When Faith Meets the Public Square: Speaking to a Legislature as a Christian

Introduction

What does it look like when Christian conviction intersects with public policy? How do believers articulate their deeply held theological principles in the halls of government while engaging respectfully with those who hold different views?

The following address is something that could be used as testimony before a legislative body considering legislation that would permit abortion up to the moment of birth when deemed necessary for the life or health of the mother. Rather than relying on political rhetoric or partisan talking points, this testimony attempts to ground its arguments in gospel principles while engaging thoughtfully with the practical and ethical complexities of the proposed legislation.

This example illustrates how Christians can bring their faith to bear on matters of public concern—not by imposing religious dogma, but by articulating how biblical truths about human dignity, justice, and care for the vulnerable translate into concrete policy positions. It acknowledges the gravity of the issue, respects the difficulty of legislators' task, and seeks to offer "a thoughtful, gospel-centered perspective" on why this particular legislation raises serious concerns.

Whether you agree with the conclusions or not, this testimony demonstrates how believers can engage in the public square with both conviction and civility, speaking truth while extending grace, and advocating for policy positions that flow from their understanding of the gospel's implications for human flourishing.

What follows is that full address, offered not as the final word on these complex issues, but as an example of faithful Christian engagement with the challenges of our time.

The Legislation Address

Thank you for allowing me to speak today on this profoundly important matter. I am Jake Williams, and I serve as a pastor in Wexford, Pennsylvania. I've been invited to offer a testimony regarding the bill at hand. This bill proposes to make abortion legal at any time up to the moment of birth, so long as it is deemed necessary for the life and the health of the mother by the attending physician.  

Before I begin, let me acknowledge the gravity of this moment. We are discussing matters of life and death, of conscience and law, of deeply held beliefs and their intersection with public policy. I recognize that in our society, people of good faith can disagree on these issues, and I respect the difficulty of your task as legislators. What I hope to offer today is not partisan rhetoric, but a thoughtful, gospel-centered perspective on why I believe this particular legislation poses serious concerns.

The Christian gospel begins with a stunning assertion: that every human being is created in the image of God. This isn't merely a religious platitude, but the foundation for everything we believe about human worth and dignity. Genesis 1:27 tells us that God created mankind in His own image, and this reality makes every human life sacred, regardless of age, ability, or circumstances of conception.

But the gospel doesn't stop there. It tells us that this image-bearing creation has been marred by sin and brokenness, yet God so loved the world that He sent His Son to redeem it. The incarnation, God becoming human, is the ultimate statement of the value of human life. When the eternal Son of God took on human flesh, He dignified humanity in a way that can never be undone.

This theological foundation isn't abstract; it has profound implications for how we view the most vulnerable members of our society. The gospel compels us to care for the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and yes, the unborn child. It also compels us to care deeply for women facing difficult pregnancies, recognizing that they, too, bear the image of God and deserve our love, support, and protection.

On its surface, this bill appears to be about protecting maternal health, and I want to be clear that protecting women's health is something every person of conscience should support. However, as I've studied the language of this proposed legislation, I have several deep concerns that I believe you should consider.

First, the phrase "health of the mother" is defined so broadly that it could encompass not just physical health risks, but also psychological, emotional, and social factors. While mental health is certainly important, such a broad definition could potentially allow for termination of pregnancy at any stage for reasons that fall far short of genuine medical necessity.

Second, the timing provision, "up to the moment of birth", represents a dramatic departure from previous legal frameworks that have attempted to balance competing interests as pregnancy progresses.

Third, the decision-making process appears to rest solely with the attending physician, with no requirement for second opinions, waiting periods, or other safeguards that are typically required for other major medical decisions. This concentration of authority in a single individual seems inadequate given the magnitude of the decision being made.

From a theological perspective, we believe that human life begins at conception because that's when a genetically unique human being comes into existence. This isn't just religious dogma; it's increasingly supported by scientific understanding of embryonic development. The question isn't whether the fetus is alive (it clearly is), or whether it's human (its DNA confirms this), but whether it has the moral status that demands protection.

The gospel teaches us that our worth isn't based on our abilities, our independence, or our capacity for certain kinds of consciousness. If it were, then those with severe disabilities, those in comas, and those with dementia would also lack full moral status. Instead, our worth comes from being created in God's image and loved by God, a status that is not dependent on our developmental stage or circumstances.

This is why, from a Christian perspective, the location of the child, inside or outside the womb, cannot be the determining factor in its moral status. A child who could survive outside the womb, but happens to still be inside it, doesn't suddenly lose moral worth because of geography. The gospel calls us to protect the vulnerable wherever they are found.

I also have practical worries about how this legislation would be implemented. Consider the woman who is told at 35 weeks that her child has a severe disability. In her distress, she might feel that continuing the pregnancy would be detrimental to her mental health. Under this legislation, a physician could potentially agree and proceed with termination, even though the child might be perfectly viable outside the womb. This seems to cross a moral line that even many who support abortion rights would find troubling.

Or consider the financial pressures that might influence such decisions. A woman facing economic hardship might argue that having another child would be detrimental to her health due to stress and financial strain. While these concerns are real and deserve our compassion, is termination at 38 weeks really the appropriate response? Shouldn't we instead be working to address the underlying social and economic conditions that make such choices seem necessary?

There's also the question of what constitutes adequate medical judgment. Different physicians might reach different conclusions about what threatens maternal health. Without clearer guidelines and accountability measures, this legislation could lead to inconsistent application and potential abuse.

The gospel doesn't call us to be indifferent to women facing difficult pregnancies. Quite the opposite, it calls us to radical compassion and practical support. When Jesus encountered the woman caught in adultery, He didn't condemn her, but He also didn't ignore the moral dimensions of her situation. He offered both grace and truth.

This is the model for how Christians should respond to unplanned pregnancies, especially those involving serious complications. We should offer grace, practical help, emotional support, and genuine care for both mother and child. We should also hold to the truth that every human life has inherent worth and dignity.

Many churches rise to support women facing difficult pregnancies in practical ways. They've provided financial assistance, childcare, medical support, and long-term community care. They've walked alongside families dealing with fetal diagnoses, offering both practical help and spiritual comfort. This is what the gospel looks like in practice, not judgment, but genuine love that seeks to protect and nurture both mother and child.

There's something troubling about our society's current moral logic regarding the unborn. We celebrate when a woman announces her pregnancy, even in the earliest stages. We hold baby showers, we talk about the "baby," and we recognize the profound reality of what's happening. Yet our legal framework increasingly treats the same developing human as having no moral status worthy of protection. Furthermore, under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, if a pregnant woman is murdered, the perpetrator can be charged with double murder for the deaths of both the woman and her unborn child. This fact demonstrates that our legal system agrees that an unborn child is indeed a person.

This inconsistency becomes even more apparent when we consider how we treat other vulnerable populations. We have elaborate legal protections for endangered species, for those with disabilities, and for the elderly in nursing homes. We recognize that true justice requires special protection for those who cannot protect themselves. Yet this legislation would remove even basic protections from the most vulnerable humans of all.

The gospel calls us to consistency in our moral reasoning. If we believe that human life has inherent dignity, then we must be willing to protect that dignity even when it's inconvenient, even when it requires sacrifice, even when it challenges our preferences.

Some might argue that the government should stay out of these deeply personal decisions. But this misunderstands the proper role of government from a Christian perspective. The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 13 that government is instituted by God to protect the innocent and punish wrongdoing. If the unborn child is indeed a human being with inherent dignity, then protecting that child falls squarely within the government's legitimate sphere.

This doesn't mean government should be heavy-handed or punitive toward women facing difficult pregnancies. But it does mean that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting innocent human life, just as it protects other vulnerable populations from harm. The question isn't whether government should be involved, but how it should be involved.

The gospel calls us to be a people who make it easier, not harder, to choose life. When a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy looks at her options, she should see a community ready to support her, resources available to help her, and a society that values both her dignity and her child's life.

We should be building the kind of culture where protection of the vulnerable isn't seen as a burden but as a privilege, where supporting mothers isn't an afterthought but a priority, where every child is welcomed regardless of their circumstances of conception or their projected abilities.

Throughout Scripture, we see God's particular concern for the vulnerable. In Deuteronomy 27:19, a curse is pronounced on anyone who "perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow." In Isaiah 1:17, we're commanded to "learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause."

The Hebrew concept of justice, mishpat, isn't just about following rules, but about creating conditions where the vulnerable are protected and can flourish. This kind of justice requires us to consider not just what's legally permissible, but what's morally required to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Jesus himself embodied this concern for the vulnerable. He welcomed children when the disciples wanted to send them away. He touched lepers when society cast them out. He defended the woman caught in adultery when the crowd wanted to stone her. He consistently stood with those whom society deemed expendable or burdensome.

This pattern challenges us to ask: Who is the most vulnerable in our society today? Who has the least voice in our political processes? Who is most dependent on others for protection? I would argue that the unborn child, particularly in the later stages of pregnancy, represents the epitome of vulnerability. They have no voice, no political power, and no ability to advocate for themselves.

Some argue that this is merely a religious position that shouldn't influence public policy in a pluralistic society. But the question of when human life begins and what protections it deserves isn't uniquely religious; it's a fundamental question of human rights and justice that every society must grapple with.

The secular arguments for protecting developing human life are compelling. The scientific evidence for the humanity of the unborn is overwhelming. The philosophical arguments for extending moral consideration to the vulnerable are strong. The practical consequences of devaluing human life in its earliest stages should concern us all.

Some argue that men shouldn't have a voice in these discussions since they can't get pregnant. But this misses the point. The question isn't about reproductive autonomy in the abstract; it's about whether there's another human being involved whose rights must be considered. Men have a legitimate interest in protecting vulnerable human life, just as they have a legitimate interest in protecting children, the elderly, and others who cannot protect themselves.

Some argue that this legislation is necessary to protect women's health and autonomy. I share their concern for women's health, but I question whether this legislation is the best way to achieve that goal. Better prenatal care, more comprehensive insurance coverage, and improved support systems would do more to protect women's health than expanding the circumstances under which pregnancy can be terminated. This doesn't mean ignoring the real challenges that women face. It means addressing those challenges in ways that honor the dignity of both mother and child. It means creating a society where no woman feels that ending her pregnancy is her only viable option.

History shows us that societies are judged by how they treat their most vulnerable members. We look back with horror at times when certain groups were deemed less than fully human, when slavery was legal, when people with disabilities were institutionalized and forgotten, and when genocide was rationalized through dehumanizing language.

Each of these moral failures involved the same basic error: defining some human beings as less deserving of protection than others. The criteria used, race, ability, ethnicity, and religion varied, but the fundamental mistake remained the same. We decided that some humans weren't really human enough to deserve our care and protection.

I fear that this legislation moves us further down a similar path. By allowing termination of pregnancy up to the moment of birth based on broadly defined health concerns, we're essentially saying that some developing humans, those who might be disabled, those whose mothers are struggling, those who are simply inconvenient, don't deserve the same protection as others.

The gospel calls us to a different vision. It calls us to see every human being as made in God's image, regardless of their circumstances, abilities, or the convenience of their existence. It calls us to err on the side of protecting life rather than ending it, especially when that life belongs to someone who cannot speak for themselves.

Let me pose a question that I think gets to the heart of this issue: What is the moral difference between a child who is 39 weeks gestation and still in the womb, and a child who is 39 weeks gestation and has been born? Both are viable, both are fully developed, and both are capable of surviving outside the womb. The only difference is location.

If we wouldn't allow the termination of a newborn's life based on broadly defined health concerns, why would we allow it for a child who is equally developed but happens to still be in the womb? The logic that justifies one would seem to justify the other, and I don't think any of us are prepared to accept that conclusion.

This is why I believe this legislation crosses a moral line that even many who support abortion rights would find troubling. It removes the distinction between abortion and infanticide in ways that should concern us all.

I want to mention the voices of those who have survived abortion procedures, particularly those who survived late-term procedures. These individuals have a unique perspective on the legislation you're considering. They're living proof that these procedures involve real human beings with the capacity for survival and flourishing.

Gianna Jessen, who survived a saline abortion at 30 weeks, has spoken powerfully about her experience. She doesn't speak with bitterness, but with a profound sense of the value of human life. She reminds us that the children affected by this legislation aren't abstractions; they're real human beings with the potential for full and meaningful lives.

Their witness challenges us to consider the full implications of the choices we're making. When we expand the circumstances under which late-term procedures can be performed, we're not just dealing with medical procedures; we're dealing with human lives that might otherwise survive and thrive.

You have been entrusted with a profound responsibility: to shape the laws that will govern our society and protect the vulnerable. This is not a responsibility to be taken lightly.

When you cast your vote on this legislation, you're not just making a political calculation. You're making a statement about what kind of society we want to be. You're deciding whether we will expand protections for the vulnerable or remove them. You're choosing whether we will create conditions that support life or make it easier to end it.

What will you say to your children and grandchildren when they ask why you voted the way you did? Will you be able to tell them that you stood up for the vulnerable, even when it was difficult? Will you be able to say that you chose to protect life, even when it was costly?

These are the questions that matter most. These are the questions that will determine whether we look back on this moment with pride or with regret.

Let me end where I began, with the gospel. The gospel tells us that we live in a broken world, marked by sin and suffering. It tells us that we will face difficult choices and tragic situations. But it also tells us that there is hope; hope for redemption, hope for healing, hope for a better future.

This hope doesn't minimize the real challenges that women facing difficult pregnancies experience. But it does provide a framework for responding to those challenges in ways that honor the dignity of all involved. It calls us to be a people who choose life, who support the vulnerable, and who work for justice and mercy.

The gospel also tells us that we are not alone in this work. God is with us, empowering us to do what seems impossible, calling us to be agents of His love and grace in a broken world. This is our highest calling: to be people who reflect God's heart for the vulnerable, who work for justice, and who never give up hope.

We stand at a crossroads. We can choose to expand the circumstances under which developing human life can be ended, or we can choose to expand our capacity to support and protect both mothers and children. We can choose to define some humans as less deserving of protection than others, or we can choose to extend protection to all, especially the most vulnerable.

I believe the latter choice is not just morally superior, but practically superior. It creates the kind of society where everyone can flourish, where the vulnerable are protected, and where we work together to solve problems rather than simply eliminating those who might be affected by them.

The gospel calls us to be people of both truth and grace, people who stand firm on our convictions while extending love and compassion to all. It calls us to be people who choose life, who support the vulnerable, and who work tirelessly for justice and mercy.

I pray that you will choose wisely, that you will vote in ways that protect the vulnerable and support life, and that you will help us create the kind of society where every human being is valued and protected. The stakes could not be higher. The choice is yours. Thank you for your time and consideration as you deliberate on this crucial legislation. May God grant you wisdom as you make this decision. May you choose life. And may we all commit ourselves to creating the kind of society where that choice is supported, celebrated, and sustained. Thank you.