It’s enough to make your head spin. In the midst of the worldwide deaths from the coronavirus, we find ourselves in the midst of another killing issue – that of abortion.
I know, it’s politically incorrect to speak of abortion as the “killing of babies,” but that is exactly what it is. A woman is pregnant and decides for a variety of reasons to end the pregnancy, and the procedure that is used to do that ends up taking the life – “killing” – the unborn child.
It doesn’t matter whether the life is ended before the child is removed from the mother or after it has entered “our” world; the end result is death.
So what does all this have to do with the coronavirus? Well, most Americans find themselves in the midst of “sheltering in place” orders, with most businesses being closed. We are allowed only to go to places that provide what are described by government as “essential” services.
And, there’s the rub.
Is “abortion” considered an essential service, or not?
Another side of that is the effort by anti-abortion activists to pray outside of abortion clinics. They are not loud or violent; they are just there, a presence that is opposed to the killing of babies. That is, by the way, a constitutionally protected activity.
More and more, it appears that the doing of an abortion is considered essential, yet the quiet protest against abortion outside the building is considered non-essential.
One instance in North Carolina caught the attention of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Pro-life Christians were praying outside of a Charlotte abortion facility. Police arrived and arrested eight of them, including David Benham who, with his brother Jason, runs a pro-life charity called Cities for Life.
When police arrived, Benham told them they were obeying all laws concerning public safety and the virus as well as their rights as a recognized charity. Despite that, the police said they were violating the state statutes, and Benham and the others were cuffed and taken to jail.
Sen. Cruz says police overstepped their bounds, and he called it an unconstitutional arrest. In his tweet about the incident, he said, “Because elected Dems are pro-abortion, they are abusing their power – in a one-sided way – to silence pregnancy counselors.”
He also wasted no words in condemning Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, who supports legal abortion, for allowing abortion facilities to keep killing unborn babies in elective procedures. As quoted in Church Militant, “If North Carolina deems abortion ‘essential,’ then pregnancy care services are as well. This is WRONG; Governor Cooper should be ashamed.”
Whether he should or does, we don’t know, but clearly, he is not alone in his state. A perusal of news over the last weeks shows that pro-life counselors have been subject to similar arrests across the country – from the West Coast to the East, with the number of protestors varying by location. Boston, Louisville, Greensboro, St. Louis, Flint, Atlanta, Baton Rouge, New York, Kansas City and more. The bottom line is that these demonstrators were following the law concerning distancing etc. for the coronavirus, yet they were arrested, while inside the adjacent building abortions were being performed.
Another aspect of the abortion issue in conjunction with the virus has to do with the development of a treatment and a vaccine. Most people have no idea what is involved in the development of vaccines, and a major issue is that in many, if not most cases, the cells from aborted babies are used.
While the average person doesn’t know this, many would object if they knew – yet what is the alternative? There are so many vaccines on the market and so many are required, for example, for children to attend school. At what point would parents object to their use and then have to face the fact their children would not be allowed to attend school.
The objection to the use of fetal tissue in vaccines can be a legal and a moral issue. One current example is that the bishop of Tyler, Texas, Joseph Strickland, has spoken out about his position on the issue.
When asked about his view on the development of a vaccine for the coronavirus, the bishop minced no words. He said, “… if it is made from the tissue from aborted children, I will refuse the vaccine.”
His position is in line with the beliefs of the Catholic Church, though virtually no other prelate has spoken out so clearly about the issue, and there is potential for future disagreement when a vaccine is made available. Given that at least three labs are currently working on the development of a vaccine and all three are using fetal tissue, it is a problem that will not go away.
Bishop Strickland is also refusing to sign a statement that strips hospital patients of protections. The statement would essentially allow hospitals to make life-and-death decisions without patient consent – so hospitals would decide who lives and who dies, and when.
Even that separates him from many in the Church.
However, for those with concerns about fetal tissue in vaccines and whether he would take such a vaccine, the words of Bishop Strickland, are powerful: “I will not kill a child to live.”
Would that more people had his resolve.
Follow Barbara Simpson on Facebook.
