LIFE, DEATH & THE GOD COMPLEX: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INCORPORATING RELIGION-BASED ARGUMENTS INTO THE PRO-CHOICE PERSPECTIVE ON ABORTION

Stacy A. Scaldo, Florida Coastal School of Law

Abstract

While speaking on the issue of healthcare in August of 2009, President Barrack Obama told a meeting of Jewish rabbis, “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death.” While the President’s message was expressly targeting choices in healthcare and end of life decisions, the statement is representative of a shift in the public rhetoric reflective of all matters concerning life - including abortion. This, indeed, would be a remarkable change in both express policy and argument identification – one that appears to be a new weapon in the arsenal of those who identify themselves with the pro-choice movement. Historically, public arena based abortion arguments grounded in religious beliefs have been owned and used by traditional conservatives to support the pro-life agenda. However, for what appears to be the first time, the pro-choice movement, led by President Obama’s statements in August 2009, appears to be incorporating, embracing, and relying on God and religion as part of the “choice process.” Due in large part to the changing face of the traditionally pro-life religious communities, a growing population of people who claim to be both religious and pro-choice and the rise of independent, self-service religious practices, the use of God in the abortion debate no longer belongs solely to those that identify themselves as pro-life. These factors, however, are merely a consequence of a pro-choice religious framework initiated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and continued through present day abortion jurisprudence. The Court’s religion-based abortion justification have redefined the historical positions, and flipped the use of religious arguments both in the law and in popular culture. As such, the pro-life community no longer owns popular religion-based abortion reasoning. Based upon the deepness of this impact, it may never get it back. The goal of this article is to: (1) examine the causes of this rhetorical shift aimed at incorporating God or religion as a valid part of the “choice process”; (2) assess the current effectiveness of such an inclusion; and (3) discuss the potentially permanent impact this shift will have going forward. The decision by the President was a bold one. But, based upon the last forty years of case law, legal discourse, and societal acquiescence, it may be the argument that solidifies the pro-choice position once and for all.