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

suspended in her jar

Home
Catholic
the new pro life movement replies to austin ruse

the new pro life movement replies to austin ruse

Last updated on: December 2, 2016 at 10:06 pm by Rebecca Bratten Weiss

the new pro life movement replies to austin ruse 2016-12-02T22:06:24-04:00 Rebecca Bratten Weiss

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.

We at the New Pro Life Movement have gotten a lot of support from great people and groups, in the past few weeks. We’ve also gotten a good bit of criticism. Some of it is just ridiculous: that we’re a Podesta plant or Soros operation (still waiting on my hefty check from shadowy leftist operatives!); that we just want an excuse to vote Democrat; that we actually LIKE abortion. Other criticisms we have received deserve an answer: such as, “are you not aware of the many crisis pregnancy centers already doing this?” (answer: yes, we are, and we applaud their work; we just think that we need a far larger social safety net) – or “why are you only focusing on decreasing abortion demand?” (several reasons, among which is: if we reduce demand, reduction of supply will far more easily follow).

Austin Ruse’s has made the accusation is that we are out to destroy the pro-life movement. Since this accusation made the rounds in Crisis, a publication popular with certain Catholics, we thought it might be a good idea to respond and dispel the illusions.

Ruse didn’t bother to interview us, or use any quotations from any of our writings. Here’s what he has to say:

But, as I see it, the New Pro-Live Movement is not really interested in establishing a new pro-life movement. Read their overheated rhetoric and you will see their real interest is in destroying the pro-life movement that has brought us closer and closer to ending abortion in America.

This is simply false. Fellow NPLM founder Matthew Tyson and I respond:

Ruse rests his odd conclusion on two basic assumptions: first, that the steady decline in abortion rates is due wholly to the tactics of the mainstream pro-life movement; secondly, that opposition to abortion inevitably resides with a Republican party-line.

To the first of these, let me say: yes, the pro-life movement has done much great work. Since a number of us in the NPLM have been involved in pro-life work our entire adult lives, we know this to be true. But we also know that much of the decline of the abortion rate is due to social causes as well: greater access to health care; a removal of the stigma on single mothers; more reliable social safety nets.

Our option to focus on eliminating demand for abortion arises out of our rejection of the culture-war paradigm, and our belief that simply ending abortion will not end injustice. The majority of abortions happen due to economic distress. And abortion is not pleasant, not pretty. It’s not something women want. Most pro-choice advocates recognize this, also. So when we see poor working women, many of whom have children already, choosing this very unpleasant and often traumatizing procedure, we can’t assume that they’re driven by hedonism or hatred of babies. We need to ask: what is driving her to make this choice? And how can we eliminate these pressures of injustice?

Ruse is correct, at least, in that we are critical of political movement leadership, especially the alliance with the Republican Party:

…we do take issue with those who vote against abortion, but then vote against government policies that would provide these supports to women and families. We think that “social justice” and “pro-life” can not be separated from each other. And indeed, in earlier times, being a pro-life Catholic also meant being a social-justice Catholic. This recent divide is artificial, and harmful. Thus, we dispute Ruse’s second point: that “[o]ne must be pro-abortion in the Democrat Party. Pro-lifers have no home there even if they are “better” on the minimum wage.”

While we applaud the good work of pro-life workers in the trenches, we are very critical of where movement leadership has headed. Consideration of abortion outside a consistent life ethic leads to the absurdity of granting the label “pro-life” to political leaders who give lip service to opposing abortion, while at the same time advocating unjust war, torture, capital punishment, and deportation of refugees. We think that being truly pro-life means not just saying “no abortions!” — but creating social frameworks in which choosing life is a truly realistic option. Under Republican leadership, it is very unlikely that abortion will become illegal, and very likely that policies would be enacted that actually lead to an increase of abortion rates. Moreover, making abortion illegal will not necessarily reduce abortion rates significantly, unless we also remove the causes that drive women to choose abortion. Eliminate these — and many of the arguments against making it illegal will disappear.

So, why DID we found the New Pro Life Movement?

not to “destroy” anyone, but to distance ourselves from a trend in which the pro-life cause has been appropriated by political leaders who do not care about life, or by zealots who have reduced activism to performance art. We want to create a more inclusive movement that believes protection of the unborn and social justice are not separate issues, that seeks to eliminate the social ills that drive women to abort in the first place, and that is dedicated to protecting, supporting, and sustaining all life from conception to natural death.

Because we reject the culture war approach, we are not interested in turning this into a battle over branding, or a slanging contest. We hope that all people who uphold life and oppose injustice can work together.

new pro-life movement

republican party

social justice

Previous Post

December 2, 2016

all these years of yoga, and I'm still not possessed

Next Post

December 4, 2016 do we long for the justice of the lord - or do we fear it?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abortion anti-semitism art Atwood Betrothed church clergy abuse coronavirus culture economics education environmentalism ethics faith family feminism gardening gun violence immigration Judaism literature MaddAddam New Pro Life Movement news pandemic personalism poem politics politics blue Pope Francis racism religion salvation sexuality social justice spirituality Station eleven Stephen King The Stand Trump Uncategorized war World Health Organization

Select a Month 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

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which branch of Christianity traces its leadership back to the Apostle Peter?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Lutheran United Church of Christ Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox

Support this
Column