Post Roe: Should states decide?

In an age of dwindling respect for our nation’s founding principles and increasing moral decline, cultural and political wins are few and far between for the conservative.   Even the so-called victories we do enjoy are usually tainted with political compromise and a betrayal of the values our leaders claim to share with us.  Yet, the reversal of Roe v Wade on June 24th, 2022 was a pure triumph of epic proportion born out of 50 years of dedication from those who bravely fought against the grave injustice of legalized abortion.   Let’s not rush past the celebration of this historical moment.  Let’s take the time to thank God for the goodness and rightness of rectifying the monumentally erroneous ruling that contrived a constitutional right to abortion and that directly lead to the deaths of over 63 million human beings.

Even as we celebrate, we know that our work is far from done and that we must continue to walk out our belief in the sanctity of life by loving and serving those in crisis situations.  In addition, we know that many states will continue to provide abortion on demand which begs the question: Should states have the right to codify into law the right to kill a certain demographic of human beings or should a federal ban on abortion be implemented?  Yes, we must continue to build a culture of life, but if the pro-life movement contends that the unborn are human beings, why wouldn’t we advocate for their constitutional right to life as outlined in the 14th Amendment?   The abolitionists who fought to end slavery were not content to let the states decide whether human beings could enslave one another.  They rightly recognized that the U.S. Constitution needed to ensure that individual freedom would not be contingent on majority opinion within the states.  Shouldn’t the right to life be equally protected?

The moral and legal stain of slavery mirrors that of abortion because both practices rely on dehumanization to excuse the denial of fundamental human rights. Every argument that was made in support of slavery is also used to justify abortion. Just a few examples from Matt Walsh’s book, The Unholy Trinity:

Argument from ownership: “This slave/baby is my property/body. You can’t tell me what to do with it.”

Argument from privacy: “No one is forcing you to have slaves/abortions. Mind your own business!”

Argument from superseding rights: “My property/body rights come before the rights of a slave/fetus.”

Argument from inevitability: “Slavery/abortion has been around for thousands of years, it’s never going away. We might as well have a safe and legal system in place for it.”

Argument from pseudoscience: “Slaves/fetuses aren’t really people. They aren’t like us. Look at them — they’re physically different, therefore we are human and they are not.”

Argument from socioeconomics: “If slavery/abortion ends, most of these slaves/babies will end up on the street without a job.”

Argument from the courts: “Slavery/abortion was vindicated by the Supreme Court. It’s already been decided, there’s no point in arguing it.”

Argument from the Bible: “Slavery/abortion isn’t specifically condemned in the Bible. If it’s wrong, Jesus would have specifically said so.”

Argument from faux-compassion: “Slavery/abortion is in the best interest of Africans/babies. The world can be a cruel place. It’s best to protect them from it by keeping them enslaved/killing them.”

Argument from the assumed hypocrisy of the other side: “You say you want to end slavery/abortion, but you don’t want to live with freed blacks/adopt unwanted babies yourself. Therefore your position is invalid.”

Knowing that all men are created equal in the eyes of God, would it have made sense for the deeply religious abolitionists to simply advocate for the regulation of slavery within each state rather than fighting for the freedom of all? Obviously not. Likewise, will the pro-life movement be content with red state victories and the on-going attempt to “make abortion unthinkable” or will we, in addition, utilize existing constitutional protections to finally relegate the scourge of abortion to the history books alongside its moral equivalent of legally protected slavery?

For more information on how Roe’s reversal will impact North Dakota, read here.

Amber Vibeto, Executive Director