A repugnant argument in religious guise

The one-year anniversary of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health—the case that overturned the wicked precedent of Roe v. Wade—was marked by both pro-life and pro-abortion advocates. The pro-life movement celebrated a generational achievement and committed itself to the work of making abortion illegal and unthinkable. Proponents of the culture of death released statements that bemoaned what they saw as an assault on “reproductive justice” and the enshrining of religious dogma in law.

Among the statements was a letter from over 30 Roman Catholic Democratic legislators renewing their commitment to protecting legal abortion. Referring to themselves as part of the “faithful pro-choice Catholic majority,” they spoke at length of how their actions were guided by core teachings of their faith. Among the principles guiding their actions were the “fundamental tenets of [their] Catholic faith—social justice, conscience, and religious freedom.”

As a Baptist, I take special offense at their abuse of the principles of conscience and religious freedom to further the holocaust against the preborn. Recognizing the dignity and worth of those not yet born is no more an unjust imposition of religious teaching than the recognition of the worth of someone from another race as made in the image of God.

Unlike those who defend religious liberty as a recognition of the limits of state authority, these lawmakers seek to wield it like a cudgel against the rights of the most vulnerable class of individuals: those inside their mother’s womb.

While I think they are abusing the principle of religious freedom, I’m even more dismayed at their misuse of Catholic social teaching. They say that the Catholic faith promotes the common good, prioritizes the dignity of every human being, and provides a safety net for the most vulnerable. To all of those promoting these principles, I say well done and I hope to partner with you in creating a culture of life.

The goal of the legislators’ letter achieves none of these ends. The common good is not promoted by the butchering of the innocent. The dignity of every human being is not prioritized when a class of persons is treated as disposable and unworthy of life. And there is no safety net for the most vulnerable—the voiceless in their mother’s womb—when they can be discarded for mere convenience.

An earlier generation of Catholics advocated for the common good and economic security, recognizing that protection of the poor and vulnerable also meant opposing abortion. For these early pro-life activists, support for the New Deal and opposition to abortion were both grounded, as historian Daniel Williams has shown, in the belief that the government should protect vulnerable classes of people, including the unborn. Unlike the signers of the recent letter, these early activists did not pit economic security and care for the marginalized against the life of the unborn.

In their attempt to be a “vanguard creating a more just America and the world” these esteemed officials, including former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, have sided with the spirit of the age, favoring personal choice and autonomy over dignity and worth. The tradition that they claim to draw upon recognizes that we are not autonomous individuals, but rather are embedded in communities and that collective support is necessary for human beings to flourish and thrive. Against the spirit of individualism, the depth of the Catholic tradition reminds us of our responsibility to our neighbor’s good, rather than encouraging our more selfish desires.

I’m a person who agrees that there is more our society can do to provide economic security for the impoverished. I believe that pro-life convictions don’t end at the birthing canal, and that the command to care for the vulnerable is required of all Christians, Catholic and Protestant. So I long for a day when the Democratic Party is committed to those principles in deed rather than warped words and policy priorities.

Sadly, the signers of this letter would rather prioritize a reprehensible interpretation of individual autonomy rather than a vision of true social justice.