Pro-life feminists participate at the Women’s March in Washington D.C. on Jan. 21, 2017. / Addie Mena/CNA
Washington D.C., Oct 12, 2021 / 16:15 pm (CNA).
This December, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Many legal experts say it presents the most momentous test yet of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide. At issue is the constitutionality of Mississippi’s 2018 law banning most abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy.
As with any high-profile Supreme Court case, dozens of amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs have been filed both in support of and in opposition to the Mississippi law.
Kelsey Hazzard, an attorney and the founder and president of the group Secular Pro-Life, is one of the signers of an amicus brief supporting Mississippi’s pro-life law. The brief argues that women’s “social, economic, and political opportunities” were already increasing before Roe, and that abortion is not necessary for women’s socioeconomic success
The following is a transcript of CNA’s interview with Hazzard. It has been edited for length and clarity.
Tell me about yourself. What is your personal and faith background? How did you come to the place where you are professionally?
I grew up attending a United Methodist church, which is officially a “pro-choice” denomination. Abortion was never discussed, from the pulpit or anywhere else. As a result, the pro-life position was not framed as “religious” for me. Once I was old enough to understand what abortion was, I came to the pro-life movement simply by applying my general values, e.g. sticking up for the “little guy.” When I left Christianity for unrelated reasons (it just stopped making sense to me), my pro-life position was unaffected because it was always secular.
Professionally, I am a lawyer in private practice; my pro-life advocacy is 100% volunteer. I earned my B.A. at the University of Miami and my J.D. at the University of Virginia School of Law, and held leadership roles in the pro-life student organizations for each [university].
The amicus brief lays out an argument that, contrary to the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, abortion has not facilitated women’s advancement and, in fact, has hurt women. Can you walk me through the brief’s argument and evidence?
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court said that even if Roe was wrong, it couldn’t correct its deadly error because American women had come to rely upon abortion for their professional advancement. This is the infamous “reliance interest.” And yet in the decades since Casey, abortion rates have plummeted dramatically while women have enjoyed ever-increasing gains in the workplace. Forget “correlation does not equal causation”—they don’t even have correlation!
As a professional woman myself, the fact that the highest court in the land attributes my success to the mass slaughter of preborn babies fills me with disgust. That is the polar opposite of my values, and I deserve credit for my own hard work.
How did it come about that you signed the amicus brief in this case?
One of Secular Pro-Life’s board members heard about the pro-life feminist brief in progress from another signatory, and we jumped on it!
Have you signed amicus briefs in similar cases in the past? If not, why was this case different for you?
This was my first opportunity to join an amicus brief.
Many are saying this case has a chance of overturning Roe v. Wade. Do you agree?
Yes, it does!
Have you always considered yourself to be pro-life, or was there a moment or event that convinced you of the position?
I can’t point to a moment. I’ve been pro-life ever since I heard about abortion.
What are some of the biggest misconceptions or myths about the pro-life position that you encounter in your professional environment?
That we’re all Trump supporters, that we’re all Bible thumpers, that we’re all… anything, really, is a myth! Our movement is incredibly diverse.
Do you ever feel you are treated differently from others because you are a pro-life woman? In the pro-life movement, do you feel as though you are treated differently due to your atheism?
The pro-life movement has welcomed me with open arms. In my experience, women are the majority of engaged pro-life advocates. Pro-life female leadership is commonplace and unremarkable. Pro-life atheism is less common statistically – according to Pew, religiously unaffiliated people are about 12% of abortion opponents in the United States – but most religious pro-lifers welcome the collaboration.
We hear a lot about the pro-life position being “anti-science.” Do you face this accusation often? If so, how do you respond?
Pro-life is pro-science. The pro-choice movement has become almost a caricature of itself at this point. I mean, talking about “cardiac activity” or “flutters” to avoid saying “heartbeat”? Come on.
That said, I think the “clump of cells” talking point is on its way out; the truth is just too difficult to avoid. Instead it’s the ad hominem attacks taking the lead: “you hate women,” “you don’t care about kids after they’re born,” that sort of thing.
What is it like leading an organization of secular pro-lifers? How do you counter the “get your rosaries off my ovaries” criticism?
Leading an organization of secular pro-lifers is an honor, and also reminiscent of herding cats. Secular Pro-Life has become a home not only for pro-life atheists and agnostics, but also for members of minority religious groups like Wiccans, Mormons, Muslims, and more liberal Christians who don’t fit the “religious right” label.
I’ve gotten to meet people from all walks of life. It’s really emphasized for me how unique every human being is – and how great a loss the world experiences with every abortion.
What do you hope for the future of the pro-life movement? How can other faithful women support your efforts?
We must remember that success in Dobbs is only the beginning. I worry that people will get complacent, thinking that reversal of Roe was the goal. No: saving lives is the goal. The post-Roe abortion industry is not going to accept defeat quietly. They are going to enact ever more extreme laws in pro-abortion states. They are already trying chemical-abortion-by-mail schemes. Increasingly, abortion advocates dehumanize not only children in the womb, but their defenders as well. It’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Is there anything you would like the pro-life movement, or pro-life people in general, to try to improve on, especially as the possibility of a post-Roe country becomes more and more likely?
Pro-lifers have spent decades building up an infrastructure of pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes, and other support systems for pregnant mothers in crisis. We need to continue that investment and also do a much better job of advertising what is already out there.
What good is a scholarship for pregnant students if the candidate who needs it doesn’t hear about it?
More broadly, we need to fix the mainstream media’s capture by pro-abortion interests, so pro-life efforts to help needy families can get fair coverage.
[…]
By 
Francis says: “It will do us good to ask ourselves if we are still living in the period in which we need the Law, or if instead we are well aware that we have received the grace of having become children of God so as to live in love,” he said.
JESUS SAID: “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.” (John 15:9-10)
JESUS ALSO SAID: If you love me, you will keep my commandments. (John 14:15)
So yes, we are aware. Jesus commanded we obey the commandments as the method through which we give and receive God’s love and grace.
“But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’ (Acts 5:29).
And Jesus warned, in the form of a command: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)
And then, other than the Fourth Gospel, there are the letters of John:
“And by this we can be sure we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says that he knows him, and does not keep his commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him. But he who keeps his word, in him the love of God is truly perfected; and by this we know that we are in him” (1 John 2:3-5).
What is there about “thou shalt not have strange gods before me” that leaves a niche inside St. Peter’s Basilica for Pachamama and the synodal antics in Germania; or about “thou shalt not commit adultery” that offers wiggle room, so to speak? But who are we to judge?
“Do I disregard the Commandments? No. I observe them, but not as absolutes, because I know that what justifies me is Jesus Christ.”
And, therefore, we never mention Veritatis Splendor which holds that “…the commandment of love of God and neighbor does not have in its dynamic any higher limit, BUT (Caps added) it does have a lower limit, beneath which the commandment is broken” (n. 52).
And lest moral ambiguity itself be made into an absolute (!), this: “The relationship between faith and morality shines forth with all its brilliance in the UNCONDITIONAL RESPECT DUE TO THE INSISTENT DEMANDS OF THE PERSONAL DIGNITY OF EVERY MAN (italics), demand protected by those moral norms which prohibit WITHOUT EXCEPTION (Caps added) actions which are intrinsically evil” (n. 90).
So much for the new pseudo-absolutes: the Fundamental Option, “proportionalism,” and “consequentialism” (nn. 65 and 75).
His Holiness is on a mission to reinterpret the Apostle Paul as the epistles of Martin Luther. Paul made it clear Christ perfects the Law since it is in Christ and love for him that we can live the Commandments [Rules] in spirit and in truth. If you love me, keep my commandments (JN14:15). A fundamental truth that we are justified by Christ alone was misinterpreted by Luther with omission of works, whereas Christ, Paul, the Apostles demanded repentance. The marketing of His Holiness’ doctrine to the world is as most know mercy sans strict adherence to rules with the deceptive argument of Luther’s doctrine of justification. In principle[only] it is true since it is Our Lord who first provides prevenient grace. A premise Luther cites as election. Nonetheless, we do respond to grace in time although in the order of nature God first provides grace. What is omitted is free will, a reality that troubled Luther. Therefore, predestination. We are free to reject that grace as Saint Thomas Aquinas pointedly asserts. Otherwise without consent there would be no true repentance, simply facsimile. Jesus’ Gospel as Bishop Barron faithfully markets is instead the Word on Fire.
Noticing another card on the table, we see that Predestination is not only key to Lutheranism but is also a central tenet of Islam. As a mindset, we are broadly alerted to the similar DNA for early Protestantism and for much-earlier and more distant Islam:
“There is something decidedly Islamic in original Protestantism, with its idea of an all-controlling hidden God and His infallible Prophet, its secularization of marriage, its Puritanism and messianism. Even today some of the survivals of original (i.e., pre-liberal) Protestantism in remote parts of Scandinavia, Holland, Scotland and the United States have, at least culturally, more affinity with the Wahhabis than with Catholics from which they stem. It must be borne in mind that not so much the authoritarian organization but the liberal theology [e.g., free will versus Predestination of the elect] of Catholicism was the target of the reformers” (Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, “Liberty or Equality,” 1952).
A complication to keep in mind—-grace without moral absolutes—-as Church voices propose mutual understanding now at the cross-cultural (no longer inter-religious) level, under the Abu Dhabi Declaration of 2019….
“The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed [!] by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings,” states the bundled document (versus an only “permitted” pluralism of religion).
Interesting nexus between Protestant reform and Islam. Abu Dhabi credo pluralism and diversity of sex seems inserted under camouflage of religions, race, language. There’s an affinity in Abu Dhabi with Fratelli Tutti. About the distancing from free will by the Reformers beginning I suppose with Luther, at least markedly is the satisfying sense of being saved whatever. And with that an icy Kantian coldness [Kant despised sentiment, music comparing the latter with flatulence] seen in rejection of a Loving Blessed Mother given us by her Son from the Cross. Certainly not however for Protestants I’ve known who in our day became more religiously eclectic. Now with Francis there’s emphasis on sentiment, perhaps, not anomalously couched in harshness toward the very human aesthetic of tradition, and his frequent striking derogation of Mary.
Silly me. I always thought the multiple moral laws that require defending life from harm had a self-evident connection to love. Where did my parents go wrong in raising me? Where did my teacher of moral theology who taught in more fomal terms what my parents taught me go wrong?
Just as I was getting very depressed at witnessing Francis express another point of Lutheran ignorance in not distinguishing between ancient ritual law and divinely endowed innate natural law that Our Lord revealed in all its beauty, at the Sermon on the Mount, that is a healing salve for the world as a field hospital for which Francis claims to care but gives many indicators to the contrary, I watched EWTN’s World Over rebroadcast of an interview of Father Richard Neuhaus from 2002, being prophetic about the integration of moral doctrine, the truth about love, and the crisis in the Church. Watch it. It will remain on YouTube for a long time. (08-26-21 broadcast)
46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brethren! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50)
*
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; 15 and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:11-15)
*
According to these passages we need to give a response to God’s love and His call. The way some people use God’s unconditional love and justification through Jesus Christ appears to suggest once saved always saved. For all practical purposes hasn’t a stiff-necked, hard-hearted, impenitent sinner filed for divorce from God? Reconciliation with God requires sinners who are willing to repent of their own free will.