The expression “right to life” in abortion discussions is very potent.  Although popularized by Pope Pius XII in 1951, the phrase currently brings to mind the modern ultra-sound image of the unborn.  Pro-Life advocates would view the premature removal of the unborn as barbaric and unnatural. 

It’s why the prospective mom understandably grieves should her pregnancy naturally terminate before full-term. It is not simply that a successful birth never occurred, but that a life in prospect (that is to say, all the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the prospective mom for her son or daughter) have been denied due to miscarriage or still-birth.

This desire to see a life fulfilled cannot be reduced to political ideology, and is (or at least, should be) the emotional engine for the pro-life movement.

The question, then, is whether the issue has become only a useful political wedge, divorced from its initial context. I fear that this might be the case with many politicians (often male) who do not really “feel” this issue, but are ever in search of a useful “position” which can guarantee them votes.

The evangelical community who see themselves as “moral-values-voters” have made the repeal of Roe v Wade, which they may not fully understand, the do-all and end-all of politics.  

This is why the anti-abortion argument loses it strength with an effort to criminalize the actions of a desperate woman or to force an impregnated rape victim to carry to full term.  The concept of “right to life” was never intended to be abstract and devoid of compassion.

For this reason the “right-to-life movement” lacks credibility even though the underlying moral premise of the “protection of future life” finds overwhelming acceptance.  Paradoxically, the very political party that has made “right-to-life” their mantra seems to not think beyond the birthing center.

The recent actions by the same party against refugee parents who sought to secure a future for their children is truly barbaric and unnatural.  It betrays more than lack of compassion.  The hypocrisy of taking one’s children as punishment for the crime of being a refugee should raise the hackles of every so called moral-values-voter. 

It is past time for “the protection of future life” to include “the protection of a life’s future.”

This hypocrisy was unbearable for former First Lady Laura Bush whose Washington Post editorial stated:

In the six weeks between April 19 and May 31, the Department of Homeland Security has sent nearly 2,000 children to mass detention centers or foster care. More than 100 of these children are younger than 4 years old. The reason for these separations is a zero-tolerance policy for their parents, who are accused of illegally crossing our borders.

I live in a border state. I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart.