Abortion law and policy is a huge topic; this post is necessarily rather limited. It is a politically controversial topic and also a sensitive topic on which people have deep personal and moral convictions. I’m well aware of that sensitivity and will address the topic in a straightforward and objective manner. Given the tenor of the oral arguments heard before the US Supreme Court a week ago in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it’s very likely the Court will hand down a big decision later this year, probably in July. The Court might limit constitutional protections (limitations on how a state law can or cannot regulate abortion) to the first fifteen weeks of a pregnancy, or it could overturn federal constitutional protections entirely, turning the entire field of law back to the individual states. It seems unlikely the Court will leave existing precedent intact. After lying somewhat dormant politically for two generations, the abortion issue could emerge to dominate election campaigning in 2022 and beyond. So it deserves an early discussion.
First I’ll set out the current LDS policy, found in the current version of the General Handbook in Section 38.6, “Policies on Moral Issues,” at subsection 38.6.1, “Abortion.” Then I’ll give portions of the current Utah code on abortion, found at Utah Code section 76-7-302. Finally I’ll give the more restrictive Utah trigger law that will automatically take effect if the US Supreme Court overturns the current constitutional standard established in Roe and Casey. That is found at SB 174, signed in March 2020. The discussion of Utah law is relevant because LDS leadership, despite presiding over a church with a worldwide presence, is still very attuned to Utah politics and law. I’ll quote or summarize a text, followed by some commentary, then wind up with some reflections on the LDS position.
LDS Abortion Policy
Give a careful reading to the framing and the word choice of General Handbook, Section 38.6.1, “Abortion,” which reads as follows (first sentence omitted):
The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:
— Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.
— A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.
— A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
Even these exceptions do not automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.
Presiding officers carefully review the circumstances if a Church member has been involved in an abortion. A membership council may be necessary if a member submits to, performs, arranges for, pays for, consents to, or encourages an abortion (see 32.6.2.5). However, a membership council should not be considered if a member was involved in an abortion before baptism. Nor should membership councils or restrictions be considered for members who were involved in an abortion for any of the three reasons outlined earlier in this section.
Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. The stake president may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.
As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.
The policy expressly recognizes exceptions to the general LDS prohibition of abortion: rape, incest, serious danger to the mother, serious problems with the fetus. It’s worth noting that the third exception distinguishes between “fetus” and “baby.” But a couple of terms seem problematic (this gets to the framing issue). The policy presumes rather bluntly that women seeking an abortion are doing so out of “convenience.” That presents as selfish or even flippant a decision that many or most women regard as serious and difficult. More likely a lot of men regard an abortion decision as one of convenience. Using that term and that framing in the LDS policy likely reflects the fact that it was men who wrote and approved the policy, almost certainly with little or no input from women. It seems more like projection (men assuming most women think about abortion the same way most men do) than description.
Another problem is the term “forcible rape” in the first exception. It invites the reader to distinguish between “forcible rape” (which qualifies for the exception) and all those other kinds of rape, which apparently don’t. In criminal law, “forcible rape” is a legal term, a specific form of sexual assault involving non-consensual intercourse, subject to particular definitions in a given state’s criminal code. But bishops aren’t attorneys and the LDS policy is not a criminal statute. To a lay reader, and arguably in the context of the LDS policy, “forcible rape” sounds like an aggressive or violent rape (a stranger jumping out of the bushes at night, etc.), as contrasted with other kinds of rape: date rape, marital rape, or statutory rape (sex by an adult with a minor) which somehow aren’t like “forcible rape.” I’ll bet many bishops encountering those scenarios when counseling with a woman wouldn’t even recognize those scenarios or acts as rape or acknowledge that a resulting pregnancy would qualify for the abortion exception. So if the LDS policy comes up for public discussion once the Dobbs decision is handed down and abortion law becomes a hot topic, women’s advocates should push for better training for bishops and a public clarification by LDS leadership that the LDS abortion exception for rape applies broadly to all rape scenarios, not just to some subset of all rapes. The fact that the LDS policy seems to suggest there are bad rapes and there are good rapes (or not-so-bad rapes that just don’t qualify for the LDS abortion exception) is just deeply problematic.
Which leads to the next problem with the policy: it seems to require LDS girls and women to consult with LDS bishops and get approval that they in fact qualify for an exception in order to exercise it. Abortion under one of the exceptions “should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops.” As noted, the problem with this is that LDS bishops get no particular training in the policy and sometimes don’t know what they are doing. In some rape scenarios, neither the LDS bishop nor the girl or woman likely recognizes that a rape occurred and consequently the bishop does not understand how the policy applies. Until the Handbook went public about a dozen years ago, members did not even have access to the LDS policy!
Note the reasonable and compassionate direction at the end of the policy: “Nor should membership councils or restrictions be considered for members who were involved in an abortion for any of the three reasons outlined earlier in this section.” There’s no qualifier at the end of that statement like “if they have consulted with their bishop” or “as approved by an LDS official,” so it ought to protect LDS women who proceed under one of the exceptions regardless of whether they consulted with their bishop or even if they did so and the bishop did not approve.
Utah Law
Not surprisingly, current Utah law (at Utah Code 76-7-302) tracks the LDS policy to some degree. It requires abortions to be performed by a physician and at a hospital or abortion clinic. It allows abortions in two broad categories: (1) if “the unborn child is not viable” (that is, as required to be allowed without undue burdens under current federal law as expressed in Roe and Casey); and (2) under exceptions for rape, incest, serious danger to the mother, and serious problems with the fetus, if the unborn child is viable.
What you should notice is that in many cases where a girl or woman would seek an abortion that qualifies for one of the exceptions, the procedure would be performed well before the viability threshold is reached, that is under “the unborn child is not viable.” In other words, there is no need for doctors or clinics to seriously consider or document an exception until roughly the end of the second trimester (the Roe framework). If the Court’s upcoming decision in Dobbs moves the constitutionally protected boundary back to 15 weeks or eliminates constitutional protections entirely (allowing states to set their own abortion laws and regulations without regard to controlling federal law), the exceptions will become more relevant in many more cases. Which brings us to Utah’s trigger law.
Senate Bill 174, “Abortion Prohibition Amendments,” was signed in March 2020 and took effect May 12, 2020. It removes from permissible abortions the broad first category noted earlier in this section (“the unborn child is not viable”) if federal law ceases to limit state law prohibitions. This law kicks in only if federal law protecting abortion (as established in Roe and Casey) is rescinded. Which could very well happen in the Dobbs decision in mid-2022.
What the “trigger law” does, in simple terms, is to remove the broad first category of allowable abortions stated in current Utah law (if “the unborn child is not viable”) but then restate the current exceptions for rape, incest, serious danger to the mother, and serious problems with the fetus. In other words, if the trigger law takes effect, the only abortions allowable in the state will be those that qualify under one of the exceptions. The exceptions would, under this scenario, obviously become much more important and more widely discussed.
What would trigger the “trigger law”? As stated in the last paragraph of the law: “The provisions of this bill take effect on the date that the legislative general counsel certifies to the Legislative Management Committee that a court of binding authority has held that a state may prohibit the abortion of an unborn child at any time during the gestational period, subject to the exceptions enumerated in this bill.” So it seems to be the case that if the Court, in Dobbs, adopts a 15-week standard for constitutional protection, the new Utah law will not be triggered. But if the Court overturns Roe and Casey, and allows states to establish their own abortion laws independent of any federal constitutional limitation, then the new Utah law takes effect. Automatically, with no further public discussion, legislative debate, or executive action, apart from the legislative general counsel making its certification to a legislative committee.
Consequences
So here’s what’s going to happen. This issue will simmer on a back burner until one day in June or July or August 2022 the Court will issue its opinion in Dobbs. It’s unlikely the Court will leave existing law unchanged. If that were likely, the Court would not have taken the case. If a 15-week limit for constitutional protection is adopted (a compromise of sorts), adjustments will be made and heated op-eds will be published. The Utah trigger law will not take effect. But if the Court overturns Roe and Casey, and removes the federal government’s role in limiting what state abortion law can prohibit, all hell will break loose. That’s the interesting scenario. A few quick observations, including the LDS context:
First, politics. If Roe is overturned, the 2022 midterms will be about abortion, Covid, and Trump, rather than just Covid and Trump. If every state can regulate or prohibit abortion, this will be not just a national issue but a state and even local issue as well. Abortion rhetoric has always been rather heated (think protestors with signs screaming at women walking into abortion clinics), but in our current climate of polarized politics, nasty rhetoric, and social media sniping … can you even imagine?
Second, state law. When I say “all hell will break loose,” I’m exaggerating for effect. On the one hand, there are a lot of areas of law where states have a free hand to set their own laws with very little federal limitation, from speed limits to property laws to regulating professions and services to drinking age to criminal statutes. So just because states might get to set their own laws on abortion doesn’t mean chaos or catastrophe. On the other hand, the stark difference between the resulting law on this or that side of a state border might be jarring. Consider that a year from now it might be the case that a legal abortion routinely performed one mile inside the California border would, if performed two miles away, one mile inside Arizona, be a felony punishable by years in jail. Or the Utah-Nevada border.
Third, LDS policy. Here’s where it gets interesting. Not all states will allow exceptions — the current Texas law that the US Supreme Court declined to block pending review by lower courts, for example, does not have an exception for rape or incest. So under current LDS policy, a bishop counseling with a victim of rape considering an abortion might say: “You qualify for an exception to the LDS abortion prohibition, but under the current law of our state, you cannot get one here. You will need to go to an out-of-state clinic to get the procedure.” In another state, a bishop might say: “You qualify for an exception under LDS policy, and you can get that procedure done at a clinic here in town subject to the clinic approving your exception under state law.” In yet another state, a bishop might say: “You qualify for an exception under LDS policy, and you can get that procedure done at a clinic here in town — without any particular approval by the clinic.” In other words, at some point soon the LDS policy might be less restrictive, equally restrictive, or more restrictive than state abortion law, depending on which state is involved. I suspect that will be hard for the Highly Correlated LDS Church to deal with and a little tricky for bishops to grasp.
Here’s the other thing. It’s possible that with federal protections removed and many states adopting more restrictive abortion laws, the LDS policy itself will change. There will no doubt be some public discussion of the LDS policy as well as possible Utah state law changes.
A Final Word
Once upon a time, Bill Clinton coined the phrase “safe, legal, and rare” as his position on abortion. You will probably hear that phrase again in the upcoming post-Dobbs debate. That’s probably a good point of departure for any Latter-day Saint discussion of abortion, with “rare” introducing a discussion of the scope of the exceptions approved under LDS policy. You might very well be part of that discussion next year in an LDS class or meeting. I hope this post contributes to that discussion being more informed and productive than it would otherwise have been.
I noted at the beginning of this post that abortion is a sensitive personal topic for most people, particularly those who have had personal experience with a procedure or supported and assisted a family member or friend in that situation. For that reason, I ask that comments focus more on the LDS policy and state law and Dobbs, and less on any details of your personal experience with abortion, either pro or con. If someone else does share their own personal experience, I hope it’s an abbreviated account — and please oh please, don’t other commenters chime in with a critique of or a dispute about the details of another’s personal account if shared. Just make your general points in a friendly way. It’s good practice for the real-life conversations you’ll be having next year.
Wheat & Tares 
How the old laws used to work: the rapist had to be convicted in court for it to count as “rape”. And by the time things went to trial, and drug through the court system, the baby was six months old. Marital rape didn’t exist, yet I personally know several women who dislike one child because that child was the result of marital rape. If a mother’s life was in danger, it wasn’t doctors deciding, but a judge and it took at least two doctors agreeing and then convincing the judge, and often as not the mother ‘s health got permanently damaged or she was dead by the time the case could be made in court. (Things can come up as an emergency and there was no provision for do the abortion and prove it necessary later) Incest victims were not believed until they could do a paternity test after the baby was born (with modern technology this wouldn’t be a problem) Minors had to have parental consent, on top of the exception, and if the rapist was her father he could deny consent.
There was a reason that women were fighting to get rid of the “exceptions” and make abortion available to the woman on her request alone, without having to prove one of the exceptions.
This is a fascinating breakdown of how Utah state law could change. I have been intrigued throughout this debate at how moderate the Church’s position is (and has been throughout my adult life anyway) when compared to the draconian position taken in many GOP-led states and the incredibly Catholic assumptions held by several of the current justices. While we all may agree that life begins at conception, it requires a theological assumption to determine the point at which that life becomes unique and human (has a “soul” or “spirit” in religious terms). That’s the crux of these decisions, and while we don’t subject SCOTUS picks or other elected official to a religious test (right, Mitt?), they are clearly making decisions based on their own theological beliefs which are not provable and are not shared by all religions, not even by all Christian sects.
And that’s how we’ve gotten to the point where the LDS Church’s position looks almost, almost pro-choice by comparison.
I’m not sure we’ve moved much, but the right wing sure has. We’ve literally got politicians who publicly state that a woman can’t get pregnant unless she wants to, that the body “shuts that down.” We’ve got justices dismissinig the physical dangers of pregnancy (Coney Barrett) because women are more or less equal now, and they can just leave their babies on Firehouse doorsteps, so no biggie. We’ve got another argument that rape isn’t probably a significant enough reason not to force women to have babies (Ross Douthat). We’ve got Kavanaugh putting the idea out there that the court should be “neutral” by letting this important decision about a woman’s reproductive rights be a matter between a conservative legislator and his constituents. I have never seen a more morally bankrupt and cowardly set of arguments in my life. Legitimacy crisis? You bet your ass.
I appreciate your pointing to the ways in which Church policy clearly reads like it was written by men as if men and women view these matters equally. That makes a lot of sense. No woman is using abortion as her go-to method of birth control. Unfortunately, a lot of men see birth control as the woman’s responsibility, but then want to police those decisions, too.
Beyond the issues of rape, incest and medical jeopardy is the essential one of whether any woman should be forced by law to carry an unwanted pregnancy.
Even conscientiously practiced birth control fails some times. Even happily married women have reasons not to commit the following 18-25 years of their lives to being primary child care providers.
We’re talking indentured servitude here, folks. That fact may be distasteful but it remains a fact. And who among us would want to live a life as an unwanted and possibly resented dependent child?
The problem I have with the way the Church handles its abortion policies was best described by Ziff at the ZD blog:https://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2019/08/21/church-rhetoric-on-abortion-and-why-members-are-generally-pro-life/ In short, the exceptions exist in the handbooks, but every talk and discussion (especially by the Church’s leaders) essentially ignore or minimize the exceptions. If anecdotes are shared, they are always (are there exceptions to this?) “problem with pregnancy was discovered, abortion was maybe briefly considered, but mom decided to trust in God and carry the baby to term and everything turned out fine. Our general discourse does not take these exceptions seriously enough to really talk about those who decided to carry the baby to term and either baby or mother died anyway (Lisa shares a few anecdotes here: https://outsidethebookofmormonbelt.com/2019/08/27/on-lds-abortion-exceptions-and-the-angel-mother/ ) or to talk about those who decide to terminate the pregnancy.
I imagine there are wide-ranging views on abortion among those who frequent this forum. Regardless of where you stand, I find it odd that abortion is the hill many conservatives are willing to die on. I know of many moderate conservatives (including Church members) who voted for Trump for no other reason than packing the SCOTUS to overturn Roe. They were fully aware of Trump’s well-documented immorality (God knows how many abortions he payed for, facilitated or otherwise made necessary in his lifetime!), and excused his behavior for the sake of “pro-life” fantasies. Many conservative Christians have bought into a narrative that abortion is the supreme evil of America and the root of all others. Despite the nuance in the Church’s official policies, LDS people are some of the loudest voices in this choir.
My mom (baby boomer, active LDS) is quite conservative and vocally anti-abortion. She also speaks with anger and resentment about the sexual harassment and sex discrimination she endured while starting her professional career in the 1970s. It doesn’t compute for her that women’s reproductive rights are inextricably linked with women’s rights in other areas–that both represent freedom from oppressive male-dominated authority systems. Sadly, the irony is lost on her.
If you want to fully outlaw abortion, you better be prepared to hand out contraceptives like candy, support science-based public sex education, and greatly expand the social safety net to support a wave of unwed parents and their offspring. Unfortunately, vocal opponents of abortion are the same people who oppose these things as well. Because restrictions on abortion are not about social responsibility or morality, but about power and control. It’s the same reason why evangelical Christians were willing to get behind the most amoral anti-christian president in living memory–the power and notoriety were worth the price of their soul.
I’m saddened by the systemic dismantling of reproductive rights, and I know the issue is too highly charged for me to have any kind of productive conversation about it in most LDS circles. At this point, I will stand back and watch conservatives use it to destroy what’s left of their own political capital and moral authority.
As the political right moved further to the right and the left moved further to the left, I really hoped that a 3rd political party with more common sense would emerge in the middle. I voted third party in 2016 although I knew it was hopeless, with the hope that a viable 3rd party candidate would be able to gain traction in 2020. I now see that I was foolish. Abortion is one of the areas where I don’t fully agree with the left or the right. I agree with Jack Hughes statement (although I’d put a different caveat in front) that whether or not abortion is fully outlawed if you want to decrease abortions, we should be prepared to hand out contraceptives like candy, support science-based public sex education, and greatly expand the social safety net to support unwed parents and their offspring. I think the church’s position on abortion is reasonable, considering their understanding of the plan of salvation.
As I was reading through the Church’s position on abortion, I had all the same thoughts as you did – particularly the “forcible” rape bit (disturbing as it seems to exclude things like marital rape, date rape, and statutory rape – why does it have to say FORCIBLE, that’s so icky to me to act like some rape is less bad than others) and the “consult with the bishop” bit (none of his damn business).
Call me crazy but I just never thought I’d see the day where a state could straight up ban abortion (subject to the health & rape* exceptions), which Utah will do if Roe and Casey are overturned. The reason rights are rights is because they need protecting *even from* the legislature. Turning that power back over to state legislatures is terrifying to me. I don’t ever expect to need an abortion but the thought of living in a state that wouldn’t let me choose have one is really quite depressing – and by the way, according to polls, 52% of Utahns support elective abortions, so the legislature is more extreme than the people they represent (which has been my experience in Utah generally).
I used to be much more conflicted about abortion but the more I see the people come out and try to take that right COMPLETELY away (as opposed to putting reasonable limitations on it) the stronger I feel about it being an important basic right to bodily autonomy and the more convinced I am that it is about controlling women’s bodies and access to reproduction and culture wars than it is about protecting children (because as everybody knows, the same people who limit access to abortion are putting kids in cages at the border and cutting welfare and repealing the Affordable Care Act and fighting against sex education and objecting to masks and vaccines, etc. etc. etc. etc. ). I am convinced that if men got pregnant, this would not be an issue.
I tried to find it but couldn’t, but I read an article the other day about the Utah law in which a proponent of the bill essentially said that it was important to keep the adoption pipeline going for people who wanted to start families. While I think that putting unplanned children up for adoption is a fine choice for people and would support anyone who chose to do that, WOMEN ARE NOT BABY FACTORIES. It absolutely disgusts me that this is how that legislator sees women and is his apparent rationale for the bill. Pregnancy and childbirth are hard. Harder on some than others.
*Note that in the Utah bill, the rape *must be reported to the police* in order to take advantage of the exception. That seems hugely problematic and limiting to me. So basically, women are liars. Which we already knew from among other things the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings …
The question being begged for me is if this speaks to whether or not a fetus is a combination of a spirit and physical body like you and I, or just a physical body with no spirit having yet entered. For LDS members, isn’t the gravity of abortion really about the plan of salvation?
The primary assertion the Church makes for the serious and immoral nature of murder and sexual sins (numbers 2 and 3 in the list of highest/worst possible sins according to Alma in the BoM), is that they cut off an individual’s time on earth early, or conversely brings them into earth life prematurely. We interfere with an individual’s probationary time on earth, or with God’s plan for sending spirits to earth (says the common SS answer). Of course, God knows all beforehand so it isn’t a problem he cannot handle, but we are punished for committing sin.
Let’s imagine that a victim of a forcible rape becomes pregnant. She is then justified (spiritually and legally) to elect an abortion. Let’s assume she prayed about that decision and received confirmation, and that the church leader(s) involved also felt at peace with her decision. So the abortion happens.
If a fetus is a combination of a spirit and a body, we appear to have a doctrine/policy that permits murder, albeit in limited circumstances. If the fetus was only a physical shell awaiting a spirit from pre-earth life to enter, then abortion is not the same as murder. And yet, we do call abortion “murder” and classify it as sin when the justification is absent (i.e. not forcible rape, but consensual intercourse and abortion out of “convenience”). But, notice that a Mother’s reason for an abortion would have no bearing on whether a spirit enters the fetus or later at birth.
So, if it is actually true that a spirit enters a fetus before birth, then we have a doctrine that permits something akin to, if not equal to, murder, and that’s really interesting to me. But, if a spirit does not enter a fetus before birth, then why do we disallow abortions at all? There can be no murder in that case and there appears to be no interference with the plan of salvation. I know, I know, part of coming to earth was to be obedient and this is all a test. But the logic here is slippery.
I am sure I have just had too much Diet Mountain Dew this afternoon. Someone set me straight if needed. There are much brighter minds in this crowd for sure!
As Elisa mentioned, to take advantage of the rape exception to the abortion ban, the rape must be reported to the police. This is doubly traumatizing – we’ve all heard the stories about how rape kits don’t get tested and police can make the reporting process difficult and unpleasant. The rape victims who are scared of retaliation from the rapist won’t be able to get help. And what if it’s marital rape? You can imagine what will happen to the woman the day her husband gets cleared of the charges (since rape has such a low conviction rate, let’s just assume he’s not going to jail).
What a horrible, horrible process to put a rape victim through. I can’t even imagine the mental trauma of carrying and delivering your rapist’s baby. And can you imagine if that baby ever tries to find their birth parents?
@counselor, I could be totally wrong or saying false doctrine, but this is my opinion on it. We really don’t have an answer to when the spirit enters the body- so lacking that knowledge, as a general rule the church chooses to err on the side of caution and say “You should not get abortions.” But since we don’t have a solid answer, and there is definite harm to women in times of rape or threat to the mother’s life, the church says “Since we don’t actually know, let’s go ahead and make an exception in these cases.” That seems fair to me- I wouldn’t want to say “No abortions, no exceptions. Or yes to all abortions for any reason.” I’d also like to hear opinions from the brighter minds in this group on this.
*In my previous statement I did mean to say that I think the church’s position is reasonable, but I do think they should remove the term “forcible”. I see no benefit of having the word “forcible” in that policy.
@counselor, years ago, the Ensign published an article by DHO (Ensign January 2001 “Weightier Matters”) in which he explained the distinction as stemming from the woman’s use of agency. “If by her choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived,” then she shouldn’t be able to get an abortion. However, ““The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else’s irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right.”
In the article, DHO focuses on the woman’s agency. But you’re correct that this doesn’t have any effect on when the spirit enters the fetus.
This question gets even more confusing when you look at the teachings about miscarriages. I’ve heard reassurances that if a woman has a miscarriage or stillbirth, she will be able to raise that baby in the resurrection. It’s the same idea extended to children who die before the age of accountability. So a baby who dies in utero (say at 35 weeks gestation) is the same as a child who dies at age 5, for purposes of “what happens to the spirit.” And this is where the explanations break down. If a woman spontaneously miscarries at 23 weeks, why would that baby’s spirit be treated differently than the spirit of the baby if the woman got an abortion when 23 weeks along? I went looking for statistics once, and didn’t find them, but I’m willing to bet there are more miscarriages and stillbirths worldwide than abortions. God terminates more pregnancies than anyone else.
All this is to say that it’s complicated, and there isn’t a consistent answer. The Catholics teach a hard line that the spirit of an aborted fetus goes straight to hell (regardless of consensual conception or rape conception), same as an unbaptized infant who survived birth and died an hour later. Since Mormonism doesn’t teach infant damnation, we’ve got more room for doctrine about abortion, which is why the exceptions can apply.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
An old feminist, those are good points. The exceptions sound clear and straightforward in theory, but I can see that putting them into practice does raise difficulties. An advantage of freely available procedures is that anyone who qualifies under an exception can get a procedure (within the allowable time limit) without having to prove or support qualifying for an exception.
Angela C, I agree — I don’t think many mainstream Mormon understand that the LDS policy is almost (not quite) a moderate position, not a resolutely anti-abortion position.
Jack Hughes, I agree. If more mainstream Mormons had a somewhat broader understanding of abortion politics and LDS policy, there would be less knee-jerk conservative voting. For example, the current Texas law is inconsistent with LDS policy, as it prevents a woman who qualifies under and LDS exception from having access to a clinic in Texas. Bluntly, the extreme conservative position, as in Texas, frustrates the LDS policy by foreclosing permissible (LDS) exceptions.
Counselor, I tried to avoid the theological angle. My understanding is that the Church has no position on the timing of a spirit entering the body prior to birth. I think that’s largely because any specific position would complicate a variety of inconsistent LDS doctrines and pronouncements, as you have pointed out. I would also add that it is generally viewed at inappropriate to publicly equate abortion with murder. Even the LDS policy (in the first sentence, which I omitted) used the phrase “like unto it” but doesn’t equate abortion with a “thou shalt not kill” commandment. Part of the official LDS rationale for permitting exceptions, although unstated, seems to be that abortion is something considerably short of what you describe. That is supported by the position stated in the LDS policy that a member involved with an abortion before joining the Church is *not* a basis for a disciplinary action against that person. I am fairly certain such would not be the case if abortion was equated with murder in the eyes of LDS leaders. LDS leaders often use harsh abortion rhetoric because that’s what zealous members want to hear, but that’s not what the policy actually directs (it doesn’t match the harsh rhetoric). I’m convinced there are even a few LDS leaders who might show sympathy and support for a pregnant LDS girl or woman in the difficult position of considering an abortion under an LDS exception. Shame on us that it’s only a few.
aporetic1—your opinion is totally valid and may be spot on that there was some sort of balancing act desired. Certainly it’s better than other denominational policies, as Angela C. pointed out.
Melinda—great article reference. Sounds more lawyerly and less apostle-like.
Dave B.—forgive me for potentially hijacking your very well-researched and thoughtful post. I thought your invitation to discuss LDS policy could extend to theological doctrines because a Church policy without theological underpinnings, or with mere legal regurgitations, appears unnecessary. Unless the policy actually reflects some unstated belief by the top leaders about the doctrine.
@counselor, I can see how the theological question would be relevant to someone who is deciding whether to get an abortion herself (or to support a partner in getting an abortion) and relevant to Church policy and discipline on abortion. I don’t think it’s a justification for telling other women who don’t share those theological views what they can and can’t do and I do not think we should be legislating theology. So what is the public interest in prohibiting abortion separate from a religious interest (which if I understand correctly was part of the SCOTUS debate)?
As I say about gay marriage – if you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married. If you don’t like abortion, don’t get one.
@Melinda, I hate that article (I don’t read your comment as advocating for DHO’s position, I’m just sayin’.)
First, as we all know, it takes two people to make a baby – but the brunt of pregnancy and childbirth (not to mention a lifetime of menstruation and other unpleasantness) falls on the woman. Why does she alone have to take responsibility for that choice?
Second, as has been mentioned, even contraception can fail and sometimes people get pregnant despite taking all reasonable precautions. If people are using birth control and get pregnant anyway, has the woman really made a choice to get pregnant such that she should be forced to take responsibility for that?
Third, don’t we teach that sex isn’t just about procreation? This idea seems to contradict this and suggest that sex is necessarily tied to reproduction and that if you don’t intend to reproduce, you shouldn’t have sex.
Underlying this kind of shoddy reasoning is fundamentally a misogynistic attitude that women who choose to have sex should at some level expect to get pregnant and suffer the consequences. Women can’t have their cake and eat it too – only men can.
Yes, it’s a logical argument – DHO is good at putting together lawyerly argument. But it’s a stupid argument that lets men off the hook and punishes women for using their agency to have sex. No thanks.
The Church’s teachings are only for its own members (it says so right in the text). The Church expresses no opinion on matters of non0member abortions or abortion legislation affecting society as a whole. This is important to remember.
So much, really oh so much, could be said on this topic that it’s hard for me to winnow out the bits that are the most worth saying.
Most church leaders would disagree with me, but in my opinion the church’s official position per the handbook is most compatible with a legal framework that supports abortion rights. Because after all, there is no way to exercise the exceptions allowed in the churches policy without letting someone legally choose to do so. And I don’t think there is anyone better than the pregnant woman herself to decide if she was raped, for example.
If we had a few more Democratic senators perhaps we would see legislation that protects a woman’s right to choose. I think Congress has the authority to do that even if SCOTUS reverses Roe. I’d like to see an actual legal expert weigh in on that though. Politically, I doubt it’s in the cards. There are a few Republican senators that might support the right to choose, but probably not enough to beat a filibuster.
As to when the spirit enters the body, on a similar thread over at BCC, a couple of commenters posited that self controlled movement indicated a spirit has entered the body. I suspect this is intended as an argument to disallow abortion when the heartbeat is detected. But that ignores the fact that the sperm that fertilized the egg also moved by itself. (Cue Monte Python song “Every Sperm is Sacred”)
It is my belief that regardless of ones belief system, ones actions, including the action of denying or allowing abortion, should be morally justifiable by the observable things that happen *in this life *. Given that framework, we can still discuss the merits of abortion rights and, for lack of a better term, fetal rights (?), but, for the purpose of establishing law, I think we should try to avoid depending on the theology or theories about when a spirit enters the body and such.
aporetic1, in what way do you percieve the left moving furthur to the left?
Can someone explain to me please what the people who want abortion made illegal think that will achieve? Do they think there will then be no abortions? Will they also be advocating for sex education, and affordable birth control? In the interests of slippery slopes, if making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of abortions they could make non procreative sex illegal too?
Are they aware of the global gag rule. When democrats are in they fund family services in the third world, which can range from birth control, abortion advice, aids advice. Because of the abortion advice element when republicans are in this funding is withdrawn. The result is a 40% increase in abortions in the third world, 30 million, and an increase of 15,000 maternal deaths.
@Elisa, I agree with your comments about that DHO article I cited.
That providing sex education, and affordable birth control, empowers women, whereas denying those along with abortion disempowers women that seems an important consideration.
Rockwell: ” a couple of commenters posited that self controlled movement indicated a spirit has entered the body” Hmmm. OK, but animals also have “spirits” and self controlled movement, and the Church is certainly not advocating for veganism on this basis. That’s assuming animals have spirits which I think is pretty commonly held.
I think a more apt analogy is if a person suddenly woke up attached to another full human being who was in a vegetative state and incapable of self-sustenance without taking nutrients and life force from the other human. We don’t legally require that humans be kept alive mechanically when they are incapable of living without mechanical intervention. Why then do we want to require it when the “machine” is a human woman or girl (remember that victims of incest or rape, including those barely into puberty, do not merit an exception in what these statutes are proposing in many red states) whose own life is being disrupted, their lifetime health prognosis irrevocably changed, and at possible peril of death? I honestly cannot even fathom how that is the legal stance.
I know several people who held their nose and voted for Trump because they feared Hillary’s Supreme Court nominations. Now with a conservative super majority on the court, right thanks to McConnell’s slimy tactics, the conservatives are getting what they wanted. And it’s more than abortion rights the Court is looking to terminate; it’s gun control, voting act protections, and even a means to hold businesses accountable for discriminating against the disabled. The stench from 1 First St is growing. They’re about to have an approval rating as low as congress
I cannot imagine a better defense of women’s right to abortion than Julie Rikelman argued at the Supreme Court last week. Her knowledge is vast and deep. She directly, but vv tactfully, told justices when they were wrong, explaining why, and stating established case law.
Highly worth looking up, and listening to the actual proceedings.
*not that it will have any bearing on how each justice will vote.
Let women decide about women’s issues. It is high time that men stop deciding what is right for a woman. If men would be the ones getting pregnant, abortion would have been completely legalised a long long time ago.
It appears there are as many miscarriages as abortions. If abortions become illegal, imagine a woman who has a miscarriage, and is then arrested for having an abortion.
I suspect someone in the Biden administration is preparing legislation in case the court rules against roe.
@Geoff, particularly since many laws criminalize women who attempt abortions in their homes – that makes miscarriages, which are already traumatic for women, now even scarier.
There is a conservative disconnect between preventing unwanted pregnancy and prohibiting abortion.
One study on easy access to birth control:
“What are the impacts, beyond [controlling] fertility, on people’s lives?
“In 2009, Colorado’s public health department launched an initiative that helped family planning clinics expand access to low- or no-cost contraceptives and reproductive health care. By 2016, the state’s birth rate fell 54 percent for women ages 15 to 19, and the abortion rate fell 63 percent among the same age group.
“What are the impacts, beyond fertility, on people’s lives?” the Colorado Family Planning Initiative (CFPI) had one more benefit: More young women graduated from high school. … researchers estimated that the program reduced the percentage of Colorado women between the ages of 20 and 22 without a high school diploma by 14 percent. …
https://www.wired.com/story/access-to-birth-control-let-more-girls-graduate-high-school/
@An old feminist
Succinct – and sobering – summary.
@Dave B. Nice parsing of policy and laws.
How many wives snd daughters and sisters and cousins and girlfriends and best friends will have to suffer the consequences of abortion prohibitions, before powerful legislators will learn?
Will they learn? Maybe girls and women are expendable to them.
Maybe girls and women are expendable to them.
I think the ones they don’t control are.
Angela, on your first post, “We’ve got Kavanaugh putting the idea out there that the court should be ‘neutral’ by letting this important decision about a woman’s reproductive rights be a matter between a conservative legislator and his constituents.” That’s merely a reflection of the still very mainstream idea that there is no generalized right to privacy in the Constitution and that such things as access to birth control, abortion, marriage, sexual conduct, and gender identity are subject to regulation by the states as they see fit. I may not like whether or how the states regulate those things, but neither can I pretend that those are rights that are “deeply rooted” in American history and tradition or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” as cases expanding the legal doctrine of substantive due process have put it. It is completely consistent to conclude that Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were wrongly decided and yet still be pro-choice. I’m also in favor of decriminalization of wrongful possession of controlled substances, but I don’t for a minute believe that states do not have the right to prohibit such possession.
MTodd, the whole point of lifetime appointments is that the Court shouldn’t take into account what the pubic thinks about their rulings. Miranda of Miranda v. Arizona raped an 18 year-old girl and yet I think the court got it right with Miranda warnings.
@not a cougar, how deeply rooted does something have to be to be considered a constitutional right? Roe vs Wade is almost 50 years old. That’s not deeply rooted precedent enough to respect? Is precedent meaningless? It ought not be and that’s where the legitimacy of SCOTUS is really suspect – when so-called “conservative” judges overturn decades-old precedent because they disagree on the substance.
I get your argument, I’m a lawyer and I know what the constitution says, but it’s cold comfort to women. No kidding that the Founding Fathers – key word, *Fathers* – didn’t account for women’s rights. That’s surprising to *no one* and is the reason that some argue for flexibility in interpreting constitutional rights. Good grief, women have only even had the right to even *vote* for 100 years. If women are going to need a full-on constitutional amendment to protect their access to reproductive choice since state legislatures demonstrably aren’t going to do so, we are in pretty deep trouble.
@Geoff – Aus “Can someone explain to me please what the people who want abortion made illegal think that will achieve? Do they think there will then be no abortions? Will they also be advocating for sex education, and affordable birth control?”
Not trying to threadjack, but isn’t this pretty much the same argument the right makes about banning guns that the left refuses to accept?
ji, if the church’s teachings are only for members, they can stay the hell out of California ballot initiatives, for example.
I cannot imagine EVER discussing with a bishop such a personal decision as whether to have an abortion. It boggles my mind to think that anyone would discuss things like birth control and/or whether to have children with anyone other than a partner. Unless there is abuse, there is IMO no reason for the church to be involved in the personal decisions of members. Just because it is in the handbook doesn’t mean you have to do it!!!
Elisa, no I would argue that 50 years is not a significant enough amount of time for something to become deeply rooted in American society to graft it into the Constitution, especially given the lack of any preceding analog in American society and the still bitter divide in the country over abortion. That’s very unlike, say, voting rights, that are foundational to our republic, albeit wrongfully withheld from many people over the years based on race, gender, or property-holding status.
Again, I understand that legal arguments are cold comfort for women affected by any future ruling that cuts back on access to abortion, but people are often greatly affected by bad laws every single day. That alone does not justify having a majority of nine judges effectively amend the Constitution to insert emanations and penumbra to effect or protect a policy preference. If the activity is that important, we’ve managed to actually amend the Constitution before. It can be amended again. That effort would perhaps help to answer the question of just how foundational Americans see the right to abortion.
As for stare decisis, people seem to be huge fans of the doctrine when it serves their purposes, but bad legal reasoning is bad legal reasoning no matter how long it’s been around. See e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson.
@not a cougar, in my experience (including as a federal clerk) the reality with stare decisis is that liberal judges don’t really pretend to care about stare decisis and conservative judges pretend to care but only when it suits their substantive preferences.
If 50 years isn’t long enough to settle a defect in a constitution that didn’t take into consideration the rights of women who had no say in its drafting, we have a real problem. And undoing Roe undoes a lot of other privacy-related rights as well. The ramifications are widespread and extremely unsettling.
I’m no lawyer, but I’m not persuaded that the ability to amend the Constitution on such an issue as this can reliably reflect the will of the people, given the undemocratic gerrymandered nature of the Congress.
“And undoing Roe undoes a lot of other privacy-related rights as well. The ramifications are widespread and extremely unsettling.”
This is a good point.
Elisa, you said, “[Undoing Roe undoes a lot of other privacy-related rights as well. The ramifications are widespread and extremely unsettling.”
Exactly. That’s why I in my first post I also mentioned birth control, marriage, sexual conduct, and gender identity. All are built on the same foundation of a generalized right to certain private conduct that began with Griswold and it’s a rickety foundation. We can certainly debate (and probably agree) how those concepts should work in a modern society, but if we decide we’re comfortable with the idea that the Constitution can mean literally anything that a majority of justices (or even a plurality) want it to mean, history and text be damned, how can we be shocked and upset when another set of justices revisit those questions and come to different conclusions?
Allergy, and you think nine unappointed lawyers with lifetime tenure are so much better at it? I think there are lots of readers on this blog who would disagree that Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, or Brett Kavanaugh are better suited or positioned to determine what the will of the people is.
Sorry, I mean to say “unelected” in the last post.
“Allergy, and you think nine unappointed lawyers with lifetime tenure are so much better at it?“
Of course not, let’s just not act like amending the constitution is some kind of straightforward democratic remedy.
Please remember that Utah’s “trigger” law was passed after all the female legislators walked out in protest and refused to vote on the law. Perhaps, if the women would have stood up and actually voted no then this trigger law would have been voted down. Dan Mckay is on the record as disappointed that the women left the room when the women were needed most to set an example at veto this particular legislation.
Allergy, you may be right, but then again, we managed to ban alcohol and then unban it all in less than 20 years. If we’re truly motivated, things can move pretty fast.
The Court’s term ends at the end of June 2022; the decision will come down sometime before the end of that month.