As the upcoming election approaches, the issue of abortion remains a pivotal concern. The positions of the presidential nominees will significantly impact the future of abortion laws in our country. Understanding these positions is crucial for making an informed decision that aligns with your values.

Trump’s Position

Former President Donald Trump advocates for a state-controlled approach to abortion regulation, opposing federal mandates. In line with this position, the current Republican platform, influenced by Trump’s campaign, has shifted from previous national restrictions, such as the 20-week federal limit, to a focus on state-level decision-making. Trump has emphasized his administration’s role in overturning Roe v. Wade, framing it as a victory for the pro-life movement and a return of power to the states and the people. While this stance does not fully satisfy the pro-life community’s aspirations, it offers a more balanced approach compared to the aggressive pro-abortion agenda of his opponents.

Harris and Walz’s Aggressive Agenda

If Kamala Harris and Tim Walz win the election, their administration could implement a comprehensive and aggressive agenda to expand abortion rights in a post-Roe era. Here are the specific actions they will take:

1. Federal Legislation: They would push for codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law, establishing a national standard for abortion access and preventing states from imposing restrictive laws.
2. Reproductive Health Care Funding: Increasing federal funding for services like Planned Parenthood to ensure widespread availability and accessibility.
3. Removing Hyde Amendment: Advocating for the elimination of the Hyde Amendment to allow federal funds to cover abortion services through programs like Medicaid.
4. Ensuring Access in All States: Implementing measures to provide abortion services in every state, potentially using federal lands and facilities where state laws are restrictive.
5. Protection for Abortion Providers: Enhancing legal protections for providers and clinics to operate without harassment or violence.
6. Telemedicine and Medication Abortion: Expanding telemedicine for medication abortions, facilitating easier access to abortion pills.
7. Judicial Appointments: Prioritizing judges who support abortion access to ensure long-term judicial backing for their policies.
8. International Reproductive Rights: Restoring and expanding support for international abortion programs, reversing policies that restrict funding for organizations involved with abortion services abroad.

Theological Perspective

When we talk about abortion from a Christian perspective, it’s essential to start with the belief that human life is sacred, given by God, and carries deep meaning. The Bible teaches that every person is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), which means every life has value, starting from the moment of conception. This belief is central to why many Christians oppose abortion—it’s not just a personal or political issue, but a matter of respecting the life that God Himself creates.

Life Begins Before Birth

Scripture is clear that God knows us even before we are born. Psalm 139:13-16 describes how God is involved in forming us in the womb, highlighting that life starts at conception. The psalmist says, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb… Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Psalm 139:13, 16 NIV). This passage shows that God’s care for us begins long before we take our first breath, and that life in the womb is precious to Him.

Abortion as a Moral Wrong

According to the Bible, taking innocent life is wrong. The commandment “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) doesn’t just apply to those outside the womb. The Bible also addresses the unborn directly in Exodus 21:22-25, where causing harm to a pregnant woman and her child is seen as a serious offense, indicating that God values the unborn child’s life.

Standing Up for the Voiceless

Christians are called to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Proverbs 24:11-12 says, “Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.” This is a clear call to action to defend the unborn, who have no voice of their own. The story of the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1:15-17 is also significant here. These women refused to carry out Pharaoh’s orders to kill Hebrew babies because they feared God more than the government. Their courage is an example for Christians today, reminding us to stand against laws that go against God’s commands.

The Danger of Institutionalizing Sin

Supporting or tolerating abortion has broader implications for society. When a country legalizes and promotes abortion, it is institutionalizing something that the Bible calls a sin. This leads to moral decline and eventually brings negative consequences for the nation. The Bible warns that such actions can lead to a society’s downfall (2 Kings 21:16; Jeremiah 22:3-5). This is why Christians must oppose policies that support abortion—not just for the sake of the unborn, but to protect the moral and spiritual health of society.

Choices Before Us

• Do you believe the federal government should regulate abortions nationwide, or should individual states have the authority to decide their own policies?
• Should tax dollars—especially from people of faith, ministers, and others who oppose abortion—be used to fund someone else’s abortion?
• Do you think the government should provide abortion services directly, beyond what private clinics offer, to anyone, regardless of age, situation, or stage of pregnancy, without restrictions?
• Should abortion providers, whether private or government-run, be shielded from accountability in cases where a baby survives an abortion or when other harm occurs to a living human being?
• Do you support restrictions on free speech, particularly banning speech that opposes abortion providers?
• Should doctors be allowed to prescribe abortion pills to minors without requiring parental consent?
• Should judges be appointed based on their willingness to expand a specific agenda, even at the cost of impartial justice?
• Do you support using U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund abortions in other countries?

These questions highlight the stark choices facing voters in this election. While Trump’s position may not fully align with the pro-life community’s goals, it is markedly different from the extreme policies proposed by Harris and Walz. Their agenda would drastically expand abortion rights, challenging efforts to protect the unborn and raising significant moral and ethical concerns.

Appeal to Moderates

Even among those who generally support abortion rights, there’s a line many aren’t willing to cross. For example, liberal congresswoman Nancy Pelosi has noted that Tim Walz needs to tone down his extreme stance on abortion, highlighting that his position may be out of step with much of the American public. While many Americans believe that abortion should be an available option, they also tend to support certain restrictions, especially as a pregnancy progresses.

The majority of people who identify as pro-choice still find it unreasonable to allow abortions beyond 21 weeks unless there is a serious threat to the mother’s life. This is a common middle-ground view: supporting the availability of abortion in the early stages while placing limits as the pregnancy advances. The idea of unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortion without parental consent, even in the late stages of pregnancy, is far from the mainstream—And that’s what Harris-Walz supports!

Trump’s stance, while not fully satisfying the pro-life community, represents a more moderate position that aligns with the beliefs of many Americans who support some level of abortion access but oppose the radical expansion of those rights. His position allows for a balanced approach where states have the authority to regulate abortion, reflecting the values and beliefs of their citizens. This approach respects the complexity of the issue and acknowledges the diversity of opinions across the country.

As we consider the upcoming election, it’s critical to reflect on the choices before us, especially when it comes to the protection of life. The policies proposed by Harris and Walz represent a significant and dangerous shift toward unrestricted abortion access that goes beyond what most Americans, including many who support some level of abortion rights, find acceptable. Their extreme agenda not only threatens the lives of the unborn but also undermines the moral fabric of our nation.

For the sake of our children—God’s children—and the future of our country, we cannot afford to support candidates who will aggressively expand abortion rights at the expense of innocent lives. Harris and Walz’s positions are not just politically extreme; they are morally destructive. They seek to institutionalize a practice that the Bible clearly condemns, one that disregards the sanctity of life and the importance of protecting the most vulnerable among us.

In this election, the stakes couldn’t be higher. We must stand firm in our commitment to protecting life. For the sake of the unborn, for the future of our nation, and in obedience to God’s command to honor life, we must elect Donald J. Trump as the next President of the United States.