Month: January 2020

Want fewer abortions? The evidence suggests you should vote Democrat

Today was the annual “March For Life,” the largest pro-life demonstration in the US, hosted in Washington DC on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It’s particularly significant this year because Donald Trump was the first sitting US president to attend in its 47-year history (I won’t dwell on the latent hypocrisy of having Trump speak, who was staunchly pro-choice until recently and is said to have paid for as many as eight of his lovers’ abortions). At the March For Life, all of the pro-life speakers and marchers wish to see fewer abortions, and the vast majority believe that voting for Republicans like Donald Trump are the way to do it.

But what if that’s not the case? What if, despite their pro-choice rhetoric, Democrats actually have the best path to fewer abortions? And what if, despite their pro-life rhetoric, Republican policies lead to an increase in the number of abortions?

New York Times, January 24, 2020

Obama’s Legacy

In 2008, many evangelicals voted for John McCain over Barack Obama, and one of their main stated reasons was that Obama had stated support for overturning the ban against so-called “partial-birth abortions”, a statistically rare but very graphic procedure. During his eight years in office, that issue never actually came up, and the ban stayed in place.

Interestingly enough, despite being “pro-choice,” President Obama actually presided over the largest decrease in abortion the United States has ever seen. By the time Obama left office, abortion rates were at their lowest since the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973. This was not due to states passing anti-abortion laws: in fact, states that limited abortion, such as Mississippi, saw an increase in the number of abortions. So why did abortions rates fall nationally? The main reason is that Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) increased access to cheap, effective, contraceptives. In barely two years after Obamacare was passed, the rate of unplanned pregnancies had already dropped by 6%.

It’s incredibly simple: when there are fewer unplanned pregnancies, there are fewer abortions.

Because cheap, easy access to contraception prevents unplanned pregnancies from ever happening, it serves as a more effective prevention of abortion (at least as compared to working on the back end to try to ban/convince women from procuring an abortion after they’re already pregnant).

Why the rhetoric doesn’t match reality

If Obama’s policies indeed lowered the abortion rate, why is it that Democrats don’t get any credit among the people at March For Life? Well, it’s a bit complicated. In the early 90s, Bill Clinton pioneered the phrase that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” This promoted the Democrat’s pro-choice platform, while still making room for pro-life advocates. But in 2016, Hillary Clinton’s platform severed the word “rare,” because it seemed to compromise the party’s pro-choice position. In a tight race, the Clinton campaign gambled that it was worth doing this to bolster the enthusiasm of her left flank–but at the ultimate expense of pro-life Democrats and independents.

It feels to me that even a small shift in Democrats’ rhetoric in 2020 could help them capture back pro-life voters who dislike Donald Trump but aren’t enthusiastic about abortion. There are a number of prominent activist groups espousing a “consistent life ethic” who fit in well with the Democratic Party on every other issue–anti-pollution, social welfare, anti-death penalty, anti-war, etc…except for abortion. If Democrats would simply argue–”We will defend abortion rights at all costs, but please notice that we are also doing more to decrease the need for abortion in the first place than the Republicans ever would”– that feels to me like a winning argument for them.

Of course, that’s all hypothetical. I’m not sure if any leading Democrats would make that argument in 2020, and certainly not right now in the primaries when they are trying to win over the staunchest liberals.

Decision time

So what’s a pro-life voter to do? Ultimately, I would argue that, despite being counter-intuitive, the evidence suggests that a vote for Republicans is a vote for more abortions, and a vote for Democrats is a vote for fewer abortions. There are three main reasons for this:

  1. Contraception. Republicans hate government-funded healthcare, particularly when it comes to contraception. Since 2016 they have fought tooth and nail to repeal Obamacare and to prevent government funding for contraception. If more Republicans are elected, they will continue make it more costly and difficult to have contraceptives, which will likely lead to more unplanned pregnancies (and thus more abortions). In contrast, if Democrats are elected, they will work for cheaper, more widespread access to contraceptives which will lead to fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer abortions.
  2. Social safety nets. One of the main reasons women choose to have an abortion is socioeconomic–they fear that they will not have the support they need to raise a child: cheap healthcare, fair wages, paid maternity leave, quality schools, etc. In general, Democrats want to increase the amount of assistance that goes to poor people, while Republicans want to cut it off. When there is a stronger safety net for women, it decreases the need for abortion, so if more Democrats are elected in 2020 we will likely see a continued decrease in the abortion rate.
  3. Comprehensive sex education. In recent years, the rate of teen pregnancies has dropped to record lows. The explanations are varied, but one of the key factors is the rise of comprehensive sex education that teaches teenagers about topics like contraception. In general, Republicans are opposed to sex education and prefer abstinence-based approaches (which have lower rates of success), while Democrats wish to see even more sex education.

One of my predictions in 2016 was that if Donald Trump was elected, we would see the number of abortions increase for all the reasons mentioned above. It’s a bit early to tell and the data is complicated, but in general it seems like my prediction has been proven true. Since Donald Trump became president, the number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood in the US has increased substantially (despite “pro-life” Donald Trump having control of all 3 branches of government). In addition, Trump’s cuts to foreign aid via have decreased international funding for contraception, leading to an increase in the number of abortions overseas as well.

It’s unfortunate that rhetoric has become so confusing. But the answers seem pretty clear: in the 2020 election, if someone’s #1 priority is seeing fewer abortions, then that person should not vote Republican, they should vote Democrat. It’s counterintuitive, but that’s what the facts suggest.

Master Yoda

[I find it fascinating that a significant portion of Jesus’ teachings are in the form of parables: simple narratives used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson. More frequently than logical arguments, sermons, or speeches, Jesus utilizes the power of story to communicate truths to his followers. Despite that, modern Christians often prioritize logic over narrative. In order to push back against that a little bit, here is one of my past attempts to communicate a truth about God via a parable. I have titled it “Master Yoda.” ]

Master Yoda? Credit: British Library

A young Jedi Knight once sent a request for a meeting with Master Yoda. Master Yoda sent back a message– “Meditating, I am, in the Room of a Thousand Fountains.” Not wishing to disturb, the young Jedi waited. The next day, he sent the same request. This time, Yoda replied: “In the training room, I am.” The next day, the young Jedi sent his request a third time. This time, Yoda wrote: “Eating in the cafeteria, I am.” Annoyed at Master Yoda for dodging his request, the young Jedi Knight gave up.

Weeks later, the same young Jedi ran into Yoda in the Main Atrium. Yoda asked him why they had never had a meeting. Exasperated, the young man cried out, “Because you always had an excuse! You never made time for me.” Yoda slowly shook his head. “My child, sadly mistaken you are. My heart was to see you, and I told you where to find me. Wanted you to join me, I did. Sad was I, when you never showed.”

Whoever who has ears to hear, let them hear.

My Take on Trump’s Impeachment

My Earliest Political Memory

My earliest political memory is a discussion I had with Eggbert, the talking egg. For those of you without the privilege of growing up in New York’s lower Hudson Valley, Eggbert is a royal egg who comes out every holiday season to greet the children (and their parents) who visit Devitt’s Nursery and Supply. Through a camera and speaker cleverly hidden within his throne, Eggbert can talk to the children, ask what they want for Christmas, and even tell jokes. No Christmas tree is complete without an ornament of Eggbert hanging from one of the prominent branches, and now you can purchase cans of Angry Eggbert IPAs from the local Newburgh Brewing Co. Suffice to say, Eggbert is basically a celebrity.

Children talking to Eggbert (Courtesy of Devitt’s Nursery & Supply)

So that’s why, in December of 1998, I proudly walked up to Eggbert and asked him, “Eggbert, what do you think of the ‘Clinton crisis?'” You see, while I had just turned 8, I was already interested in politics, and I had absorbed some of the key details of Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial. I didn’t know what sex was, but I definitely knew what lying was. Whether from my evangelical church, my Christian school, or my parents, it sounded like President Clinton’s actions were really, really bad, and I was transfixed by the idea that he might be removed from office.

I lament to say that I can’t remember Eggbert’s reply to my earnest question. But the moment stuck with me, and I’ve continued to be fascinated by politics ever since.

Evangelicals’ Rationale for Impeachment in 1998

From my perspective as an evangelical Christian looking back at the impeachment of Bill Clinton, there seemed to be two main issues conservative Christians had against him. By and large, they argued on the basis of morality, saying:

  • A President who told lies was not fit for leading the nation. As evangelical magazine Christianity Today wrote in 1998, “The President’s failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair.”
  • A President who cheated on his wife showed a lack of character. Dr. James Dobson from Focus on the Family wrote: “Character DOES matter. You can’t run a family, let alone a country, without it.”

Moral Hypocrisy?

In 1998, Bill Clinton apologized for his indiscretions, the Democrats swept the midterms, and the Senate voted along party lines not to remove him from office. While Republicans were upset, it seemed that they had proven themselves the party of integrity, of truth-telling, of morality, and of character.

Much has been written about the fact that now, just a few elections later, most of the same evangelicals who lambasted Clinton’s sins have rallied behind Donald Trump. Trump, of course, has violated all three of his marriage vows, lies frequently, and despite all that, has said he doesn’t ask God for forgiveness. Some evangelicals justify their strong support for Trump with claims that he has truly repented and changed, but to me it feels hard to see evidence of that. Instead, evangelical support looks like moral hypocrisy, a partisan shift of values to justify voting for a candidate they wanted in office. The data seems to back this up:

In 2011, only 30 percent of white evangelicals said that an “elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life.” In 2016, that number skyrocketed to 72%.

PRRI/Brookings

Obviously, not all evangelicals strongly support Trump: “If I were to support, much less endorse, Donald Trump for president,” conservative theologian Dr. Albert Mohler says, “I would actually have to go back and apologize to former President Bill Clinton.” Moreover, while the data indicates that White evangelicals remain staunchly in favor of the president, the support drops dramatically among evangelicals who are Black, Hispanic, or other ethnicities. Regardless, the level of evangelical support for Trump is striking.

How this feels different from 1998

One could argue that the charge of hypocrisy points both ways: In 1998 Democrats opposed impeachment while Republicans supported it, and now it’s the other way around. Neither party has been wholly consistent when it comes to concern for a president’s morality; partisanship is a two-way street.

The key difference I see, however, are the differences in the rationale for the impeachment. In 1998, the main crimes Bill Clinton were accused of involved sexual misconduct and lying under oath. Republicans argued that while these merely involved Clinton’s personal wrongdoing, such private actions disqualified him from public leadership. And maybe they were right.

But right now, Democrats are not impeaching Trump for his personal moral failings, egregious as they may be; they’re making the impeachment argument much bigger. For Democrats, impeaching Donald Trump is a matter of defending the Constitution, saving the 2020 election from cheating, keeping the Executive Branch from taking too much power, and preventing Russia from having malignant influence in American affairs. And unlike Bill Clinton who asked for forgiveness in 1998, Trump still claims his behavior is “perfect,” and seems willing to keep doing it.

In 1998, a significant number of Democrats crossed party lines to investigate and impeach Bill Clinton. There is virtually no chance that Republicans will do the same to Donald Trump today; indeed they seem unwilling to even allow witnesses to publicly testify. The increase in our country’s partisanship, driven by gerrymandering, social media algorithms, and straight-up bias, has unfortunately led us to a situation where a politician who dares to show an iota of character will be relentlessly criticized if they dare to go against their party line (Check out these replies to Republican Matt Gaetz when he voted with Democrats on a nonbinding War Powers resolution). Meanwhile, under Bush, Obama, and now Trump, the Executive Branch has consolidated more and more power, while Congress bickers over proper procedure.

I’m really not sure what the ultimate result of the current impeachment trial will be. It seems likely the Senate will acquit Trump, but it’s an open question as to whether the impeachment process will hurt his odds of reelection or not. Sadly, even if the full truth comes out during the Senate trial, it’s far less likely that people will believe it than in 1998: in our postmodern era, people are deeply entrenched into their political biases and automatically reject any evidence that goes against it. The most likely result is that, if acquitted, President Trump and his associates will be emboldened to continue using the office of the presidency for personal gain, and to continue lying to protect themselves. In 1998, Bill Clinton seemed chastened and publicly apologized, concluding his presidency without further scandal. I hope for the best, but I fear the opposite will happen with our current president.

Babel, Empire, and Learning to Speak a New Language

20th-Century postmodern philosophers like Derrida, Foucault, and others all teach an essential truth: language matters. The words and discourse used to describe reality in turn actually create and construct that very reality. Those who control the words and terms control how reality is perceived. I won’t explain the whole theory in what I hope is a short essay, but some examples commonly used are rights discourse (used to justify violence against those seen as having no rights) or nation-state discourse (used to unify the nation against the outsiders). These philosophers argue that language not only fails to describe the world as it truly is, but it also inevitably inscribes the values and taboos of the ruling class. Institutions of oppression are inevitably established, masked by a linguistic system that justifies it.

Interestingly enough, the biblical story of the Tower of Babel also addresses this philosophical truth. In the story, the whole world has one common language. One group of people decides to create a city (Babel) with a tower that reaches to the heavens so that “we may make a name for ourselves, and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth” (Genesis 11:4). We can see their fear of being conquered and divided. Their response is to group together, unified by a single language, build a fortress city, and defend against those who wish to scatter them. By their common language, they seek to control the entire world.

Hans Bol, Tower of Babel, 16th Century

God, however, does not like this. Babel is the establishment of the first empire, and while it is not a threat to God, he knows that such a dominant power would wreak immeasurable pain, havoc, and suffering on earth. Thus God says, “Let us go down and confuse their language so that they will not understand each other”. They do so, and the empire is halted in its tracks. The very thing Babel was created to defend against—its people being scattered—is in fact what happens to them.

God’s intervention at Babel creates other languages, and thus more opportunities for different people groups to rise up with their own languages of oppression. But God is more willing to have that than a singular language that could dominate everybody. Indeed, by scattering the people of Babel, God is actually putting humans back on the path he originally intended for them in Genesis 1, to “be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth”, which would inevitably result in a diverse array of cultures, foods, clothing, and human appearances. Diversity of language and culture was always part of God’s plan.

What’s interesting is that throughout the Hebrew Bible, the word for “Babylon” is not just similar, it’s exactly the same as the word for “Babel.” Thus every time we see Babylon come up later in scripture, the poetic-spiritual connection must automatically be made to the Tower of Babel and to the idea of language. The destruction of the Temple and the burning of Jerusalem in 587B.C.: Babel. The beginning of the Israelite captivity: Babel. Babel sees [herself] as God: “I will continue forever—the eternal queen!” Babel proclaims in Isaiah 47,“I am, and there is none besides me.” Babel is the eternal evil empire, the narrative foil for the people of Israel throughout the Hebrew scriptures. Babel is an archetype, a symbol for empire, domination, greed, and spiritual adultery. Even 500 years later, in the Christian New Testament, John uses the image of Babel/Babylon to illustrate the brokenness of humans (even though the actual Babylonian empire had been conquered by Persia far earlier).  

In Revelation 17, Babel is depicted as a woman in a desert sitting on a scarlet beast. The beast is covered with blasphemous names: words so evil that merely writing them down was a crime—again highlighting the connection between wrongful language and evil. Later in Revelation, we learn that the woman Babel “is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth”, that the merchants all trade their goods with her, and that she is the murderer God’s people. Babel is the locus of all power, wealth, and violence against God and his people. All empires can truthfully call Babel their mother.

Artwork by Shin Maeng commissioned for Urbana 18. You can see more of Shin’s art on Instagram: @shinhappens

It therefore makes sense that in John’s vision Babel’s violent destruction is met with wild celebration in heaven. At last!— the evil city that is the spiritual signifier for every emperor, greedy merchant, and persecutor of innocents has been thrown down. With the final destruction of Babel, God’s holy city (New Jerusalem) can descend from heaven. In New Jerusalem are people from every nation and language; gone is the false unity that Babel attempted to impose. God’s Kingdom instead brings peaceful diversity. What an image!

But is there hope in the here and now? What can Christians such as myself do to battle the empire of Babel all around us? Hatred, greed, racism, domination—they surround us all, and many of God’s people give themselves up to these things. Whether it is out of fear of “being scattered”, or ignorance, or perhaps because we have bought into the myths of Empire, too many Christians see serving the nation-state above God and engaging in imperialism or domination as acceptable and even admirable practices.

But God gives us a “linguistic turn” to flee the colonizing language of Babel. And that is through Jesus, the Word. As John 1:1 states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1 is perhaps the most incredible chapter in the Bible from a philosophical philological perspective.) God seems to know that He cannot be completely translated into human language, so he must become human. Jesus is God’s translation: all of God’s words, logic, and law revealed in one single being. In order to speak God’s language, his Words, we follow Jesus.

And Jesus behaves in an entirely anti-Babel manner. He wants his followers scattered, that doesn’t bother him in the least. He eschews violence. He opposes all who seek empire, Roman and Jewish alike. He cares little for nationalism, instead seeking out the “Others” around him: women, Samaritans/Palestinians, Romans, slaves, the poor… Jesus shows us how to break the curse of Babel. And that’s through unconditional love and forgiveness. It’s as if he’s saying to humans: “Stop trying to make a name for yourselves—I’ll give you a new name”.

Ultimately, rather than overthrow Babel by force, and so become leader of a new Babel, Jesus willingly lets himself be tortured and killed by the biggest, most powerful empire the Middle East had ever seen–Rome. He endures the absolute worst that humanity has to throw at him, and even forgives them in the midst of that: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing.” Three days later he rises from the grave, once and for all defeating the final tool of the oppressor—the threat of death.

If that were all Jesus did, that would be enough. But there’s more! In Pentecost, we see another linguistic turn. The Holy Spirit comes upon the disciples and they proclaim the good news of Jesus to a diverse crowd from every nation known to the residents of the Middle East—yet each listener hears words in their own language. Babel, where language was confused, is finally reversed, but in a totally unexpected way; it’s not that everyone suddenly speaks the same language. Instead each person hears the Gospel in their own home language. It is a foretaste of Heaven, where every single nation, tribe, and tongue will worship God all as a great multitude (Rev. 7:9).

In the present day, the Holy Spirit is God living inside of humans who choose to follow Jesus, enabling us to speak and live out God’s language as Jesus did. That may mean physical miracles, or speaking in tongues, or prophecy. And it may mean living in an anti-Babel manner, by loving our enemies, aiding the oppressed, and reaching out to the Other. But in all of this, we must speak in the language of Jesus, the one who did not seek to have power over others, but instead willingly laid down his life. We cannot advance the Kingdom of Jesus with the language and tools of Babel, as tempting as they may be. For those of us who have been raised in empire, in Babylon, all our lives, we will have to learn a radically new way of being, thinking, and speaking. It is hard, but that is the way of Jesus.

(This essay is adapted from a post I originally wrote in 2011).