Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
login | my account
February 11, 2012

Home > 2009 > JanuaryChristianity Today, January, 2009
Battle Fatigue
Abortion opponents head into Obama presidency after big losses.




"The first thing I'd do as President," Barack Obama told Planned Parenthood in 2007, "is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." The bill would remove almost all state and federal restrictions on abortion. But observers wonder if the anti-abortion movement has enough life in it to successfully fight the legislation or similar measures.

Election Day suggested significant setbacks for pro-life advocates as voters in California, Colorado, and South Dakota rejected ballot measures restricting abortion. Obama's election destroyed hopes that possible Supreme Court appointees would reverse Roe v. Wade. And Planned Parenthood says Congress now has at least 15 fewer pro-life legislators than it did last session.

"I think there's abortion fatigue among the populace for sure," said Cynthia Gorney, a University of California, Berkeley, professor who studies abortion. She found the most obvious signs in South Dakota, where a self-identified pro-life electorate rejected an abortion ban for the second time in two years. Colorado activists failed to amend the state constitution to define person as "any human being from the moment of fertilization," a definition that divided even pro-life advocates. And although 52 percent of Californians voted to ban gay marriage, the same percentage voted no on a parental notification law.

"Redefining marriage is a bigger deal to Americans," said Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin and author of Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers. "It's sort of changing the script of what America is about. People aren't ready to do that."

Signs of fatigue aside, observers agree that abortion will remain a major political issue.

"People are still energized and ready to fight a radical agenda on abortion as it comes down the pipe," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life.

Polls and other research suggest that younger evangelicals are more supportive of abortion restrictions than older evangelicals are. A 2007 study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life showed that 70 percent of younger white evangelicals favor "making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion," compared with 55 percent of older white evangelicals.

Yet evangelicals under age 35 are shaped by growing up in an era of legalized abortion, said Charles Colson. "Younger evangelicals remain pro-life, but I don't think they have the same fire in the belly about the issue that older evangelicals have had," he said.

The rate of abortions is at its lowest since 1973, when the Supreme Court abolished most state laws against it. In 2005, 19.4 per 1,000 women had an abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, but the number—1.2 million in 2005—has stayed relatively the same since the 1970s.

During his campaign, Obama spoke several times about reducing the number of unintended pregnancies, increasing adoption options, and providing support for single mothers who wish to keep their children. Anti-abortion activists like Melinda Delahoyde, president of Care Net, are waiting to see if those efforts include her network of 1,100 local pregnancy centers.

"Let's just say we want to see what happens," said Delahoyde. "He talks about inclusion—bringing people to the table. Are we going to be asked to that table?"



Related Elsewhere:

Christianity Today has a special section on abortion and life ethics.





Christianity Today


  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

Displaying 1–5 of 37 comments

Lisa

January 15, 2009  9:46pm

Could someone explain something to me--and I mean this sincerely because I just don't understand. Many believe it is not a baby until it is born. They believe the fetus is just a lump of tissue. Why then, if a drunk driver hits and kills a pregnant woman, the driver can be tried for killing TWO people? I'm missing something.

BlueDeacon

January 15, 2009  12:50pm

I think this should be a wake-up call to the anti-abortion movement, which for the last three decades has always generally split abortion from a general "sanctity of human life" ideology for the sake of political power through conservative organizations and the Republican Party -- neither of which really cared about that in the first place. Well, thanks to right-wing incompetence, indifference and corruption, that power is all but gone today at least on a national level, so perhaps it's time for the movement to rethink not just its strategy but also its alliances and shift to being more consistently "pro-life."

Anna

January 14, 2009  1:53am

I don't understand why anyone would vote for killing the unborn, but they obviously have. The reason for not liking parts of the law being proposed should not be the reason for voting against it. As long as it says no killing it should be voted yes, the objective parts can be worked on later. In the meantime, babies are still being killed in the womb thanks to the no votes. So what does that say about those voting yes to the killing simply because they object to parts of the proposal. Not much, but they will have to answer to their thinking to the one sending the unborn. Sometimes you need to vote yes to something just to get the major part of the proposal which is really the part that stops the killing. The 100,000+ Iraqis, that's not abortion. That's the easy murder of people of a faith by people of the same faith because that faith considers the deaths as martyrs to the faith and considers their faithfull infidels if they are not willing to die for the faith. Another weird thinking

Chuck

January 12, 2009  12:34pm

Hermit is exactly wrong! Hermit is making very general, broad-brush statements that skirt the real issue. This is not an either-or issue, it is a both-and. It is morally wrong to support a baby-killer just because that person wants to protect the environment. This is the "greater good" argument, and it is flawed. We should be concerned about greater-good issues, but we cannot do so at the cost of innocent lives. It is ironic that the very kinds of arguments used by Hermit were also the kinds of arguments used by the German Intelligentsia of the 1920's and 30's to advance the "greater good" of the so-called Aryan race. They could kill innocent men, women, and children (who were non-human in their minds) with a clear conscience because they were doing so for the "greater good" of the human race at large.

Joe Chip

January 12, 2009  8:36am

Hermit is exactly right. The same people who are stridently "pro-life" are usually those who voted the current administration into office, twice. What Bush done that is even remotely construed as pro-life? Unjust war in the Middle East, more pillaging of the environment, a sacrifice of our soldiers in foreign lands, continued ruin of the economy -- all this and more. Who is speaking up for the 100,000+ Iraqis wickedly slain since the invasion? I'd like it if the so-called pro-life groups actually were, instead of having such an ignorant, narrow vision that is exploited by the political elite for cheap votes.

You must be a Christianity Today subscriber or have created a FREE registration to post comments
[Browse More Christianity Today]



Search
Search
Search
Scripture Search
Go Deeper

Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Kyria.com
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com