The expected overturning of the Roe vs. Wade decision, or at least the upholding of the State of Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, will create a very new situation in the struggle to save pre-born life. Substantial pro-life legislation, based on serious argument about the humanity of unborn children and the needs of mothers in crisis pregnancy situations will be possible. To this point, only modest restrictions on abortion to alleviate the most egregious killing of unborn children near the time of natural birth has been possible.
Dealing with the new environment, in which abortions can be made a more difficult alternative, will be pro-life organizations that have been active for years. Among them is the Human Coalition, whose Vice President for Human Relations, the Rev. Dean Nelson, spoke to a recent Faith and Law forum, along with pro-life lawyer Chelsea Youman, State Director of the Human Coalition in Texas, and advisor to the national organization.
Rev. Nelson briefly described the work of the Human Coalition. He said that Human Coalition seeks to directly engage women considering abortion using the Internet and the highly connected world of electronic communication it has made possible. The organization connects with women seeking abortions on their cell phones with offers of help. Women who respond are then engaged to determine the specific needs connected with their pregnancy and directed to a pro-life pregnancy center. The activity of pregnancy centers involves confirming the pregnancy with a pregnancy test and providing help and encouragement to avoid abortion with services based on their particular situations.
Nelson said that the Coalition’s Internet research shows a substantial population interested in abortion – 12 million searches on “abortion related terms” occur every month on the Internet, while one million women per year actually seek an abortion in the United States. The Human Coalition discovered that the physical environments which are provided to talk with women considering abortion mattered in engaging them about their situations – calming environments were best for communication and pro-life response. He said that 76 percent of the women they engage “would choose to parent if their circumstances were different.” He said that barriers to motherhood cited included “financial, housing, employment, and education” problems.
The Human Coalition works closely with the African American Church of God in Christ to assist women who are considering abortion. The Coalition’s goal is to move women from “a place of dependency to a place of independence” while still preserving the lives of their children. Helping the church do this is important, since the church is “the critical, sometimes missing link” in dealing with women who do not know where to turn to deal with the problems presented by the prospect of being a mother.
Nelson pointed to Texas, which has enacted a heartbeat law prohibiting abortion after a heartbeat is detected via ultrasound as an example of what a post-Roe world would look like. Passage of the law was greeted with an “uproar,” and attempts by the Biden Administration to “undercut” the law. But although there was a hostile reaction, the law prevailed at the Supreme Court and “today over a hundred children a day are alive” because the heartbeat bill is law. He also said the pro-abortion groups working in Texas shifted their focus to taking women out of Texas to obtain abortions. Ensuring that an abortion happened appeared to be their real concern, in contrast to the pro-life engagement of pregnant women in difficult situations. Nelson said that as pro-life forces were working for the passage of the heartbeat bill, they were also working to ensure that “there would be increased resources for women.” Texas’ Alternatives to Abortion program funding was by increased $100 million “to the largest amount that it has ever been.”
A legislative approach used by the Human Coalition, which will reasonably be of greater importance in the new legal regime following the issuance of a decision in the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case (in which the right to abortion is being challenged), is to try to be as non-partisan as possible. The coalition works with Democrats for Life. Cross-aisle alliances will be especially important in swing states, to both serve women and save unborn children.
Youman observed that after years of working with women who find pregnancy a problem, the pro-life movement has “a wealth of information” regarding the reasons pregnancy is seen as a problem, when three fourths of the women they engage want to parent their unborn child. It includes problems in housing, employment, and, for 60 percent of such women, having an added child to feed. Pro-life organizations need to closely support these women. Among other things, she said that the Every Mother Matters Act (proposed in Texas and passed in Arkansas) could be a model for states that outlaw much or most abortion. This requires that before any woman obtains a legal abortion, she receives an offer of assistance. This will also greatly help women who are being trafficked, since women enslaved for prostitution almost always obtain abortions if they happen to become pregnant.
Youman emphasized that the goal of assisting women in crisis pregnancy situations is to render the woman independent, not dependent for the long-term, with the unborn child’s life saved. She cited as an example an unemployed woman, living in her car with a seventeen year old son. The Human Coalition placed the son with his grandmother, found a job for the homeless woman, and gave her finance and parenting classes. The pregnancy produced another son, and two years later she had a house to live in and could accommodate both sons.
Such work can be done by pro-life organizations, but also by state alternatives to abortion programs. The Human Coalition maintains a public service staff of “licensed professionals, whether they’re counselors, nurses, social workers, healthcare workers, etc.” The coalition’s database contains 7,000 resources to help women with problem pregnancies, he said. There are also 2,700 pregnancy centers in the United States. Thus, there is a strong infrastructure to deal with a world in which abortion becomes largely illegal.
Youman added that after the enactment of Texas heartbeat law on September 1, 2021, instead of a massive influx of women seeking help because they could not get a legal abortion in Texas, many women “breathed a sigh of relief.” But this was not surprising, since “64% of women getting abortions feel coerced into getting their abortion,”
In a question and answer session, Nelson said that in amenable state legislatures, there could be line-item appropriations for pro-life organizations to assist women with problem pregnancies. Youman added that “it’s actually cheaper to serve a woman and stabilize her circumstances than it is to abort her child. It’s half the cost.” Working with women through pro-life organizations to enable them to support both themselves and their children is far preferable to “an influx in foster care” after abortion becomes illegal.
Another questioner asked about (presumably conservative) lawmakers concerned about funding social safety net programs to help women in crisis pregnancies. Youman said that this is an issue, but as “the pro-family party,” many Republican legislators do understand the “need to care for and stabilize families in our midst.” She said that Florida recently enacted a “fatherlessness” program. It needs to be stressed that in programs to care for women in crisis pregnancy “every single woman has a personalized plan” to make her independent. There is “an exit strategy.” She observed that “by simply offering resources, we can decrease abortion by 40 percent.”
Nelson said that 98 percent of the women who engaged the services of Human Coalition found them good to recommend to others. This obviously included even women who went on to obtain abortions. But providing services to women in crisis pregnancies is very important to their decision to keep their children.
Another questioner asked what could be done at the federal level if there is a pro-life Congress. Youman said that a federal “alternatives to abortion program” would be an excellent idea, which could be done as a line-item in federal legislation. While wanting to be bipartisan, she said that it would be a “winning strategy” for Republicans, with Democrats reluctant to vote against a program to support women. She said that first trimester care is most important to the future health of both a mother and her child.
Nelson and Youman clearly showed that the pro-life movement has a size, interest, and staying power to do much more than simply making abortion illegal, and campaigning against it where it is still legal. It will act in a sustained way to surmount the problems that lead to so many women choosing abortion. This certainly includes legally eliminating a situation where abortion is a legal choice and women experience social pressure to have an abortion, but also involves addressing through social services the individual life situations of women for whom raising a child (or another child) would be exceptionally difficult. It is an exceptional example of loving our neighbor, both mother and child.
No comments yet
