abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by Mark Hamilton

With the recent passing of former President Ronald Reagan much has been spoken and written about his lasting legacy. The accomplishments of our 40th president were vast and will be remembered. Accolades have been accorded him for bringing down the Soviet Empire and re-establishing confidence in the American military. He has also been praised for re-energizing the American economy through his tax cuts, for his desire to lessen the role of government, and for promoting pride in America. But to my surprise and consternation most commentators have overlooked what I consider to be the most important domestic development of the Reagan years, his stand for a life ethic.

In the late 1970s many in the Christian community were becoming aware of the immorality of abortion. When in 1973 Roe v. Wade legalized abortion on demand, many Christians were blindsided or very ignorant of the issues involved. For the first few years of legalized abortion it was commonly viewed as a Roman Catholic issue. Most Protestants were ignorant of the significant public policy issues that were being created by the emergence of a culture of death. The publication twenty-five years ago of Whatever Happened to the Human Race? and the film series by the same title by Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop awakened much of the evangelical community to the moral violations being enacted against the disenfranchised in America. I remember going to Detroit for a conference in 1979 to hear Schaeffer and Koop speak and to see the film series. It was then that I, shortly out of college, was enlightened to the horrors of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.

Koop and Schaeffer documented how abortion was leading us on a slippery slope toward infanticide (the killing of a born child by either a direct act or by a passive indirect act such as refusing food or hydration) and eventually full-blown euthanasia.1 The rulings in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton had denied the rights of the unborn through the entire nine months of pregnancy, so what would be the difference of extending this just a few more days? They were warning that this would be the logical implication of permitting abortion on demand throughout pregnancy. Schaeffer and Koop described that there was growing evidence that children born with various congenital defects were being permitted to die by inattention or what should be more rightly called being starved to death. These children were being treated as non-persons and disposed of like wounded animals. Schaeffer and Koop even quoted such luminaries as Nobel Prize researcher James Watson: "If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have."2 Or Francis Crick who said, "No newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live."3

Dr. Albert Mohler has written, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? awakened American evangelicals to the anti-human technologies and ideologies that then threatened human dignity. Most urgently, the project put abortion unquestionably on the front burner of evangelical concern. The tenor of the times is seen in the fact that Schaeffer and Koop had to argue to evangelicals in the late 1970s that abortion was not just a "Catholic" issue. They taught many evangelicals a new and urgently needed vocabulary about embryo ethics, euthanasia and infanticide. They knew they were running out of time.4 Schaeffer and Koop were sounding a warning that infanticide was already beginning to be practiced in this country and was actually being carried out by various members of the medical profession itself and that it would not be long until it became an acceptable practice.

The great legacy of President Ronald Reagan is that he heard the call to action by Schaeffer, Koop, and other evangelicals to fight for life. This is a reason why we must honor Ronald Reagan as a Christian statesman. One of Reagan's first steps in this battle was to nominate Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General (confirmed in January 1982).

Then in 1982, while Reagan was president, a baby who became known as Baby Doe was born in Bloomington, Indiana. Baby Doe had Down's Syndrome and a trachea-esophagal fistula. This refers to a connection between the food-pipe and the wind-pipe that blocks food from reaching the stomach. The condition is correctable through surgery, but the parents of Baby Doe refused and petitioned the courts for the right to starve their child to death. The Indiana Supreme Court agreed and said they had this right so the child died seven days after birth and before the U.S. Supreme Court could hear an appeal. The Indiana court had publicly prevailed in legally permitting infanticide.

The following year, Baby Jane Doe was born in New York. Her parents seemed ready to permit doctors to correct a spinal defect she was born with and to place a shunt in her to prevent water to the brain (hydrocephalus). But when they were told the baby could suffer from mental retardation, the parents backed off and refused surgery. This meant that the child would probably die soon of meningitis infections entering through the open spine. Complaints were filed in the courts against this action. The New York court ruled the parents could passively treat the child, providing minimal food and care while awaiting death. But over the next several months the child surprised everyone as skin grew over the opening in the spine. At this point the parents consented to the implantation of the shunt.

Of these cases President Reagan wrote in 1983:

The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother's body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law--the same right we have. What more dramatic confirmation could we have of the real issue than the Baby Doe case in Bloomington, Indiana? The death of that tiny infant tore at the hearts of all Americans because the child was undeniably a live human being--one lying helpless before the eyes of the doctors and the eyes of the nation. The real issue for the courts was not whether Baby Doe was a human being. The real issue was whether to protect the life of a human being who had Down's Syndrome, who would probably be mentally handicapped, but who needed a routine surgical procedure to unblock his esophagus and allow him to eat . A doctor testified to the presiding judge that even with his physical problem corrected, Baby Doe would have a "non-existent" possibility for a "minimally adequate quality of life"--in other words that retardation was the equivalent of a crime deserving the death penalty. The judge let Baby Doe starve and die, and the Indiana Supreme Court sanctioned his decision.5

But President Reagan did not make his position stand on words alone. No, he acted decisively and righteously. He stated:

Federal law does not allow federally-assisted hospitals to decide that Down's Syndrome infants are not worth treating, much less to decide to starve them to death. Accordingly, I have directed the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to apply civil rights regulations to protect handicapped newborns. All hospitals receiving federal funds must post notices which clearly state that failure to feed handicapped babies, is prohibited by federal law. The basic issue is whether to value and protect the lives of the handicapped, whether to recognize the sanctity of human life. This is the same basic issue that underlies the question of abortion.6

In March of 1983, President Reagan addressed the National Association of Evangelicals and made the following strong statements affirming life:

More than a decade ago, a Supreme Court decision literally wiped off the books of fifty states statutes protecting the rights of unborn children. Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up to one and a half million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will someday pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be protected.

You may remember that when abortion on demand began, many, and indeed, I'm sure many of you, warned that the practice would lead to a decline in respect for human life, that the philosophical premises used to justify abortion on demand would ultimately be used to justify other attacks on the sacredness of human life--infanticide or mercy killing. Tragically enough, those warnings proved all too true. Only last year a court permitted the death by starvation of a handicapped infant.

I have directed the Health and Human Services Department to make clear to every health facility in the United States that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects all handicapped persons against discrimination based on handicaps, including infants. And we have taken the further step of requiring each and every recipient of federal funds who provides health care services to infants must post and keep posted in a conspicuous place a notice stating that "discriminatory failure to feed and care for handicapped infants in this facility is prohibited by federal law." It also lists a twenty-four-hour, toll-free number so that nurses and others may report violations in time to save the infant's life.7

Reagan also believed that if the issue of infanticide could be brought before the public, it then could be stopped. He avowed, "I know that when the true issue of infanticide is placed before the American people, with all the facts openly aired, we will have no trouble deciding that a mentally or physically handicapped baby has the same intrinsic worth and right to life as the rest of us."8 He was able to get this issue before Congress while there was still a moral consensus against infanticide, before the death culture could brainwash much of society to support the practice (as it has done with abortion).

So President Reagan got the political and legal machinery moving on this issue. In this same speech in March of 1983, he stated, "I urge the Congress to begin hearings and to adopt legislation that will protect the right of life to all children, including the disabled or handicapped."9 Because of the publicity of these two cases and the strong support of President Reagan, within nine months of the Baby Jane Doe case, Congress passed the Child Abuse Amendment of 1984 and it was signed into law in October 1984. This made it illegal for doctors to withhold nourishment or medically indicated treatments unless the infant was comatose, the treatment would promote its death or was "futile in terms of the survival of the infant."

Though Reagan spoke out and opposed abortion quite vigorously, he was unsuccessful in stopping it, and it could even be argued that his Supreme Court appointments have compromised the pro-life cause. It should be noted, however, that he made numerous efforts at slowing the trend of abortion. But Reagan was quite successful in stopping the growing practice of infanticide in the early 1980s.

As Bonnie Rogoff has written: "President Reagan was a moral crusader as well, and is remembered for his unwavering commitment to ending abortion. A passionate pro-lifer, Mr. Reagan never retreated from the issue. That contrasts with today's moderate Republican cowards who cringe upon hearing the phrase 'unborn child'." She has also chronicled his pro-life legacy. "He created the Mexico City policy, which prevented funds from going to international organizations that performed abortions. In 1985, the Kemp-Kaston Amendment was passed by Congress, prohibiting the United States from financing organizations that supported or participated in non-voluntary sterilization or forced abortions, standard policy in China. His administration placed a ban on federal funding for fetal tissue research taken from aborted babies, and he opposed the human pesticide RU-486, preventing its importation into the United States. The Reagan administration filed a brief in the Supreme Court's Thornburgh case supporting Pennsylvania restrictions on abortion and calling for a reversal of Roe v. Wade."10

In graduate school I had a professor who had cerebral palsy on one side of his body. Dr. M. spoke with a slight lisp, limped, and wrote slowly on the board, but he was an absolutely brilliant philosopher. He loved the ancient philosopher Aristotle and often praised his systematic vision of the universe. He was also regularly critical of Christianity. But one day in the midst of his lecture he reflectively stated something similar to the following: there would be "no place for me in Aristotle's world," for Aristotle supported infanticide for those born less than perfect. He then added that it wasn't until the advent of Christianity into the world that there became a place for people like him. President Reagan understood that it is only the Judeo-Christian foundation that gives individuals intrinsic dignity as we are made in the image of the personal infinite Creator.

This defining position of the Reagan legacy is now in jeopardy. There is the danger that it will be harmed by his loving wife as she has begun a campaign to promote stem cell research to speed up the search for a cure for Alzheimer's disease. Just a few months ago in Los Angeles, Nancy Reagan told a crowd that stem cell research must be pursued "to save families from the pain" of debilitating illnesses like Alzheimer's disease. (It should also be noted that the most recent research is showing that this will not be an answer to Alzheimer's.) But in order to do this in the manner that many seek, there would have to be experimentation on fertilized embryos, also called fetuses, or more appropriately unborn babies created for this very experimental utilitarian purpose.

This, I am afraid, is directly contrary to the bold stand President Reagan made against abortion and infanticide when he said in his essay "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation":

Over the first two years of my Administration I have closely followed and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion.... Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters, but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know the respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply ingrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed.11

President Reagan could not have stated it more succinctly when he declared, "Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the 'quality of life' ethic."12 Thank God that Ronald Reagan stood for the life ethic. My prayer is that Nancy Reagan will not tarnish the pro-life legacy of her husband and will return to the sanctity of life ethic so devoutly held by President Ronald Reagan, a Christian Statesman.13

Dr. Mark Hamilton is associate professor of philosophy at Ashland University (Ohio) where he has taught for over 20 years. He teaches courses in ethics, philosophy of religion, ancient/medieval philosophy, and C.S. Lewis. He is also the NCAA Faculty Representative and Head of Compliance for Athletics there and recently published two chapters in the book Baseball and Philosophy. Hamilton is one of the founding elders of Providence Church, a family integrated Reformed Church. He and his wife Pat have homeschooled their two daughters.

Endnotes

1. One could certainly and technically argue that abortion is a type of infanticide, but a useful distinction is to use the term abortion for procedure of killing of the unborn and infanticide for the newly born.

2. Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1979), p. 73.

3. Ibid..

4. R. Albert Mohler Jr., First Person: They Were Indeed Prophetic in BP News, January 29, 2004.

5. Ronald Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation first printed in 1983. This document can be found at numerous websites including: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/Reaganabortion.shtml.

6. Ibid..

7. Ronald Reagan, Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando Florida, delivered March 8, 1983. This speech can be found at numerous websites including: http://65.126.3.86/reagan/html/reagan03_08_83.shtml.

8. Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation.

9. Reagan, Remarks at the Annual Convention...

10. Bonnie Chernin Rogoff, President Reagan's Legacy for Life, June 9, 2004 http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/brogoff/2004/bcr_0609.shtml

11. Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation.

12. Ibid..

13. Shortly after this article was submitted to The Christian Statesman, Michael Reagan, the son of President Reagan, published an editorial recognizing his father's life ethic and that both he and his father would disagree with Nancy on the Stem Cell Research issue.

back to top