Several weeks ago, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, the church made a change to its official statement on abortion. Reaffirming its political neutrality, the church gave explicit permission for members to “choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.”
What does that mean? Well, the church explicitly permits abortions in cases of rape, incest, in cases where the pregnancy imposes a serious risk to the mother’s health or life, and in cases where the fetus has serious defects and will not survive.
That is, the church recognizes that there must be some kind of balance between the rights of a pregnant person and the rights of a fetus. In at least some circumstances, that balance favors the pregnant person. Which makes sense—in Mormonism, we don’t have any theological commitment to when life begins. We have, of course, scriptures that suggest it may be sometime before birth (John leapt in Elisabeth’s womb when Elisabeth heard Mary) and scriptures that suggest maybe not (Jesus spoke to Nephi the day before He was born). And from a policy perspective, stillborn children are not recorded as births or deaths on church records and no temple work can be performed for them.
So when we work for legislation, should we try to codify the church’s policy, allowing abortions in the three situations that the church does?
I would argue that the best answer to that is a resounding no. (And no, it’s not because of the separation of church and state; individuals can absolutely vote and even legislate out of their religious convictions.) Rather, it’s because the church and the state occupy different spheres, with different powers and different goals.
Most critically, the state exercises significant coercive power, which it can exercise through physical and financial punishment (that is, the state can arrest you and/or fine you). Meanwhile, the only coercive power the church has is excommunication.[fn1]
So let’s say your state criminalizes abortion except in the case of risk to the health of the mother. How do we determine whether the risk is imminent and severe enough to meet the legal criteria?
Well, the mother almost certainly cannot. And, for all that doctors are trained in, medical school doesn’t teach a whole lot of statutory interpretation. So who’s making the decision? An attorney. (You can read this thread to see how it actually works in practice.) An attorney, not a health care provider or the person whose health is at risk, must make the ultimate decision about whether the risk is severe and imminent enough to satisfy the legal criteria.
By contrast, for church purposes, the pregnant person must consult with God (and, presumably, her doctor) to determine whether the risk is severe and imminent enough. The church allows that she may consult her bishop, but that is not obligatory.
But can’t the doctor just use their own best judgment? Absolutely not. The doctor faces potential professional, financial, and even criminal consequences. Which is why, in spite of the fact that Ohio law allows abortions in the case of “medical emergency or medical necessity,” the 10-year-old in Ohio had to travel across state lines to get an abortion.
Because yes, a 10-year-old body isn’t going to be able to handle giving birth, at least not without serious physical consequences. But the statute defines “medical necessity” as a “medical condition” that “so complicates the pregnancy that it necessitates the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion.” It’s not clear that being 10 is a “medical condition” or that being 6.5 weeks pregnant necessitates “immediate” abortion. Similarly, the way the law is drafted, “medical emergency” seems to require some sort of imminent harm, not just a good chance of eventual harm or death. Anybody who tells you unequivocally that the girl could have had a(n eventually life-saving) abortion in Ohio is either wrong or lying.
So the church’s rules work really well as guides for a pregnant person, where there is no coercive power of the state to second-guess the choice. But they work pretty poorly as law.
And it’s not just that: this type of near-total criminalization of abortion doesn’t only restrict the ability of people to get abortions. It restricts access to medicine and care for other problems where that medicine could cause miscarriages.
But wait, there’s more: even if you’re not pregnant and you don’t need medical care, the criminalization of abortion can harm you if you’re capable of getting pregnant.
How? Because the process can be the punishment. A police officer could decide, based on anything or nothing, to arrest you for illegally having or causing an abortion. A prosecutor could decide to prosecute you for it. And even if you win, you’ve spent time in jail. You’ve spent money on a defense attorney. You’ve faced the stress of the legal system. You’ve maybe lost friends, maybe lost a job, maybe lost income. Sure, you’re vindicated in the end. But you’re not getting back the things that were taken from you.[fn2]
So should members of the church work to ensure just abortion laws? Absolutely; we have a responsibility to our community to ensure that the laws are just and fair. But should we try to codify the church’s handbook?
No. The handbook serves a far different purpose than law. And, given that the church lacks the coercive power of the state and that the church’s policies present a framework for an individual to make a decision, not for a system to punish wrong behavior, the church’s framework doesn’t work as a legal framework.[fn3]
[fn1] There’s a slight difference for church employees, though in that case, the church is acting as employer, not as church. And, while there may be significant issues with the coercive power of an employer, again, it pales in comparison to the power the state can exercise. Also, while I’m not going to spend much time on it, the church also lacks the tremendous surveillance power of the state.
[fn2] Given that I’m married and have daughters, I’m particularly relieved that I live in Illinois. I couldn’t, in good faith, drag my family to a state that has decided to criminalize abortion, and I can’t, in good faith, recommend that my daughters attend college in such a state. But it’s also important to keep in mind that a significant number of people do live in those states. And those people shouldn’t be required to move or face the extreme risks that these laws impose.
[fn3] What kinds of laws should we work for? Carolyn’s list strikes me as pretty compelling, at least if our goal is to respect life, not just to deny women autonomy and agency.
Photo by Chase Charaba on Unsplash