Truth 1: I identify as pro-life—I believe liberal societies ought to confer upon fetuses the rights of personhood.
Truth 2: I will be voting for a pro-choice candidate this year.
It may benefit some Covenant students to hear the rationale behind these potentially contradictory statements. I won’t bore you with the prevalent “Donald Trump poses a grave threat to American political stability and we should choose anyone over him” line of reasoning since my audience likely remains unconvinced by that rationale.
Some might hold that when you vote for a candidate, it’s as good as an endorsement of the totality of their ideas and character (or one of the two). I find myself unmoved by this line of thought. If you voted red in 2016—or would have, had you been old enough—chances are that you don’t think this way either. Few evangelicals who voted for Trump found themselves supporting the entirety of his platform or character. If you did, you're not the intended audience of this piece.
When it comes to elections, I think in terms of consequences. What would be the outcomes of a Trump reelection? What would this country look like if Elizabeth Warren were at the helm? Would a Pete Buttigieg administration yield a fairer society?
Or, in the abstract: will the platform of this candidate’s administration yield a more just society than the alternative?
When I consider the two candidates in 2020, I don't consider them as individuals but as representatives of two opposing platforms. A recurring pillar of the Republican Party’s platform is the granting of rights to the unborn that would legally protect them from most or all cases of abortion. A core component of the Democratic Party’s platform includes securing women’s right to bodily autonomy, which it understands to include everything inside the woman’s body.
The Democratic Party’s platform also entails the expansion of medical coverage to millions who can’t afford it, several thousand of whose deaths would otherwise be associated with lack of access to proper health care. It includes a direct addressing of the racial wealth gap. (The median black family is one-tenth as wealthy as the median white family—and that fraction is a generous estimate.) The majority of Democrats acknowledge the reality of climate change and seek to produce legislation and policies to curtail its effects. They, along with an overwhelming majority of the American electorate, want universal background checks for firearm purchases—if not more aggressive measures. I know most of you know all of this, but compare this list with the Republican policy agenda, as demonstrated by the three years they have been in power.
Republican politicians want to give the wealthiest Americans significant tax relief (see the 2017 tax cut). They would prefer that the poorest Americans not have access to low-cost health insurance (see the rollbacks of Medicaid in various red states). The GOP would rather not address the racial wealth gap, which continues to widen. The current administration, even when it does acknowledge climate-related issues, continues to roll back the environmental regulations left over from the Obama era as the 1.5°C mark looms larger and larger. Republican lawmakers are funded and endorsed by the NRA, which is at its core a lobbyist group for gun manufacturers, not gun owners.
I would rather live in the America where the Democratic platform wins than the America where the Republican platform does. While I in no way consider either platform to be ideal, I do consider one to be more just than the other. The world in which the Republican party gets their way is a utopia for white, wealthy Americans who prefer ethnic homogeneity in their communities—it’s also just short of a hellscape for the least advantaged members of society.
One might object, “Aren’t the least advantaged members of society the unborn?” While I agree with this sentiment in a sense, the pro-life objector should understand that it is highly unlikely she will get her way—even under a Republican administration.
Abortion rates decreased over the course of the Obama administration because Democrats prioritize fixing the problems that drive women to seek abortions in the first place (poor sex education, unaffordable child care, etc.). Republican lawmakers do not.
Furthermore, while a Republican president and a conservatively weighted Supreme Court are the most likely path to overturning Roe v. Wade, the likelihood of such an event is extremely low. Even if the 1971 precedent is done away with, such a decision is not likely to stick given the current uncertainty about swing states’ ‘blue flip’ and the possibility of changes to the number of justices, or the term restrictions, of the Supreme Court.
So you must ask yourself: are you willing to pay the cost for the slim chance of winning a Constitutional tectonic shift if that cost is the increase of circumstances that incentivize abortions? Are you willing to jeopardize the livelihood of millions of Americans, a chance at racial equality, and a habitable planet?
I am not.
An addendum before I conclude: I often hear among my evangelical friends the sentiment: “No matter what, I cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate.” I am curious about this singular unshakeable political conviction among today’s Christians. Why don’t I ever hear, “I could never vote for a candidate who would further disadvantage the poor,” or “I couldn’t ever get behind a party who rejects strangers and refugees”?
In other words, why is abortion our only deal breaker?
I think the answer is that having more than one deal breaker (or none) would complicate our electoral calculus, and we like having simple answers. Single questions and short litmus tests that determine our courses of action are always more appealing; they present the illusion that our obligations are simple and easily knowable.
If the Christian approach to voting is to glance at a candidate and immediately disqualify her from our support due to her stance on abortion, then the corporate interests who fund Republican lawmakers have won. They have succeeded in wielding abortion as a political cudgel, pitting Christians against almost every issue the Bible stands for in the name of only one it stands for.