The Church just posted on official statement at the Newsroom: “Church Reiterates Positions on Political Neutrality, Civil Discourse, and Abortion.” Let’s talk about it. I have a few points to make. It’s only three paragraphs. Here is the first paragraph.
In response to recent inquiries, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reiterates its well-established institutional neutrality regarding political parties and candidates. It “does not endorse, promote or oppose political parties and their platforms or candidates for political office.”
The LDS demographic is one of the most reliable conservative voting blocs in the US and LDS voting support for Donald Trump is second only to Evangelical support for Trump. This has held even with Donald Trump, who embodies none of the qualities LDS voters have, in years past, been encouraged to look for in candidates for office. So it is rather disingenuous for LDS leaders to continue to claim political neutrality. Obviously, there is something about Mormon culture and LDS leadership that inclines members to be so pro-Republican. If the leadership really supported political neutrality, they would address it in General Conference and dispel the persistent sense that there is something wrong if a Church member votes Democratic.
Second paragraph:
The Church also reiterates its encouragement for members “to be active citizens by registering, exercising their right to vote, and engaging in civic affairs, always demonstrating Christlike love and civility in political discourse.” For more guidance on civility and elections, please see the 2021 Church Statement: “Church Leaders Condemn Violence and Lawless Behavior During Times of Unrest.”
So the Church supports people registering to vote, while the Republican Party is doing all it can in most states to complicate registering to vote and limit opportunities to exercise that right. The Church wants “love and civility” in civil discourse, while Donald Trump throws out inflammatory rhetoric every chance he gets. This second paragraph might have been titled, “Some Reasons LDS Members Should Not Vote Republican.” Without that helpful subtitle, I doubt most right-leaning Mormons will get it.
Here’s the third paragraph:
With respect to several current U.S. state ballot initiatives relative to abortion and sanctity for life, the Church affirms that its position on abortion remains unchanged. “As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.” See the Church’s full, official position on abortion.
Sanctity of life includes mothers, of course, both their actual life (when an abortion is required to save the mother’s life) and their mental well-being (when an abortion is performed for a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest). In the referenced LDS position against abortion, three exceptions are identified:
- Pregnancy results from 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.
In fact, the only kind of abortion that the LDS statement is against is “elective abortion for personal or social convenience.” What percentage of actual abortions fall into that category? I suspect LDS leadership and membership think about 99% fall into that category. I wonder what the actual data is?
In any case, the clear implication in that third paragraph is that LDS voters should vote for candidates and parties that support the availability of the three exceptions that are explicitly stated in that third paragraph. No doubt you have read stories about how some red states where Republicans control the legislature have now moved to restrict or outlaw abortion even when they fall within the three LDS exceptions.
Alternatively, the exceptions may be allowed in theory, yet made difficult or impossible to qualify for in practice. How is a woman or minor supposed to prove rape in order to qualify for the exception? Bring a notarized statement of confession from the rapist? An LDS voter who takes the LDS exceptions seriously should vote for candidates and the party that actually supports the availability of those exceptions, both in theory and in practice. Hint: It’s not the Republicans.
A final observation: This statement was issued yesterday, October 8, 2024. It is pretty much unchanged from prior statements and it links to other earlier statements that still stand. But the political landscape in the US has changed dramatically. You and I and everyone else reads this kind of statement rather differently in the shadow of Donald Trump, his MAGA party, and the repeal of the Roe v. Wade line of cases, throwing abortion law back to the states to do with as state legislatures please. But nothing indicates that LDS leadership understands that anything has changed.
You may read the Church’s statement differently than I do. All views are welcome in the comments, as long as you don’t insult other commenters or W&T contributors.
Wheat & Tares 
The Church expressly limits it counsel to church members — the Church counsels its members to avoid elective abortions — or, in other words, the Church is silent regarding non-member abortions. This is appropriate.
The Church also takes no position regarding abortion legislation. The previous official statement said that explicitly; the new statement asserts that the Church’s position is unchanged. Inasmuch as the Church’s position is unchanged, it still takes no position on abortion legislation.
Certainly, a Latter-day Saint may vote to lift abortion bans when he or she sees those bans as reaching too far.
Oh, so the Church wants to “protect life and preserve religious liberty”? What about protecting liberty, period? That’s why many of us are pro-choice. I’m supposed to want religion to have liberty but not my daughters?
Many Mormons are only interested in the culture wars. The church hates on LGTB, most recently the T, so of course Moron ….typo correction, Mormon voters vote for the party that hates on LGTB.
Most Mormon voters also think that pregnancy from rape is practically nonexistent because the only innocent rape victim is also murdered. And of course incest doesn’t really happen. And the mother’s life being in danger, well if she just has faith and sees the pregnancy through then God will protect her. See, God protects righteous women from rape and incest, and death or injury. And if any of those bad things happen, then you are not righteous…..just ask Job’s friends.
So, most Mormon voters do not think any exceptions for abortion are really needed, and most are against giving LGTB any real rights so of course Democrats are still the evil party that wants to destroy the world by putting tampons in boys school restrooms.
Josh H: “I’m supposed to want religion to have liberty but not my daughters?” THIS. Exactly this. When people say religious liberty, they increasingly mean religious tyranny that removes individual freedoms. Whether Mormons mean that or not, their Evangelical and Catholic political bedfellows most certainly too. We literally have some red states proposing the death penalty for women who have abortions (as if pregnancy when abortion is not an option, even for health of the mother, is not in and of itself a potential death sentence). We have women opting for sterilization rather than play Russian roulette by being fertile in a state that will force them to carry their rapist’s child and give the rapist parental rights. We have OB-GYNs fleeing states like Idaho because they know that women’s reproductive healthcare sometimes involves the need to evacuate the uterus (for an incomplete miscarriage), and they don’t want to spend years in jail for doing the right thing for their patients.
If the Church really believed its own stance on abortion, then abortion would have to be legal. Any minor would automatically be allowed to have an abortion because they are too young to consent, therefore it’s statutory rape. You couldn’t require parental notification for a minor to have an abortion in cases of incest because that would further endanger the one seeking an abortion or put the decision in the hands of her rapist. Anyone in a domestic abuse situation would automatically have access to abortion because we know statistically that they are at great risk of harm (including murder) from their abusive partner, and alerting their partner to it (e.g. via a police report) also alerts her abuser, again putting her life at risk. There’s a reason the come back to “Men are here to protect women” has become “From whom?”
But instead Utah puts forward policies that make it all too clear that women can’t be trusted because as Anna points out, the only real innocent is one who is dead. We want angel martyrs, not living women. In whatever briefings Church leaders are getting, they sure aren’t getting anything that’s super useful about the ways the world has changed. They will keep pulling their red levers because they DGAF whether women live or die (which they probably aren’t hearing about), only that women have more kids (and they see birth rates dropping). Well, you know who doesn’t want to have kids? The rising generation, and it’s because of policies like these anti-abortion measures. Neither party does enough to make parenting attractive in terms of lifestyle and financial support, but the GOP literally wants women to be forced to bear children against their will and when even the conception was without consent. They also don’t seem to understand that if the mother dies, so does the fetus if it’s before viability, and if you don’t address some of these serious health complications, you prevent all the future wanted pregnancies of women who are trying to grow their family.
To quote Logan Roy, these are not serious people.
The lack of urgency in this statement from the church, given the massive existential implications of the election is disappointing but not unexpected. I’m sure some readers will find this hyperbolic, but the Church has the opportunity to literally save the country in this election. If leaders were to come out strongly against Trump and maybe half the membership follows suit, perhaps the Dems could flip Utah. Maybe that’s naive, but AZ an NV are definitely in play (and they are anyway) if Mormon voters go with Harris or stay home. I wonder if Church leaders recognize that Project 2025 is not going to be friendly to the Church, given the Church’s various positions on immigration, abortion ECT., and the fact that the authors of Project 2025 do not consider Mormons to be Christian. Oh, well. I guess if the second coming is imminent, it doesn’t really matter.
I think the first two paragraphs are great, but I hate the last paragraph (the abortion paragraph).
There is zero chance that I will cast a ballot for Trump. He is a deplorable human being and a terrible leader. His first term was a disaster for the country and the world, and I truly fear what a second term of Trump might bring. However, I still think the Church is wise to maintain a neutral stance on candidates. The Church should continue its efforts to teach members how to live a moral and Christlike life, but it should refrain from telling people who to vote for. Yes, Trump is so awful that it just feels like he might be an exception to the Church’s rule on neutrality, but if you make one exception now, members are going to be asking the Church for direction on who or who not vote for in the future, which would be bad. The Church often ignores Joseph’s counsel to “teach them correct principles and they govern themselves”, but here is a case where they are doing that, and it’s the right call.
The Church would have been better off just cutting out the last paragraph of their statement on abortion measures appearing on state ballots in November. First of all, I’m confused about how increasing restrictions on abortions would “preserve religious liberty”? Religious people can still elect to have abortions with or without these new abortion laws, so exactly whose religious liberty is being preserved here?
I disagree with the OP’s assertion that, “The clear implication in that third paragraph is that LDS voters should vote for candidates and parties that support the availability of the three exceptions that are explicitly stated in that third paragraph.” On the contrary, my opinion is that the clear implication of the 3rd paragraph of the Church’s statement is to telegraph to members that they really should vote for more restrictive abortion laws, exceptions be damned. Sure, members might prefer that the Church’s exceptions be written into their state laws, but if it can’t be that way, then outlawing abortions takes priority over legalized abortions. I view the Church’s 3rd paragraph on abortion as an attempt to influence members to vote for more restrictive abortion laws, and I don’t think that is a wise move. Whether people agree with it or not (and I personally don’t), the Church has been very clear over the years about its position on abortion. The Church should let their previous statements stand. Nothing more ought to be said as an election approaches in an attempt to influence the votes of members. This, unfortunately, is a violation of Joseph’s counsel to, “teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.”
I read the tweet from the Church as soon as I got the notification. It had been an hour or so, and there were hundreds of comments. The statement was bland, of course, but the comments were very pointedly against Democrats, progressives, choice, or any other “liberal” policy except for one that talked about lukewarm water being spewed out. Considering what’s at stake in this election, it’s sad that the Church has elected to be lukewarm and given justification for the “loud” ones in the ward to justify why they are voting MAGA and for vilifying anyone (Democrats) who view things differently but still love the country and constitution.
I think the church could have talked about lying, misrepresentation, how Christ would deal with issues, or choose any number of other issues besides abortion to show that one side deserves a vote and the other side might need to be reconsidered. Even with abortion as the issue, it could have been presented as a choice that most of us don’t have to make that is complicated, and legislating it is like following Satan’s plan of forcing everyone to choose the right.
I guess the church realizes that the MAGA’s have pushed most of the progressives out of the church already, so why poke the beast, keep the money coming, build some more temples, and ignore the broader ramifications this election poses?
The Statement on Political Neutrality (on the Church’s website) links directly to the January 15, 2021 “Church Leaders Condemn Violence and Lawless Behavior During Times of Unrest” which the First Presidency issued in response to the January 6 attack on the Capitol. In that statement, the First Presidency says: “As His followers, we should treat one another and all of God’s children with respect, dignity, and love. No political or other affiliation should supersede that covenant and sacred responsibility.”
I ask myself, how this test of treating all of God’s children “with respect, dignity and love” would apply to the various political party’s positions on things (which parties are trying to better the lives of the poor and the needy)? And how would that test apply to candidate Trump? Does he treat God’s children with respect, dignity, and love? Immigrants? People of other races? The poor? Those who disagree with him? Haitians in Springfield?
Something to think about.
The new transgender policy seems like explicit political signaling to vote Republican. I hope most members remain unaware of it.
The church’s position on abortion in this day and in this political climate seems to be actually more pro-choice. For the so-called “pro-life” activists advocate for life at conception and do not want to allow exceptions for rape and incest. In cases of the health of the mother, “pro-lifers” will only allow abortion if the mother is pretty much near death. They want the mothers to suffer sepsis and irreparable damage to their uteruses before an abortion is allowed to take place. Even then, Kate Cox was denied an emergency abortion in Texas by the state Supreme Court.
If you believe that exceptions for rape and incest can be allowed, then logically you must reject life at conception. For it isn’t the fetus’ fault that they were a product of rape. Wouldn’t aborting them be just as much a murder, according to the “pro-life” life at conception argumentation, as any other abortion? By allowing exception for rape and incest, you are essentially conceding that fetuses don’t have individuality and are part of the female body, aren’t you? That being the case, why not advocate for female freedom over their own bodies up until the point of viability?
I became pro-choice after hearing the cake batter analogy. Much like batter is not cake, even if it will eventually become one, fetuses are not fully individuals. #Reinstate Roe
I just read in the Salt Lake Tribune, in the same issue, that talked about the Church’s statement about the election, the Catholic position. The Pope stated that both candidates do not believe in the sanctity of life. One believes in abortions, and the other in allowing the deaths of immigrants. Therefore, we should choose between the lesser of two evils. At least this was not as lackluster as the LDS statement, as if this election should be determined by one issue. Both candidates are known for their record, character, and conduct. Both candidates have flaws in their personalities and platforms. So it becomes a choice between the lesser of two evils as candidates and not really for their stand on one issue. When I look at the overall negativity of one campaign vs. the other or the anger vs. hope of the two campaigns, the lesser of two evils becomes much more apparent. It also shows either a lack of insight or an unwillingness to expand on the consequences of this election in making this one issue stand out in this election.
Back in the Before Times (before Trump and MAGA), the rule about churches and politics was that a church could talk about policy issues, but if they named a specific politician, then their tax exemption was in jeopardy. Yet nowadays, the Evangelicals basically worship Trump and they are not losing their tax exempt status. Why? Because then the Republicans would scream about being persecuted. It’s wrong. Churches are not supposed to support or condemn specific candidates by name. That’s been part of the rule for a tax exemption for years and YEARS. (Source: I was a tax lawyer about 20 years ago.)
So no, the Church should not condemn Trump by name. But also, Evangelicals should not support Trump by name. Any church that mentions Trump over the pulpit should have its tax exemption revoked. The IRS could break the Evangelicals and I wish they would.
I went and found sources, all from irs.gov.
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics
From that website: “The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago. The Internal Revenue Service administers the tax laws written by Congress and has enforcement authority over tax-exempt organizations. Here is some background information on the political campaign activity ban and the latest IRS enforcement statistics regarding its administration of this congressional ban.
In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.
Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one “which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
—
This website has good info too: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations
—
The Church is politically neutral because that’s how it protects its tax exemption, not because it thinks both parties are good.
“…the Church affirms that its position on abortion remains unchanged. ‘As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.’” What is the religious liberty issue in banning abortion? Why are they linked in the Church’s statement? If abortion were completely legal, up to the day of birth, what religious liberty would be in peril? How does banning abortions preserve religious liberty?
There would be a religious liberty issue if we required abortions, like China’s one child policy, but legalizing abortion threatens no one’s religious liberty, and banning them preserves no one’s. One retains the freedom not to have an abortion. Another woman’s decision to have an abortion in no way erodes an LDS woman’s religious liberty, unless and until she is compelled to have an abortion.
If the religious liberty in question is the ability to legislate laws banning disfavored behaviors, then in the name of religious liberty shouldn’t the Church be asking its members to vote to criminalize adultery, cohabitation, gambling, swearing, and wearing expensive clothing? While the Church considers these behaviors to be inappropriate or sinful, we don’t advocate for laws against these behaviors to protect our religious liberty. Why? Because there is no religious liberty issue. I do not see how laws banning abortion preserve religious liberty. Can someone explicate this for me?
Georgis:
You bring up a really interesting point. Having abortions legal in no way restricts religious freedom because a religious person can still believe that abortion is wrong, and religion can still discipline members for their actions or even views on abortion. Banning abortion is a melding of religion and state, whereas allowing abortion is truly a separation of religion and state. So, is the church calling right wrong and wrong right when it ties abortion to religious freedom? To me, it sounds like desperate logic used to support a faulty premise. Thanks for pointing that out.
I suspect that the religious liberty issue is related to healthcare providers (and maybe insurance providers?) where individuals may be compelled to perform abortions when their religion forbids it.
I am sure Charles is right, although it’s about as silly an argument as the idea that the Church will be compelled to perform gay marriages in the temple. Medical personnel are already not forced to perform elective abortions. Expanding this to include others gets kind of ridiculous pretty quickly (insurance companies? receptionists?) Also, the fact of the matter is that there is medically no difference between post-miscarriage care to save the health of the mother and an abortion. It’s literally the same procedure, but these red states are criminalizing the procedure so doctors are refusing to provide care because they don’t want to lose their business or go to jail. It’s not possible to disentangle abortion rights from women’s reproductive care. They involve the same procedures, and you can’t predict outcomes. If the Church really thinks Idaho’s EMTALA refusal was correct, they are extremely gullible and uncaring about the peril of women, which is frankly par for the course (although even SCOTUS punted that one). There’s a reason OB-GYNs are fleeing Idaho. Nobody wants to go to jail for refusing to let women die unnecessarily, and these Republican legislatures do not care about women.
What right-wing white Christian nationalists often mean by religious freedom is their freedom to impose their very particular brand of Christianity on everyone else through draconian laws.
It is established fact that the number of abortions under Obama was the least in 30 years, and that it increased by 60000 under Trump plus the global gag rule that Trump expanded producing an extra 2 million mostly unsafe abortions and 20000 maternal deaths.
Why don’t these figures put an end to the craziness?
The democrats policy reduces the number of abortions, and the republican policy doesn’t work.
My state’s abortion ban starts at six weeks (before most women even know they are pregnant) and has no exceptions for rape or incest. An initiative on the November ballot will overturn the ban. I am going to vote YES on the initiative because I agree with the Church’s position that women should be allowed abortions for rape or incest — thus, I will be protecting life and preserving religious liberty by voting to overturn an overly-rigid abortion ban.
Geoff, I’m curious where you are pulling your numbers from. The Supreme Court case that overruled the 1973 Roe v. Wade case and its progeny was the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. It’s certainly possible that abortions increased while Trump was in office but the cause of that increase could not have been because of a change in the law as Trump left office over a year before Dobbs was issued.
Table 1 at the following link provides a time series on both number of abortions and the abortion rate that supports Geoff’s assertion. Table 2 breaks the increase since 2017 down by state and reveals huge disparities from one state to another. Missouri shows a 96 percent decline between 2017 and 2020, while Oklahoma shows a 103 percent increase. I’m not even going to try to explain that.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12215
Why does the church’s statement highlight the abortion issue, of all the big issues out there? The fact that that is the only issue they mention by name, followed by some vague language how members “may appropriately choose” to [vote for the ballot initiatives, vote for Trump, etc.], lets the cat out of the bag. The church comes down on the side of restricting abortion access.
The phenomenon is frustrating to observe, because I think it’s a fake issue in the sense that I suspect most members actually don’t care that much about making abortion illegal. They just want a nice excuse to vote for Trump that satisfies their moral conscience.
I suspect that abortion is probably the #1 social issue that keeps Mormons voting Republican, followed (albeit decreasingly) by LGBTQ issues. Otherwise, Mormons are a pretty poor fit for the Republican party. There’s been some data to back this idea, but also the fact that church leadership tends to bundle its reminders about political neutrality with reminders about its stance on abortion.
There’s a of fear about abortion, and I sort of get it. For a long long time, my political ideas about abortion essentially line with the LDS Church’s stance. It wasn’t until I was having an earnest conversation with someone who had different views that my views changed. At one point in the discussion they blurted out, “Nobody is truly pro abortion…not even those of us who think it should be legal. Abortion objectively awful, and I never want anyone to go through that experience. Have you ever met someone who has had an abortion?! It takes an enormous physical and emotional toll. It’s possible to hate abortion, wish it would never happen, but also acknowledge that making it illegal makes the problem worse.”
That comment really struck me and was the inflection point in my political views on the topic. Whether it’s abortion or anything else, we need to pause to take a step back from our moral terror to look at things objectively even when (probably especially when) we find those things repugnant.
When we slow down, we can start to consider other possibilities, acknowledge objective facts, and find good solutions & compromises.
For example, there’s the fact that 93% of abortions happen in the first trimester, and the vast majority of those are early enough to be via medication rather than surgery. Later-term abortions are rare enough that they may not need to be regulated at all…or maybe we talk about compromises. If nothing else, we can have a real discussion about it.
There’s also the fact that abortion rates peaked from 1980-1990 and have since dropped about 40% despite it being broadly legal…why? Maybe keep doing those things instead?
Now imagine a very poor young woman with little to no education, no family support, no money, and no way to provide support for a child. She gets pregnant, and she is so terrified and desperate that she can’t see any other option than an abortion. This is a pretty common situation (WAY more common than the almost mythical person who irresponsibly uses abortion as primary birth control). Is it a failure on her part for seeking an abortion when she is terrified and feels completely alone? Or is it us as a society who failed her?
Additionally, making abortion illegal isn’t going to magically make her less desperate and poor – it just means she’ll roll the dice on an illegal abortion and pray she doesn’t die from an infection or get severely injured. There is no upside to making abortion illegal – we’ve been down this road before.
lastlemming, thanks for posting that. Interesting that abortions increased across the country from 2017 to 2020, but, like you, I’d be hesitant to assert a definitive causality for the increase.
I would suspect that abortion going up during Trump’s time in office would be connected in some way to Planned Parenthood funding. Reduced Planned Parenthood funding means reduced access to basic gynecological care for low income women. This means reduced access and information about birth control as well. When birth control is less available, unplanned births go up, and so do abortions.
I think that faithful, temple going, tithe paying, scripture reading Saints can support legalizing abortion. I do. Abortion is not murder, per our teachings. When a woman thinks that she needs an abortion, that option should be open and available. Perhaps other options should be available, too. I am fine with not compelling physicians to perform them. Didn’t J. W. Marriott rent adult movies in his hotels for a while? and doesn’t he still sell alcohol there? Did he instruct his desk clerks to turn away unmarried couples? I’m told that lots of Saints work in the Nevada gaming industry, even if in the accounting offices and not on the gaming floor. If a person is opposed to abortion and wants to outlaw it, where is that person to offer help? If all one does is stand on a pedestal and point the finger at those in a bad way, then I can have little respect for that person. When a person needs help, and any woman thinking that she needs an abortion probably needs help, we need to allow the person to get the ox out of the mire, and maybe even help her in her distress. Isn’t this what Christian people should do?
Here’s the abortion issue: At some point in a pregnancy it becomes undeniable the thing a woman is pregnant with is a real, living child. A society that gives allowance to the killing of such children loses any and all moral authority. For how can a person who is silent about infanticide complain about child abuse, murder, etc?
The argument that society should have no say on the matter simply isn’t true. The question for society to resolve is when in the pregnancy does it have a say.
And, as a moral rule, we ought to be saddened by abortion. This does not mean it is best for there to be a law punishing all abortions. It does mean that from a moral perspective, a wise people would celebrate life and be saddened when the life bearing process is corrupted.
A Disciple, I have no doubt that many women are simply making the wrong choice by deciding to get an abortion. But I support their right to get that abortion up to the point of fetal viability. About 91% of abortions occur before 13 weeks of gestation. Another 7.5% occur before 20 weeks. The earliest premature birth to survive is 21 weeks. You’re right that at some point the fetus is a separate living being and should be considered as such. But at some point, the fetus is simply part of the woman’s body and cannot live on its own physically detached from it. There are lots of things that people do with their own bodies that I find wrong and immoral, but not criminal. Adultery is wrong and immoral (and even criminal according to some old unenforced state law codes), but I would never want anyone criminally punished because of consensual sex outside their marriages. Perhaps some adulterers will and should suffer a range of legal social consequences because of their decisions. Maybe they suffer a divorce or ostracism. Maybe job loss in some circumstances. But they should never suffer behind bars. Similarly with abortion. Perhaps there are legal social punishments that people may or should suffer for deciding to get an abortion. I certainly can’t speak for every case. But punishment behind bars simply shouldn’t happen to women who get abortions (at least before viability, which is of course almost all abortions) or the doctors who perform the operations.
https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/06/long-term-decline-us-abortions-reverses-showing-rising-need-abortion-supreme-courte this is a good source and supports lws329 that cuts to funding for birth control by trump caused the increase.
https://www.msichoices.org/latest/the-impact-of-the-global-gag-rule-on-frontline-reproductive-healthcare/ this is about the effect of the global gag rule on one provider of women’s services in africa. The global gag rule applies when there is a republican president, but not when a democrat president. So there are people who provide birth control and sex education and aids information on a stop start basis. Last time I was in Africa it was understood by some that a man with aids would cure it by having sex with a virgin; these people put scientific facts to oppose ideas like that. At present they have a job but if Trump is elected they are unemployed and the people they help have no access to birth control, or are able to have a newborn child tested for aids and maybe even treated.
American voters have incredible responsibility, some of which they do not even understand. How many at Trump rallies realise that there will be over 60000 more abortions in America and 2 million more in the third world if they elect him, with the anguish and suffering that involves?
I was thinking last night about this statement and then wondered how the Q-15 will vote and what they will use to justify their vote. Are they going to vote only on the issue of abortion, or are they going to pick the lesser of two evils? Of course, we will never know. I would cringe if they voted for Trump, and 3/4s of the church would cringe if they voted for Harris. So I guess it’s good we don’t know, but I wish the statement was broader to encourage thoughtful and prayerful consideration based on more than one issue. We live in the last days, and it’s prophesied in the BoM about all the misinformation and false prophets. It would be nice to get a little more guidance because we don’t get it from the media or the average guy on the street or in the church foyer.
The Church’s alleged use of abortion to quietly tip the scales toward Republicans in an officially neutral political statement is consistent with (at least) two distinct narratives (without even getting to the narratives about pro-choice votes being the ones that truly protect religious liberty): (1) the Church is primarily concerned with minimizing abortion per se and believes that there will be fewer abortions under a Republican administration, or (2) the Church is primarily concerned with maximizing live births and believes that there will be more under a Republican administration. I crunched some of the numbers in the Table 1 I linked to in an earlier comment and got some really interesting results that shed some light on which of those two narratives is more plausible.
Since 1988, there have been four Republican presidential terms (GHWB, GWBx2, Trump) and four Democratic presidential terms (Clintonx2, Obamax2). On average, the number of abortions dropped by 1.4% during Republicans terms and by 11.2% during Democratic terms. That is not a typo. Abortions have declined much faster during Democratic presidential terms than during Republican presidential terms. That being the case, if the first narrative is correct, then the Church is making a serious miscalculation.
I can identify in the data two distinct factors contributing to the decline in abortions: (1) the general decline in the number of pregnancies, and (2) the decline in the percentage of pregnancies that end in abortion. Of the decline in abortions during Republican presidential terms, all of it is is because of the general decline in pregnancies–the percentage ending in abortion does not change. During Democratic presidential terms, about 2/3 of the decline in abortions is because of a lower percentage of pregnancies being terminated. That is consistent with birth control use going way up during Democratic presidential terms, resulting in both fewer pregnancies and fewer abortions. (The legal environment on the ground is just not that different between Democratic and Republican administrations. Birth control has been legal in every state throughout the period I’m studying. But for whatever reason, behavior seems to be distinctly different depending on the party in power.)
Anyway, one implication of the bigger decline in the number of pregnancies during Democratic presidential terms is that the number of live births declines faster (1.5%) than it does during Republican presidential terms (1.0%). That translates to about 30,000 more live births during the average Republican presidential terms (out of about 4 million total). That’s a piddling number, but it is a more plausible explanation for why the Church would tip the scales toward Republicans than is a desire to minimize the number of abortions.
lastlemming – that’s a really good analysis, and thank you for looping up those statistics. I’m going to add another reason (3) the Church is primarily concerned with ensuring that women who have sex endure the consequences, i.e., pregnancy. This goes along with their euphemism “the sacred procreative process” which ignores all of the negative aspects of pregnancy and childbirth, and acts like sex is solely for making babies. Abortion and birth control allow sex to not have pregnancy as a consequence. The Church views that as immoral. Making abortion illegal will have the effect of making women think twice about having sex if they don’t want a baby. This restores women to their position as the moral authority over men and defenders of the home and motherhood.
It’s ridiculous, but I would bet that some Church leaders actually believe that. As if women in bad marriages can control whether or not they have sex! As if women in desperate financial circumstances wouldn’t agree to move in with a crappy boyfriend (who expects regular sex)! I mean, I understand that women can enjoy sex, but I think the Church is under-estimating the number of women who are economically dependent on men who will make their lives miserable if they don’t provide sex as often as he wants it.
One of the things that is really hard for me is hearing men (almost always men) opine on the best and most moral exercise of my uterus. Sure, we are all human, and since we all got here through a uterus, we’ve all got some skin in the game.
Pro-tip: if you haven’t got one, you have no earthly idea what it’s like. No. No, you don’t.
The vast majority of abortions that occur after viability are tragedies: wanted pregnancies that have ended in the unthinkable or else victims, often children, enduring unspeakable crimes. Nobody gets an abortion of “convenience” after viability.
Also, nothing about an abortion is convenient. Nope. Not one thing. Not even if you’re at eight weeks taking a pill in the privacy of your own home: it’s scary, lonely, painful, messy.
Like many other scary, lonely, and painful experiences, abortions are necessary, in no small part because of all the ways society—and men in particular—fail women and girls. So it’s outside of too much when the group responsible for the lion’s share of women’s suffering on this issue sit back and speculate as to just how much suffering is appropriate for them to endure or not.
Please leave this to women and their doctors until you’ve proved that, as a group, you actually care. Which you can do by listening and by using your privilege to promote the voices of people who know more than you, as some men have done in this thread and our church does not at all.
ji: “the Church counsels its members to avoid elective abortions — or, in other words, the Church is silent regarding non-member abortions.”
I’m inclined to disagree with this assertation, since the Church has, on many occasions, attempted to use legislative, electoral or judicial influence to push its own narrow conservative agenda on the wider public (albeit with varying success and sometimes blowback). Examples include Prop 8, the ERA, legalized recreational marijuana, Utah’s byzantine liquor laws, and disputed temple construction projects. It continues to do so. The Church has never been about minding its own damn business, but rather sees itself as the only authorized channel to God, and that every human being on earth (living or dead) as a potential member, and thus believes it has a right to try to influence society in general.
The COJCOLDS is a deeply conservative organization that wears a fig leaf of neutrality. That recent neutrality statement alone contains some blatant conservative dog whistles. The Church’s official position on abortion allows for some nuance, which is good, but it is not directly quoted in the neutrality statement (only linked) and no orthodox member I know is going to bother to read it, let alone think critically about its application to different circumstances.
Jack Hughes, I am taking the church at its word. I know few members will read the official statement on the website, so I deliberately point to it and deliberately quote it. To any who will read, they will see that the church counsels its members and teaches its members…
.
And, to any who will read, they will see that the church’s position is unchanged, which necessarily means that the church takes no position on abortion legislation.
.
That’s what the church’s words say.
.
Is this subterfuge? Is the church dog whistling? I hope not. I expect the church to be honest, so I take it at its word. I share the church’s words with church members to help them avoid dogmatic approaches, but very few actually accept the church’s written words and insist on dogmatically following the unwritten dog whistling you spoke of. I understand your concern.
So have we established that the republican claim that you vote for them if you want abortions reduced? Are there other lies the right of politics claim? What about that they are better at managing the economy? In Australia the leftist government have just had 2 years in a row where we had a surplus the first time in 30 years. I read analysis that harris plan is superior to trumps. He does not seem to realise that if he puts a tarrif on Chinese goods; China doesn’t pay it Americans do, and it adds to inflation. What about border control? The level of crossings is now lower than it was under Trump. What other republican lies are not aquestioned?
To add to Janey’s excellent thoughts: “Abortion and birth control allow sex to not have pregnancy as a consequence” And so does God / nature. Every time I hear them refer to sex as “procreative power,” I think well, it’s a power that is random and not in one’s control. It sometimes results in pregnancy, and often not. People who are already pregnant have sex, so that sex is not procreative. People who are post-fertility have sex that is not procreative (that would be women since randy old goats can still father children and don’t endure the humiliation of menopause). And of course, there are people who are infertile, all of whom can have non-procreative sex. I have always seen the use of the term as just them being too prudish to say sex, but maybe not.
“I understand that women can enjoy sex, but I think the Church is under-estimating the number of women who are economically dependent on men who will make their lives miserable if they don’t provide sex as often as he wants it.” And of course, coerced sex, whether through physical domination, financial control, or emotional manipulation (all of which are far too common) is among the least enjoyable sex for women. Sure, to the man it’s all the same since sex is defined as p in v, but only 16-18% of women can climax during p in v sex. P in V sex is the only procreative kind, and it’s not primarily being done for women’s pleasure. If women were in charge, we could just do an embargo on all procreative sex since it’s not for us anyway. You know who would not like that? These men who want to control women’s bodies and force unwanted pregnancies.
Just as with the Gulf war(s), it was a shame that the church isn’t 100% clear about it’s doctrinal position (D&C 98 is the best example I could find). In the case of abortion, the church says it “opposes elective abortion“, but makes it clear that abortion is sometimes permissible under specific situations. With the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling & Republican-led states, it appears that you can’t have both. So the church needs to clarify it’s position as (it would seem), that while church members are told not to get abortions outside of very specific circumstances, it actually supports pro-choice legislation.
This despite saying “As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life.” So what happens in a situation where abortion is outlawed by the law and state, and yet permitted by the church? You can’t claim support for both of those things.
The more I think about the Church’s statement of political neutrality, the more disappointed I am in the Church. For one, of course, they aren’t going to endorse a candidate but then only talk about one issue: abortion and protecting the sanctity of life whitewashes a political endorsement. This issue is more complicated than that. Also, there are many other issues where the sanctity of life is abused. Here are a few where people die every year because of government inaction, which these candidates have clear positions on. Gun legislation comes to mind when you have 35,000 die every year because of gun violence or suicide. Healthcare, where we still have millions of people who don’t have access to it in our country. Immigration with all its complexities. Social Security, income inequality, lack of adequate housing, or the unhoused, various wars, social justice, education, medicare, Medicaid, and the list could still go on and on. There is a huge difference between candidates, and each one of those areas addresses the sanctity of life in one way or another. Finally, what about the character of a candidate? What about the misrepresentation of the truth, the outright lies being told, or the ignorance of the people on basic civic and government issues, structures, or actions? I guess if all these things were talked about, it would point away from one candidate and towards another. By making the statement they did, there is enough doubt projected by the church to allow anyone to justify anything.
Some of you may be trumps “the enemy within” that he will be sending the military to shoot.
Yup. I am definitely a rino to hunt. I also voted for Nikki Haley. Wouldn’t that have been great to have a minority Republican woman beat him? It sure made him mad that she argued with him. But in the end she capitulated.
We will have to settle with beating him with a a minority Democrat woman.
This (continued support for the right) is a huge part of why I’ve left the church. I’m a former bishop and state presidency counselor – but I just couldn’t take the hypocrisy any longer. So many dog whistles from church leadership. Mentioning abortion was a big one. But coming out with a mean spirited transgender policy just before the election – while right wingers are using anti trans messages to rile up the base was certainly another one – and a new low for church leadership.
How true followers of Christ can vote Trump, I will never get. That a majority of church membership is doing so, is truly telling. Let’s be honest, a large number of people voting for Trump, do so because of hate for other groups. I think many LDS are in that group. They hate LGBTQ. They hate ‘libs”. They hate immigrants. And on and on.
If church leadership actually spoke for God, then surely they would have mentioned voting for people and policies that will address climate change. Climate change is already and will adversely affect far more of Gods children than abortion. It will drive millions to starvation. It will keep billions in property and add to their numbers. It will disturb nations borders far more than anything we are seeing today. It will place the whole world in turmoil. Yet only 10% of LDS members belief it is a serious problem. The lowest percentage out of all major religions in the US by far. That fact, shows both a lack of leadership and lack of inspiration from LDS leaders.
DG: Amen
Gods first right to mankind was freedom of choice. If church leaders believed in this they wouldn’t support Republicans taking away citizens rights.
Democrats believe in the freedom of rights and equality while republicans believe the opposite.