The nation (largely social media) has been in an uproar since a draft of a preliminary decision by the U.S. Supreme Court was leaked that would overturn Roe v. Wade. I hesitate to write about this, primarily due to the obvious fact that this isn’t a final, official decision. As Chief Justice Roberts and every other sane legal analyst has explained, this draft dates to February. Changes can be made, whether in the votes of Justices or in the actual language of the opinion.
Additionally, the fact that we only have this document due to an egregious violation of legal and professional ethics by a still to be named leaker should make us all reticent to wade into lengthy discussions. In a very practical sense, such discussions reward the leaker. It’s much like a prosecuting attorney who provokes his star witness to say something from the stand inadmissible in the case simply so that the jurors will hear it, and perhaps be swayed by it. While the judge may advise jurors to disregard such information, a good attorney knows that the jury can’t “unhear it.”
Nevertheless, abortion is an issue most of us have spent extensive time thinking about, reading about, and praying about. Only recently some of my church members have begun praying through a special prayer guide produced by the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission anticipating the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Therefore, due to the regular, persistent prayer of so many of us to see abortion end in this country, and the fact that the topic is on so many minds, I want to offer four reflections on the state of affairs concerning abortion. The first two relate to the perspectives of honest, responsible citizens, and the second two relate particularly to concerned Christians.
First, Roe v. Wade and the subject of abortion have been divisive, conflicted issues for approximately half a century. The commentary, legal efforts, publications, campaign messaging, and sheer dollars associated with them is impossible to calculate precisely. Anyone who pretends that a cozy consensus has been or is on the verge of being disrupted isn’t being honest. Legally, had Roe been truly definitive, Planned Parenthood v. Casey wouldn’t have been needed in 1992 to revise and reaffirm aspects of it. Socially and politically, we wouldn’t see current political candidates at nearly all levels of government asked about their views on the subject. There are more than a few clues that reveal the shakiness of any consensus on the matter.
People who desire to preserve the status quo on the legality of abortion often point to the consistent findings of polls and surveys over the last five decades. A plurality of Americans always indicate that they want to see Roe upheld. Yet the same surveys indicate that people believe that overturning Roe would outlaw abortion entirely, though it wouldn’t. It’s a good reminder to pollsters of the old truism that how you word a question makes a big difference. More importantly, it’s useless to ask the public how they feel about a specific court decision that literally none of them have read, and in many cases, don’t actually understand. It’s tantamount to asking how I feel about electric cars, versus how I feel about a Tesla Model 3. I have a gut-level sense of how to answer the first (though I don’t own an electric car), and no sense of how to answer the latter.
Second, Americans should be a bit more preoccupied right now by the leak of this document than the potential outcome itself. I didn’t say, “We should care more about leaks than unborn babies.” What I’m saying is that we think Roe is highly likely to be overturned based on what we’re reading, but we don’t know yet. What we do know is that one of the few public institutions in our country that enjoys higher levels of trust from the public than most others has seen that trust violated. David French shares the possible reasons for the draft being leaked:
Why leak the draft? Of course we don’t truly know the leaker’s motivation because we don’t know who leaked, and he or she hasn’t told us why they did it. But Occam’s razor points to a single word—pressure. The leak almost certainly represents an effort to influence the court. The motive for a left-wing leak seems pretty clear. The goal would be to galvanize a public response in the hopes of triggering a massive backlash that would cause one or more justices to think twice before voting to reverse Roe.
French goes on to say that motives abound for a right-wing leak, too. It could be that an angry conservative clerk leaked this as a majority opinion that might have existed had a particular Justice not caved (assuming the votes change). Relatedly, the “leaker may know that a justice is wobbling and might want to leak to lock in his or her vote, so that he or she won’t be seen as caving to the mob.”
But listen carefully to French summarize the seriousness of the leak:
The leak represents an extraordinary breach of norms that dramatically undermines the process of deliberation and damages the legitimacy of the court. If the leaker is a court clerk, he or she should be fired and disbarred. If the leaker is a justice, he or she should be impeached and convicted… Leaks open up justices to threats and pressure. Leaks mean that justices can’t trust their colleagues or their clerks. And this leak in particular comes at a time when America’s public institutions face a crisis of public trust. It has dragged the court into the muck and mire at precisely the time when the justices—individually and collectively—had done an admirable job at preserving the institution’s independence and credibility.
I’ve been concerned for years about leaks, especially in ongoing investigations involving public officials or high-profile civilians. Just look at all the investigations into former President Trump, or many of the cases concerning police-involved shootings. We often later learn that crucial details leaked early on were false or misleading. Even when some details are true, there’s a proper legal context for that kind of information: grand juries, congressional hearings, etc.
Frankly, we’ve become desensitized to the breach of trust that leaks create between citizens and the justice system or other notable institutions. Such breaches in procedure prejudice the public against those under investigation, but it does something perhaps even worse: it incentivizes more leaking because it communicates that leakers will be rewarded.
Don’t misunderstand; we’re not talking about legitimate whistleblowers coming forward and rightly enjoying legal protection. But each time an opportunistic and/or politically motivated journalist, political staffer, or the like disseminate confidential or unverified information, they further the erode the rights, institutions, and civilization they claim to be protecting.
Third, conservative Christians have labored for decades to see the tide turn against abortion legally and culturally. As many pro-life activists have noted, the purpose of their movement isn’t to make abortion illegal; it’s to make it unthinkable. I like that, however ambitious it may be. It rightly points to a deeper concern for how we as a society see unborn life and their parents.
Even if this initial draft ends up being the final draft, the legal reasoning doesn’t go as far as to say that unborn life should be granted all the rights and protections of a citizen or person. This ruling would simply return such questions to the states.
The sad, sobering truth that we must reckon with is that regardless of what the decision issued is, we’re inhabit a society of profound confusion concerning sex, childbearing, parental responsibility, and marriage. While one should rejoice in a just legal ruling, any rejoicing should be tempered by the reality that the dominant social imaginary of American culture is radical, bodily autonomy. The plausibility structures of our day make it incredibly difficult for many of our neighbors to understand why a private citizen’s bodily behavior (sexually or medically) should be curtailed in any way by laws and norms.
The climate I’m describing is seen clearly in the infamous words of Justice Anthony Kennedy. In the second most significant abortion-related case of all time, Casey, Kennedy wrote this: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Perhaps no two sentences better exemplify the postmodern spirit of our age. If the leaked draft stands, the legal cache of Kennedy’s words will suffer. However, they will still describe our present age far too well.
All isn’t hopeless. There are many unbelievers with conservative instincts about family, sex, economics, and the like. They understand that there is something called “nature,” and to go against it is to invite serious consequences. For example, even recently we’ve seen a widely discussed secular account of why moral standards that reduce legitimate sexual relationships to consent is insufficient for human flourishing. A few generations of Americans have lived with the reality of so-called liberated sexuality, no-fault divorce, and abortion on demand. The causalities are profound. In God’s common grace, God reveals through such experiences that something is broken in the way people think and live in His world.
I simply want to stress that any actual, eventual legal victory is indeed a victory, but flag the word “legal.” It refers to laws, customs, and behaviors. Being able to stop abortions (behaviors) from happening in my state or you in yours is a true blessing, but our work on this issue continues as we try to persuade people to see life, marriage, sex, and children differently.
This reflection overlaps with a fourth and final one: Christians and churches who have prayed for this moment but not prepared for it must shift into gear now. For all the tragedies of evangelicalism in the last half century (both real and perceived), one of the great triumphs is the compassionate and generous ministry of crisis pregnancy centers. Whether you live in a so-called blue state or red state, you probably have some facility within a reasonable distance that exists to encourage expectant mothers to choose life and to facilitate them in that choice through the duration of their pregnancy. In most cases, such facilities assist for a year or more beyond the child’s delivery (assuming they don’t place their children for adoption).
Many evangelical churches have volunteered at such centers and provided the bulk of their funding. They understand that it’s not enough to articulate the right view on abortion from pulpits. We must also get down on the ground-level where people live. Here we find those who’ve made mistakes who need to be convinced that (1) the life produced isn’t a mistake, and (2) they don’t have to walk through their situation alone.
While many have done exemplary work, too many Christians’ words condemning abortion have far exceeded their actions to prevent abortion. As important and essential as voting for pro-life candidates is, it has always been insufficient. Serving desperate or shortsighted mothers and fathers through compassionate support and Gospel-oriented hope is indispensable.
Whether Christians in the future find themselves in states where abortion is illegal, or where it has been (grotesquely) legalized up through the partial-birth moment, we need to be steadfast in living the pro-life ethic. Our congregations need to be mobilized like never before to welcome those who’ve made mistakes. Some will be seeking healing from past abortions. Other women need a buffer between them and a parent or partner trying to strong-arm them into an abortion. Some young women who are professing Christians will be pregnant due to immorality. They and the men involved need to be dealt with in a way that links accountability and discipline with forgiveness and reconciliation.
There are an endless number of situations that transpire in our communities in which we need to be prepared to minister. If Roe falls, that responsibility will not only continue. If anything, it will be heightened. Let’s pray that we’re up to the task.
Related Reading:
“What Alito Got Right” by David French
“The Irrational, Misguided Discourse Surrounding Supreme Court Controversies Such as Roe v. Wade” by Glenn Greenwald
“Roe v Wade is Ending” by Erick-Woods Erickson