On Voting for Pro-Choice Candidates: A Response to Rachel Held Evans

Rachel Held Evans recently argued for the propriety of voting, at least in some circumstances, for pro-choice candidates, even if one holds pro-life convictions. Her main argument for doing so is that pro-choice candidates who pursue progressive policies (i.e., Democrats) are often more likely to create conditions in which a culture of life can prevail by helping to reduce poverty and expand access to contraception. These conditions, in turn, help lower the number of unwanted pregnancies, which is primarily what elevates the abortion rate. Although no candidate is perfect, on balance, it is often better to vote for one who is pro-choice for these reasons.

I believe Mrs. Evans is badly mistaken here. I will explain why below, but first I want to sweep away any idea that may be in my readers’ minds about my motives here in relation to Donald Trump. One of Evans’s main purposes in her article is to argue that pro-life voters should vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump. Lest anyone misread me: I am not defending Donald Trump here, nor am I arguing that anyone should vote for him. I do not intend to do so. Continue reading

Advertisements

What Does It Mean To Be “Personally” Pro-Life?

Tim Kaine, vice presidential candidate, has been in the spotlight lately for claiming to be personally pro-life (as a Roman Catholic) yet publicly pro-choice (as a Democrat). His voting record in the Senate, with a 100% approval rating from Planned Parenthood, is a clear indication that his “public” self is the one who comes to work everyday. In making this kind of distinction, Kaine is continuing the tradition that a number of Roman Catholic Democrats have been carrying on for decades now. Here is why the distinction simply doesn’t work. Continue reading