Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are into the final hours of campainging ahead of election day in what has been one of the most contentious elections in memory. Little wonder that so many voters are still unsure of who to vote for even in this eleventh hour.
And as always, one of the big issues playing into votes is abortion. For many, Trump seems like the most obvious pro-life candidate. But one evangelical voice stands out. Eric Sapp, a Democrat supporter, goes as far as to say Clinton is the "best choice" for voters who are opposed to abortion. His logic? For one, he accuses Republicans of hypocrisy, waving the pro-life flag but allowing exceptions for "precious" unborn children conceived through rape or incest.
"What does it say about politicians who proudly proclaim life begins at conception and then advocate murdering some children because that position polls better? And lest we excuse this hypocrisy as merely a realpolitik compromise required to get something done, the bills Republicans write that include these exemptions are message bills, supported only by fellow Republicans, that no one expects to pass," he writes in The Christian Post.
He also accuses Republicans of double standards. Clinton was recently blasted in the media over her support for late-term abortion, but a Republican bill that eventually failed to pass in the Senate permitted late-term abortions, again in cases of rape or incest, and if the woman's life was in danger.
"I want to be clear, and we all need to be honest. No presidential candidate or party leadership advocates for protecting all unborn children. But at least 'pro-choice' politicians who believe the fetus is not a child are being morally consistent," Sapp claims.
Sapp also writes that abortion numbers actually fell under Obama and that even when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, and 2/3 of the Supreme Court, they did not use this to leverage any change to the abortion status quo, and that even if they did, this would make little difference to the number of unborn babies being aborted.
He argued that the most effective way to reduce abortion rates is to work to eliminate poverty.
"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)," he said.
"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."
Dr Richard D. Land, president of the Southern Evangelical Seminary, however, is not convinced by Sapp's assertions. He argues that the only reason Republicans include such exceptions for late-term abortion in their bills is because that is the strongest anti-abortion legislation they can hope to pass. Anything stronger will not fly because of strong Democrat opposition.
"These bills include those exceptions because nothing stronger will pass since only Republicans support such restrictions," says Dr. Land. "He doesn't know their motives. He can't read their hearts. And what does it say about the Democrat Senators and Representatives when you say only Republicans support such legislation."
He also has an answer as to why abortions go up during Republican terms: the fertility rate also goes up.
"Even with Mr. Sapp's noted increase in abortions, there are still more live babies born under Republican than Democrat presidents. Could it be because they are feeling better about having children because of Republican pro-life, pro-marriage, pro- family policies? By the way, does anyone remember the Democrat's implacable and adamant opposition to President George W. Bush's pro-marriage initiatives, which were based upon an understanding that the one single thing that would do more to eliminate poverty than anything else in our country is for mothers to marry the fathers of their children?" he writes.
Dr Land's conclusion? If Americans really want to see the number of abortions go down, the answer is not a vote for Clinton. Rather it is a pro-life President, pro-life House, and a "filibuster and veto-proof pro-life Senate that will not veto majority supported pro-life legislation and will defeat filibusters against pro-life judges and justices."
