I have said that this column is about learning to navigate the winds and waves of our polarized culture. But what do you do when the storm you’re facing turns into a tsunami? That’s what Tuesday, November 8, 2022, felt like to me--a day of infamy in the State of Michigan, not because election deniers got their comeuppance, an event celebrated by many, but because the people of Michigan voted to enshrine unlimited abortion as a permanent right in the state constitution.
The stealth campaign began when abortion extremists could see that Roe v Wade might be reversed by the Supreme Court. The folks behind Proposal 3 refused to think small. Why simply preserve “rights” granted fifty years ago under Roe v Wade when you could push the boundaries to the outer limits?
Their vague and confusing proposal buried the word “abortion” in the middle of a number of other reproductive concerns that were not, even in the wildest of imaginations, under threat for adults in Michigan: “prenatal care,” “contraception,” “sterilization,” “miscarriage management,” and “infertility care.”
Boatloads of money poured in from out of state to promote the proposal. And so, it passed, and now Michigan will become a magnet for anyone who wants to end the life of their unborn baby. With its passage, our constitution now allows:
Abortion for any reason (including sex selection, disability, or race) at any time in pregnancy.
The elimination of the state’s partial-birth abortion and late-term abortion bans.
A legal shield for abortion providers, which leaves women vulnerable to harm with limited legal recourse in the case of medical malpractice.
Taxpayer funding of all of the above.
Some will argue that the proposal bans late term abortions, but the truth is that it provides a convenient and easy loophole. One merely need claim that the mother’s mental health might suffer without one. Protect Life—Vote NO on Proposal 3 | Michigan Catholic Conference (micatholic.org)]
With the passage of Proposal 3, Michigan has invented something brand new—the “right to reproductive freedom.” No one seems concerned that this magical new right was fabricated from nothing. Where are its antecedents, except, perhaps, in the “right to privacy,” which finally broke through the thin ice it was resting upon when Roe v. Wade was overturned?
This newly invented right to reproductive freedom slanders the word “freedom” by divorcing it from responsibility, representing the triumph of hyper-individualism—the extreme focus on self to the detriment of community.
During the pandemic, many of us criticized mask refuseniks for claiming they had a constitutional right to forgo masks regardless of the risk to others. We thought their stance was merely a cover for selfishness and callousness. But that blatant disregard for others pales in comparison to what has happened under Proposal 3.
Though individualism has always been one of America’s strengths, hyper-individualism may well destroy us. Not that many years ago it gave birth to the unfettered extremes of the sexual revolution. If you doubt its negative effects, particularly on women, you might want to pick up Louise Perry’s recent book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, which characterizes the main beneficiaries of the sexual revolution as “high status men with an excess of lust.”
Embracing hyper-individualism, in whatever guise, erodes the lives of individuals as well as the health of any society that sanctions and promotes it. It unravels relationships and social bonds without which people cannot flourish. Instead of becoming a source for greater freedom, it becomes a force that de-creates culture, eroding the social glue that holds families and societies together.
Consider for a moment the original creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 which promotes unity rather than separateness. Adam’s unambiguous delight upon meeting Eve, his perfect companion, becomes obvious when he exclaims that she is “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” He recognizes and celebrates their connectedness. The very next verse speaks of how the man will be united to his wife and the two will become “one flesh.”
God’s creation strategy, clearly stated in Genesis 1:28, was for human beings to be fruitful and multiply—for men and women to marry and have children.
But what has seemed natural during most of human history has unraveled in the modern world. Instead of promoting connectedness, our society celebrates sex anytime and with anyone without the burden of commitment. But sexual hedonism often operates to the detriment of women, especially in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. At such times, the male partner can simply walk away, thus breaking the bond—however tenuous—that their sexual relationship has forged.
In the face of the man’s unfaithfulness, the question now becomes “What will the woman do?” Will she, too, break faith, responding to her severed relationship with him by severing the bond with her child, or will she find the strength and help to make a better choice? In other words, will she continue along the creative path by bringing her child into the world despite her difficult circumstances, or will she give way to the vicious and de-creative forces that have been unleashed in our culture?
Her decision will not be an easy one, especially because society refuses to face its own culpability in placing her in this predicament, offering little pragmatic help for her to bear a child without the support of a father. Instead, she is urged to have an abortion and told she has the right to do to her body as she pleases. It is simply a matter of ridding herself of some unwanted tissue.
No doubt, most of those who voted for Michigan’s Proposal 3 think they are doing the right thing for women who are in this mess. But by enshrining abortion in Michigan’s constitution, they are escalating the forces of de-creation. Unfettered access to abortion breaks community—especially the natural and powerful bond between a woman and her child, which abortion tragically and irretrievably breaks.
Now that Proposal 3 has passed with relative ease in Michigan, it would be naïve to think that politicians and activists across the country will not take note. Republican candidates will be tempted to distance themselves from abortion issues in order to get elected while progressives will seize the Michigan model in hopes of enshrining extreme abortion policies in other state constitutions so that legislatures will not be able to regulate or limit abortion.
How should we respond to tsunamis like this that wreak havoc, especially on poor women and children? First. we should tell the truth. Far from being a solution to female poverty, unfettered abortion is the greatest social justice issue of our time. By trying to slap a bandage over a grievous social wound, it falls far short of the healing we all need.
To become discouraged, to lose hope, or to remain silent about what is happening cannot be options for those who care about justice because doing so will only usher in greater darkness.
In the immediate aftermath of this vote, one thing we might consider is to join the Catholics of Michigan who have been urged by their bishops to spend the first two weeks of Advent (November 27-December 9) doing penance, giving alms, praying, and fasting as a way of making reparations for the sin of abortion.
Another thing that can be done is to heed the alarm, because a version of Proposal 3 will likely be coming to your state soon. Now is not the time to sit back and hope that the recent Supreme Court Decision overturning Roe v. Wade will be enough to protect the unborn, even though it has already saved tens of thousands of lives.
Instead, we must continue to assert that the right to life is the foundation of all other rights. We must also maintain our commitment to helping women with crisis pregnancies by providing stronger safety nets and devising political and educational strategies to protect human life. Most importantly, we must continue to spread the gospel, which has a power like no other to change minds and hearts, providing a generous vision of how human beings, whether born or unborn, can relate to each other with love.
Yes, thank God-he is our anchor.
What a state we have got ourselves into there is hope in God to help us