The Legacy of Abortion

Note: This commentary was delivered by PFM President Mark Earley.

A woman—let’s call her Caroline—was 92 years old. She was dying, in agony, but Caroline’s pain was not physical. It was emotional. Caroline, you see, had been carrying a secret for more than 50 years: As a young woman, she had undergone two abortions, suffered terrible guilt all her life—and now, on her death-bed, afraid that God could not forgive her.

As her palliative-care nurse, Jean Echlin, writes, “At the end of her life she shared with me her agony over her lost babies . . . she felt that she had committed murder.”

Caroline is not alone, as Echlin writes in Perspectives 2007, a publication of the De Veber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research. Echlin also tells the story of a woman named Lydia, who was dying of cancer. Even with the use of a pain pump, which gave her steady doses of morphine, Lydia’s pain did not abate.

“I asked her if her faith or prayer could be of any comfort,” Echlin writes. “Lydia remained silent except for her moaning.” But the next day she confided the truth. “I can’t pray—God won’t listen,” Lydia said. “I killed a precious baby when I was 18 . . .” Lydia’s abortion had taken place more than 40 years ago—and she was still grieving over it.

Caroline and Lydia are but two examples of what the Institute calls an “unexpected correlation” between abortion and pain-relief care. Dying women experience unresolved guilt and psychological pain related to their abortion—guilt and pain that stand in the way of a peaceful death. Their guilt is so great, Echlin says, that it impedes the effectiveness of their pain medication. Only when the abortion issue is resolved—when someone listens to them and assures them of God’s forgiveness—is the pain medication made effective, and the women able to die peacefully.

This is dramatic testimony that abortion is not, as the abortion lobby claims, something women will “get over” in a week or two. It is evidence that we know inherently that we are made in the image of the God who gives life. When we do violence to that image—when we destroy life instead of nurturing it—it has a profound effect on our emotions, our psyche, and our souls.

Today, as we mourn the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and the tens of millions of abortions that have resulted from this dreadful decision, we must recognize that there are likely many women among us who are silently suffering abortion grief decades after their babies’ lives were snuffed out. As the De Veber Institute notes, these women need our compassion, and their trauma should be recognized and acknowledged by their care providers.

As we comfort the dying, we must also help the living. We must make sure young women know the truth: that abortion takes a human life; that there are alternatives to abortion; and that there are people who will help them through a difficult, unplanned pregnancy.

And they must be told that the notion that they will simply “get over” an abortion is a bold-faced lie. The truth is that if they walk into that abortion clinic, they may still be feeling the agony over taking their baby’s life—even on their deathbed a half century later.

A new report from the Barna Group warns political campaigns that assuming the evangelical vote is "splintering" over abortion would be a mistake, with 19 of every 20 members of that group citing the issue as their top concern.

The report comes just as the U.S. marks the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision in the U.S. Supreme Court that found in the Constitution a fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy at any time for any reason.

"One of the myths about the 2008 election is that the evangelical vote is splintering over issues such as abortion and homosexuality. In fact, when defined based upon a consistent set of theological perspectives, evangelicals remain very united on abortion and homosexuality," said David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group and director of the study

Stephanie wrote:Funny how evangelicals want to extend rights to one group, the unborn, yet want to deny rights to another, homosexuals.

I'll never understand that kind of thinking.

Keli wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Funny how evangelicals want to extend rights to one group, the unborn, yet want to deny rights to another, homosexuals.

I'll never understand that kind of thinking.

One is being denied the most basic right--the right to life; while the other is being condemned for aberrant sexual behavior. IYHO, what constitutional right are evangelicals trying to keep homosexuals from having: Service in the military? The right to vote? To own land? To serve on a jury?

Aaron wrote:

Keli wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Funny how evangelicals want to extend rights to one group, the unborn, yet want to deny rights to another, homosexuals.

I'll never understand that kind of thinking.

One is being denied the most basic right--the right to life; while the other is being condemned for aberrant sexual behavior. IYHO, what constitutional right are evangelicals trying to keep homosexuals from having: Service in the military? The right to vote? To own land? To serve on a jury?

Equal protection under the law which is a constitutional violation. That's a biggie.

Keli wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Funny how evangelicals want to extend rights to one group, the unborn, yet want to deny rights to another, homosexuals.

I'll never understand that kind of thinking.

One is being denied the most basic right--the right to life; while the other is being condemned for aberrant sexual behavior. IYHO, what constitutional right are evangelicals trying to keep homosexuals from having: Service in the military? The right to vote? To own land? To serve on a jury?

Stephanie wrote:

Keli wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Funny how evangelicals want to extend rights to one group, the unborn, yet want to deny rights to another, homosexuals.

I'll never understand that kind of thinking.

One is being denied the most basic right--the right to life; while the other is being condemned for aberrant sexual behavior. IYHO, what constitutional right are evangelicals trying to keep homosexuals from having: Service in the military? The right to vote? To own land? To serve on a jury?

From what I've seen evangelicals want to deny them the right to be a family. I know evangelicals who want to bar them from military service.

I'm sure if wise I would leave it at that but I'm not all that smart and I can't. Who are you to determine what sexual behavior between two consenting adults is "aberrant"? Is anything other than the missionary position aberrant? How about locations other than bed, is that aberrant?

I don't know why you would care what two consenting adults do in private to begin with. It is none of your business, it is none of my business. I oppose the government forcing members of the clergy and judges to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals. I also oppose government interference in a private matter and discriminatory laws and policies.

SheikBen wrote:Stephanie,

Do you believe that people are regularly forced to engage in gay sex, or is generally an act between consenting adults? If it is the latter, than sexual activity is itself a choice, no matter whether it is heterosexual or homosexual.