Abortion War

Guide Rating -

Anti-abortion activism is perhaps the largest social protest movement since the 1960s anti-war demonstrations which gripped campuses and cities across the nation. Despite its size and power, however, it has failed to achieve its primary goal of making abortion once again illegal. They have certainly intimidated some abortion providers out of the profession, but otherwise the movement has become more symbolic rather than effective. Why?

This is a very interesting question which cuts to the heart of the nature and history of the anti-abortion movement. One recent book does an excellent job of exploring that history, providing a glimpse into a world few are familiar with in its entirety. According to James Risen and Judy L. Thomas, an important reason for that failure can be located in the extreme radicalism which has developed over recent years.

Who are the anti-abortion radicals? One key figure is John O'Keefe, an adherent of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement who organized the first "rescues" - sit-ins, protests and other forms of civil disobedience aimed at expressing opposition to legal abortions. Another is Michael Bray, an adherent of Dominion Theology and a Calvinist who associated himself with the Army of God and was instrumental in the spread of violence by giving it a theological justification.

These two are by far not the only figures discussed in the book, but their divergent approaches are symbolic for the entire anti-abortion movement. O'Keefe continued a tradition of non-violent protest strategies from the 1960s, while Bray forged new ground in validating what amounted to domestic political terrorism. At the same time, the work of all involved helped forge a more activist brand of Protestant fundamentalism:

A new, religion-based social protest movement was born, one that drew Protestant Evangelicals out of their churches and to the barricades. These activists set out to transform the law, but in the process they transformed themselves, transformed their theological beliefs, and ended generations of isolation.

The case which made abortion legal, Roe v. Wade, divides America in a way which few other decisions do. It's not simply a political and religious division, but historical as well - American history can readily be divided into a pre-Roe and post-Roe era. However, it has been argued that this decision itself is partly to blame for the extremism which characterizes the abortion debate.

Even many abortion supporters feel that the decision either went too far, too fast or should have done more to address fundamental questions about the nature of life. As a result of the decision, the debate about the nature of life was removed from the democratic process - this, then, left few options open to abortion opponents. Except violence.

Some worked towards long-term changes in the make up of the courts where they hoped they might eventually achieve victory, but others moved towards taking part in more direct, and violent, actions at abortion clinics themselves. These direct actions ended up leading to violent actions in order to stop abortions from taking place.

It was frustration and despair that split the anti-abortion movement in two. Those who refused to accept the mainstream, incremental lobbying efforts moved into a "direct-action" movement, followed by younger, more radical leaders. It was a movement led first by Catholic leftists who drew on their 1960s traditions of social protest but later by newly militant Christian fundamentalists, who co-opted those traditions and transformed civil disobedience into a conservative tool.

There might be some validity to Risen and Thomas' argument that the Roe v. Wade decision itself played a key role in allowing anti-abortion extremism to develop, but the reasons for opposing abortion are so fundamental that it seems unlikely that pro-life people would calmly accept a right to abortion if it were approved by a legislature rather than the courts. It isn't entirely believable that those who argue that violence is necessary to save the lives of innocent children simply wouldn't exist if a right to abortion were defined by law rather than by court decision.

It probably would have been better if more time had been spent on two important aspects of anti-abortion violence: the influence of Christian Reconstructionist ideology and the widespread use of intimidation against abortion providers and their families. As it is, the focus upon overt violence and large-scale protests only tells part of the story, even if it is a vital part.

Despite such shortcomings, this is a very good book for coming to understand key aspects of the growth and development of anti-abortion activism in the United States. The authors may be pro-choice, but they allow the activists to speak for themselves as much as possible, permitting readers to gain a better understanding of what they want and why they have followed the path which they are currently on.