“Pro-Life”: The Great Republican Scam

Sean M Pyle
10 min readNov 8, 2020

This post was originally written August 6th, 2020

For decades, white Evangelical voters have prioritized abortion at the ballot box, essentially making some of them “single-issue voters.” The result is widespread Evangelical support of Republican politicians.

This is a mistake.

The two guiding questions of the abortion debate are as follows:

  1. At what point does the fetus’ right to life surpass the mother’s right to bodily autonomy?
  2. Who should decide the answer to #1?

The subjectivity of #1 is what makes question #2, the more relevant question, so contentious. This subjectivity arises outside of religious circles as well, with some secular communities also wielding vastly different ideas as to what degree abortion is a morally acceptable act.

Add in the potential circumstances of rape, incest, and pregnancies that threaten the mother’s life, and you are inevitably left with a vast array of different beliefs about the legality of abortion in varying circumstances.

The impossible task of determining a line everyone agrees with is what pushes some pro-choice advocates to argue that the mother herself is the most appropriate agent to make a decision so personal to her.

On the other side, those who strongly believe that both life and personhood begin at conception view abortion akin to murder and don’t think a just society can have any form of legal abortion.

On the Christian side in particular, there is little room for dissent. This speaks for itself when you consider the concessions that some Christians (and theists in general) make to vote for a candidate who rhetorically supports the unborn.

And it’s a huge error, even with the most aggressive assumption of a fetus’ right to life. Even if you view any abortion post-conception as murder, voting Republican solely for the pro-life position ignores the countless other ways innocent life is ended due to policy decisions, the methods that actually reduce abortions, and the Republican Party’s strategic harnessing of the controversial issue for political power.

Preserving Innocent Life?

Like mentioned earlier, this post (for the sake of argument) assumes the “any abortion = murder” position. According to the CDC, 623,471 abortions took place in 2016.

The other relevant data piece is how the abortions are spread out throughout different periods of the pregnancy. An overwhelming number of abortions occur in the first trimester, with an extreme drop in numbers during the second and third. To many, this is relevant information, as their approval of abortion changes pretty radically throughout the fetus’ development. But for the argument that is being assumed in this post, there isn’t a moral difference between an abortion 8 weeks in and one before the child is born, as they are both murder, equivalent to a man shooting another on the street.

If viewed from this perspective, the statistics above are distressing. However, the prioritization of abortion is where problems emerge. When looking at the other ways American policies hurt innocent lives, it becomes clear that the unborn are not the only group that deserve advocacy. Some Republican voters solely prioritize the unborn, while not fairly considering the groups to be mentioned.

The first group are the embryos that are disposed of due to “embryo wastage,” which is defined by this study as embryos intended for use in assisted reproductive technology that do not ultimately lead to “live birth.” While “hard data” for the number of embryos that are disposed of through this process aren’t available, the study indicates that Embryo Wastage rates ranged from 83.2% to 76.5% during the 2004–2013 span covered by the research. By the definition of abortion’s morality assumed in this post, this Embryo Wastage percentage implies that murder (or at least death) is happening within a large scale in fertility clinics. What can a pro-life absolutist do with this information? Only the following scenarios seem plausible:

  1. The pro-life advocate is already aware of Embryo Wastage and advocates for it similarly to his or her advocacy for “traditional” pro-life legislation.
  2. The pro-life advocate becomes aware of this information and extends equal force/energy to combating Embryo Wastage as they do traditional abortion.
  3. The pro-life advocate argues that Embryo Wastage and traditional abortion are somehow different.
  4. The pro-life advocate concedes that the act of Embryo Wastage and medical abortion are morally the same, but that the former is more justified due to being a necessary reality of the hardships associated with assisted reproductive technology.

The first two are the only reasonable choices. The 3rd doesn’t make sense, at least in any argument I can conceive. The 4th has true aspects; assisted reproductive technology is fundamentally tricky, but couldn’t one say that medical abortion fundamentally occurs due to outside factors, primarily socioeconomic elements? If Embryo Wastage is a consequence of inadequate medical science, isn’t abortion a consequence of inadequate socioeconomic conditions? In addition, if ART is so risky and involves so much Embryo Wastage, how can a pro-life absolutist justify its existence at all?

Regardless, the lack of outcry about Embryo Wastage indicates that abortion is specifically politicized for ulterior motives. One can’t blame the average person for being unaware of these numbers, but the politicians who represent pro-life voters are either unaware of a basic hypocrisy outlining their fervent pro-life rhetoric or unaware of the actual practice of Embryo Wastage; one of these choices reeks of deception, while the other does of incompetence.

But what other U.S policies cost innocent human life?

I write about the United States’ healthcare system in another post, but to summarize, estimates of the lives lost to health insurance range from 20–60,000. What about the death (both suicide and homicide) that arises from gun violence? What about the separation of families at the border, which is not technically death, but inflicts profoundly distressing emotional pain on those who undergo it? Or Republican attempts to gut the welfare state, essentially turning their back on the mother and the child once he or she is “born” rather than “unborn?”

Foreign policy paints the picture even darker. Conservatively, around 182,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a consequence of the US-Iraq war, which was a war decision that was at best blunderous and at worst sheer evil — the result of corruption, greed, and the military-industrial complex. The deaths that arise from US foreign policy decisions are countless, and deserve their own writing, but the premise is clear: innocent lives are lost in ways other than abortion. Pro-life advocates should consider voting in a way that is more nuanced than simplifying GOP to the party of life’s sanctity and their opposition as its grim reaper.

Of course, someone could hash out the numbers and say that abortion is killing more people than everything else I listed combined, but doing so is a coldly utilitarian way of examining the issue and offers absolute no credit to the possibility of a fetus and a grown adult possessing different levels of personhood. Of course, that is a stance ultimately taken by some, so to follow through on this post’s premise, more investigation is required.

The logical move for a pro-life adherent is to support a political system that is as holistically pro-life as possible, factoring in the numerous other ways political systems in the United States terminate innocent life. Focusing on abortion, while abandoning these other areas, is a logical leap if the motivating ideological principle is the preservation of innocent life. But let’s say a voter ignores this, or accepts it but still decides that reducing abortions is the priority for them at the ballot box. What is the correct option to accomplish this?

Do Republican presidents reduce abortion rates?

A historic look at Republican presidents doesn’t suggest so. This article features interesting data points regarding the ebbs and flows of abortion rates from now back into Reagan’s presidency. Below are some numbers. Each president will be listed, along with the start and endpoint of abortion rates in their respective terms.

Ronald Reagan

Began at 24/23 per 1,000 women

Ended at 24 per 1,000 women

George H. W. Bush

Began at 24 per 1,000 women

Ended at 23 per 1,000 women

Bill Clinton

Began at 23 per 1,000 women

Ended at 16.2 per thousand women

George W. Bush

Began at 16 per 1,000 women

Ended at 15.8 per 1000 women

Barack Obama

Began at 15 per 1,000 women

Ended at 12.5 per 1,000 women

Here is a chart cited by the Quartz article:

The GOP, defenders of the unborn, appear to produce smaller reductions in abortion numbers than their opposition. How could this be? As the article from Quartz suggests, “access to contraception is more effective in reducing the number of abortions than regulation that controls access — and under Democratic leadership, access to affordable contraception has increased.”

What about the Republicans?

“On the other hand, George. W Bush pushed for funding abstinence-only sex education, and throughout the Obama administration, the Republican party has consistently attempted to limit the contraception access provided by the ACA.”

The Republican strategy to prevent abortions is predicated on legislating it away from existence, but the data bear out that such an endeavor is not as fruitful as a preventative approach.

To be fair, establishing direct causation between presidents and abortion is difficult due to the many factors that contribute to abortion numbers, but one thing is clear: Republican presidents aren’t producing laws or movements that are making massive downward shifts in abortion totals, let alone to an extent that would justify a person voting for pro-life policy in single-issue fashion. The obvious downward trend of abortion, in general, is also worth noting, as it downplays the notion one might have that abortions are happening at a record pace “in an increasingly secularized culture” or that Democratic presidents open the floodgates to unprecedented infant genocide. Abortion numbers are going down, which I think everyone agrees is a good thing.

But to further solidify the conclusion that preventative measures, like sex-ed and contraception, are better than anti-abortion laws, an examination of other countries is needed.

An article from NBC News has a title that may sound counter-intuitive: “Abortion rates go down when countries make it legal.” Citing a study from the Guttmacher Institute, author Maggie Fox states that abortion rates are positively correlated to restrictive abortion laws, while negatively correlated to increased access to birth control. A deeper dive into the study displays a helpful infographic:

The abortion rate doesn’t fluctuate much across these different groupings. These numbers indicate a #/thousand, meaning that 58 out of 1000 women had an unintended pregnancy in countries where abortion is “broadly legal.” Notice the countries with “broadly legal” and “prohibited altogether” approaches to abortion have similar abortion numbers, with the “some restrictions” groupings settling just underneath both. The difference between the groupings in unintended pregnancies is more staggering and suggests that countries with less severe abortion laws may have more progressive offerings in regards to sex education and access to contraception.

Furthermore, American abortion rates are higher than countries that are generally more progressive than them. The data here below came from this site.

The United States has an abortion rate significantly higher than many countries to its economic and social left. It does not seem a leap of logic to assume that countries with more sophisticated welfare states and safety nets have fewer abortions, as abortions are more a product of sociological factors than any individual’s choice. Perhaps making leftward shifts in policy is ironically exactly what pro-life advocates need to happen to further their goals and visions for the country.

Are Republicans completely unaware of these realities? Like mentioned earlier, unawareness is incompetence, but incompetence here is the best-case scenario. If they are not incompetent, they are aware of the hypocrisy they espouse but ignore it for the political advantages it gives them.

And the advantages are substantial. Donald Trump, perhaps the least religious president in recent history, or maybe ever, is given a pass by Christian groups for his truly unsettling rhetoric and divisiveness because of his pandering to the pro-life movement. But this hypocrisy goes beyond Trump. The Republicans in general, with their free-market sycophancy, desire to cut the welfare state, intolerance for immigration, disregard of criminal justice reform (and social justice in general) seem like a terrible fit for a Christian, yet those who self-label themselves as so voted for Trump in droves.

Abortion was not always a partisan issue, as this Vox article points out. When Richard Nixon found success advocating for the pro-life movement in his 1972 campaign, the Republicans pushed the gas on abortion. The electoral benefit of promoting pro-life groups and legislation in their platforms was too obvious for them to ignore, and the result is the insanely partisan split on the issue today. While I can’t speak for every Christian, the rationalization of voting Republican appears to start by presupposing that the GOP is “the proper Christian party” because of abortion, then force-fitting the rest of the party’s ideas (including economic ideas sourced from Ayn Rand’s explicitly atheist Objectivism?) into the Christian box.

The unborn are a spectacularly convenient group to advocate for, as Dave Barnhart, a Methodist pastor, brilliantly states:

This scathing indictment of the religious right hits many strong chords, and the general premise that ‘the unborn” are a political pawn of the right to secure power and voting blocs is undeniably true. After all, if Republicans really wanted to reduce abortions, they’d increase access to birth control, or provide a safety net, one demonstrated possible throughout the first world, that would make mothers less scared to bring a child into the world. If they really valued life, they wouldn’t be on the wrong side of literally every issue that negatively impacts innocent life.

To me, it is obvious that the Republicans aren’t incompetent; they are charlatans, securing political capital through an eerily transparent scam.

--

--