
When the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs decision, astute pro-life observers knew this was both a great step in the right direction and the beginning of a new fight for the lives of unborn children. The Dobbs decision moved abortion laws to the States, and while there were several state-wide victories for life, there were plenty of setbacks. The setbacks were instructive for both sides of the debate.
The topic of life in the womb turns out to be an issue that the political Left believes they can win. At times, it becomes clear that they are all-in on abortion without limit and for any reason. Already several states, including my own Colorado, have no limit on when an abortion can legally occur. And now, presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, has promised to use Executive power to make this the law of the land.
Recently, Harris promised to eliminate the Senate filibuster rule so that she could overrule the Dobbs decision, to “save Roe.” The upshot of what she promises to do will be a national law that overrules state laws and enshrines the slaughter of innocent children into federal Law. At least that is the intent, and I do not see enough will among politicians on the national level to oppose it.
The filibuster is not part of the Constitution but is a rule that the Senate adopts to govern debate. If an individual or a party wants to delay, and hopefully, stop a bill from being passed, they can speak well beyond their allotted time. The Senate has to vote to “break” a filibuster, and it takes 60 votes to do that. The practical upshot is that most controversial bills do not need the Constitutionally prescribed majority, but a supermajority of 60 votes, to pass.
Vice President Harris is promising to change Senate rules in order to kill more babies. This is a simple moral evil.
Of course, it is not put that way. She wants to assure women of their “right to choose,” or their “right to do with their own bodies” what they want, or that she is protecting “women’s healthcare.” All of these phrases are obvious lies intended to blow smoke over the horror of dismembering babies in the womb and sucking them out with vacuums. But they work well among some people.
The RNC is not doing itself any favors on the pro-life issue, however, as they have officially removed an openly pro-life statement from the platform. While this is also morally wrong, the only political space that is even available to people who want to protect life in the womb is on the Right. President Trump, for instance, fulfilled his promise to appoint pro-life judges, giving us the Dobbs decision in the first place.
Refuse the Propaganda
These euphemisms for abortion short circuit our critical thinking to convince us of things that are not true. In fact, the most effective forms of propaganda can cause us to support evil as if it is good and to ignore the evidence of science, reason, and our own eyes.
What is in the womb is a human being. It is not part of the mother’s body like her liver or left arm. The baby has its own DNA, blood type, and in half of all pregnancies is not even female. Abortion is not “women’s health care.” In most abortions, the patient who is killed is a woman (more than half of all abortions are females). Abortions resulting from rape and incest amount to less than 2% of all abortions worldwide. And, the “right to choose,” is a manipulative statement unable to hold up under simple scrutiny.
There are no good reasons to vote for people who want to kill more babies in the womb. There are a lot of bad reasons, manipulative reasons, emotional reasons, political and financial reasons, but there are no good reasons.
The “lesser of two evils”?
If the pro-life issue is important to you, you may see your choice being between a party that hates you and one that doesn’t not like you. While that causes frustration, when it comes to doing the best we can with what we have, there is really only one choice.
What of voting for the “lesser of two evils,” then? Should a Christian or a person of conscience vote for a third party or just not vote in order to avoid voting for one “evil” over another?
In a situation where there are only two legitimate options, if you believe both options are bad but one is less bad than the other, you are making a choice in favor of the good that will be done with one rather than the “extra” evil that will be done by the other choice. You are still voting for what good you think will be done. In a situation when a moral choice is constrained by forces outside your control, you are not held accountable for choosing an option that falls short of the ideal. We face these kinds of choices every day. And while a presidential race is on a grand scale and has tremendous consequences, it is not different in form from deciding between buying a non-organic apple (less expensive, possibly less healthy) and an organic apple (more expensive, possibly less harmful). The ideal choice – a cheap, organic apple – is not available to you.
A Spiritual Deception
A certain kind of deception has fallen on our culture. A sizeable portion of our population across all demographic and economic strata cannot see past the obvious propaganda that holds up the pro-abortion position. I spent years in philosophical circles, reading papers, having conversations, and listening to lectures in favor of abortion, and to my mind there has never been a convincing case presented. When I look for “the best they have,” I am always disappointed.
So, why is abortion still so important to so many people? The fundamental answer, I believe, is spiritual and moral. The science is settled: it is a human person. But the human heart dissents.
Jesus tells us:
John 10:10-11 “10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”
The story of abortion is that someone else needs to die so I can live the life I think I want to live. The story of Jesus is that he dies so that we can live the life we were created to live. One is spiritual darkness and requires that blood be spilt over and over. The other is life itself.
I cannot in good conscience even consider voting for a presidential candidate whose policy promises include more abortion. It goes against my sense of clear and reasoned thinking, not to mention my sense of what is moral, guided by the Word.