The Christian Post is one of the most widely read Christian websites in the world. When it comes to political matters a good deal of the content on the site tilts to the right, with writers taking the standard conservative positions on issues such as marriage equality, transgender rights, and abortion. But on occasion a dissenting voice is heard, and that is exactly what readers were offered on October 3, when writer Eric Sapp made the case for Christian voters who oppose abortion to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Sapp is a founding member of the Eleison Group, a consulting firm that works with Democrats and the progressive faith community. In his editorial Sapp lays out a strong case for why abortion foes should support Clinton over her rival Donald Trump, who has embraced the traditional Republican line on women’s health issues.
Sapp offers the following question for his readers to ponder:
“Do we care more about talking about the unborn, or do we actually want to do something to prevent abortions?”
He proceeds from there to lay out the case for supporting Clinton as well as other Democrats on the issue, noting that Democrats get attacked when they support exceptions in abortion laws for rape and incest. But when Republicans write legislation with the same exceptions they receive credit for “100 percent pro-life voting records.”
But that isn’t Sapp’s main point. He then hits readers with these inconvenient facts:
“Abortions rose steadily during the tenure of the first ‘pro-life’ Republican President, Ronald Reagan. They reached their highest level under President H. W. Bush. Abortions then dropped dramatically under President Clinton, falling to 60% of the high under his pro-life Republican predecessor.”
And that’s not the end of it. Sapp says the decline in abortions flattened out during the term of George W. Bush, then continued to trend downward once President Obama took office.
That is sure to upset some of the abortion foes in his audience who have been voting Republican. But he isn’t done. Next comes this bit of truth:
“Under Bush, Republicans controlled the House and Senate, and 2/3 of the Supreme Court. Bush had sky-high public approval following 9-11, and he and Congressional Republicans owed their 2004 re-election to the overwhelming support from church-going evangelicals and Catholics. And what did Republicans do to overturn Roe or in any meaningful way limit abortion? Nothing.”
By that point any staunch Republican voting abortion foe reading his piece is probably fuming, but Sapp isn’t finished. He then explains why those things are true:
“It’s no coincidence that abortions go up when Republicans are in charge and down when Democrats are. The two biggest indicators a woman will have an abortion are that she is poor (75% of women who have abortions make less than $23,000 and half make less than $11,000), and had an unintended pregnancy (half of U.S. pregnancies are unintended, and 43% end in abortion).
Want to guess which political party is more effective at reducing poverty and unwanted pregnancies? I’ll give you a hint. It’s not the ‘pro-life’ Party that in this last Congressional session alone fought to cut medical care for poor mothers and children, food programs for kids, and contraception coverage and access for women.”
It’s not likely that Eric Sapp’s editorial will move many abortion foes to vote for Clinton, but he delivers a much needed dose of truth to an audience that is largely committed to the belief that the GOP, not Clinton or Democrats, is the party best suited to “protect” the unborn. And the way in which he delivers that truth, by pointing out what most of us know — that Republicans largely provide only lip service to the “pro-life” cause, while ignoring the plight of those who are already in the world, is a message that every anti-abortion voter needs to hear.
You can read Eric Sapp’s entire editorial here.
Featured image via Justin Sullivan/Getty Images