Hillary Clinton Is the Best Choice for Voters Against Abortion
Hillary Clinton Is the Best Choice for Voters Against Abortion
By Eric Sapp , Op-Ed Contributor
In my recent op-ed on how there was no Biblically-consistent way for evangelicals to justify voting for Trump, I touched on the false promises Republicans — and Trump in particular — have been making around abortion. A number of people asked that I expand on that point, and given the importance of abortion to many evangelicals, it's worth a closer and more honest look.
I'll start by saying that I don't think Christians should be single-issue voters since Christ's ministry wasn't single-issue. But if your concern for the unborn determines your vote, Hillary Clinton should be your candidate.
I imagine there might be a reader or two right about now saying, "But Hillary Clinton is pro-choice!"
That's true. She has never promised to overturn Roe. She even famously said that "abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." But all of that is largely immaterial to the question of saving unborn babies.
Here's the question pro-life Christians must ask: do we care more about talking about the unborn, or do we actually want to do something to prevent abortions?
Now some might argue that words matter — that we need leaders willing to take a stand, even if they never deliver. I'll get to the "delivering" part shortly, but let's start with what they say.
Donald Trump and Republican leaders say they are "pro-life," proclaiming from every street corner their unwavering belief that life begins at conception … and then those politicians turn around and say it's ok to murder those precious unborn children if they were conceived through rape or incest.
What does it say about politicians who proudly proclaim life begins at conception and then advocate murdering some children because that position polls better?
And lest we excuse this hypocrisy as merely a realpolitik compromise required to get something done, the bills Republicans write that include these exemptions are message bills, supported only by fellow Republicans, that no one expects to pass.
Even the House Republican late-term abortion bill that passed the House and failed in the Senate on a party-line vote included exceptions allowing late-term abortion if the child was conceived through rape or incest or the woman's life was in danger.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/hillary-...
By Eric Sapp , Op-Ed Contributor
In my recent op-ed on how there was no Biblically-consistent way for evangelicals to justify voting for Trump, I touched on the false promises Republicans — and Trump in particular — have been making around abortion. A number of people asked that I expand on that point, and given the importance of abortion to many evangelicals, it's worth a closer and more honest look.
I'll start by saying that I don't think Christians should be single-issue voters since Christ's ministry wasn't single-issue. But if your concern for the unborn determines your vote, Hillary Clinton should be your candidate.
I imagine there might be a reader or two right about now saying, "But Hillary Clinton is pro-choice!"
That's true. She has never promised to overturn Roe. She even famously said that "abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." But all of that is largely immaterial to the question of saving unborn babies.
Here's the question pro-life Christians must ask: do we care more about talking about the unborn, or do we actually want to do something to prevent abortions?
Now some might argue that words matter — that we need leaders willing to take a stand, even if they never deliver. I'll get to the "delivering" part shortly, but let's start with what they say.
Donald Trump and Republican leaders say they are "pro-life," proclaiming from every street corner their unwavering belief that life begins at conception … and then those politicians turn around and say it's ok to murder those precious unborn children if they were conceived through rape or incest.
What does it say about politicians who proudly proclaim life begins at conception and then advocate murdering some children because that position polls better?
And lest we excuse this hypocrisy as merely a realpolitik compromise required to get something done, the bills Republicans write that include these exemptions are message bills, supported only by fellow Republicans, that no one expects to pass.
Even the House Republican late-term abortion bill that passed the House and failed in the Senate on a party-line vote included exceptions allowing late-term abortion if the child was conceived through rape or incest or the woman's life was in danger.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/hillary-...
I would like to Highlight this part of the article: "Abortions rose steadily during the tenure of the first "pro-life" Republican President, Ronald Reagan. They reached their highest level under President H. W. Bush. Abortions then dropped dramatically under President Clinton, falling to 60% of the high under his pro-life Republican predecessor. That downward trend stalled during most of President W. Bush's tenure, and remained basically flat until the final two years of his term when Democrats retook Congress. And then abortions plunged again under Obama, falling to their lowest point in 40 years."