By Quinn Skinner
The Washington Stand
This past summer, when the Trump-led RNC gutted the pro-life and pro-family planks of the party platform, some expressed hope that this measure came from pragmatism, rather than conviction. Trump’s Truth Social post of August 23, his avowal to veto a federal abortion bill, and enthusiastic echoes from his running mate have since alleviated that burden of ambiguity. The GOP’s new Kennedy family ally is himself an up-to-birth abortion apologist. Some GOP candidates, perhaps fearing the loss of a Trump endorsement, have remained silent regarding these flip-flops, or softened their own positions.
There is no national political party that champions the sanctity of life.
Now what?
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and Washington Stand Senior Writer Suzanne Bowdey have already written forcefully on this topic. They have urged believers to continue to speak the truth to both parties, “find the candidate that most closely aligns with your biblical values,” and “refuse to disengage.” In this piece, I will follow those efforts by briefly exploring times that our spiritual ancestors have faced similar difficulties on similar issues, and suggest two concrete policy priorities: protect pregnancy resource centers, and fight to remove federal funding for abortion businesses.
Perseverance without a Party
William Wilberforce, the great legislator who led the legal fight against slavery and the slave trade in the British empire, faced a similar setback in the tumultuous years of the French Revolution, as Eric Metaxas details in his biography of Wilberforce (“Amazing Grace”). As the Reign of Terror consumed French society, British elites saw monarchies as safer and more orderly. Anti-slavery efforts were branded as too egalitarian, or even “seditious.”
Thus, besides his normal pro-slavery opponents, Wilberforce also endured the scorn of both major parties whose members jockeyed for favor with the public and the King. The King publicly snubbed Wilberforce and, flip-flopping, spoke out against abolition. Yet Wilberforce remained resolute and innovative, continuing to push his own doomed abolition bill, and looking for new legal angles of approach. The tide eventually turned, but years later.
How did he persevere? Wilberforce remained independent from all political parties throughout his career, and thus was unfettered by a party platform. But he was not a lone wolf. He gained strength from his church and a community of like-minded believers dubbed the “Clapham Sect,” which included politicians, clergy, and businessmen. He was also a devoted family man. He recognized that it is the Body of Christ, not any political gathering, that is “the fullness of Him who fills everything in every way” (Ephesians 1:23, NIV). As Christians, we may find political party affiliation convenient, but the church is God’s agent of change in the world, strengthening its citizens through fellowship with the word and His Spirit.
Defensive Policy Priority: Protect Pregnancy Resource Centers
The early churches of the first and second centuries AD had little to no political power. But they nevertheless advanced the gospel in part by rescuing the helpless, including the infants abandoned outside cities. The lesson here, however, is not that Christians should eschew political influence. Over time, more Christians rose to positions of leadership in the Roman government, to the benefit of society.
Rather, the lesson here is that faithfulness in protecting the innocent can bring not just eternal rewards, but temporal benefits to the community, regardless of political power structures or personalities.
It is the same today: the active, practical rescue of the innocent remains the primary focus of the pro-life movement. The pro-life pregnancy help ministries are the movement’s center of gravity. So long as we are providing life-affirming care to women, the gospel will continue to advance.
Our opponents recognize this truth, and that is why they are now conducting lawfare against pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) in many blue states. One might recall the cases of recent years in which California and Illinois tried to compel PRCs to refer clients to abortion facilities. Now the State of Massachusetts is conducting a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to label PRCs as “anti-abortion centers.” Such legal battles are ongoing and growing.
While we are thankful for the work of many brave lawyers and PRC leaders in this fight, the PRCs and their legal counsel need better financial support by churches and better legislative protection by state legislatures.
Offensive Policy Priority: Defund Abortion Businesses
The Government Accounting Office (GAO) recently updated its review of federal “Health Care Funding,” covering the period of 2019 to 2022. This concise bullet from the executive summary reveals much:
“Planned Parenthood Federation of America affiliates received about $148 million in HHS [Health and Human Services] grants or cooperative agreements and $1.54 billion in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP payments. Planned Parenthood affiliates also received 44 Paycheck Protection Program loans totaling approximately $89 million — the entire amount, including accrued interest, was forgiven.”
I have little patience for whatever excuses are made for what particular Planned Parenthood budget line items these grants did or did not fund. Planned Parenthood’s business is abortion, and the $1.7 billion helped their bottom line. On top of this subsidy, Planned Parenthood affiliates charge each of their clients a substantial sum for their “services.”
PRCs, by contrast, provide all their services to women in need for free. “Free” is an unbeatable business model, beating the abortion businesses’ price by 100% in every market. Unless, of course, your competitor is backed by the federal government that can print its own money and provide taxpayer subsidies to for-profit companies.
According to recent polling, two-thirds or more of American voters think abortion should be legal. Yet surely we can find support even among some pro-choice voters and politicians that abortion should not be publicly funded. Perhaps some, seeking some course of fiscal sanity to stop grinding down the poor with inflation, might find cause to defund this elective procedure.
Subsidies produce dependencies. Given the long history of this federal funding (the GAO numbers were similar a decade ago), the Planned Parenthood Federation might collapse under its own weight if these subsidies were removed. We should fight to that end, though the opposition will be fierce.
Opposition and Obligation
We may or may not get help from the GOP in either of these priorities, even for defunding. Also found conspicuously absent from the RNC platform: reform of the national budget or any mention of monetary policy. No form of the word “responsibility” appears in the document. And of course, those affiliated with the DNC have already declared their hostility towards our offensive and defensive efforts.
Yet God demands that we continue the fight faithfully for the innocent, the women who carry them, and the rest of our fellow Americans (Proverbs 24:11-12).
Did I mention that Wilberforce was an Independent?
Quinn Skinner retired from the U.S. Navy after serving 26 years, having attained the rank of Captain. He currently works for a pregnancy help organization and is the board chairman for PassionLife (passionlife.org). The views of the author are his own and do not reflect those of his employer or any U.S. government entity.
Originally published at The Washington Stand!
