According to Not the Bee, Evangelical Bishop Claude Alexander has expressed his support for induced abortion — the direct and intentional killing of preborn children.
During what MSNBC has called a “Zoom-style rally” for Vice President Harris’ election campaign, the new political group, Evangelicals for Harris, attempted to gather support for Harris among a religious group that has strong pro-life convictions and has in the past largely supported former President Donald Trump.
Alexander holds great influence with Evangelicals. He is a member of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary’s Board of Trustees, Board Chair of Christianity Today, and also serves on the boards of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, and BioLogos (a nonprofit focused on exploring the intersection of faith and science, founded by former NIH director Francis Collins). This is why his remarks are particularly egregious. He said, “I wholeheartedly support the rights of the preborn. I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare in the cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother.”
These two sentences contradict each other.
“Safe, legal, and rare” is (and has always been) a pro-abortion position, not one espoused by those who claim to believe in protecting preborn children. In fact, “safe, legal, and rare” was coined by none other than President Bill Clinton, an abortion supporter, whose administration brought the abortion pill into the U.S. It should be obvious that “safe, legal, and rare” was not the true desire of the Clinton administration, and the statement itself was disingenuous propaganda.
Woke Preacher Clips caught Alexander’s comments and posted them to X:
During the “Evangelicals For Harris” Zoom call, Bishop Claude Alexander says “I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare in the cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother,” and “this election is a referendum on January 6.”
He is probably the most… pic.twitter.com/kDutdwUZhw
— Woke Preacher Clips (@WokePreacherTV) August 18, 2024
He missed the memo
The idea that abortion advocates only want abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare” has always been false, but it especially rings false today. In 2021, “safe, legal, and rare” was replaced by ‘taxpayer-funded, anytime, for any reason.’ In April of that year, Renee Bracey Sherman — a former NARAL (Reproductive Freedom for All) board member and founder of the abortion site We Testify — lectured politicians to lose the ‘safe, legal, rare’ tagline.
In an opinion piece published by Rewire News Group, Bracey Sherman criticized the use of the phrase, claiming that “[d]emanding abortion be ‘rare’ is stigmatizing at its core.” Likewise, NPR explained that year:
The 1990s-era Democratic slogan ‘safe, legal and rare’ is now deeply controversial, and many abortion-rights activists consider it inherently stigmatizing.
In fact, when people like former Planned Parenthood President Leana Wen and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard said they wanted abortion to be ‘safe, legal and rare,’ they were met with backlash.
In other words, belief in ‘safe, legal and rare’ has not entirely disappeared; rather, the group of people who believe that it is an either ineffective or outright-harmful strategy has grown — and grown louder.
The narrative then shifted further in 2024 to the push for more abortion, and the industry rebranded itself, dropping “pro-choice” and switching to a marketing plan of abortion as “freedom” — again, propaganda which pro-abortion politicians were more than happy to adopt.
Health of the mother
If Alexander wants abortion to be legal in cases in which the mother is experiencing a health or life-threatening medical complication, he has jumped on board with the erroneous claim that induced abortion is medically necessary in emergency situations. It’s not.
It is not medically necessary to intentionally kill a preborn child prior to delivery in an emergency situation or if the mother’s health is at risk. In an emergency, induced labor or a C-section can be carried out to end the pregnancy without purposefully killing the child. Induced labor and emergency C-sections are not induced abortions and are not prohibited by any law. If a child dies unintentionally due to extreme prematurity, this also is not an induced abortion.
In situations early in pregnancy such as ectopic pregnancies, treatment is not considered an induced abortion, either. Without treatment, the mother could die and the baby will die. The treatment doesn’t carry the intent of killing the baby but of saving the mother.
Rape and incest
Alexander also wants abortion legal in cases of rape and incest — a discriminatory stance that argues innocent people should be killed for circumstances that are beyond their own control. Though this stance is often given as a “compassionate” position, killing innocent children is always wrong, and supporting abortion only in cases of rape and incest is misplaced justice that is actually unjust for the baby. The abortion will not erase the sexual trauma and the true justice would be to prosecute and imprison the perpetrator. Only about six percent (6%) of rapists ever serve time in prison, and there is just a 50.8% chance of arrest if a rape is reported. If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution, but just a 58% chance of conviction. This needs to change. Children should not be punished for the crimes of their fathers.
In addition, past studies have shown that most pregnant rape survivors choose life without regret. Arguing that abortion is necessary for rape and incest dehumanizes the countless people currently alive who were conceived in an act of violence and who are worthy of life. They can hear abortion advocates argue that they should have been killed rather than born.
Meanwhile, many pro-life laws include exceptions that target preborn babies for death based on the circumstances of their conception.
‘Fight for me to live’
Alexander also said during the call, “When it comes to deciding ‘who will I support’, the question is not, ‘Will you fight for me to be born?’ The question is, ‘Will you fight for me to live?’ To deny me adequate neonatal care renders me dead on arrival.”
He added that he doesn’t want to be “pro-birth” but focus on advocating for prenatal care for the mother, care for the mother after giving birth, nutrition and housing for the mother and the child, and preschool and early childhood education programs.
“To be pro-life is to give myself to the concerns that affect the continuum of life from the cradle to the grave,” he said. He compared this election to that of 1868, calling that election a “referendum on the Civil War” and the 2024 election a “referendum on January 6….”
Let’s leave aside the fact that Alexander failed to mention that life begins before “the cradle,” or that he just compared January 6 (costing an estimated seven lives) to a war that tore apart the United States, costing an estimated 1.5 million lives, or that he also failed to note that 2,800 human lives are lost every single day to abortion in the U.S.
To be “pro-life” means that you must first fight to allow the child to be born, because without protecting his right to be born, he will not even have a chance to obtain “adequate neonatal care.” Is Alexander attempting to say that killing innocent human beings is acceptable if that child might be poor or disadvantaged? Is he attempting to say that it’s okay to kill humans if we can’t provide for their every need? This does not sound like an idea that Christ would have endorsed.
Early Christians in Rome used to rescue abandoned infants who were at risk of death from exposure. Why should modern-day Christians not try to rescue those at risk of death? Proverbs 24:11-12 states, “Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, ‘Behold, we did not know this,’ does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?”
In addition, Alexander’s argument is old and lacking in logic. Pro-lifers are not simply “pro-birth.” Pro-life pregnancy resource centers exist to help women through pregnancy and after birth, often for two to five years after the child is born. Pro-lifers support pregnancy centers with their donations in their communities.
In addition, abortion up to birth (and even killing after birth) is unfortunately real. Infanticide is creeping into American law. In Colorado, Michigan, and California, laws are being enacted that would prevent prosecution for any “pregnancy outcomes.” It’s a vague term that can encompass outcomes such as birth, miscarriage, abortion, and even death after birth. Legal experts have stated that “outcomes” is left undefined, a post-birth death that is caused deliberately or by negligence is not excluded. Babies who survive abortions or those born with previously undiagnosed health conditions could be left to die after birth.
California’s law also includes the undefined phrase, “perinatal death,” which experts say allows for a loophole for doctors or abortionists to use their own discretion in allowing a baby to die rather than providing him or her with medical care. For example, a “perinatal death due to causes that occurred in utero” could in theory allow a baby who survived an abortion to die from injuries sustained in the abortion even if there is life-saving care available. It could also allow a baby to die because he was deprived of oxygen during delivery or because he may have a health condition related to his mother’s alcohol use during pregnancy. The language could easily allow infanticide based on discriminatory beliefs.
Overall, Alexander and other teachers in positions of authority would do well to ensure that they heed the wisdom of the Creator of Life instead of the “wisdom” of the world.
