I Believe

“To Save Conservatism From Itself, I am Voting for Harris,” read the headline in the New York Times for August 11, 2024. The opinion columnist David French, a never-Trumper and “a pro-life lawyer who worked for pro-life legal organizations,” describes himself as follows: “If I lived in Florida, I would support the state’s heartbeat bill and vote against the referendum seeking to liberalize Florida’s abortion laws. I supported the Dobbs decision and I support well-drafted abortion restrictions at the state and federal levels.” His credentials as a card-carrying political and religious conservative are well established.

After the headline, he began his piece with this statement: “I believe life begins at conception.” That first sentence for me summarizes the problem with French’s position. He does not say, “I think” but “I believe.” He advances no arguments for his position. He doesn’t have to. It is a matter of belief. What kind of belief? He doesn’t say but given his strong religious background, it surely is his religious faith.

People argue, assume, or believe that their belief is true because of their faith. This is clearly a tautology, but that does not seem to matter. It is true because it is revealed. But where is “life begins at conception” revealed? Certainly not in the Bible. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2270) endeavors to find a Biblical precedent in Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalm 139:15. Yet these texts cannot bear that weight. This is proof texting at its worst. That life begins at conception is not a traditional Christian belief but began only in modern times with Pius IX. (See my Religious History of Abortion, chapter 6).

A correct understanding of history is irrelevant to French. He believes that life begins at conception and because he believes it, that makes it true. No need to question it! Questioning would be an act of faithlessness. The great strength of faith is that it eliminates doubt and establishes the truth.

David French is a good man. From the time Donald Trump descended down the golden elevator at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy for president of the United States, French was appalled. He couldn’t believe the ease with which Trump took over the Republican party. To his credit French gave up his career within Republican politics and became a never-Trumper.

French is not a racist. He and his wife adopted a young girl from Ethiopia and because of that he has experienced racism. He is outspoken about it.

For French the Reagan years are the golden age. That was when conservatism was pure. Trump “has divorced Republican voters from any major consideration of character in leadership and all the while it has labeled people who resisted the change as ‘traitors.’”

Yet French has overlooked or forgotten that Ronald Reagan was all in on Richard Nixon’s southern strategy. In 1980 Reagan began his political campaign in Mississippi at the Neshoba County Fair. “I believe in states’ rights,” he declared, dog whistling to the supporters of segregationist George Wallace. The Neshoba County fair was a few miles away from where three civil rights organizers had been murdered by the Ku Klux Klan in 1964, made famous in the film Mississippi Burning (1988).

French has also overlooked or forgotten that southern evangelicals, of which he is one, were brought into the pro-life movement because of their opposition to integration of the public schools. This story is well known (See Robert Jones and Jennifer Holland). Southern evangelicals were initially in support of Roe v. Wade. But when their Christian academies began losing their tax-exempt status because they were segregated, supporting the pro-life/anti-abortion agenda became a way to support politicians who would appoint judges who would protect their white status. John Roberts spent his time in the Reagan justice department subverting the Voting Rights Act and, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he has systematically dismantled it.

Were these policies in support of states’ rights or were they racist? Is there a difference? Or is it a distinction without a difference?

Belief is problematic in a democracy because democracy depends on reason, conversation, debate, and most of all compromise. Since for French life begins at conception, abortion is murder. There can be no compromise. That is the logic of the right-to-life argument. Justice Alito pointed to this aspect of the abortion debate in the beginning of his decision overturning Roe v. Wade (see my Blog Post “Revelation: A Problem for Democracy”).

The right-to-life argument is laser focused. Since life begins at conception, the embryo is a human being with all the rights of a human being. Issue settled. To introduce the competing rights of women complicates matters, and so women are ignored.

With some of the states passing very restrictive anti-abortion laws, unintended consequences are popping up. Women with troubled pregnancies are having trouble accessing reproductive health care. In Idaho doctors were evacuating women to California for treatment in life-threatening situations. The Supreme Court put the Idaho law on hold, but the ultimate outcome of the case is not clear.

While French believes that “life begins at conception,” he is open to in vitro fertilization (IVF). “While I want prospective parents to be able to use IVF to build their families, I do not believe that unused embryos should simply be discarded—thrown away as no longer useful.” For him, the “unused embryos” are, in the words of the Alabama Supreme Court, “unborn children.” The pro-life/anti-abortion groups are lining up strongly in opposition to IVF because the process entails destroying some of those embryos or unborn children. French has not explained how he is making this distinction in contradistinction to his former allies. He has to use reason, but he has not explained his logic.

French has a dilemma. Once you start using reason to analyze faith positions, where do you stop? Reason is corrosive. It never stops.

I want to repeat, David French is a good and moral man. I do not think he is a racist. And yet as a loyal Republican he supported the southern strategy and apparently did not see anything wrong with it until Donald Trump embodied it. Even now, he cannot bring himself to critically examine the conservative heritage of Ronald Reagan.

French is a good example of why faith unexamined, without critical challenge, is dangerous. Faith by itself is not enough. Faith must be critically examined. Otherwise, it can lead to dark places. Faith without history is myth and myth thinks for you.

‍