{"id":5601,"date":"2024-09-10T10:23:37","date_gmt":"2024-09-10T14:23:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/?p=5601"},"modified":"2024-09-11T15:44:40","modified_gmt":"2024-09-11T19:44:40","slug":"election-conundrum-changed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/index.php\/2024\/09\/10\/election-conundrum-changed\/","title":{"rendered":"Oh My, How the Election Conundrum Has Changed"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Rachel MacNair<\/p>\n

A reminder: The Consistent Life Network doesn\u2019t necessarily endorse everything said in its blog, since we encourage individual writers to express a variety of views. This is especially so when analyzing elections.<\/em><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been through several presidential elections now. Consistent-lifers have this conundrum (as this post details for 2020<\/a>): The Republican is terrible on many things but at least\u00a0 better on abortion. The Democrat is better on many of those things but absolutely horrendous on abortion. People who vote for a minor party instead may stay cleaner, but they aren\u2019t helping to decide which one wins.<\/p>\n

\"Consistent<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

But as I posted and documented earlier, several conservatives who would normally be enthusiastic about supporting Republicans have noted that Trump is sabotaging the pro-life movement.<\/a> Since then, the situation has gotten even worse, to the point that mainstream media is taking notice.<\/p>\n

Which Candidate is Worse This Time?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Here I expand this with comments from people who would normally assertively support the Republican for president on anti-abortion grounds.<\/p>\n

\n

Ramesh Ponnuru asks this cogent question<\/a> in The National Review<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\"Ramesh<\/a>

Ramesh Ponnuru<\/p><\/div>\n

I\u2019m also wondering how the political parties will interpret the election results. If Harris wins, will they take it as a vindication of the Democrats\u2019 strategy of being all in for abortion? If Trump wins, will both parties take it as a vindication of his strategy of running as far and fast as he can from the issue? Which would be worse for the pro-life cause in the long run?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The National Review also quotes Lila Rose<\/a> of Live Action:<\/p>\n

\"Lila<\/a>

Lila Rose<\/p><\/div>\n

\u201cVance has come out and said that [Trump] would veto an abortion ban, that he supports abortion pills, that he supports \u2018reproductive rights\u2019 without clarifying what that means,\u201d Rose said, adding that Trump \u201cwas behind the RNC platform being weakened on this, which for four decades was strong on life, and now it\u2019s been weakened.\u201d<\/p>\n

The activist said that she, as it stands, would not cast a vote for either Trump or Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. It\u2019s \u201cnot the job of the pro-life movement to vote for President Trump,\u201d she said, but it is \u201cthe job of the pro-life movement to demand protection for pre-born lives.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other Republicans disagree . . .<\/p>\n

But Rose said she doesn\u2019t buy the \u201cidea that you are morally responsible to vote against Kamala Harris by voting for someone like Donald Trump.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIn some cases, you can make the argument that it can be the right move to vote for the lesser of two evils,\u201d Rose said. \u201cBut part of our job is not to just accept whatever position we\u2019ve been handed \u2014 especially from a politician who, in the past, has counted on our vote and has indicated that he is pro-life [before] changing his position. It\u2019s our job, if we want to be an effective lobbying group in any way, to demand more and to say, \u2018If you want my vote, I need to see more from you.’\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is how politics works,\u201d she continued. \u201cThis is how any advocacy or movement works . . . if you will always be happy to support a candidate provided that they are just a fraction better than the next candidate, you will never achieve your goals for the group that you\u2019re fighting for.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Babylon Bee<\/em>, a humorous satire site like The Onion<\/em>, explicitly for conservative Christians, put it this way: Pro-Lifers Excited To Choose Between Moderate Amount Of Baby Murder And High Amount of Baby Murder<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Another important point is that the Trump administration couldn\u2019t have arranged for a stronger backlash to the overturning of Roe <\/em>if such a backlash had been its plan. We can count on it that any repeat Trump administration would provide extra energy to keep that backlash going.<\/p>\n

Euthanasia<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Meanwhile, on euthanasia \u2013 which I don\u2019t recall Trump ever expressing opposition to \u2013 is now an issue on which he\u2019s made especially cringe-worthy remarks against a member of his own family \u2013 William Trump, the son of his nephew Fred Trump III. From The New York Times<\/em><\/a>,<\/em><\/p>\n

Fred Trump\u2019s son was born with a rare medical condition that led to developmental and intellectual disabilities . . . he was able to convene a group of advocates for a meeting with his uncle . . .<\/p>\n

After the meeting, Fred Trump claims, his uncle pulled him aside and said, \u201cmaybe those kinds of people should just die,\u201d given \u201cthe shape they\u2019re in, all the expenses.\u201d<\/p>\n

The remark wasn\u2019t a one-off, according to Fred Trump. A couple of years later, when he called his uncle for help because the medical fund that paid for his son\u2019s care was running out of money, Fred Trump claims his uncle said: \u201cI don\u2019t know. He doesn\u2019t recognize you. Maybe you should just let him die and move down to Florida.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other than Trump<\/strong><\/h3>\n

As for the other major candidate, extreme abortion advocacy is just one of the problems. Biden has been rightfully subjected to intensive war protests on sending weapons being used against Palestinian children, and Harris shows no signs of having better policy. And that\u2019s only one of the horrific wars being supported by the U.S. now. The 2024 Democratic platform has dropped previous opposition to the death penalty and support of reduction in military spending. Moving away from anti-violence positions is happening in both parties.<\/p>\n

\"Both<\/a>

graphic from our member group Rehumanize International<\/p><\/div>\n

I\u2019m thinking the third-party option (say, for our member group the American Solidarity Party<\/a>) has the advantage of clearly communicating why the major parties lost your vote. That may make more sense this year than usual.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, we can certainly feel comfortable working on referendums<\/a> \u2013 while they\u2019re generally single-issue by nature, there are quite a few that cover several of the consistent-life issues.<\/p>\n

===========================<\/p>\n

For more of our posts on election dynamics, see:<\/p>\n

What History Shows: The Consistent Life Ethic Works for Pro-life Referendums<\/a><\/p>\n

Elections 2020: Three Consistent-Life Approaches<\/a><\/p>\n

Pro-life Voting Strategy: A Problem without an Answer<\/a><\/p>\n

My Difficulty in Voting: Identifying the Problem<\/a>\u00a0(about the American Solidarity Party)<\/p>\n

Abortion on the Ballot<\/a><\/p>\n

How Consistent-life Advocacy Would Benefit from Ranked-Choice Voting<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Get our SHORT Biweekly e-Newsletter<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Email & Social Media Marketing by VerticalResponse<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/form>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Rachel MacNair A reminder: The Consistent Life Network doesn\u2019t necessarily endorse everything said in its blog, since we encourage individual writers to express a variety of views. This is especially so when analyzing elections. I\u2019ve been through several presidential elections now. Consistent-lifers have this conundrum (as this post details for 2020): The Republican is… <\/p>\n