christianity and abortion essay

Respect for Unborn Human Life: The Church's Constant Teaching

Fact sheet by the usccb committee on pro-life activities.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law" (No. 2271). 

In response to those who say this teaching   has   changed or is of recent origin, here are the facts:

From earliest times, Christians sharply distinguished themselves from surrounding pagan cultures by rejecting abortion and infanticide.  The earliest widely used documents of Christian teaching and practice after the New Testament in the 1st and 2nd centuries, the   Didache   (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) and   Letter of Barnabas , condemned both practices, as did early regional and particular Church councils.   

To be sure, knowledge of human embryology was very limited until recent times.  Many Christian thinkers accepted the biological theories of their time, based on the writings of Aristotle (4th century BC) and other philosophers.  Aristotle assumed a process was needed over time to turn the matter from a woman's womb into a being that could receive a specifically human form or soul.  The active formative power for this process was thought to come entirely from the man – the existence of the human ovum (egg), like so much of basic biology, was unknown.   

However, such mistaken biological theories never changed the Church's common conviction that abortion is gravely wrong at every stage.  At the very least, early abortion was seen as attacking a being with a human destiny, being prepared by God to receive an immortal soul (cf. Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you").

In the 5th century AD this rejection of abortion at every stage was affirmed by the great bishop-theologian St. Augustine.  He knew of theories about the human soul not being present until some weeks into pregnancy.  Because he used the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, he also thought the ancient Israelites had imposed a more severe penalty for accidentally causing a miscarriage if the fetus was "fully formed" (Exodus 21: 22-23), language not found in any known Hebrew version of this passage.  But he also held that human knowledge of biology was very limited, and he wisely warned against misusing such theories to risk committing homicide.  He added that God has the power to make up all human deficiencies or lack of development in the Resurrection, so we cannot assume that the earliest aborted children will be excluded from enjoying eternal life with God.  

In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas made extensive use of Aristotle's thought, including his theory that the rational human soul is not present in the first few weeks of pregnancy.  But he also rejected abortion as gravely wrong at every stage, observing that it is a sin "against nature" to reject God's gift of a new life.

During these centuries, theories derived from Aristotle and others influenced the grading of penalties for abortion in Church   law .  Some canonical penalties were more severe for a direct abortion after the stage when the human soul was thought to be present.  However, abortion at all stages continued to be seen as a grave moral evil.   

From the 13th to 19th centuries, some theologians speculated about rare and difficult cases where they thought an abortion before "formation" or "ensoulment" might be morally justified.  But these theories were discussed and then always rejected, as the Church refined and reaffirmed its understanding of abortion as an intrinsically evil act that can never be morally right.

In 1827, with the discovery of the human ovum, the mistaken biology of Aristotle was discredited. Scientists increasingly understood that the union of sperm and egg at conception produces a new living being that is distinct from both mother and father.  Modern genetics demonstrated that this individual is, at the outset, distinctively human, with the inherent and active potential to mature into a human fetus, infant, child and adult.  From 1869 onward the obsolete distinction between the "ensouled" and "unensouled" fetus was permanently removed from canon law on abortion.

Secular laws against abortion were being reformed at the same time and in the same way, based on secular medical experts' realization that "no other doctrine appears to be consonant with reason or physiology but that which admits the embryo to possess vitality from the very moment of conception" (American Medical Association,   Report on Criminal Abortion , 1871).

Thus modern science has not changed the Church's constant teaching against abortion, but has underscored how important and reasonable it is, by confirming that the life of each individual of the human species begins with the earliest embryo.

Given the   scientific   fact that a human life begins at conception, the only moral norm needed to understand the Church's opposition to abortion is the principle that   each and every human life has inherent dignity, and thus must be treated with the respect due to a human person .  This is the foundation for the Church's social doctrine, including its teachings on war, the use of capital punishment, euthanasia, health care, poverty and immigration.  Conversely, to claim that some live human beings do   not   deserve respect or should   not   be treated as "persons" (based on changeable factors such as age, condition, location, or lack of mental or physical abilities) is to deny the very idea of   inherent   human rights.  Such a claim undermines respect for the lives of many vulnerable people before and after birth.

F or more information :  Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,   Declaration on Procured Abortion   (1974), nos. 6-7; John R. Connery, S.J.,   Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective   (1977); Germain Grisez,   Abortion: The Myths, the Realities, and the Arguments   (1970), Chapter IV; U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,   On Embryonic Stem Cell Research   (2008); Pope John Paul II,   Evangelium Vitae   (1995), nos. 61-2.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Open Access
• Why Publish with CB?
• About Christian bioethics
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

I. introduction, ii. the breath of life (genesis 2:7), iii. injury to a pregnant woman (exodus 21:22–25), iv. the ordeal of the bitter water (numbers 5:11–31), v. conclusion.

• < Previous

Why Biblical Arguments for Abortion Fail

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Calum Miller, Why Biblical Arguments for Abortion Fail, Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality , Volume 29, Issue 1, March 2023, Pages 11–20, https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbad004

• Permissions Icon Permissions

While the traditional Christian teaching opposing abortion has been relatively unanimous until the twentieth century, it has been claimed in more recent decades that certain Biblical passages support the view that the fetus, or unborn child, has a lesser moral status than a born child, in a way that might support the permissibility of abortion. In this paper, I address the foremost three texts used to argue this point: Genesis 2:7; Exodus 21:22–25; and Numbers 5:11–31. I argue that interpreting the former in the literal way necessary to support abortion leads to untenable moral and exegetical conclusions, indeed straightforwardly contradicting other Biblical texts. I then demonstrate that the most plausible readings of the other passages—on textual and contextual grounds—do not support a lesser moral status, one of the passages plausibly even supporting full moral status, for the unborn child.

While church tradition has been relatively unanimous in its opposition to abortion ( Jones, 2004 ), the second half of the twentieth century saw some disagreement between Protestants on the moral status of the embryo, fetus, or unborn child, and consequently on the permissibility of abortion. Many mainline Protestants claimed that the Biblical tradition is more nuanced on the status of the fetus, suggesting a lower moral status and therefore the permissibility of abortion in some circumstances. While the large majority of evangelicals today, especially in the United States, are opposed to abortion, in the 1960s and early 1970s there was relatively mixed opinion, even within the evangelical movement on the moral status of the child in the womb ( Williams, 2016 ).

Since the leading contemporary arguments against abortion depend on the claim that fetuses have full moral status, or are in some sense morally equal with other human beings, Biblical texts seeming to contradict this premise may undermine the case against abortion for those Christians committed to the authority of Scripture. Although there are other arguments against abortion that do not depend on the full moral status of the fetus, these arguments are somewhat less common, and may not generate the same urgency of opposition to abortion that Christians have traditionally had. Hence, if there are Biblical texts implying a lower moral status for the fetus or unborn child, this may in turn imply the permissibility of abortion, or at least the reduced importance of opposition to abortion. 1

In this article, I consider the key scriptural passages which some have taken to imply a lesser moral status for the fetus, 2 arguing that these implications are unconvincing. Although these arguments are not frequently made in academic venues, 3 they come up reasonably commonly in popular venues, such that an academic response is merited.

I do not intend in this article to address Biblical teaching on abortion more generally, or to argue that Biblical teaching is against abortion. 4 My thesis is strictly limited to the claim that the passages in question provide no basis for positing a lower moral status for fetuses.

“Then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” (Genesis 2:7, ESV)

It is occasionally claimed, on the basis of Genesis 2:7, that since the man (Adam) became a living creature only when he had the breath of life breathed into him, human beings do not become “alive” in the relevant sense until they are breathing. This view has newly achieved some prominence by its appearance in recent political debates ( Douthat, 2019 ). For those who do think that this might lend support to the view that life begins at first breath, how might we respond?

It is first important to clarify the relevant physiology. In the standard biological sense, there is no doubt that fetuses are alive. They respire, pumping oxygenated blood from their mother around their body to fuel the relevant biochemical interactions. At a certain stage in pregnancy, they even attempt to ventilate—but breathe in amniotic fluid rather than air. At birth, they begin to breathe in air, though this can sometimes take minutes.

It is clear, therefore, that proponents of this argument must appeal to some non-standard sense of “living”, since fetuses are uncontroversially alive in the biological sense prior to birth. Now an alternative sense of “living” is difficult to discern, and it is hard to determine how it could have any moral importance. Babies in the womb perform ventilatory movements, and pump oxygenated blood around their bodies for use in respiration. The only things that change at birth are that the baby breathes in air, rather than fluid, and as a result primarily gets oxygen through the lungs rather than through the placenta. The situation is analogous to a fully grown adult on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Such adults are clearly living and bearers of full moral status, but on the revisionary account this would not be so. Likewise, newborn babies who do not breathe for the first few minutes would apparently have lesser moral status. But the idea that newborn babies yet to breathe, or patients on ECMO, are of lesser moral status, is implausible. It is even less plausible to suppose that we may permissibly kill them. While a child’s first breath may in ancient times have had moral significance, 5 it is difficult to believe in light of modern science that these physiological changes affect the intrinsic moral status of the fetus.

Second, given that babies perform breathing movements in the womb, it is not entirely clear that this passage would rule out fetal personhood—there is no reason why it must be air or oxygen that is inhaled specifically—so even if we were to interpret the text this literally, it would not form a straightforward argument against fetal personhood.

Third, of course, the early chapters of Genesis are replete with symbolism, and even those who interpret parts of the narrative historically nevertheless recognize considerable use of metaphor, especially in the creation of the man ( Walton, 2015 ). Virtually no one thinks that mouth-to-mouth resuscitation is in view here: but that is arguably close to what a literal reading of this passage is committed. For if the “breath of life” is literal ventilation on the side of the man, why not likewise interpret “God breathed” as God literally breathing?

Anyone who accepts the standard scientific account of human origins to any degree 6 is bound to interpret this specific verse largely symbolically. If there were ventilating members of Homo sapiens prior to God’s breath of life, then God’s breath of life cannot refer to ventilation. Even for those who do not accept anything like the standard scientific account of human origins, this interpretation of the verse is extremely questionable. After all, mammals and fish are also “living creatures” in the preceding chapter. But mammals did not need God’s “breath of life” to be so, and most fish do not have lungs at all. The correspondence between biological ventilation, God’s breath, and becoming a living being does not seem to hold in non-human cases.

A metaphorical interpretation of this breath is, by contrast, readily intelligible. This can be seen in a similar passage in Ecclesiastes:

As you do not know the way the spirit (breath) comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything. (Ecclesiastes 11:5, ESV)

In this passage, it is clear that the “breath” or “spirit” of God comes to the child in the womb to animate it—even though unborn children do not inhale air through their lungs. So it is clear that this sort of language whereby God animates and brings alive human beings with His breath or spirit need not refer to literal ventilation.

This has two implications. First, it is a perfect illustration of the intelligibility of a metaphorical use of “breath” giving life to human beings: God’s Spirit sustains and animates humans. Second, it produces a dilemma for those wanting to interpret Genesis 2:7 as referring to ventilation: namely, that there is no compelling basis for doing so while interpreting Ecclesiastes 11:5 metaphorically. I am not claiming here that there is a direct connection between the two texts; rather, I am saying that there is no persuasive basis for interpreting one literally and one metaphorically. At the very least, anyone who does so will have to offer a persuasive justification for doing so. If they are both literal, then they contradict: hence they must both be metaphorical, and no argument can be made from them to a scientific or metaphysical claim about the beginning of life. 7

This argument can be extended further: there are many other parts of the Bible which, read superficially, indicate God’s concern for life in the womb, including some passages suggestive of personhood. 8 The argument here is not that we should interpret all these passages superficially, but that a consistent literalistic understanding of these passages would require us to do so. Hence, we are owed an account of why Genesis 2:7 should be interpreted as making a claim about the moral significance of ventilation, but none of the passages referring to unborn life should be interpreted likewise. 9 In the absence of such an account, we are left with completely contradictory claims about life in the womb, and hence, not a plausible account of the Biblical teaching on unborn life, at least for those committed to the coherence of Biblical ethical teaching. For the reasons outlined above, inter alia, Genesis 2:7 should not be interpreted as making a claim about the biological or moral significance of ventilation.

We now turn to two passages where the primary issues are in translation, rather than interpretation. The first, which has been more widely discussed, refers to punishments due if two men fighting hit a pregnant woman and cause delivery of the baby, or babies:

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22–25, ESV)

The claim is that in the first scenario, her children are miscarried, but there is no harm to the woman, and this merits only a fine. By contrast, if there is harm to the woman, the punishment is severe—even up to the death penalty. The argument is that the small punishment (a fine) given if the baby is miscarried suggests that the Bible does not treat causing miscarriage as homicide, and hence, does not view unborn children as equal to fully grown human beings.

The first thing to say in response is that a smaller punishment does not necessarily mean that the victim is less valuable. Sentences for murder in the contemporary world often vary hugely, based on a wide variety of factors—even though we all agree that all victims are equally valuable. Indeed, the early church frequently explicitly claimed that abortion was murder, but at exactly the same time gave a lesser penance for abortion not because the fetus is less valuable, but for various other reasons unrelated to the value of the victim ( Council of Ancyra, 1900 , Canon 21). 10 In this case, a reason for a lesser penalty is obvious: causing the miscarriage was entirely unintentional. It would make no sense to prosecute this as murder even if the unborn child is a full person under the law.

That said, there is in fact no compelling reason to think this is an accurate interpretation of the passage. Historically, there have been three interpretations:

“Harm” refers to the woman

“Harm” refers to the baby being formed

“Harm” refers to the baby miscarrying

We also consider a fourth interpretation, namely, that “harm” refers to both the mother and child.

The Biblical abortion advocate claims that (1) is the right way to interpret the text—and claims in addition that “her children come out” refers to a miscarriage. However, there are at least two other interpretations given by Jews and Christians throughout history which claim that “harm” refers to the baby. Option (2) is found in the Septuagint—claiming that if the baby is unformed (i.e., at a very early stage of development) there should be a fine, but that if the baby is formed , it should be treated as a human being. 11 Option (3) claims that “there is no harm” means the baby was delivered prematurely, but alive and well—warranting a fine for the trauma and risk of a prematurely induced delivery. Whereas if “there is harm” to the baby, it should be repaid life for life.

Option 1: This is by no means the obvious interpretation, especially since it is the only option which says that “harm” refers to the mother—and there is nothing in the text to suggest this limitation. While the rabbinic tradition in Judaism has generally held to this option, and Josephus (2017 , Antiquities of the Jews , 4.8.33) interpreted it the same way, the earlier Septuagint held that “harm” referred to the child (albeit option 2 rather than 3).

Moreover, even if this is the correct interpretation, it does little to legitimize abortion; the entire Jewish tradition was very clear that abortion was unlawful, even if not amounting to homicide. And Josephus ( 2013 , Against Apion , 2.25) elsewhere calls abortion “murder”. So the best case scenario for the abortion proponent is that abortion is not the same kind of murder, or perhaps not murder at all, but still completely forbidden in Jewish law. 12

Option 2: This is the option taken by the Septuagint, reasoning that the harm refers to the baby, but that babies come in two kinds: unformed (very early, before perhaps 40 days) and formed. It goes so far as to translate “harm” as “formed”. Killing an unformed baby in this way warrants a fine, and killing a formed baby warrants the death penalty. There is debate regarding the extent to which this distinction derives from earlier Semitic thought or from the influence of Hellenistic philosophy/biology in Alexandria ( Isser, 1990 ; Jones, 2004 ). 13 Philo of Alexandria appeared to take this view, and from the late fourth century some Christians in the West began to adopt it. Although Augustine himself always remained agnostic on the timing of ensoulment, he did discuss the distinction, as did Jerome. The late fourth century Apostolic Constitutions appeared to accept it, though the document was rejected as unreliable by the Council of Trullo in 692. It was not until the medieval period that this distinction became prominent within Western Christianity as a result of renewed interest in Aristotelian philosophy; it never achieved prominence in the East. The earliest Christian evidence we have on this question explicitly and emphatically rejects a distinction between formed and unformed babies, 14 and the earliest tradition we have on the timing of ensoulment suggests that it occurred at conception ( Jones, 2004 ). 15

It is very unlikely that this translation is correct. First and foremost, there is no textual or semantic basis for reading the concept of “form” into the Hebrew text. It requires translating ‘ason /אסון, “harm”, as “formed”; a translation which does not appear to have any basis in other texts. Further textual considerations against this interpretation are explored below. Second, whether the distinction came from the Hellenistic influence within Alexandria or from earlier Mesopotamian/Hittite codes ( Isser, 1990 ), 16 it was operating on the basis of long outdated science. For example, the Greeks held that male embryos became human at 40 days, and females at 80 days, and this view was later expressed in the rabbinic tradition ( Jones, 2004 ). We cannot say whether the authors of the Septuagint held this specific view, though it would certainly fit neatly within the preceding Greek view and subsequent rabbinic views. Either way, the distinction was based on the highly questionable biology of antiquity, Greek or Semitic. Finally, Jewish law was still very clear that abortion was strictly impermissible—though perhaps not homicide—even for an unformed fetus. So even if this interpretation is correct, it would not generate an argument for the permissibility of abortion.

Option 3: This interpretation agrees with option 2 that “harm” refers to the baby, but makes no distinction between an unformed and a formed fetus.

In this interpretation, the first scenario involves premature delivery, and “no harm” refers to the child, while the second scenario involves harm to the child of varying degrees. If this interpretation is correct, then the unborn child is treated in precisely the same way as any other adult: if it is harmed, the punishment is equal in measure to the crime.

There are strong reasons to accept option 3 over the alternatives. First, the root word for “come out” is yatsa’ /יצא, which is much more commonly used to describe live birth than the very rare translation of stillbirth. 17 On statistical likelihood alone, it is likely that the passage refers to live birth. Second, there was a much more specific word used for miscarriage in Hebrew ( shakol /שכל), which was known to the author or authors, since it was used two chapters later to mean “miscarry” (23:26). Given the proximity of these passages, the similar genre, and the general frequency of the word, it is likely the author or authors of Exodus 21 would be aware of this word and, if miscarriage were in mind, use it, rather than yatsa’ .

Thirdly, the word for children is yeled/ילד , which is a perfectly ordinary word for “children” 18 —not “embryo” or “unformed substance”, as in golem /גלם. The straightforward reading of the text, therefore, is simply “her children are delivered”, which has no connotation of miscarriage at all, and simply suggests a normal delivery in the absence of indicators otherwise.

Finally, the use of the word “children” rather than some impersonal word suggests that—whether formed or not—what is being delivered is a person, or closer to it, rather than an impersonal entity with lesser moral status. While it may be contentious whether children and free adult males had the same intrinsic value in ancient Israel, the Hebrew material overall clearly sees children as profoundly valuable persons (much more so than in the Graeco-Roman culture) and certainly forbids their killing.

It is, of course, plausible that premature birth would be grounds for a fine; even today, premature birth presents considerable challenges to parents and doctors, and involves lifelong health risks for the child. Indeed, just a few verses before, fines are imposed for non-permanent harm (21:18–19).

A fourth option has not often been considered, even though it is perhaps the most plausible. This is to say that “harm” can refer to either the mother or child. This is the most straightforward reading of the text, which does not specify harm to either individual. Hence, this reading has everything to commend it that option 3 does, only with the additional argument that it is also the most straightforward reading of the text. 19

There are no absolutely decisive arguments in favor of any of the options, though for the reasons given, options 3 or 4 seem most promising. 20 The straightforward reading of the text is “her children are delivered and there is no harm”—which appears to be best rendered by options 3 or, more likely, 4. Options 1 and 2, although perhaps possible, are simply not the most plausible readings of the text.

In sum, there are then multiple reasons why this text is an extremely weak argument for the idea that unborn children are less valuable than born children, and an even weaker argument for the permissibility of abortion:

Even if the proposed interpretation is correct, it does not in fact show that the unborn are less valuable. There are reasons for varying punishments for homicide other than the value of the victim as was reflected in later Christian thought and contemporary jurisprudence.

Even if the proposed interpretation is correct and shows that unborn children are less valuable, the action was still held to be almost completely illegal in ancient Judaism. As David Albert Jones concludes:

it should be emphasized that in its ancient context none of these schools of interpretation was thought to justify free access to abortion. This is clear from the remarks of Josephus and Philo. The only explicit permission for abortion is found in the rabbinic tradition and relates to the forcible extraction of the infant to save the mother’s life. ( 2004 , 53)

Josephus ( 2013 , Against Apion , 2.25) calls abortion murder, and the Talmud (n. d. , Sanhedrin , 57b) includes the fetus in the Noahide covenant prohibiting shedding of blood, lest the culprit’s blood be shed. 21

3) In fact, however, the proposed interpretation of the passage is far from proven, with no convincing argument in favor of it.

4) Even more, there are actually very strong reasons to think that the interpretation which might permit a pro-abortion viewpoint is not just unproven but wrong : the terminology used in the passage straightforwardly indicates that children are born alive. It would be an unusual even improbable translation to render it “miscarriage”, especially when there were other words for miscarriage used two chapters later and not used here.

5) The Hebrew Bible is otherwise clear about the value of life in the womb, as is the New Testament. To overturn the overwhelming precedent of both Testaments, as well as our knowledge of ancient Judaism and the entirety of church history - all of which were unanimous in affirming the dignity of the unborn and the unlawfulness of abortion - on the basis of this one controversial verse in Exodus is simply unsustainable.

In fact, there are at least two ways in which this passage supports the pro-life view, if anything. First, if the most plausible translation (as I have argued) is correct, causing the death of the unborn child would be punishable by the death penalty in ancient Israel. While few pro-life Christians would support this today, it would likely suffice to demonstrate the full moral status of the child.

Second, even on the pro-abortion reading, the passage refers to “children” coming out, rather than referring to the children as entities, parasites, unformed substances, or even valuable but incomplete or subhuman lives. This is clearly more consonant with a view recognizing the humanity of the unborn child than with the opposing view.

Numbers 5:11–31 describes a test for a woman suspected of committing adultery. The test itself is extremely obscure and especially so to modern readers. This makes it perhaps the most challenging passage to deal with: not because the most natural reading clearly implies an abortion, but because we have so few data for translating, let alone interpreting, the text.

The passage describes a test in which a woman accused of adultery drinks a certain kind of water. Ostensibly, if the woman has been unfaithful, she will have a miscarriage or abortion as punishment. The implication is that God in some sense endorses abortion since, presumably, God would not take the life of a full human being as punishment for the parent’s sin. This argument has not been made much (if at all) in the academic literature, but has been occasionally cited by leading secular pro-choice advocates ( Lee, 2013 ; Wright, 2019 ; Bolton, 2020 ), and it has at times been claimed that the consensus among commentators is that this passage does indeed refer to miscarriage ( Budd, 1984 ).

If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen ( bitnah , בטנה) will swell (root tsabah , צבה) and her womb ( yerekah , ירכה) will miscarry (root naphal , נפל), and she will become a curse. (Numbers 5:27, NIV) When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb ( bitnah , בטנה) shall discharge (root tsabah , צבה), her uterus ( yerekah , ירכה) drop (root naphal , נפל), and the woman shall become an execration among her people. (Numbers 5:27, NRSV)

While there may be a majority view that this refers to miscarriage, very few translations actually mention or describe miscarriage, with the NIV a rare outlier. Most translations are superficially unintelligible. While the translations typically do not give the impression of significant ambiguity in the words used, most of the key words do admit of multiple widely varying interpretations. 22

The word bitnah (and its root) usually does mean “womb” or “belly” with roughly equal frequency; it is used not infrequently of men (e.g., Judges 3:21–22). If tsabah does in fact mean “swell”, then “belly” would be a more natural reading, since abdominal distension or swelling is much more readily recognizable and common from a medical perspective. The main translation which does translate the passage as referring to miscarriage (NIV) translates bitnah as “abdomen”, as do most translations. The Septuagint reads koilian (κοιλιαν), almost always meaning “belly/stomach” 23 but which could sometimes be interpreted as “womb”. Even in the latter cases, however, “belly” would usually be an appropriate translation (e.g., when John the Baptist leapt inside Elizabeth’s womb, or belly). The more specific mētra /μητρα, “uterus” (hence, endometrium ), is not used. In verse 22, the Septuagint says that the water will pass into the koilian and that the gastera (γαστερα) will “swell” (most naturally referring to the bowels, coming from the verb graō /γραω, “to eat”, and hence the English gastric , relating to the stomach, though in some cases referring to the womb/belly in the same way as koilian ). Water passing from the mouth into the bowels is, of course, much more intelligible than water passing from the mouth into the uterus. The most natural reading of this word in the Septuagint is, therefore, “abdomen/belly”, and if referring to a specific organ more likely refers to the bowels than the uterus.

The word tsabah is an extremely rare word, only occurring in this passage in the Bible. It may be related to tsaba’ , meaning an “army” or (generally military) “assembly”, or to assemble or proceed as such. It may also be related to the Arabic sabban , meaning “abundance”, hence the standard translation as “swell”. The Septuagint uses the verb prētho /πρηθω, meaning something like “swell” or “burn” or “spout”. So all this first phrase tells us is that the woman’s belly (generic, but perhaps womb, or more likely, stomach) will swell, burn, or spout. Given the enormous number of medical phenomena that “abdominal swelling” could refer to, and the very limited and infrequent medical phenomena “uterine swelling” could refer to, to translate it as having anything to do with miscarriage is most unlikely (and indeed, no major translations translate it as such, even if commentators interpret it thus).

Turning to the clause the NIV translates as miscarriage, the word yerekah (and its root) can mean any number of different things, but generally denotes the side of something. It sometimes refers to body parts, like thighs, or loins, or just “side”. It sometimes refers to the base of the lampstand in the Tabernacle, or the side of the Tabernacle or of the altar (or, indeed, of a person). It is rarely, if ever, translated as “womb” (which is not in any sense lateral). The Septuagint translation, mēros /μηρος, means “thigh”. Hence, there is no sense in which this word means “womb”. Perhaps it could refer to genitalia euphemistically, but this would be an interpretation rather than a translation, and would require argumentative support.

Finally, the word naphal is a common word meaning “to fall”, fairly widely construed. It does not mean “miscarry”. A word using the same consonants, nephel , does mean “miscarriage”, but this word is much rarer. “Fall” is a far more common translation, and is confirmed by the Septuagint, which uses diapiptō /διαπιπτω, “fall” or “fail” rather than any word for miscarriage.

Hence, to translate this phrase as a womb miscarrying is implausible. Yerekah can mean many different things—likely thigh, in this case—and naphal likely means “fall” or “fail”. It is obvious that we simply do not understand enough of the context—and possibly euphemism—to be able to say what this phrase means with much certainty, let alone to speculate on euphemistic interpretations. There is no reason to think it likely means “womb will miscarry”. Indeed, it is striking that the only word in the passage which could naturally refer to miscarriage, nphl , is not paired with bitnah , which could more plausibly refer to a womb. That is, even the translation which is most sympathetic to the miscarriage interpretation says that the womb swells, while the thigh miscarries. This is a very strange way to refer to miscarriage, euphemistically or not. It is also important to note that the natural words for womb ( rechem /רחם, metra /μητρα) are not used in the passage at all in either Hebrew or Greek. Hence, the passage most naturally reads something like: “her abdomen will swell and her thigh will fall away”. The first half is entirely intelligible and a common phenomenon with myriad medical etiologies. The second half is more puzzling, which is perhaps the reason some have sought to interpret it euphemistically.

A further argument for interpreting this as a spontaneous abortion is that this would, in some sense, be a fitting and just resolution for the father; otherwise, an illicit child would take over the father’s name, inheritance, and so on. 24 Now just because a punishment might lead to an appropriate resolution of the grievance does not suffice for assuming this must be the punishment—many punishments could lead to an appropriate resolution. Even so, there are several reasons for thinking that this punishment would be inappropriate: first, at least in late stages of pregnancy, this would have been widely regarded as a child, and in general it would have been seen as impermissible to kill an illicit child to preserve the father’s bloodline. Second, killing the child would be entirely unnecessary; if the test merely proved that the child was illicit, the father could simply refuse to acknowledge them, perhaps divorcing his wife in the process, which would also avoid losing his bloodline. Third, if anything, the punishment cited in the text would threaten the father’s bloodline, since it would make his wife permanently infertile.

Contextual factors may help us identify the meaning of the punishment. First, there is no mention of the woman being pregnant at all. This is important: in many cases, women would not become pregnant from an illicit affair—for example, if either party were infertile, or (on the balance of probabilities) if it were a one-off event—and the test would presumably have to work in the vast majority of cases where she is not pregnant. This suggests that the likely outcome of the test has nothing to do with any outcome of pregnancy. How would the test work on non-pregnant women?

Second, assuming that the passage does talk about fertility in some respect, the outcome of the curse is most plausibly implied by the outcome of the blessing: if the woman is innocent, she shall conceive children —it does not say that her pregnancy will succeed or that her child will survive . The fact that it talks about her conceiving —not already having conceived—and about children in the plural suggests that the positive outcome is not a current pregnancy succeeding but future fertility . Conversely, the curse is more likely to be future infertility , not a miscarriage.

Finally, our translation is supported by later Jewish commentary on the passage, which makes clear the more likely interpretation of the thigh falling. Josephus ( 2017 , Antiquities of the Jews , 3.11.6) comments at length on the passage, and explains that the punishment would be that “her right leg might be dislocated” or that “her belly might swell”. Again, that “her right leg would fall off and her belly swell with dropsy [edema]”. This fits exactly the most natural translation we gave above: abdominal swelling and thigh “falling”. The words used in Josephus are much more specific than the Septuagint, giving no doubt to what he is referring—hip dislocation (specifically, on the right side—we do not have a right and left womb) and ascites. The word for “dislocation” is exarthron /εξαρθρον, related to the English arthritis . Josephus also says that if she is innocent, she will “ become pregnant”—implying clearly that she is not already pregnant.

Later Jewish commentary implied that the male adulterer will also be afflicted with the same condition, which clearly could not be a miscarriage. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (n. d. , Numbers 5) and Maimonides (n. d. , Sefer Nashim, Sotah, 3) both held that the male would be punished, the latter explicitly saying that the male would have the exact same symptoms. 25

While hip dislocation seems like an arbitrary and implausible punishment, recall that in Genesis 32 Jacob’s hip ( yerek /ירך, similar to the “thigh” mentioned in Numbers 5) was dislocated while fighting with God—and hence, Jews to this day do not eat the tendon attached to the hip. This may indicate some symbolic meaning to this punishment, which increases the likelihood that this is what the passage refers to: especially given the symbolic history of such an affliction by God. While “thigh” can be used euphemistically for genitalia in the Bible, a literal rendition is much more likely in this case.

For many reasons, therefore - the likely meaning of the words, the context, and the history of interpretation - it is overwhelmingly probable that the passage has nothing at all to do with miscarriage/abortion.

Even if this passage did refer to abortion, however, it is not clear what the implications would be for the Christian position on abortion. The whole point is that it is a curse, and there are other times in the Hebrew Bible where children are punished as a result of the parents’ sin. 26 Clearly, these passages do not imply a lesser moral status for the children. Of course, many will find such passages troubling, especially in light of Biblical injunctions against punishing sons for the sins of their fathers, 27 but how they should be understood by Christians is a different subject requiring a separate paper. What they do show is that the death of children (born or unborn, adult or infant) for the sins of parents was a familiar phenomenon to ancient Israel, and did not necessarily imply a lower moral status (and certainly did not imply the general permissibility of killing them). Hence, there is no sense in which Numbers 5 lends support to a lower moral status for fetuses or to the practice of abortion, even if it refers to miscarriage.

In summary, none of the passages considered can plausibly be used as a basis for attributing lesser worth to unborn human beings. In fact, one of them plausibly supports the pro-life view, and another (Genesis 2:7) points to a similar passage in the Bible describing God’s breath reaching unborn life (Ecclesiastes 11:5).

The passages are even less plausibly used in support of abortion, since even those who have held unborn human (or at least early unborn human) beings to be less valuable in Judeo-Christian history have still unanimously affirmed the unlawfulness of abortion except where the mother’s life is at risk. While a comprehensive consideration of positive Biblical evidence against abortion is beyond the scope of this article, I have at least demonstrated that the most promising evidence from the Hebrew Bible in favor of a lesser moral status for unborn human beings is not at all persuasive.

Arner , R. 1999 . Abortion. In Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity , 2nd ed, eds. D. Hunter , P. van Geest , and B. J. Lietaert Peerbolte . Leiden, Netherlands : Brill .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Basil of Caesarea. 1895 . Letter 188 [On-line]. Available: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202188.htm#:~:text=Even%20a%20fool%2C%20it%20is,letter%20from%20your%20industrious%20self (accessed February 5, 2023).

Bolton , B. 2020 . God is not so pro-life . Freedom from Religion Foundation [On-line]. Available: https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/25602-abortion-rights (accessed October 25, 2022 ).

Budd , P. J. 1984 . Word Biblical Commentary: Numbers . Waco, TX : Word Books .

Council of Ancyra. 1900 . Canons [On-line]. Available: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3802.htm (accessed February 5, 2023).

Douthat , R. 2019 , Sept. 17. The abortion mysticism of Pete Buttigieg . New York Times [On-line]. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/opinion/pete-buttigieg-abortion-democrats.html (accessed October 25, 2022 ).

Enoch. 1995 . The Book of Enoch [On-line]. Available: https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM (accessed February 5, 2023).

Gorman , M. 1982 . Abortion & the Early Church . Eugene, OR : Wipf and Stock .

Hays , R. B. 1996 . The Moral Vision of the New Testament . London, United Kingdom : HarperCollins .

Hensman , R. 2020 . Christianity and abortion rights . Feminist Dissent 5 ( 2020 ): 155 – 82 .

Isser , S. 1990 . Two traditions: The law of Exodus 21:22–23 revisited . The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 ( 1 ): 30 – 45 .

Jones , D. 2004 . The Soul of the Embryo . London, United Kingdom : Continuum .

Jones , D. A. 2005 . The appeal to the Christian tradition in the debate about embryonic stem cell research . Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 16 ( 3 ): 265 – 83 .

Josephus. 2013 . Against Apion [On-line]. Available: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2849/2849-h/2849-h.htm (accessed February 5, 2023).

———. 2017 . Antiquities of the Jews [On-line]. Available: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm (accessed February 5, 2023).

Lee , A. 2013, July 20 . There’s nothing about abortion in the Bible . Salon [On-line]. https://www.salon.com/2013/07/20/theres_nothing_about_abortion_in_the_bible_partner/ (accessed October 25, 2022 ).

Maimonides. N. d . Sefer Nashim [On-line]. Available: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/952872/jewish/Sefer-Nashim.htm (accessed February 5, 2023).

Noonan , J. T. 1967 . Abortion and the Catholic Church: A summary history . American Journal of Jurisprudence 12 ( 1 ): 85 – 131 .

Philo. 1935 . On the Special Laws [On-line]. Available: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/philo_judaeus-special_laws/1937/pb_LCL320.473.xml (accessed February 5, 2023).

———. 1941 . Hypothetica [On-line]. Available: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/philo_judaeus-hypothetica/1941/pb_LCL363.415.xml (accessed February 5, 2023).

Pseudo-Phocylides. 1978 . The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides . Ed. P. W. van der Horst. Boston: Brill.

Sibylline Oracles. 1899 . The Sibylline Oracles [On-line]. Available: https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sib/sib.pdf (accessed February 5, 2023).

Tacitus. 1925 . Histories [On-line]. Available: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL111/1925/pb_LCL111.v.xml (accessed February 5, 2023).

Talmud. N. d. Sanhedrin [On-line]. Available: https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin?tab=contents (accessed February 5, 2023).

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. N. d . Numbers 5 [On-line]. Available: https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Numbers?tab=contents (accessed February 5, 2023).

Walton , J. H. 2015 . The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate . Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press .

Wayne , L. 2019 . Does numbers 5:11–31 prescribe abortion drugs in cases of adultery? CARM [On-line]. Available: https://carm.org/does-numbers-5-11-31-proscribe-abortion-drugs-in-cases-of-adultery (accessed October 25, 2022 ).

Williams , D. K. 2016 . Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement Before Roe v. Wade . New York : Oxford University Press .

Wright , J. 2019 . The closest the Bible gets to mentioning abortion by name is Numbers 5:11–31, which recommends inducing a miscarriage as a test for an unfaithful wife . Twitter [On-line]. Available: https://twitter.com/jenashleywright/status/1134591875229388806 (accessed October 25, 2022 ).

I henceforth use the terms “fetus” and “unborn child” interchangeably, so as to remain unprejudiced toward the preferred terminology of different parties.

Those who use these passages in this way do not necessarily make particular claims about the precise value of the fetus. For some, the fetus will have no value at all. More commonly, the fetus is taken to have an intermediate value as a developing human life.

Hensman (2020) is a rare exception, mentioning the Exodus passage and alluding to the Genesis passage, though Hensman’s paper contains a number of other inaccuracies.

For this, see Jones (2004) and, more briefly, Noonan (1967) and Gorman (1982) . I also have a book in progress on this subject.

As in some Rabbinic traditions.

And this likely includes most Christians who support abortion access.

To clarify, therefore, I am not claiming that Ecclesiastes tells us exactly when life starts; I am claiming that neither passage attempts to tell us when life starts.

Again, this is beyond the scope of this paper, but see especially Jones (2004) .

This is not to say that none of the passages tell us anything meaningful about unborn life, either. It may be that on deeper reflection, some of the passages regarding unborn life do provide moral information. Hays (1996) is very skeptical; I am much more optimistic.

See also Basil of Caesarea ( 1895 , Letter 188 , 2): The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. With us there is no nice enquiry as to its being formed or unformed... The punishment, however, of these women should not be for life, but for the term of ten years. And let their treatment depend not on mere lapse of time, but on the character of their repentance. See Noonan (1967) , Gorman (1982) , and Jones (2004) for more commentary on early canon law relating to abortion.

A similar thought was found in some later Christian writing, including in Aquinas—that ensoulment occurs later and abortion is only homicide after this point—but this was a deviation from the earliest teaching, which explicitly rejected such a distinction. See, for example, Basil of Caesarea ( 1895 , Letter 188 ). Even then, the deviation was based on what the best science of the time suggested—that the conceptus was not a human being until slightly later in pregnancy. This stance was quickly reversed when it emerged many centuries later that human life began at fertilization. Jones (2004) points out that Aquinas’ arguments for delayed ensoulment relied not only on questionable biological assumptions, but even on a questionable interpretation of Aristotle. Regardless, abortion at an early stage has always been considered wrong even when not considered homicide, and the Septuagint translation would not be inconsistent with this view.

Other than to save the life of the mother.

Likewise unclear is the relationship between the 40-day mark for formation of male embryos compared with the 80-day mark for female embryos found in both Greek biology and the later rabbinic tradition, along with the 40/80 day postnatal distinction for purification rites in Leviticus 12.

For example, Basil of Caesarea ( 1895 , Letter 188 ). The Didache likely also abolishes this distinction ( Noonan, 1967 ; Arner, 1999 ).

See also Jones (2005) , citing Clement and the earlier “ancient” writer he cites, Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa, and the early tradition on abortion as murder, implying early ensoulment.

It is difficult to imagine Hellenism not having an influence on the translation, given the Hellenistic influence of Alexandria—recently founded by Aristotle’s tutee Alexander the Great as a Hellenistic centre in Egypt—in general and the language of the Septuagint. But there are potential more distant analogues of the tradition in Mesopotamia.

Genesis 25:26; 38:28; Job 10:18; Jeremiah 1:5; 20:18.

There is little agreement regarding why the plural is used here. One possibility is that since much of Old Testament law is not statutory law but case law—that is, law based on actual real-life cases—the case from which this judgment arose happened to involve twins. This is merely speculation, however.

One concern about options 3 and 4 is that they might not make medical sense: it might be questioned whether a premature birth with no harm to the child (the first scenario, meriting a fine) would even be possible in ancient Israel. However, the experience of neonatologists is that premature birth is relatively often survivable without modern medical intervention at 34 weeks, and occasionally even at 32 weeks (John Wyatt, personal communication).

Some scholars have proposed looking at parallel laws in other Ancient Near Eastern Societies. Unfortunately, there are parallel laws resembling each of the three interpretations, so we are not helped much. See Jones (2004) .

See also Philo ( 1935 , Special Laws , 3.117–118; 1941 , Hypothetica , 7.7); Pseudo-Phocylides (1978 , lines 149–150, 184–186); Sibylline Oracles ( 1899 , 2.281–282); 1 Enoch ( 1995 , 69.12, 99.5); cf. Tacitus (1925 , Histories , 5.5).

While it may also be argued that the “water of bitterness” is an abortifacient, there is nothing to suggest this in the text or in known science. The water is simply holy water with dust from the floor of the tabernacle, neither of which is abortifacient. The “bitterness” refers primarily to the effect of the water (v. 24), rather than any added ingredient.

These are largely interchangeable, as in English. The fact that babies are sometimes referred to as being in the koilia suggests that it may refer to the abdomen generally, rather than specifically to the stomach.

Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for raising this point.

I am grateful to Wayne’s (2019) helpful article for these references. Wayne adds examples from the Protoevangelium of James and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, both of which involve both Mary and Joseph; but since these refer to signs manifesting in the eyes/face, it is not clear they refer to the same ordeal (though they may be a variation).

2 Samuel 12; Numbers 16.

Ezekiel 18:20.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1744-4195
• Print ISSN 1380-3603
• Copyright © 2024 The Journal of Christian Bioethics Inc.
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

What Does the Bible Actually Say about Abortion?

While the word abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, it did not exist as a medical procedure in biblical times. As many Christians view abortion as murder, the Bible explicitly condemns killing others, especially the innocent. 

With the Dobbs decision returning abortion regulation to state control, discussions about the issue have intensified. Central to the debate is whether the Bible addresses abortion. Typically, those on the pro-life side reference the biblical command "thou shalt not kill" ( Exodus 20:13 ; Deuteronomy 5:17 ), as well as other scriptures that mandate punishment for intentional killing (such as Leviticus 25:21 ), to argue that abortion is equivalent to murder. They often refer to a fetus as an "unborn child," emphasizing the Bible's stance against killing, its teachings on the sanctity of life, and the consequences it lays out for actions leading to miscarriages. From these references, it is apparent that the Bible does not support abortion and, in fact, appears to condemn it.

What does the Bible say about abortion? Is abortion in the Bible?

Although the Bible never explicitly addresses the topic of abortion, multiple instructions in Scripture make it evident what the biblical view of abortion is.

Founded on the Bible’s prohibitions against killing , teaching about the sanctity of human life , and its retributions for negligence that leads to miscarriages , it is evident that the Bible does not condone abortion and even condemns it.

Key Bible Verses about Abortion:

"For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb . I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well." ( Psalm 139:13-14 )

"There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood ,  a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil,  a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community. "  ( Proverbs 6:16-19 )

Abortion in the Bible: Table of Contents

• What the Bible Says
• When Does Life Begin?

Is Abortion a Sin?

• Bible Verses about Abortion
• Abortion Quotes

Does Murder Include the Unborn?

• If the Mother's Life is at Risk?
• For Those Who've Had an Abortion
• Talking About Abortion

What the Bible Says About Abortion

The word abortion is not explicitly cited in the Bible, and it was not as prevalent in biblical times as it is now. As many Christians view abortion as murder, the Bible explicitly condemns killing others, especially the innocent. It is considered the killing of a human being created in God's image because He values human life. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knew us before He formed us in the womb. 

When Does the Bible Say Life Begins?

The Bible has a great deal to say about the value God puts on life and even when life begins. King David illustrates this most beautifully in Psalm 139 :

For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be.

Without the benefit of ultrasounds and modern science, David penned these words that our hearts instinctively know. Life is  life . It is precious, whether one day or 100 years on this earth. Even within the womb, God sees life, values it, is the author, and has ordained all the days of its life just like he has with each of us.

Jesus reaffirmed his position, the value of life, and even children by coming into the world through a young, unwed teenage girl named Mary . In those days, an unwed, pregnant woman could be put to death in the eyes of the law. Another passage about life references Mary’s cousin Elizabeth , when she became pregnant in her old age. While John was still in the womb, he revealed his personality when he lept for joy at the sound of Mary’s voice.

The same New Testament Greek word “ brephos ” is used to describe John’s inter-uterine joy ( Luke 1:41 ), the baby Jesus ( Luke 2:12 , 16 ), and the children approaching Jesus during his ministry ( Luke 18:15 ). The Bible has dozens and dozens of scriptures referencing the value of life.

This is what the LORD says — your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself. ( Isaiah 44:24 ). Know that the Lord is God. It is he who made us, and we are his, we are his people, the sheep of his pasture ( Psalm 100:3 ). Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations ( Jeremiah 1:5 ). But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through His grace  ( Galatians 1:15 ). Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for giving us through Christ every possible spiritual benefit as citizens of heaven! For consider what he has done — before the foundation of the world He chose us to become, in Christ, His holy and blameless children living within His constant care ( Ephesians 1:3-4 ).

The Bible does not clearly state abortion as a sin. However, Psalm 106 reiterates the history of the nation of Israel, their dabbling with child sacrifice, and how costly that was for them because of how abhorrent it is to God. Then in Jeremiah 32 , we see God again, rebuking the nation, Israel, for sacrificing their children to the God of Moloch. The false God, Moloch.

And he says something that never entered my mind. Abortion is unthinkable to God. I’ve had people say to me, “Well, the Bible’s silent on abortion. So it’s just a matter of moral conscience for women.”

While abortion is not included in Mosaic law, the death of an unborn child is referenced in Exodus 21:22-25 , and the abuser is penalized and fined for harm caused. This implies the value of life that the entire Bible testifies, is applicable to the life developing in the mother's womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God’s involved role in our creation and formation in utero:

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" ( Psalm 139:13-16 ). 

Scripture emphasizes this principle consistently. You'll also find through the whole of scripture, that Israel devalued their children again and again, and they paid a very high price every time.

Bible Verses About Abortion

Genesis 1:27 - “ So God created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. ”

Job 33:4 - “ The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life .”

Psalm 119:73 a - “ Your hands made me and formed me. ”

Job 10:11-12   - “ You clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. You have granted me life and steadfast love. ”

Isaiah 44:24 - “ Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself. '”

Jeremiah 1:5 - “ Before I formed you in your mother’s body I chose you. Before you were born I set you apart to serve me. I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations. ”

Luke 1:15 - “ He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. ”

Top Abortion Quotes

“In biblical terms, the sanctity of human life is rooted and grounded in creation. Mankind is not viewed as a cosmic accident but as the product of a carefully executed creation by an eternal God. Human dignity is derived from God. Man as a finite, dependent, contingent creature is assigned a high value by his Creator.”—R.C. Sproul

“The Bible makes it clear that God sees the unborn infant not as a piece of superfluous biological tissue, but as a person created by Him for life.”—Billy Graham

“God sanctifies human life. Every beating heart matters to God. Whether that life is in the womb of a mother, the cell of a prison, the hallway of a convalescent home, or the corner office of a Wall Street high rise, that life is holy to God.”—Max Lucado

“ Psalm 139 is perhaps the quintessential text for discussing the sanctity of life. In this psalm, David praises God for his creation in his mother’s womb. Theologically, this psalm leaves no doubt that the child in the womb is a human being, with days ahead of him already marked out by God. Our God is deeply and actively involved in our creation. Theologically, life begins at conception.”—Matt Chandler

“From conception to our final breath on this earth, all life is a sacred gift from Almighty God. It must be cherished in our hearts and protected through our actions, both in our capacity as individuals and also through our laws and policies as a nation.”—Dr. James Dobson

“Every human life is precious. Unborn life is precious. Children with special needs are precious. Aging parents are precious—even when they don’t remember because they’re suffering dementia, they’re still made in the image of God. Children or parents who are non-verbal, those in a wheelchair, and those who are completely dependent upon you or doctors are precious. All of life matters to God. If we have our eyes open, we can see this in even the most surprising places in the Bible, like in the lex talionis of the Mosaic law. You see it in imago Dei. You see it in the incarnation where God entered the world as a helpless babe.”—Kevin DeYoung

“The Scriptures tell us that humans are made ‘in the image of God’ ( Genesis 1:27 ). Because we are made in His likeness, we have a tremendous capacity to participate in God’s ongoing work of creation by imagining, inventing, building, farming and a million other creative expressions. Best of all, He invites us to marry and receive the gift of children also formed in God’s image.”—Kurt Bruner

Strong evidence can be found that God believes the lives of the unborn are to be protected and ending them at the hands of abuse would be considered murder. The only Biblical reference to the death of an unborn child is one of the Mosaic laws that referenced a miscarriage due to abuse: If a woman has a miscarriage as a result of a fight, the man who caused it would be severely punished up to death.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished accordingly as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth  ( Exodus 21:22-25 ).

Friends, our humanity is given. It is not earned. For those who say anyone gets to decide when life is a life is to play God. Only He alone has the authority.

Is Abortion Wrong if the Mother's Life is at Risk?

This crisis is incredibly rare. GotQuestions provides quotes from renowned biologists and doctors in fertility study, sharing:

"Dr. Landrum Shettles, a pioneer in the field of in vitro fertilization, wrote, “Less than 1 percent of all abortions are performed to save the mother’s life” (Landrum Shettles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life, Zondervan Publishing House, 1983, p. 129). Dr. Irving Cushner, Professor of Obstetrics at the UCLA School of Medicine, when testifying before the U. S. Senate, was asked how often abortions are necessary to save the life of the mother or to preserve her physical health. His response: “In this country, about 1 percent” ( testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States on October 14, 1981, quoted in The Village Voice, July 16, 1985)." ( GotQuestions )

When this dilemma does occur, it creates a conscious choice between two equally precious lives. If the unborn child lives, the mother dies, and vice versa. In some cases, both will pass. Who can say that this woman – a woman who may be someone else’s mom, wife, or daughter – should die in this situation? Obviously, there is no painless solution. Either option carries heartbreaking and regrettable outcomes for each person involved.

It's crucial to approach these discussions with a profound understanding of the complexities involved and a commitment to empathy and compassion. While the sanctity of life remains a paramount value, the acknowledgment of exceptional circumstances where the life of the mother is at risk reflects a compassionate interpretation of Biblical doctrine, grounded in the imperative to love and protect life in all its forms.  

Scripture emphasizes the sanctity of life as a foundational principle, but there is a recognition that real-world situations may demand a measured and compassionate response. In cases where a mother's life is in jeopardy during pregnancy, the prevailing view among many Christians is that, under such dire circumstances, abortion may be considered a morally justifiable and even necessary choice.

Advice For Those Who Have Had an Abortion

Perhaps you have a friend who has had an abortion, or perhaps you have. I don’t know your story; I don’t know your circumstances, but I do know this: Jesus isn’t shocked by abortion. He knows everything about you and wants to take the shame and insurmountable pain off your shoulders. He wants to wash you in grace and set you free.

When Jesus receives you, you are united with him. He goes to God on your behalf. And do you know what our mighty Father God says?   “You have been crucified with Christ — you’ve already been through judgment — you are now hidden in Jesus. You are my child in whom I am well pleased.” You are fully known and loved by God.

And the beautiful part? Your child is waiting for you. He or she is with Jesus, and when she asks when she will get to see you, Jesus simply replies, “Tomorrow,” because one day in his courts is 1,000 years on this earth.

If you have had an abortion, find a friend you can trust and open up about your story. Look for a biblical counselor and join an abortion recovery group if there is one in your area. You are not alone, and someday God could use your story to free another woman. Who the Son sets free is free indeed.

Talking to People about Abortion

Crosswalk.com: Is the Bible silent on abortion? - Kim Ketola from crosswalkquestions on GodTube .

Related Podcast:

Note: The views expressed in the podcast are those of the speakers and may not necessarily represent the views of Christianity.com, its writers or staff.

Further Reading:

Personhood, Grace, and the Sanctity of Human Life

What Ever Happened to Jane Roe?

5 Prayers for Women after Roe v. Wade Decision

Abortion in the Bible

What Is the Christian Perspective on the Roe v. Wade Decision?

Photo Credit: ©iStock/Getty Images Plus/petrunjela

Why Is Regret a Powerful Teacher?

3 Ways to Be at Peace with Others

How to Build a Solid Prayer Life

Morning Prayers to Start Your Day with God

The Best Birthday Prayers to Celebrate Friends and Family 

31 Night Prayers: Powerful to Pray Evening Rest and Bedtime

Is Masturbation a Sin?

11 Parallels in the Bible between Living for Christ and Training Like an Olympian

God changes us. As we’re feasting at His table having fellowship with Him, we no longer want the table scraps of the world. We don’t become immune to temptation, but we’re no longer drawn to the world like we used to be.

Bible Baseball

Play now...

Saintly Millionaire

Bible Jeopardy

Bible Trivia By Category

Bible Trivia Challenge

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Pro-Choice Does Not Mean Pro-Abortion: An Argument for Abortion Rights Featuring the Rev. Carlton Veazey

Since the Supreme Court’s historic 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade , the issue of a woman’s right to an abortion has fostered one of the most contentious moral and political debates in America. Opponents of abortion rights argue that life begins at conception – making abortion tantamount to homicide. Abortion rights advocates, in contrast, maintain that women have a right to decide what happens to their bodies – sometimes without any restrictions.

To explore the case for abortion rights, the Pew Forum turns to the Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, who for more than a decade has been president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Based in Washington, D.C., the coalition advocates for reproductive choice and religious freedom on behalf of about 40 religious groups and organizations. Prior to joining the coalition, Veazey spent 33 years as a pastor at Zion Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.

A counterargument explaining the case against abortion rights is made by the Rev. J. Daniel Mindling, professor of moral theology at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary.

Featuring: The Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, President, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Interviewer: David Masci, Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Question & Answer

Can you explain how your Christian faith informs your views in support of abortion rights?

I grew up in a Christian home. My father was a Baptist minister for many years in Memphis, Tenn. One of the things that he instilled in me – I used to hear it so much – was free will, free will, free will. It was ingrained in me that you have the ability to make choices. You have the ability to decide what you want to do. You are responsible for your decisions, but God has given you that responsibility, that option to make decisions.

I had firsthand experience of seeing black women and poor women being disproportionately impacted by the fact that they had no choices about an unintended pregnancy, even if it would damage their health or cause great hardship in their family. And I remember some of them being maimed in back-alley abortions; some of them died. There was no legal choice before Roe v. Wade .

But in this day and time, we have a clearer understanding that men and women are moral agents and equipped to make decisions about even the most difficult and complex matters. We must ensure a woman can determine when and whether to have children according to her own conscience and religious beliefs and without governmental interference or coercion. We must also ensure that women have the resources to have a healthy, safe pregnancy, if that is their decision, and that women and families have the resources to raise a child with security.

The right to choose has changed and expanded over the years since Roe v. Wade . We now speak of reproductive justice – and that includes comprehensive sex education, family planning and contraception, adequate medical care, a safe environment, the ability to continue a pregnancy and the resources that make that choice possible. That is my moral framework.

You talk about free will, and as a Christian you believe in free will. But you also said that God gave us free will and gave us the opportunity to make right and wrong choices. Why do you believe that abortion can, at least in some instances, be the right choice?

Dan Maguire, a former Jesuit priest and professor of moral theology and ethics at Marquette University, says that to have a child can be a sacred choice, but to not have a child can also be a sacred choice.

And these choices revolve around circumstances and issues – like whether a person is old enough to care for a child or whether a woman already has more children than she can care for. Also, remember that medical circumstances are the reason many women have an abortion – for example, if they are having chemotherapy for cancer or have a life-threatening chronic illness – and most later-term abortions occur because of fetal abnormalities that will result in stillbirth or the death of the child. These are difficult decisions; they’re moral decisions, sometimes requiring a woman to decide if she will risk her life for a pregnancy.

Abortion is a very serious decision and each decision depends on circumstances. That’s why I tell people: I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. And that’s an important distinction.

You’ve talked about the right of a woman to make a choice. Does the fetus have any rights?

First, let me say that the religious, pro-choice position is based on respect for human life, including potential life and existing life.

But I do not believe that life as we know it starts at conception. I am troubled by the implications of a fetus having legal rights because that could pit the fetus against the woman carrying the fetus; for example, if the woman needed a medical procedure, the law could require the fetus to be considered separately and equally.

From a religious perspective, it’s more important to consider the moral issues involved in making a decision about abortion. Also, it’s important to remember that religious traditions have very different ideas about the status of the fetus. Roman Catholic doctrine regards a fertilized egg as a human being. Judaism holds that life begins with the first breath.

What about at the very end of a woman’s pregnancy? Does a fetus acquire rights after the point of viability, when it can survive outside the womb? Or let me ask it another way: Assuming a woman is healthy and her fetus is healthy, should the woman be able to terminate her pregnancy until the end of her pregnancy?

There’s an assumption that a woman would end a viable pregnancy carelessly or without a reason. The facts don’t bear this out. Most abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Late abortions are virtually always performed for the most serious medical and health reasons, including saving the woman’s life.

But what if such a case came before you? If you were that woman’s pastor, what would you say?

I would talk to her in a helpful, positive, respectful way and help her discuss what was troubling her. I would suggest alternatives such as adoption.

Let me shift gears a little bit. Many Americans have said they favor a compromise, or reaching a middle-ground policy, on abortion. Do you sympathize with this desire and do you think that both sides should compromise to end this rancorous debate?

I have been to more middle-ground and common-ground meetings than I can remember and I’ve never been to one where we walked out with any decision.

That being said, I think that we all should agree that abortion should be rare. How do we do that? We do that by providing comprehensive sex education in schools and in religious congregations and by ensuring that there is accurate information about contraception and that contraception is available. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress has not been willing to pass a bill to fund comprehensive sex education, but they are willing to put a lot of money into failed and harmful abstinence-only programs that often rely on scare tactics and inaccurate information.

Former Surgeon General David Satcher has shown that abstinence-only programs do not work and that we should provide young people with the information to protect themselves. Education that stresses abstinence and provides accurate information about contraception will reduce the abortion rate. That is the ground that I stand on. I would say that here is a way we can work together to reduce the need for abortions.

Abortion has become central to what many people call the “culture wars.” Some consider it to be the most contentious moral issue in America today. Why do many Catholics, evangelical Christians and other people of faith disagree with you?

I was raised to respect differing views so the rigid views against abortion are hard for me to understand. I will often tell someone on the other side, “I respect you. I may disagree with your theological perspective, but I respect your views. But I think it’s totally arrogant for you to tell me that I need to believe what you believe.” It’s not that I think we should not try to win each other over. But we have to respect people’s different religious beliefs.

But what about people who believe that life begins at conception and that terminating a pregnancy is murder? For them, it may not just be about respecting or tolerating each other’s viewpoints; they believe this is an issue of life or death. What do you say to people who make that kind of argument?

I would say that they have a right to their beliefs, as do I. I would try to explain that my views are grounded in my religion, as are theirs. I believe that we must ensure that women are treated with dignity and respect and that women are able to follow the dictates of their conscience – and that includes their reproductive decisions. Ultimately, it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that women have the ability to make decisions of conscience and have access to reproductive health services.

Some in the anti-abortion camp contend that the existence of legalized abortion is a sign of the self-centeredness and selfishness of our age. Is there any validity to this view?

Although abortion is a very difficult decision, it can be the most responsible decision a person can make when faced with an unintended pregnancy or a pregnancy that will have serious health consequences.

Depending on the circumstances, it might be selfish to bring a child into the world. You know, a lot of people say, “You must bring this child into the world.” They are 100 percent supportive while the child is in the womb. As soon as the child is born, they abort the child in other ways. They abort a child through lack of health care, lack of education, lack of housing, and through poverty, which can drive a child into drugs or the criminal justice system.

So is it selfish to bring children into the world and not care for them? I think the other side can be very selfish by neglecting the children we have already. For all practical purposes, children whom we are neglecting are being aborted.

This transcript has been edited for clarity, spelling and grammar.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Religion & Abortion
• Religion & Social Values

Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in europe, public opinion on abortion, americans overwhelmingly say access to ivf is a good thing, broad public support for legal abortion persists 2 years after dobbs, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Skip to Content

There is no one ‘religious view’ on abortion: A scholar of religion, gender and sexuality explains

• Share via Twitter
• Share via Facebook
• Share via LinkedIn
• Share via E-mail

Views on abortion differ not only among major religious traditions, but within each one

The Catholic Church’s official line on  abortion , and even on  any artificial birth control , is well known: Don’t do it.

Surveys of how American Catholics live their lives, though, tell a different story.

The vast majority of Catholic women have used contraceptives, despite the church’s ban.  Fifty-six percent  of U.S. Catholics believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, whether or not they believe they would ever seek one.  One in four  Americans who have had abortions are Catholic, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which advocates for reproductive health.

It’s a clear reminder of the complex relationship between any religious tradition’s teachings and how people actually live out their beliefs. With the U.S. Supreme Court  poised to overturn Roe v. Wade , the 1973 ruling that protects abortion rights nationwide, religious attitudes toward a woman’s right to end a pregnancy are in the spotlight. But even within one faith, there is no one religious position toward reproductive rights – let alone among different faiths.

People opposed to abortion gather at the Washington Monument during the 2017 March for Life rally in Washington, D.C. (Photo by  Tasos Katopodis/AFP via Getty Images ).

Christianity and conscience

As a scholar of  gender  and  religion , I  research  how religious traditions shape people’s understandings of contraception and abortion.

When it comes to official stances on abortion, religions’ positions are tied to different approaches to some key theological concepts. For instance, for several religions, a key issue in abortion rights is “ensoulment,”  the moment at which the soul is believed to enter the body  – that is, when a fetus becomes human.

The catch is that traditions place ensoulment at different moments and give it various degrees of importance. Catholic theologians place ensoulment  at the moment of conception , which is why the official position of the Catholic Church is that abortion is never permitted. From the moment the sperm meets the egg, in Catholic theology, a human exists, and you cannot kill a human, regardless of how it came to exist. Nor can you choose between two human lives, which is why the church  opposes aborting a fetus to save the life of the pregnant person .

As in any faith, not all Catholics feel compelled to follow the church teachings in all cases. And regardless of whether someone thinks they would ever seek an abortion, they may believe it should be a legal right. Fifty-seven percent of U.S. Catholics say abortion is morally wrong, but 68% still  support Roe v. Wade , while only 14% believe that abortion should never be legal.

Some Catholics advocate for abortion access not despite but because of their dedication to Catholic teachings. The organization  Catholics for Choice   describes its work  as rooted in Catholicism’s emphasis on “social justice, human dignity, and the  primacy of conscience ” –  people making their own decisions  out of deep moral conviction.

Other Christians also say faith shapes their support for reproductive rights. Protestant clergy, along with their Jewish colleagues, were instrumental in  helping women to secure abortions  before Roe, through a network called the Clergy Consultation Service. These pro-choice clergy were motivated by a range of concerns, including desperation that they saw among women in their congregations, and  theological commitments to social justice . Today, the organization still exists as  the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice .

There are myriad Protestant  opinions on abortion . The most conservative equate it with murder, and therefore oppose any exemptions. The most liberal Protestant voices advocate for a broad platform of reproductive justice, calling on believers to “ Trust Women .”

Who is a ‘person’?

Protesters listen during the 2022 Jewish Rally for Abortion Justice in Washington, D.C. (Photo by  Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images ).

Muslims scholars and clerics, too, have  a range of positions  on abortion. Some believe abortion is never permitted, and many allow it until ensoulment, which is often placed at 120 days’ gestation, just shy of 18 weeks. In general, many Muslim leaders  permit abortion to save the life of the mother ,  since classical Islamic law sees legal personhood as beginning at birth  – though while many Muslims may seek out their religious leaders for guidance about or assistance with abortion, many do not.

Jewish tradition has a great deal of debate about  when ensoulment occurs : Various rabbinic texts place it at or even before conception, and many place it at birth, but ensoulment is not as key as the legal status of the fetus under Jewish law. Generally, it is not considered to be a person. For instance,  the Talmud  – the main source of Jewish law – refers to the fetus as part of the mother’s body. The biblical Book of Exodus notes that if a pregnant woman is attacked and then miscarries,  the attacker owes a fine  but is not guilty of murder.

In other words, Jewish law protects a fetus as a “potential person,” but does not view it as holding the same full personhood as its mother. Jewish clergy generally agree that abortion is not only permitted, but mandated,  to save the life of the mother , because potential life must be sacrificed to save existing life – even during labor, as long as the head has not emerged from the birth canal.

Where  Jewish law on abortion  gets complicated is when the mother’s life is not at risk. For example, contemporary Jewish leaders debate whether abortion is permitted if the mother’s mental health will be damaged, if genetic testing shows evidence of a nonfatal disability or if there are other compelling concerns, such as that the family’s resources would be strained too much to care for their existing children.

American Jews have generally supported legal abortion with very few restrictions, seeing it as a religious freedom issue – and a question of life versus potential life.  Eighty-three percent  support a woman’s right to an abortion, and while many might turn to their clergy for support in seeking an abortion, many would not see a need to.

A different view of life

As much diversity as exists in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, there is likely even more in Hinduism, which has a range of texts, deities and worldviews. Many scholars argue that the fact so many different traditions are all lumped together under the umbrella term “Hindusim”  has more to do with British colonialism  than anything else.

Most Hindus believe in  reincarnation , which means that while one may enter bodies with birth and leave with death, life itself does not, precisely, begin or end. Rather, any given moment in a human body is seen as part of an unending cycle of life – making the question of when life begins quite different than in Abrahamic religions.

Jizo statues sit along the Daiya River and Jiunji Temple in Nikko, Japan. (Photo by  John S Lander/LightRocket via Getty Images ).

Some bioethicists see Hinduism as  essentially pro-life , permitting abortion only to save the life of the mother. Looking at what people do, though, rather than what a tradition’s sacred texts say,  abortion is common  in Hindu-majority India,  especially of female fetuses .

In the United States, there are immigrant Hindu communities, Asian American Hindu communities, and people who have converted to Hinduism who bring this diversity to their approaches to abortion. Overall, however 68% say  abortion should be legal  in all or most cases.

Compassionate choices

Buddhists also have varied views on abortion. The  Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice  notes: “Buddhism, like the other religions of the world, faces the fact that abortion may sometimes be the best decision and a truly moral choice. That does not mean there is nothing troubling about abortion, but it means that Buddhists may understand that reproductive decisions are part of the moral complexity of life.”

Japanese Buddhism  in particular can be seen as offering a “middle way” between pro-choice and pro-life positions. While many Buddhists see life as beginning at conception, abortion is common and addressed through  rituals involving Jizo , one of the enlightened figures Buddhists call bodhisattvas, who is believed to take care of aborted and miscarried fetuses.

In the end, the Buddhist approach to abortion emphasizes that abortion is a complex moral decision that should be made with  an eye toward compassion .

We tend to think of the religious response to abortion as one of opposition, but the reality is much more complicated. Formal religious teachings on abortion are complex and divided – and official positions aside,  data shows that over and over , the majority of Americans, religious or not, support abortion.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Related Articles

‘Untraditional’ Hanukkah celebrations are often full of traditions for Jews of color

Simchat Torah: A Jewish holiday of reading, renewal and resilience

Honoring the diversity in two distinct but linked communities

• Jewish Studies
• Religious Studies
• The Conversation
• Women and Gender Studies

A Pastor’s Case for the Morality of Abortion

Jes Kast, a minister in the United Church of Christ, believes the procedure should be fully legal and accessible. Her path to that position has been complicated.

In America, the debate about abortion is often reduced to binary categories. Religious versus secular. Misogynists versus murderers. Even “Christian theocracy” versus, presumably, everyone else.

With abortion once again in the headlines this month, after Alabama and several other states passed near-total bans on the procedure, Jes Kast, a pastor in the United Church of Christ, spoke up as someone who does not fit those categories. She supports abortion rights, and is representative of her denomination on this issue: According to the Pew Research Center, 72 percent of people in the UCC, a small, progressive denomination with a little less than 1 million members, think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Kast also serves on the clergy-advocacy board of Planned Parenthood , which works to “increase public awareness of the theological and moral basis for advocating reproductive health,” according to its website.

Kast has not always supported abortion, however—far from it. She grew up in a conservative-Christian community in West Michigan, attended an evangelical church as a teenager, and participated in anti-abortion protests. Her process of coming to support abortion rights has been long, and definitive: Kast no longer believes there are any circumstances under which it is immoral to get an abortion. She has been open about her views with members of her new church in State College, Pennsylvania, and told me she would feel comfortable preaching about abortion from the pulpit.

Kast’s experience shows how widely people’s moral perspectives on abortion can vary, including among clergy. Although she has clear views on abortion, she lives in community with people who see the issue very differently. Part of her job, and her life, is to navigate those differences with care, which can sometimes be complicated. I asked Kast about how her views have changed, what it’s like disagreeing with her conservative-Christian family, and why she believes scripture justifies abortion. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Emma Green: When you were growing up, what did you think about the morality of abortion?

Jes Kast: My family has deep roots in the pro-life movement. When I was a child, before I even knew this language of pro-life and pro-choice , my family would talk with vigor about protecting the unborn. I heard that at church. I heard that at the dinner table. One of my family members had a sweater that said, “Endangered Species,” with all of the different animals. One of the pictures was a fetus inside of a womb.

That’s what it meant to be Christian: to protect the unborn.

Green : Did you engage in any activism around this issue?

Kast: The first protest I ever went to was when I was 12. It was an anti-abortion protest. We lined the streets in my small Michigan town, with signs—something along the lines of save the unborn babies . It was a silent protest.

Green : When would you say you first started questioning the values you had been taught around abortion?

Kast : It began with other issues, which led to abortion. I was in college, a private Christian school in Michigan. At that time, President [George W.] Bush was talking about [weapons of mass destruction].

I remember sitting with my mom and my dad at Chili’s. And I said, “I don’t believe that there are WMDs, and I’m not sure I trust President Bush.” In that mind-set, to be Republican is to be Christian. That all went together. And I began questioning it.

Green : How did that connect with the question of abortion?

Kast : I began to understand myself as a woman in ministry. I began to see myself as this Christian feminist. I began to own my voice differently, and to question the rules of engagement of Christianity that I was raised with.

I began saying things like “Why is it that abortion is the only issue that my parents and family really care about?” I have a very good relationship with my family. I’m not trying to paint them in negative light. But why? Why is this the only issue?

Like many Millennials coming out of evangelicalism, I began to care about different justice issues. I began to care about the Earth, and racial justice, and interfaith justice. And one of the topics that arose for me was abortion.

I began questioning: What about bodily autonomy? Isn’t that justice? How would God ever infringe upon that?

And this was a big one for me: Why is it that when it comes to this topic, it’s almost always white, straight, Christian men who are the loudest?

[Read: Rachel Held Evans, hero to Christian misfits]

Green : How would you describe your views on abortion today?

Kast : When I was serving on the Upper West Side, my church and different synagogues in the area got together for the One Voice to Save Choice event.

I remember approaching my board, saying, “Is this who we are? Can I go, as a pastor?”

And it was unequivocal: Yes.

Cecile Richards, the previous president of Planned Parenthood, was there. It was a formative moment for me. Here we are, different faithful people of different creeds coming together to say bodily autonomy and reproductive rights are justice issues. That was a tipping point for me.

I believe reproductive rights and bodily autonomy are deeply important. I believe that is faithfulness to Christianity. I believe in access to safe and legal abortions. I believe that the person who can best make these decisions is the person who’s considering these decisions.

I meet one-on-one with people in my congregation. Although I am ordained, and I carry a certain authority with me, my job is to walk with people through those decisions. I have known people who have accessed abortion and reproductive care. Some haven’t had any emotional turmoil over it; it has been more like celebration for them. And I know people who saw it as a hard decision.

I believe every person I encounter, including myself, has the right to their body. When that bodily autonomy is taken away, to me, that is against Christian scripture, and is against the Gospel I believe in.

Green : So, just to be clear, what do you think is the Christian theological argument for abortion?

Kast : When people talk about “Our body is a temple of God, and holy,” I see that as I have the right to choices over my body, and the freedom to make the decisions that are right for me .

In Genesis, it says that God breathed God’s spirit into our lives—Christians would say “the Holy Spirit.” Because of that, we’re not puppets controlled by God. Because of the image of God in us, we have freedom. That’s what’s really clear to me, is freedom.

There’s this little passage in the Gospel of John that continues to stay with me. Jesus says, “I have come that they might have life and have it abundantly.” The Greek word that’s used there for “life abundance” is this word zoe , which means not just that you’re living and breathing, but that God’s plan for our lives is to actually have a meaningful life with loving contentment and satisfaction.

Because of that—because I value life, and I believe Jesus values life—I value the choices that give us the type of life that we need.

Green : I often speak to people in what you might call a gray space on abortion. They might say something like “I believe in a legal right to a safe and accessible abortion. But on a personal, one-on-one level, I believe in encouraging people to choose to carry pregnancies to term.”

Would you say that perspective resonates with you, especially in those pastoral-counseling contexts?

Kast : No. I still think encouraging someone to carry a fetus and give birth to a baby might not be the most life-giving decision. For instance, let’s take a more extreme case: a 12-year-old who gets raped . I think it’s evil to ask that 12-year-old to carry that baby to term. I don’t think that’s life. I don’t think that’s valuing a 12-year-old’s life.

Green : Do you think there’s any context in which it’s immoral to have an abortion?

Kast : That’s a really great question. Let me think if I do think that or not. Let me just be really thoughtful about that.

Green : Okay.

Kast : I don’t. I really don’t. I don’t think I do. For me, it’s a health-care issue. The best person to make that decision is the person who has to decide that. And if that person believes it’s immoral for them, then I would have to honor the conscience of that person and walk with them through what they would choose.

Green : You talked earlier about this view that was imparted to you in your childhood—that to be Christian is to be opposed to abortion. Do you believe that Christians have to be opposed to abortion?

Kast : No. No. Like, not at all.

In some ways I feel I have repented from a view of Christianity that I don’t believe is true anymore. I believe I am walking in faithfulness.

I think there’s this view that progressive liberal Christians don’t take scripture or theology seriously. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. I take scripture and theology, I believe, more seriously now.

[Read: The progressive roots of the pro-life movement]

Green : Would you say there is space in your church for a vocally pro-life person?

Kast : I actually thrive in places where not everyone has the same opinions as I do. When I look out into the congregation, I don’t expect everybody to agree with me. I am their pastor. Whomever they voted for, whatever their values are around abortion or whatever issue, I will be their pastor and love them. So yes, there’s room.

I’ve also been very transparent about who I am. I try to be honest about that. I’m playing with this phrase—conviction without certainty. I am Christian, and I follow this guy named Jesus, who said, above all, love your God with your whole heart and soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. And for me, that includes the people who didn’t vote like me, who hold different opinions than me. That is important to me.

Green : What would your parents think of your views on abortion today?

Kast : My parents know. They don’t understand. They ask questions. They love their daughter, and they’re very good at loving their daughter, and they would disagree with me—I mean, probably strongly. I think anti-abortion conversations are still probably one of the No. 1 things my parents value in their understanding of Christianity. And they couldn’t be prouder of their daughter who is a minister.

Green : How do you wish abortion was talked about in Christian circles in the United States?

Kast : I wish there was more clarity of conviction with compassion. I wish one section of Christianity didn’t demonize another section of Christianity, because there are Christians like myself, and like my denomination, who see safe and legal abortion access as part of what it means to do justice. We are deeply faithful Christian people. I would love that respect from my more conservative siblings in faith.

I value a more nuanced conversation. I value thoughtfulness a lot. And I wish those who are considering the choices in front of them were honored and respected, and that government and institutions and even God doesn’t have the final say over how we make the choices that are best for us.

About the Author

More Stories

The Massive Progressive Dark-Money Group You’ve Never Heard Of

The Christians Who Mock Wokeness for a Living

Christian attitudes surrounding abortion have a more nuanced history than current events suggest

Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Scripps College

Disclosure statement

Luis Josué Salés does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

Opponents and supporters of legal abortion in the U.S. will be watching when the Supreme Court hears Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization during its upcoming term. In this lawsuit, a Mississippi women’s health center has challenged the constitutionality of a 2018 state law banning abortions after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. In the Supreme Court’s hands, the case has the potential to affect provisions of Roe v. Wade , the landmark decision that legalized abortion in the U.S., and further limit women’s access to abortion in many states .

Such challenges to abortion in the United States are often fueled by the belief of many Christians that abortion and Christianity are incompatible. For example, the catechism of the Catholic Church , an authoritative guide to the beliefs and practices of Roman Catholic Christians, states: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

However, this statement tells only one part of the story. It is true that Christian leaders, virtually all male, have largely condemned abortion. Nonetheless, as a scholar of premodern Christianities , I am also aware of the messier realities that this statement conceals.

Celebrating women’s celibacy

The earliest Christian writings – the letters of the Apostle Paul – discouraged marriage and reproduction. Later Christian texts supported these teachings. In a second-century text known as the Acts of Paul and Thekla , a Christian author in Asia Minor praised Thekla for rejecting her suitors and avoiding marriage in favor of spreading Christian teachings instead.

In the third century, Thekla’s story inspired a Roman noblewoman called Eugenia. According to the Christian text titled the Acts and Martyrdom of Eugenia , Eugenia rejected marriage and led a male monastery for a time. Afterward, she discouraged Alexandrian women from having children, but this advice angered their husbands. These men convinced the emperor Gallienus that Eugenia’s teachings about women’s reproductive choice endangered Rome’s military power by reducing the “supply” of future soldiers. Eugenia was executed in 258 A.D.

Even as the Roman Empire became increasingly Christian, women still received praise for avoiding marriage. For example, the bishop Gregorios of Nyssa, an ancient city near Harmandalı, Turkey, wrote the beautiful text Life of Makrina to celebrate his beloved sister and teacher, who died in 379 A.D. In this text, Gregorios admires Makrina for wittily rejecting suitors by claiming that she owed faithfulness to her dead fiancé.

To sum up, while early Christian texts did not exactly encourage women to explore sexual experiences, neither did they encourage marriage, reproduction and family life.

Choices beyond celibacy

Premodern Christian women had options beside celibacy as well, although the state, the church and mediocre medicine limited their reproductive choices.

In 211 A.D., the Roman emperors Septimius Severus and Caracalla made abortion illegal . Tellingly, though, Roman laws surrounding abortion were centrally concerned with the father’s right to an heir, not with women or fetuses in their own right. Later Roman Christian legislators left that largely unchanged .

Conversely, Christian bishops sometimes condemned the injustice of laws regulating sex and reproduction. For example, the bishop Gregorios of Nazianzos, who died in 390 A.D., accused legislators of self-serving hypocrisy for being lenient on men and tough on women. Similarly, the bishop of Constantinople, Ioannes Chrysostomos, who died in 407 A.D., blamed men for putting women in difficult situations that led to abortions .

Christian leaders often gathered at meetings called “synods” to discuss religious beliefs and practices. Two of the most important synods concerning abortion were held in Ankyra – currently Ankara, Turkey – in 314 A.D. and in Chalkedon – today’s Kadiköy, Turkey – in 451 A.D. Notably, these two synods drastically reduced the penalties for abortion relative to earlier centuries.

But over time, these legal and religious opinions did not seem appreciably to affect women’s reproductive choices. Rather, pregnancy prevention and termination methods thrived in premodern Christian societies , especially in the medieval Roman Empire. For example, the historian Prokopios of Kaisareia claims that the Roman Empress Theodora nearly perfected contraception and abortion during her time as a sex worker, and yet this charge had no impact on Theodora’s canonization as a saint.

Some evidence even indicates that premodern Christians actively developed reproductive options for women. For instance, Christian physicians, like Aetios of Amida in the sixth century and Paulos of Aigina in the seventh, provided detailed instructions for performing abortions and making contraceptives. Their texts deliberately changed and improved on the medical work of Soranos of Ephesos, who lived in the second century. Many manuscripts contain their work, which indicates these texts circulated openly.

Further Christian texts about holy figures suggest complex Christian perspectives on the acceptable termination of fetal development – and even newborn lives. Consider a sixth-century text, the Egyptian Life of Dorotheos . In this account, the sister of Dorotheos, an Egyptian hermit from Thebes, becomes pregnant while possessed by a demon. But when Dorotheos successfully prays for his sister to miscarry, the text treats the unusual termination of the pregnancy as a miracle, not a moral outrage.

Around 1,100 years later, a similar event happens in the Ethiopian Life of Walatta Petros . According to this text, Walatta Petros, a noblewoman later canonized as a saint, married a general and became pregnant three times. However, every time she conceived, she prayed for her fetus to die promptly if it would “not please God in life.” The narrator tells us that all three of her children died days after birth, since “God heard her prayer.”

Certainly, Christians have a history of opposing methods for preventing and terminating pregnancies. But these premodern texts, spanning some 1,500 years, indicate that Christians also have a history of providing these services, and making them safer for women.

This tense and inconclusive relationship to abortion may be poorly known – or perhaps overlooked for political convenience. But that does not change the fact, as I see it, that Christians who support women’s reproductive rights are also following the historical precedent of their religious tradition.

[ 3 media outlets, 1 religion newsletter. Get stories from The Conversation, AP and RNS. ]

• Reproduction
• Christianity
• US Supreme Court
• Roman Catholic Church
• Women's bodies
• Women's rights
• Female body
• Religion and society

Service Delivery Consultant

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

College Director and Principal | Curtin College

Head of School: Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences

Educational Designer

• Israel at war
• Election 2024
• Antisemitism
• Republish our articles
• פֿאָרווערטס

What does Christianity really say about abortion?

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Email
• Print Article
• Republish Article

Pregnancy, abortion and Christianity — it’s not so biblical Photo by iStock

By Mira Fox July 6, 2022

Jews across the internet, from a wide variety of organizations ranging the ideological spectrum, are releasing statements and tweets asserting that the Supreme Court is imposing extremist Christian beliefs on the U.S. after the court rescinded Roe v. Wade. (The court also raised questions about related cases including a right to contraception, to same-sex marriage and to same-sex sex.)

The court did not use Christianity as a justification for the decision. And not all Christians or churches oppose abortion. But many members of the court are devout Christians, and right wing Christian groups have long been advocating against abortion, contraception and LGBTQ rights based on a conservative moral framework taken from their understanding of their faith’s dogma. 

This is, of course, a Jewish publication. But it now seems relevant for Jews to understand what, exactly, Christian leaders and Christian texts say about abortion.

Forwarding the News

Thoughtful, balanced reporting from the Forward and around the web, bringing you updated news and analysis of the crisis each day.

• What does Jewish law say about abortion?

It’s hard to draw an exact consensus about anything in Christianity — there are sects that differ enormously from each other in practice and textual adherence, not to mention differing power and leadership structures that pass on their own teachings from outside the text. Some sects of Evangelicalism, for example, place a high emphasis on feeling the spirit of God and draw their morality from that, while many Catholics base their stances on abortion on papal bulls issued centuries ago; in many cases, these extratextual teachings are the strongest influences.

But of course, Christians also cite the Bible about abortion — though the Bible has little to say directly on the topic. The glut of articles and blog posts arguing against abortion from a Christian perspective cite nearly every line in the Bible that mentions wombs, miscarriages, children or fertility, seeing any time that miscarriage is framed as a negative, or children as a positive, as religious proof that abortion is immoral. 

It’s also notable that the bulk of the texts cited by Christians on abortion come from the Hebrew Bible, not the New Testament. The Christian and Jewish texts on miscarriage, life and birth are largely the same; the difference lies in the interpretation.

Here are some of the most oft-cited biblical passages, and the prevailing interpretations:

What’s the value of the unborn?

What the Bible says: “When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” 

– Exodus 21:22-23

How it’s interpreted: Centuries of Talmudic interpretation have taken this passage to show that a fetus’s life is less valuable than the mother’s, justifying saving the mother’s life over the child’s in all circumstances. 

But the word in the original Hebrew that centuries of Talmudic analysis have taken to mean a miscarriage comes from a root meaning “to leave” or “to exit.” And, some Christian Bibles translate the word to mean premature — and living — birth. 

That translation choice leads to the interpretation that the “life for a life” punishment is in response to the fetus being hurt or killed in the fight, instead of simply born prematurely. This interpretation implies that abortion is tantamount to murder. 

The Jewish interpretation understands the “life for a life” punishment to only apply in the case of death of the mother, leading to the opposite conclusion: The mother’s life is more valuable than the fetus’s because killing the fetus is not murder, while killing the mother is.

Wombs on wombs on wombs

What the Bible says: “The LORD appointed me before I was born, and named me while I was in my mother’s womb.” 

– Isaiah 49:1. 

“Before I created you in the womb, I selected you. Before you were born, I consecrated you.”

– Jeremiah 1:5

How it’s interpreted: These are just a few examples of the numerous passages throughout the Bible — the Gospel of Luke, Galatians, Psalms, Proverbs and more — that mention wombs. Often, the use is poetic; the speaker, whoever it is, is illustrating how far back their connection with God goes.

These passages, which gesture toward existence, consciousness or connection with God before birth are used repeatedly in Christian anti-abortion blogs and essays to argue fetuses are people in the eyes of God.

The dominant Jewish interpretations of these lines, meanwhile, have far more to do with history and God’s promises to the people of Israel. Rashi, one of the most widely read and respected rabbinical commentators, interprets the verse in Jeremiah, for example, to refer to the fact that God promised prophets to each generation, and thus Jeremiah’s coming was predestined. Notably absent is the idea that, as a fetus, Jeremiah was communing with God.

Children are a blessing from God, made in God’s image

What the Bible says: “Sons are the provision of the LORD; the fruit of the womb, God’s reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are sons born to a man in his youth. Happy is the man who fills his quiver with them.” 

– Psalms 127:3-5

“And God created humanity in His own image, in the image of God He created them.” 

– Genesis 1:27 

How it’s interpreted: In Genesis, God commands humanity to be fertile and have children. And numerous other verses and stories paint children as highly desired, a reward given by God to the faithful. 

As a  piece published in the Catholic News Agency’s resource section for abortion argues, “ Because this whole process is under God’s dominion, it is sinful to interrupt it.” 

Similarly, anti-abortion arguments often lean on passages specifying that humanity is created in God’s image, by God’s hand. If humanity is created in God’s image, the argument goes, that sets us aside from other creatures, meaning humans must be treated differently from animals or plants. And if humanity was created by God’s own hands — a teaching numerous other passages throughout the Bible also reference — then it would be against God’s will to alter that act of creation. 

Stand up for the innocent

What the Bible says: “Speak up for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Speak up, judge righteously, champion the poor and the needy.” 

– Proverbs 31:8-9

“Don’t forget the lowly.” 

– Psalm 10:12

“Parents shall not be put to death for children, nor children be put to death for parents: they shall each be put to death only for their own crime.”

– Deuteronomy 24:16

How it’s interpreted: Numerous passages in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament exhort followers to help the weak and innocent. These verses are used to show that fetuses are especially deserving of protection, even more so than other people — that Christians should go out of their way to protect the unborn because they are so innocent and in need of help. 

Innocence is also key to religious arguments against abortion in the case of rape or incest. The Deuteronomy passage is used to characterize the fetus as an innocent, living person who is being unfairly prosecuted for someone else’s crimes.

(Rashi points out in his commentary that the clause uses the Hebrew word for adult; youthfulness is never referenced. This, he argues, is the will of God; sometimes, he wrote , “little children sometimes die at the hands of Heaven because of their parents’ sins.”)

“Thou shalt not kill”

What the Bible says: “ You shall not murder.” – Exodus 20:13

How it’s interpreted: Everyone knows it, and it’s the simplest and yet most complicated verse. The 10 Commandments state clearly that murder is against the will of God. It just depends if abortion is murder — and that’s the crux of the entire debate.

• On the Supreme Court docket, a Jewish anti-abortion group gets a Christian megaphone

Mira Fox is a reporter at the Forward. Get in touch at [email protected] or on Twitter @miraefox .

A message from our CEO & publisher Rachel Fishman Feddersen

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.

Now more than ever, American Jews need independent news they can trust, with reporting driven by truth, not ideology. We serve you, not any ideological agenda.

At a time when other newsrooms are closing or cutting back, the Forward has removed its paywall and invested additional resources to report on the ground from Israel and around the U.S. on the impact of the war, rising antisemitism and the protests on college campuses.

Readers like you make it all possible. Support our work by becoming a Forward Member and connect with our journalism and your community.

Make a gift of any size and become a Forward member today. You’ll support our mission to tell the American Jewish story fully and fairly.

—  Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO

Join our mission to tell the Jewish story fully and fairly.

• Christianity

A mezuzah in a Harris-Emhoff White House? It might not be the first.

Are Jewish horns having a comeback? The history behind the antisemitic stereotype

A small town in Spain is finally embracing its Jewish history — but is any of that history true?

One of Bob Dylan’s most Jewish songs is VP candidate Tim Walz’s favorite

Most popular.

What Tim Walz VP pick means for American Jews and Israel

Josh Shapiro quotes ancient rabbi in statement about not being Kamala Harris’ VP pick

Pro-Israel groups helped defeat Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush. Why aren’t they targeting Ilhan Omar?

In case you missed it.

All the Jewish medalists at the 2024 Paris Olympics

JD Vance downplays Trump dinner with Holocaust denier

Jewish water polo star Sienna Green wins silver with Australia 

Israel’s rhythmic gymnastics team wins silver, Israel’s 7th medal in Paris

Catch up on yiddish events.

Shop the Forward Store

100% of profits support our journalism

Our founder, Ab Cahan

1960s Yiddish hipi hoodie

It's spelled Khanike tee

The Forverts est. 1897 hoodie

Republish This Story

Please read before republishing

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free, unless it originated with JTA, Haaretz or another publication (as indicated on the article) and as long as you follow our guidelines . You must credit the Forward, retain our pixel and preserve our canonical link in Google search.  See our full guidelines for more information, and this guide for detail about canonical URLs.

To republish, copy the HTML by clicking on the yellow button to the right; it includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline and credit to the Forward. It does not include images; to avoid copyright violations, you must add them manually, following our guidelines . Please email us at [email protected] , subject line “republish,” with any questions or to let us know what stories you’re picking up.

We don't support Internet Explorer

Please use Chrome, Safari, Firefox, or Edge to view this site.

• Subscriber Login

Since 1900, the Christian Century has published reporting, commentary, poetry, and essays on the role of faith in a pluralistic society.

© 2023 The Christian Century.

Contact Us     Privacy Policy

Two ways of being Christian and pro-choice

Is abortion only the lesser of evils, or can it be a moral good.

Pro-Choice and Christian: Reconciling Faith, Politics, and Justice

Trust Women

A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice

The retirement of Supreme Court justice Anthony Ken­nedy has revived discussions of a showdown in American political culture that has long been coming over the right of a woman to choose an abortion. Ever since Roe v. Wade allowed women a legal right to abortion (which had been denied them since 1873), the country has floundered in its attempts to discuss what the right to an abortion means. There have been far more accusations than substantive discussions, far more positions entrenched than hearts changed. But two recent books attempt to open up substantive discussion within Christian circles.

Episcopal priest Kira Schlesinger takes what has become, perhaps, the default pro-choice and Christian view: for Christians, abortion must be understood through the broad lens of justice. The focus must be on upholding the conditions for healthy and thriving children, not on policing individual women’s individual choices. Schlesinger argues that if pro-life and pro-choice Christians could agree that abortion should be rare, then they would find much common ground to work toward that end.

Schlesinger’s book is poised at the border between pro-life and pro-choice commitments. She wants dialogue with pro-lifers about the meaning of life and the world that they envision if women are not able to seek abortion. She doesn’t want to claim the word life for her side, nor does she want the word choice to simplify complicated and often painful circumstances. Mostly, she wants people to do the hard work of empathy. “Even if I personally cannot imagine terminating a pregnancy, my experience is only my experience; rather than condemning someone else’s choice, we are called by Christ to have empathy.”

Several aspects of Schlesinger’s book have the potential to advance dialogue. However, I am not convinced that there is much interest in dialogue except insofar as we want people on the other side to recognize the rightness of our own positions. As helpful as Schlesinger’s thoughtful and rational attempt to advance the dialogue might be, I wonder whether she will find people willing to take up this particular conversation.

Christian ethicist Rebecca Todd Peters is not interested in finding common ground with pro-lifers, and she would likely take issue with Schlesinger’s essentially abortion-justifying approach. While Peters and Schlesinger might agree on many aspects of the legality of abortion and both come out pro-choice, Peters argues that abortion must be understood not as the lesser of two evils (as Schlesinger often depicts it) but as a potential moral good. Abortion can only be understood this way if we understand pregnant women and pregnancy differently than current rhetoric allows.

The phrase “abortion as a moral good” strikes my ears strangely. Yet Peters’s articulation comes much closer than Schlesinger’s to giving language to my own experience, as both a woman who has given birth and as a companion to two women who, in very particular circumstances, decided not to.

Peters points out that both pro-life and pro-choice, as those options are currently construed, are inherently individualistic. Both terms pit women against pregnancy. Both imagine the woman and the fetus as separate individuals and even potential antagonists.

In one version, every woman is a potential threat to the potential child within her. The state must intervene in order to defray this threat. The way that pro-life forces have taken to visually depicting fetuses separate from pregnant women’s bodies is em­blematic of this inherent individualism. They imagine a child not dependent on its mother for life, but rather threatened by her with death. Pro-choice forces respond with a similar individualism. They sometimes describe the potential child as a threat to the woman and her life.

Neither of these depictions comes anywhere near the actual conditions of pregnancy, which Peters de­scribes as inherently “two-in-one.” The condition of pregnancy is, by its very nature, liminal: “the experience of being between two worlds, on the threshold of becoming something new and different.” Physically, morally, mentally, emotionally, and (Peters would argue) ontologically, pregnancy is not like pre-pregnancy or post-pregnancy. Peters chooses the term prenate to name the being which is within the mother’s womb. The prenate is neither a fully formed child, breathing the air of this world, nor a “collection of cells” with no moral status whatsoever. It is, by its very nature, fluid. It breathes fluid, it lives in fluid; it is “fragile, contingent, potential, not-yet.” As such, it has a very particular moral status—a status that is contingent on its mother.

Therefore, motherhood, Peters contends, is a moral choice. It is an act of consent to the giving of life, using one’s own body to take the prenate from potential child to actual. There are strong moral reasons to say yes to this choice and strong moral reasons to say no. But there is no default yes when it comes to that moral choice.

The issue is often framed this way: a woman should say yes to a pregnancy unless she has a justifiable reason to say no. This puts the person seeking an abortion in an automatically defensive position. She must defend her choice morally. Was she raped? Is the baby a product of incest? Will she die if she carries the baby to term? These are the kinds of justifications that are generally agreed upon as reasons to abort.

Peters argues, however, that all coercion related to pregnancy and the work of mothering is immoral. Women’s participation, not women’s coercion, is central to the work of carrying love, in the form of a child, forward. You can’t wish that upon a woman. You can’t legislate it. And because women must do this work, women must discern whether they are willing to consent to it.

We don’t trust women to do this discernment, Peters claims, because, since the writing of the story of Eve, we don’t trust women as moral agents. Both in religious communities and in state decision making, women have been perceived as needing the help of male authorities to force consent upon them. Their agency has been regarded as of little importance.

If we were to begin with trust in women’s capacities, however, and with women’s lived experience, the conversation about abortion would shift from the status of the potential child to the whole landscape in which a potential child will grow into an actual one and then go forth into the world. From this perspective, we can see how necessary women’s consent is, how active women are in the creation of the future, how significant their moral decision making. We might then begin to see pro-life as the powerful work of enhancing women’s moral agency, providing them with resources to undertake free moral discernment, and figuring out how to support them as they freely choose the essential work of motherhood.

This conclusion is similar to Schle­singer’s call to stop arguing about abortion and start creating the conditions for women to bring healthy and thriving families into the world. But there is a profound difference: Peters shifts the ground of the debate away from justification and toward discernment.

It isn’t clear what will come of the next stage of our culture’s screaming match over abortion. But if every Christian who wants to participate would read these two books, there is no question that the conversation would improve.

Amy Frykholm

The Century contributing editor is the author of five books, including  Wild Woman: A Footnote, the Desert, and my Quest for an Elusive Saint.

We would love to hear from you. Let us know what you think about this article by writing a letter to the editors .

Most Recent

Righteous anger (ephesians 4:25-5:2).

by Kelli Joyce

The Christian lady preacher and the queer Jewish poet

Present together, a harrowing novel about christian boarding schools, most popular.

Jesus among the drag queens

Catholics, Vatican officials react to controversial Olympic ceremony

Sonya Massey said, ‘I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.’ What’s the significance?

August 11, ordinary 19b, ( john 6:35, 41–51).

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Managing Religion and Morality Within the Abortion Experience: Qualitative Interviews With Women Obtaining Abortions in the U.S.

Lori frohwirth.

Guttmacher Institute.

Michele Coleman

University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health.

Ann M. Moore

Most women in the United States are religious, and most major religions in the United States doctrinally disapprove of abortion. A substantial proportion of U.S. women have abortions. Although relationships among religious beliefs, abortion attitudes, behaviors, and stigma have been found in previous research, the relationship between stigma and religion is understudied. In-depth interviews conducted with 78 women having abortions at nine sites in the United States found religion to permeate abortion stigma manifestations and management strategies identified in previous research, for religious and religiously affiliated respondents as well as those who did not claim a religious affiliation. Health-care providers, religious leaders, researchers, and advocates need to recognize the influence religion has on the experience of obtaining an abortion for all women in the United States.

Religion and abortion are closely connected in political and social discourse in the United States. Most major religions express doctrinal disapproval of abortion ( The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2013a ), and this condemnation is reflected in individuals’ stated beliefs; research has demonstrated a strong connection between individual religiosity and negative abortion attitudes ( Adamczyk, 2013 ; Alvarez & Brehm, 1995; Craig, Cane, & Martinez, 2002 ; Emerson, 1996; Hoffman & Mills Johnson, 2005 ; Jelen & Wilcox, 2003 ; Sahar & Karasawa, 2005 ; The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2008 ; Woodrum & Davison, 1992 ). Recent polling found that, when asked if abortion was morally wrong, almost half of Americans said that it was (47 percent), with only 13 percent reporting that abortion was morally acceptable, and 27 percent stating that abortion is not a moral issue. Larger percentages of Protestants and Catholics reported believing abortion to be morally wrong (56 and 58 percent) and only 20 percent of those without an affiliation held this belief ( The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2013b ).

Both religious affiliation and the experience of having an abortion are common in the United States; 77 percent of Americans affiliate themselves with a religion ( The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2015 ), and 79 percent of women of reproductive age do so ( Jerman, Jones, & Onda, 2016 ). One out of every four American women will have had an abortion by age 45 (at current abortion rates) ( Jones & Jerman, 2017 ). Religiously affiliated women in the United States therefore do obtain abortions despite doctrinal disapproval of the practice; approximately 60 percent of the over 900,000 women who obtained an abortion in 2014 claimed a religious affiliation ( Jerman et al., 2016 ). Nor does it appear that there is a striking difference between the abortion-related behavior of women who are affiliated with “mainstream” religions versus all women. Current demographics show that Catholic women obtain abortions at the same rate as all other women with Mainline Protestants at a slightly lower rate. Abortion-related behavior is different at the ends of the spectrum, however; Evangelicals obtain abortions at half the rate of all women, and women with no affiliation at nearly double the rate of all women ( Jerman et al., 2016 ). Studies have found that religion plays an inconclusive and context-specific role in women’s decision making about whether to terminate a pregnancy ( Adamczyk, 2008 , 2009 ; Adamczyk & Felson, 2008 ; Williams, 1982 ).

Due to the high levels of religious affiliation and religiosity of the U.S. population, this religious disapproval has implications for individual women choosing to have an abortion. These women (both those who claim a religious identity and those who do not but live in this country’s highly religious culture, where religious values are often intertwined with social and public policy) must decipher from a myriad of messages whether abortion is the right option for them and manage the implications of their decision within their own religious and moral frameworks. Foster, Gould, Taylor, and Weitz (2012) documented this potential conflict in her survey of 5,387 abortion patients at one U.S. clinic in 2008 regarding their decision to terminate. Thirty-six percent of these women reported having spiritual concerns about abortion and 28 percent were not at peace spiritually with their decision.

These concerns suggest a concept of religiously informed abortion stigma not addressed in the previously discussed literature. Stigma has been studied since the 1960s and applied to reproductive outcomes and abortion in particular beginning in the late 1990s. Goffman’s (1963) theory of social stigma, often considered the preeminent stigma theory, defines stigma as an “attribute that is deeply discrediting” which “taints” an individual’s identity. Goffman also theorizes stigma-management strategies. Typically, individuals affected by stigma hold the same beliefs as society at large about what is considered “normal,” and understand which aspects of themselves are stigmatized; they then often correctly perceive they will not fully be accepted by society when in possession of the stigmatized trait. This causes shame because the individual cannot ever reach “normal” status. The individual can attempt to correct the blemish by mastering an area or activity considered close to the shortcoming, for example, a person who uses a wheelchair becoming a marathoner. The individual could also try to break with reality and institute an unconventional interpretation of the stigmatized trait, such as considering it a “blessing in disguise.”

Stigma has been theoretically applied to many social and biological conditions, and a growing body of recent research has attempted to conceptualize as well as measure abortion stigma ( Cockrill, Upadhyay, Turan, & Foster, 2013 ; Cockrill & Nack, 2013 ; Cowan, 2017 ; Hanschmidt, Linde, Hilbert, Riedel-Heller, & Kersting, 2016 ; Kumar, Hessini, & Mitchell, 2009 ; Major & Gramzow, 1999 ; Norris et al., 2011 ; Shellenberg & Tsui, 2012 ) Major and Gramzow (1999) were the first to describe how the concept of stigma could be applied to the process of coping with the abortion experience, finding negative mental health impacts from concealing an abortion from others and from suppressing thoughts about it internally. Kumar et al. (2009) further developed these ideas to understand the formation of abortion stigma, labeling it as multi-faceted, multi-dimensional, and operating on many different societal levels. They identify several aspects of abortion that make it subject to stigmatization, such as its violation of norms of motherhood, femininity, and feminine sexuality. Norris et al. (2011) extend Kumar’s conceptualization of abortion to include the attribution of personhood to the fetus, legal or policy restrictions which suggest morally acceptable and unacceptable reasons for having abortion, and the idea that abortion and its practitioners are dirty or unhealthy.

Cockrill and Nack (2013) apply both Goffman’s theory and Herek’s (2009) model of sexual stigma to abortion to further describe the manifestation and management of abortion stigma. They explain three domains of stigma as experienced at the individual level: internalized, felt, and enacted. Using in-depth interviews with 34 women who previously had an abortion or were in the process of obtaining one in the United States, the authors found that women internalize societal stigma in two categories described by Goffman: character blemishes and tribal stigma. Their respondents described how they perceived that having abortion taints or blemishes a woman’s character, and it also classifies her as belonging to a type or tribe of “bad women” who deviates from established norms of other groups to which she belongs. Their respondents reported felt stigma, which encompassed the fear of experiencing judgmental attitudes or other consequences from other people if their abortions were revealed. Finally, they experienced enacted stigma; that is, stigma perpetuated upon them by others, such as encounters with protestors, health-care providers, family members, and partners who condemn women for having abortions.

These manifestations of abortion stigma necessitate the strategies for managing stigma in each domain similar to those described by Goffman, which Cockrill and Nack (2013) describe as “managing the damaged self” (p. 982). They observe their respondents managing internalized stigma by declining to challenge the legitimacy of the stigma itself, but finding a way to exclude themselves from implication by rationalizing their choice to have an abortion and by amending their previous prejudices against abortion to align with their current status. Cockrill and Nack (2013) found that their respondents managed felt stigma by “maintaining a good reputation” (p. 983) via concealment of their abortions. Among women who were unable to conceal their abortions and therefore experienced enacted stigma, they reported strategies to “manage their damaged reputations” (p. 985) by separating the abortion from the stigma, or invalidating the supposed traits that make abortion subject to stigmatization. In subsequent work, Cockrill et al. (2013) utilized these conceptual findings to construct and test a validated measure of abortion stigma that could capture all of these domains.

All of this recent work on stigma mentions religion and religiosity. The theoretical work of Kumar et al. (2009) and Norris et al. (2011) cite religion as a part of the context in which abortion stigma is formed and experienced. Cockrill and Nack (2013) devote more attention to religion in their qualitative exploration of abortion stigma: They recorded the religious affiliations of their respondents, and they found that respondents who identified as having a religious affiliation expressed internalized stigma more often than their non-religiously identified counterparts. Religion is present in their respondents’ narratives about perceived stigma; among women who said that their friends, family members, or communities were religious, they imagined that they would be judged harshly if their abortion were disclosed. The relationship between religion and stigma is further explored in Cockrill et al.’s (2013) development and testing of a stigma scale. The scale includes religiosity (among other individual characteristics) and experiences of stigma. Among the 600 respondents who had previously obtained abortions in that study, those who reported higher levels of religiosity reported feeling more self-judgment and perceived more community condemnation than other women. Religious denomination also had an effect. Women who identified as Protestant or Catholic scored higher on the full stigma scale and on some individual measures (such as self-judgement and perceived community condemnation) than women without an affiliation, leading the authors to conclude that the highly religious are at the greatest risk for experiencing stigma. This conclusion has been substantiated elsewhere: Nationally representative data from abortion patients found that White Protestant and Hispanic Catholic women experienced higher levels of abortion stigma, particularly around issues of disclosure, than nonreligious women or Black women of any denomination ( Shellenberg & Tsui, 2012 ).

Women’s management of their religious and moral beliefs during the abortion experience, regardless of their own personal religiosity or religious affiliation, remains understudied. We posit that religion has a stronger relationship to all domains of abortion stigma and the strategies women employ to manage that stigma, for both religiously affiliated and non-religiously affiliated women, than has been articulated in previous studies. To expand upon the current research surrounding religious beliefs and abortion stigma, we explore how religion influences religiously affiliated, and non-religiously affiliated women’s abortion decision making and experience.

Data and Methods

Study design and sample.

Seventy-eight semi-structured face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted with cross-sectional samples of women at nine abortion clinics at two time points: 2008 and 2015. Both sets of data were collected as the qualitative complement to the Abortion Patient Survey conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, a periodic survey of approximately 10,000 women having abortions captured from a nationally representative sample of health facilities in the United States. Women were interviewed in one clinic in a small city in Connecticut, one clinic in a mid-size city in Texas, one in a large town in a rural area of Washington, three clinics in a large city in Michigan, two clinics in a midsize city in New Mexico, and one clinic in a small city in New Mexico. The interviews were conducted either on the day of their abortion or the day of their follow-up appointment approximately 2 weeks later. The interviewers (including authors Lori Frohwirth and Ann Moore) were trained on interview techniques, the informed consent process, and administration of the interview guide, and signed a confidentiality agreement. For the 2008 interviews, all English-speaking women 18 or older obtaining (or having recently obtained) surgical or medication abortions at the selected facilities were eligible for participation in the study, and in 2015 all women meeting those criteria and who had crossed state lines or traveled more than 100 miles to get to the clinic were eligible. For further description of the sample, see Jerman, Frohwirth, Kavanaugh, and Blades (2017) . Even though the inclusion criteria differed slightly, that difference is unlikely to have influenced respondents’ answers on the topics we included in this analysis. Women were informed about the study by clinic staff, and if they were interested in participating, a member of the research team was contacted and escorted the woman to a private space to administer the research informed consent form and, when consent was obtained, conducted the interview. Participants were interviewed during waiting times at the abortion appointment, when it was least intrusive to their visit. Data collection occurred between June and October 2008 and January and February of 2015. The participants received $35 cash in 2008 and $50 in cash in 2015 as compensation for their time. The clinic staff made sure that the remuneration did not influence the woman’s ability to afford the abortion so that women did not feel coerced into participating; all participants provided oral consent. Each clinic received $500 as compensation for allowing our study to be conducted there. This study and all associated procedures and study instruments were approved by The Guttmacher Institute’s Institutional Review Board.

The 2008 interview guide focused on the woman’s decision-making process regarding her pregnancy, the reasons for termination and any stigma she experienced related to her abortion, how having an abortion fit in with her personal beliefs including her religious and moral beliefs, and how she has seen her community react to women who have had abortions. The 2015 interview guide also explored the woman’s decision-making process, as well as different primary research question (the experience of travel to obtain abortion care). While the interview guides were not identical, the guides were semi-structured, allowing for topics most relevant to the respondent to emerge. Respondents were not explicitly asked about religious influences on their abortion, but they were asked to elaborate on their religiosity, if they discussed it. Interviews lasted between 45 and 90 minutes, and at the conclusion of the oral portion of the interview, participants were asked to fill out a short questionnaire on their socio-demographic characteristics.

Data Management and Analysis

All of the interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim with identifiable information removed during the cleaning phase. A systematic analytical approach was devised and included creating an inductive and deductive coding structure using NVivo 8 and 10 (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia). As qualitative data analysis is always custom-built ( Huberman & Miles, 2014 ), deductive coding themes were derived based on the themes explored during the interviews, and the inductive codes were designed based on unanticipated issues that emerged ( Crabtree & Miller, 1992 ). We first used Agar’s (1980) qualitative strategy of reading each woman’s interview in its entirety to understand each respondent’s comprehensive narrative. The transcripts were then examined as meaningful segments and these segments were assigned codes, according to an abridged application of Huberman and Miles’s (2014) analytic strategy. Two coders (both of whom were interviewers) double-coded several transcripts and examined intercoder reliability. After discussion, codes were refined to improve the clarity of the coding structure, and further double-coding produced intercoder reliability ranging from 95 to 100 percent.

Analyses were conducted to summarize emerging themes and concepts, and to explore patterns of similarities and differences across interviews. For this analysis, we examined any segments of interviews that had been identified and coded as pertaining to the role of God, religion, or religious beliefs in the participant’s abortion experience. Key topics that emerged are summarized via a textured description and illustrated using direct quotes from participants ( Moustakas, 1994 ), identifying respondents by year of interview and whether or not they claimed a religious affiliation. Respondents are also identified by race, ethnicity, and religious affiliation if applicable, because these factors have been associated with experiences of abortion stigma in previous research ( Cockrill et al., 2013 ; Shellenberg & Tsui, 2012 ). However, those characteristics are used here for context and are not analytic categories due to this study’s small sample size and exploratory nature.

Our sample ( Table 1 ) consisted of a majority of women who claimed a religious affiliation (mostly Catholic, nondenominational Christian, and Protestant). Twenty women (26 percent of the sample) indicated “None” for their religious affiliation; many of these women said that they did not attend religious services or participate in a religious community, yet still considered themselves spiritual, religious, or moral. Fifty-eight of the 78 respondents (74 percent) spontaneously spoke about the influence of religion and God in their decision to have an abortion, and in their experience of obtaining an abortion and reflecting on their abortion. This includes eight women who had no religious affiliation.

Characteristics of In-Depth Interview Respondents

We found that experiencing religiously informed abortion stigma is typical for U.S. abortion patients, even when they claim no religious affiliation. When attempting to further understand how religion impacted our respondents’ experiences of their abortions, we consulted the conceptual framework developed by Cockrill and Nack (2013) . We found religion to be intimately entwined with both of the manifestations and the management abortion stigma theorized by that work.

Religion Within the Experience of Internalized Abortion Stigma

Respondents in our study strongly and consistently articulated internalized stigma, and for religious respondents, this was often expressed with explicit reference to their beliefs. The following respondent describes hearing in her church that adoption is preferable to having an abortion or “killing” her baby, and that this in turn triggers her guilt about choosing abortion:

… at church, yeah, we are really against, it’s more… once I talk about it, it makes me feel bad [crying], like […] having the baby but giving to adopt, not killing it. So it’s something really hard for me right now. —2008, Catholic, Hispanic

So you know, it’s just something that haunts you and you—I mean, everybody has different beliefs, some people are Atheist, some people are Protestant, Catholic, whatever. I mean, me personally I am spiritual and so I feel like if I go through with this again, how is God going to punish me, later on? You know, if—when we are ready and say we have our finances in place, we finally have our own house, everything is perfect, right? —2015, Christian, White and Hispanic

For these women, abortion stigma was by definition religious; their religious doctrines and communities had named abortion as wrong, and their abortions violate the norms of those groups and therefore subject them to tribal stigma. Both “tribal” stigma and “character blemishes” ( Goffman, 1963 ) were also directly linked to religion by our respondents who related fears that their abortion experience now placed them in a new category, unsure whether they were still “good” and able to claim their previous religious affiliation:

It’s really hard because I grew up Catholic, but probably after today, I won’t be. —2008, Catholic, White Nonhispanic

I am just worried that, you know, like, my fiance and I wanted to start taking our kids to church every week, and I felt like, well am I going to be able to go now, and not feel guilty or wrong to be there, and, you know, will it really affect, like, what will happen when I die later on? —2008, Mormon, White Nonhispanic

Even women who did not subscribe to the doctrines in which they had been raised still reported the internalized stigma of a “character blemish”:

I went to Catholic school and basically [they say that abortion is] just like the most horrible thing you could ever do, and you are taking away God’s life, and blah-blah-blah, and like, just exaggerated to the point of like craziness. So it didn’t really affect me, but those things always be in your head, even though you say, “I don’t believe in that,” but that little voice keeps coming on, like, “You are killing your kid.” —2008, Catholic, White Nonhispanic

Catholicism positions having an abortion as taking a life, and Catholic women who have abortions reported feeling as though they were “murderers.” However, respondents who did not claim a religious affiliation also reported internalized stigma as a result of their decision to have an abortion. Many of these women framed their description of this feeling in opposition to that which they imagined would be experienced by a religious woman, instead classifying their distress as stemming from a moral conflict:

…I would cry that, like, what have I done? I know this is not a morally good thing. I am not religious or anything, so it doesn’t affect me, like, religiously… —2008, No affiliation, Asian

Abortion, I always just thought was just not …just not right. So I never pictured myself being here. It made it that much harder to make this decision to be here today, because I never believed in this. This like, being here goes against everything that I’ve ever believed in, like I didn’t grow up religious. I don’t go to church. I don’t, I don’t pray. I don’t read anything. I don’t, I just … but I don’t believe that this should be okay… —2015, No affiliation, White Nonhispanic

Religion informed, rather than dictated, the experience of internalized abortion stigma for these women. Although they did not claim a religious affiliation, they felt the need to reference religion when discussing their experiences of abortion stigma.

Religion Within the Experience of Felt Abortion Stigma

Felt stigma was entwined with religion for our respondents; women specifically feared religiously based condemnation if they revealed that they had had abortions:

I guess my parents are pretty … they are Catholic, so, I mean, of course, if I was to tell them, they would absolutely not allow it. —2008, Catholic, Hispanic

…my family is very Catholic so I am, like, terrified to even think about telling them. —2008, Catholic, White Nonhispanic

It’s kind of wrong because I never been, like, raised to do this. Like, [if] my family even knew I was doing this, they’d probably be upset with me ‘cause we don’t—they just don’t believe in it. So it’s all about your religion as well. —2015, Protestant, Black Nonhispanic

Women experienced religiously informed felt abortion stigma at the prospect of people outside of their immediate family finding out about their abortions. Fear of judgment extended to the larger community:

The people in the town are all older, so it’s a very conservative town, so for people to know that I went out of town to have an abortion would just be like, ungodly to them, because it’s a small town and “our kids don’t do that,” you know, that kind of thing. —2008, Protestant, White Nonhispanic

Religion permeated the felt abortion stigma of our respondents, who expressed fear of condemnation from family and community members that was grounded in religiously based opposition to abortion.

Religion Within the Experience of Enacted Abortion Stigma

In our data, experiences of enacted stigma were also explicitly linked with religion:

…my father and my stepmother—I had a lot of family in [city], and they stopped speaking to me. My stepmother is a “Born Again,” I think is what she calls herself, and so I was immediately a murderer and going to hell and embarrassing the family. —2008, No affiliation, White Nonhispanic

…I have talked to my mom about it and I told her I wanted to have an abortion. She hates me. She doesn’t talk to me. She kicked me out of the house. I was staying with her. Right now I’m staying here and there, wherever I can, and with my son, and she says that I’m a bad mom, that I’m the worst person ever, that if I’m having an abortion I don’t love my son either, that God should have never gave me the gift to be a mom. That’s just so hard, because my whole family hates me. They don’t understand what it’s like to be in my shoes or why I don’t want to be pregnant. —2015, Catholic, White and Hispanic

As with felt stigma, respondents reported religiously informed enacted abortion stigma at many levels. The respondents quoted above experienced enacted stigma from family members, but others reported it in their communities and physical environments as well:

I: In your opinion, how did people in your community view abortion? R: … where I live it’s mainly Hispanics, and Hispanics are very religious, and so it’s like half and half, so you really don’t know. It’s kind of weird, like, if you could go down the street and you could see a billboard that says you know “Killing a baby from God is a sin or something” […]so it’s pretty much like the environment you are in, that is a big thing. —2008, Catholic, Hispanic

Respondents who claimed a religious affiliation were more likely to speak about experiencing felt or enacted abortion stigma than those who were not religious.

Strategies for Managing Religiously Based Abortion Stigma: Rejecting Religion

In our data, religion was entwined with the strategies women reported using to manage the stigma they experienced as a result of choosing and obtaining an abortion. Rejecting a religious identity or affiliation emerged as a major strategy of stigma management. Respondents who did not claim a religious identity often referenced this when explaining their lack of internalized stigma regarding their abortions, illustrating how rejecting religious beliefs may offer women a path to resisting religiously influenced abortion stigma:

I: How does having an abortion fit in with your personal beliefs? R: Actually, I don’t really have a special religious preference, so I believe it’s everybody’s decision, […] that is just how I feel. I am very open-minded about stuff, so, and then, I don’t have a religious preference, so just go on my own, really. —2008, No affiliation, Black Nonhispanic

However, not all of our respondents who claimed a religious identity described experiencing internalized abortion stigma. The following woman did not express the shame, guilt, conflict, or discomfort common in the narratives of other religious women, and she framed this freedom from stigma in opposition to her religious context:

In my church they don’t like it [abortion], but that’s the church rule. Everybody in church has their church rules, and then their own set of rules. It doesn’t go against my personal morals because I am a “whatever” type of person—whatever you want to do, whatever you feel comfortable doing…. —2008, Protestant, Black Nonhispanic

This respondent acknowledges that her religious community stigmatizes abortion, but resists internalizing that stigma because her personal beliefs supersede her community values.

Strategies for Managing Religiously Based Abortion Stigma: Personal Exceptionalism

Women in our sample engaged in the strategy of finding exceptions from the religiously informed abortion stigma that they personally subscribed to that would permit them to choose abortion without being subject to condemnation. In order to do this, they often invoked religious beliefs to support their acceptance of abortion stigma in general, while simultaneously asserting that their specific circumstances warranted an exception:

I: How did the father [feel], the man involved with the pregnancy, what’s his reaction? R: He wasn’t too happy that we have to have an abortion, but he knew that it has to be done, so we can be able to get our son [back from state custody], because he [the father] is a Roman Catholic, but his dad’s a Jehovah’s Witness, and I am a Christian, and his family doesn’t believe in it, I don’t believe, and my family don’t believe in it. But when I went and told them that I had to have it done, they kind of like went off on me, but then after I sat down and explained to them why I had to have it done, then they kind of realized, you know, okay it’s just this one time, right. —2008, Nondenominational Christian, White Nonhispanic

Strategies could be combined in order to manage religiously informed abortion stigma. The following woman begins to carve out an exception to her religious doctrine for her own circumstances, but ends up challenging the legitimacy of abortion as a stigmatized action:

…but it’s just, like, in certain circumstances, a child should not be brought into the world I feel. I’m a Christian, so it completely goes against, like, what I believe, but, you know, that’s just what I think, and I think that certain religions shouldn’t hold you back of what you—how you feel. I don’t think that’s right. —2015, Christian, White Nonhispanic

Personal exceptionalism proved a common, and flexible, mechanism for managing religiously informed abortion stigma.

Strategies for Managing Religiously Based Abortion Stigma: Revising Beliefs

The strategy of revising or amending previously held prejudices was also connected to religion in our data. Women in our sample described a process of discarding or revising their previous beliefs about abortion and women who had them, which were nearly universally formed in a religious context. Many described having “pro-life” views, which were explicitly described as being informed by religion through school, church, family, or community:

I went to a Catholic school my entire life up until college so like, this decision also is, like, I have learned since I was in first grade that this is wrong. But I have friends that have gone through it so, and now that I am in college, it’s like, you know what? I have an open mind. —2008, Catholic, White Nonhispanic

Well, I was raised as a Catholic so it was always “abortion is wrong, gay marriage is wrong,” and now that I have …I actually have gay relatives and I have done …like in high school I did a little bit of research about like the Plan B pill, and you know I’ve kind of moved a little bit away from the Catholicism. Just because it’s so strict […] I went to like Catholic schools, Catholic churches, like my whole life, and so I was just done with it, and then I kind of got my own opinions, and I’m really glad I got my own opinions. —2015, Christian, White Nonhispanic

The abortion stigma management strategy of revising former beliefs, thereby robbing abortion of its power to taint one’s identity, proved particularly useful when applied to religiously informed abortion stigma. Women experienced abortion stigma informed by religious beliefs they held in earlier phases of their lives, and managed that stigma by referring to their personal rejection, or drifting away, from their former religiosity.

Strategies for Managing Religiously Based Abortion Stigma: Challenging a Stigmatized Status

Our respondents utilized the strategy of concealing their abortions, particularly by those respondents discussed above who did so due to felt stigma from religious family and community members. Those who had to disclose their abortions reported the strategy of arguing against abortion’s doctrinally and culturally stigmatized status, and they invoked religion when they described engaging in this process. Some women reported that, although their religious doctrines might condemn abortion, they themselves did not believe that God felt they had committed a sin:

… so they [people at church] think God wants you to be this, but I honestly think God knows we makes mistakes. […] I don’t think he expects us to be perfect… —2008, Nondenominational Christian, White Nonhispanic

Everybody that I’ve been around, they very big in church, so it’s like a negative and a positive side. They don’t try to judge me, but at the end of the day, they do want you to keep it. So it’s like, it’s all about the religion, basically. I believe in the same religion, but I feel like we all make mistakes and, you know, we ask for forgiveness, we move on. That’s how you do it. There’s nothing else you can do about it. We all do something we should not do, every once in a while at least. I know I do, shoot. So, yeah. Nobody’s perfect. —2015 Protestant, Black Nonhispanic

Some women described using this strategy in direct response to encounters with anti-abortion protestors:

I mean, I go to church sometimes, but I am not [religious]. For some reason, I just don’t think they, like those people outside [protesters] were saying, like “Mother Mary” and all the stuff, and for some reason, the God that I believe in would not say that this is not okay. I am sure that he would like me to have it [the baby], but I don’t think that you are going to get punished because of something you thought you needed to do. —2008, No affiliation, Hispanic

Our respondents employed this management strategy by pointing to the fact that they had had previous abortions and had not been punished by God:

I am a Catholic, Catholic people don’t believe, supposedly, they don’t believe in abortions. […] And, you know, they believe that if you have an abortion you are going to hell. I don’t believe it. I mean, women way before my grandma’s been having abortion[s], you know. See, I kind of see it as if God was to punish us, like if you rob a bank, God is going to punish you by going to jail because you robbed a bank. So, I mean, I have had an abortion [referring to first abortion], but God didn’t punish me. Actually, he kind of blessed me, you know, because I ended up, you know, going to school […] I don’t believe that God punishes you for an abortion. —2008, Catholic, Hispanic

Another means of refusing to accept abortion’s religiously stigmatized status while remaining within a religious framework was to articulate the idea that, even though they might be subject to judgment from other people for having an abortion, the only true judge of their behavior was God:

God’s the only one that could judge me. […] To me, I have always said nobody can judge you, nobody is in your footsteps, nobody is there, nobody can judge you. […] I mean anybody can judge me, my parents, it doesn’t matter to me; the only person who can judge me is God. —2008, Catholic, Hispanic

Viewing previous conceptual frameworks of the manifestations and management strategies of abortion stigma through a religious lens reveals a potentially stronger connection between religion and abortion stigma than has been previously articulated. In our data, Cockrill and Nack’s (2013) conceptualization of internalized , felt , and enacted abortion stigma, and the strategies they described for managing those domains of abortion stigma, were confirmed. Among our respondents, religion was a major filter through which stigma was both experienced and managed, regardless of personal religious affiliation.

Previous research has documented the influence of religion on abortion attitudes, and, to a lesser extent, abortion behavior, in the United States. The religious denominations practiced in this country are perceived to condemn abortion ( The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2013a ); yet, while abortion rates may vary between those who claim a religious affiliation and those who do not, religious and religiously affiliated women do obtain abortions ( Jerman et al., 2016 ). A substantial proportion of these women report religious or spiritual conflict over their decision (Foster et al., 2012), and various models of stigma have been successfully mapped onto the abortion experience ( Cockrill & Nack, 2013 ; Kumar et al., 2009 ; Major & Gramzow, 1999 ; Norris et al., 2011 ). Religion has been theorized as a site of abortion stigma formation in that work, and measurement exercises have found a correlation between religious affiliation or religiosity and the experience of abortion stigma ( Cockrill et al., 2013 ; Cockrill & Nack, 2013 ; Shellenberg & Tsui, 2012 ).

The continually evolving theory and measurement of abortion stigma is robust, far-reaching, and interdisciplinary, and ultimately comes to the conclusion that abortion stigma confounds a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy due to worries about judgment, isolation, self-judgment, and community condemnation ( Cockrill et al., 2013 ; Cockrill & Nack 2013 ; Hanschmidt et al., 2016 ; Kumar et al., 2009 ; Major & Gramzow, 1999 ; Norris et al., 2011 ; Shellenberg & Tsui, 2012 ). Although previous work has found religious affiliation and belief to impact the experience of abortion stigma ( Cockrill et al., 2013 ; Cockrill & Nack, 2013 ; Shellenberg & Tsui, 2012 ) our data support the idea that religion and abortion stigma are closely linked, both in the experience of that stigma and in women’s strategies of both managing and resisting that stigma. Our findings support this conclusion and extend it by highlighting the salience of the association between religious condemnation of abortion and abortion stigma.

Nearly all of the respondents in the original sample (43/49) and over half in the second sample (15/29) spoke about the influence that religion, religious communities, or God had in in their experiences obtaining and reflecting on their abortions. While our respondents were unanimous in their perception that religions (either in their experience, or in the abstract) disapprove of abortion, their experiences of abortion stigma and their mechanisms for coping with this stigma, varied. Cockrill and Nack (2013) found that women who expressed guilt most strongly were religious, and all of our respondents who strongly described feeling internalized stigma claimed a religious affiliation. Our respondents described similar manifestations of abortion stigma and the same strategies for managing that stigma as the women interviewed by Cockrill and Nack (2013) and experienced abortion stigma as occurring at the same levels as depicted in Kumar et al.’s (2009) social-ecologically-based framework. However, the women in this study depicted religion as intimately interwoven into these beliefs, experiences, and strategies.

Religion is only one cause of abortion stigma in the United States. Other social taboos such as premarital sex or stigma related to race, class, and age are also discussed in the literature. And not all difficulties that women have regarding abortion are a result of abortion stigma ( Allanson, 2007 ; Cowan, 2017 ; Kimport, Foster, & Weitz, 2011 ; Kumar, 2013 ; Steinberg, McCulloch, & Adler, 2014 ). However, even other identified sites of stigma formation have connections to religion. Kumar et al. (2009) state abortion is stigmatized because it violates certain norms, and therefore abortion stigma is posited in culture as essential and natural. The authors then illustrate that it is really neither: they show that the meaning of abortion has changed over time within cultural context, and that it varies across cultural contexts, so abortion cannot truly be thought of as something that is inherently and fundamentally subject to stigmatization. Our data show that abortion stigma is not even seen as natural and essential within a religious framework. Our respondents clearly articulated that accepting disapproving religious doctrine and participating in community condemnation are not the only ways that religious people can relate to abortion. Individuals may call upon their own sense of morality in place of religious teachings, construct a more tolerant personal doctrine, or carve out exceptions for their own circumstances. In these ways, they deny or circumvent religiously informed abortion stigma, but they do so from within a religious or moral framework.

Limitations

There are limitations to the study. Our data reflect women’s emotions and perceptions in the time period leading up to their abortion, and not in the period after their abortions. We spoke to women in abortion clinics, either directly before their abortion procedures or at their follow-up visit approximately 2 weeks postprocedure. Although some women in our sample had had previous abortions and were therefore able to reflect on experiences of enacted stigma occurring in a longer span of time after an abortion, our study design focused on the time period before and during the abortion and was inadequate for assessing stigma experiences over a longer timeframe. The religious composition of our sample, being both more religiously affiliated and specifically more Catholic than abortion patients nationally ( Jerman et al., 2016 ) may have influenced the frequency with which religiously informed abortion stigma emerged in our respondents’ narratives as well as the content of those experiences. However, the finding that some respondents who did not claim a religious affiliation still described experiencing religiously informed abortion stigma remains salient. Last, as our results and others ( Stevans, Register, & Sessions, 1992 ) have shown that narrowing the complexity of the impact of religion on people’s lives to a question about their religious affiliation is problematically reductive. Our standardized information about our respondent’s religiosity is limited to exactly this question (asked on the demographic questionnaire completed at the end of the interview), although many respondents provided more detail in the course of the interview. Further research on abortion decision making should attempt to measure religiosity and religious affiliation in a more multifaceted manner.

Implications and Conclusion

Our data indicate that religion informs abortion stigma in all of its conceptualized domains and that it permeates the strategies women use to manage this stigma. Our data suggest that this relationship is strong enough to warrant more explicit and focused attention. Cockrill and Nack (2013) conclude that women stigmatized by abortion will still have abortions, and therefore abortion stigma needs further study and action to mitigate its harmful effects. Both Norris et al. (2011) and Cockrill and Nack’s (2013) call for attempts to normalize abortion experiences within the public discourse to reduce stigma. We expand this sentiment to add that women who hold religious beliefs, as well as women who do not have a religious affiliation but who are subject to communities and societies informed by religious norms, will also have abortions, therefore specific strategies for managing conflict resulting from religiously informed abortion stigma needs similar attention. Sociologist Lori Freedman (2014) wrote about abortion patients, many of them Catholic, speaking freely to abortion clinic staff about their spiritual discomfort with their abortion decision and seeking counsel from them on those terms, mainly because abortion was so stigmatized in their own communities that they literally had no other space in which to have these discussions. The existence of organizations such as Faith Aloud (2015) , which provides resources for women, clinics and clergy to make reproductive decisions “guided by faith,” and internal documents of professional organizations of abortion providers that aim to help them address not just abortion stigma but its religious elements in particular ( Johnston & Merritt, 2008 ; The Abortion Care Network, 2014a , 2014b ) are examples of how this religiously informed stigma is attempting to be addressed. These organizations and resources can capitalize on the data presented here regarding the ways in which women negotiate their experiences of religiously informed abortion stigma.

Stigma has been shown to have negative effects on individual’s physical and mental health, and on the public health of societies ( Link & Phelan, 2006 ), and therefore the reduction of stigma is an important public health goal. For many women in the United States, religion and stigma are intertwined, among those who claim a strong religious identity and those who do not, and they must manage religiously informed stigma as they contemplate and experience abortions. In order to better answer the scientific and advocacy calls for progress in measuring and reducing abortion stigma, and to help millions of women as they navigate their abortion experiences, researchers, clinicians, and advocates should remain aware of the strong connection between religion and abortion stigma in this country and the need for more research and societal knowledge demonstrating this connection.

Conflicts of interest: none declared.

Contributor Information

Lori Frohwirth, Guttmacher Institute.

Michele Coleman, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health.

Ann M. Moore, Guttmacher Institute.

• Adamczyk Amy. 2008. “ The Effects of Religious Contextual Norms, Structural Constraints, and Personal Religiosity on Abortion Decisions .” Social Science Research 37 ( 2 ): 657–72. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Adamczyk Amy.2009. “ Understanding the Effects of Personal and School Religiosity on the Decision to Abort a Premarital Pregnancy .” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 50 ( 2 ): 180–95. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Adamczyk Amy.2013. “ The Effect of Personal Religiosity on Attitudes Toward Abortion, Divorce, and Gender Equality—Does Cultural Context Make a Difference? ” EurAmerica 43 ( 1 ): 213–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Adamczyk Amy, and Felson Jacob. 2008. “ Fetal Positions: Unraveling the Influence of Religion on Premarital Pregnancy Resolution .” Social Science Quarterly 89 ( 1 ): 17–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Agar Michael H. 1980. The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography . San Diego, CA: Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allanson Susie. 2007. “ Abortion Decision and Ambivalence: Insights via an Abortion Decision Balance Sheet .” Clinical Psychologist 11 ( 2 ): 50–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alvarez R. Michael, and John Brehm. 2008. “ American Ambivalence Towards Abortion Policy: Development of a Heterokedastic Probit Model of Competing Values .” American Journal of Political Science 39 ( 4 ): 1055–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cockrill Kate, and Nack Adina. 2013. “ ‘I’m Not That Type of Person’: Managing the Stigma of Having an Abortion .” Deviant Behavior 34 ( 12 ): 973–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cockrill Kate, Upadhyay Ushma D., Turan Janet, and Foster Diana Greene. 2013. “ The Stigma of Having an Abortion: Development of a Scale and Characteristics of Women Experiencing Abortion Stigma .” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 45 ( 2 ): 79–88. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cowan Sarah K. 2017. “ Enacted Abortion Stigma in the United States .” Social Science and Medicine 177 : 259–68. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crabtree Benjamin, and Miller William. 1992. Doing Qualitative Research . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Craig Stephen C., Cane James G., and Martinez Michael D.. 2002. “ Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut, Sometimes You Don’t: Citizens’ Ambivalence About Abortion .” Political Psychology 23 ( 2 ): 285–301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Emerson Michael O. 2007. “ Through Tinted Glasses: Religion, Worldviews and Abortion Attitudes .” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35 ( March ): 41–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aloud Faith 2015. Faith Aloud . St. Louis, MO: Faith Aloud; https://www.faithaloud.org/ . Accessed November 7, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foster Diana Greene, Gould Heather, Taylor Jessica, and Weitz Tracy A.. 2002. “ Attitudes and Decision Making Among Women Seeking Abortions at One U.S. Clinic .” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 44 ( 2 ): 117–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freedman Lori. 2014. “ Forgiveness in the Abortion Clinic .” Atrium 12 ( Winter ): 6–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goffman Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanschmidt Franz, Linde Katja, Hilbert Anja, Riedel-Heller Steffi G., and Kersting Anette. 2016. “ Abortion Stigma: A Systematic Review .” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 48 ( 4 ): 169–77. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herek Gregory M. 2009. “ Sexual Stigma and Sexual Prejudice in the United States: A Conceptual Framework .” Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 54 : 65–111. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoffman John P., and Sherrie Mills Johnson. 2005. “ Attitudes Towards Abortion Among Religious Traditions in the United States: Change or Continuity? ” Sociology of Religion 66 ( 2 ): 161–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huberman A. Michael, and Matthew B. Miles. 2014. “Data Management and Analysis Methods.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research , eds Denzin Norman K., and Lincoln Yvonna S.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 428–444. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jelen Ted G., and Wilcox Clyde. 2003. “ Causes and Consequences of Public Attitudes Toward Abortion: A Review and Research Agenda .” Politcal Research Quarterly 56 ( 4 ): 489–500. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jerman Jenna, Frohwirth Lori, Kavanaugh Megan L., and Blades Nakeisha. 2017. “ Barriers to Abortion Care and Their Consequences For Patients Traveling for Services: Qualitative Findings from Two States .” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 49 ( 2 ): 95–102. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jerman Jenna, Jones Rachel K., and Onda Tsuyoshi. 2016. Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008 . New York: Guttmacher Institute. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston Peg, and Terry Sallas Merritt. 2008. The Pregnancy Options Workbook: A Guide to Emotional and Spiritual Resolution After Abortion . Binghamton, NY: The Ferre Institute. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones Rachel K., and Jerman Jenna. 2017. “ Population Group Abortion Rates and Lifetime Incidence of Abortion: United States, 2008–2014 .” American Journal Public Health 107 ( 12 ): 1904–9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kimport Katrina, Foster Kira, and Weitz Tracy A.. 2011. “ Social Sources of Women’s Emotional Difficulty After Abortion: Lessons from Women’s Abortion Narratives .” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 43 ( 2 ): 103–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar Anuradha. 2013. “ Everything Is Not Abortion Stigma .” Womens Health Issues 23 ( 6 ): e329–e331. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar Anuradha, Hessini Leila, and Mitchell Ellen M. H.. 2009. “ Conceptualising Abortion Stigma .” Culture, Health & Sexuality 11 ( 6 ): 625–39. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Link Bruce G., and Phelan Jo C.. 2006. “ Stigma and Its Public Health Implications .” Lancet 367 ( 9509 ): 528–29. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Major Barbara, and Gramzow Richard H.. 1999. “ Abortion as Stigma: Cognitive and Emotional Implications of Concealment .” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 ( 4 ): 735–45. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moustakas Clark. 1994. Phenomenological Research Methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Norris Alison, Bessett Danielle, Steinberg Julia R., Kavanaugh Megan L., De Zordo Silvia, and Becker Davida. 2011. “ Abortion Stigma: A Reconceptualization of Constituents, Causes, and Consequences .” Womens Health Issues 21 ( 3 Suppl ): S49–S54. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sahar Gail, and Karasawa Kaori. 2005. “ Is the Personal Always Political? A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Abortion Attitudes .” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 27 ( 4 ): 285–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shellenberg Kristen M., and Tsui Amy O.. 2012. “ Correlates of Perceived and Internalized Stigma Among Abortion Patients in the USA: An Exploration by Race and Hispanic Ethnicity .” International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 118 ( Suppl 2 ): S152–S159. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinberg Julia R., McCulloch Charles E., and Adler Nancy E.. 2014. “ Abortion and Mental Health: Findings From The National Comorbidity Survey-Replication .” Obstetrics & Gynecology 123 ( 2 Pt 1 ): 263–70. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevans Lonnie K., Register Charles A., and Sessions David N.. 1992. “ The Abortion Decision: A Qualitative Choice Approach .” Social Indicators Research 27 ( 4 ): 327–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• The Abortion Care Network. 2014a. Religion and Spirtiuality . https://www.abortioncarenetwork.org/ . Accessed August 15, 2018.
• The Abortion Care Network.2014b. You Are a Good Woman . Washington, DC: The Abortion Care Network; https://www.abortioncarenetwork.org/exceptional-care/get-help/you-are-a-good-woman/ . Accessed August 15, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. 2008. U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, Religious Beliefs and Practices: Diverse and Politically Relevant . Washington, DC: Author. [ Google Scholar ]
• The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.2013a. “ Religious Groups’ Official Positions on Abortion .” http://www.pewforum.org/2013/01/16/religious-groups-official-positions-on-abortion/ . Accessed November 7, 2018.
• The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.2013b. “ Roe v. Wade at 40: Most Oppose Overturning Abortion Decision .” http://www.pewforum.org/2013/01/16/roe-v-wade-at-40/ . Accessed November 7, 2018.
• The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.2015. “ America’s Changing Religious Landscape .” http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/ . Accessed November 7, 2018.
• Williams Dorie Giles. 1982. “ Religion, Beliefs About Human Life, and the Abortion Discussion .” Review of Religious Research 24 ( 1982 ): 40–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Woodrum Eric, and Davison Beth L.. 1992. “ Reexamination of Religious Influences on Abortion Attitudes .” Review of Religious Research 33 ( 3 ): 229–43. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

The Christian Post

To enjoy our website, you'll need to enable JavaScript in your web browser. Please click here to learn how.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Recommended

300 Christian leaders demand action from US gov’t over persecution in India

Megachurch pastor to pay ex-wife $12K per month in alimony

Cliques, exclusion top reasons Americans aren't getting more involved at church

This week in Christian history: All-Russian Church Council opens, James Strong born

5 things to know about Tim Walz's faith, church and the ELCA

American Gen Z: Depressed and spiritually hungry

Why the French have a lot to learn from the Pilgrims

Men don’t belong in women’s sports, especially at the Olympics

The Yazidi genocide — 10 years later

8 essential strategies to shape cultural influence

Christianity and abortion: can you be a christian and support abortion.

More than four decades- that's how long the debate on abortion has been going in modern America. There are basically two factions - pro-life being people who go against abortion and pro-choice being those for abortion.

Pro-life groups are mostly populated by members of the Christian sector: church-going, Bible believing and Jesus worshipping individuals. But some people from the pro-choice camp have been admitting to being Christian. Thus the argument that you can't be a Christian if you are for abortion. Can a Christian really support abortion?

This question is really two-pronged. Can a Christian have beliefs that are different from the majority? Yes, of course. Our salvation and faith is not based on our opinion system but solely on a heart surrendered and given wholly to the work of Jesus in our lives.

Get Our Latest News for FREE

To call pro-choice people heathens is not only wrong, it's also theologically erred in many ways. Your opinions cannot make you Christians. Only grace through faith can. Christians can have different, uncanny and even misguided opinions. I can't even begin to count the various wrong opinions I have that are corrected on a daily basis.

Christianity after all is a process. That's why Colossians 2:6 encourages us, "Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him." Walking with God is important because sanctification does not happen overnight. It's a process of continuously being renewed. So having opinions that go against the norm doesn't make you a non-Christian.

On the other hand, in a sense the Christian stance on abortion is a clear one. Unborn children are people whom God already has a plan for. Jeremiah 1:5 reminds us saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." God has a plan and will even for the unborn and to end that is to against His plan.

But even that take of course is case to case. Say for instance a mother is five months in with a child who is sure to dies but is also slowly killing her. Now a mother-to-be can step out in faith but only as God leads.

Not all acts of ending life is sin. Was God sinning when He would slaughter sinful men who would only cause more pain than good? Were David, Joshua, Gideon, and all the warriors called by God killing sinning?

At the end it really boils down to the heart. The Bible tells us that just having anger in our hearts is as bad as killing an unborn child. Matthew 5:22 says, "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire."

Definitely ending the life of children for the sake of convenience is nowhere close to accepted in God's eyes. Most times pro-choice goes against Biblical teachings and the most natural response to abortion is to reject it in many or most cases.

Was this article helpful?

Help keep The Christian Post free for everyone.

By making a recurring donation or a one-time donation of any amount, you're helping to keep CP's articles free and accessible for everyone.

We’re sorry to hear that.

Hope you’ll give us another try and check out some other articles. Return to homepage.

Most Popular

Megachurch pastor to pay ex-wife $12K per month in alimony after 33 years of marriage

Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone credits God after doing what no woman has done before: 'Let me be the vessel'

Robert Jeffress identifies common misconceptions about the End Times

Cliques, exclusion top reasons Americans aren't getting more involved in their churches: survey

More articles.

Nicaragua exiles 7 priests amid new wave of detentions targeting Catholic leaders

Worship artist Kim Walker-Smith on why she took a break from music, how God inspired her to return

Group of Brands

Essay Service Examples Social Issues Abortion

Religious Views on Abortion Essay

Table of contents

Introduction to abortion and ethical dilemmas, christianity and diverse perspectives on abortion, catholic church: upholding the sanctity of life, anglican church: a balanced stance on abortion, baptist and presbyterian churches: varied views and ethical decisions, conclusion: interpreting scriptures and forming ethical viewpoints.

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

• Bbc.co.uk. (2019). BBC - Religions - Christianity: Abortion. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/abortion_1.shtml [Accessed 26 Nov. 2019].
• The BBC website, was a useful source that showed a lot of credible information and quotes that have been used in the task. The source is secondary with primary quotes. The source was used for information of the Roman church’s perspective on the abortion as well as the information on the Anglican or church of England.
• Cpcmiami.org. (2019). Our Beliefs - Abortion. [online] Available at: http://www.cpcmiami.org/AboutCPC/OurBeliefs_Abortion.html [Accessed 26 Nov. 2019].
• Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. (2019). Views about abortion among members of the Southern Baptist Convention - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics. [online] Available at: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-denomination/southern-baptist-convention/views-about-abortion/ [Accessed 26 Nov. 2019].
• The pew research centres religion and public life project website, allowed me to obtain graphs and physical data of the southern Baptist church, that can be interpreted and to show the change of perspectives and how the modernising world has caused a review in peoples opinion of abortion.
• Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. (2019). Views about abortion among members of the Presbyterian Church USA - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics. [online] Available at: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-denomination/presbyterian-church-usa/views-about-abortion/ [Accessed 26 Nov. 2019].
• Presbyterian Mission Agency. (2019). Abortion/Reproductive Choice Issues | Presbyterian Mission Agency. [online] Available at: https://www.presbyterianmission.org/what-we-believe/social-issues/abortion-issues/ [Accessed 26 Nov. 2019].
• The Presbyterian Mission Agency, has allowed the task to verify any facts that been stated during the paragraph, the website is secondary and contains little bits of primary information that allows me, to corroborate the graphs and data that has been mentioned. The information that was used was useful and credible.
• Religious Institute. (2019). American Baptist Resolution Concerning Abortion and Ministry in the Local Church | Religious Institute. [online] Available at: http://religiousinstitute.org/denom_statements/american-baptist-resolution-concerning-abortion-and-ministry-in-the-local-church/ [Accessed 26 Nov. 2019].
• [email protected], T. (2020). The Tablet. [online] The Tablet. Available at: https://www.thetablet.co.uk/ [Accessed 5 Feb. 2020].
• The tablet is a magazine that did an auto biography on the current Pope. (Pope Francis) The Magazine was useful in the way that I used primary source quote that corroborates the point that the interpretations of previous thesis statements are becoming unrelated to the current society. The source is credible and contained useful information.

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Pro Choice (Abortion)
• Pro Life (Abortion)

In an era of rising poverty and inequality among many social issues; today’s high school and...

Imagine you’re a 17-year-old girl in Alabama. You had a little mishap and ended up pregnant, but...

• Influence of Christianity

Abortion is arguably one of the most controversial topics in modern society. Although it may seem...

• Spread of Christianity

In 2019 it was discovered by the Australian New Zealand Journal Of Public Health that...

• Life Obstacles

Life in terms of biology definition refers to time between a person's births till his or her...

• Religious Beliefs

Abortion rights have been the talk for decades, jeopardizing women's rights and freedoms for...

As Technology develops, People must make more advanced life choices, which can be difficult. Many...

Using Divine Command Theory Metaetchics I will attempt to explain my moral reasoning on Abortion....

The principal point of this paper is to show conversations on premature birth in Islamic morals...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Inside a medical practice sending abortion pills to states where they're banned

Elissa Nadworny

“Welcome to modern abortion care,” says Angel Foster, who leads operations at what’s known as the MAP, a Massachusetts telehealth provider sending pills to people who live in states that ban or restrict abortion. Elissa Nadworny/NPR hide caption

The packages, no bigger than a hardcover book, line the walls of the nondescript office near Boston. It's not an Etsy retailer or a Poshmark seller or, as the nearby post office workers believe, a thriving jewelry business.

These boxes contain abortion pills.

"Welcome to modern abortion care," says Angel Foster, as she holds up a box for mailing. Foster, who has an M.D. degree, leads operations at what's known as the MAP, a Massachusetts telehealth provider sending pills to people who live in states that ban or restrict abortion.

The MAP is one of just four organizations in the U.S. operating under recently enacted state shield laws, which circumvent traditional telemedicine laws requiring out-of-state health providers to be licensed in the states where patients are located. Eight states have enacted these shield laws.

Pregnant patients can fill out an online form, connect with a doctor via email or text and, if approved, receive the pills within a week, no matter which state they live in.

Shots - Health News

Abortion is becoming more common in primary care clinics as doctors challenge stigma.

Shield law practices account for about 10% of abortions nationwide. There were 9,200 abortions a month provided under shield laws from January to March of this year, according to fresh data from the Society of Family Planning's WeCount project . And some researchers estimate that this number has risen since then and could be as high as 12,000 per month.

The rise of telehealth is part of why the number of abortions in the U.S. has continued to go up since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 — even though 14 states have near-total abortion bans. In those states, shield law providers represent the only legal way people can access abortions within the established health care system.

"If you want to have your abortion care in your state and you live in Texas or Mississippi or Missouri, right now shield law provision is by far the most dominant way that you'd be able to get that care," says Foster. Elissa Nadworny/NPR hide caption

Back in Massachusetts, Foster glances down at the list of today's patients. The practice's four OB-GYNs have signed off on prescriptions for nearly two dozen women — in Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Most of today's patients are around six weeks along in their pregnancy. Many already have children.

"I really need an abortion pill. My state has banned it. My funds are really low," one patient wrote on the online form she filled out for the doctor.

"I'm a single mom with a kid under two," another wrote. "I can't afford a baby. I can't even afford this abortion."

Foster and her team serve patients who are up to 10 weeks pregnant and who are 16 or older. It costs $250 to get the two-drug regimen — mifepristone and misoprostol — in the mail, but there's a sliding scale and patients can pay as little as $5. The MAP is funded through abortion funds, individual donations and philanthropic gifts, and Foster has plans to apply for grants and state funding to help make the organization more sustainable. The MAP currently sends out about 500 prescriptions a month.

Yet to be tested in court, shield laws have some legal vulnerability

In the eight states with shield laws, abortion providers can treat out-of-state patients just as if they were in-state patients. The laws give abortion providers some protection from criminal prosecution, civil claims and extradition, among other threats. The laws have yet to be tested in court, but they certainly haven't gone unnoticed by lawmakers and groups looking to limit abortion.

"These websites are breaking the law … aiding and abetting crimes in Texas," says John Seago, the president of Texas Right to Life. "We want to use all the instruments that we have, all the tools available, to really fight against this new trend of abortion pills by mail."

Seago says providers should still be held responsible for committing a crime that is executed across state lines. "Mailing the abortion pill is a state jail felony according to our pro-life laws," he says, "but enforcement of those policies has been a real, real challenge."

Mifepristone, a drug used in abortion care, at the MAP's office in Massachusetts. Elissa Nadworny/NPR hide caption

His organization has been looking for the right individual or circumstance to challenge shield laws directly in court. Three Republican-led states recently tried to sue the Food and Drug Administration over regulations allowing doctors to send pills through the mail, but the Supreme Court threw out the case in June over issues of standing . Those plaintiffs say they'll fight on. And a Republican attorney general in Arkansas sent a cease-and-desist letter to a shield law provider.

Abortion providers back to ‘business as usual’ after high court's mifepristone ruling

Seago thinks many conservative prosecutors have been hesitant to take legal action, especially in an election year. But he says it's important to act quickly, before abortion by mail becomes pervasive.

The people who are sending these pills know that there's risk in what they're doing. Some providers say they won't travel to or through states with bans so that they can't be subpoenaed, be served legal papers or even be arrested if there's a warrant. That may mean avoiding layovers at Dallas Love Field airport or a detour around those places on a cross-country road trip. For Foster, it means she can't visit her mom and stepdad, who retired to South Carolina.

"The thing about shield laws is that they're new, so we don't have a precedent to go off of," says Lauren Jacobson, a nurse practitioner who prescribes abortion medication through Aid Access, the largest of the four shield law providers. She says she avoids large swaths of the United States. "We don't really know what will or won't happen. But I'm not going to Texas. I've been before though, so that's OK for me."

Abortion bans still leave a 'gray area' for doctors after Idaho Supreme Court case

Shield laws don't offer blanket protection. The doctors and nurse practitioners who prescribe the pills have malpractice insurance in their states, but it's unclear whether those policies would cover suits from states with abortion restrictions. Patients use third-party payment services like Cash App or PayPal, which are also untested in how they would work under a shield law. Would they give up information on a provider or patient if requested to do so by law enforcement?

How the experience looks

Lauren, who is 33 and lives in Utah, got pregnant while on birth control and decided that she couldn't afford another child. (NPR is not using her last name because she's worried about professional repercussions.)

Abortion is legal in Utah until 18 weeks, but there are only a handful of clinics in the state. The closest one to Lauren was several hours away by car. Several years prior, she had an abortion at a clinic in Salt Lake City, and it hadn't been a pleasant experience — she had to walk through protesters. The guilt from her conservative Christian upbringing was overwhelming.

Shield law practices account for about 10% of abortions nationwide. There were 9,200 abortions a month provided under shield laws from January to March of this year, according to fresh data from the Society of Family Planning's WeCount project. Some researchers estimate that this number has risen since then and could be as high as 12,000 per month. Elissa Nadworny/NPR hide caption

"I got in my car and I cried," she recalls. "I just never wanted to go through it again."

This time, Lauren got pills from Aid Access, a shield law provider similar to the MAP. "I was a little bit sketched out, I won't lie," she says. "Because like, well, where is this coming from? Who is this under? How are they prescribing this?"

She and her partner did research to try to figure out whether what they were doing was legal. She says ultimately she couldn't find anything that clearly stated that what she wanted to do — have pills sent from an out-of-state doctor — was illegal.

She filled out a form online with questions about how far along she was and her medical history and then connected with a doctor via email and text messages. She googled the doctor, who she found was legit and practicing out of New York.

A few days later, she received abortion medication in the mail and had her abortion at home.

"To do it in the privacy of your own home, where I felt more support as opposed to going through protesters," Lauren says. "Especially with a provider within the state of Utah. I feel like there's always a judgmental indication or undertone."

The online doctor also followed up to make sure everything had gone OK, which Lauren appreciated. "I felt it was a little bit more thorough," she says. "They're checking in on you, like, 'How did you respond? What symptoms? What's going on?'"

A staff member of the MAP brings the boxes containing abortion medication to the local post office. Elissa Nadworny/NPR hide caption

In Massachusetts, the folks who run the MAP hear much the same from their patients. Many emails and messages are logistical, like this email: "I took the first pill on Friday and all the other pills on Saturday. For how long should I be bleeding as I'm still bleeding this morning?"

Many others offer disbelief, relief and gratitude. "I just wanted to say thank you so much," wrote one woman. "I was terrified of this process. It goes against everything I believe in. I'm just not in a place where I can have a child. Thank you for making the pills easily accessible to me."

When Foster, who runs operations for the MAP, does a final tally of the patients who are ready to have their pills sent out, she notices a new note from a woman who just paid, bringing the day’s total number of patients from 20 to 21.

"I am a single mother on a fixed income, and I can not afford a kid right now."

It's from a woman in Alabama who is six weeks pregnant and filled out her form around lunchtime. Within an hour, a MAP doctor had reviewed her case and prescribed her the medication. She paid the fee as soon as she was approved. All in all, the whole process took about three hours. Foster is able to pack up those pills and add them to the batch headed to the post office.

By 3 p.m., the Alabama woman's package is scanned by the Postal Service worker.

It's expected to arrive by the week's end.

• abortion drugs
• mifepristone
• abortion provider
• misoprostol
• Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization
• Roe v. Wade

Sign up for the Health News Florida newsletter

Inside a medical practice sending abortion pills to states where they're banned.

The packages, no bigger than a hardcover book, line the walls of the nondescript office near Boston. It's not an Etsy retailer or a Poshmark seller or, as the nearby post office workers believe, a thriving jewelry business.

These boxes contain abortion pills.

"Welcome to modern abortion care," says Angel Foster, as she holds up a box for mailing. Foster, who has an M.D. degree, leads operations at what's known as the MAP, a Massachusetts telehealth provider sending pills to people who live in states that ban or restrict abortion.

The MAP is one of just four organizations in the U.S. operating under recently enacted state shield laws, which circumvent traditional telemedicine laws requiring out-of-state health providers to be licensed in the states where patients are located. Eight states have enacted these shield laws.

Pregnant patients can fill out an online form, connect with a doctor via email or text and, if approved, receive the pills within a week, no matter which state they live in.

Shield law practices account for about 10% of abortions nationwide. There were 9,200 abortions a month provided under shield laws from January to March of this year, according to fresh data from the Society of Family Planning's WeCount project . And some researchers estimate that this number has risen since then and could be as high as 12,000 per month.

The rise of telehealth is part of why the number of abortions in the U.S. has continued to go up since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 — even though 14 states have near-total abortion bans. In those states, shield law providers represent the only legal way people can access abortions within the established health care system.

Back in Massachusetts, Foster glances down at the list of today's patients. The practice's four OB-GYNs have signed off on prescriptions for nearly two dozen women — in Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Most of today's patients are around six weeks along in their pregnancy. Many already have children.

"I really need an abortion pill. My state has banned it. My funds are really low," one patient wrote on the online form she filled out for the doctor.

"I'm a single mom with a kid under two," another wrote. "I can't afford a baby. I can't even afford this abortion."

Foster and her team serve patients who are up to 10 weeks pregnant and who are 16 or older. It costs $250 to get the two-drug regimen — mifepristone and misoprostol — in the mail, but there's a sliding scale and patients can pay as little as $5. The MAP is funded through abortion funds, individual donations and philanthropic gifts, and Foster has plans to apply for grants and state funding to help make the organization more sustainable. The MAP currently sends out about 500 prescriptions a month.

Yet to be tested in court, shield laws have some legal vulnerability

In the eight states with shield laws, abortion providers can treat out-of-state patients just as if they were in-state patients. The laws give abortion providers some protection from criminal prosecution, civil claims and extradition, among other threats. The laws have yet to be tested in court, but they certainly haven't gone unnoticed by lawmakers and groups looking to limit abortion.

"These websites are breaking the law … aiding and abetting crimes in Texas," says John Seago, the president of Texas Right to Life. "We want to use all the instruments that we have, all the tools available, to really fight against this new trend of abortion pills by mail."

Seago says providers should still be held responsible for committing a crime that is executed across state lines. "Mailing the abortion pill is a state jail felony according to our pro-life laws," he says, "but enforcement of those policies has been a real, real challenge."

His organization has been looking for the right individual or circumstance to challenge shield laws directly in court. Three Republican-led states recently tried to sue the Food and Drug Administration over regulations allowing doctors to send pills through the mail, but the Supreme Court threw out the case in June over issues of standing . Those plaintiffs say they'll fight on. And a Republican attorney general in Arkansas sent a cease-and-desist letter to a shield law provider.

Seago thinks many conservative prosecutors have been hesitant to take legal action, especially in an election year. But he says it's important to act quickly, before abortion by mail becomes pervasive.

The people who are sending these pills know that there's risk in what they're doing. Some providers say they won't travel to or through states with bans so that they can't be subpoenaed, be served legal papers or even be arrested if there's a warrant. That may mean avoiding layovers at Dallas Love Field airport or a detour around those places on a cross-country road trip. For Foster, it means she can't visit her mom and stepdad, who retired to South Carolina.

"The thing about shield laws is that they're new, so we don't have a precedent to go off of," says Lauren Jacobson, a nurse practitioner who prescribes abortion medication through Aid Access, the largest of the four shield law providers. She says she avoids large swaths of the United States. "We don't really know what will or won't happen. But I'm not going to Texas. I've been before though, so that's OK for me."

Shield laws don't offer blanket protection. The doctors and nurse practitioners who prescribe the pills have malpractice insurance in their states, but it's unclear whether those policies would cover suits from states with abortion restrictions. Patients use third-party payment services like Cash App or PayPal, which are also untested in how they would work under a shield law. Would they give up information on a provider or patient if requested to do so by law enforcement?

How the experience looks

Lauren, who is 33 and lives in Utah, got pregnant while on birth control and decided that she couldn't afford another child. (NPR is not using her last name because she's worried about professional repercussions.)

Abortion is legal in Utah until 18 weeks, but there are only a handful of clinics in the state. The closest one to Lauren was several hours away by car. Several years prior, she had an abortion at a clinic in Salt Lake City, and it hadn't been a pleasant experience — she had to walk through protesters. The guilt from her conservative Christian upbringing was overwhelming.

"I got in my car and I cried," she recalls. "I just never wanted to go through it again."

This time, Lauren got pills from Aid Access, a shield law provider similar to the MAP. "I was a little bit sketched out, I won't lie," she says. "Because like, well, where is this coming from? Who is this under? How are they prescribing this?"

She and her partner did research to try to figure out whether what they were doing was legal. She says ultimately she couldn't find anything that clearly stated that what she wanted to do — have pills sent from an out-of-state doctor — was illegal.

She filled out a form online with questions about how far along she was and her medical history and then connected with a doctor via email and text messages. She googled the doctor, who she found was legit and practicing out of New York.

A few days later, she received abortion medication in the mail and had her abortion at home.

"To do it in the privacy of your own home, where I felt more support as opposed to going through protesters," Lauren says. "Especially with a provider within the state of Utah. I feel like there's always a judgmental indication or undertone."

The online doctor also followed up to make sure everything had gone OK, which Lauren appreciated. "I felt it was a little bit more thorough," she says. "They're checking in on you, like, 'How did you respond? What symptoms? What's going on?'"

In Massachusetts, the folks who run the MAP hear much the same from their patients. Many emails and messages are logistical, like this email: "I took the first pill on Friday and all the other pills on Saturday. For how long should I be bleeding as I'm still bleeding this morning?"

Many others offer disbelief, relief and gratitude. "I just wanted to say thank you so much," wrote one woman. "I was terrified of this process. It goes against everything I believe in. I'm just not in a place where I can have a child. Thank you for making the pills easily accessible to me."

When Foster, who runs operations for the MAP, does a final tally of the patients who are ready to have their pills sent out, she notices a new note from a woman who just paid, bringing the day’s total number of patients from 20 to 21.

"I am a single mother on a fixed income, and I can not afford a kid right now."

It's from a woman in Alabama who is six weeks pregnant and filled out her form around lunchtime. Within an hour, a MAP doctor had reviewed her case and prescribed her the medication. She paid the fee as soon as she was approved. All in all, the whole process took about three hours. Foster is able to pack up those pills and add them to the batch headed to the post office.

By 3 p.m., the Alabama woman's package is scanned by the Postal Service worker.

It's expected to arrive by the week's end.

Copyright 2024 NPR

Louis Jacobson, PolitiFact Louis Jacobson, PolitiFact

Amy Sherman, PolitiFact Amy Sherman, PolitiFact

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-tim-walzs-past-statements

Looking back at Tim Walz’s record and past statements

This fact check originally appeared on PolitiFact .

Vice President Kamala Harris has tapped Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate, capping a historically compressed vice presidential search.

Walz rocketed up the list of finalists on the strength of his folksy relatability, gubernatorial experience and congressional record representing a conservative-leaning district.

READ MORE: Harris selects Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as running mate

“I am proud to announce that I’ve asked @Tim_Walz to be my running mate,” Harris posted on X Aug. 6. “As a governor, a coach, a teacher, and a veteran, he’s delivered for working families like his. It’s great to have him on the team. Now let’s get to work.”

Walz rose to the rank of command sergeant major over 24 years in the U.S. Army National Guard and worked as a teacher and football coach. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives by ousting a Republican incumbent in a heavily rural district in 2006. Walz was elected governor in 2018 and was reelected in 2022.

“He’s a smart choice if they deploy him in two specific ways,” said Blois Olson, a political analyst for WCCO radio in Minneapolis-St. Paul. “Send him to rural areas to counter the polarization and the idea that only Republicans can win there. And have him keep the deep left base satisfied, which could be an issue with a very moody voting bloc.”

Olson said Walz’s rural experience and regular-guy vibes might be able to shave 2 to 4 percentage points off GOP electoral performance in rural Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — three states considered crucial to a Democratic victory in November.

WATCH LIVE: Harris holds first rally with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz after choosing him as running mate

“The most recent Survey USA poll taken last month for KSTP-TV had Walz’ job approval at a healthy 56 percent,” said Steve Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Minnesota. “That said, Minnesota is quite a polarized state, and Republicans in the state despise him. He initially campaigned as a moderate in 2018 but has governed as a progressive.”

Walz was one of several potential vice presidential options floated since President Joe Biden announced he’d cede the nomination and endorsed Harris. Other frequently cited names were Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

Now that he is Harris’ running mate, we are on the lookout for claims by and about Walz to fact-check — just as we are for Harris and former President Donald Trump and his vice presidential pick, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio. Readers can email us suggestions to [email protected].

READ MORE: Fact-checking JD Vance’s past statements and relationship with Trump

Republicans have already begun to question Walz’s handling of the rioting following the murder of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody. Walz clashed with Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey over how to handle the unrest, but he sent the Minnesota National Guard to aid local law enforcement.

Who is Tim Walz?

Walz grew up in Nebraska but moved with his wife, Gwen, to Minnesota in 1996 to teach high school geography and coach football; his teams won two state championships.

He was 42 when he ran for Congress, a decision sparked by a 2004 incident at an appearance by President George W. Bush. “Walz took two students to the event, where Bush campaign staffers demanded to know whether he supported the president and barred the students from entering after discovering one had a sticker for Democratic candidate John Kerry,” according to the Almanac of American Politics. “Walz suggested it might be bad PR for the Bush campaign to bar an Army veteran, and he and the students were allowed in. Walz said the experience sparked his interest in politics, first as a volunteer for the Kerry campaign and then as a congressional candidate.”

Walz’s ideological profile is nuanced. The other highest-profile finalist for Harris’ running mate, Shapiro, was pegged as somewhat more moderate and bipartisan than Walz. An Emerson College poll released in July found Shapiro with 49 percent approval overall in his state, including a strong 46 percent approval from independents and 22 percent from Republicans.

When he was elected to Congress, Walz represented a district that had sent Republicans to Washington for 102 of the previous 114 years, according to the Almanac of American Politics. Representing that constituency, Walz was able to win the National Rifle Association’s endorsement and he voted for the Keystone XL pipeline — two positions that have become highly unusual in today’s Democratic Party.

During his first gubernatorial term, Walz worked with legislative Republicans, which produced some bipartisan achievements, including $275 million for roads and bridges, additional funds for opioid treatment and prevention, and a middle-income tax cut.

In 2022, Walz won a second term by a 52 percent to 45 percent margin. Democrats also flipped the state Senate, providing him with unified Democratic control in the Legislature. This enabled Walz to enact a progressive wish list of policies, including classifying abortion as a “fundamental right,” a requirement that utilities produce carbon-free energy by 2040, paid family leave and legalizing recreational marijuana. He also signed an executive order safeguarding access to gender-affirming health care for transgender residents.

After Harris’ announcement, the Trump campaign attacked Walz’s legislative record in a campaign email: “Kamala Harris just doubled-down on her radical vision for America by tapping another left-wing extremist as her VP nominee.”

Olson noted that Walz “only has one veto in six years. He doesn’t say ‘no’ to the left, after being a moderate. That’s a reason he’s now beloved by the left.”

Democrats have controlled the Minnesota state Legislature’s lower chamber during Walz’ entire tenure. However, Republicans controlled the state Senate for his first four years in office.

Walz’s meteoric three-week rise on the national scene stemmed after calling Trump, Vance and other Republicans in their circle “weird.”

In a July 23 interview on MSNBC, Walz predicted that Harris would win older, white voters because she was talking about substance, including schools, jobs and environmental policy.

“These are weird people on the other side,” Walz said. “They want to take books away. They want to be in your exam room. That’s what it comes down to. And don’t, you know, get sugarcoating this. These are weird ideas.”

Days later on MSNBC , Walz reiterated the point: “You know there’s something wrong with people when they talk about freedom. Freedom to be in your bedroom. Freedom to be in your exam room. Freedom to tell your kids what they can read. That stuff is weird. They come across weird. They seem obsessed with this.”

Other Democrats, including the Harris campaign, amplified the “weird” message, quickly making Walz a star in online Democratic circles.

Walz also attracted notice for being a self-styled fix-it guy who has helped pull a car out of a ditch and given advice about how to save money on car repairs . He staged a bill signing for free breakfast and lunch for students surrounded by cheering children .

Schier said he expects Walz to be a compatible ticket-mate who won’t upstage the presidential nominee. “Walz will be a loyal companion to Harris,” Schier said.

One thing Walz does not bring to the table is a critical state for the Democratic ticket. In 2024, election analysts universally rate Minnesota as leaning or likely Democratic. By contrast, Shapiro’s state of Pennsylvania is not only one of a handful of battleground states but also the one with the biggest haul of electoral votes, at 19. Another finalist, Kelly, represents another battleground state with nine electoral votes, Arizona.

Fact-checking Walz

We have not put Walz on our Truth-O-Meter. However, days after Floyd’s murder, we wrote a story about how a false claim about out-of-state protestors was spread by Minnesota officials, including Walz, and then national politicians, including Trump.

At a May 2020 news conference, Walz said he understood that the catalyst for the protests was “Minnesotans’ inability to deal with inequalities, inequities and quite honestly the racism that has persisted.” But there was an issue with “everybody from everywhere else.”

“We’re going to start releasing who some of these people are, and they’ll be able to start tracing that history of where they’re at, and what they’re doing on the ‘dark web’ and how they’re organizing,” Walz said. “I think our best estimate right now that I heard is about 20 percent that are Minnesotans and about 80 percent are outside.”

The statistic soon fell apart.

Within hours, local TV station KARE reported that Minneapolis-based police tallies of those arrested for rioting, unlawful assembly, and burglary-related crimes from May 29 to May 30 showed that 86 percent of those arrested listed Minnesota as their address. Twelve out of 18 people arrested in St. Paul were from Minnesota.

Confronted with these numbers, the officials walked back their comments that evening or did not repeat them. In a news conference, Walz did not repeat his earlier 80 percent assertion. KARE-TV wrote that Walz said the estimate was based in part on law enforcement intelligence information and that the state would monitor developments.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

Advertisement

JD Vance Repeats ‘Anti-Family’ Criticism of Democrats on Sunday Morning News Show Tour

The Republican vice-presidential nominee also defended Donald Trump’s abortion policies.

• Share full article

By Maggie Astor

• Aug. 11, 2024 Updated 2:30 p.m. ET

In three interviews broadcast on Sunday morning, Senator JD Vance of Ohio, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, repeated his description of Democrats as “anti-family,” defended former President Donald J. Trump’s abortion policies and suggested that Vice President Kamala Harris was racist.

Mr. Vance — who has been criticized for past comments in which he disparaged “childless cat ladies” and suggested that parents “should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic than people who don’t have kids” — said that his disdain was for Democrats’ policies, not the makeup of their families. He added that the idea of giving children the right to vote but letting their parents have control of the votes, which he floated in 2021, had been a “thought experiment” that he hadn’t really meant.

“I’m pro-family,” he said on CNN. “I want us to have more families. And obviously sometimes it doesn’t work out, sometimes for medical reasons, sometimes because you don’t meet the right person. But the point is that our country has become anti-family in its public policy.”

He told ABC News of the idea of giving parents more votes through their children, “If it was a policy proposal, I would have made the policy proposal in my two years in the United States Senate.”

In all three interviews, with CNN, ABC News and CBS News, Mr. Vance said that he supported expanding the child tax credit and enacting protections against surprise medical bills for people who see out-of-network providers for childbirth.

President Biden and congressional Democrats expanded the child tax credit in 2021 as a pandemic relief measure and tried to make the expansion permanent, but congressional Republicans (and one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia) blocked it, and the extension expired . Ms. Harris wants to restore it , and Mr. Vance recently missed a Senate vote, which he called a “show vote” on Sunday, to do so.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .