Welcome to The Square Inch, a Friday newsletter on Christianity, culture, and all of the many-varied “square inches” of God’s domain. This publication is free for now, but please consider clicking on the button at the bottom to become a paid subscriber to enjoy this along with Monday’s “Off The Shelf” feature about books and Wednesday’s “The Quarter Inch,” a quick(er) commentary on current events.
Dear Friends,
Today is Veteran’s Day, which a lot of people understandably confuse with Memorial Day. So, a friendly Public Service Announcement: Memorial Day is set aside to honor those in the Armed Forces who served and never came back from serving. Veteran’s Day is set aside to honor those who served and did come back.
And so today I honor my Dad, a former Army Specialist with an Army Commendation Medal for distinguished service. Being a world-class stenographer was helpful to Army command, and helpful for keeping him out of the jungles of Vietnam. And also my oldest brother, a West Pointer who led a light infantry unit in Bosnia back in the days of their civil war. And my other brother, an Army nurse anesthetist who served two tours in a combat support hospital during the worst days of the Iraq War. And I also honor one of my best friends from childhood who served ten years in Army Special Operations warfare.
Thank you for your service.
Do we deserve it? That’s a question Private Ryan wrestled with for his entire life in Steven Spielberg’s fictional film. “Am I a good man?” he asks his wife at Arlington Cemetery. He wanted to live up to the sacrifice others had made for him. Would that we as a nation would ask that question! Are we good? I know some soldiers, and I know that for them disillusionment is a constant companion. Is risking or even laying down your life for this country worth it? Sometimes—particularly in our times—it is very hard to tell.
I am eternally thankful that Jesus didn’t hinge anything on whether I deserved his sacrifice. You see, self-sacrifice that doesn’t take “dessert” into the calculation is an aspect of godliness. That is what God is like. Thanks be to him.
But still, the Bible recognizes that it is a bitter thing to sacrifice for the undeserving; that’s what makes the cross so unfathomable. The Apostle Paul gets right to the heart of it:
Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
It is a reflection of the heart of God when one defends, even to death, people who may not deserve it. That is the upside-down, inside-out mystery of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And the fact that America has not had to rely on conscripts or mercenaries, but rather has had an ample all-volunteer military with so many hundreds of thousands ready and willing to serve is one small way that Christianity and its gospel ethic has been a leaven in our society. So I am grateful for those who volunteer to defend our lives and protect our national sovereignty, even when what we happen to be doing with that sovereignty is morally repugnant.
And that brings me to this week’s topic.
On Tuesday the people of the State of Montana voted on a referendum that would require health care professionals to give “medically appropriate and reasonable care and treatment” to infants born alive—even in cases resulting from a botched abortion.
They rejected it.
The most vulnerable creature on the planet, an infant outside the womb, is not entitled to “medically appropriate and reasonable care and treatment” from health care professionals in the State of Montana. I used to trust that I didn’t need to explain the the gross immorality of that kind of notion, not to mention its blatant violation of the Constitution of the United States, but, then again, I used to trust that the people of Montana had some intelligence and moral fiber.
I will not bore you with an argument about the immorality of abortion, because with regard to this matter abortion is entirely irrelevant. The subject at issue is a “born alive” infant. He or she is a living, breathing human being. And the Bible is very clear that not providing “medically appropriate and reasonable care and treatment” to any living, breathing human being is a violation of the 6th Commandment. It is murder.
Moreover, the Declaration of Independence of the United States declares that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Life is a right. An entitlement. This is later codified as clearly as can be in the text of the 14th Amendment: “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Any state except Montana, and except infants, apparently.
So how did this referendum fail? Are Montanans really among the most callous people who ever walked the earth? I know we are a warrior tribe that loves its guns and we live in a sometimes harsh environment—the temp is ten degrees right now and we’re blanketed in snow—but I don’t think anybody mistook us for Spartans tossing our unwanted babies on a trash heap.
Well, we aren’t Spartans. And for the most part I think we love babies. Then how to explain? I was terribly sorry to see that over at National Review one of my favorite people, medical ethics expert Wesley J. Smith, had to proffer an explanation of what happened here. I’m sorry because it is so deeply depressing to have Wesley’s critical eye cast at my state and my neighbors. But his explanation seems correct to me.
In the proposed law there is a clause that follows “medically appropriate and reasonable care and treatment.” It reads: “A health care provider who is present at the time a born-alive infant is born shall take all medically appropriate and reasonable actions to preserve the life and health of the infant.” Now, that may seem like a mere reiteration of the original clause—which it is, frankly—but the inclusion of the words “life and health” introduced just enough ambiguity for activists of a certain stripe to exploit.
You see, sometimes infants are born whose lives and health cannot be saved—they have the kinds of abnormalities and infirmities beyond any life-saving measures. In such cases, a law that says you must provide “medically appropriate and reasonable care and treatment” is fine. A law that says you must “preserve the life and health of the infant” can be problematic. And that is what the PR campaign pushed, and pushed with utter dishonesty.
I’ll just note that even in the “offending” clause the phrase “preserve the life and health of the infant” is grammatically governed by the phrase “all medically appropriate and reasonable actions.” But never mind. The script was written for the opposition. Doctors and nurses were going to be criminally liable for not treating untreatable babies! Wesley Smith documents a number of media reports that flat-out ignored and omitted the original clause and only reported the supposedly problematic phrase “life and health.” And then fear-mongered it to the max. Here’s a KTVQ report:
During a September rally in Helena meant to show opposition to LR-131, Jenn Banna of Missoula said she experienced the scenario described by Mitchell. While pregnant with her daughter Anna, doctors told her the child’s brain hadn’t fully developed. Anna would not survive for long after delivery. But Banna opted to continue the pregnancy.
‘The opportunity to snuggle and sing to her would not have been possible if she had been taken away immediately,’ Banna said at the rally. ‘Anna Louise would have died in a different room, without me, robbing me of the opportunity of comforting and holding her during her short life.
Wesley replies: “Nothing in Referendum 131 would have prevented that dying baby from being cuddled by her mother.” His final summation:
What’s the lesson for pro-lifers? Your proposals will be shamelessly misdescribed, distorted, and lied about by opponents and in the media. But also, that fact of political life requires careful and defensive drafting of ballot measures. For example, the first clause quoted above would have been sufficient to fulfill the desired purpose of the measure because it would have covered all circumstances of a crisis birth. Emphasizing ‘preserving life and health’ in the second clause was superfluous and opened the door to the kind of blatant media mendacity that I suspect caused a majority of Montanans to vote no.
I want to say something about the oh-so-meticulous (faux) attention to detail by our modern-day Scribes and Pharisees.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill, and cummin. But you have neglected the weightier matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
In my opinion, among all of Jesus’ incredible mental images and illustrations, this one is the greatest. Imagine someone with a tea strainer worried that a tiny little gnat might get into the glass, yet has no trouble swallowing camels! The “weightier matter of the law” here is preserving the life of a born-alive infant. Straining out the gnat is focusing on a possible ambiguity that isn’t even an ambiguity and allowing exceptions to the rule overthrow the rule itself. And I can’t help but notice just who gets the benefit of all doubts and ambiguities here: it is never the helpless infant. For the self-serving Montana Medical Association, having their asses covered is worth an abortion doctor or two leaving a born-alive infant to die alone in a corner. That’s their ethic: men to the life-boats first; children last.
It is wicked sophistry of the highest order, and a majority of Montana voters fell for it this time. The larger social and cultural backdrop here is the extraordinary deference people have for “experts,” which is slowly eroding in the post-COVID era, but hasn’t eroded enough for people to see a professional guild with an overweening self-interest when it is right in front of them.
One day our nation will treat our babies as the full citizens they are. And we can be a nation that actually does deserve to be defended.
Thank you for reading The Square Inch. Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription! In addition to Friday’s newsletter, you’ll receive a book feature on Mondays and a current-events roundup on Wednesdays. Have a wonderful weekend.
I voted against it after consulting with none other than an obstetrician. Yes, there are many who voted against this because they are pro-choice, but there are many who are pro-life who also voted against it. The language was vague, and who gets to decide what is “medically appropriate“ anyway? Will the physicians’ stance on what is medically appropriate hold up in court? Some physicians think abortion is “medically appropriate”!? So does the mother ultimately decide whether she wants to snuggle her baby or have it resuscitated in futility? Reminds me of your review of “call the midwife“ when the baby only had value based on the circumstance. Like most things in healthcare, there that should be a discussion between a patient and her physician? But what if the labor and delivery nurse that day objects and reports the doctor or midwife for not following the law?
Who wrote this referendum anyway? Of course it sounds good on the surface but I don’t think it’s well written. Why should all kinds of citizens be voting on this when they don’t even understand it? Our legislature can actually write an “Abortion is illegal” bill in their next legislative session. They can even include this type of referendum after taking testimony from obstetricians perhaps. I’m probably missing something here, but I don’t fully understand why some things become a ballot measure and some don’t. I don’t think many laws should be codified by popular vote. Are we a democracy, or a republic?
My two cents. Be encouraged, this is only the beginning of an effort to protect the unborn in Montana From a legal standpoint.
Shame on the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American Academy of Family Physicians, etc etc etc. Not one of our major medical associations has the backbone to stand up for the rights and wellbeing of the unborn.
Regarding our men and women serving in the Armed Forces - I have the privilege of living in a community served by an Air Force and an Army base. Many of our friends are either active or retired military. Without exception they have gained great satisfaction from work that provides logistical support and advanced training to our allies. The Ukrainian response to the Russian invasion is a textbook example of the effectiveness of their work. Let us never forget.