Some Thoughts on Roe and the New Gun Law

The Precarious position of Post-Roe Politics and Praise for John Cornyn

I wanted to offer a few thoughts on recent political events.  First the Dobbs decision:

The overturning of Roe v. Wade is a momentous event but by no means the end of America’s long struggle over the issue of abortion.  The struggle will now enter a new phase where the issue will be fought out in legislatures rather than courts.  Liberal states will permit abortion while conservative ones will restrict it.  The top prize will be federal legislation that could establish standards nationwide.

For some time, a solid majority of Americans have held that abortion should be permitted under at least some circumstances.  The court’s conservative majority does not reflect America’s political opinion on the issue but is instead a quirk resulting from Trump’s peculiar opportunity to appoint three justices in a single term.  We need to acknowledge that Christians, through their political influence, are now requiring society to observe a moral standard it does not agree with.  This is a recipe for political and religious backlash.  One way of mitigating the backlash, however, is by offering greater support to mothers.  Economic pressures are a key driver of abortions and expanded financial support for mothers such as Mitt Romney’s proposed Family Security Act would ease these pressures.  Moreover, expanded support would discourage abortions in liberal states where abortions will still be permitted.

I recognize some Christians have philosophical objections to state-provided support.  They do not believe this is the proper role of government.  They agree that mothers-in-need should receive support but believe it should come from the Church, not the state.  Yet the simple fact is that private support is inadequate and will remain so.  Moreover, it will be a markedly tone-deaf political position for Christians to object to state-provided support on philosophical grounds while at the same time supporting a state-enforced ban.  I fear such a position will tarnish our witness to society.  More practically, if state-provided support is the most politically viable way of reducing the abortion rate in liberal states, isn’t it worth setting aside whatever philosophical objections we have?

Other Christians raise concerns about how state-provided payments will be utilized.  Will the money go towards baby food and blankets or flat-screen TVs?  To this objection, I would point out that the Romney plan is an evolution of the child tax credit that most families have enjoyed since 1997.  If you have children at home, ask yourself how you spend your annual tax refund?  (If you have philosophical objections to state-provided support, do you favor eliminating the child tax credit?)  The innovation of the Romney plan is that it provides the money in monthly payments rather than as a lump-sum, tax return payment and it lowers the income threshold necessary to enjoy the full benefit.  My point is not to advocate for Romney’s particular plan but to put philosophical and practical objections in the context of current policy and proposed changes.  The state has been providing support to parents for decades, current proposals aim to increase the level of support and make it more accessible to lower-income families. Given the benefits of lowering child poverty (which is high for a developed country) and abortion rates, I think expanded support for mothers makes both moral and political sense.

Secondly, I would like to praise Senator Cornyn’s work on the recent gun law—the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.  The law addresses the problem of gun violence through a compromise that balances gun rights and safety.  As Senator from Texas, a staunch, gun-rights state, Cornyn took a political risk in negotiating the law and one that offered little political reward.  (Recent polling data indicates that Cornyn’s popularity has indeed taken a hit.)  Why would Cornyn do such a thing?  I believe it was a matter of conscience.  Cornyn has long advocated for measures to improve NICS—the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.  He saw an opportunity to effect meaningful policy change and seized it in spite of the political costs.  Isn’t that what we want from our political leaders?  A willingness to do what they believe is right, even when it is not politically popular?  You may object to some details of the law (as Coryn himself might) but compromises are always messy and, in a democracy, the only alternative to inaction.

Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash