, while we continue to deplore the use of abortion pills (like contraceptive pills) without exception, we recognize that, without pushing for at least some sensible restriction, far more lives will be lost—both mothers and their babies.

Certainly, we should vigorously oppose any new pro-abortion efforts, such as Ohio’s ballot initiative for a constitutional amendment. In that way, we need to focus on maintaining what we have in the Red States, and not propose any further restrictions until such time that more people feel comfortable with making abortion completely illegal. After all, we lived with legalized abortion for nearly 50 years and with such an abrupt change many are still getting used to the idea. It may take time for the truth to prevail, but it always does in the end.

In the meantime, let’s try to save as many mothers and babies as we can.

---