Further Thoughts on the Texas Abortion Decision: Framing the Question

Further Thoughts on the Texas Abortion Decision: Framing the Question July 2, 2013

An Ideal World

I’m with Rick Perry, Governor of Texas (whom I personally find embarrassing in his egomaniacal drive to become President of the US) on one thing only:  in an ideal world, there would be no abortions.

But also in an ideal world there would be cohesive families, no rape or incest, no fetal deformities incompatible with life,  no spousal/girlfriend abuse, no abandoned mothers/children, affordable health care and insurance, high quality subsidized day-care available to all who need it, an economy that makes meaningful work available to all, an educational system that does not shortchange the poorest of the poor, and religious practices that show the world what real, sacrificial love looks like.

Last time I checked, we don’t live in a world like that. It is right for us as a society to see how we can do that. The government must be in the business of creating just laws that protect the innocent and move us toward a healthier society.

Please note:  I am not pro-abortion. Nonetheless as others have said, and whose words I echo, abortion should still be legal, safe and very, very rare. I stand with Wendy Davis and the other protestors in Austin right now because the bill that Perry is pushing through does not address the real issues underlying the a culture that has made abortion a too reasonable option.

Reframing the Question

The question itself must be reframed.

Last week at a Board Meeting for the child care ministry at our church, Children’s Day Out, the Board and staff were wrestling with the question, “Do we implement a feeding program so we can provide breakfasts and lunches?” We were wandering through cost sheets, the current labyrinth tuition setup, and the question of how many of our families will qualify for free or reduced meals. General frustration was arising.

I stopped them and said, “I think we need to reframe the question: If you know what your mission is, then you will be able to know your direction.”

The atmosphere changed immediately as we realized that the mission of the program itself had changed over the years but had never been clarified again.  A few moments later, we had it:  “The Mission of CDO is to offer a childcare facility with a loving nurturing Christian School atmosphere where we partner with parents to build healthy minds, bodies and souls in their children.”

At the point, the question shifted from “Do we implement a feeding program” to “HOW do we do this?” We got past that blockade by thinking bigger for a moment.  Now the details can fall into place.

“Do We Want Abortion?” is NOT the Question

I think the same methodology applies to the abortion situation. The question is not, “Do we want abortions?” with simplistic  “yes/no” the only options for answers.

The real question is: “How can we create a state/nation that values human life, respects the dignity of all humanity (including expectant mothers and developing fetuses), and seeks equal justice for the poor and disenfranchised?”

With a much wider question like this, the debate can be reframed and abortion laws clarified. Yes, 20 weeks of gestation seems like a reasonable limit, with room for the occasional exception, when such a painful act becomes necessary and yes facilities need oversight. But there is more: we must find and fund better ways to help expectant mothers see better options AND work on changing the culture of children having children and of irresponsible men and women who engage thoughtlessly in acts that have life-changing possibilities.

Address the System, not the Symptom

We must think bigger and address the system of societal unhealth, not the symptom of societal unhealth. The current legislation is the medical equivalent of putting a small bandage over a giant pus-filled wound which continues unhindered to pump out poison into the entire body.

I implore lawmakers to do their tasks with dignity. The stakes are eternal here–and to play with these things motivated solely by electability and along partisan lines denies the whole idea of the reason for the kind of government we say we want.

"Maybe you could blog about the sound of crickets, Christie Lib..."

A Time Off To Heal; Remy ..."
"Where is your proof of this? You are making outlandish generalizations about what liberals do ..."

It’s Official: We Are The United ..."
"P.S. Wow,Christie Lib, only one sympathy card so far? Doesn't seem like anybody cares..."

A Time Off To Heal; Remy ..."
"As we say in Texas, this here blog "is going to the dogs." LOL"

A Time Off To Heal; Remy ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Ned

    I agree that we should address the system – but I also agree that we need to address the symptom. Support early childhood education, better healthcare access for all, a living wage for low income workers, and life in the womb. They are not exclusive goals.

    When you are sick your doctor treats the underlying cause. At the same time, though, they treat the symptoms. So, to justify killing an innocent because they may grow up poor, or because they may have some sort of physical or mental defect, is a poor argument. To justify the act by saying that a woman should have control over her own body is also, I think, in error. She absolutely should be able to control her own body – no question about that. But, baby growing inside her is not her own body – it’s another human being.

    You have a great blog here. Thanks for the opportunity to provide an alternate view.

    • Tom Lambrecht

      Thank you, Christy, for a reasoned approach to a very emotional issue. I agree with your reframe of the question. However, I also agree with Ned that one doesn’t exclude the other. I can also understand the anger over “process” questions that Eric brings up. I’ve only lived in Texas two years, so I don’t quite understand why the normal Senate rules require a 2/3 vote for passing legislation. That seems like a recipe for gridlock. Maybe they keep it that way because they always know that on “important” issues, they can call a special session and get around that rule? Sounds like the process might need to be addressed, as well.

  • Ned

    I agree that we should address the system – but I also agree that we need to address the symptom. Support early childhood education, better healthcare access for all, a living wage for low income workers, and life in the womb. They are not exclusive goals.

    When you are sick your doctor treats the underlying cause. At the same time, though, they treat the symptoms. So, to justify killing an innocent because they may grow up poor, or because they may have some sort of physical or mental defect, is a poor argument. To justify the act by saying that a woman should have control over her own body is also, I think, in error. She absolutely should be able to control her own body – no question about that. But, baby growing inside her is not her own body – it’s another human being.

    You have a great blog here. Thanks for the opportunity to provide an alternate view.

    • Tom Lambrecht

      Thank you, Christy, for a reasoned approach to a very emotional issue. I agree with your reframe of the question. However, I also agree with Ned that one doesn’t exclude the other. I can also understand the anger over “process” questions that Eric brings up. I’ve only lived in Texas two years, so I don’t quite understand why the normal Senate rules require a 2/3 vote for passing legislation. That seems like a recipe for gridlock. Maybe they keep it that way because they always know that on “important” issues, they can call a special session and get around that rule? Sounds like the process might need to be addressed, as well.

  • Ned

    I agree that we should address the system – but I also agree that we need to address the symptom. Support early childhood education, better healthcare access for all, a living wage for low income workers, and life in the womb. They are not exclusive goals.

    When you are sick your doctor treats the underlying cause. At the same time, though, they treat the symptoms. So, to justify killing an innocent because they may grow up poor, or because they may have some sort of physical or mental defect, is a poor argument. To justify the act by saying that a woman should have control over her own body is also, I think, in error. She absolutely should be able to control her own body – no question about that. But, baby growing inside her is not her own body – it’s another human being.

    You have a great blog here. Thanks for the opportunity to provide an alternate view.

    • Tom Lambrecht

      Thank you, Christy, for a reasoned approach to a very emotional issue. I agree with your reframe of the question. However, I also agree with Ned that one doesn’t exclude the other. I can also understand the anger over “process” questions that Eric brings up. I’ve only lived in Texas two years, so I don’t quite understand why the normal Senate rules require a 2/3 vote for passing legislation. That seems like a recipe for gridlock. Maybe they keep it that way because they always know that on “important” issues, they can call a special session and get around that rule? Sounds like the process might need to be addressed, as well.

  • Tim McLemore

    Christy, these are beautiful and helpful words and thoughts. Thank you for sharing this.

  • Tim McLemore

    Christy, these are beautiful and helpful words and thoughts. Thank you for sharing this.

  • Tim McLemore

    Christy, these are beautiful and helpful words and thoughts. Thank you for sharing this.

  • Christy: I really appreciate what you’ve written here. I think you’re very kind to both sides of this debate, with your gentle reminder that how we “frame” an issue makes all the difference in the world. Both sides of this debate, far too often, tend to frame their opponents in the most unflattering light possible.

    So, yes, framing is deeply important.

    Also helpful is your reminder that almost nobody in the world is actually “pro-abortion,” even though they may be “pro-choice.” I know many Christians who have made the decision to stay “I am personally ‘pro-life,’ but I think abortion should be safe and legal.”

    This gets us to the last point, however, and the end of your essay, when you appear to suggest that perhaps the current legislation wouldn’t be such a bad thing. You say, that “facilities need oversight.” A statement I would agree with, on principle.

    But, I’m just not convinced that this is what this bill is actually about.

    The bills currently being considered would have the effect of closing all but a handful of clinics in the state of Texas…the commonly accepted view is that only five would meet the criteria, down from 42 currently. Specifically, it would require doctors to have hospital privileges at hospitals within 30 miles (not even geographically possible in some places…) and would force clinics to meet the standards generally reserved for “ambulatory surgical centers.

    Again, on the surface, this last one might cause folks to ask, “Well, why NOT?”

    Here’s why not…

    If there was a quantifiable epidemic of women getting substandard care….

    If the supporters of this bill could point to a shocking number of deaths and injuries at the clinics currently open in Texas…

    Then, I actually believe you would find a lot of folks supporting this bill. And, most definitely, many women.

    However, that *doesn’t* seem to be the case. There appears to be no epidemic whatsoever associated with the way abortions are currently provided for, under current state law.

    I believe this leads many people –especially many women– to assume this bill is not *really* about the health of Texas women, or the safety of provider clinics. But instead, they determine that this bill is about eliminating safe, legal abortion in Texas. It’s hard not to agree with them.

    I would suggest that this is at the heart of much of the anger about this bill. And, frankly, I guess I understand it.

    The other thing at play here is *how* these bills are coming up: As a part of the special session. As you may or may not recall, in “regular session,” bills generally need 2/3rds majority to come to the floor of the Texas Senate. However, during a special session, that requirement is often waved. That’s clearly the case here. This is a bill that absolutely would not pass in regular session…so, it’s brought up in this special session.

    Therefore, another part of the anger here is HOW this bill is coming before the Senate/House now. There is a feeling it’s an attempt to slide it through, under this technicality of Senate rules.

    Again, whether or not you and I believe these should be the Senate rules, I can understand they the “process” is making people angry.

    In other words: both with respect to the “ambulatory clinic” requirements of the bill, and to the “process” used to bring it to the Senate….I understand why folks are angry. And, in my opinion, nobody should be surprised there has been an outcry and reaction from many men and women across the state.

    • Thank you for taking the time for this good post Eric. I did not state clearly in my blog that I am very much opposed to the proposed legislation for many of the reasons you have articulated here. You’ve done a great job in giving the far bigger picture.

    • Don Wiley

      Having had the experience of representing and counseling young women and families at times like this, I can say it is tough. The girls/women involved bring a variety of experiences to the table and whether they have chosen to keep, give up for adoption or abort, there are scars, life changes and reliefs involved. More than one friend or client has told me it was the toughest decision they ever made.

      I personally know women who now regret a hastily made or what they thought at the time was a well-considered decision when they only had input from one source. I also know women who are quite grateful they had the love and support of friends to do the tough thing. Decades later, they still feel the pain, but they also have a peace that, for them (and that ‘them’ includes their unborn child), they did the right thing by putting the child up for adoption or by terminating the pregnancy.

      If we are giving a woman an opportunity to second-guess a life-changing decision, I am not sure that is a bad thing at all. If we are insuring better medical care (whether that be physical or psychological) for this woman by requiring higher standards, I think it is a good thing. We will need to step up the availability of appropriate care and aftercare.

      People drive quite a distance, regardless of poverty, to get a drivers license or identification. Is something besides doc-in-the-box convenience for such a life-altering event so inappropriate? If we strip away the rhetoric, this bill requires better medical care for women facing abortion, better education about alternatives and protections for viable babies.

      I am not an abolitionist; however, If terminating lives because of irresponsibility, inconvenience, interference with life plans, crime, poverty, control of one’s own body or… choice… is a ‘justice’ issue, I no longer understand the meaning of the word. Too many women and men are physically and emotionally scarred by their experiences. We need to minister to them AND their children to break the chain of unintended pregnancy. It starts looooong before the teen years….

      What I hear in the anger and the pain surrounding this issue is a call for us. I believe God is working and speaking through this process. I believe He is calling us to reach out to the hurting in whatever decision they make. We need to talk boldly about ways of living a whole life as our Savior did, where we teach respect for a person’s spirit AND their body, and thankfulness, respect and responsibility for sexuality.

  • Christy: I really appreciate what you’ve written here. I think you’re very kind to both sides of this debate, with your gentle reminder that how we “frame” an issue makes all the difference in the world. Both sides of this debate, far too often, tend to frame their opponents in the most unflattering light possible.

    So, yes, framing is deeply important.

    Also helpful is your reminder that almost nobody in the world is actually “pro-abortion,” even though they may be “pro-choice.” I know many Christians who have made the decision to stay “I am personally ‘pro-life,’ but I think abortion should be safe and legal.”

    This gets us to the last point, however, and the end of your essay, when you appear to suggest that perhaps the current legislation wouldn’t be such a bad thing. You say, that “facilities need oversight.” A statement I would agree with, on principle.

    But, I’m just not convinced that this is what this bill is actually about.

    The bills currently being considered would have the effect of closing all but a handful of clinics in the state of Texas…the commonly accepted view is that only five would meet the criteria, down from 42 currently. Specifically, it would require doctors to have hospital privileges at hospitals within 30 miles (not even geographically possible in some places…) and would force clinics to meet the standards generally reserved for “ambulatory surgical centers.

    Again, on the surface, this last one might cause folks to ask, “Well, why NOT?”

    Here’s why not…

    If there was a quantifiable epidemic of women getting substandard care….

    If the supporters of this bill could point to a shocking number of deaths and injuries at the clinics currently open in Texas…

    Then, I actually believe you would find a lot of folks supporting this bill. And, most definitely, many women.

    However, that *doesn’t* seem to be the case. There appears to be no epidemic whatsoever associated with the way abortions are currently provided for, under current state law.

    I believe this leads many people –especially many women– to assume this bill is not *really* about the health of Texas women, or the safety of provider clinics. But instead, they determine that this bill is about eliminating safe, legal abortion in Texas. It’s hard not to agree with them.

    I would suggest that this is at the heart of much of the anger about this bill. And, frankly, I guess I understand it.

    The other thing at play here is *how* these bills are coming up: As a part of the special session. As you may or may not recall, in “regular session,” bills generally need 2/3rds majority to come to the floor of the Texas Senate. However, during a special session, that requirement is often waved. That’s clearly the case here. This is a bill that absolutely would not pass in regular session…so, it’s brought up in this special session.

    Therefore, another part of the anger here is HOW this bill is coming before the Senate/House now. There is a feeling it’s an attempt to slide it through, under this technicality of Senate rules.

    Again, whether or not you and I believe these should be the Senate rules, I can understand they the “process” is making people angry.

    In other words: both with respect to the “ambulatory clinic” requirements of the bill, and to the “process” used to bring it to the Senate….I understand why folks are angry. And, in my opinion, nobody should be surprised there has been an outcry and reaction from many men and women across the state.

    • Thank you for taking the time for this good post Eric. I did not state clearly in my blog that I am very much opposed to the proposed legislation for many of the reasons you have articulated here. You’ve done a great job in giving the far bigger picture.

    • Don Wiley

      Having had the experience of representing and counseling young women and families at times like this, I can say it is tough. The girls/women involved bring a variety of experiences to the table and whether they have chosen to keep, give up for adoption or abort, there are scars, life changes and reliefs involved. More than one friend or client has told me it was the toughest decision they ever made.

      I personally know women who now regret a hastily made or what they thought at the time was a well-considered decision when they only had input from one source. I also know women who are quite grateful they had the love and support of friends to do the tough thing. Decades later, they still feel the pain, but they also have a peace that, for them (and that ‘them’ includes their unborn child), they did the right thing by putting the child up for adoption or by terminating the pregnancy.

      If we are giving a woman an opportunity to second-guess a life-changing decision, I am not sure that is a bad thing at all. If we are insuring better medical care (whether that be physical or psychological) for this woman by requiring higher standards, I think it is a good thing. We will need to step up the availability of appropriate care and aftercare.

      People drive quite a distance, regardless of poverty, to get a drivers license or identification. Is something besides doc-in-the-box convenience for such a life-altering event so inappropriate? If we strip away the rhetoric, this bill requires better medical care for women facing abortion, better education about alternatives and protections for viable babies.

      I am not an abolitionist; however, If terminating lives because of irresponsibility, inconvenience, interference with life plans, crime, poverty, control of one’s own body or… choice… is a ‘justice’ issue, I no longer understand the meaning of the word. Too many women and men are physically and emotionally scarred by their experiences. We need to minister to them AND their children to break the chain of unintended pregnancy. It starts looooong before the teen years….

      What I hear in the anger and the pain surrounding this issue is a call for us. I believe God is working and speaking through this process. I believe He is calling us to reach out to the hurting in whatever decision they make. We need to talk boldly about ways of living a whole life as our Savior did, where we teach respect for a person’s spirit AND their body, and thankfulness, respect and responsibility for sexuality.

  • Christy: I really appreciate what you’ve written here. I think you’re very kind to both sides of this debate, with your gentle reminder that how we “frame” an issue makes all the difference in the world. Both sides of this debate, far too often, tend to frame their opponents in the most unflattering light possible.

    So, yes, framing is deeply important.

    Also helpful is your reminder that almost nobody in the world is actually “pro-abortion,” even though they may be “pro-choice.” I know many Christians who have made the decision to stay “I am personally ‘pro-life,’ but I think abortion should be safe and legal.”

    This gets us to the last point, however, and the end of your essay, when you appear to suggest that perhaps the current legislation wouldn’t be such a bad thing. You say, that “facilities need oversight.” A statement I would agree with, on principle.

    But, I’m just not convinced that this is what this bill is actually about.

    The bills currently being considered would have the effect of closing all but a handful of clinics in the state of Texas…the commonly accepted view is that only five would meet the criteria, down from 42 currently. Specifically, it would require doctors to have hospital privileges at hospitals within 30 miles (not even geographically possible in some places…) and would force clinics to meet the standards generally reserved for “ambulatory surgical centers.

    Again, on the surface, this last one might cause folks to ask, “Well, why NOT?”

    Here’s why not…

    If there was a quantifiable epidemic of women getting substandard care….

    If the supporters of this bill could point to a shocking number of deaths and injuries at the clinics currently open in Texas…

    Then, I actually believe you would find a lot of folks supporting this bill. And, most definitely, many women.

    However, that *doesn’t* seem to be the case. There appears to be no epidemic whatsoever associated with the way abortions are currently provided for, under current state law.

    I believe this leads many people –especially many women– to assume this bill is not *really* about the health of Texas women, or the safety of provider clinics. But instead, they determine that this bill is about eliminating safe, legal abortion in Texas. It’s hard not to agree with them.

    I would suggest that this is at the heart of much of the anger about this bill. And, frankly, I guess I understand it.

    The other thing at play here is *how* these bills are coming up: As a part of the special session. As you may or may not recall, in “regular session,” bills generally need 2/3rds majority to come to the floor of the Texas Senate. However, during a special session, that requirement is often waved. That’s clearly the case here. This is a bill that absolutely would not pass in regular session…so, it’s brought up in this special session.

    Therefore, another part of the anger here is HOW this bill is coming before the Senate/House now. There is a feeling it’s an attempt to slide it through, under this technicality of Senate rules.

    Again, whether or not you and I believe these should be the Senate rules, I can understand they the “process” is making people angry.

    In other words: both with respect to the “ambulatory clinic” requirements of the bill, and to the “process” used to bring it to the Senate….I understand why folks are angry. And, in my opinion, nobody should be surprised there has been an outcry and reaction from many men and women across the state.

    • Thank you for taking the time for this good post Eric. I did not state clearly in my blog that I am very much opposed to the proposed legislation for many of the reasons you have articulated here. You’ve done a great job in giving the far bigger picture.

    • Don Wiley

      Having had the experience of representing and counseling young women and families at times like this, I can say it is tough. The girls/women involved bring a variety of experiences to the table and whether they have chosen to keep, give up for adoption or abort, there are scars, life changes and reliefs involved. More than one friend or client has told me it was the toughest decision they ever made.

      I personally know women who now regret a hastily made or what they thought at the time was a well-considered decision when they only had input from one source. I also know women who are quite grateful they had the love and support of friends to do the tough thing. Decades later, they still feel the pain, but they also have a peace that, for them (and that ‘them’ includes their unborn child), they did the right thing by putting the child up for adoption or by terminating the pregnancy.

      If we are giving a woman an opportunity to second-guess a life-changing decision, I am not sure that is a bad thing at all. If we are insuring better medical care (whether that be physical or psychological) for this woman by requiring higher standards, I think it is a good thing. We will need to step up the availability of appropriate care and aftercare.

      People drive quite a distance, regardless of poverty, to get a drivers license or identification. Is something besides doc-in-the-box convenience for such a life-altering event so inappropriate? If we strip away the rhetoric, this bill requires better medical care for women facing abortion, better education about alternatives and protections for viable babies.

      I am not an abolitionist; however, If terminating lives because of irresponsibility, inconvenience, interference with life plans, crime, poverty, control of one’s own body or… choice… is a ‘justice’ issue, I no longer understand the meaning of the word. Too many women and men are physically and emotionally scarred by their experiences. We need to minister to them AND their children to break the chain of unintended pregnancy. It starts looooong before the teen years….

      What I hear in the anger and the pain surrounding this issue is a call for us. I believe God is working and speaking through this process. I believe He is calling us to reach out to the hurting in whatever decision they make. We need to talk boldly about ways of living a whole life as our Savior did, where we teach respect for a person’s spirit AND their body, and thankfulness, respect and responsibility for sexuality.

  • Reblogged this on Thoughts From The Heart On The Left and commented:
    I like this post, simply because it addresses the issues that are often not addressed in the debate.

  • Reblogged this on Thoughts From The Heart On The Left and commented:
    I like this post, simply because it addresses the issues that are often not addressed in the debate.

  • Reblogged this on Thoughts From The Heart On The Left and commented:
    I like this post, simply because it addresses the issues that are often not addressed in the debate.

  • We really can’t see the forest for the trees and all the connections going on from the soil to the leaf. Abortion is but one social issue, though it’s actually a social ill since it’s something that no moral or ethical person can be “for,” that is connected to and impacted by so many other social issues and ills. So many neglected and “unwanted” children who don’t ask to be brought into this world grow up to be criminals or drug addicts or such–and then the rabid conservatives want them punished severely by packing them in atrocious “prisons for profit” leading to more generations of needy and neglected children with resentments and behavioral stuff. And those same rabid conservatives dismiss and dehumanize them with language such as “welfare queens” and “drags on society.” But rabid liberals don’t always do them favors by patronizing and paternalistic patting on the heads and equally misguided liberal attitude of “we’ll take care of you so you don’t have to.” Seems to me that our prophetic call as clergy isn’t to be taking sides on the inner workings of politics (though there is the fairness issue of the political process in this Austin fiasco) or lib vs. conservative, so much as our general calling out of politicians about how all these things that Christy mentions are issues are connected to “hot button” issues like abortion. We can forcefully calling out political leaders (and all political animals among us) to reframe things, to see the bigger, moral scheme of things, as the thoughtful pastor here points out, and connect the dots to rebuild or repair broken systems instead of breaking down more women and children with political and cultural “wars” where we are forced always fly our flags with one side or another. That leads to more mob mentality on both sides and all sides, with our loud, hyped up tea mob against your loud, jittery coffee mob, and all the cycles of finger pointing and increasing resentment build with no space of reason, calm, compromise and balanced approaches to so many social iils and issues–all related.

  • We really can’t see the forest for the trees and all the connections going on from the soil to the leaf. Abortion is but one social issue, though it’s actually a social ill since it’s something that no moral or ethical person can be “for,” that is connected to and impacted by so many other social issues and ills. So many neglected and “unwanted” children who don’t ask to be brought into this world grow up to be criminals or drug addicts or such–and then the rabid conservatives want them punished severely by packing them in atrocious “prisons for profit” leading to more generations of needy and neglected children with resentments and behavioral stuff. And those same rabid conservatives dismiss and dehumanize them with language such as “welfare queens” and “drags on society.” But rabid liberals don’t always do them favors by patronizing and paternalistic patting on the heads and equally misguided liberal attitude of “we’ll take care of you so you don’t have to.” Seems to me that our prophetic call as clergy isn’t to be taking sides on the inner workings of politics (though there is the fairness issue of the political process in this Austin fiasco) or lib vs. conservative, so much as our general calling out of politicians about how all these things that Christy mentions are issues are connected to “hot button” issues like abortion. We can forcefully calling out political leaders (and all political animals among us) to reframe things, to see the bigger, moral scheme of things, as the thoughtful pastor here points out, and connect the dots to rebuild or repair broken systems instead of breaking down more women and children with political and cultural “wars” where we are forced always fly our flags with one side or another. That leads to more mob mentality on both sides and all sides, with our loud, hyped up tea mob against your loud, jittery coffee mob, and all the cycles of finger pointing and increasing resentment build with no space of reason, calm, compromise and balanced approaches to so many social iils and issues–all related.

  • We really can’t see the forest for the trees and all the connections going on from the soil to the leaf. Abortion is but one social issue, though it’s actually a social ill since it’s something that no moral or ethical person can be “for,” that is connected to and impacted by so many other social issues and ills. So many neglected and “unwanted” children who don’t ask to be brought into this world grow up to be criminals or drug addicts or such–and then the rabid conservatives want them punished severely by packing them in atrocious “prisons for profit” leading to more generations of needy and neglected children with resentments and behavioral stuff. And those same rabid conservatives dismiss and dehumanize them with language such as “welfare queens” and “drags on society.” But rabid liberals don’t always do them favors by patronizing and paternalistic patting on the heads and equally misguided liberal attitude of “we’ll take care of you so you don’t have to.” Seems to me that our prophetic call as clergy isn’t to be taking sides on the inner workings of politics (though there is the fairness issue of the political process in this Austin fiasco) or lib vs. conservative, so much as our general calling out of politicians about how all these things that Christy mentions are issues are connected to “hot button” issues like abortion. We can forcefully calling out political leaders (and all political animals among us) to reframe things, to see the bigger, moral scheme of things, as the thoughtful pastor here points out, and connect the dots to rebuild or repair broken systems instead of breaking down more women and children with political and cultural “wars” where we are forced always fly our flags with one side or another. That leads to more mob mentality on both sides and all sides, with our loud, hyped up tea mob against your loud, jittery coffee mob, and all the cycles of finger pointing and increasing resentment build with no space of reason, calm, compromise and balanced approaches to so many social iils and issues–all related.

  • Pingback: Further Thoughts on the Texas Abortion Decision: Framing the Question | New NY 23rd()

  • Pingback: Further Thoughts on the Texas Abortion Decision: Framing the Question | New NY 23rd()

  • Pingback: Further Thoughts on the Texas Abortion Decision: Framing the Question | New NY 23rd()

  • Sanden Cottongame

    Presented in the myriad of misinformation is the allegation that all but a few, say five? Abortion clinics will close in Texas. If those physicians who currently perform abortions elect to not seek privileges at hospitals in the areas they practice, then they will close. My experience as an RN, working radiology procedures as well as emergent care, all physicians who perform any clinic or outpatient procedures MUST have privileges at one or more hospitals in case the patient is admitted with a complication. Abortion clinics have bypassed this regulation in the State if Texas, leaving those women who experience issues post-abortion to the care of emergency room physicians or the OB/GYN on call. This is an undue burden as many physicians who perform abortions are contracted, are not area physicians, and leave the region immediately after doing dozens of abortions with no contact information given to the patients. Their recourse is to go to the emergency room should they have problems. In a system where we require podiatrists to avail themselves, should not the same also hold true for someone invading the most vascular of organs in a woman’s body as it does for toes?

    This bill does not seek to stop all abortions, several sponsors are women, one an emergency room physician herself. And I take issue with those who portray this as sending us back to a time where contraception was rare and the alternative was a self-induced abortion with a wire hangar. There are more contraceptive methods now than ever before, and the argument that incest and rape and malformations are determined well before the 20th week of gestation. I can show you point-for-point in this bill why this is essential for the better care of women and to stop the late-term killing of viable infants.

  • Sanden Cottongame

    Presented in the myriad of misinformation is the allegation that all but a few, say five? Abortion clinics will close in Texas. If those physicians who currently perform abortions elect to not seek privileges at hospitals in the areas they practice, then they will close. My experience as an RN, working radiology procedures as well as emergent care, all physicians who perform any clinic or outpatient procedures MUST have privileges at one or more hospitals in case the patient is admitted with a complication. Abortion clinics have bypassed this regulation in the State if Texas, leaving those women who experience issues post-abortion to the care of emergency room physicians or the OB/GYN on call. This is an undue burden as many physicians who perform abortions are contracted, are not area physicians, and leave the region immediately after doing dozens of abortions with no contact information given to the patients. Their recourse is to go to the emergency room should they have problems. In a system where we require podiatrists to avail themselves, should not the same also hold true for someone invading the most vascular of organs in a woman’s body as it does for toes?

    This bill does not seek to stop all abortions, several sponsors are women, one an emergency room physician herself. And I take issue with those who portray this as sending us back to a time where contraception was rare and the alternative was a self-induced abortion with a wire hangar. There are more contraceptive methods now than ever before, and the argument that incest and rape and malformations are determined well before the 20th week of gestation. I can show you point-for-point in this bill why this is essential for the better care of women and to stop the late-term killing of viable infants.

  • Sanden Cottongame

    Presented in the myriad of misinformation is the allegation that all but a few, say five? Abortion clinics will close in Texas. If those physicians who currently perform abortions elect to not seek privileges at hospitals in the areas they practice, then they will close. My experience as an RN, working radiology procedures as well as emergent care, all physicians who perform any clinic or outpatient procedures MUST have privileges at one or more hospitals in case the patient is admitted with a complication. Abortion clinics have bypassed this regulation in the State if Texas, leaving those women who experience issues post-abortion to the care of emergency room physicians or the OB/GYN on call. This is an undue burden as many physicians who perform abortions are contracted, are not area physicians, and leave the region immediately after doing dozens of abortions with no contact information given to the patients. Their recourse is to go to the emergency room should they have problems. In a system where we require podiatrists to avail themselves, should not the same also hold true for someone invading the most vascular of organs in a woman’s body as it does for toes?

    This bill does not seek to stop all abortions, several sponsors are women, one an emergency room physician herself. And I take issue with those who portray this as sending us back to a time where contraception was rare and the alternative was a self-induced abortion with a wire hangar. There are more contraceptive methods now than ever before, and the argument that incest and rape and malformations are determined well before the 20th week of gestation. I can show you point-for-point in this bill why this is essential for the better care of women and to stop the late-term killing of viable infants.

  • Pingback: “It’s A Creative Thing” | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left()

  • Pingback: “It’s A Creative Thing” | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left()

  • Pingback: “It’s A Creative Thing” | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left()

  • Charles R. Hogge, Jr.

    Christy, I do not believe the “ideal world” that you long for can be legislated. Throughout modern history, many have sought to create a utopian society through governmental action. I have looked carefully over this Blog and find a glaring omission. That being any reference to the imperative for a surrender to God’s will through Jesus Christ. Our Methodist mission statement speaks to that:

    “We Have a Mission

    “Why does the church exist? According to Matthew’s Gospel, the risen Christ made it clear: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you’ (28:19-20).

    “Based on this ‘Great Commission,’ our United Methodist Church has stated its purpose: ‘The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Local churches provide the most significant arena through which disciple-making occurs’ (From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church—2008, p. 87. Copyright © 2008 by The United Methodist Publishing House. Used by permission).

    “So the mission of our congregation is to make disciples. This is a four-fold task….We could abbreviate our mission as one of welcoming-worshiping-nurturing-sending. (See The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church—2008, p. 88, and Guidelines for Leading Your Congregation, 2005-2008.”

    The only way we are going to really solve the problems discussed is to identify the stumbling blocks to faithful and effective discipleship that result from placing self ahead of Christ with regard to sexual practice and preach and teach congregations to become passionate followers of Christ. We are called to individual and national repentance.

  • Charles R. Hogge, Jr.

    Christy, I do not believe the “ideal world” that you long for can be legislated. Throughout modern history, many have sought to create a utopian society through governmental action. I have looked carefully over this Blog and find a glaring omission. That being any reference to the imperative for a surrender to God’s will through Jesus Christ. Our Methodist mission statement speaks to that:

    “We Have a Mission

    “Why does the church exist? According to Matthew’s Gospel, the risen Christ made it clear: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you’ (28:19-20).

    “Based on this ‘Great Commission,’ our United Methodist Church has stated its purpose: ‘The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Local churches provide the most significant arena through which disciple-making occurs’ (From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church—2008, p. 87. Copyright © 2008 by The United Methodist Publishing House. Used by permission).

    “So the mission of our congregation is to make disciples. This is a four-fold task….We could abbreviate our mission as one of welcoming-worshiping-nurturing-sending. (See The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church—2008, p. 88, and Guidelines for Leading Your Congregation, 2005-2008.”

    The only way we are going to really solve the problems discussed is to identify the stumbling blocks to faithful and effective discipleship that result from placing self ahead of Christ with regard to sexual practice and preach and teach congregations to become passionate followers of Christ. We are called to individual and national repentance.

  • Charles R. Hogge, Jr.

    Christy, I do not believe the “ideal world” that you long for can be legislated. Throughout modern history, many have sought to create a utopian society through governmental action. I have looked carefully over this Blog and find a glaring omission. That being any reference to the imperative for a surrender to God’s will through Jesus Christ. Our Methodist mission statement speaks to that:

    “We Have a Mission

    “Why does the church exist? According to Matthew’s Gospel, the risen Christ made it clear: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you’ (28:19-20).

    “Based on this ‘Great Commission,’ our United Methodist Church has stated its purpose: ‘The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Local churches provide the most significant arena through which disciple-making occurs’ (From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church—2008, p. 87. Copyright © 2008 by The United Methodist Publishing House. Used by permission).

    “So the mission of our congregation is to make disciples. This is a four-fold task….We could abbreviate our mission as one of welcoming-worshiping-nurturing-sending. (See The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church—2008, p. 88, and Guidelines for Leading Your Congregation, 2005-2008.”

    The only way we are going to really solve the problems discussed is to identify the stumbling blocks to faithful and effective discipleship that result from placing self ahead of Christ with regard to sexual practice and preach and teach congregations to become passionate followers of Christ. We are called to individual and national repentance.