Abortion activists have labeled Hillary Clinton their “champion” and it is not difficult to understand why.
Clinton wants to force taxpayers to fund abortions, and she promised to nominate U.S. Supreme Court justices who would uphold abortion on demand up until birth for years to come. She even said babies just hours before birth do not have constitutional rights.
Yet, some Christian writers have been trying to argue that pro-lifers should vote for Clinton. Eric Sapp wrote a column for the Christian Post this week, claiming that Clinton is the “best choice for voters against abortion.” Sapp is the executive director of the American Values Network and a founder of the Eleison Group, which does political consulting with Democrats and progressives in the faith community.
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?
Either Sapp has not been paying attention lately or he is ignoring the facts. It’s been quite a while since Clinton has said that abortions should be “safe, legal and rare.” She dropped the “rare” from her talks a while ago; and she now is advocating for expanding abortions by promising to repeal the Hyde Amendment and other policies that restrict taxpayer funding of abortions – a key goal of the abortion industry.
Research from the Charlotte Lozier Institute indicates that the Hyde Amendment has saved more than 2 million lives from abortion in the past 40 years by banning taxpayer funding for most abortions in Medicaid. If Clinton succeed in repealing it, an estimated 33,000 more unborn babies would lose their lives in abortions every year, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Sapp went on to criticize Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, claiming that his pro-life promises are “false.” Sapp’s remarks hinted at some serious concerns among pro-lifers about Trump’s sincerity. In the past, Trump made several statements in support of abortion and Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.
More recently, however, Trump said he had a change of heart about abortion and now is pro-life. As proof of his sincerity, he has selected a number of strong pro-life advocates for his team, including his vice presidential running mate, Mike Pence. While Trump appears to be trying to reassure pro-lifers that he is on their side, Clinton has made it clear to the pro-abortion movement that she is on their’s.
Trump was not the only target of Sapp’s column, however. Sapp also criticized pro-life Republicans in general, claiming that their policies do little to end abortions. He claimed that Clinton and her fellow Democrats are responsible for drops in abortion rates because they support government programs for women and children.
As evidence, Sapp brought up how abortion rates fell more often under Democratic presidents. He mentioned that abortions “plunged” during pro-abortion President Barack Obama’s term, which is true; but Sapp neglected to mention that in the same time period, pro-life state legislatures, largely controlled by Republicans, managed to pass a historic number of pro-life laws.
It’s no coincidence that abortions go up when Republicans are in charge and down when Democrats are. The two biggest indicators a woman will have an abortion are that she is poor (75% of women who have abortions make less than $23,000 and half make less than $11,000), and had an unintended pregnancy (half of U.S. pregnancies are unintended, and 43% end in abortion).
Want to guess which political party is more effective at reducing poverty and unwanted pregnancies? I’ll give you a hint. It’s not the “pro-life” Party that in this last Congressional session alone fought to cut medical care for poor mothers and children, food programs for kids, and contraception coverage and access for women.
Yet, the abortion advocacy groups that are pushing Clinton’s candidacy, the ones she has pledged her loyalty to, are attacking nonprofit pregnancy centers that offer pregnant and parenting moms life-affirming support – the kind that Sapp says is so needed.
It’s true that women and their children need better support systems to help them choose life over abortion; but Clinton’s policies would only lead to more abortions. Clinton wants more tax dollars to go to Planned Parenthood, which already receives $550 million a year in federal funding and offers little prenatal or postnatal care to moms and babies. Clinton also supports repealing the Hyde Amendment – which even pro-abortion research groups acknowledge would increase abortions by tens of thousands every year.
Clinton and her friends in the pro-abortion movement have abandoned the notion that abortions should be “rare.” They are openly embracing abortion, celebrating abortion and demanding that women have a complete, unrestricted access to abortion — along with taxpayers’ money to pay for it. Sapp is wrong. Clinton’s policies will only lead to more abortions, more hurting women and more unborn babies’ lives destroyed.