PERSPECTIVES: Is the Alabama embryo ruling pro-life or pro-control?

PERSPECTIVES: Is the Alabama embryo ruling pro-life or pro-control?

On Feb. 16 the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law.

Chief Justice Tom Parker issued a concurring opinion in which he quoted the Bible, Christian tradition, and theology in discussing the meaning of the phrase “the sanctity of unborn life” and how it relates to the Alabama Constitution. In his submission, Justice Parker centralizes ideas of conservative evangelical Christian theology that says life being divinely inspired, and divinely created must be protected. He takes care to connect his decision to restrict the use of embryos to a reading of scripture that raises embryonic material to a protected class. Judge Parker uses Genisis 9:6 “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man?

He makes this jump in theology without actually referencing any particular scripture that speaks directly to the ethics of embryos being used to create life. Justice Parker does this seemingly without a succinct understanding of the science of reproduction.

John Hopkins’ public health professor Joanne Rosen says, “When frozen embryos are thawed and prepared for transfer, there is a very small possibility that they may be damaged or destroyed and therefore unable to be successfully transferred. Even fresh embryos may be damaged and not able to be transferred. So there was real concern about the legal consequences given that these embryos, these in vitro embryos, have been declared persons under the law in Alabama.. “

Justice Parker employs more superstition than theology failing to consider that the story of Jesus begins as a story of surrogacy. Additionally, the cornerstone of Christian faith is an ever-expanding community through adoption rather than biology. The conclusions Justice Parker makes is that life is sacred and must be protected but he fails to situate how this decision saves life. He spins us up and gives us a yarn about preservation of life, romanticizing conception as a miracle, and in Alabama, we protect our miracles.

I grew up in Alabama. I was born at Druid City Hospital,graduated high school from Tuscaloosa County High, And matriculated at Alabama State University. I’ve preached and ministered in churches and faith communities across the state. And if there is one thing I know for sure, it’s that the lives of children in Alabama are not held with sanctity.

Alabama has the highest rates of maternal mortality among Southern states. Alabama 1 in 5 children live in poverty, according to TK. Alabama ranks 48th in education, and 45th in children’s overall wellbeing. In January, the state rejected $65 million in federal funds which would have been used to feed children this summer. These systemic failures do not reflect love, compassion, or even sympathy. When so many systems fail children in Alabama it speaks to an underlying apathy and resentment.

Justice Parker believes life is sacred in Alabama. I believe there are many ways to die, some deaths take longer than others. You can send a child to an under-resourced school, from poor homes, in communities ravaged by toxic coal ash pollution. You can poison the water, deny workers a livable wage, and make healthcare accessible. You can misinform, mismanage, and make a mess of collective resources. These are all slow deaths. Alabama is so good at killing people we have come up with new ways of killing people. On Jan. 25, Alabama executed Kenneth Smith using nitrogen hypoxia, making him inhale nitrogen through a mask until he suffocated. For 22 minutes Kenneth Smith convulsed until he expired. It might take some time but in Alabama there are many ways to die and many deaths to be had.

Justice Parker’s understanding of scripture allows him to leisurely skip over the messy and inconvenient logistics of quality of life, planting his theological flag in a defense of the mere act of bringing people to life. A cursory observation of his decision suggests that he is not motivated by a great desire to see the unborn protected, but rather a feverish desire to see women controlled. From the idea of sanctity of life for unborn children, he jumps to the complete and total removal of agency and bodily autonomy for women. Not only are women not able to control not having children, they can’t make the decision to have them. This decision is not about God, faith, or scripture; it is about controlling women at what appears to be the cellular level.

This decision is the latest reminder that in Alabama women have no control of their bodies. Alabama has some of the strictest abortion laws in the country. abortion is banned in almost all circumstances. There are only 3 abortion providers in the entire state. And those who provide the abortion pill can be prosecuted. Not only is abortion banned in the state but the zealotry and fanaticism are so great that the attorney general wants to prosecute women that seek to leave the state to find abortion care. None of these provisions, positions or laws speak to sanctity but look more like a religious fascist pronatalism. If it sounds scary, good because Alabama is what state sanctioned religious zealotry looks like.

In Chief Justice Tom Parker’s theology women are not whole people. Women don’t get a say, they are mere component parts only as good as their ability to reproduce under surveillance and control. This theology does not need women, it needs incubators, nannies, cooks, and maids. It needs mindlessness and compliance. It needs to be able to dictate the terms and conditions of reproduction. Tom Parker’s theology is not Pro-life or Pro Choice, his theology is you don’t get a choice the state has already decided. If you are wondering what the religio-fascist state looks like… Alabama claim your prize, this is it.

The questions that people of faith need to consider as women have lost the right to decide what happens to their bodies; why is cruelty the singular currency of your faith? Can a Gospel that breeds such hostility and animus towards its neighbors be considered good? Is it a “faith” if the state forces you to do it? And why are people who don’t share your faith required to follow your tenets under threat of prosecution? What Justice Parker and those who believe like him refuse to acknowledge before life can be considered sacred, choice must be.

Solomon Missouri is a rural pastor in eastern North Carolina. His writing considers faith, spirituality and community. You can find him at the intersection of strong Wi-Fi and good BBQ.