Anyone acting surprised that Calvin University has caved to the cultural prostitutes of LGBTQ activism hasn’t actually been following the news. For years, Calvin University has been in liberal decline as it has increasingly embraced facets of the LGBTQ movement through its student and faculty programs.
As a Christian university named after arguably the most famous Protestant reformer in the Reformed Tradition, John Calvin, it has become an icon for liberalism. Calvin University, formerly Calvin College, is located in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and is associated with the Christian Reformed Church denomination which has its roots in the Netherlands and is largely influenced by the early twentieth-century theologian, Abraham Kuyper.
Today, The Christian Reformed Church is a full-fledged liberal denomination that boasts inclusivity and progressivism throughout its layers of organizational structure, including at Calvin U.
In a recent speech at Calvin University, Rep. Hillary Scholten, a member of the Christian Reformed Church, defended legal abortion by arguing that criminalizing the practice would violate the 1st Amendment and that it would require a consensus on what scripture says about exactly where life begins.
This assertion is not only morally bankrupt but also reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. The First Amendment protects our right to free speech and the free exercise of religion, not the right to kill unborn children. And to suggest that Christians cannot come to a consensus on this issue is disingenuous and insulting.
Scholten also defended her vote against The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, claiming that it was not designed to change the law but to send a message. This statement is not only false but also callous. The bill was designed to protect babies who survive abortions from being left to die, and it is unconscionable that anyone, let alone an elected representative who claims to be a Christian, would vote against such a measure.
Scholten’s justification for her vote is equally troubling. She claimed that the bill would take away the choice of palliative care for mothers who had had a pre-term birth and who wanted to hold their infant. While this scenario is certainly heartbreaking, it is not relevant to the bill at hand which was focused solely on protecting infants who survive abortions.
Scholten’s comments during the Q&A session were even more concerning. When asked who should be allowed to make the difficult choice of whether or not to have an abortion, she argued that it should be the woman and her doctor, rather than the federal government. This callous and selfish argument ignores the fact that there is another human being involved in the decision: the unborn child. To suggest that this decision should be left solely to the woman and her doctor is to ignore the rights of the unborn and to endorse a culture of death.
Scholten’s response to a question about the majority of abortions not fitting into the exceptions category was evasive at best. Rather than addressing the fact that the majority of abortions are performed for reasons that have nothing to do with rape, incest, or the life of the mother, she simply repeated the tired talking point that women are being forced to go into septic shock before they get life-saving care.