I finally got around to watching the viral video where Ana Navarro, during a CNN interview, uses her mentally-handicapped family members as prime examples for abortion. I expected to only write a rebuttal to that egregious argument but instead was so utterly appalled by the entire discourse that I decided to give a blow-by-blow response. Just to be clear: this is not a “bash Ana Navarro fest.” As Christians we are supposed to speak the truth in love, which means that 1) we don’t personally attack people, and 2) we do, however, refute arguments that do not align with the word of God.

(Language Warning)

There’s quite a bit of stuff to unpack, so let’s start at the very beginning (a very good place to start), shall we?

First, Ana Navarro believes the Supreme Court is inconsistent in its decision to strike down New York’s gun law and then in its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

"So apparently, states are allowed to regulate my uterus, but not guns that kill people. So I have a very hard time with the inconsistency and cherry-picking of what makes states' rights"

Actually, Mrs. Navarro, the Supreme Court is being quite consistent. They’re being consistent to a little old document called the Constitution of the United States. Whereas the Constitution requires the Federal Government to protect gun rights, it doesn’t require them to protect the supposed “right” to kill your unborn child.

As a side note, if guns “kill people,” what do you think abortions do?

Gun Rights,

On one hand, the Supreme Court defended gun owners from an overreaching gun law. The SCOTUS decided a 108 year-old New York concealed-carry law to be unconstitutional. From the decision’s syllabus:

The State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so.

You can bet this is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment to the Constitution states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” What privilege is being abridged, you ask? Nothing more than the 2nd amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Having citizens plead with the (rather liberal) New York government to allow them to carry concealed guns is not conducive to the ability to “keep and bear arms.” Who knows what “proper cause” New York requires? But if I know anything about democratically-run states, I’m fairly certain that the definition of “proper cause” is very lenient.

In all seriousness, Liberals don’t want law-abiding citizens to bear arms because it’s too much of a risk to their lust for power. Never mind that good guys with guns stop gun violence, if your gun gets in the way of the Liberal World Order, you can bet your Liberal lawmaker buddies will do everything they can to keep you from having the ability to use them.

Also, from a Biblical perspective, we see that defense of self and others is warranted and promoted. God, in the OT law, allowed for defense of home and property in Exodus 22:2-3. The disciples were told to carry a sword for the purpose of self-defense in Luke 22:36-38.

“Hold up,” you say. “Matthew 5:39 says ‘But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.’ Jesus is clearly saying that if attacked, one should not respond.” Not so fast. We know that God never contradicts Himself, and by extension, His Word never contradicts itself either. In light of 1 Peter 2:23 and in the interest of the consistency of the Bible, I believe this passage is best interpreted it in a figurative sense, as in slander, not physical harm.

Abortion,

On the other hand, the Supreme Court decided that it really wasn’t the Federal Government’s place to make abortion policy. The “Constitutional” defense for the federally mandated “right to abortion” has been the “due process” clause in the 14th amendment. It reads as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(emphasis mine)

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito discusses why this is not the case.

 When we engage in that inquiry in the present case, the clear answer is that the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect abortion. That is true regardless of whether we look to the Amendment’s Due Process Clause or its Privileges or Immunities Clause. Some scholars and Justices have maintained that the Privileges or Immunities Clause is the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees substantive rights. But even on that view, such a right would need to be rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.
...
Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. 
...
Not only was there no support for such a constitutional right until shortly before Roe, but abortion had long been a crime in every single State.

Because the 14th amendment doesn’t protect abortion, we can just look to the 10th amendment to see what entity gets to make policy decisions regarding abortion.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Well how about that! The states get to decide abortion policy for themselves! So does this mean the government overstepped its bounds in Roe v. Wade? Duh! Of course not! The Federal Government would never do such a thing. Seriously though, power is attractive, and more often than not, we as sinful people will tend to collect as much of it as possible. So it comes as no surprise that politicians will attempt to accumulate power like no-one’s business. The Supreme Court returned the power of abortion policy to the states’ governments, which answer more directly to those they represent.

As far as a Biblical perspective goes, the Bible is very clear that murder (taking an innocent person’s life in cold blood) is evil and sinful. We see this right away in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13). Because every human is made in God’s image, every human has intrinsic value (Genesis 1:27).

But the question remains: are preborn children actual humans? Again, the Bible is very clear. Psalm 139:13-15 says “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.” Isaiah 44:2 says: “Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you from the womb and will help you: Fear not, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen.”

Clearly, God is has a hand in procreation (as He does in everything). If God cares enough to intricately design and uphold the life of every single baby, don’t you think they have just as much value as humans outside of the womb?

And Eugenics

Moving forward, the other guest very correctly points out that Ana Navarro identifies as a Catholic and that the Catholic church denounces abortion. It is now that Mrs. Navarro launches into her temperamental tirade.

And I am not anybody to you what you need to do with your life or with your uterus. And because I have a family with a lot of special needs kids. I have a brother, who's 57 and has the mental and motor skills of a 1 year-old.
...
 And I have a step-granddaughter, who was born with Down Syndrome.
...
 And I've got another, another step-grandson who is very autistic, who has autism.
...
 The mothers and people in that society or in that community will tell you that they've considered suicide. Because that's how difficult it is to get help. Because that's how lonely they feel. Because they can't get other jobs. Because they have financial issues. Because the care that they're able to give their other children suffers.

We’ll just stop right there. So because it’s difficult to care for a person with special needs, it’s justifiable to pull the trigger? Let me be clear:

Absolutely not.

I’m sorry, but who decided that human beings are the arbiters of value? That is God’s job and His only. Just because one human suffers more under the effects of the fall does not mean that they are worth any less than the one that doesn’t. Creation groans because of Adam’s sin and anyone born with a mental or physical handicap is simply displaying one of the more debilitating effects of it. They still posses the image of God and their life is worth just as much as yours.

If you think that they aren’t as valuable as you, check yourself, ’cause you are falling prey to the brain rot that is Darwinism. Because Darwinism avows survival of the fittest, by extension, those that aren’t fit or those that muddy the gene pool deserve nothing more than extermination. That’s called eugenics.

This is the exact opposite of what we see in the Bible. Psalm 82:4 tells us to care for the weak and the needy, not murder them. In John 9:2-3 Jesus tells us that a man was born blind so “that the works of God might be displayed in him.” As humans, who are we to decide who gets to display the works of God?

I am by no means belittling the struggles faced by those that care for disabled people. I have personal experience in this area and I am quite aware of the difficulties that are present. However, it was God’s decision to give you a disabled family member. It is not up to you to decide if they can live. You might think that if it were up to you a better decision would have been made. Who do you think is smarter, Yaweh, the thrice Holy God of the Bible, or you? While it is indeed difficult to raise and care for a developmentally-handicapped person, it was by God’s sovereign will that they even exist.

And so why can I be Catholic and still think it is a wrong decision? Because I'm American. I'm Catholic inside the church. I'm Catholic when it comes to me. But there's a lot of Americans who are not Catholic, who are not Christian, who are not Baptist. And you have no [expletive] right to tell them what they should do with their bodies. Nobody does.

Nobody, huh? How about God Himself? Mrs. Navarro must not be a very good Catholic, because Catholics, as heretical as they are, still teach that God created everything. Don’t you think that the One who created you has the divine prerogative to make guidelines regarding how you should live? Regardless of whether or not you believe in God’s existence, He is alive and well. He doesn’t need your belief to exist.

In addition, I’m pretty sure that the Declaration of Independence, a fundamental American document says something about the right to life.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
(emphasis mine)

Is self defense legitimate? It is. Is abortion despicable? Quite. Are eugenics just as bad? Absolutely. Who decided this? Not me, not the men who wrote the Constitution, but God.

We must get our worldview from Him and Him only.