Rep. Scholten’s abortion stances are not moderate
On Jan. 20, I attended Representative Hillary Scholten’s Henry Institute event. After her speech, Professor Micah Watson, director of the Henry Institute, asked her several questions regarding her votes on abortion-related policies. In response, Scholten suggested that she has a moderate stance, saying that although she wants fewer abortions to take place, the government must approach abortion reasonably.
However, her positions regarding abortion are actually quite extreme, as several of her recent statements and actions related to abortion show.
When campaigning as a strongly pro-choice candidate, endorsed and funded by the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), Scholten said, “I don’t know when life begins, that is a question for the ages.” Furthermore, at the Henry Institute event, she said that she does not believe abortion can be banned because that would require “a consensus on what Scripture says about exactly where life begins and preclude any decision or faith.”
Although some debate when life actually begins, an unborn child’s heart starts beating at six weeks. I ask Rep. Scholten: “Are not developing babies with beating hearts alive? Are not such children deserving of the law’s protection? If so, why did you strongly support Proposal 3, which extends abortion access well beyond six weeks?”
At the Henry Institute event, Rep. Scholten also stated that she voted against H.Res.1233, which addresses violence against pro-life organizations and churches. Her reasoning? That it did not go far enough to address violence against pro-choice institutions as well. She then said that she is co-sponsoring H.Res.27, which she said addresses violence against all health care facilities.
However, H.Res.27 does not actually protect pro-life organizations. H.Res.27’s wording specifically addresses violence against Planned Parenthood offices and abortion clinics, “health care centers,” and areas where “reproductive health care services” are sought out; furthermore, the resolution is meant to protect health care facilities and health care personnel.
But H.Res.27 does not call for protection for pro-life facilities. Significantly, many pregnancy resource centers are not officially categorized as health care facilities, and there are at least several Democrats who are calling for pregnancy resource centers to no longer be designated as health care facilities because they supposedly promote misinformation about abortion.
Does Rep. Scholten understand that this resolution likely will not protect pregnancy resource centers from violence? Why is she not exhorting her congressional colleagues to make sure that H.Res.27 specifically protects pregnancy resource centers also?
Another issue that Rep. Scholten addressed at the event was the argument she made on the Congress House Floor against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R.26), which ensures that infants born alive after an attempted abortion receive the same protection of law and degree of care as any newborn. During her argument, she recited Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Scholten emphasized that the verse refers to “the mother’s womb,” not the government’s womb.
My concern about this statement is that she actually uses this verse to oppose government regulations that would save the life of a child who is already outside the womb! If this is her position, then would she also oppose the government’s prohibition of life-endangering neglect of a born baby who is a day or even a week old? If not, what is the difference between such a baby and a baby that has just survived an attempted abortion?
Is it the location of the child, the size of the child, the child’s level of development? Or is it simply a matter of which post-birth children are wanted by their parents? Is it not the job of the state to protect such defenseless children?
Of additional note is that at the Henry Institute event, Scholten also incorrectly stated that the resolution would “take away the choice of palliative care for mothers who had had a preterm birth.” But the resolution in fact only addresses abortion, not preterm birth.
In light of these concerns, it is clear that Scholten’s positions regarding abortion and related matters are deeply problematic and inappropriate for someone like herself who is a deacon in the Christian Reformed Church, a denomination whose official position on abortion “calls believers to speak out against the atrocity of abortion” and “to promote action and legislation that reflect the teaching of Scripture regarding the sanctity of human life.” I humbly ask Rep. Scholten to prayerfully reconsider her statements and positions regarding abortion.
Tim Ozinga • Oct 2, 2023 at 2:50 pm
Interesting article. I think it bears mention that the Christian Reformed Church, of which Congresswoman Scholten is a member, has an official position that abortion should be opposed except to save the life of the mother, with the possible exception of the use of the morning-after pill in the event of rape. Calvin, of course, is a CRC entity, and presumable this policy is followed by Calvin as well.
Anna • Feb 2, 2023 at 10:05 pm
Although some [mostly evangelical Christians] debate when life actually begins, an unborn child’s [fetus] heart starts beating at six weeks [and this has nothing to do with the claim to what American evangelicism likes to call “life”]. I [a barely adult man who will never ever have to deal with the oftentimes frightening reality of pregnancy and its circumstances that face many women] ask Rep. Scholten: “Are not developing babies [fetuses] with beating hearts alive [in the same way a cow embryo is alive]? Are not such children [fetuses] deserving of the [weird secular Christian-ized American] law’s protection [from the fully realised personhood of the woman whose body the fetus resides]? If so, why did you strongly support Proposal 3, which extends abortion access well beyond six weeks [which is, on average, the time when most women first discover they are pregnant]?”
The overwhelming majority of abortions happen within the first trimester (over 95% last I checked). Nearly all women would never call abortions fun, easy, or casual. Why pretend they do?
Why not consider the root cause of why women feel compelled to get abortions? Have you spoken with women and listened to their stories? Have you considered the historic detriment of abortion regard minority women? What about the long history and multiple Christian sects that first life begins with first breath? Why not elucidate clearly that by using language like “life” and “child,” you actually mean the American evangelical idea of life and the false representation that a fetus is, in fact, a fetus, with potential personhood, certainly, but who is not a person? That you’ve completely sliced out the existence of individual women and bodily autonomy to just leave the straw man construction of [supposedly Christian] law vs. an unborn fetus that just magically exists on its own? That you don’t care to acknowledge the huge implications and nuances of what it means when religion and state become entangled? Sure, you’re specifically looking at a particular bill about post-abortion births, but you are making huge, fundamental assertions from the very get-go before you ever wrote the first word of this op-Ed.
And if even everything I just pointed out was somehow brushed away, why is it your business to pompously assert you somehow know the answer and that your conservative evangelical Christianity is the right Christianity? Do you really think forcing women to give birth against their will is going to do zilch to actually bring believers to God? Imagine you live in Saudi Arabia and have to live by religious Islamic law and that aspects of the law affect your bodily autonomy (and anatomy) on a fundamental level: would you be so pro-religious based law then? Yet this is exactly what people like you would purportedly ascribe to the millions of non-religious/non-Christian people in America. Now, I hope you aren’t going to go all “weLl wE sHoUlD jUsT lEgAlIzE mUrDeR.” Because that would show how truly narrow your worldview is and how opposed to opening your mind you are. We can discuss the idea of a moral compass and God and every square inch, but that was never what your op-Ed was about. Your op-Ed is purely applying a very specific, jaded rhetoric to a situation in an attempt to demonstrate that you are somehow more Godly and a more righteous judge of the Big Unknown than a certain woman.
I hope you seriously think on 1) your position as a man 2) the positions of women 3) the actual broader implications of the legal status of abortion and 4) how much baggage your rhetoric comes with, despite how little of it you might recognise.
Emily Helder • Feb 2, 2023 at 7:58 am
In this piece, David is cherry-picking quotes and using them out of context to support his argument. Hillary has spoken at length about her moderate, nuanced, and faith-informed position on abortion. I encourage others to read her op-ed to understand her perspective directly (which you can find in the online Holland Sentinel, published November 2, 2022)
Daniel Urban • Feb 2, 2023 at 2:31 pm
Hello Prof Helder,
My name is Daniel Urban, and I am a junior at Calvin. I wrote this article. I believe that you are getting me confused with Prof David Urban.
Instead of misrepresenting my piece, can you please tell me specifically which quotes I am “cherry-picking”? Before I wrote my article, I had already read her op-ed on Holland Sentinel, and I understand her positions on abortion policies. I by no means view her positions described in this article as moderate. A “moderate” position outlines specific restrictions that there should be on abortion legality, which Scholten does not do in her op-ed, and I am not aware of any such abortion restrictions that she approves of. Can you please let us know if she does in fact approve of any such policies?
Anna Jeffries • Feb 3, 2023 at 11:05 am
Cherry-picking? IDK about Scholten specifically, but goodness gracious, take a look at the log in your own eye, my dear college-aged male. For one, consider your language of “child” and “children ” and “baby” to refer to what is, in fact, a fetus inside the womb of a human being who wishes to have autonomy over their own body.
Florence • Jan 30, 2023 at 11:09 am
Well written article. I too have deep concerns about Hillary Scholten’s beliefs and positions on abortion and the fact that she misuses scripture to defend them. The fact that she would not support a bill that protects babies who are born alive after an abortion and would deny them medical care is disturbing and unethical. I do believe our constitution says we are given rights to “ life” , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Shouldn’t the unborn and especially those born ( who have survived an abortion) also be guaranteed those rights? I would hope that Ms Scholten would prayerfully revisit her positions on these matters. She owes it to the people she represents in western Michigan and to the unborn.
Anna • Feb 2, 2023 at 1:24 pm
So, what I’m hearing is you’re assuming faith in legislation has to align with the constitution, a secular political document? So, what about the centuries of Christian believers in different places and times who considered first life as first breath? Oh, and btw, they came to that conclusion from what they understood from studying the Bible, not political documents.
Your problem is by “life” what you really mean is “[white] American evangelical Christian life” where potential personhood takes away the autonomy & rights of an actual person.
Also, questioning Scholten’s position in her church? Really? Don’t you think she and the people in her church actually have way more to do with each other than you giving your narrow opinion on the internet and concluding you know she surely must be “unworthy” of her status?
Scott • Feb 7, 2023 at 1:53 pm
By “life” he means human being. Please read up about the history of abortion, it’s racist/elitist origins and it’s impact on marginalized demographics in America.
Science (embryology) has determined life begins at conception, at that point we are talking about a human being.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you…” Jeremiah 1:5 suggests spiritual “personhood” long before conception.
Whether or not to extinguish an innocent human life. That is the “choice” regarding abortion.
Anna • Mar 15, 2023 at 9:31 pm
Imagine thinking a foetus is a more innocent, more human life than that of the woman in whose womb it occupies. I certainly believe you and he mean “human life” when you say “life,” but that’s an egregious oversimplification in an attempt to make a black and white picture out of something that is extremely grey. Consider thoughtfully reading the many theologians who have discussed the question of “life” vs. “human life” vs. “soul” vs. “personhood,” etc., etc., before using grossly grandiose rhetoric that was founded in a very particular and narrow set of worldviews. Have you ever even tried to read to understand why a number of Judeo-Christian sects consider “first life as human” as “first breath as human,” i.e. a living, breathing baby? I would ask that you do.
You mention embryology. Any embryologist will tell you that, well, life begins as an embryo and within the womb remains thus. Once again, there is no difference between a 6 week old gathering of cells in a woman’s womb than a 6 week gathering of cells in a cow’s womb.
I’m well-aware of the racist history of abortion. I’m also aware how, today, the lack of accessible healthcare in abortion, sex education, and birth control harms marginalised women the most. The women who don’t have jobs that offer maternity leave, the women who cannot financially afford to take time off to birth and raise a child, the women in abusive situations, the women who are not likely to get help and support, the women who aren’t ready to be mothers, the women who can’t be mothers due to physical and unseen constraints, and so forth.
It is your choice to make, that’s true, just as it is any one else’s choice that, quite frankly, is none of your business. That’s the point. People choose to be mothers, and that’s a good and beautiful thing. No one is saying people shouldn’t be mothers who want to be mothers. But that women who don’t want to be mothers shouldn’t be forced to be mothers.
You have your particular understanding of the status of a foetus in a woman’s womb, that’s clear, and I am sure you’re earnest in that belief. Just as earnest as the many other Christians like myself and Rep Scholten who have a different understanding. That doesn’t make us any less Christian or faithful. And that certainly doesn’t give anyone in either regard the right to make sweeping political laws according to one’s religious beliefs. That’s what we see in many Muslim countries today, of which I’m certain the vast majority of evangelical Christians would be appalled by if asked to live under those religious laws.