Former President Jimmy Carter begins Chapter 8 of “Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis” (Simon & Schuster, 2005) with this observation: “Of all the sharply debated moral and political issues in America, abortion is the most divisive.”
“Emotions run deep on both sides of the question.”
On one side, there are some people who feel there should be absolutely no restrictions on terminating a pregnancy under any circumstance for any reason. On the other extreme, there are those who believe a human life is created at conception, so abortion is murder –– with some religious fundamentalists believing even the right to contraception is not protected under the Constitution and should be outlawed.
Paradoxically…
- The bad news, according to Carter: “There will never be any reconciliation between these true believers.”
- The good news: Most people can think for themselves and see a nuanced argument in the abortion controversy.
As president, Carter accepted an obligation to enforce the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling, which guaranteed a woman reproductive freedom and privacy under a trimester timetable. The ruling considered both the woman’s health and prenatal life.
Though he met his constitutional duty to enforce Roe, Carter personally believes “every abortion is an unplanned tragedy, brought about by a combination of human errors.” As president, he promoted adoption and restricted federal funding for abortions while expressing a belief that “every baby conceived should be a wanted child.”
Yet, Carter breaks with fundamentalists by supporting “top priority to health care for new mothers and their babies” and promoting strong social services for families.
“Many fervent pro-life activists do not extend their concern to the baby who is born, and are the least likely to support benevolent programs that they consider ‘socialistic.’ They ignore the fact that once a doubtful mother decides not to have an abortion, she and her family usually have a number of needs: continued education for the mother, or a maternity leave from her job; special health care, with insurance to cover the costs; housing allowances; an adequate minimum wage; and tax credits to help the employed mother and her child have a decent life. Two-thirds of women who have abortions claim their primary reason is that they cannot afford a child.”
Citing data, Carter notes that, regarding unintended pregnancies resulting in abortion, “The most prevailing common factor is poverty.”
In the penultimate chapter of the book, “The World’s Greatest Challenge in the New Millennium,” he proclaims that inequality, a growing wealth gap, and expanding disparity between rich and poor are the causes for much of America’s and the world’s woes.
We can see how extreme poverty, lack of education, and poor health care alternatives lead to overpopulation and more abortions, mass migrations, and disease epidemics. To his great credit, after his presidency Carter dedicated much of his money, influence, and personal involvement to combatting extreme poverty: eradicating the guinea worm, fighting malaria, preventing blindness, and building homes and infrastructure. He and former first lady Rosalynn Carter have been inspirational leaders of Habitat for Humanity.
 |
| Carter, the builder, hands-on with Habitat for Humanity |
Carter’s view for helping the world’s and nation’s poor is seen through a religious framework, but it’s based on universal humanism: “In fact, all major religious faiths are shaped by prophetic mandates to do justice, love mercy, protect and care for widows and orphans, and exemplify God’s compassion for the poor and victimized.”
He notes, “There is an overwhelming religious mandate, often ignored by fundamentalists, to alleviate the plight of those who are in need.” Paradoxically, many of the same people who vote against access to abortions and health care for poor people instead support “subsidizing the wealthy and corporations,” he says.
Other paradoxes: Many anti-abortionists are strict states’ rights advocates yet want a nationwide federal ban on abortions. They believe in individual liberty but want to restrict a pregnant person’s choice made with her doctor and family (in the case of Idaho, even restricting her travel to another state). They support education yet ban books and teaching of certain subjects.
Breaking further with fundamentalists, Carter calls for more, not less, sex education in schools. “One of the well-meaning but counterproductive approaches is to refrain from teaching our young people how to avoid pregnancy, instruction that is provided thoroughly and persistently in other nations.”
While federal funding for such education in the United States has increased over the decades, Carter, writing in 2005, decries ultra-conservatives’ “strict prohibition against mention of any kind of contraception.”
Similarly, “There are members of the U.S. Congress who attempt to prevent the use of foreign aid funds for any form of family-planning services in other countries,” Carter writes. “The impact of this policy is counterproductive if the purpose of the development assistance is to ease pain and suffering, to improve the lives of adults, and to reduce the infant morality rate.”
Recently, Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-TN) announced a hold on Defense Department civilian and senior officer nominations until Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin rescinds his policy of supporting service members' access to abortion. Austin, along with many other members of Congress, have decried the actions of Tuberville as adversely impacting military readiness. Tuberville say, "This is about not forcing the taxpayers of this country to fund abortion."
In 2023, fundamentalists are also attempting to restrict access to medications to help women deal with miscarriages or induce abortions soon after conception.
Another “hotly debated issue involves stem cell research,” according to Carter. “It has been proven scientifically that a fertilized human egg (about the size of the period at the end of this sentence) can provide cells that are very flexible in their use, with prospects of preventing or curing a number of diseases, including diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and spinal cord injuries.”
 |
| Reagan & Schwarzenegger |
Carter concludes, “It is clear that the subject of life before birth will continue to be the most hotly debated, in religious, political, and scientific terms. There is a strong religious commitment to the sanctity of human life, but, paradoxically, some of the most fervent protectors of microscopic stem cells are the most ardent proponents of the death penalty.”
Some also fight against any restriction on the proliferation of guns in society, as we noted in Part 1 of this series. Sen. Tuberville, for example, was one of 33 senators who voted against last year's Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that incentivizes states to pass red flag laws and expand background checks for 18- to 21-year-olds, among other measures.
U.S. Sen. Thomas H. Tuberville, a senator from Alabama, takes aim a sniper rifle during a congressional delegation’s visit on Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, May 24, 2021. (Lance Cpl. George Nudo)
No comments:
Post a Comment