This Might Be the Worst Election Advice I’ve Ever Seen
One of the key issues in the upcoming election is the issue of abortion. Trump has declared himself to be pro-life, a declaration that remains to be seen. But there is absolutely no doubt that Hillary Clinton is one of the most extreme pro-abortion candidates since…President Obama.
Clinton is so radical in her support of abortion that even democrat supporters are having a hard time supporting her. When your own party, people that support abortion, are having a hard time supporting your election campaign because of your radical abortion policies, you know you are as radical on the issue of abortion as one can get.
So how radical is Hillary Clinton on the issue of abortion?
So far she has endorsed repealing both the Hyde and Helms Amendments. In case you aren’t familiar with these two bi-partisan amendments that have been broadly supported for many years, a recent article explains:
“[The] Hyde Amendment is a widely-supported measure that prohibits direct taxpayer funding of most abortions and has done so since the late 1970s. Upheld by the Supreme Court, the amendment is now a target of abortion advocates who have moved from pro-choice to pro-abortion — forcing Americans not only to accept unlimited abortions before birth but also to pay for them…and the Helms Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion in foreign aid.”
But that is only the beginning of how radical Clinton is on the issue of abortion. To date Clinton has defended abortion as a fundamental human right. Seriously? She says that killing unborn children is a human right? Apparently the humans being killed don’t matter to Clinton in the discussion of human rights. But she goes even further; Clinton has also defended late term abortion. For those of you unfamiliar with this procedure, it is when a child is ready to be born and is then killed. We’re talking about killing a fully developed, ready to be born child.
So not only does Hillary Clinton want to make abortion a “fundamental human right,” and make it possible to kill fully developed, about to be born children, she wants to use your tax dollars to fund her evil policies here in America, and throughout the world by repealing the Hyde and Helms Amendments. Are you starting to get the picture of how radical Clinton is concerning the issue of abortion?
The idea that any Christian can, with a clear conscience, vote for someone so willing, ready and able to kill unborn children across the world is hard to understand. But encouraging other Christians to vote for such a candidate is even harder to understand. And yet, that is exactly what blogger Rachel Held Evans is doing.
Held Evans is using her blogging platform to encourage Christians to vote for Hillary Clinton because she is pro-abortion! She writes:
“In the eight years since we’ve had a pro-choice president, the abortion rate in the U.S. has dropped to its lowest since 1973. 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… So even though I think abortion is morally wrong in most cases, and support more legal restrictions around it, I often vote for pro-choice candidates when I think their policies will do the most to address the health and economic concerns that drive women to get abortions in the first place.”
There are several problems with this way of thinking. First, Held Evans does not take into consideration the fact that lower abortion rates are largely due to state laws being enacted. This war is being won state by state and more pro-life laws have been passed in individual states over the last 8 years than in the previous 20. So it has not been a result of having a pro-choice president that has resulted in lower abortion rates, it’s been a result of pro-life lawmakers working in individual states.
Second, as mentioned above, Clinton wants to undue one of the few pro-life laws helping to reduce abortion rates in the US by repealing the Hyde amendment. This will make it possible to use federal money for abortion and no doubt open the door to federal programs to fund abortion, which will, in turn, cause an increase in the abortion rate.
Third, Clinton wants to force taxpayers to pay for abortions. She doesn’t want to simply open the door for more abortions; she wants every American to pay for it. Any dedicated pro-life advocate understands that being forced by our government to pay for abortion is something not to be desired or sought after.
Finally, in the last 8 years more federal money has gone to Planned Parenthood than ever before. Considering the abortion rate has been lower, as Held Evans noted, what is that money being used for? The corruption that exists in Planned Parenthood has been well documented. Scandal after scandal of ignoring federal laws, helping rapists and sex-traffickers cover up their crimes, undermining parental authority over their kids, selling baby body parts and more. This is the corporation Clinton supports and will give even more money to should she be elected. How is that helping to reduce abortion rates?
I would say that Held Evans is either terribly naïve about the issue of abortion in America or she is willfully ignorant. Either way, her advice of voting for pro-abortion candidates like Hillary Clinton is unwise advice.
Held Evans seems more of a social justice warrior than a true pro-life advocate. There is nothing wrong with seeking social justice, but it can’t come at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society. When someone suggests that it might be better to be dead than to be a child born to a poor family, I have to wonder about their worldview.
I’m not claiming to have the answer to the question of who to vote for in November. But I know voting for Hillary Clinton is not a pro-life vote. That is one fact I am 100% sure of.