Roe v. Wade will likely be repealed. That’s why Kansans have to listen to one another

A recent editorial in The Kansas City Star flippantly dismissed as “boilerplate” and “not serious” testimonies given by both sides in a Kansas House committee hearing last week on a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution that would allow new restrictions on abortion.

The Star brushed off my testimony as “true, but irrelevant.” I presented the Christian pro-choice perspective, which has never been heard before in the Legislature to my knowledge, so describing it as “boilerplate” is untrue. Calling it “irrelevant” shows a profound lack of understanding about how faith informs many policymakers’ decisions on the abortion issue. It also casually shirks the editorial board’s responsibility to examine thoroughly all facets of proposed legislation that would deeply impact women’s lives.

Examining the rationales that underpin all perspectives on the abortion issue has never been more relevant. It is expected the U.S. Supreme Court will repeal Roe v. Wade, leaving the issue to the states.

With a federal repeal, the proposed amendment would permanently cancel out the right to abortion in any circumstances now in the Kansas Constitution — including in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The proposal is cleverly written to suggest those exceptions could be added later.

This is important, because not every Christian believes life begins at conception. A decisive religious basis does not exist to support the absolute stance that life begins at conception and abortion is murder.

For instance, only one passage in the Bible speaks directly about the value of a fetal life compared to the value of the life of a person. Exodus 21:22-24 says if a pregnant woman is struck and dies, the offender must pay with his life — a life for a life. However, if the result of the blow is a miscarriage, the offender would pay only a fine for the loss of the fetus. If personhood began at conception, the punishment would be equal in both instances.

Consider the diary notes of former first lady Barbara Bush on abortion: “When does the soul enter the body is the #1 question. Not when does life begin, as life begins in a flower or an animal with the first cell. So, the question is does the life begin (soul entering the body) at conception or at the moment the first breath is taken? … What do I feel about abortion?” Ultimately, she decided she believed life begins at birth with one’s first breath.

Many faith traditions do not support the belief of personhood beginning at conception. For example, Jewish tradition is clear: A child does not constitute a full human being until emerged from the mother’s body. That understanding is based on several key texts, including Exodus 21:23 and Genesis 2:7.

My own belief is there is too much reasonable doubt for us to know for certain when ensoulment happens, and thus when a zygote or fetus qualifies as a full legal entity. With any issue where strong and reasonable doubt is present, I favor leaving power with the individual, not the government.

Here is what we do know: No reasonable doubt exists that a woman is a person. Of course, a fetus has value — that is why the third trimester protection of the fetus exists in Roe v. Wade. But my biggest worry is that we will get to a place where the rights of the fetus will cancel out the rights of the woman who carries it.

A woman should have the right to choose life if her life is threatened by a pregnancy complication. To deny her lifesaving help when she needs it would be immoral.

Second Amendment defenders do not trust government with restrictions on their gun rights. It is equally understandable that women do not trust government with restrictions on their reproductive rights.

There is much more to the Christian pro-choice rationale than I can share here. Presenting it at the hearing has opened civil, and thought-provoking discussions with pro-life friends in the Legislature. My full testimony can be found online at bit.ly/LuskTestimony.

This story was originally published January 29, 2020 at 5:00 AM with the headline "Roe v. Wade will likely be repealed. That’s why Kansans have to listen to one another."