With Tuesday’s election results in Ohio and Virginia seen as a referendum on the pro-life movement from pundits across the political spectrum—a point that was reiterated in Wednesday’s Republican debate—it’s understandable that many are feeling discouraged. After all, it took nearly fifty years to overturn Roe v. Wade but abortions have actually increased since that monumental decision.

Moreover, the expansion of abortion options has won in every state that has voted on the subject, a trend that is likely to continue across the coming years. Given that roughly 69 percent of Americans support at least some access to abortion during the first trimester, perhaps we should not be surprised. However, that support wanes quickly once you get beyond those first twelve weeks. As Dr. Jim Denison discussed earlier this week, a majority actually oppose abortion in the second (55 percent) and third (70 percent) stages of a pregnancy.

If that’s the case, though, why have so many of the new laws enshrined a right to abortion that far surpasses popular opinion? And, more importantly, what can we do to reverse that trend?

The answer is, at its core, quite simple. However, it does not appear to be one that many in the pro-life movement want to hear.

Why a national prohibition against abortion will never happen

When the issue of abortion was raised in Wednesday’s Republican primary debate, Nikki Haley remarked that to change federal law, “It’s going to take 60 Senate votes, the majority of the House, and a president to sign it. We haven’t had 60 Senate votes in over a hundred years. We might have 45 pro-life senators. No Republican president can ban abortions any more than a Democratic president can ban these [more restrictive] state laws.”

And she’s right.

I believe life begins at conception and would love for there to be a national prohibition against abortion. But it’s simply not going to happen, and there is no path to making it so anytime soon. But, as Haley noted, that goes for the pro-choice side as well.

This will remain an issue for individual states to decide, and that’s for the best. It may not feel like it as we watch state after state make it permissible to kill the unborn, often even when the child could survive outside the womb. But the truth is, we should want this issue to remain with the states because that’s the level of government where we can have the greater impact. After all, in a democracy your vote is worth more in elections where fewer votes are cast.

So how can we do that?

It starts by shifting our focus from politics to people.

Choose people over politics

Saying our focus should be on people rather than politics does not mean ignoring the latter. But it is much easier to change a single mind through conversation and dialogue than it is to change the politics of an entire party.

Moreover, there is good evidence that many of those who support abortion—particularly in the second and third trimesters—have either not given the details of that position a great deal of thought or do not understand all that it truly entails.

You see, during the first trimester, the methods most often utilized in an abortion are undoubtedly tragic, but they are not necessarily barbaric. However, that ceases to be the case once you get to the second trimester and beyond. (A word of warning: The rest of this section contains graphic descriptions of abortion procedures.)

As the fetus grows to the point that it is too large to simply suck out of the womb, the most common method of terminating the child’s life is called dilation and evacuation. After the mother is put under anesthesia, abortion providers go in with “suction and gynecological instruments” to empty the uterus.

Or at least that’s how it’s described by most clinics.

The truth is that those “gynecological instruments” are used to dismember the fetus in the womb, typically while the child is still alive, and then pull him or her out piece by piece. The “fragmented fetal parts” are then rearranged to make sure none were left behind.

Roughly 95 percent of second- and third-trimester abortions—which account for approximately 11 percent of all abortions—utilize this method. Moreover, “leading authorities” have concluded that it is typically not worth the added risk to the mother to kill the child prior to beginning the procedure.

Does a fetus feel pain?

Initially, this approach was justified by arguing that a fetus cannot feel pain until after twenty-four to twenty-five weeks of development, meaning that dismembering the child while it was still alive did not cause it to suffer. That is still the official position of many abortion providers.

However, more recent studies have shown that, at the very least, there is reason to doubt those conclusions. As Dr. Bridget Thill writes, “Current neuroscientific evidence indicates the possibility of fetal pain perception during the first trimester,” with indications that a child may be able to feel some form of pain after as little as seven to eight weeks in the womb. She goes on to conclude that “denial of fetal pain capacity beginning in the first trimester, potentially as early as 8–12 weeks gestation, is no longer tenable.”

And she is hardly alone in those conclusions.

Ultimately, the possibility exists that every fetus who is killed after fifteen weeks—and possibly long before that—feels the indescribable pain of his or her abortion.

I want to believe that most people who support the availability of such abortions do not fully comprehend all that their position entails. And I want to believe that, if they did, they would stand against such barbarism.

After all, if a slaughterhouse butchered cattle the way abortion clinics kill many of these babies, they would be shut down in a day. While people may have honest disagreements about the value and humanity of an unborn child, I would hope that we could agree that a fetus has at least as much inherent worth as a cow.

The pathway to true change

The good news is that every law that has been passed to protect abortion can be changed to protect children instead. But those laws aren’t going to change until we can change the minds of the people who voted to pass them.

So if we truly want to make a difference on this issue and save the lives of unborn children, we need to focus on telling people the truth about abortion in a way that doesn’t shy away from the hard realities of all that it entails, but which also shares that message with the grace and love of Christ.

And remember that, regardless of what the laws say, every expectant mother makes her own decision about whether to keep or kill her baby, and we don’t need politicians to make a positive impact in their lives.

So let’s start by actively trying to engage with people who see differently on this issue. A great deal of common ground currently lies fallow because both sides often seem more interested in demonizing the other than working together. And while I fully understand the hesitancy to give any ground when it comes to protecting unborn lives, let’s not sacrifice those we can save in the process.

Ultimately, if we really want to make a difference in the fight to save unborn lives, we have to start with people over politics and accept the reality that there is no quick fix on a national scale.

Denison Forum

Antisemitism around the world has risen to constitute an “existential threat” in the thirty-four days since Hamas slaughtered 1,300 Israeli civilians and wounded more than 3,300. Antisemitism in the US had already escalated last year to the highest recorded level. Now CNN reports that a “new wave of antisemitism threatens to rock an already unstable world.”

At the same time, we must not forget the Palestinian civilians who are suffering in Gaza: at this writing, the Hamas-controlled health ministry reports more than 10,569 Palestinians have been killed since the invasion, including 4,324 children. The New York Times reports this morning that tens of thousands are fleeing the northern Gaza Strip. And we must remember the more than 242 soldiers and civilians who are being held hostage.

I’ve been responding nearly every day since October 7 to this unfolding tragedy and consider it one of the hinge points of recent history. Today, I want to take a step back to ask a hard question: Why does God allow such innocent suffering?

Why does God allow suffering? Five logical steps

This is how I have reasoned my way through this dilemma over the years:

One: God created us to love our Lord and our neighbor (Matthew 22:37–39). However, love requires a choice. No one can force us to love someone.

Two: Thus, God gave us freedom of will. He knew that we would misuse this freedom before he gave it, but he considered our freedom to love him and each other worth the death of his Son (Revelation 13:8; John 3:16).

Three: When we misuse our free will, the consequences are not God’s fault but ours. When I was a seminary philosophy professor, my students sometimes complained that my tests were too difficult. However, those who studied diligently made an A on the tests and in my class. When students chose not to study, by contrast, the consequences were not my fault.

Four: If God prevents the consequences of misused freedom, we are not truly free. If I am on a diet but choose to order a pizza and the delivery person brings me celery sticks, my freedom was apparent but not real. If chess players can retract every move they make that turns out to be disadvantageous to them, the game cannot be played.

Five: If God intervenes occasionally to prevent such consequences, we will ask why he does not do so every time. If we insist that he must prevent all terrorism, we will next want him to prevent all murder. Then all crime. Then all deceit, then all adultery, then all lust, and so on.

So far, so good. I understand logically why God must allow horrific atrocities as the price of our free will without which we cannot fulfill our created purpose.

But there’s a very large but . . .

We’re back to our problem

The problem with my reasoning is that God does sometimes prevent the consequences of misused freedom. He allowed Herod to execute James (Acts 12:1–2), but he sent his angel to keep Herod from executing Peter (vv. 3–11). If Peter, why not James?

He allowed Egyptian pharaohs to enslave the Jews for four hundred years, but then he sent Moses to lead them through the Red Sea to freedom. If then, why not four centuries earlier?

So, we’re back to our problem. Since God is omnipotent, he could have prevented Hamas from slaughtering Jews. Since he is omniscient, he knew about their plot before it unfolded. Since he is omnibenevolent, he must want only their best, which would obviously preclude beheading babies, massacring families, and taking hundreds of people hostage. Since he sometimes intervenes to protect the innocent from the sins of the guilty, he could have done so on October 7.

And yet, he did not.

We can substitute any other group of innocent victims in today’s discussion. The Palestinians in Gaza being used by Hamas as human shields are an obvious example. The Uyghurs being brutally repressed by China are another. The 1,403 teens and children killed in gun violence so far this year in the US are yet another.

You undoubtedly have examples in your own life of times you have been victimized by the sins of others. I have my own as well.

“When darkness seems to hide his face”

Today’s conversation leaves us with two choices.

One: We can refuse to trust God because we do not understand why he sometimes protects innocent victims but sometimes does not. We can characterize him as arbitrary and thus unworthy of our faith and devotion.

Where would this leave us? We will miss the wisdom he grants to those who follow his omniscient guidance, the power he bestows to those who seek his omnipotent care, and the “abundant” life Jesus died to give us (John 10:10). By boycotting his providential provision, we grieve our Father but we also impoverish ourselves and everyone we influence.

Two: We can choose to trust in God though we do not understand the ways he sometimes responds to innocent suffering. We can place our Father in the same category as others we trust though they sometimes disappoint us (which is everyone we trust).

God assures us that one day we will understand what we do not understand today (1 Corinthians 13:12). In the meantime, the more painful our suffering and thus the less we understand why God allows it, the more we need to trust it to his compassionate care.

The British pastor and hymnwriter Edward Mote testified:

When darkness seems to hide his face,
I rest on his unchanging grace;
In every high and stormy gale
My anchor holds within the vale.
On Christ, the solid rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand,
All other ground is sinking sand.

Upon what “ground” are you standing today?

Denison Forum

Yesterday’s elections were bad news for preborn children in America. Kentucky reelected pro-choice Gov. Andy Beshear, indicating that abortion rights advocacy will be a positive issue for Democrats in next year’s national elections. Ohio voters adopted a ballot measure to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution. And Virginia voters rebuffed Republican candidates in favor of those who support abortion rights.

Abortion rights have won in every election since Roe v. Wade was overturned and abortions have risen nationally, even though several states have restricted or outlawed the procedure. Yesterday’s results are significant politically because Donald Trump won Kentucky by a 25.9 percent margin in 2020 and Ohio by an 8 percent margin. While Joe Biden won Virginia, Republican Glenn Youngkin won the governor’s race the next year.

Virginia’s elections are especially relevant to this issue since Gov. Youngkin has advocated an approach that many hoped would forge a cultural consensus on abortion.

Is a 15-week ban the solution?

Youngkin has been supporting a fifteen-week abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother. US Catholic bishops have endorsed a similar Senate plan sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham (R.–SC) that would allow states to restrict abortion earlier in pregnancy but no later than fifteen weeks.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America also endorses a national ban on abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy and promises to oppose any presidential candidate who refuses to embrace this standard at a minimum.

Here’s the political reasoning behind such proposals: according to Gallup, 69 percent of Americans say abortion should be legal in the first trimester (conception to twelve weeks), while support drops to 37 percent for the second trimester (thirteen to twenty-seven weeks) and 22 percent for the third (twenty-eight to forty weeks). Majorities oppose abortion being legal in the second (55 percent) and third (70 percent) trimester.

In other words, a majority of Americans would theoretically support an abortion ban at fifteen weeks. However, since only 13 percent oppose abortion in all circumstances, it would seem that a large majority also want exceptions for rape, incest, and to save the mother’s life.

The challenges we face

Some pro-life supporters believe that since life begins at conception, permitting abortion politically at any stage is wrong. Just as we would not debate whether to legalize the killing of a newborn baby versus one who is fifteen weeks old, we should not legalize the aborting of a preborn baby at any stage in its life.

However, since only 13 percent of Americans agree, forging a political strategy to eliminate all abortions will be challenging.

This is why many pro-life advocates view a fifteen-week ban as the way to reverse pro-abortion gains after Roe was overturned. They believe this to be a way for pro-life politicians to win the political power necessary to protect as many lives as possible. But yesterday’s results in Virginia call into question the political viability of this strategy as well.

Pro-life advocates clearly must not abandon our political efforts to protect preborn children. But yesterday’s results illustrate the challenges we face and remind us that, in a post-Roe world, supporting life also requires non-political strategies that are highly commended by Scripture.

Where ministry begins in a post-Christian culture

Research indicates that women who chose abortion did so for these reasons:

• Not financially prepared: 40 percent
• Not a good time: 36 percent
• Issues with partner: 31 percent
• Need to focus on other children: 29 percent
• Interferes with future plans: 20 percent
• Not emotionally or mentally prepared: 19 percent
• Health issue: 12 percent
• Not independent or mature enough: 7 percent
• Influence from family or friends: 5 percent
• Don’t want children: 3 percent

Only 12 percent considered the preborn child, citing “unable to provide a ‘good’ life.”

Those who choose abortion obviously prioritize their personal issues over the life of their preborn child. If we are to help women considering abortion choose life instead, clearly we need to help them with these practical issues. We can provide financial assistance, health care, and counseling and resources for managing their other relationships. We can support pro-life ministries that provide such services. We can encourage adoption for those who do not think they are prepared to have another child and we can consider adopting personally.

In these ways, we can meet mothers of preborn children at the point of their personal needs, following the example of our Lord as he healed bodies to heal souls. His first followers did the same as they ministered to a man born lame (Acts 3) and “the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits” (Acts 5:16).

In their pre-Christian culture, ministry began with personal compassion. In our post-Christian culture, the same is true today.

As a result, whenever we see this issue in the news, let’s pray for mothers considering abortion to choose life for their preborn child, then let’s look for practical ways to answer our prayers.

Would you join me in doing so right now?

Denison Forum