Breakpoint

The most common response from pro-abortion advocates since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court is misinformation. One of the most common pieces of misinformation that's been floated by media outlets, politicians, and cultural commentators alike is that certain pro-life laws triggered by the Dobbs decision place the lives of pregnant women at risk, especially those facing an ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage. These pro-life laws are not clear, the argument goes, so doctors could face legal reprisals for offering the life-saving treatments that women with at-risk pregnancies need. In some versions of this scenario, hospitals and doctors are frozen with fear and confusion, unsure of what they can and cannot do.

However, as Alexandra DeSanctis wrote recently at National Review, "This is simply not the case." What her article offers is exactly what pro-lifers need to answer this pro-abortion talking point, and exactly what the title promises: "How Every State Pro-Life Law Handles Ectopic Pregnancy and Miscarriage." Here's the summary of what DeSanctis' deep dive into state law revealed:

Abortion supporters have argued that state abortion limits aren't clear about whether these types of health care are permitted—and they have argued that, as a result of this supposed lack of clarity, doctors have declined to perform necessary and potentially life-saving procedures out of fear of reprisal from officials enforcing state pro-life laws.

This is simply not the case. If doctors are doing so—and abortion supporters have offered little evidence of a systemic problem in this regard—it is the fault of the doctors themselves, not the fault of the pro-life laws, which are eminently clear. The pro-life worldview has always held that both lives matter, that of the mother and that of her unborn child. It is always permissible to act to care for a pregnant mother whose life is at risk.

Neither miscarriage care nor treatment for ectopic pregnancy has anything to do with an induced-abortion procedure, which intentionally kills an unborn child. Every successful elective abortion has a single aim: to end the life of the child growing in his or her mother's womb. What's more, medical professionals acknowledge that induced abortion is never medically necessary to treat a pregnant mother; modern medicine can treat the mother without intentionally killing the child.

For instance, miscarriage care treats a woman whose unborn child has already died, and ectopic-pregnancy treatment removes an unborn child who cannot develop or survive, in order to save the life of the mother. Neither of these types of health care bears any resemblance to directly and intentionally killing the child. The only people confused about this—or pretending to be confused—are supporters of abortion on demand. And their aim is clear: to cause confusion for the sake of undermining pro-life laws.

To put a fine point on the issue: Until just last week, even the website of Planned Parenthood explicitly stated that ectopic-pregnancy treatment is not an abortion. But then the abortion business erased that clarifying information in an effort to perpetuate the tide of misinformation, intentionally blurring the lines between actual health care aimed at saving a mother's life and abortion procedures, which intend to cause the death of an unborn child.

DeSanctis then provides a summary and a quote of the relevant portion of the law from every state in question: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. I highly recommend that you read the whole thing, especially if you encounter this particular talking point that has been repeated so often that many have begun to actually believe it.

And I recommend Alexandra DeSanctis' book, co-authored with Dr. Ryan Anderson, Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing. In it, Anderson and DeSanctis describe what's really behind this particular talking point. Legalized abortion has taught us to see the God-given and good ability to procreate as a barrier to full humanness as women. Along the way, fertility is treated as a problem to be overcome, not a good thing to be embraced.

If Christians are going to build a culture of life, we must understand all the ways in which this legal travesty poisoned our understanding of life, sex, marriage, and children. That's what Tearing Us Apart offers: the understanding we need to continue to uphold the dignity of life. I think this book is so very important right now. For a gift of any amount this month, I will send you a copy of Tearing Us Apart by Alexandra DeSanctis and Ryan Anderson. Just go to breakpoint.org/give before the end of July.

France is pretty mad at the United States. In fact, the entire European Union is mad, so mad in fact, they wrote a strongly worded letter. Earlier this month the EU passed a resolution condemning the United States Supreme Court's ruling in the Dobbs abortion case, which overturned Roe v. Wade and sent the matter of abortion restrictions back to individual state legislatures.

Parliamentarians said the Dobbs ruling showed that "women's and girls' rights" are under attack. The strange part is that the Mississippi law which sparked the Dobbs case restricts abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. That's one week later than France's law, which restricts elective abortions after 14 weeks.

It gets weirder: The EU's condemnation also warns the Dobbs ruling could embolden "anti-gender" groups around the world. But if abortion is about the rights of "women and girls," that implies we know how to define "woman" and "girl."

It's all a silly bit of posturing, but if the EU is worried Dobbs will change the world, I hope they're right.

"Christians should stop seeking political control and power and just focus on winning the lost."

"Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world' so Christians should stay out of government."

"Neither Jesus nor the early Christians tried to take over Rome. He built His kingdom in people's hearts and minds."

Many variations of this argument can be found in Christian Twitterverse, usually, in response to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. The idea seems to be that real Christian spirituality neither seeks nor celebrates political or judicial victories. Christians should only be concerned with the things of God, not the things of this world. In other words, God isn't concerned with government, and Christians shouldn't be either.

Though this line of thinking sounds quite Christian, it isn't. Rather, it is an inaccurate portrayal of the relationship between God's justice and earthly justice. Just as importantly, it misunderstands what our salvation is for and why God calls us to live in this world, instead of just whisking Christians to heaven the moment we're saved.

Recently, my colleague Shane Morris tackled this bad theology on Twitter, and the thread was republished by the Babylon Bee news offshoot, Not the Bee. I'll paraphrase his points:

First, for most of the Church's history, Christians have agreed that civil laws should in some way reflect biblical morality. Neither Catholics, Orthodox, nor most Protestants believed that being apolitical was a good or godly thing. While there were occasions over the centuries when Christians shunned political involvement for a variety of reasons, often because they were prohibited from any involvement, it wasn't until the Radical Reformation and movements like the Anabaptists in the 1500s that swearing off politics gained traction as a principle for following Christ. Even then, it was a minority opinion. On the contrary, for most Christians, being a civil magistrate has always been seen as a high and noble calling.

This, of course, makes a lot of sense since there is really no such thing as not legislating morality. No matter who writes the laws of a land, those laws always reflect someone's moral beliefs. Protecting innocent lives from deadly violence, something that occurs in abortion and other forms of murder, is the central function of good government. God created government to serve that purpose.

Second, Shane pointed out something many theologians have noted over the years: that when Jesus said, "my kingdom is not of this world" in John 18:36, He did not mean "my kingdom has nothing to do with this world." Rather, He meant that His kingdom is not from this world, does not use this world's methods (such as violent revolution), and does not aim at the world's ends.

Still, as Abraham Kuyper pointed out, Jesus' kingdom absolutely does affect this world, over which He has declared total sovereignty, and in which He holds individuals and governments accountable for administering justice and punishing violence against the innocent (see Genesis 9:6).

As for the part that neither Christ nor the first Christians tried to take over Rome, anyone who says this should read further in their history books. In A.D. 325, the Emperor Constantine ended the official persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. Just decades later, in the year 380, Emperor Theodosius declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. As a matter of simple historical fact, Christians did take over Rome!

Setting aside questions about the legitimacy of established religion and how good such an arrangement is for the Church, it's simply not true that early Christianity did not seek to impact earthly governments. Early Christians showed intense interest in impacting governments in everything from the outlawing of infant exposure to ending persecution to the ending of the gladiatorial games.

The assault of the Church against the gates of Hell progresses, of course, through the preaching of the Gospel and the conversion of souls—what the Apostle Paul called "spiritual weapons." But by advocating for good and just governments—especially when it comes to protecting innocent lives—Christians are loving their neighbors and fulfilling the other half of our calling in this world: to pray and obediently work so that God's kingdom will come and His will be done "on earth as it is in Heaven."

We are saved for a purpose. Along with evangelism and worship, we are to be good citizens and to love our neighbors. This will involve supporting righteous laws and opposing wicked ones. No law in this nation's history has been more wicked than Roe v. Wade. Therefore, Christians are right to celebrate its downfall and to work to undo its bloody legacy. And Christians are right to oppose other wicked legislative efforts, such as the misleadingly named "Respect for Marriage Act."

The idea that Christians have a calling so high that it keeps us from politics may sound spiritual, but it's something almost no Christian in history would recognize. Nor would Jesus, who in the same conversation with Pilate where He said, "my kingdom is not of this world," also reminded this government official where his power came from.

There's a virtual army of faith-based adoption, foster care, and family support organizations in existence today, all of whom strive to care for vulnerable families.

In the 2015 majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, a decision that overruled laws in dozens of states and imposed same sex "marriage" on the United States, Justice Anthony Kennedy rightly described marriage as an institution that is fundamental to society, that protects and ensures the well-being of children, and that is essential for a flourishing society. To withhold this institution from same-sex couples, Kennedy then wrongly concluded, would be to violate their dignity and disrespect their autonomy, especially the autonomy reflected in their intimate unions. What went missing in this opinion was a definition of what marriage is, and therefore why it is such an irreplaceable institution.

In the end, Kennedy's decision failed in the same way that Matt Walsh's new documentary What Is a Woman? reveals that transgender ideology fails. Repeatedly, advocates Walsh interviewed echoed the same refrain, that a woman is "anyone who identifies as a woman." However, when pressed further and asked, "but what are they identifying as?" they had no answer. In the same way, under Kennedy's reasoning, any relational arrangement we identify as marriage is marriage and warrants being included in the institution, even if it lacks the necessary ingredients that make marriage what it is. It is like saying, "The Rockefellers are rich, so I'm going to change my name to Rockefeller so I can be rich."

Of course, this is not how reality works. Instead, Kennedy resorts to identifying marriage as an ever-evolving institution. In other words, marriage is not baked into reality like gravity. Instead, it is more like a speed limit, a social construct that changes as society changes.

If marriage is indeed just a product of abstract progress, untethered from any created intent or design, it suffers the same moral quandary as naturalistic evolution. There is no way to control what creature comes next, or to know, as Justice Kennedy assured us, that what followed would be better than what came before (or even if it will be good). There is no guarantee that marriage will remain an institution fundamental to society, that protects and ensures the well-being of children and contributes to human flourishing.

In fact, since Obergefell was decided, the rights of children to know their mom and dad, and to have their minds, bodies, futures, and most important relationships protected, have been replaced by the rights of adults to pursue their own desires and happiness. Justice Kennedy, it seems, has gotten his wish. Marriage has indeed evolved, or at least our conception of it has, but not for the better. Throughout human history, marriage was understood, including in law, to be a sexually complementary union, ordered toward procreation. No-fault divorce and now more fully same-sex "marriage" redefined it as an institution ordered only toward the vagaries of adult happiness.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives proposed the wrongly named "Respect for Marriage Act." If it passes the Senate, this bill will result in a further stage of the legal evolution of marriage. When Obergefell was decided, the "T" had not yet taken over the ever-growing acronym of sexual identity preferences. The Respect for Marriage Act would not only encode Obergefell, but it would also further the reinvention of marriage in law. In effect, marriage would evolve into a genderless institution, not only unbound from its essential connection to children and sexual difference but to any embodied realities whatsoever. In other words, there would be no legal obstacle to extending marriage beyond couples to relationships consisting of multiple partners.

Even worse, redefining marriage not only redefines the definition of "spouse" but also "parent." Parenting should be a sacrificial investment in future generations, but redefining marriage in this way has made it a self-determined right of getting "what we want." Children have always borne the brunt of the worst ideas of the sexual revolution, especially when combined with new reproductive technologies. Rather than the fruit of a loving union, children are now increasingly treated as products of casually partnered consumers.

Further, if the Respect for Marriage Act becomes law, the worst parts of the Obergefell decision would be established in law in a way that abortion was not under Roe v. Wade. Like Roe, Obergefell was an act of judicial overreach. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent, "[T]his Court is not a legislature…. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be…. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as constitutional law…. The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment."

In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy claimed that the decision would not affect people of conscience, especially "religious institutions and people." That has proven to be flatly wrong. The Respect for Marriage Act contains no conscience protections.

Despite their party platform which claims a commitment to Constitutional originalism and religious freedom, this bill could find support from 10 Republican Senators. If it does, it will pass the Senate and become law. Please, if you live in a state with a Republican Senator who has not indicated he or she will oppose this bill, contact them today and tell them to do so.

A recent NPR article lamented that "the end of Roe v. Wade has huge economic implications for male partners, too." According to a study quoted in the piece, "men involved with a pregnancy and whose partners had an abortion were nearly four times more likely to graduate college" than those whose partners gave birth. And males under the age of 20 were more likely to earn more money if their partner had an abortion instead of carrying the child to term.

I guess we should thank the reporter for proving that legal abortion has always incentivized the financial well-being of men over the lives of the children they create. Still, presenting this as some kind of hardship for men is reminiscent of British slaveholders arguing against abolition by warning that sugar would cost too much without free labor. The whole moral picture is upside down.

Rather than arguing for legalized abortion on the basis of "disadvantaging men," I'll happily vote for a new idea other abortion advocates have come up with: requiring men to be financially committed to the lives they create... you know, like they are supposed to be.

If this bill could find the support of 10 Republicans in the Senate who share this fuzzy view of marriage, it will pass, securing the federal government's claim on marriage and creating even less room in public life for people who object to redefined marriage.

John and Maria discuss the Respect for Marriage bill before the Senate, which undermines traditional marriage, a bedrock of society. They link the importance of family to new data on the need for fathers and also recent news about the possibility of virtual babies in augmented reality.

If we never speak up, we'll never find out what could happen...

After nearly 10 years of hosting its annual "Wilberforce week," an Oxford college abruptly disinvited British group Christian Concern this March. Apparently, a handful of students accused the group of "hateful and invalidating" language.

In response, Christian Concern approached Worcester College and asked them to substantiate those accusations. The college was unable to do so and was instead reminded of a prior statement issued by its provost, that "the free expression and exchange of different views … goes straight to the heart of our democracy and is a vital part of higher education."

In the end, the college walked back the cancellation of Christian Concern and issued an apology.

Thank God for small victories like this, and for Christians willing to live out Peter's command to respond with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak against us "may be put to shame."

But this also requires Christians who, like the Apostle Peter, are willing to speak truth in the first place ... which takes courage, but who knows what God will do?

One of the more helpful analogies to explain the personal and cultural damage wrought by the sexual revolution is that sex is like fire. When a fire is in the fireplace, it brings light, warmth, and ambience. It can even preserve life. When, however, a fire jumps out of the fireplace onto the curtains, it brings destruction, even death. A similar analogy compares sex to water. Our bodies need water to live, but we need water in the right place. When water gets in the lungs, it can be deadly.

One point of these analogies is that, like fire and water, sex is good. It has a design and purpose. The sexual revolution wanted sex to be "good," but forfeited the "design and purpose" part. In fact, proponents of the sexual revolution argued that sex is only good if it is set "free" from all restraint, responsibility, and consequences.

This kind of fundamental error, like all bad ideas, is bound to have victims. With each day that passes, we meet more of them. Consider a piece published several months ago at Vice that announced a hip new way to find sexual satisfaction: "radical monogamy." Don't call it marriage (that's for dinosaurs), but man, there's something really fulfilling and safe (apparently) about sexual fidelity between two committed people. Or consider the recent book by Washington Post columnist Christine Emba. In Rethinking Sex, Emba argues that using the often vague ideal of consent as our only moral guidepost governing sexual activity has left a lot of people hurt, lonely, and frustrated.

All of this is pointing to an opportunity for the Church to offer something better. However, to do that, we must be careful and clear. If sex is designed, it is under the authority of the One who designed it. If it is, indeed, under God's authority, and God is good, then rightly ordered sex is a good gift.

In other words, the full antidote to the toxic sexuality of the sexual revolution isn't just to return it to the safety of the fireplace. The sexual morality we rightly talk about from Scripture isn't the whole story of this beautiful gift. Keeping sex within the confines of a lifelong marriage between one man and one woman is a moral good, but just as loving our neighbors is much more than not actively hating them, respecting God's design for sex is much more than not transgressing certain boundaries.

In His kindness, God has called us to the lifelong cultivation of being properly sexual. This is the virtue of chastity, something often mistaken by Christians and non-Christians alike for prudishness. Instead, the call to be properly sexual with one another is a calling for all of us, married and single, to pursue all our lives, before, during, and after marriage.

The Scriptures describe this well. Husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church. Christ laid down his life for His Church. And so, we give our bodies generously to our spouses, but not with degradation or violence.

Sex within marriage can still demean, degrade, and victimize. When sex is seen as nothing more than an act of mere pleasure seeking, or when sex is demanded or withheld out of anger or contempt, or when sex is pursued in body or in mind with someone who is not given to us in marriage, chastity is abdicated, and we are sinning against God, our spouse, and ourselves.

Wedding rings are not some "license to practice" in any and every way that comes into our minds. That's reductionistic. Sex is allowed in marriage, but it is also still designed.

Often we think of biblical exhortations like the call to "love our neighbor" or to "seek the good of the other" as applying only to our actual neighbors, friends, or coworkers. But these verses also apply to our sexual relationships with our spouses. Practicing the virtue of chastity means to approach sex as an act of generosity. It's not something to treat lightly or selfishly, even in marriage.

The sexual revolution sent the fire screaming out of the fireplace and then poured gasoline on the whole disaster. As more and more people are burned in its wake, the Church has a wonderful gift to offer, a gift that goes beyond the rules of the fireplace. When ordered rightly, the whole world will be blessed by its warmth, its light, and its life.