Pro-life evangelicals are better off voting for the Planned Parenthood-endorsed Hillary Clinton than voting for real estate mogul Donald Trump, suggests prominent Christian author Rachel Held Evans. The author of such books as Faith Unraveled and A Year of Biblical Womanhood claims to be pro-life. She says that despite Trump’s commitment to appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices, Clinton’s policies will suppress abortion rates, while Trump’s policies will result in more abortions.
“In the eight years since we’ve had a pro-choice president, the abortion rate in the U.S. has dropped to its lowest rate since 1973,” Evans writes. “I believe the best way to keep this trend going is not to simply make it harder for women to terminate unwanted pregnancies, but to create a culture with fewer unwanted pregnancies to begin with.”
Mallory Quigley, communications director for the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, contests Evans’ insinuation that the Obama administration’s policies are the cause for the decline in the abortion rate. “There are a multitude of reasons for abortion being on the decline,” Quigley told The Christian Post in an email. “As was noted by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Students for Life, and CitizenLink in the amicus brief to the Supreme Court earlier this year, the general public is growing increasingly pro-life and women are more willing to carry unexpected pregnancies to term. This has nothing to do with the pro-abortion policies of the Obama administration but rather the fact that young people have grown up in the age of the ultrasound.”
Evans argues that while many view the Republican Party as more pro-life, neither party can really claim to stand for a “consistent pro-life ethic.” She goes on to claim that progressive policies actually make it easier for young and impoverished mothers to choose not to abort their children.
“By focusing exclusively on the legal components of abortion while simultaneously opposing family-friendly social policies, the Republican Party has managed to hold pro-life voters hostage with the promise of outlawing abortion,” says Evans. She notes that this has not been achieved under any of the three pro-life Republican administrations that have followed the legalization of abortion in 1973.
Quigley challenges Evans’ claim that Clinton would be better for pro-life causes. “Hillary Clinton’s position on abortion couldn’t be more extreme and out of touch with pro-life Christians,” she says. “She has said plainly that ‘the unborn person does not have constitutional rights,’ and that she support the status quo of legal abortion on-demand, up until the moment of birth.”
In an op-ed published by the Los Angeles Times, Kristen Day, the executive director of Democrats for Life, and Charles Camosy, an associate professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University, argued that the 2016 Democratic Party platform “betrays millions of the party faithful.”
“In the 2008 presidential primary campaign, candidate Clinton said abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Yet her 2016 platform team has approved provisions that make access to abortion crucial to the well-being of every single person on the planet.”
Day and Comosy insist that the party’s radical position on abortion is causing a rift within the party. “The Democratic Party’s abortion stances have already caused many to leave the party, and many more will drop out because of the platform wording,” they wrote. “The percentage of extreme abortion rights advocates is increasing in the party, but only because the total number of Democrats has shrunk to its lowest level since the Hoover administration.”
About the Author
Samuel Smith writes on ethical and religious issues for The Christian Post. He is a regular contributor to other publications and media outlets, offering a fresh response to modern challenges to the Christian faith.