I'm a pro-life evangelical. In supporting Trump, my movement sold its soul.

[Zorro]

By Stephanie Ranade Krider

The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court injected new enthusiasm and urgency into the evangelical pro-life movement. Conservatives may soon make up a significant majority on the court, leaving Roe v. Wade more vulnerable than it has ever been, a core objective of our movement since Roe was handed down in 1973. We have been let down before — but never have we been promised so much by the occupant of the Oval Office. In January, Donald Trump became the first sitting president to attend the March for Life in Washington, where he declared himself the strongest defender that unborn children have ever had in the White House. In a letter from his campaign in September, he said that he has “governed as the most pro-life president in our nation’s history.”

The prospect of a Justice Barrett is cause for excitement, and this legal milestone — the chance to overturn Roe — is something I’ve hoped for and worked toward for more than a decade. Yet I feel deep unease at how we arrived at this moment. Pro-life evangelicals threw their support behind Trump in 2016 aiming for precisely this outcome, but I fear it has been to our detriment. Aligning our movement with Trumpism has reduced our commitments to a single goal: outlawing abortion at any cost, putting our reputation (but not his) on the line.

I watched all of this unfold from the front lines. Until recently, I served as executive director of Ohio Right to Life. When I started there in a part-time role in 2009, I was grateful for the opportunity to change hearts, minds and laws to recognize the humanity of the unborn and the vulnerable. I advised candidates for elected office, advocated for legal protections for unborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome, and lobbied successfully to gain state funding for pregnancy help centers and to end late-term abortions in Ohio.

I’ve spent my career fighting for a cause I believe in, one in which I could live out my faith as a Christian. Over the past decade, our state saw a 25 percent decrease in the number of abortions, consistent with the broader nationwide decline in abortions over the past 30 years. But as the cause became increasingly tied to Trump, it transformed into something with which I could no longer identify. Every major pro-life organization has endorsed Trump’s reelection. Protecting innocent life is a cause that’s deeply steeped in morality, but with this political choice, the movement has shown itself to be too willing to trade moral character for power.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/im-a-pro-life-evangelical-in-supporting-trump-my-movement-sold-its-soul/2020/10/07/04d90712-0733-11eb-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html

[nitpicker]

1. She just wants to pollute the gene poll

With products of incest, rape et al.

Along with the results of those who should not contribute (genetic diseases).

[Karadeniz]

2. The rich and influential will still get abortions if desired...the poor lose their choice, though.

This will be another time there's one level of opportunity for those who can afford an accommodating doctor, while others can't. Overturning Roe will not result in equal justice.

[Ferrets are Cool]

5. Sadly 100% correct.

This country moves closer and closer to the have's and have-nots. 35% of the population are too stupid to see it.

[Thomas Hurt]

3. your movement was never pro-life lady...it was pro fetus and pro oppression. Owning the libs.

abandoning Trump doesn't fix that.

[Ferrets are Cool]

6. Wow, that was brilliant.

[Ellen Forradalom]

4. Keep deluding yourself lady

Women are morally competent to make those decisions. We don’t need a big patriarchy to tell us what to do. So-called pro-life is misogyny with a big dose of race panic.

[DFW]

7. I despise the label "pro-life."

Unless you are vegan and actively oppose the death penalty, you are NOT "pro-life" just because you oppose abortion or a woman's right to choose it. Unless you are for twenty years of state-guaranteed financial and medical care being provided for every unwanted baby being brought to term, you are not "pro-life."

All people like that are, is anti-choice: against a woman's right to choose abortion or not. If you did not want to become pregnant, and do not want to carry an unwanted fetus to term, the so-called "pro-life" crowd wants to take that choice from you. They do not give one whit about what happens to an unwanted child once it is born. They absolve themselves of all obligations to that child to provide food, health care, education or a stable family. They only want the right to prevent a pregnant woman from having the right to an abortion. HER life doesn't matter to them at all. That is pro-life? No. It is a very ugly concept, but calling it "pro-life" is as phony as a vegetarian sneaking into Ruth Criss and ordering a porterhouse, hoping no one notices.