The Christian Post has allowed a Democrat operative to shill for Planned Parenthood-funded Hillary Clinton, who rivals Barack Obama as the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history. I’m trying to imagine if the issue were slavery, would the Christian Post give its space to the promotion of someone so determined to violently dehumanize God’s creation? If it’s remotely ‘Christian’ to support a billion-dollar business that daily destroys nearly 1,000 defenseless human lives, then Christians can support anything.

Eric Sapp, author of a ridiculously dishonest piece entitled “Hillary Clinton is the Best Choice for Voters Against Abortion”, has created a work of foolish fantasy similar to other liberals who pretend that Hillary Clinton is somehow pro-life. He is clearly a liberal consultant, not a journalist. “I’ll start by saying that I don’t think Christians should be single-issue voters since Christ’s ministry wasn’t single-issue. But if your concern for the unborn determines your vote, Hillary Clinton should be your candidate,” writes Sapp. For starters, Christ was singularly focused on giving people (eternal) Life. So, there’s that. Secondly, as someone who has brown skin, I’m grateful that abolitionists were singularly focused; I would make a terrible slave. Thirdly, what planet does Sapp live on? So, using his absurd logic, the best way to pass unconstitutional “gun control” legislation is to promote a staunch 2^nd Amendment, pro-gun candidate?

Nearly every statement in Sapp’s article is a lie. I’ll tackle a few of them.

“It’s no coincidence that abortions go up when Republicans are in charge and down when Democrats are.”

Aside from the fact that Sapp is obviously statistically-challenged, this lazy assertion is just plain false and debunked by the actual numbers (see charts here). The nation’s abortion rate hit its highest point (29.3 per 1,000 women ages 15-44) in 1980 when Carter was still in office and remained at that level in 1981 under Reagan. This also coincided with the pregnancy rate hitting an apex that same year. The abortion rate then declined during Reagan’s term, about 6.5%, ending the annual abortion rate increase during Carter’s administration. The abortion rate then declined every year since except a few (1988, 2003, 2006). The one he notes, 1990, was the year of the highest total number of abortions as well as the highest pregnancy rate in decades.

In 2009 the pregnancy rate was the lowest recorded in 12 years, according to the CDC, which explains (in part) the sharper decreases since 1990. Context matters. 

“And what did Republicans [during the George W. Bush administration] do to overturn Roe or in any meaningful way limit abortion? Nothing.”

Clearly he didn’t bother to answer his own question by doing any actual research. Here are just a few of those meaningful efforts:

• Reinstituted the Mexico City Policy
• Partial Abortion Ban of 2003
• Born-Alive Infant Protection Act
• Prolife Justices Roberts and Alito appointed to the Supreme Court
• Bush administration launched a national public awareness campaign for adoption/fostercare
• Increased tax credit for adoption-related expenses from $5,000 to $10,000
• Significantly increased federal funding for abstinence-based education through Department of Health & Human Services (see HHS-commissioned pro-abstinence study that they’ve hidden)
• Issued federal regulation allowing states to include unborn children in the fed/state S-CHIP program to help provide pre-natal care to poor women
• Annually recognized Sanctity of Human Life Day
• Thwarted every UN effort to promote abortion as an international right

And this is just on the federal level. Republican-controlled state legislatures have enacted legislation to whittle away at the egregious unconstitutional Roe decree. Constitutional foes, in the form of pro-abortion Democrats, fight every single prolife effort. Perhaps Sapp has never heard of pregnancy resource centers—you know, those thousands of facilities across the country (CareNet, Heartbeat International, NIFLA) that care for mothers and their children. Many are medical. Some even provide prenatal care. All offer their services, including parenting classes and maternal and baby supplies, at no cost to their clients. These centers are a threat to Big Abortion, rescuing mothers, fathers and their children and offering help and hope.

Sapp alludes to contraception as the answer to reducing abortions. He must have missed those statistics on how national unintended pregnancy rates only increased from 1995 to 2011 (from 49% to 51%), according to the CDC and Guttmacher, despite more access to contraception than ever before in human history.

Contraception hasn’t reduced abortions. Moral conviction has.

I’m no Donald Trump fan, but at least he surrounds himself with Constitutionally-sound, pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty staff and advisors. Pro-abortion Hillary Clinton, who voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, surrounds herself with those who want to expand abortion. She has promised to repeal the Hyde Amendment, forcing American taxpayers to fund abortion (in addition to existing forced funding through Obamacare). So, someone with a 100% NARAL “pro-choice” voting record is going to reduce abortions? Sure.

I guess 100% pro-slavery Democrats were also the source of slavery’s reduction and eventual abolition. Does Sapp really believe what he’s selling? It’s amazing how time has changed little in the Party that fought, vehemently, to protect slavery. Its leadership still believes that some humans are not equal. Been there. Done with that.

“But at least ‘pro-choice’ politicians who believe the fetus is not a child are being morally consistent.”

Sorry. I have to file this under one of the Most Ridiculous Quotes Ever. So, pro-abortion politicians who deny basic biology are “morally consistent?” Pro-abortion politicians who aid and abet the killing of over 56 million human lives are “morally consistent?” Pro-abortion politicians who declare in the Democrat Party Platform that they will “stand up for Planned Parenthood”—a Medicaid defrauding, rape non-reporting, aborted-baby-parts trafficking, business of epic corruption—are “morally consistent?” I think he means immoral and inconsistent.

And that’s exactly what Hillary Clinton is. (I’m not arguing that Trump is moral, by the way. My friend Jonathon Van Maren wrote an excellent piece on this and the reasons why many Christians will reluctantly be voting for Trump over Hillary.) She decries the deaths of those killed by gun violence while being endorsed and funded by the leading killer of unarmed lives (of any hue). Immoral and inconsistent.

As an adoptee and adoptive father who was conceived in rape, the only political hope for protection of lives like mine, or the 1.1 million aborted annually, is in a Party that believes we’re all created equal. Sapp and other liberal evangelicals can shill for the Party of Slavery, Jim Crow and Abortion. As a Christian, I’ll promote truth, freedom and how every human life has purpose instead.