American Evangelicalism’s Opposition to Health Care Reform and Abortion is a Theological Problem

Over the past few days, I’ve had to endure numerous sarcastic Facebook rants about the “liberal” American media’s treatment of the Gosnell trial. 

Gosnell is the abortion doctor who clearly broke all kinds of laws and aborted live birth babies. What he did is outrageous. 

I’m not sure about the media bias, but I wouldn’t be surprised. The mainstream American media is surely pro-abortive rights. And I do not doubt they were hesitant to cover the story for fear of losing political points. Shame on them.

Over the past few years I have also endured sarcastic posts about Obama’s Health Care reform. 

What I find interesting is why the same people who are so adamantly pro-life are not also pro- some sort of universal health care that helps those who are poor or vulnerable.

Here's how I think it breaks down.

On the one hand - American Evangelicals are all about FREEDOM. Freedom from Government intrusion into their lives. Healthcare is just one example of this anti-big-government feeling. So the logic goes, better to leave healthcare up to the markets. After all, wasn’t it Jesus who said, “Free market capitalism is the best economic system. Trust it. More people will get rich. And that's the goal.”? (Sorry for the sarcasm... NOT) :D

On the other hand - American Evangelicals are happy to limit the reproductive freedoms of women who want to end their pregnancy. Government intrusion is okay in that case. But why?

I think the difference is the perceived innocence in one case vs perceived culpability in another. 

With Abortion - there is an innocent child (or fetus) at stake. That child-fetus didn’t get a choice in conception. They are innocent and therefore deserve special protection from the selfishness of others. Government involvement is okay.

But what about healthcare? Here's the rub. According to the American myth, the poor and vulnerable (or just plain stupid) people aren’t innocent. They have made choices which result in their poverty. They are morally culpable. And therefore, they don’t deserve special protection. My freedom from government intervention overrides their need for help. Is that right?

Innocents deserve protection. But those who are morally culpable are just getting what they deserve.

As a Christian, this offends me. (And I am an American Evangelical.)

Why? 

It misses the point of grace. 

The basic idea behind Christianity is that we are ALL guilty. None of us deserve health or comfort or freedom or even life. These are gifts from God. Sometimes they are gifts that we have worked hard for, but they are gifts all the same.

I think it would serve Christians well to be less self-righteous and more gracious as we approach all our neighbors: the child-fetuses, the scared moms-to-be, the working poor, the chronically ill, the irresponsible teens and even the fraudster who milks the system. 

It is a sign of immature faith when we try to pick and choose who we think is more deserving of grace.

This doesn't mean closing our eyes to abuses. It does mean giving people the benefit of the doubt. 

What does love do? "It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." (1 Cor 13:7)