Hillary Clinton: Why she is the Only Real Anti-Abortion, Whole-Life Choice for Christians

 

 

As a life long pro-life Democrat, my interest has always been a genuinely whole-life platform. It has been clear to me, this year more than ever, that the Democratic platform is more whole-life than the Republican platform.   However, I repeatedly hear in Evangelical circles that abortion is the main reason that people are voting against Hillary Clinton. I, on the other hand, am voting for Hillary because I am pro-life.

 

During President Obama’s administration, abortion rates have continued to fall; they are currently at their lowest rate since becoming legal. The cause for this drop may at first glance seem complex, but much of that complexity can be summed up in one word: Economics. How do economics influence abortion? In the United States, one out of every four children are at risk of going to bed hungry at night. A quarter of all American families incomes are less than the poverty level and half of all incomes are less that $35,000 a year. These economics directly contribute to 75% of abortions.

 

When poverty is cut in half it reduces abortion by 30%. These studies show that when you further invest in whole-life policies like funding programs to provide adoption assistance, reducing health care costs, funding domestic violence programs, funding programs to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and reducing childcare costs, you can cut abortion by a further 50%.

 

As I mentioned before, the Republican party has sold white evangelicals on the idea that it is the “pro-life party.” At the same time, many of its members have worked to deny poor families and single mothers the ability to feed their children–constantly cutting food stamps, refusing to sponsor legislation that would make well-child checks affordable, and constantly striving to cut programs like Head Start—the single most successful program at helping single and/or impoverished moms afford childcare, feed and educate their children, and get back to work. The myth that these programs help those who do not work is wrong. For families with children, sixty percent of those receiving SNAP (food stamps) are employed and ninety percent have been employed in the previous or subsequent year.

 

The criticism of these policies is based on “trickle down economics” that became popular in the 1980s. Through strategic, and secular planning, the Christian Left gave way to the Christian Right[1], and in the process Reganomics replaced the Bible as the guiding principle for evangelical understandings of poverty. This shift is not just a social problem for evangelicals but also a spiritual one–economics (wealth/poverty) is arguably the most frequently mentioned topic in scripture, because it has so much to do with how love of neighbor plays out.

 

The reality is that trickle-down is a failure. It does make a lot of people (1%) very wealthy, but it has done very little actual trickling down. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but this is a matter of facts, not opinions. And here are the facts: From the time of the Korean War (1950) until the Reagan era (1980) we followed a Truman-era Democratic economic plan, and we became an economic super power. During this time the national debt was halved, foreign aid was triple what it is now, and the economy soared. Since 1980, the national debt has doubled and then some, and the Gross National Product has decreased by half. This is the economic theory that Donald Trump supports, and it is clear that as it further disempowers those who are already struggling, it will lead to higher abortion rates and, perhaps even beyond that, higher rates of suffering in our country as a whole.

 

I am voting for Hillary Clinton this election, then, because I see her economic platform as being pro-person with a focus on whole-life policies that both lower abortion and increase all of our ability to thrive, through:

 

  • Supporting a living wage.
  • Policies that make families stronger, such as paid family leave.
  • A fair and carefully-vetted approach to welcoming immigrants.
  • Reforming America’s broken, unjust and racially biased criminal justice system.
  • Taking the threat posed by climate change seriously—something that threatens every life on earth.
  • A plan to fight poverty in the U.S.
  • Wise Supreme Court choices.

 

Yes, I said her Supreme Court choices. This seems to be another main reason white Evangelicals believe that supporting Trump is justifiable–they believe he will make Supreme Court choices that will make abortion illegal. History would lead us to believe that this is also a fallacy. The last four Republican Presidents have nominated Justices, and overall there has been no change in abortion’s federal legal status. Even if we assume that Trump will nominate judges with a Republican seal of approval, it is highly unlikely that this will change. (In fact, I think it is highly unlikely with any Republican nominee that abortion will become illegal at the federal level.) And, even all those Evangelical dreams come true and Roe v. Wade magically got overturned, we may just become like other countries where abortion is currently illegal, which have higher abortion rates than the U.S.
Though I will vote for Hillary, I do disagree with her on some key points.[2] And I would not say that her integrity is spotless. In regards to the issues brought up with emails and Benghazi, however, I would point out that she was declared innocent by Republican-led committees! How is this still an issue, other than being thoroughly political?

 

When it comes to character, it is often made to sound like Hillary and Trump are on a basically equal footing. Hillary has had six lawsuits brought against her, and has lost none. What she has done is: expand health care for millions of children, helped create legislation to assist families in adoption and foster care for children, helped create the office on violence against women, and proposed a revival to Truman-era Home Owners Loan corporation, in addition to many, many other accomplishments. In comparison, Trump doesn’t have an iota of integrity or real family values. Trump has had thousands of law suits brought against him, including three rape cases and one rape involving a twelve-year old.   How can the “Christian” candidate be one who is a particular threat to democracy, has had three marriages with publicly flaunted affairs, five bankruptcies, owns casinos, and boasts about sexual assault! Notwithstanding his marginalization and ridicule of the disabled, refugees, women and minorities!
If individual liberty and the ability for the individual to freely make choices to help them to thrive are of utmost importance to Republicans, as they have expressed, then they have their policies all wrong. The majority of America is working poor, unhealthy with unaffordable healthcare, and often in the position to make desperate choices. This reality is being fueled by the white evangelical vote for Republican policies. As a white evangelical myself, my hope is that if we start sticking to the facts instead of rhetoric, and our public choices emphasize our biblical values, then there is no question we would see abortion rates drastically decline—as well as an overall improvement in the quality of life for all U.S. citizens. We should and can return to economic theories that create a developed society and help children survive and thrive. Hillary’s track record for supporting families and what that says about her character is why she has my vote next Tuesday.

 

UPDATE ON NOVEMBER 7th: 

Trump removed his pro-life stance from his website yesterday= biggest con in American history.

 

[1] Here is an story to illustrate how the Christian Left became the Christian Right. My father, Tony Hall, was a pro-life democrat in the U.S. Congress for 25 years. I remember when the trickle-down theory started in 1980 and the secularly-funded Christian Coalition (in partnership with Pat Robertson) began to put leaflets on cars outside of churches in his district of Dayton, OH, on Sunday mornings. The fliers said, “Tony Hall is not a Christian because he does not support the Capital Gains tax cut.”

[2] I would never consider voting libertarian because their economic policies are even more conservative than Republicans’ and would create an undeveloped nation. I would also not vote for a third party candidate because they cannot win, and too much is at stake this election.


28 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton: Why she is the Only Real Anti-Abortion, Whole-Life Choice for Christians

  1. Interesting perspective, Jyl. My only question is the part about the GDP being cut in half. Do you mean per capita, because obviously our economy are bigger now than then. As for Pat Robertson’s campaign’s assertion about your father, in my experience there has been no member of Congress in my lifetime who better exemplifies what it means to be a Christian in public life than Tony Hall does.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. This is Philip, formerly of the Asbury carrels! I am not an American and can’t vote but I am very sympathetic to your case. This was an excellent piece, well researched and many evangelicals need to consider it. What about another issue that some find to be an obstacle in voting for Hillary Clinton? Some are concerned about religious liberty. Their understanding of the Bible’s teaching on sexuality and sexual practice means that they cannot in conscience support what is becoming the consensus view in the public sphere on LGBT rights and same-sex marriage. They fear that anyone not subscribing to this view will find themselves under attack in one way or another and their religious liberty compromised. They are concerned that religious organizations and churches etc will not be able to publicly express what they see as historic orthodox Christian teaching on “traditional marriage” or will not be able to make it a condition of membership or employment. I saw this article recently as one example from some African-American church leaders: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/31/black-faith-leaders-reproach-hillary-clinton-on-re/
    What would you say to answer those concerns? If I could vote this would be my main concern with Clinton, rather than the abortion issue, for the reasons you give above.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Hi Philip, I would say that gay marriage in particular is not a threat to religious liberty because we live in a pluralistic society.

      I do not think Christians are at all being persecuted in this country, other than the ways that they bring it on themselves because of being found hypocritical in ways like my article mentioned.

      I think Hillary is much better for religious liberty than Donald Trump, as evidenced by his position on Muslims. In regard to the Washington Times–I would be careful about anything read on there, its highly biased. Also, this “petition” mentioned was led by Rev. Bill Owens, someone who holds tightly to conservative economics in similar fashion to Herman Cain or Ben Carson. They do not represent the majority opinion among minorities.

      Lastly, I hope that Hillary Clinton will respect freedom of speech and freedom of assembly when it comes to religious liberty. For example, in regards to the controversy about Christians providing wedding cakes for gay marriages, I do not think that a Christian business should be required to provide a cake to something they oppose any more than a gay bakery should be forced to provide a cake for a conservative Christian gathering if they so choose. However, the bakeries in question were not identified as “christian,” but public. Its important to differentiate between religious liberty, imposing one’s religion on others, and discriminating against people in the marketplace. I like the compromise that Utah came up with, and I hope most states follow suit: they passed a law that restricts discrimination against the LGBT community in the workplace and with housing, while still protecting the expression of religious conscience.

      Like

      1. Thank you for that. That’s helpful. I’ve actually never read anything in the Washington Times before and wouldn’t necessarily vouch for it; I simply grabbed that article from a simple Google search as I was writing my comment, as an illustrative example. It probably wasn’t the best example! The “religious liberty” fear is that one I hear expressed the most among American evangelicals, other than the abortion issue. I think they fear a kind of institutional demonization for expressing their views on “traditional” marriage in public life and in the workplace, especially. I haven’t studied the Utah compromise although I’ve heard of it. I think we need more of that, both here and in the UK: something that balances discrimination laws with protection of conscience.

        Like

      2. Jyl, I replied to your comment yesterday but it doesn’t seem like it posted. So, (if I can remember!) what I said was first of all, thank you for sending the link to that article. I had not seen it and it provides a different perspective from others I have seen. Here are two interesting articles that you may/may not have seen. The first is interesting in that it may not be what you would expect, given the perspective of the author, Peter Tatchell, who for many years has been the leading campaigner for LGBT rights when it was not in the mainstream (he is gay and is not a Christian): http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ashers-bakery-cakes-gay-marriage-discrimination-northern-ireland-a7377916.html The second article comments on this piece and various others. It is by an evangelical Anglican scholar and blogger: http://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/why-the-ashers-gay-cake-ruling-is-wrong-in-law/

        Like

  3. As a conservative and fundamental Christian I see harm in supporting Hillary Clinton for various reasons. However, I thinks it’s very important that we understand that the social justice gospel is a false gospel. I have no interest in taking money out of my pocket to further weaken the resolve of American citizens by removing the incentive of the ambitious. The Bible clearly says: If you don’t work, you don’t eat. It doesn’t say give everything away to those who could otherwise earn it themselves if the government didn’t steal the reward of their ambition by giving everything away at the taxpayer’s expense.

    I realize that we’re not going to dismiss all the welfare programs, but an agenda based on small government that allows us to manage our own lives is what we need. Reduce regulations, reduce taxes, restore the incentive of the ambitious, and let God through the Church care for those who are actually in need.

    You make some very good points though. I just want to point out that the Gospel is not about social justice; however, the results of the Gospel (especially in America) is a people who are willing to work hard and pursue purposeful action with their God-given potentials; thereby creating true justice in society. The Gospel is about the Lordship of Jesus Christ. We are to share the Gospel and people will find justice as a result.

    Thanks, for the article. It is very well articulated. Very unbiased writing style (yet we know where you stand).

    Like

    1. Hi John,

      First of all, I really appreciate your civility even though you disagree! That is something sorely lacking these days online.

      Second, you brought up a point that I would like to discuss because it has caused a lot of confusion and division these days. I think the concept “social gospel” can shut things down as if Christians only are communists if they believe in the public good. Further, the gospel is nothing if not “social.” I believe that spirituality in the prayer closet that does not extend to our public citizenship and participation in the marketplace is an empty Christianity, and not one that Jesus demonstrated. As white American Christians, a spirituality that constantly separates the sacred from the secular is not relevant to the world.

      Regarding your point on work ethic, that is a sentiment that really goes back hundreds of years and is a cornerstone of Protestant culture. My interest is the working poor—which is the lion’s share of poverty in the US. Many do not know that a fraction of our taxes go to non-working poor, a bit more go to working poor—which is really welfare for the rich who refuse to pay wages that will support a life. They need to be held accountable. Further, the huge financial burden is social programs for the wealthy, which cost the average taxpayer about $6000 a year.
      http://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/09/23/add-it-average-american-family-pays-6000-year-subsidies-big-business

      There is a balance in how much government is necessary, but it is the government’s job to protect from exploitation and bodily harm. I was wondering if you would be willing to read my next article “a government theology” on what the biblical role of government should be. I’ll let you know, its not a quick read, but I wanted to be thorough and orthodox in my treatment of this issue as I think its critical in todays polarized take on this issue. It is so important to have a healthy balance between too much and too little regulation, but we do not have too much government in many areas where government should be and it is causing some major problems. A perfect example of this is where Brownback has instituted libertarianism in Kansas and Kansas is now floundering. I would hate for our country to become an undeveloped nation because we trust the role of government so little that all we are left with is economic anarchy.

      For all these reasons, we need good people to lead this country! Pray for that.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Very good!

        I will read; you make excellent points that leave me with a lot to consider. Thank you.

        I will comment on the piece about “social gospel…”

        I did not intend to make a stark distinction between the true gospel and society. I just want to pointbout that the gospel is not “providing for the poor,” but this is a job of the regenerate Christian.

        What’s most imporatant for the church is to share the gospel in order to break down the strongholds that are really the root cause of the poverty to begin with.

        Our job is the opposite of passivity. Our purpose is to be salt and light to a reprobate people.

        We should not be calling on the government to be the means to an end (it never will be), but rather we the church (those people who are called by His Name) must declare the Word of God to the people.

        Providing for the poor is a result that comes to a regenerated believer, not a role of government. (In my opinion). Let the government be in order to provide protection from foreign and domestic enemies of our Constitution and nothing more. (In my opinion).

        Great conversation…

        Praise God…

        John R

        Like

      2. I realize that many hold this opinion, and though charity is important–it simply cannot solve the problem of poverty in the U.S. (and often abroad.) Further, it enables the state to continue practices that impoverish others while we act like we can foot the bill. We can’t possibly pay the discrepancy in charitable aid alone, but we should leverage our citizenship–our greatest and often most unused asset often. It just simply is not true that most poverty is caused by being a reprobate, today, or during biblical times. Certainly some is but evidence shows that is not the majority. I do not like to think of the poor as reprobate at all though, if that were true then we all are reprobate.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Although this conversation appears to be geared towards evangelicals, it might be helpful to read some of the teachings of Popes John Paul and Francis. They are very clear that the main message of Jesus’ ministry and the ensuing Gospels is exactly that of social justice, and eschewing attachment to our material possessions in anticipation of our reward in heaven. Jesus said, “What you do for these, the least of me, you do for me” Would Christians then deny Christ the very thing that the least of him requires? The early church members gave all they had, and it was divided among those according to their NEED. Note it does not say status, ambition, or anything other than NEED. There is very little evidence to support the theory that deprivation is a good motivator to work. There is AMPLE evidence to support the theory that SUPPORT (Head Start, SNAP, TANF, etc.) can motivate people to use newly acquired skills, become motivated to support the children they have borne, and become a support system for others are in the same down position they once were in. (See AA) Social justice? It’s the centerpiece of the Gospels and thevteachings of Jesus Christ our Lord.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Doug,

        I refute the statement that the gospel is of social justice. I don’t follow the pope, but rather the Word of God. Anyway, of course the social securities are relevant and important and are literally blessings; however they cannot solve the problems. Only when people are changed by the true gospel can a society become sustainable. (In my opinion)

        Also, you mention the good works that were being done in the early church; these works were done as part of a community of believers (a church), not a national government. It’s not rewarding to believers to be forced to surrender funds to be used without discretion by unregenerated and wicked people. That is the opposite of how we are commanded to give and show grace, which is by our own free will, not by a forced tax. We gain no eternal treasure by paying taxes. We gain by love offerings of all sorts.

        Also, I didn’t say being poor was incentive for people to go to work; I said having incentive to work was incentive to work. If a person can get by on welfare, and that’s all they know, then they are no different than a slave. The systems put in place to help are important, but help must have an end; there must be an active mode of exit for all those who use that help. I think we can agree to that.

        Oh and the Sermon on the Mount is not the gospel. (In reference to AA)

        The gospel is:

        The good news that our sin can be forgiven because Jesus Christ came from His throne to a lowly place, lived as a man, died as a man in your place and in my place so that we (those who accept His work by trusting in it) would not get the punishment we rightly deserve.

        It is nothing more than that. You can’t add all of this stuff onto the gospel. The gospel is one thing; social justice is a result of the gospel being proclaimed and people thereby trusting in that proclamation. That’s where justice is accomplished. Not by man’s Babel efforts; not by any legislation; and not by religion. It’s only by trusting in Christ that justice exists at all.

        I hope you can appreciate my response as much as I appreciate yours.

        (Dedicated to God’s eternal glory!)

        Like

    3. P.S. This dialogue is occurring as Pope Francis’ Year of Mercy comes to a close. Mercy is focused on the suffering of others, not on our own distress. This special year was proclaimed by Pope Francis as a way of IMPLEMENTING the unassailable gospel theme of Social Justice. That’s the Catholic viewpoint anyway.

      Like

      1. Just a couple quick points and then I will likely move on from this particular thread.

        First, I want to make clear that I do not believe that Protestants are not more spiritual than Catholics.

        Second, 100% of our tax dollars go to the unregenerate—including you and me.

        Third, the gospel is not just a spiritual transaction with no further obligation to the believer. The evidence of true followers is lived out socially, as the book of James—and the sermon on the Mt. aptly describe.

        Lastly, it just is not factual that poverty is caused by the wrongdoing of only the poor. I will do a blog post about this at a later date. Injustice causes poverty in the world—by and large—something that can only be handled publically rather than privately.

        Like

  4. Hillary Clinton isn’t endorsed by Planned Parenthood for no reason. It’s irresponsible to try to spin an abortion enabler into a pro-life candidate.

    This is Clinton’s extremist position:
    //In April, Chuck Todd, on Meet the Press, asked Clinton: “When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?” She answered, “Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”

    Two days later Paula Faris (of The View) was able to ask a follow up question. “And Secretary, I want to ask you about some comments that you made over the weekend on Meet the Press regarding abortion. You said, quote, ‘the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.’ My question is at what point does someone have constitutional rights, and are you saying that a child, on its due date, just hours before delivery still has no constitutional rights? Clinton responded, “Under our law, that is the case, Paula. I support Roe v Wade.”// (http://www.lifenews.com/2016/09/12/10-examples-of-how-extreme-hillary-clinton-is-on-abortion/)

    Like

    1. Hi Sarah, you are right that this is distasteful. I want to be clear, I am against abortion. I hope that both D’ and R’ get together to advocate and lobby against the sentiments expressed above. I strongly disagree with Clinton on this point. I like the group Democrats for Life to that effect. But, it is dangerous in this election to be a one issue voter. It is not pro-life in the least, and it will not effect abortion rates positively if Trump were president. We need to respect the sanctity of life at all stages. Being pro-birth and anti-child does not do that. Republican economics is anti-development and anti-life. The contrast with pro-birth is a ridiculous contradiction. If this were rectified I would consider switching parties.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Planned Parenthood provides health care, including contraceptive care. Without Planned Parenthood there would be MORE abortions. I don’t understand how supporting Planned Parenthood is a bad thing.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Johnrwhited:

    jylhallsmith November 7, 2016 at 7:20 pm
    Just a couple quick points and then I will likely move on from this particular thread.

    First, I want to make clear that I do not believe that Protestants are not more spiritual than Catholics.
    (Who said that? I did not say that…)

    Second, 100% of our tax dollars go to the unregenerate—including you and me.
    (Okay, now we have a major problem. Have you been born again? I have. Are you Catholic? This is how I know there is a misunderstanding of the gospel going on here.)

    Third, the gospel is not just a spiritual transaction with no further obligation to the believer. The evidence of true followers is lived out socially, as the book of James—and the sermon on the Mt. aptly describe.
    (Who said there was no obligation? I think you are twisting what I am saying all around. What I am trying to explain is that the gospel is a simple message. We are called to share it. The gospel is not good works. Good works are a sign that you trust God, but the gospel they are not. We strive to obey Christ. We work towards sanctification. Of course the Christian is not passive or apathetic (although many are). Of course good works is good work, but they are not the gospel.)

    Lastly, it just is not factual that poverty is caused by the wrongdoing of only the poor. I will do a blog post about this at a later date. Injustice causes poverty in the world—by and large—something that can only be handled publically rather than privately.
    (Okay, that is fine. I disagree, but we can talk more about this later.)

    John R Whited

    Like

  6. I don’t have a problem with women feeling a need to abort a pregnancy due to their own personal circumstances. Most abortions occur during the first and second trimesters. The second trimester, the embryo is the size of a jelly bean. Everyone’s personal situation is different and a painful decision for them. What I do have a big problem with are the number of children that are born and then beaten, unloved, abused and murdered because they were never wanted or prepared for. If you have a love of children, it’s just as important to care for children out of the womb even more than in the womb. In most cases, a pregnancy brings great joy to a woman but almost at times, great sadness and doubt in their ability to care for a child. It is not up to us to judge anyone.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Carol Ottinger November 8, 2016 at 3:00 pm

      Who are you talking to?

      I don’t have a problem with women feeling a need to abort a pregnancy due to their own personal circumstances.
      (Are you a Christian?)

      Most abortions occur during the first and second trimesters. The second trimester, the embryo is the size of a jelly bean. Everyone’s personal situation is different and a painful decision for them.

      What I do have a big problem with are the number of children that are born and then beaten, unloved, abused and murdered because they were never wanted or prepared for. If you have a love of children, it’s just as important to care for children out of the womb even more than in the womb. In most cases, a pregnancy brings great joy to a woman but almost at times, great sadness and doubt in their ability to care for a child. It is not up to us to judge anyone.

      It’s not up to you to decide whether murder is acceptable.
      As a Christian I have a duty to stand on the Word of God. Murder is one of God’s very obvious “Thou shalt not…” commandments. Abortion is murder. You are guilty of standing with murderers if you stand for abortion.

      God’s Word speaks for itself…

      God said to Jeremiah:

      Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

      Isaiah 49:1-26 – Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.

      Isaiah 43:7 – [Even] every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

      Psalm 139:13 – For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.

      And many more proclaiming the value of what should be the safest place in the world – a mother’s womb…

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s