By Dave Andrusko
Especially attentive readers may remember that Amy Hagstrom Miller is founder and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, the abortion clinic group that sued to overturn portions of HB 2, Texas’ 2013 pro-life law. Leading up to and out of Wednesday’s oral arguments to the United States Supreme Court, the pro-abortion press has lauded Miller for [fill in the blank].
Let’s take one hard-hitting story: “Meet the Texas Abortion Provider Who Refuses to Cave in to Anti-Choice Extremists,” by Valerie Tarico. It was written prior to oral arguments which featured Stephanie Toti, of the Center for Reproductive Rights, and U.S. Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli, and Scott Keller, the Texas solicitor general, who defended HB2.
It’s worthwhile going through some of Hagstrom Miller’s comments because they illustrate (a) the pro-abortion mind on automatic pilot and (b) the extent to which they can twist anything to suit their anti-life agenda.
#1. Every measure, including the two at issue in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt ,” puts forward the notion that women are stupid, that they have undertaken a difficult decision without having thought about it.” Actually protective statutes are driven by a different and far more accurate narrative.
The Abortion Industry’s methodology for dealing with women facing crisis pregnancies is to preclude thinking, to race them to the finish, making sure they have as few opportunities to think through a life and death decision as possible. Ambiguity, which is common, is poison to the Planned Parenthoods of this world. JUST GET IT DONE and all will be well.
#2. “One objective of the opposition is to make abortion seem more scary, complex and complicated than it actually is,” Hagstrom Miller tells Tarico. Think about that for a second.
“Terminating” ones child is complex and complicated and very scary–unless the Hagstrom Millers are able to convince a woman or a girl that it is equivalent to extracting a tooth (an image that is cropping up more and more).
#3. Tarico asks, “Would you say that this work has a spiritual dimension for you?” Hagstrom Miller responds
Absolutely. I was raised in a liberal Christian tradition, and I come to the work because of that background, not in spite of it. The Jesus that I was taught about would be holding the hands of women inside the clinic; he wouldn’t be screaming at them. Acting on Christian principles is holding the hands of people at difficult times in their lives, and being supportive and nonjudgmental and kind. That is very much what we bring to the work. I don’t know how to say it more clearly than that.
Jesus would be holding the hands of women as they dispose of one of God’s creatures. Really? That’s what it means to come from a “liberal Christian tradition”?
I thought the Christian tradition, liberal or otherwise, is founding on foundational principles that begin with the powerful moral imperative to protect the powerless and extend ourselves to those who most need our help.
When the “expert in the law” asked Jesus what must he do to inherit eternal life, Jesus summarized the Law: to love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind and to love your neighbor (note the exclamation point) “as yourself.”
So “to justify himself,” the expert in the law asked, “Who is my neighbor?” All of us, including Hagstrom Miller, should take the answer to heart.
To get around the man’s defenses, Jesus turned the question around. Not how could I limit (as the questioner wished to do) those to whom I have an obligation but rather which of the people who encountered the injured man acted as a neighbor to him? The one who bound his wounds and took him to the Innkeeper.
The expert responded, “The one who had mercy on him”–the Good Samaritan.
An unborn child–who could possibly be more our “neighbor”?
And what could be more merciful, more loving this “neighbor as ourselves” than saving her/him from death?