Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Roe v. Wade’s Imminent Demise Reflects Liberal Protestantism’s Decline

Roe v. Wade’s Imminent Demise Reflects Liberal Protestantism’s Decline

Last updated on: December 16, 2021 at 2:55 am by Daniel K. Williams

Roe v. Wade’s Imminent Demise Reflects Liberal Protestantism’s Decline 2021-12-15T11:56:35-04:00 Daniel K. Williams

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade next June – which is a likely outcome, if the justices’ questions during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization earlier this month are any indication – it will signal the failure of a liberal Protestant decision in a religiously and politically fractured nation. Roe is not often thought of as a religiously influenced decision, but it was actually deeply rooted in the particular religious tradition of liberal Protestantism – which is why it is now likely to be rescinded at a cultural moment when liberal Protestantism’s political influence has diminished.

Like nearly all other Supreme Court decisions of the 1940s through early 1970s, Roe v. Wade (which the Supreme Court decided in January 1973) reflected liberal Protestant norms of the time. Aside from the Court’s lone Catholic (William Brennan), all of the justices in 1973 had been raised in Protestant homes, mostly of the mainline variety. There were three Episcopalians, three Presbyterians, one Lutheran, and one Methodist serving on the Court – and nearly all had been in some way influenced by the prevailing sentiments in liberal Protestantism, which emphasized the values of equality, democracy, minority rights, and individual liberties. The justices disagreed among themselves as to exactly how to apply those values, but they were united in affirming the values themselves.

Supreme Court Justices in 1973

Like many liberal Protestants of the time, they did not think of their own liberal Protestant-influenced values as the product of a particular religious tradition; instead, they thought of their values as so generically self-evident that they could exist in a religious vacuum and be shared by nearly all Americans. “I think it is the first duty of the justice to remove his own moral, philosophical, political and religious beliefs” when deciding a case, Justice Potter Stewart, one of the seven justices who joined the Court’s majority in Roe, declared at a press conference in 1981. Stewart no doubt thought that his support for abortion rights – or for any other rights, for that matter – had little to do with the fact that he was raised in an Episcopalian family or that his entire education had occurred in elite institutions that were dominated at the time by liberal Protestants. Thus, when the overwhelmingly mainline Protestant Supreme Court (including Stewart) issued its 7-2 ruling in Roe, the justices failed to see how strongly influenced their decision was by liberal Protestant assumptions – which meant that they failed to anticipate how many Americans would object to it or how controversial it would remain. A week after the Court issued the Roe decision, the decision’s author, Justice Harry Blackmun, appeared to be taken aback by all of the criticism he received. “I suspect, however, that the furor will die down before too long,” he wrote to a friend on January 31, 1973. “At least I hope so.”

Blackmun, in fact, was one of the most strongly Protestant of the Protestants on the Court. Several of the justices, though raised in Protestant homes, were not particularly devout, but Blackmun kept his parents’ Methodist faith. Not only did he attend weekly Methodist Sunday services throughout his adult life but he served as a lay reader of scripture and even preached on a few occasions. Those who think in strictly secular terms of the justice who became best known as a passionate defender of abortion rights might be surprised to find a couple of his sermons filed among his public papers – including a 1992 sermon on the book of Ruth, which he delivered at a Methodist congregation a few months before his retirement from the Court. Blackmun’s sermon content indicates that his faith was thoroughly liberal, in keeping with the progressive wing of Minnesota Methodism. Some of the Bible’s great themes, he declared in a 1987 sermon were “freedom, equality, due process, [and] equal protection.” When he looked at the book of Ruth in particular, he saw a mandate to show compassion and protect the rights of women, and when he looked at the Bible as a whole, he saw a living and evolving text that favored the bedrock principles of liberal democracy.

Harry Blackmun - Wikipedia Justice Harry Blackmun

The United Methodist Church, like several other mainline Protestant denominations, endorsed abortion rights in 1970 (three years before Roe), and it was home to many pro-choice activists. It is therefore not surprising that a devout liberal Methodist would embrace abortion rights advocacy as a logical outgrowth of his faith, whether or not he consciously made the connection between his church’s teachings and his own interpretation of the Constitution. Like many other liberal Protestants of the time, Blackmun thought that the decision to terminate a pregnancy was a decision fraught with moral overtones, because the fetus had intrinsic value, whether as an actual or potential human life. There must come a point in pregnancy when the value of the fetus so exceeded the value of a woman’s freedom of choice that the state would be justified in stepping in and protecting fetal life. But at the same time, like many other liberal Protestants who were the product of a deeply existentialist era in mainline Christianity, Blackmun placed a primacy on freedom of conscience and freedom of choice. The state could not force a woman in the first trimester of her pregnancy to carry that pregnancy to term. It could not violate her right to privacy.

At the time, many liberal Protestant ministers viewed the abortion issue primarily in terms of the freedom to make moral decisions, which they thought was a foundational principle of human rights and religious freedom that was rooted in the creation order. “We have the capacity, as well as the right, to make moral decisions,” the Presbyterian campus minister at the University of Arizona declared in the 1970s, in a statement that reflected the view of many mainline Protestants of the time. “In the case of the woman who is pregnant, nothing is more personal than that. It affects her more than anyone else, so that issue of God creating us with moral agency comes down to a bottom line in relation to women having the right to decide for themselves.” Blackmun held a similar view, though in Roe he focused more on the doctor’s right to decide to terminate pregnancies rather than a woman’s right to do so – much to the consternation of some feminists who appreciated the results of Roe but would have preferred to ground it more specifically in women’s rights.

Like other pro-choice Protestants of the time, Blackmun viewed the Catholic absolutist position against abortion as a recent sectarian opinion that did not reflect the views of the majority. “There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth,” he wrote in Roe. “This was the belief of the Stoics. It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family.”

Thus, perhaps, it is understandable that immediately after authoring the Court’s majority opinion in Roe, Blackmun thought that the controversy over abortion rights would soon subside and that public opinion would eventually coalesce in support of the Court’s decision. This, after all, was what had eventually happened in every one of the other controversial Supreme Court decisions that the liberal Warren Court had issued. And if it could happen in the case of school integration or school prayer, surely it could happen with abortion as well – because the moral principles of equality, privacy, and freedom of choice that were reflected in the decision were self-evident principles that, unlike the arguments of the pro-lifers, were not at all religiously sectarian.

Blackmun was wrong, of course. The controversy over his decision did not subside. Perhaps that is partly because the values that he thought were broadly based were, in fact, rooted in a particular religious tradition that many Americans did not share. Public opinion polls from the mid-1970s suggest that perhaps as many 45 percent of Americans supported a constitutional amendment to protect unborn human life from the moment of conception. In a country so closely divided on the question of abortion, Blackmun greatly overestimated the degree to which a liberal Protestant view of the question could easily prevail.

Pro-life Rally in Minnesota, 1973 (U.S. News & World Report)

He knew, of course, that many theologically conservative Catholics did not share his view of the issue. But he also knew that the Court had already ruled that Catholic proscriptions on contraception could not be written into state law and restrict other Americans’ access to condoms and birth control pills. The same was true of abortion, he thought.

But what he failed to anticipate was the commitment of many Catholics to read the Constitution through the lens of their own values, which assumed the humanity of the fetus. Blackmun thought that the state’s interest in protecting fetal life superseded the rights of a pregnant woman only in the last few months of pregnancy, but for those who thought that human value was based on something more intrinsic than merely its developmental stage or appearance, Blackmun’s differentiation between third-trimester fetuses and those in their first trimester made a lot less sense. Those who believed that the unborn were full human beings had every reason to believe that their campaign against abortion was a human rights cause of the highest importance and that it was supported by the Constitution, because they thought (contra Blackmun) that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibitions on depriving a person of life without due process applied to the unborn just as much as to anyone else. Their assumptions about the formation of human life and human personhood guided their reading of the Constitution, just as Blackmun’s liberal Protestant views and values guided his interpretation. And, like liberal Protestants, they believed that their reading of the Constitution was not dependent on the values of a particular religious tradition, even if that might have been the case. Instead, they based their argument for the humanity of the unborn on natural law, a philosophical tradition they thought was fully accessible to non-Catholics because it depended on reason rather than revelation.

It was not only Catholics who objected to Blackmun’s liberal Protestant reading of the abortion question. At the time, many African American Protestants, whose own tradition was shaped less by the value of personal moral choice and more by the value of equity for the marginalized, also opposed abortion. And though that has changed somewhat as the pro-life cause has become associated with a set of policies that hurt the poor, African American Christians are still not very likely to see the abortion issue in quite the same way that Blackmun and many other white liberal Protestants did in the 1970s. But during the next decade and beyond, some of the most vocal opposition to abortion came from white evangelical Protestants, whose political influence was increasing at the very moment that liberal Protestantism was declining.

Liberal Protestants of the mid-to-late 20th century were committed to the value of religious pluralism, but on many issues (including abortion), they often underestimated the degree of religious and ideological diversity in the nation and the number of people who did not share their perspective. The increasing presence of pro-life Catholics and evangelical Protestants in national life were a reminder of that diversity. Contrary to Blackmun’s expectation, the political influence of opponents of abortion continued to increase in each decade of the late 20th century and beyond, while liberal Protestantism’s direct influence on politics decreased. Due to both a rapid decline in the number of liberal Protestants in the late 20th century and a concerted strategy of presidents in both parties to diversify the Court (which, for liberals, meant appointing non-Protestant religious and racial minorities, and for conservatives, meant appointing conservative Catholics), liberal Protestant influence on the Court almost entirely disappeared in the 21st century. Today there is only one Protestant on the Supreme Court. Thus, if the Court overturns Roe by a 5-4 decision in June, the majority will almost certainly include at least four Catholics.

If that happens, it will be a reminder that the liberal Protestant assumptions about human life and moral values were not religiously neutral after all, nor were they as widely shared as the justices had assumed. Of course, the views of pro-life activists are not universally shared either (despite the universal claims of natural law arguments), and therein lies a dilemma. As problematic as the liberal Protestant judicial consensus in mid-20th century America might have been, it at least provided a unifying framework of human rights much of the time. Now that we no longer have even the pretense of such a consensus, what can help us settle the disputes between Americans of widely varying moral and constitutional views? Will we have to settle for a country that is increasingly less united on the most important questions – that is, a country where some states provide Medicaid subsidies for abortions and others ban it altogether, and where policies on issues such as COVID protections and gun rights vary just as widely?

Unfortunately, the answer is probably yes. Liberal Protestants in the mid-20th century overreached when they thought they could dismiss Catholic concerns on the issue and settle the abortion question by judicial fiat. But now that their judicial fiat is on the verge of being rescinded, we face a new dilemma: the absence of any pretense of a moral consensus at all.

Perhaps the best we can do in such a situation is to give each state the right to adopt whatever policies it sees fit. But maybe there is another way to protect human rights while also acknowledging the diversity of religiously based moral values in our post-Protestant pluralistic society. If such a possibility exists, neither side in the abortion debate has yet discovered it. But now that both Roe and liberal Protestant assumptions seem to be facing an imminent demise, it may be more important than ever to try.

Abortion

American Religious History

Daniel K. Williams

Mainline Protestantism

Politics

Roman Catholic church

Supreme Court

Previous Post

December 15, 2021

The 2020 Census, Immigration, and Evangelical Politics

Next Post

December 17, 2021 In The Beginning, All The World Was America, And More So Than That Is Now

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abolitionism Abortion Abraham Joshua Heschel Abraham Kuyper Abraham Lincoln Academia Activism Adam Renberg Advent Adventist africa African American Religion Agnes Howard Albert Camus American History American Religious History American Revolution American West Anabaptists Ancient History Andrea Turpin Andrei Tarkovsky Anglicanism Annales Ansley Lillian Quiros anti-Catholicism Antisemitism Anxious Bench apologetics Apparitions Arash Azizi Archaeology archives art Artificial Intelligence Asia Asian Americans Augustine Authors Bad Bunny Baptism Baptists Barack Obama Battle of Hastings Benjamin Franklin Bernard-Henri Levy Beth Allison Barr Beth Moore Bethany Mannon Bible Bill Cunningham Billy Graham Black Music Bob Dylan Body Boenhoffer Books Breastfeeding Bruce Springsteen C.S. Lewis Calvinism Cancel Culture Capitalism Carmelites Catholicism Cedric Robinson Cesar Chavez Charismaticism charity Charles Dickens Charles Lindbergh Che Guevara Chicago Children Chinese Christianity Chris Gehrz Christ Christian death Christian Higher Education Christian life Christian Nation Christian Nationalism Christianity Today Christmas Church life Church Practice cinema Civil Religion Civil Rights Movement Civil War civility Classics Climate Change Cold War Colonial Mexico colonialism Comer Communism community complementarianism Conference on Faith and History Congregationalism Conspiracies Conspiracy Conversion Narratives Coronavirus Costa Rica Council of Nicaea Covid-19 Creation Critical Race Theory Crusades Culture culture wars Daniel K. Williams David Barton David Swartz Death Ways death with dignity DEI democracy Democratic Party Devotion Digital Age Diplomacy discipleship diversity Donald Trump Drama Dua Lipa Early Church early modern Early modern Catholicism Easter Eastern Christianity economic exploitation Education elections Elie Wiesel Elizabeth II Elizabeth Taylor emotions Empire Engineering England enslavement Entertainment Episcopal Church Erica Ramirez eschatology Eurocentrism Evangelicalism Evangelicals Exegesis Family Feminism Film Flannery O'Connor folk music Food Foreign Policy founding fathers Franciscans Franciscus Junius fundamentalism Funerals G.K. Chesterton Gender Genocide genre geography George W. Bush George Washington George Whitefield Global Christianity Global church Grief Guadalupe Guest Post guest post gun control gun violence Gustavo Gutierrez Hamid Dabashi Harold John Ockenga Harvest Hate Hawaiian Christianity Healing health care Heather Cox Richardson Hell Heresy Hermeneutics Higher Education Hinduism Hippocratic oath Historical Fiction Historical Methodology Historical Profession Historical Profession Historical Theology Historical Thinking historiography Holidays Holocaust horror movies Human rights Humanitarian Work humanities Hummingbirds Hungary hymns Imago Dei Immigration Injustice Interviews Iran Islam Islamophobia Israel Ivan's Childhood Jacob Randolph James Bratt Janine Giordano Drake Japanese history Japanese Literature Jean Paul Sartre Jesse Miranda Jesus Jesus Christ Jimmy Carter Joan Baez Joan Didion Joanne Freeman João B. Chaves Joao Chaves Joey Cochran John Calvin John Fea John Tillotson John Turner Johnny Cash Jonathan Edwards Jonathan Tran Joseph Smith Josh Howerton Journalism Jr. Judaism Jürgen Moltmann Just War Justice Justin Brierley Karl Barth Katelyn Beaty koi ponds Kris Kristofferson Kristin Kobes Du Mez Latin American Religious History Latino Americans Lectio Divina Leisure Lent Leonard Cohen liberal arts liberalism Liberation Theology Linda Ronstadt Lisa Clark Diller Literature Lou Reed Lynchings Lynneth Miller Renberg Mainline Protestantism Malcolm Foley Marilyn Monroe Maritime history Mark Noll Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masih Alinejad mass shootings material culture medieval Christianity Medieval Ethiopia Melissa Borja memory Mennonites Mental Health Mental Illness Methodism Mexican Americans Mexicans Mike Madrid Miles Mullin Min Jin Lee Miscarriage Missionaries Mister Rogers Mitt Romney modernity Monasticism Mormonism Motherhood Mothers of the Church Moving Music Musicals Nadya Williams Nahua Christianity Native Americans Natsume Sōseki New Contributor New England New Year New York Nico Non-Violent Protest Orthodoxy pacifism Paleo Evangelicals Palestinians Parenting Patti Smith Paul Kingsnorth Pedro Calderón de la Barca Pentecostalism Philip Jenkins Phillis Wheatley physician-assisted suicide pilgrimage Pilgrims pluralism Plutocracy Poetry Politics Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV post-modernism prayer preaching Presbyterians prosperity gospel Protest Public history Publishing Puritans purity culture Quakers race Race Massacres Racial Capitalism racial reconciliation racialization Racism Raha Bahloulipour Re-Enchantment reading Reformation Refugees religion and the university religion and war Religious Freedom Religious Nones Religious Pluralism Religious Symbols religious violence Republican Party Revival Rita Coolidge Ritual Roger Williams Roman Catholic church Royalty Russell Moore same-sex marriage Sarah Irving-Stonebraker Scandinavia Science Science and Technology Scopes trial Scriptural Interpretation secularism Selena Quintanilla seminary Seventh-Day Adventists sexual morality Sexuality Sikhs Silence slaveholders theology Slavery Slavoj Zizek social justice Social Media Southern Baptist Convention Southern Religion Spain Spiritual Autobiography Spiritual but not religious Spiritual Discipline Sports Stanley Hauerwas Suffering Summer Camps Sunday Night Odds and Ends Supernatural Supreme Court Syriac Christianity Tal Howard Taylor Swift Teaching Technology Television Thanksgiving The Beatles The Mission theater TheoBros Theology Thomas Dixon Thomas Jefferson Thomas Kidd Thomas Merton Tim Gloege Tim Walz Tom Holland Tourism tradition Tragedy Translation Transnationalism Travel Trump Ukraine Uncategorized Unitarians United Methodist Church US History Vanessa Chan Velvet Underground Verónica A. Gutiérrez Veronica Gutierrez Vikings Violence Virgin Mary Virtue Virtue ethics Visions Voting War WCTU Wendell Berry Westminster Assembly White Evangelicalism Wildfires Winnie the Pooh Witches women Women in Ministry Women's and Gender Studies Work Worship writing Yasunari Kawabata Zena Hitz

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What woman became a queen and saved her people?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Hannah Esther Deborah Miriam