Breakpoint

A recent photo essay in The Atlantic documented dozens of pro-abortion demonstrations around the country following the Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling. Protesters, often dressed like handmaids from Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel, seem to believe the Court has taken something away from them. Even the article's description blames the justices for "removing a federal right to an abortion." In reality, the majority's decision in the Dobbs case did not change a single abortion law. What they did was end the Supreme Court's 49-year-old intervention that took the abortion question out of the hands of elected lawmakers, and therefore out of the hands of the American people. Now, thanks to this ruling, voters can, for the first time in a generation, decide the issue democratically by going to the ballot box and making their voices heard. Of course, any law that allows for the killing of unborn children is unjust and morally unacceptable, even if it is the will of voters. So, the ultimate goal for Christians should be that abortion is not only illegal in all 50 states, but unthinkable in the modern world, swept into the dustbin of history like other historic evils. Obviously, given the reaction to the Dobbs decision, this will involve changing a lot of hearts and minds. Still, the ruling in Dobbs is an incredible victory and important step in restoring the rule of law in this country and putting the question of abortion before the people. Roe was a legal disaster that was used for decades to swat down any state-level regulations on abortion and silence voters who wanted those regulations in place. As Ryan Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis write in their new book, Tearing Us Apart, [Roe] removed nearly every question about abortion policy from the hands of the American people and placed the issue into the hands of unelected judges, even though the Constitution contains nothing that could remotely support a right to abortion. Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, someone who was far from pro-life, described the judiciary's attitude on this issue as "the abortion distortion." According to Justice O'Connor, "no legal rule or doctrine is safe from ad hoc nullification by this Court when an occasion for its application arises in a case involving state regulation of abortion." In other words, she saw that her fellow left-leaning justices were willing to use specious arguments to prop up abortion rights, even when they meant ignoring established norms and precedent. In fact, even the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a strong supporter of the so-called "right to choose," admitted that, in legal terms, Roe was a "heavy-handed judicial intervention." Not only does Dobbs represent a moment when the Supreme Court is giving up power and returning it to the states, but it may place America much more in line with the rest of the developed world on the abortion issue. Believe it or not, American law on abortion, thanks in a big part to Roe, has been more in line with the laws of repressive, totalitarian regimes than other liberal democracies. As Anderson and DeSanctis note, only seven countries, including North Korea permit elective abortion after twenty weeks of pregnancy. U.S. abortion policy is far more permissive even than the policies in most European countries. Thirty-nine of the forty-two European countries that allow elective abortion permit it only in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. To put that in perspective, we are told that the Mississippi law at the heart of the Dobbs case is comparable to Margaret Atwood's fictional sexist dystopia. But the reality is that in prohibiting elective abortion after 15 weeks, the law made Mississippi comparable to such sexist dystopias as…well, France. Considering these facts, it's difficult to understand the extreme reaction many in the pro-abortion camp have had to this ruling. The justices didn't change a single law. What they did was return the issue to the states, and thus, the voters. The process now unfolding in all 50 states is one the Supreme Court short-circuited almost 50 years ago by making the decision for us and inventing a constitutional right to an abortion. As Anderson and DeSanctis note, this "heavy-handed" intervention corrupted our political process, undermined the will of voters, and fostered a mentality among progressives that whatever they couldn't win support for in legislatures, they could demand from the Supreme Court. In Dobbs, six of the justices appear to be signaling that things will no longer work this way. Of course, progressive states will entrench abortion in law, meaning lives will continue to be snuffed out in this country by white-clad professionals practicing what they call "healthcare." Until that changes, our work for justice must continue. But thanks to this ruling, laws designed to save young lives will no longer be snuffed out by black-robed lawyers practicing what they call "Constitutional law."

Maria and John hold a lively conversation about human dignity in the Declaration of Independence, the correlation of marijuana use to teen mental health, and the surge in purchases of the Plan B morning-after pill.

Recently, Ezra Klein wrote a column attempting to answer a question he says he is asked all the time: Should today's adults have kids, given the climate crisis? Klein received a good bit of pushback for the odd premise of the question, which seems to reveal more about the company he keeps than actual sentiment. After all, according to Pew Research, only a tiny fraction of childless adults cite climate worries as their motivation. But the most poignant part of Klein's piece is what it assumes. Think about it: No one is wondering whether adults should abstain from sex in order to keep children from being born onto this doomed planet. Just whether they should use birth control and have abortions in order to keep children from being born onto this doomed planet. Childbearing is seen as a technologically controlled choice, completely independent of the act that causes it. This is how much technologies can change how we think about the world and why Christians must always approach new biotechnologies by first asking what humans are for. And, as for his original question—yes, we should still have children.

According to the writer of Proverbs, "death and life are in the power of the tongue." So is cultural change, which most often comes with efforts to change language use and the definitions of words. For example, Harvard Medical molecular biologist David Sinclair is combining innovation in the lab with innovation in language. In a recent CNN article, one of Sinclair's financial backers described the goal of his research as changing the definition of the word "aging." He wants to "make aging a disease." Sinclair claims to have successfully interrupted the aging process in mice by turning adult cells back into stem cells. Some animals are designed with a similar capability, albeit in a more limited way—think, for example, of an octopus re-growing a leg that has been cut off. Using that same idea, what Sinclair calls an "ancient regeneration system," he hopes to regenerate cells that deteriorate with age. Already, he has been able to repair ocular cells in older mice, allowing them to recover their "youthful" eyesight. His ultimate aim, of course, is to develop anti-aging therapies for humans. Though some concern has been directed toward the safety of Sinclair's process, what goes largely unquestioned in media coverage is Sinclair's chief aim. In other words, as so much medical ethics goes these days, if we can do it, then we should. Medical ethics from a Christian worldview perspective is not that simple. Whenever Christians can affirm aspects of work like David Sinclair's, which attempts to overcome the consequences of the fall, we should. The Bible teaches that death is an enemy, and that humans were not made to die. And humans should recognize that the ingenuity and passion for exploration that often inspires medical progress are God-given. To accuse people like Sinclair of "playing God," as if that were an insult, is not helpful. After all, according to Genesis 1 and 2, human beings were created by God to, in a sense, "play God." We are not to pretend that we are God, of course, but He did gift us with the ability to work alongside Him to accomplish His purposes for the world He made. After the fall, He promises to eventually restore His creation, so our work alongside Him continues. The mandate to build and create, tending the garden of His world, is to be done within the moral limits that reflect His character and how He created the world. Within this framework, causing or hastening death is a great evil, but so can be attempts to avoid death "at all costs." Jesus' own death was an act of unprecedented evil but also only fully understood in the context of His obedience to the Father's will. Jesus lay down His life, and many Christians have followed in His footsteps. Thus, there are certain moral goods—such as the will of God—that are higher than avoiding death. Keeping these sorts of things straight is essential to ethically pursuing and employing technologies, like those that promise to "reverse aging." In his book Bioethics: A Primer for Christians, bioethicist and theologian Gilbert Meilaender counsels Christians to view the freedom to pursue medical progress not as freedom from restraints, such as death. Instead, we should consider ourselves free to work alongside God imitating Him on the path He set out for human flourishing. This will mean, very often in fact, not doing (as God described the men who built the tower of Babel) "whatever comes into our minds to do." Meilaender counsels Christians to fight the temptation to use medicine, not merely as a way to care for our bodies, but from the desire to control them. If the chief end of medical research and practice is to live on our own terms, we will inevitably make moral compromises along the way. It was the serpent who promised Eve that she could live as she wished but evade death, which was not only a lie, but not sufficient justification for attempting to usurp the authority that only belongs to God. The goal of medical research and practice should be to help people flourish in the bodies, times, places, and limits that God has given us. From this beginning, Meilaender suggests that the "principle" which should "govern Christian compassion" is not to "minimize suffering," but to "maximize care." Our purpose is not to avoid suffering or even death at all costs despite that they are effects of the fall we are called to oppose. Rather, we take into account that in God's mercy, even our suffering can be redeemed for good. We lament the hard realities of our fallen world, and we seek to understand them within the larger context of creation and resurrection. Thus, we know that death is not the end of life, nor is life only a prerequisite to death.

Last month, a New York court ruled that Happy the elephant should not legally be considered a person. An organization called the Nonhuman Rights Project had sued the Bronx Zoo for "imprisoning" Happy, arguing it should be set free since it showed signs of "self-awareness." "While no one disputes the impressive capabilities of elephants. ..." Janet DiFiore, the chief judge, wrote, "[h]abeas corpus is a procedural vehicle intended to secure the liberty rights of human beings who are unlawfully restrained, not nonhuman animals." Confusion is inevitable whenever a culture untethers itself from all sources of truth. If there's no God, then people aren't in His image. So why shouldn't animals have the same rights we do? And if our rights aren't based in our design, the only option is to base them on some slippery criteria like "self-awareness" or intelligence. But, of course, that way of thinking also makes it possible to not extend human rights to certain humans. According to Judge DiFiore, granting Happy "personhood status" would be legally "destabilizing." In fact, the worldview that animated this legal comedy to begin with is destabilizing. When it comes to human rights, only Christianity offers solid ground.

Last year, a coalition of organizations, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Policy Alliance, Colson Center, and the Heritage Foundation, teamed up to issue a Promise to America's Children, a commitment to protect their minds, their bodies, and their most important relationships amid this hypersexualized culture. Today, we join again, this time to issue a Promise to America's Parents. Why? As the website puts it, Local, state, and federal government policies are imposing ideologies that divide children by race and promote the falsehood that a boy can become a girl or vice-versa. Some schools are treating children as if they are the opposite sex without the permission of parents. Medical professionals are performing harmful experiments on children who are emotionally distressed about their bodies. To protect children, parents need laws that protect their rights. Simply put, no government entity should usurp the place of parents. In too many classrooms, progressive ideas are forced on children, targeting their hearts, minds, and identities. A reigning ideology in education is critical theory which, in its various forms, denies that every single person is made in the image of God. Thus, kids are taught to see other people in simplistic categories of oppressed or oppressor, to see Christianity as an oppressive and destructive historical force, and to see themselves primarily in terms of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Promise to America's Parents galvanizes parents to "A.C.T."—an acronym referring to accountability, choice, and transparency—on behalf of their children. According to the Promise, Children belong first and foremost to their families. In the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, they are not "mere creatures of the state." The unique and intimate relationship between a parent and a child creates a duty and a corresponding natural right. Parental rights are fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. However, courts have not consistently protected parental rights against government interference and invasion as they should. In the "A.C.T." acronym, accountability means that "Every mother or father may hold the government accountable for infringing on their rights to care for their child." Choice means that "Every mother or father has the responsibility and right to choose the education and medical treatment that they deem best for their child." Thus, neither schools, nor healthcare providers, nor schools acting like healthcare providers should push a child toward an alternative gender without the parents' permission. Schools also must not restrict a child's speech by creating vague anti-racist policies that would prohibit differing viewpoints being stated. Transparency means that "Every mother or father has the right to know about what their child is learning, their child's health, and any harms to them." Parents have the right to know the content within the curriculum, from textbooks to other materials. Parents have the right to know the content of their children's files. Specifically, no separate files should be kept to maintain secretive use of counseling, gender pronouns, or treatments. Please read the whole Promise to America's Parents at promisetoAmericasparents.org. There's also a free downloadable toolkit, explaining parental rights at schools and in doctors' offices. It also provides practical advice on how to proceed if a child describes their school day, and warning lights start flashing in your head. For example, the toolkit explains what you can and cannot ask for in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, how to access the school's curriculum, securing opt-out policies for classroom instruction that conflicts with religious or moral beliefs, and how to help children report statements or actions that treat students differently because of their race, religion, or moral views. There are also plenty of stories on the Promise website about parents who took a stand. Two parents whose stories are told are plaintiffs in cases represented by ADF. Melissa Riley says of her son, who is biracial, "He is changing . . . . If things don't go his way or things seem unfair, he will now claim it's racism. He never did that before." Another parent, Carlos Ibenez is a plaintiff because his daughter was told in middle school that as a Latina, she wouldn't succeed because the system was set up to privilege people with white skin. Parents can protect their children from indoctrination that targets the mind and the heart. Parents can protect their children from being co-opted by the state. Please, visit promisetoAmericasparents.org.

According to a recent poll conducted by Gallup, the portion of Americans who believe in God has dropped to barely over 80%. That's still a majority, but the one-in-five who don't believe is the highest number ever recorded in this country. Anyone seeking to understand this data should remember something theologian Carl F.H. Henry said, 70 years ago, when told that 99% of Americans believed in God: "The vast majority of Americans today may believe in a ghost god, in a phantom god, in a god who makes very little difference in the great decisions of life and even less in the cares of everyday existence." Imaginary gods, like imaginary friends, make us feel good for a time, but lose their staying power. That's true for individuals and for societies—which is why Christians must be clear on Who God is as He has revealed Himself in Scripture, in creation, and in Christ... not a god we create in our own image.

What looks like good news for a nation in the midst of a demographic crisis isn't really. Recently, The Wall Street Journal reported that "U.S. births increased last year for the first time in seven years." In 2020, the U.S. fertility rate dipped to 1.64—the lowest "since the government began tracking it in the 1930s." In 2021, the rate increased for the first time since 2014, to 1.66. Though that sounds like good news, that's a lower spike than we'd historically expect during something that keeps everyone at home, such as a pandemic. One economist has called it a "minor blip" that "still leaves us on a long-term trajectory towards lower births." That's because the replacement rate is at least 2.1, and some scholars think 1.7 is the threshold of no return. Nations that fail to replace their population face economic stagnation and social instability. A society committed to adult happiness over the future and the well-being of children will be a nation that fails to replace its population. In other words, birth rates are more than statistics and historic predictors. They reflect a nation's priorities, values, and worldview.

The first step in making abortion unthinkable has been taken. Now that the Supreme Court has reversed Roe v. Wade with its ruling in the Dobbs case, it's time to roll up our sleeves and work towards building a culture of life. This is not the time to back off, or as some Christians have suggested, to tone it down. Back in May, at the "Preparing for a Post-Roe World" event at the Wilberforce Weekend, Students for Life president Kristan Hawkins issued a powerful and stirring challenge. Here's Kristan: Friends, tonight, I'm here to ask you to do something that's never been done before in the history of our world. I'm here to ask you, the Church, to join with the pro-life generation to put our nation back together in a post-Roe v. Wade world. And I implore you to help us achieve this mission that has thus far spanned five decades—church by church, city by city, state by state—as we move forward to make abortion unthinkable. Friends, the hour is upon us—something that we have all worked for, that many of you were working for before I was even created. Step one of our mission is almost complete. But there's so many more steps we have to go. And the Church must rise to the challenge, and you are being called to lead it. Make no mistake. The battles that we face in the coming months, the coming weeks will be physical, they'll be political, and they'll be spiritual. In our city streets, the violence that so many support behind the closed doors of the Planned Parenthood will be committed openly. And those in power will look the other way. In statehouses, those who we fought to elect will be forced to finally act to actually cast a vote that will determine the fate of lives. And I predict some of them who say that they're with us will not be so. And in our homes, our daughters and our granddaughters will start to order chemical abortion pills shipped from foreign countries or other states that could very well result in her own injury, infertility, or death. She'll be aborting her child, your grandchild, your great-grandchild in her bathroom, and every morning she'll return to the scene of that crime. In our workplaces, women and men will be hurting from past abortion decisions, and they'll be made to finally reckon with the choice that they made decades ago that they've been suppressing for years. And in our churches, what will we be doing? Will we be a thermostat that can transform the mores of our society—of our country—or will we simply sit back and be a thermometer? I believe it's not too late to become the former, but this relies on you. First, I must ask you to speak truth at your church, especially to this young generation who has never lived in America without legal abortion. Show your youth group the truth about the violence of abortion. Show them how they can actually step up to serve and transform. Convince your pastor—6% of which say that they've given a sermon on abortion in the past year—convince them to speak. Start a ministry for men and women hurting from past abortions. Start a ministry for pregnant and parenting women and men and families in need. A great first step is to join Students for Life and the Colson Center for the national Standing with Her Sunday simulcast. We're going to be launching August 28, and the goal is to get our churches all the tools that they need to support her. The second thing you can do is envision what your community will look like and must look like in the post-Roe era. Ask yourself how your church can step up—what you can do. And I have to warn you—envisioning things is a little dangerous. It's free—doesn't take any money—but it's powerful. Quell the flames of fear that Planned Parenthood is fanning in our nation. Show them we actually have a progressive view for our families and women in America. This is 2022. This is not 1952. No woman in 2022 America should ever have to choose between the life of her child for her education or for her career goals. Tell America about the 3,000 nonviolent pregnancy centers, the more than 400 maternity homes that vastly outnumber the abortion facilities in our country. Tell America about support: AfterAbortion.org, abortionpillreversal.org, standingwithyou.org—all the resources we have in place. This is fundamental. At Students for Life, we've knocked on 120,000 doors in the last year in neighborhoods in 20 cities that surround an abortion facility. And 73% of the neighbors we speak to have no clue that the pregnancy center exists in our community—have never even heard about it. Friends, when the Supreme Court finally reverses its anti-science Roe v. Wade decision, what choice, what decision are you going to make? What course of action will you commit to taking that will help us determine the fate of this cause—the greatest human rights struggle in the history of our life? Tonight, I implore you. Make a decision. Church, make a decision for a positive peace—to stand for innocent children and their mothers. Get to work to ensure that no woman stands alone in a post-Roe America. That was Students for Life president Kristan Hawkins speaking at our preparing for a post-Roe future event. To hear the entire talk, and for more recordings like this one equipping us to build a culture of life, go to WilberforceWeekend.org.

As part of The Gospel Coalition's "Good Faith Debates," Scott Klusendorf and fellow pro-life advocate Karen Swallow Prior discuss what it means to stand for life today. Is it enough to oppose abortion? Or must the pro-life movement take on a wider range of causes? The exchange brings clarity to a hot button issue. Both agree that Christians should be consistent, and that our love for neighbor and commitment to life should be reflected in how we think about and address other issues, from genocide to racism, from artificial reproductive technologies to poverty. However, while the Christian life cannot be reduced to just one issue, the greatest injustices require our greatest attention. Pro-lifers should never apologize for focusing on and working tirelessly to end abortion, especially when about 900,000 children are aborted every year. So, we should celebrate the end of Roe, work for state-level protections for the preborn, speak with moral clarity on abortion, and help the women who need it most. Now is the time to double down, not back off.