On September 1, a new heartbeat law (SR 8) went into effect in Texas. If you’ve read our information on heartbeat bills before, you may have assumed that Texas passed a similar law and it was immediately enjoined like all the others. No, the Texas law went into effect. Right now, in the state of Texas, abortion facilities are declining to schedule abortion appointments past six weeks LMP.

In Texas, the vast majority of abortions are now illegal, in spite of Roe and Casey. In fact, in response to an emergency appeal, the Supreme Court declined, in a 5-4 “shadow docket” decision, to prevent the law from going into effect. That decision makes no judgment on the constitutionality of the law; it’s certainly “unconstitutional” in that it violates the precedents of the Court’s prior abortion cases, whether or not Roe and Casey should themselves be considered unconstitutional.

So, how did this happen?

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

The Latin American Perspective 

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

The debate on abortion has only recently come to Latin America. Only six of the 34 Latin American countries allow abortion without limitations in the first weeks of gestation, and many still consider it a crime. In countries where abortion is legal, such as Mexico, Uruguay, Cuba, and Argentina, laws legalizing abortion have been promoted by the governments and sometimes conflict with the majority opinion of the population.

On the other hand, in nations like Guatemala, the Bill for the Protection of Life and the Family seeks to increase the penalties for those who practice abortion and establishes that human life begins at fertilization. As well, in 2007, there was a modification in the Nicaraguan Penal Code eliminating the norm that allowed the termination of pregnancy when the mother’s life was in danger and imposing imprisonment for all intentional abortions. 

Although polls cannot always be trusted, it is undeniable that all the polls agree that the majority of Latin Americans do not support abortion-on-demand. Of those who support the availability of abortion at all, most only believe that it should be allowed in special circumstances, as in the case of rape or when the life of the unborn or the mother is in danger.

It is also true that the situation is not the same in all countries, but in almost all of them, international pressure has led to the emergence of two clear camps: the pro-choice movement, identified with the color green and the slogan “legal, safe and free abortion”; and, on the other hand, the light blue pro-life movement with the slogan “save both lives.” 

Estimated reading time: 24 minutes

It would be an understatement to call this year’s Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) meeting turbulent. It was marked by the departure of a key leader, moral failures of many leaders who remained, a contentious presidential election, another leader threatening to leave if he didn’t get his way (always the hallmark of a good relationship), and the decision to finally address sexual abuse by clergy.

None of the believable mistakes surprised me, even if they disappointed me. But the unbelievable mistake, an unbiblical error which will likely cost the lives of unborn children, was that this divided convention passed a resolution condemning pro-life incrementalism and supporting nothing but immediate, exceptionless abolition of abortion.

In the first section, I will print the SBC’s resolution in its entirety, though without scriptural proof texts and with added emphasis. I will then proceed to show that the SBC is aiding and abetting a group of misguided radicals whose foolish actions will result in more death, not less.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization by granting a writ of certiorari. When the Court hears oral arguments in October, they will be answering this question: are all pre-viability abortion bans unconstitutional?

The Mississippi law at issue bans abortions after 15 weeks, except in life-of-the-mother cases and cases of poor fetal diagnosis. While not as direct an assault on the abortion-access framework of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as the recent heartbeat bills, this law provides a good test case against them.

The National Youth Poet Laureate, Amanda Gorman, made a splash at President Biden’s inauguration when she became the youngest poet to write and recite a piece at a presidential inauguration. She is known for focusing on issues of race, oppression, marginalization, and feminism in her art, and her performance at the inauguration brought her videos circulating around social media once again, especially this piece advocating against abortion bans. A lot of pro-life advocates are encountering this video for the first time, and it’s important for us to know how to effectively respond to the arguments she makes in it.

Now, I’m not the poet that Amanda is, so I won’t be trying to emulate her style in my responses. She’s a very talented communicator. I’m also not going to mock her or her arguments. Even though her arguments are, quite frankly, poor, mocking them isn’t beneficial to actually helping you know how to deal with them. So, I’m going to take Amanda’s arguments seriously and respond to the best versions of the arguments she’s making.

Estimated reading time: 16 minutes