More than a decade ago I was part of what is known as the “pro-life” movement. More than a bit part but a major player. I wrote columns for their magazines and newspapers, and spoke at their conferences. It’s not something of which I’m proud, but we change, grow, and evolve. At least that’s what’s supposed to happen. Pastoral ministry — I’m now an Anglican priest — has a sobering effect, however, and teaches us about the nuances of the human condition. Anybody who swims in the waters of certainty has never spent time with people drowning in daily reality.
I’d still like abortion rates to drop, but I also hold women’s choice to be fundamental and even sacred, and something we must always be prepared to defend. Apart from being immoral, criminalization wouldn’t prevent abortion but merely make it terribly dangerous for women.
Abortion rates would and do decline, however, when we provide universal, publicly funded daycare, enforced paternity payments, modern sex education in all schools, make contraceptives freely available, and try to eradicate poverty and empower women.
The bitter irony is that many— probably most—so-called pro-lifers oppose these policies, which leads me to believe that they’re more concerned with control than life. But then I think that most of us knew that already. The situation is far worse, of course, south of the border, where anti-abortionists lead the campaign to close borders, fight wars, and maintain the death penalty. Hardly champions of life.
Britain has generally dealt with the issue in a fairly civilized and intelligent way, and recently passed a law to establish buffer zones around abortion clinics. The intimidation or harassment of anybody within 150 metres of a clinic would lead to a fine, six months imprisonment, or two years of incarceration for repeat offences. The vote was 297 to 110, and this in a heavily Conservative House of Commons. All parties gave support apart from the hard-line Protestant Democratic Unionists.
Which led, inevitably, to opponents of women’s choice making their opposition very public. Before you could even say “Donald Trump for President,” Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, the director of an anti-abortion group named March for Life UK, was arrested outside a clinic in Birmingham, in the British midlands. She was praying. She was charged with four counts of violating the new law.
Ms. Vaughan-Spruce is a well-known anti-abortion activist, and she’s being defended by the Alliance Defending Freedom UK, the British branch of the US conservative legal advocacy group of the same name, who are closely connected to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, former vice president Mike Pence, and numerous senior right-wing figures. They’ve argued against abortion rights, the legalization of same-sex marriage, and defended business owners who refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings. No surprises here.
But all this aside, some basic truths need to be made clear.
First, Vaughan-Spruce’s defenders argue that she was only praying. Yet if like me you genuinely believe in the power of prayer, and pray regularly, you know that it’s about sincerity rather than proximity. I pray for people all over the world, and regard God as being capable of taking more than local calls! It’s actually a denial of God and of prayer, and entirely inconsistent if only these zealots would stop and think about it.
Second, women entering clinics are often vulnerable, frightened, and alone, and have reported finding opponents praying to be painful and difficult. As one young woman said to me, “Let them pray by all means, let them protest if they like, but not here and now. This is my body, and my incredibly difficult experience.”
Third, let’s be honest. In such cases, arrest is often the desired outcome. It’s why there are always supporters ready to film the situation. It leads to publicity, financial support (organized fundraising is well underway), and the sense of martyrdom that’s so central to the cause.
Fourth, of course it’s meant to “intimidate” and “harass.” Why else would closeness matter, and why do anti-abortion media platforms celebrate each time a woman has her mind changed and walks away from her appointment?
Fifth, the very media championing Vaughan-Spruce routinely condemn progressive Christians when we pray and speak for migrants, refugees, and the poor. We’re always being told to keep politics out of religion.
My prayer? That moderation and human rights will triumph over extremism and intolerance, and that we can listen rather than proclaim. And I don’t have to make that prayer outside the offices of an anti-abortion organization for God to hear it.
