Virginia may have swung from red to blue in 2008, but its new governor has taken action via executive order that revised the state’s anti-discrimination policy to explicitly remove “sexual orientation” from the list—now putting the jobs of state gay and lesbian workers at risk.
The order rescinds the policy of his predecessor Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat who promised to be “fair and inclusive” in his inaugural address and then—as one of his first actions—added veterans and sexual orientation to the state’s non-discrimination policy.
Gov. Bob McDonnell swears the new policy isn’t “anti-gay” and that he’ll make sure the workplace is still fair for everyone—which begs the question of why remove it in the first place unless it’s just a ploy to play to his hard right political base?
Virginia is still a state with large swaths of deep conservatism, as shown by Delegate Bob Marshall, who claimed at a press conference that disabled children are God’s punishment for abortions:
“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” said Marshall, a Republican. “In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”
Marshall presents his argument without any support facts, of course. What he’s referring to, however is a 2007 study done by Virginia Commonwealth University, and oddly enough, it doesn’t refer to “handicapped” or “disabled” children. Instead, it shows a link between abortions and low birth weight or “preemie” babies. The study also primarily relies on old data from the 1960s when abortion was illegal and some procedures may have been “cruder than abortion procedures today,” causing more injury to women who underwent them.
Clearly, the data doesn’t back up what Marshall is saying—abortions don’t lead to “handicapped” babies, just premature ones who may well go on to become healthy children. Also, the data in the study is flawed and similar studies have showed a weaker link between abortions and low birth weight, and other studies show no link at all.
However, Marshall isn’t content to spout spurious science, he has to get in his Bible verses as well. He gets this part just as wrong as he gets his science. It’s true that the Bible orders the first born to be set aside for God. Numbers 8:17 is explicit in this: “For all the firstborn among the Israelites are mine, both human and animal.”
Marshall tries to tie this concept to modern families. First, the verse only refers to first born males. First born females were not commanded to be dedicated to God, because in a patriarchal society, females are just not that important to the hierarchy. In fact, they were mere chattel. So, it begs the question, does the study show that more women who abort a male fetus who was to be the first born bearing more “disabled” children than women who abort a female fetus? It seems to me that if God’s true concern was for “firstborn” sons to be dedicated to him then he’d be especially upset that the males are being aborted, but not so upset about the female fetuses since they’re not supposed to be consecrated to God. Studies should bear this out if indeed God’s wrath is at work here.
But, that may be asking for Marshall to put too much context to his words. It may also be asking too much for Marshall to really understand the scripture he wants to quote. It’s easy to toss around memorable Biblical phrases like “all the firstborn are mine,” but it leaves out very big issues of context—namely that the verse really says it’s only the first born among the Israelites that are God’s. It doesn’t say anything about America’s first born. Context is a tricky thing and usually doesn’t fit well into whatever modern point we’re trying to read into the ancient text.
If Marshall is serious about returning to a practice of dedicating first born sons to God, then the whole ritual needs to be done. The first fruits of harvest and animals are “dedicated” to God by ritual sacrifice of those plants and animals. The first born humans are not killed, but a lamb is slain in their place. Is Marshall really advocating for a return to animal sacrifice to dedicate the first born son to God? I certainly hope not.
It is, of course, through this ritual that Christians came to identify Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15), and in his sacrifice for the world’s sin he becomes the “Lamb of God.”
To suggest that God punishes families for abortions by giving them “disabled” children later is just another example of how the religious right abuses scripture, either because they really don’t understand the context, or because they intentionally distort the scripture to fit their own prejudices. Whatever Marshall’s motivation, ignorance or manipulation, his words only prove once again one ought to exercise caution when mixing religion and politics. Just as we should not seek to divide the world easily into red state/blue state, conservative/liberal, or Republican/Democrat, we should be wary of declaring that we know God’s intentions, especially when the science doesn’t back us up.
