Bible-Thumping Pastor Believes Women Shouldn’t Interfere with ‘God’s Will’ In Pregnancy—Except His Own Wife

Finger pointingThe Pill is destroying America, making women into idle lazy tattlers and gossips according to Arizona Baptist pastor Steven Anderson. And whores. His bottom line: Feminism, coupled with birth control, gives a woman the power to decide when to have children, allowing her to pursue other interests: “You know, my main goal is to go to college, and to graduate from college, and I’m going to be a lawyer and I’m going to be a doctor and I’m going to be a marine biologist.”

Now, you may think that doesn’t sound idle or lazy at all. You may think it sounds good. But it’s actually bad, bad, bad. A woman who isn’t “busy about having children” gets into “sin!”

Anderson opened a recent sermon-length rant against contraception by quoting the book of Genesis:

“Unto the woman he said I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children and thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee.” (Genesis 3:16)

A father of seven, soon to be eight, Anderson thinks that women should let God manage their family planning. He has preached for hours on the topic, because the Bible, in his words, makes God’s will perfectly clear.

“It used to be a young woman, she gets married, she has children, and that’s her job.”

That’s her job! Male Christian leaders have been making this point for centuries. Why aren’t women listening?? Martin Luther, patron saint of the Protestant Reformation, minced no words: “If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her only die from bearing; she is there to do it.”

See Genesis 3.

And 1 Timothy 2:15, which says women will be saved through childbearing.

And 1 Timothy 5:13, the source of the comment about women who are idle tattlers and gossips.

And 13 other Bible verses that tell us exactly what the writers thought of women.

If she dies, she is there to do it. Luther had this on very good authority. But when his wife’s most recent pregnancy became high risk, Anderson didn’t choose adopt Luther’s approach. He didn’t follow the Evangelical adage, “Let go and let God.” Instead, he turned to some of the best modern medical specialists available, ultimately choosing a procedure that maximized the likelihood that at least one of two threatened identical twins would live and minimized the risk of maternal mortality.

Anderson’s wife chronicles their family life through a blog called: “’Are they all yours?’ Real life stories from one big happy family!” In December, loyal readers learned, when she did, that a pregnancy that was to produce their eighth and ninth children was in danger:

One twin (and his sac) is taking up the vast majority of the uterine cavity. This baby is overly active, while the other twin is hardly active at all, and wedged into my lower left side. It is also obvious that a bladder is not visible on the smaller (donor) baby due to low fluid levels. . . . One baby is in danger of dying from severe anemia and dehydration, leading to brain damage and cardiac arrest, while the other baby struggles with an excess of blood volume that is likely to also lead to cardiac arrest and death.

God or nature, whichever you believe created human life, designed reproduction as a funnel. Hundreds of eggs and millions of sperm produce a few fertilized eggs, which produce half as many implanted embryos, which produce fewer still live babies, so that a couple will survive and grow up to have offspring of their own.

Conservatively, our ancestors averaged around eight or nine births per woman and a couple of miscarriages, as they would if women followed Anderson’s advice.  Until the advent of immunizations, antibiotics and modern obstetrical care, the horsemen of the apocalypse largely rode unopposed. Population growth was kept in check by a brutal blend of maternal and child death.

Historically, close to one in ten women eventually died of childbearing as they do still in places like rural Afghanistan.  Globally, even today pregnancy is the leading cause of death for girls between the ages of 15 and 19, and annually four million infants die in the first month of life. Even in the U.S. over 500 women per year die of complications from pregnancy or childbirth, and another 30,000 experience some kind of catastrophic or life threatening complication.

The early stages of life are fragile, and a lot can go wrong.

In the case of Anderson and his wife, the problem was twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, a condition striking about 1 in 1000 pregnancies. When a fertilized egg splits into identical twins, the separation is often incomplete. Many identical twins share a placenta. In twin-to-twin transfusion, one is parasitic on the other, garnering the majority of the placenta and blood flow, so much so that the “recipient” twin may die from excess while the “donor” dwindles away. When twin-to-twin transfusion occurs before 24 weeks gestation and is untreated, the odds that one or both twins will die is 80-90 percent.

Christian patriarchs like Anderson pound the pulpit about how women should leave their childbearing in the hands of God, but when push comes to shove in the pregnancy and delivery process, normal human emotions often win out: fear, love, and the yearning for children who are healthy and happy. Anderson and his wife did their homework, and she underwent a series of procedures aimed at maximizing the likelihood of a healthy outcome. The procedure that ultimately saved one twin—a laser ablation that severed their connection—was performed by a class off medical practitioners they had railed against, women and men in obstetrics and gynecology.

Ms. Anderson’s blog chronicles the heartfelt anguish of a mother trying to make the best decisions possible for her children within the constraints of her spiritual worldview. Ironically, it also documents her multiple tirades against families with other worldviews struggling to make similarly anguishing decisions. When a procedure in Australia turned tragic—doctors inadvertently terminated the healthy twin instead of the one that was unviable—Ms. Anderson railed not about the mistake but about the “monsters” who would dare to halt an unhealthy pregnancy. When a woman in South Africa spontaneously miscarried her twins after extensive fertility treatment, Ms. Anderson derided her grief as a small matter compared to the moral horror of fertility treatment itself.

Let it be said that the weaker Anderson twin almost certainly would have died with or without the surgery. The most likely outcome of a “pray and wait” approach would have been more suffering and harm.  But this, ironically, is a consideration that abortion opponents have dismissed out of hand in cases like that of former Seattle Council member, Judy Nicastro. Nicastro wrote in the New York Times about her anguishing second trimester decision to end the life of a defective twin that would have suffocated at birth. Commenters at Life Site News, called Nicastro “sick” and accused her of killing her child “for her convenience.” And they used Ms. Anderson’s word, “monster.”

Steven Anderson’s multi-hour diatribe against contraceptives, the tools that allow thoughtful, intentional healthier childbearing, sounds like the ranting of a madman. Here is a man who has gone so far down the rabbit hole of bibliolatry that he now lives psychologically in the Iron Age universe of the Bible writers. And yet, faced with the complicated options offered by modern medicine—choices far beyond the grasp of our Iron Age ancestors—Anderson and his wife transcended the authors of the Bible and even Martin Luther, author of the Reformation. Confronted with a crisis decision that would traumatize any of us, they faced it with dignity and data, taking pro-active responsibility rather than following the “Let go and let God” mentality.

In that small story lies ground for both caution and hope. The cautionary reminder is this: The human capacity to see ourselves as entitled to something we would deny others is virtually without limit. Abortion providers tell stories of picketers who show up in their clinics as patients, all the while denigrating the other women in the waiting room. But self-serving biases know no political boundaries. Our best means of defense lies in surrounding ourselves with people who will call us on our double standards.

The hopeful, inspiring part of the Anderson story is the reminder that often when dogma and love clash, love wins out. When it does, the very same reasoning capacity that has been put to work defending dogma can be repurposed in the service of compassion and connection. That is why, when queer Americans persisted in telling their stories despite the risk, the needle started moving on marriage equality.

To date, one of the most effective weapons of the anti-abortion, anti-contraception patriarchs has been shaming, often in the name of the biblical God. Many women make difficult decisions about pregnancies—courageous, complicated decisions that are worthy of honor. Like Ms. Anderson, we struggle to live wisely and well, to give our children the best possible chance in life within the framework of our moral and spiritual values whether those values are religious or secular. But instead of being honored, these difficult decisions and the women who make them often become the targets of judgment and denigration. Alone and ashamed, women lose their voices to the point that they don’t share some of the most crucial moments in their lives with even their sisters and daughters.

Know the least, judge the most.With support from groups like the 1 in 3 Campaign and Exhale Pro Voice, we can help each other reclaim our experiences. In fact, I think we must, because the most powerful tool we have to end the shaming and denigration of women may well be our deeply personal, complicated and heartfelt stories. We need to share our stories face to face and then stand hand in hand and refuse to be silenced, so that someday words like “monster” and “idle” and “gossip” and “whore”  will fall to the ground like old leaves and decay beside the solid wall of our dignity and resolve.

————-

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org. Subscribe to her articles at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com.

Related:
15 Bible Texts Reveal Why “God’s Own Party” is at War with Women
What the Bible Says About Rape and Rape Babies
Captive Virgins, Polygamy, Sex Slaves: What Marriage Would Look Like if We Actually Followed the Bible
If the Bible Were Law, Would You Qualify For the Death Penalty?

About Valerie Tarico

Seattle psychologist and writer. Author - Trusting Doubt and Deas and Other Imaginings. Founder - www.WisdomCommons.org.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Christianity in the Public Square and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Bible-Thumping Pastor Believes Women Shouldn’t Interfere with ‘God’s Will’ In Pregnancy—Except His Own Wife

  1. shatara46 says:

    Great write, Valerie. Thank you. Your ending is priceless – and true.

  2. mikespeir says:

    Aren’t you glad your family isn’t as “happy” as the Andersons’?

  3. Allan Avery says:

    Valerie, I marvel at your disposition to point out any “positive” bits, from the sources that you are posting about. Yet, How to get into the minds of dogmatic folks enough for them to get a glimpse of their inconsistencies? I continue pondering.

  4. Tova Gold says:

    Valerie- I am a TTTS Loss mom, I am also a pro-choice, TFMR mom, choosing to let my daughters rest together after the first died from TTTS, likely causing damage to her sister. I am also the founder of a TTTS Grief Support Group on FB of which Mrs. Anderson was a member for a short while. (until she started sharing her anti-choice rhetoric in the group and was invited to leave. She did.)
    Your data in this article is entirely factually incorrect. As much as I despise her beliefs, she did not terminate. She had Laser Ablation surgery to correct the TTTS and ideally save both babies. That is the preferred course of treatment for a double-live-birth healthy outcome. Often it works. Many times it doesn’t.
    In her case it didn’t and her baby died. The second-choice “bonus” of that laser surgery is that if one of the babies doesn’t survive, they are no longer connected to their twin’s blood flow, therefore decreasing the risk of deoxygenated blood rushing from the dying twin to their sibling at the moment of death. That means the risk of damage to a survivor drops from about 35% to about 6-7%.

    You really should post an update to this article. You built a story around an absolutely incorrect fact.

    I also feel the need to share that your description of TTTS is maddeningly upsetting. And factually incorrect.
    “When a fertilized egg splits into identical twins, the separation is often incomplete. Many identical twins share a placenta. In twin-to-twin transfusion, one is literally parasitic on the other, garnering the majority of the placenta and blood flow, so much so that the parasitic twin may die from excess while the other dwindles away. Untreated, most die, occasionally taking a mother with them.”

    I just feel the need to say
    1- the separation IS complete. incomplete separation would result in conjoined twins. That happens in less than half of 1% of cases. if that. 70% of identical twins share a placenta. That is considered a complete separation.
    2- Describing the twin with the word parasitic is just mind-blowingly infuriating—and incorrect. It is NOT the twin that is parasitic. It is a placenta that has formed with veins and arteries that intersect that creates an imbalance of blood and nutrients between the babies. The Placenta, Not the babies.
    3- In the 5 years that I have been at the forefront of the TTTS community, have never, ever EVER met or heard of a single woman whose life was put at risk due to TTTS. Twin pregnancies can lead to other issues like PROM which can endanger the mother, or any other of the various pregnancy related complications that can affect a pregnant mother. But TTTS affects the babies and their placenta. That’s it.

    • Greetings -
      Thank you for your clarifications. I understand that their intent wasn’t to terminate the donor twin but to save the recipient. It sounds like you are saying that it also had the potential to improve odds for the donor.[Additional research suggests this to be true.] I have changed the title to the one Alternet used and have made other revisions so that it doesn’t sound like they made a decision to terminate or even to trade of greater risk to one twin for less risk for the other, which was my misunderstanding.

      With regard to my description of twin-to-twin transfusion, I see after poking around today that the language I used is not typical. That said, the placenta is an organ made up partly from the blastocyst and partly from the mother. A single placenta for two babies means that separation was incomplete, even if their bodies were wholly separate. I understand, given the possibility of conjoined twins, why another phrase might have been preferable. The same with the word parasitic. To my mind, a relationship in which an involuntary donor transfuses a recipient is not symbiotic but parasitic. However, medical experts use the term “parasitic” to describe a different kind of flawed separation that can occur during fetal development.

      I would assume that your experience with TTTS is in places where women can receive modern medical care. In much of the world they cannot, and given that TTTS can trigger Maternal Mirror Syndrome and “dangerous” pulmonary edema, (http://fetus.ucsfmedicalcenter.org/twin/twin_twin_transfusion.asp) I would assume that at times it also can cause maternal mortality in situations where diagnosis and treatment are unavailable. Would that not follow?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s