The Moral Blindness of Kamala Harris’ Position on Abortion

What Harris failed completely to address is why many people rightly oppose abortion, namely, because abortion takes the life of another human being. That’s why we have laws against murder and laws against rape and laws against kidnapping. All of them are transgressions against another person.

The Moral Blindness of Kamala Harris’ Position on Abortion | Articles | The Line of Fire

In a surprising statement during a townhall meeting earlier this month, presidential candidate Kamala Harris said, 

“I’ll tell you, there are probably many here and watching who, rightly, have made a decision that they do not believe in abortion. The point that I am making is not about changing their mind about what’s right for them or their family. It’s simply saying the government shouldn’t be making this decision.”

Really? She actually believes that many people have “rightly . . . made a decision that they do not believe in abortion?”

Then why is she promising to reinstate Roe v. Wade if elected? In her words, she 

“will proudly sign back into law the protections of Roe v. Wade, which basically just says, it’s the person’s decision, not the government’s decision. That, in essence, is what’s behind my position.”

Doesn’t this sound reasonable? Abortion is one of the most personal decisions anyone can make, and so, if anything is “not the government’s decision,” it is this. 

What Harris failed completely to address is why “many” people “rightly” oppose abortion, namely, because abortion takes the life of another human being. Could anything be more basic than that?

That’s why we have laws against murder and laws against rape and laws against kidnapping. 

All of them are transgressions against another person.

That’s also why, more specifically, we have laws against infanticide, even if the baby is intolerable, even if the child has a congenital disease, even if the mother is simply incapable of caring for the little one.

Whatever the case might be, the one thing she (or the father) is not allowed to do is terminate the life of the baby. Obviously. To do so would be to commit murder.

Had Harris simply said, “We don’t believe the fetus has full personhood, and so the government has no right to impose its will on the mother,” that would have been consistent but immoral. 

But what she said was this (and I paraphrase): “Yes, many people rightly oppose abortion” – by which, she obviously meant, in their minds, they have good reason to oppose it – “and I’m not trying to change your viewpoint. That’s why we need Roe reinstated. To take this out of the government’s hands and put it in the hands of the mother.”

What she missed, quite incredibly, is that the whole reason we want to put this in the government’s hands is because we believe that abortion commits violence against a preborn child.

To paraphrase again (but with a change of subjects), “Yes, there are many who rightly oppose slavery. That’s why we need to get the ban on slavery reversed, so you can make your choices and others can make theirs.” 

This is as nonsensical as her statement on abortion.

Slavery should be prohibited by law because it is a moral evil and abortion should be prohibited by law because it is a moral evil.

In my new book Hearts of Compassion, Backbones of Steel: How to Discuss Controversial Topics with Love and Kindness, I do my best to present compelling arguments for the cultural positions I oppose, seeking to help us respond with more heartfelt, compelling answers.

In the chapter on abortion, I present some agonizing, hypothetical cases, including this: “Consider the story of a twelve-year-old girl whom we’ll call Angela. She was abducted and raped by a sexual predator who had just been released from jail. Who can imagine her trauma? Who can imagine how this horrific event will impact the rest of her life? And how will it affect her whole family? But this is only the beginning. To add shock to shock, Angela finds out she is pregnant even though she is not even a teenager. How can this be? As for the sexual predator, he raped two more girls before he was caught and will spend the rest of his life in prison. 

“The only positive thing is that Angela can get an abortion and put an end to the nightmare, without any of her friends and schoolmates knowing what happened to her. At least the horror can be hidden. At least her shame won’t be broadcast throughout her school and her neighborhood. At least she won’t have to put her young body through the trauma of nine months of pregnancy. At least she won’t have to worry about giving birth to a child whose father was a serial rapist and child abuser. Abortion is obviously the compassionate choice.”

We could say in response, “But cases like this, as unspeakably tragic and evil as this is, are the rarest of rare, with abortions performed because of rape or incest making up one percent of all abortions. What about the other 99 percent?”

That may be true, but it avoids the question at hand: how can anyone outside of this girl and her family make a decision about her life?

In response, I share stories of women who were raped and aborted their babies, only to learn that the abortion didn’t heal the pain. And I tell the stories of some of the finest people on our planet, people who have an incredible amount of good but were conceived in rape.

I can’t do justice to these responses in full here, but they all go back to that same fundamental point: abortion snuffs out a real, human life, a life with unknown potential, however tiny and still-developing it may be.

And that is what Vice President Harris fails to acknowledge in the least. It is a massive moral blind spot.

Jezebel’s War with America - The Plot to Destroy Our Country and What You Can Do to Defeat It

Hearts of Compassion Backbones of Steel: How to Discuss Controversial Topics with Love and Kindness

Saving A Sick America - A Prescription for Moral and Cultural Transformation

Without Christian legal work, not only could our essential rights and freedoms be removed, we could be compelled by the government to say or do things contrary to our faith, resulting in loss of job, expulsion from colleges and universities, steep fines, and even prison sentences if we refused to comply. Even worse, our children could be taken from us and put into state care (or into other homes). However. . .

We Need to Change Both Hearts AND Laws | Articles | The Line of Fire

Bill Bright (1921-2003) is best known as the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, one of the largest campus outreach ministries in the world, author of the famous Four Spiritual Laws evangelism booklet, and producer of the Jesus film, which has been viewed more than seven billion times in almost two-thousand different languages, making it one of the most significant evangelistic projects in history. 

But Dr. Bright was not just a visionary evangelist who founded Campus Crusade (known today as CRU). He was also the founder of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), America’s “largest legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, marriage and family, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.” 

That’s because he understood that protecting our foundational American freedoms went hand in hand with our ability to preach the gospel without restriction. 

As Bright said, “I truly believe we are fighting for the very survival of the Gospel and of evangelism in America today.” (Bear in mind that he passed away in 2003; already then, the assault on our liberties was very clear.)

Since 2011, the ADF has been directly involved in fifteen major Supreme Court wins, most notably the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June 2022 that led directly to the overturning of Roe v Wade. 

Other cases of note that were successfully litigated by the ADF before the Supreme Court include 303 Creative v. Elenis (in 2023), which was a major victory for Christian freedom of conscience and expression; Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021), on behalf of a Christian student who was blocked from openly sharing his faith on his college campus; and March for Life Education and Defense Fund v. California (2020), stating that employers did not have to “provide their employees with abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception—regardless of their religious or moral convictions.” 

Had these cases, among many others, been decided differently, our country would look very different than it does today.

This points to the importance of Christian legal work since, without it, not only could our essential rights and freedoms be removed, but we could be compelled by the government to say or do things contrary to our faith, resulting in loss of job, expulsion from colleges and universities, steep fines, and even prison sentences if we refused to comply. 

Even worse, our children could be taken from us and put into state care (or into other homes) if we refused to act and speak as the government demanded. 

All that being said, it is even more important that we seek to change hearts and minds as well as laws. Put another way, we must win in the court of public appeal as well in courthouses throughout the land. 

We must change the thinking of millions of Americans, lest the legislative victories of one generation get swallowed up with massive reversals in the next generation, if not even more quickly. What a terrible shame that would be.

Thinking back to the eradication of slavery in the 1700-1800s, how was it that William Wilberforce (1759-1833) and the abolitionists in the United Kingdom and America succeeded in their mission? Slavery was a way of life, with national economies built on its very back. There was no way that political leaders would even think of outlawing the practice, unless their own eyes could be opened to the horrors of slavery and, even more importantly, unless the eyes of the people could be opened. 

To give just one example of how deeply entrenched the slave trade was in British life, John Newtown (1725-1807), author of the world-famous hymn Amazing Grace, continued for a few years as the captain of a slave trading ship after his radical conversion experience. 

As he explained (to his shame) years later, “Custom, example, and interest had blinded my eyes. I did it ignorantly.” In other words, this was the common practice of the day (custom); everyone he knew, including Christians, had no real problem with it (example); and it was profitable (interest).

That’s why Wilberforce (who was a parliamentarian fighting on a governmental, as well as popular level) and his colleagues launched graphic PR campaigns, using the image of a chained Black man asking, “Am I not a man and a brother”? 

They also utilized the testimonies of former slaves (and even former slave traders, like Newton), ultimately changing the law by changing public opinion. It was in that same spirit that President Abraham Lincoln allegedly said to Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896), author of the watershed novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, “So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war!” (He was speaking, of course, of the Civil War.) 

Whether the quote is true or not, it is a recognition of the fact that Stowe’s book was greatly used to change the thinking of millions of Americans. They came to realize that the African slave trade was downright evil. It had no business in our country at all.

That’s why, to say it again, the changing of hearts must accompany the changing of laws. 

Otherwise, there will ultimately be resentment, anger, and, finally, rebellion, leading to the reversal of the good laws we fought so hard to pass. The short-term gains will become long-term losses.

(Excerpted and adapted from Michael L. Brown, Turn the Tide: How to Ignite a Cultural Awakening.)

Turn the Tide - How to Ignite A Cultural Awakening

The Political Seduction of the Church: How Millions of American Christians Have Confused Politics with the Gospel

Pro-Life Voters and the New Trump Platform

IMO it is impossible for a truly pro-life voter to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate given their extreme pro-abortion words, actions, and the stance of the DNC. But what do Christians do now that the RNC has embraced Trump's watered-down pro-life platform?

Pro-Life Voters and the New Trump Platform | Articles | The Line of Fire

There is a new challenge for pro-life voters as we approach the 2024 elections. 

On the one hand, in my opinion, it is impossible for a truly pro-life voter to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate given the radical, pro-abortion stance of that party. That holds true as well for the positions of President Biden and Vice President Harris, which continue to lurch farther to the left. 

But now that the RNC has embraced the watered down platform crafted by the Trump team, do we simply acquiesce and vote Republican? Do we refuse to cast our vote and insist on righteous standards? 

For those not familiar with the ongoing debate, since 1984, the GOP has contained language supporting an “amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth.” 

Its pro-life plank has been extensive and strong.

In contrast, not one of the 20 promises listed in the new party platform mentions abortion, while the paragraph discussing abortion in the new platform simply says 

“We proudly stand for families and life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied life or liberty without due process, and that the states are therefore free to pass laws protecting those rights. After 51 years because of us, that power has been given to the state and to a vote of the people. We will oppose late term abortion while supporting mothers and policies that advance prenatal care, access to birth control, and IVF.”

Senator Marsha Blackburn, wanting to reassure pro-life GOP voters, said, “The Republican Party is a pro-life party. It’s a pro-family party. It is always going to be that.”

Many will surely say in reply, “Seriously? That is supposed to be a pro-life statement?”

First, if the baby in the womb is a person and “no person can be denied life or liberty without due process,” then the states are not “free to pass laws protecting those rights” they are duty-bound to pass those laws. And why doesn’t the new platform assert that the baby in the womb is a person? 

Second, if the issue on the table had been slavery, would we celebrate a platform that boasted that now, each state could vote on the legality of slavery? Hardly. We would say that slavery needed to be outlawed, plain and simple. 

How, then, is this a “pro-life” platform? (On a lesser note, since IVF is such a hot-button, controversial issue, even within the GOP, why emphasize it in the statement?)

For good reason, a July 9 Newsweek article was titled, “Donald Trump's Abortion Stance Sparks Republican Fury.”

During the presidential debate, Trump emphasized clearly that in his mind, abortion was a state issue, not a federal issue, because of which he would not sign into law a federal abortion ban if elected. He also emphasized that this was something the people got to vote on state by state, and that, in his mind, was the right venue for passing laws regarding abortion.

As for his own position, he continued to emphasize his opposition to late-term abortion as well as restating that he believed in the three exceptions of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

Is this simply pragmatism on the former president’s part, knowing how volatile the issue of abortion has become in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe? Is Trump simply hedging his bets, stressing what the vast majority of Americans believe – namely, that late-term abortion is wrong – while also recognizing that pro-abortion voters apparently pushed the 2022 midterms in the direction of the Democrats?

Only Trump and his closest advisers know. (And of course, God knows.) We can only speculate.

But what we do know is that, for the first time in 40 years, the pro-life language of the GOP platform has been greatly softened, meaning that it can hardly be viewed as “the party of life.” 

To the contrary, it is the party which is less open to abortion.

What, then, are the choices for pro-life voters?

It does not appear that RFK would be any stronger on this issue, while for any other third-party candidate, pro-life votes would be wasted in terms of actually electing a pro-life leader. 

In that regard, it would be more of a statement, a protest vote, than anything else.

What about simply accepting the current realities and voting GOP? At least that would leave things in the hands of the states – and thereby, in the hands of the voters – without running the risk of a Democratic candidate reversing the progress that has been made in recent years and trying to reestablish Roe. It would eliminate the possibility of a Democratic president appointing radical, leftist judges to our federal courts and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, by allowing the platform to be weakened in the name of electoral pragmatism, that might signal a whole new wave of GOP candidates who are less committed to the pro-life cause but who are allegedly better than the Democrats. It might also embolden current GOP congressmen to soften their own stances in the name of electability, thereby continuing to erode the GOP’s stance for life. In the end, there might be little to distinguish the two parties when it comes to abortion.

My counsel would be that we do not take this new platform lying down but do our best to work for a change until the last minute possible. If, in the end, we cannot bring about change, then we still work with the GOP for the moment while making it clear behind the scenes that the next GOP candidate will have to embrace our pro-life position, otherwise, they will not make it through the primaries. 

That’s a battle we cannot fight now, since Trump is clearly the GOP standard bearer. 

But it’s a battle we must fight in the future.

That being said, there’s a silver lining to all this. As I wrote in Turn the Tide, we must work relentlessly on changing hearts as well as changing laws, and now that Trump has made clear that he is not a pro-life champion, we cannot make the mistake of looking to him to do what only the church can do.

So, we vote our conscience one day in November, but we spend 365 days a year being salt and light. 

With that mentality, and with God’s help, we can become much more of a pro-life nation.

Donald Trump is Not My Savior - An Evangelical Leader Speaks His Mind on the Man He Supports as President (2018)

This Young Pop Star is Pushing the Deadliest Pills of All

Let’s our outrage and grief over Olivia Rodrigo’s actions into prayers for this younger generation (including Rodrigo, who certainly believes she is doing good). We should pray for their true and lasting conversion to Jesus as well as for them to learn the intended beauty of sex within marriage and the miracle of life within the womb.

This Young Pop Star is Pushing the Deadliest Pills of All | Article | The Line of Fire

It is one thing to push pills that could lead to death because of overdose or abuse. 

It is another thing to push pills that are designed to kill. 

But that’s just what one young pop star is doing – a pop star with 36.7 million Instagram followers.

I’m speaking of Olivia Rodrigo, and the pills she is pushing – more accurately, the pills she is giving away – are abortion-related pills. What could be deadlier than that?

I knew nothing about Rodrigo or her mission until our eldest granddaughter Elianna, a 2023 graduate of Liberty University, sent me a screenshot of this post on X dated March 12. It contained a picture of a woman’s hand holding some condoms whose packaging reads, “Funding abortion? It’s a good idea, right?”, along with two packets containing the “emergency contraceptive” pills. (Presumably the woman whose hand was in the picture is the one who posted it. At present, it has 12.8 million views and more than 38,000 likes.)

The post was captioned: “free planb at @oliviarodrigo in st. louis tonight 💓 thank you @MOAbortionFund.” (According to USA Today, “Plan B pills are used as emergency birth control and work to prevent pregnancy primarily by delaying or preventing ovulation.” Technically, these pills are not outlawed in Missouri after the state’s near total abortion ban.)

To paraphrase, “Yes, thank you Olivia for helping us terminate any life inside our wombs before it even has a chance!” How tragic.

Who, then, is Olivia Rodrigo, and why is she on this mission?

According to Biography.com, “Olivia Rodrigo found fame on the [Disney Channel] TV show High School Musical: The Musical: The Series before embarking on a Grammy-winning music career. She is known for her hit song ‘drivers license’ and the acclaimed albums Sour and GUTS.”

Billboard states that she is 23 years old and describes her as “a sharp-penned singer-songwriter with a success story to rival the likes of fellow Disney starlet-turned pop stars Selena Gomez and Miley Cyrus.” 

(Not to get off track, but if you are a parent and your kids enjoy watching Disney child stars, I would strongly encourage you to do two things: first, pray for these Disney kids that they would grow up right; second, don’t let your own kids get too enamored with these child stars, lest they want to change follow Hannah Montana as she morphs into Miley Cyrus.)

As for Rodrigo’s recent activities, a headline on People.com announced that she is, 

“Distributing Free Condoms and Emergency Contraceptive Pills” on her recent concert tour, which the article then describes as “promoting safe sex and reproductive care.”

So, in keeping with the standard Orwellian terminology, having an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic is your “reproductive right.” Destroying a just-conceived baby in the womb is “reproductive care.” 

“At her Guts World Tour stop in St. Louis, Missouri on Tuesday, Rodrigo — who has been vocal about her support for reproductive rights in the past — and the Missouri Abortion Fund provided boxes of morning-after pill Julie and condoms to fans at the show, according to photos shared by a fan on X (formerly Twitter).

“The distribution comes after Missouri enforced its trigger ban on all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant person when Roe V. Wade was overturned in 2022, according to Center for Reproductive Rights.

“Rodrigo, 21, is also donating a portion of proceeds from each ticket sold for the Guts World Tour to her non profit, Fund 4 Good, as well as the National Network of Abortion Funds.”

Indeed, according to the Missouri Abortion Fund, “It’s brutal out here in Missouri, but we are here for abortion access and [to] hand out Plan B.”

But before we condemn Rodrigo, let’s put her activism in context.

She, along with her mother, who was born in 1974, grew up in the Roe era, with abortion as the law of the land. Presumably, the “right” to abortion has been as normal to them as going to church on Sunday or watching college sports on Saturday is normal for other Americans.

And so, women born in the Roe era might debate whether or not abortion was morally right, but there would be no debate as to whether a woman could legally choose to abort. That was a given. The fear and dread now experienced by two generations of Roe era, pro-abortion women has been palpable since the overturning of Roe in 2022. How can this be happening, they wonder.

As for sexual activity out of wedlock, a December 19, 2006 headline on the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute website claimed that, “Premarital Sex Is Nearly Universal Among Americans, And Has Been For Decades.” That was back in 2006.

Reflecting the morals of the moment, this is the reply I received from the AI Claude when I asked, “What percentage of babies born to first time mothers in America?”

“According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2020 approximately 40.5% of all births in the United States were to unmarried mothers. This statistic includes both first-time mothers and those who have given birth before.”

Then, after explaining that “I do not have reliable data on the specific percentage of first births that are to unmarried mothers,” Claude added this caveat: 

“It's important to note that the term ‘out of wedlock’ has largely fallen out of use as it can carry judgmental connotations. Many prefer to use the more neutral term ‘unmarried mothers.’ Additionally, marital status alone does not determine family stability or child wellbeing. Many unmarried parents are in committed relationships and provide loving homes, while sadly some married parents face challenges. Rather than promoting marriage as a solution, experts recommend focusing on supporting all families and addressing underlying social and economic inequities.”

These, then, are the ethics of the day: Forget about self-control and abstinence. (Who even thinks about that?) Have all the sex you want with whomever you want. Just do it safely. And if there’s an accidental slip up? Then go to Plan B! And remember: we dare not be judgmental! As for those White supremacist, bigoted, Republican men who dare to tell us what a woman can and must do with their own bodies, this is how we push back. Young people, unite!

Let’s remember, then, to turn our moral outrage and grief over Rodrigo’s actions into prayers for this younger generation (including Rodrigo, who certainly believes she is doing good). We should pray for their true and lasting conversion to Jesus as well as for them to learn the intended beauty of sex within marriage and the miracle of life within the womb.

We can and should be thankful for the positive changing of laws, but we must work day and night to continue to change hearts.

My Loyalty Is to the Lord, Not to a Political Candidate or Party

If you’ve listened regularly to my Line of Fire broadcast or read my articles consistently, you’ll see that I’ve said or written very little about former President Trump for some time now. However, when an issue comes up that is worthy of discussion, and when that issue causes me to differ with Trump’s position, I will do so freely. That’s because my loyalty is to Jesus rather than to a political leader or a political party..

My Loyalty Is to the Lord, Not to a Political Candidate or Party | Articles | AskDrBrown

If you’ve listened regularly to my Line of Fire broadcast or read my articles consistently, you’ll see that I’ve said or written very little about former President Trump for some time now. 

First, I have cut way back on political commentary in general in order to avoid getting caught up in election fever, especially since the presidential elections are more than 13 months away and there remains real uncertainty about who the candidates will be.

Second, I generally do not comment much on legal cases (in this case, indictments against Trump or the potential impeachment of President Biden), since these are outside my areas of expertise.

Third, while I have made clear that I would prefer a candidate other than Trump for the GOP in 2024, I am not a Trump basher and I have no desire to needlessly alienate tens of millions of loyal Trump supporters. Instead, my goal is to rally all of us around righteous and godly causes.

That being said, when an issue comes up that is worthy of discussion, and when that issue causes me to differ with Trump’s position, I will do so freely. That’s because my loyalty is to Jesus rather than to a political leader or a political party. And this is not on a scale of 10 to 1 or 100 to 1 but on a scale of infinitely multiplied trillions and billions to a very tiny one.

Even as a Trump voter and supporter I wrote a book titled Donald Trump Is Not My Savior: An Evangelical Leader Speaks His Mind About the Man He Supports As President. The message I wanted to shout to the whole world was this: 

JESUS IS MY LORD AND SAVIOR. HE DIED FOR ME AND PAID FOR MY SINS AND I OWE HIM MY HEART AND MY LIFE AND MY EVERY BREATH. I LIVE FOR HIM AND WILL JOYFULLY DIE FOR HIM. 

Then, in a very small font: Donald Trump is my president. 

These would be my sentiments regardless of who was in the White House. JESUS IS LORD. The rest of us are redeemed dust at best.

When it comes to my voting preferences, beyond the obvious question of the candidate’s character and trustworthiness, I always start with the abortion issue. 

Next, I look at where they stand on moral, family issues, such as same-sex “marriage” and transgender identity. 

Then, I look at their views on Israel, then on other relevant issues (such as national security, the economy, international relations, etc.). 

Other voters might start with the economy. Or race issues. Or border control. Or education. Or national security.

I respect that, and that is their prerogative. 

But we each have our priorities, and that is what informs our voting.

When it came to voting for Trump in 2016, the biggest issue for me was the potential of him appointing pro-life Supreme Court justices, and he delivered on his promises, contributing in a massive, fundamental way to the overturning of Roe v Wade. 

But when he says that Gov. DeSantis made “a terrible mistake” by signing into law a ban on abortions after 6 weeks, I categorically reject his position. 

In fact, this is the very reason we so wanted to see Roe overturned – in order to see bills like this pass in state after state.

Trump’s whole approach, in which he says that “15 weeks” is a number that everyone seems to like, is misguided, failing to address the injustice of abortion. 

And he is quite wrong in thinking that both sides will like his pragmatic approach. (From the pro-life side, just ask Lila Rose.) 

What happens when I dare take issue with Trump for his comments? 

I get comments like this, posted on our YouTube channel in response to the broadcast: 

“Shame on you Mr. Brown for not remaining loyal to Trump. Trump was CHEATED and you are looking for ‘better’ candidates? You profess to stand for life but you can't even stand up for the man who overturned abortion & was cheated. REPENT! stop being jealous. Deep down you know Trump is smarter than you and it drives you nuts. REPENT. you think you can do a better job...admit it.. but you can't..he is tougher & smarter...Trump has to get done what is realistic because HE IS INVOLVED IN POLITICS...He is not your pastor...if you Loved TRUTH you would LOVE REALISM...because they are the same.”

Putting aside the silly, schoolyard level attacks, the issue is very simple: my loyalty here is to the pro-life cause, and if I believe that Trump’s view is weak – as do many other pro-life leaders who are much more on the front lines than I am – I will say so.

I don’t need to “stand up for the man” who helped overturn Roe. I need to stand up for the unborn. In this case, there may be a big difference. (In a separate article, I’ll return to the larger issue of political pragmatism in the abortion debate, something advocated by Republican candidate Nikki Haley.)

It’s the same when it comes to LGBTQ activist issues, number two on my list of priorities when voting. 

I take deep exception to Trump saying last December to a crowd filled with LGBTQ activists and their allies, 

“We are fighting for the gay community, and we are fighting and fighting hard.”

He also said at the gala event, held in Mar-a-Lago, 

“With the help of many of the people here tonight in recent years, our movement has taken incredible strides, the strides you’ve made here is incredible.”

Sorry, but those sentiments do not get my support, even if Trump opposes the transitioning of children. (Name me one prominent GOP candidate who does support the transitioning of children.)

So, when it comes to voting, I have my lines drawn in the sand. 

Should a candidate move from those lines, I have not abandoned him. He has abandoned me.

Where the former president will ultimately land remains to be seen. But my loyalty is to my Lord and the causes I believe are important to Him. 

All other loyalties are filtered through that lens.

Recommended Resources

We can stand strong, immovable in our convictions and not minimizing the evil of abortion, while ministering with grace to those on the other side (in particular, to those who are hurting and conflicted). We should also solicit input from pro-life women who had abortions in the past, hearing their stories and learning from their experiences...

Should We Humanize the Abortion Debate? | Articles | AskDrBrown

During an interview on Fox News, presidential candidate Nikki Haley said 

“while I’m unapologetically pro-life, I don’t judge anyone for being pro-choice. I think that we have to humanize this issue. We’ve got to stop demonizing this issue.” 

Was she right? Or would this be like humanizing the issue of slavery or human trafficking or genocide? 

When I asked this question on Facebook, the responses were extremely varied.

Some said absolutely not, explaining: “To compromise with evil is evil!” And, “It seems a like a bit of an oxymoron to humanize something so inhumane.” And, “I can respect no one who thinks it’s ok to kill the unborn.” (Comments like these were in the majority.)

“We should respect them and understand why they might believe in or choose abortion. We can have no effect on people until we truly understand their side.” And, “We should see them as God's creation without the benefit of the Holy Spirit in their lives. If we don't humanize the debate we will continue to lose the debate. There are two lives (at least) impacted by abortion; the baby and the mother and we must love both in our stance for life.”

Haley, for her part, had been asked by host Ainsley Earhardt to “be realistic with the numbers,” meaning the number of pro-life votes available in Congress.

“I mean, Ainsley, that’s the answer from my heart. You know, I am surrounded by blessings, and God has blessed me with an amazing husband and two wonderful children. But having said that, I think it’s really important that all of us remember everybody has a personal story. So while I’m unapologetically pro-life, I don’t judge anyone for being pro-choice. I think that we have to humanize this issue. We’ve got to stop demonizing this issue.”

“I think the division in this country has gone too far. We have to start looking at the vision going forward. My vision is how do we save as many babies as possible and support as many moms as possible. If that’s the case, be honest with the American people. Tell them what is possible and what’s not possible, and let’s bring people together based on humanity, not based on making people hate each other. And I think it’s happened too long, and I’m just not going to be a part of that. I refuse to be a part of that.”

Was she on to something here, or is this political compromise in its worst form?

First, we should distinguish between humanizing the issue of abortion and humanizing the people involved in the issue. Abortion itself is evil. It involves the shedding of innocent blood in the womb. It is culture-destroying in many ways, and it deserves the judgment of God. We can never move from that reality.

Second, when it comes to the question of “humanizing,” let us focus more than anything on the humanity of the baby in the womb. This is how we change hearts and, ultimately, change laws. And this is why 4-D ultrasounds have been so effective in preventing abortions. That’s not a mass of tissues or a clump of cells. That’s your child.

Third, there is a place for humanizing those on the “pro-choice” side of the aisle. That’s because many, if not most, women who have abortions are not radical feminists marching down the streets and shouting their abortions. Many agonize over their decisions, often regretting their choices for years to come. My friends who have ministered the gospel outside of abortion clinics have shared many a heartrending story with me.

Other women who had abortions would make clear that they are not pro-abortion, even though they made that choice themselves.

They should not be compared to an abortion doctor getting rich off of his despicable work. 

They are not in the same class as a Planned Parenthood executive pushing for higher quotas of baby killing. 

Many women, to be sure, view abortion as another method of birth control, allowing them to sleep around without lasting consequence. But even in their cases, some have been deeply conditioned to think of the “fetus” as a “something” rather than a “someone.” 

They are responsible for their actions, but they are also the byproduct of decades of cultural programming.

Here, too, we need hearts of compassion and backbones of steel – and not just compassion for the babies in the womb.

We can stand strong, immovable in our convictions and not minimizing the evil of abortion, while ministering with grace to those on the other side (in particular, to those who are hurting and conflicted).

We should also solicit input from pro-life women who had abortions in the past, hearing their stories and learning from their experiences.

By God’s grace, may we turn the tide of the nation, one baby and one heart at a time. 

Christians STILL Lead the Way in Acts of Compassionate Service

As followers of Jesus with strong moral convictions, we are often accused of being narrow-minded religious hypocrites, focusing on a select few social issues while ignoring the larger issues of human suffering. While this might be true for a minority among us, a substantial percentage of Christian conservatives continue to lead the world in acts of compassionate service. For us, standing against transgender activism and fighting for the life of the unborn go hand in hand with feeding the poor and caring for the orphan. All are important to us...

Christians Still Lead the Way in Acts of Compassionate Service | Articles | AskDrBrown

As followers of Jesus with strong moral convictions, we are often accused of being narrow-minded religious hypocrites, focusing on a select few social issues while ignoring the larger issues of human suffering. While this might be true for a minority among us, a substantial percentage of Christian conservatives continue to lead the world in acts of compassionate service. 

For us, standing against transgender activism and fighting for the life of the unborn go hand in hand with feeding the poor and caring for the orphan. All are important to us.

I work closely with a church named Mercy Culture in Fort Worth, Texas.

They are known for taking strong stands on social issues, with some of their members even running for political office. For this, they have been vilified by the local and national press.

At the same time, they distributed more than 100 million meals during the COVID crisis, filling cars with three meals a day for one month, without asking any questions. They are also active in rescuing women from human trafficking. And they are multi-racial in leadership, working together to stand against injustice.

Another example would be the Love Life movement, which stands strongly against abortion. Some of my good friends have been involved in this ministry for years now, beginning in North Carolina before spreading to others states and nations.

But this is not simply an anti-abortion movement. It is pro-life in the fullest sense of the word.

So, for example, when you click on the menu option of, “Pregnant? Need help?” you are directed to www.real-choices.com, emblazoned with the words, “HOPE IS HERE.”

There, under the heading, “HELP IS HERE FOR YOU,” you find this:

We will provide you with a trained and confidential support person to understand your situation & connect you with resources...

​• Pregnancy Care Resource Centers nationwide to provide help and resources

• Church support network with loving mentors to walk with you

• Baby shower given for you; often providing for your child’s needs up to 2 years

• Help in finding assistance for housing, food, clothing and employment, etc.

Pro-Life / Abortion

The Moral Blindness of Kamala Harris’ Position on Abortion

We Need to Change Both Hearts AND Laws

Pro-Life Voters and the New Trump Platform

This Young Pop Star is Pushing the Deadliest Pills of All

My Loyalty Is to the Lord, Not to a Political Candidate or Party

Should We Humanize the Abortion Debate?

Christians STILL Lead the Way in Acts of Compassionate Service

When Pro-Abortion Doublespeak Puts Orwell to Shame

When THINKING a Prayer Became a Crime

From a Pragmatic Pro-Life Perspective, was the Overturning of Roe a Good Thing?

The Only Way to Make America Pro-Life

Woe to Those Who Call Evil 'Good' and Good 'Evil'

According to Gov Newsom the Baby in the Womb is Not 'Our Neighbor'

If You’re a Christian Leader, You Should Have a Target on Your Back

Is the Bible Pro-Choice?

Why is Senator Elizabeth Warren Declaring War on Pregnancy Crisis Centers?

What the Church Must Do Post Roe

As Law, Roe was a Bad Ruling that Always Had to Go

Will God Send Rain on Pro-Life States and Withhold It from Pro-Abortion States?

5 Reasons to Rejoice for the Overturning of Roe

Responding to “Pro-Choice” Misinformation and Disinformation

The Significance of the Overturning of Roe

It’s Going to Get Very Ugly in the Aftermath of Roe

The European Parliament Condemns itself by Condemning the Supreme Court’s Expecting Overturning of Roe

What the Early Church Said About Abortion

Yes, Your Vote Can Help Save a Baby’s Life (or Take a Baby’s Life)

Beyond the Abortion Debate, There Are Hurting Men and Women. We Must Not Forget Them

When Bill Maher and Joe Rogan Make the Pro-Life Case

When It Comes to Abortion, Don’t Let the Race Baiters Influence You

Is Roe v. Wade About to Be Overturned? And If So, What Are the Implications?

The All-Out Assault on Our Children

The Overturning of Roe v. Wade and the Call to ‘Beat the Arrows’ in Prayer

Please Don’t Clown Around when it Comes to Abortion

Never Underestimate the Power of Greed

The Ideological Civil War Over Abortion

When 350 Faith Leaders Endorsed Candidate Joe Biden to ‘Restore the Soul’ of the Nation

Did You Hear About the Latest Moral Outrage from California?

Now that the Left has Rewritten Ruth Bader Ginsburg, What’s Next?

No, the Pro-Life Movement is Not about Controlling Women

Once Again, a Word to Pro-Life Evangelicals Who Voted for Biden