Kentucky abortion law should not respect all religious views
A pro-abortion religious committee responded to my Courier Journal op-ed. Here’s my reply.
In April, the Louisville Courier Journal published an op-ed I wrote titled “Abortions are still happening in Kentucky despite ban. Republicans are to blame.” A group of pro-abortion religious leaders responded. Here is my answer to their response.
The Kentucky Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice's Faith Leaders' Advisory Committee responded to my April 21 op-ed in the Courier Journal, calling my opinions on abortion “deeply troubling.” These pro-choice religious leaders disagree that preborn children should be protected with the same homicide laws as the rest of us and that abortive women should be subject to the same punishments as any other murderer. The main reason for their disapproval: not all religious people agree, and religious freedom is a “moral absolute.”
Religious freedom is not an absolute guide in legal matters
Consider the weakness of this argument. Is religious freedom a moral absolute? In the U.S., officials intervene when a religious cult commits murder or other crimes. Think of the Peoples Temple in Jonestown, the Branch Davidians in Waco, and the Manson Family in Los Angeles. Likewise, the government does not hesitate to prosecute perpetrators of ritual killings, like the 2014 satanic murder of Corriann Cervantes in Houston, or religiously motivated acts of terror, like the 2016 Orlando Nightclub Shooting or the more recent New Orleans Bourbon Street Attack. Would anyone deny that al-Qaeda’s religious ideology motivated the 9/11 attacks?
These heinous crimes were justified by religious beliefs. Can we all agree that such acts are immoral and should be illegal? If so, we must acknowledge that “religious freedom” is not the “moral absolute” my esteemed critics suggest. “But those are radical, fringe beliefs!” someone may object. So what? They’re still religious beliefs. If religious freedom is absolute, then merely being religious qualifies these reprehensible views as inviolable.
But no, religious freedom is not the sole arbiter of where to draw legal lines. Injustice and oppression should be illegal, even if disparate and dissenting religious views exist. Our legal system already recognizes this since the Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) that “facially neutral and generally applied” laws—like homicide laws—do not violate the Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause. In other words, you can’t murder someone even if your religious view says you can.
In principle, this applies to both fringe views and mainstream views. Injustice does not cease to be injustice merely because it is mainstream. So, in my view, pro-choice religious arguments are no different from those other radical beliefs mentioned above that justify violence, “acquitting the guilty” (Proverbs 17:15).
The law always reflects someone’s religious view
Now, here’s the rub. The line between religious freedom and excusing injustice can only be drawn by (drum roll, please) religious beliefs. Yes, where to draw the boundaries of religions is itself a religious matter. Since there are conflicting religious views on where those boundaries should be drawn, we’re left with an inevitable conclusion: there is no neutrality. The law will always reflect someone’s religious view.
If the law allows abortion up to birth, it reflects the view of many Jews that life begins at first breath—a misapplication, in my view, of Genesis 2:7. If it forbids abortion outright, it reflects the view of many Christians (and the scientific consensus) that a new human life begins at fertilization, supported by Bible verses like Job 3:3 and Psalm 51:5. Notice: these views and others are mutually exclusive. Only one can be correct. If the law reflects a view that is, in fact, wrong, it will be unjust and oppressive, even allowing murder, as I believe Kentucky law does.
Christians must contend for Christian values in the law
Another evidence of neutrality’s impossibility is that the biblical command to “Rescue those who are being taken away to death” (Proverbs 24:11) compels Christians to intervene when someone may be unjustly killed. Yet another is the warning directly to legislators, “Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression…that they may make the fatherless their prey!” (Isaiah 10:1–2), which compels Christians to object when a law oppresses the fatherless. Who is more fatherless than an aborted child, abandoned by his father so his mother can kill him? Even if other religious adherents can, Christians cannot “live and let live”—or, in this case, “live and let murder”—simply because differing religious views exist.
So, Kentucky legislators should not attempt the impossible task of respecting all religious views about when life begins. Instead, they should ask, “Which religious view is correct?” Otherwise, the words of the prophet Elijah urge them: “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him” (1 Kings 18:21).
P.S. While I have responded here to my critics’ most substantive point, they also levied some other accusations against my position, which I will address in my next article. Stay tuned, and if you haven't already, subscribe to be notified when that is published.
P.P.S. I also write a weekly briefing of Christian news, Bible insights, and church history called Project 18:15. Get the next one in your inbox this weekend: