I want at some point to write a short e-book about the history of the abortion issue in America: how we got to where we are, what would have to happen in our culture to change the attitudes that helped bring about legalized abortion, etc. But today I’d like to examine how the pro-life position has been exploited by politicians, thus causing credulous but sincere people, many of them Christians, to unthinkingly support anyone who is willing to say the right words.
The prime example of this exploitation before the current lamentable election cycle came in 2008 with the choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate. McCain wanted to choose Joe Lieberman as his VP but was talked out of that idea by his advisers. Lieberman had been a Democrat but then declared himself independent; he still held many liberal views, including that of being pro-choice. So McCain was encouraged to look elsewhere. A woman would be good, was the thought, as there was some speculation that Barack Obama would choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Who could the Republicans get? Palin was at the time governor of Alaska and had made a favorable impression on a number of conservatives who had shown up in Juneau as part of the popular conservative cruises sponsored by such publications as The Weekly Standard and National Review. (I am a huge fan of NR and respect William Kristol of TWS, just to be clear.)
So Palin ended up being picked, with the announcement being made the day before the opening of the Republican National Convention. She had not been thoroughly vetted and had had very little interaction with McCain. At the time she had a 4-month-old baby with Down syndrome, Trig, having given birth to him in April when she was 44 years old. Testing had revealed the abnormality beforehand. So, of course she is to be respected for going ahead with the pregnancy and not having an abortion. (Although I’m a little puzzled by her having the testing in the first place, as the actual diagnostic tests performed in the second trimester, as opposed to screening blood tests, all carry a risk of miscarriage. I can speak with a little authority here, as I had my son Gideon at age 42. I was asked by my obstetrician if I wanted to have amniocentesis and told her no. The results wouldn’t make any difference to me about having the baby, so there there was no point in my taking the risk.)
Here’s the thing: for many in the pro-life movement, Palin’s statements about being pro-life and then her refusal to abort Trig made her some kind of untouchable saint. Even as the campaign went on and it became abundantly clear that she was totally unqualified to be Vice President, let alone President in the event of McCain’s disability or death, criticizing her was seen by some as being pro-abortion. There was this simplistic reasoning going on in that killed debate.
So now we have the same thing going on in this election, only to a far greater degree. Trump has been willing to say that he’s pro-life. He’s been willing to say that he’d appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, that he has a “list” from which he would choose. And so there are many who say, well then, how can I not vote for him? He’s pro-life! Even though his record shows nothing of the kind. At least Sarah Palin had carried through on her convictions by going ahead with her pregnancy. At least we thought we could trust her on that issue. But saying in so many words that a candidate who claimed the pro-life position could not be criticized paved the way for Donald Trump. And the lack of reasoning cuts both ways: If I say I cannot vote for Trump because he’d be a danger to the country, and that therefore I’m voting for Hillary Clinton as a vote against him, then I’m automatically accused of being pro-abortion. I’ve pretty much given up on trying to refute that one.
So now, as I’ve said before, the American electorate is faced with this terrible, awful choice. I quote from an article I posted way back when I started this blog from Thabiti Anyabwile, an African-American pastor in Washington D. C.:
Without doubt Mrs. Clinton proves herself to be an enemy of millions of lives in the womb. Without doubt she would do nothing to curb or eliminate the abominable practice. We know that.
However, I don’t see Mr. Trump doing a thing to limit abortion or roll it back either. Not a thing. He hasn’t even made it a campaign issue. And when he’s spoken about it he’s changed his position several times IN ONE DAY. He’s not a champion I would trust.
You see, the choice is not between Hilary’s zeal for abortion and Trump’s bigotry—as if Trump were better on abortion and Clinton better on racism. There’s no tradeoff here. The two, in my opinion, are a push on abortion.