At its most defensible, the religiously principled opposition to abortion isn’t based on a rejection of a right to privacy but on an insistence that a pregnant woman is not one person but two, neither of which has a has a greater claim to the body. When a choice absolutely must be made, for reasons of health or life, most anti-choicers (though not all) will side with the mother, but the idea that the mother can act with autonomy is rejected.
This moral calculus which divides a woman in two is far from clear-cut, especially because it immediately requires someone other than the mother to be an arbitrator of what constitutes a sufficient reason for her to assert full autonomy. Suddenly we’re investigating why an unwanted or problematic pregnancy was terminated, or trying to verify that the mother played no active role in a miscarriage. Beyond the infringement of personal liberty, this implicates medical and personal privacy.
Of course, it’s generally understood that as a pregnancy advances there comes a point in healthy fetal development where the mother has a legal obligation to cause no harm. but my point in bringing this up is not to delve into all the moral, medical and legal quandaries of abortion. Rather, I want to highlight that the anti-choice Christian Right is very insistent that there are limits on a woman’s liberty to act as she chooses if her actions have the potential to injure or kill.
Yet, when the subject is vaccination against a deadly virus, this limitation on personal autonomy is completely rejected. Ir’s a point raised by David French in a new essay on the irresponsibility of the evangelical movement with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s a kind of hypocrisy easily missed by the pro-choice left simply because we don’t accept the first premise that the state has the right to insert itself into a woman’s reproductive decisions at all points of a pregnancy.
But it’s nonetheless a glaring distinction once you know to look at it. The decision not to get vaccinated causes harm to others, which is clearly seen both by how the virus spreads and by how it fills our hospitals with COVID patients crowding out the availability of treatment for other illnesses and maladies. This should be a clearer moral question than abortion. We’re not dealing with the complexity two people in one body, but a much more straightforward situation where the actions of one body harms another, entirely separate body.
We don’t struggle to condemn someone who speeds recklessly on our roadways, imperiling other drivers. We easily understand limitations on personal liberty in many contexts. Evangelicals insist on limitations when it comes to reproductive choice, but they won’t allow for any limitations when it comes to COVID-19.
Here, we’re left with a distinction between the right to do something and the right not to do something. Maybe I can accept that I have no right to drive my car far over the speed limit, but can I be compelled to get a driver’s license? This distinction doesn’t hold water, however. Imagine trying to argue that you have no right to drive a car that has bare tires and worn brakes but you can’t be compelled to have your car inspected. If your actions imperil others, there’s a legitimate reason to remove your liberty to take those actions. You can be forced not to do things, but also required to do certain things to protect others.
There can certainly be religious beliefs that imperil others, and a refusal to use vaccinations is one of the best examples. It’s really no different from a religious belief against seeking any kind of medical care for a child. The state can step in in those circumstances to protect the child even though it impacts the religious liberty of the parents.
So, what becomes clear is that there’s a very inconsistent application of principle by evangelicals when it comes to when personal liberty can be restricted for the greater good. They easily embrace the idea that a woman’s body can be divided against itself, but they insist on the liberty to harm others when it comes to COVID-19. Therefore, they can’t be asked to get inoculated, to wear masks, to socially distance, or anything else because it violates their autonomy. For a movement that argues that women who exercise reproductive choice are criminally selfish, they sure do embrace selfishness with an appalling amount of gusto.
