Father holding the hand of his infant

A Pro-Life Decision 17 Years in the Making

On Tuesday, the U.S Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the vote of the people in 2014 in favor of Amendment 1 to the Tennessee Constitution. The amendment essentially reversed a decision by the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2000, holding that abortion was a “right” under our Tennessee Constitution. The 6th Circuit’s opinion was not just a legal version of a WWE SmackDown to the pro-abortion plaintiffs and the federal district judge who agreed with them, but it was a reminder to me about how to think of another issue on which I’m working.

Court Exposes Baseless Legal Arguments

There was much in the court’s opinion to like if you are pro-life or if you simply believe in the U.S. Constitution and abhor the philosophy of those judges who like to figure out the result they want and then reason backward to get there. However, my two favorite lines were these summations of the plaintiffs’ case:

Plaintiffs’ arguments amount to little more than a complaint that the campaigns in support of Amendment 1, operating within the framework established by state law, turned out to be more successful than the campaigns against Amendment 1.

Their grievance in this case thus appears to be driven by regrets, not so much that the State officials’ actions infringed their rights, but that their ‘adversaries,’ supporters of Amendment 1, may have campaigned more effectively than did opponents of Amendment 1.

I think it would be fair to interpret these statements something like this: “You are just sore losers. The other side did a better job getting its message out, so, when the election was over, you ran to the courthouse looking for a friendly judge who would bail you out despite your lousy legal arguments.”

If that sounds a bit blunt, I hope you’ll cut me some slack since I spent a good portion of my life working on this, filing the original constitutional amendment 17 years ago this month. But that fact, along with the court’s contrast between the two political campaigns, reminds me to never give up on things of fundamental importance and work hard, because, in time, God just might vindicate that which is fundamental, in this case, the sanctity of life, of which He is its Author.

The Long Road to This Week’s Victory

This week’s legal victory, however, must not be seen in isolation but in the larger context. I wish space allowed me to convey to you the twists, turns, pitfalls, and potholes that were encountered just by me during the ten years in which I worked to help get the amendment through the Legislature. I’m sure my friends at Tennessee Right to Life have their own compelling stories. Suffice it to say, at times the effort was frustrating, discouraging, and downright tiring.

I’ll never forget, though, Lt. Gov. Wilder asking then Sen. Ron Ramsey and me to stop pushing the amendment, because it was never going to pass the Legislature and our efforts would only create friction and division among a then rather congenial group of senators. We politely declined.

To be honest, a lot of people naturally saw the effort as rather hopeless when this process started. Democratic majorities controlled both the House and Senate, and the amendment had to be approved by a vote of two-thirds of both chambers. In other words, we would need 66 votes in the House, and Democrats then held 59 of the seats!

I think my friend Ron Ramsey would agree with me on this, but it wasn’t assurance of eventual victory that propelled us to press on despite Lt. Gov. Wilder’s request, but rather a conviction that fighting to protect innocent, unborn lives from death was worth the effort and any collegial discomfort we might experience.

The Encouraging Reminder I Needed

And that brings me to today and another issue on which I’ve been working now for two years.

Many think of the efforts begun by the Family Action Council of Tennessee in January 2016 to challenge the legal effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision regarding government-licensed marriages of same-sex couples in the same way they thought of the abortion amendment—we’re tilting at windmills, we can’t win, the marriage ship has sailed, and so on. That may turn out to be the case, but if a Christian, pro-marriage organization will not defend to the end that form of union between man and woman that alone mirrors the very image of the Triune God and that embodies what is real and true about the nature of marriage, then what is our reason for existence?

Who knows? Maybe if we, along with a handful of others, don’t give up and we continue to work hard, God just might, in time, vindicate that which He ordained and holds dear—marriage. After all, that’s what happened with Amendment 1 on Wednesday.

David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.

Invite David Fowler to speak at your event

Statue of Liberty, crosses, and the Tennessee flag

A Political ‘Dual’ to the Death

In two types of situations over the last three months, I have had conversations with four different evangelicals, each with a strong Judeo-Christian moral compass. If their thoughts are close to being representative of how a majority of evangelicals think about politics and elections, then evangelicals will be largely to blame for the death of religious liberty and Judeo-Christian values in our state.

All of the individuals with whom I spoke are strong supporters of our organization and its mission, which is to promote and defend within Tennessee religious liberty and God’s design for human sexuality, which is expressed in marriage between a man and a woman and the family that that relationship produces. They all lament the moral direction in which things are headed and the growing threats to the Christian’s freedom to live out their beliefs in the marketplace.

Situation No. 1—Conversations With Two Citizens

It’s not unusual when I run into folks who know me that they tell me what they think about various political things. So, it wasn’t surprising that two friends brought up the governor’s race and told me of their preferences.

Both were supporting different candidates, but what was interesting is that neither of those candidates is particularly friendly to our organization’s issues as best I can tell. In fact, based on what I do know at this point, I suspect neither candidate would be particularly supportive of the kind of legislation we initiate.

For the one citizen, it was the candidate’s views on economic development that was decisive, as if the disintegration of families and moral values has no effect on the economy. For the other citizen, the person forthrightly acknowledged that his preferred candidate’s positions on social issues were weak to non-existent, but he said that was “understandable” since those issues are controversial. I guess that person thought someone other than a governor should lead or take a stand on the controversial stuff.

Situation No. 2—Conversations With Two Politicians

The other scenario involved two different politicians. Each was approached concerning various legislative ideas.

One politician’s response to the proposed legislation focused on how it would be portrayed by the liberal local media and whether, going into an election cycle, that negative publicity could be offset sufficiently by constituents who might approve of the legislation. The other politician made it clear that voters were tired of politicians who were against things and didn’t want to talk about legislation that prevented what she conceded was bad.

In both situations, doing the right thing was secondary to doing the politically expedient or acceptable thing. The problem in the latter situation was compounded by the false belief that one could be for something and want to see it flourish without being against that which undermines its flourishing.

The ‘Dual’ of Death

The problem in each of these two situations is what philosophers would call “dualism.” In general, dualism is the belief that, for some particular domain, there are two fundamental kinds or categories of things or principles. In this particular instance, it is usually either a belief that moral values are fundamentally personal and politics is fundamentally not or a belief that Christianity, with its attendant values, is spiritual and politics is secular.

Dualism allows a Christian to say that I am personally for certain values, but I can vote for people who do not support those values because Christianity and the beliefs that guide my personal life are fundamentally different from the beliefs that guide my secular and political life.

When one walks out of the evangelical pew on Sunday and takes that dualistic view of reality into the voting booth or into elected office, then the moral values and the religious liberty he or she professes to value will be undermined at every turn by our public policies. Voters elect those who undermine those values by acts of commission or omission and politicians who will stand by and let them be undermined.

Both will lead to those things they say they value dying out in our public consciousness, even as is now happening.

To paraphrase Nietzsche’s famous “God is dead” quote, if this dualistic thinking is typical of evangelicals, then they will be able to say, “Judeo-Christian moral values and religious liberty are dead, and we have killed them.”

David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.

Invite David Fowler to speak at your event