Why abortion is different from other political issues

When voters decide which candidates to elect to public office, they often consider a range of important political issues. But not all issues should carry the same weight. Abortion is different from other issues in three ways.

First, abortion is a rejection of human equality. An entire class of innocent human beings (those who are in the embryonic and fetal stages of life) are excluded from the basic protection of the law. In no other area (with the exception of euthanasia and the treatment of human embryos in vitro) does our society deny some human beings the status of "persons" who have legal rights. Other issues involve debates about (for example) how best to improve health care for our nation, or how best to keep us safe from foreign threats. Abortion is about who counts as one of us—a member of our political community—in the first place.

Second, abortion is a denial of the right to life. It is the intentional killing of human embryos or fetuses. Human embryos and fetuses are living human organisms (members of the species Homo sapiens) at the earliest developmental stages. And all human beings—regardless of age, size, ability, dependency, or the desires and decisions of others—have an equal dignity and right to life. Abortion, then, is a serious injustice, yet it is legal and accepted by much of our society. Politicians disagree about (for example) how best to deal with gun-related violence. But no one thinks such violence is OK or should be legalized and encouraged by the government. The same cannot be said about the violence of abortion.

Third, abortion is the destruction of life on a truly massive scale. An entire industry is devoted to the killing of human beings in utero. More than one million unborn children are killed in the United States each year. Abortion is, by a large margin, the leading cause of human death in our country. Cancer and heart disease (for example) are tragic and should be fought with compassion. But the sheer scope of abortion separates it from other social harms.

Both the moral gravity and the scale of abortion, then, make it a uniquely significant issue in American society today. At stake is equality. At stake is the right to life. At stake are many, many human lives.

Not all political issues are equal. Human beings are equal, and that's why abortion is such a weighty problem for our society.

What are the stakes on Nov. 8?

Election Day is Tuesday, November 8. Pro-life voters should consider the stakes and seek to prioritize issues accordingly.

Abortion is not like other political matters. The abortion issue is about whether a whole class of innocent human beings (those who are in the embryonic and fetal stages of life) deserve basic respect and the protection of the law—or whether they may be excluded from protection and killed on an industrial scale. Abortion is the leading cause of human death in our state and our country. The moral gravity and sheer scope of this problem make it a uniquely important issue in American society today.

And the candidates we elect to public office will shape laws and public policies in ways that affect the practice of abortion (and other right-to-life issues). Elected officials will work to either increase protection for unborn children or decrease it. They will enact measures that reduce or escalate the incidence of abortion. They will try to legalize assisted suicide (as some in Minnesota have recently), or they will defeat such efforts. Lives are on the line.

Here in Minnesota, MCCL has helped pass pro-life laws (such as Woman's Right to Know and Positive Alternatives) that have led to fewer abortions. Lives have been saved because of pro-life legislation. But it was only possible because pro-life candidates had been elected to the state House and Senate.

We need to elect pro-life candidates this year. Only then can we advance new pro-life legislation. Only then can we defeat life-threatening proposals.

U.S. House races are also on the ballot. Members of Congress determine which federal bills get passed and which get defeated. Important federal laws (such as the Hyde Amendment, which has saved more than two million lives from abortion) might be at stake. The House could become even more important if the Senate falls under the control of those who favor unlimited abortion (Minnesota does not have a U.S. Senate race this year).

Some of Minnesota's U.S. House races are very close:

• In the 2nd Congressional District, Jason Lewis faces Angie Craig. Lewis received a 100 percent score on MCCL's pro-life candidate questionnaire. Craig has been endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, and other organizations that only support pro-choice candidates.
• In the 3rd District, Congressman Erik Paulsen faces challenger Terri Bonoff. Paulsen has a 100 percent pro-life voting record in Congress. Bonoff supports abortion on demand and voted against many pro-life bills in the Minnesota Legislature.
• In the 8th District, Stewart Mills is running against incumbent Rick Nolan. Mills earned a 100 percent score on his MCCL questionnaire, while Nolan has a zero percent pro-life voting record in Congress.

The MCCL Voter's Guide, which is available online, includes information about the positions on abortion and assisted suicide of state legislative candidates and congressional candidates. Before voting, make sure to find out where the candidates in your area stand. If you don't know your legislative or congressional district—or would like other voting information—go to MNVotes.org.

Remember to vote on Nov. 8—and vote pro-life.

Vote for life on Nov. 4: What you need to know before you head to the polls

Before you vote on Nov. 4, consider what is at stake.

Abortion is the leading cause of human death in Minnesota (almost 10,000 deaths annually) and the United States (almost 1.1 million). The candidates we elect to public office will affect our laws and policies in ways that influence the incidence of abortion. Unborn lives are on the line.

In the race for governor, incumbent Mark Dayton faces pro-life challenger Jeff Johnson. Dayton has vetoed seven different pro-life measures, single-handedly preventing those lifesaving bills from becoming law.

In the U.S. Senate race, pro-lifer Mike McFadden is running against incumbent Al Franken, who has earned a zero percent pro-life voting record. In a narrowly divided Senate, the success or failure of federal abortion-related bills may depend on one or two seats.

Also on the ballot are candidates for the Minnesota House of Representatives and the U.S. House. Use MCCL's Voter's Guide to check the races in your own districts to see which candidates have committed to voting pro-life. You can find your district numbers at MNVotes.org.

Here are some other helpful links:

MCCL General Election Voter's Guide (where the candidates for governor, Congress, the state Legislature and other offices stand on right-to-life issues)
Additional information about voting
How pro-life laws save lives
Can pro-life voters reasonably support pro-choice candidates?

The race for governor:
Comparison flier: Jeff Johnson v. Mark Dayton
Mark Dayton's record on protecting human life: Veto, veto, veto (etc.)
Tina Smith: Dayton running mate, former abortion industry leader
Dayton supports licensing dog breeders, yet rejects any oversight of abortion facilities

The race for U.S. Senate:
Comparison flier: Mike McFadden v. Al Franken
Al Franken's record: Advocating unfettered abortion until birth
Franken-sponsored bill would nullify most limits on abortion

Justice requires that the law protect the equal dignity and right to life of every member of the human family, especially the most vulnerable. Elections play a huge and necessary part in working toward that goal.

Please use this information to learn about the candidates and the stakes, and share it with others. Then vote on Nov. 4!

How pro-life laws save lives

The election of pro-life candidates leads to pro-life laws proven to reduce abortions

Some people believe that the election of pro-life candidates to public office does nothing to reduce abortions or protect unborn children. But that's simply not true.

The success of pro-life candidates has led to the enactment of pro-life laws and policies at both the state and federal level. And those laws have saved many lives from abortion.

Evidence: Laws reduce abortions

A substantial body of research shows that pro-life laws—e.g., informed consent, parental involvement, bans on taxpayer funding of abortion—help to modestly but significantly reduce the incidence of abortion.

Consider the evidence here in Minnesota:

• The Woman's Right to Know informed consent law was enacted in 2003. Under this law in 2013, a total of 12,164 abortion-minded pregnant women received factual information about fetal development, abortion procedures, abortion risks and complications, and alternatives to abortion. That number is 2,261 more than the number of women who actually underwent abortions. Since Woman's Right to Know became law, as many as 20,687 women have chosen life for their unborn children after receiving the information.

• The Positive Alternatives Act of 2005 created a program to provide grants to pregnancy care centers and other programs that help women in difficult circumstances and offer life-affirming alternatives to abortion. More than 35,000 women statewide were helped through the Positive Alternatives program in its first six years (July 2006-Aug. 2012).

• The number of abortions performed on Minnesota minors peaked in 1980 at 2,327. In 1981 Minnesota passed a law requiring that both parents be notified at least 48 hours before an abortion is performed on a minor (a court-required judicial bypass option is included). After years of steady decline, minor abortions in 2013 fell to 295, the lowest number on record and only 3 percent of all abortions.

Success in Minnesota

The number of abortions in our state has declined for seven straight years, and dropped 30 percent from 2003 to 2013. The abortion number and rate are now at their lowest levels since 1974.

Thousands of Minnesotans are alive today who would have been killed in utero if not for pro-life laws. Those laws continue to save lives from abortion every day.

Pro-life candidates essential

But they would not exist if we had not elected pro-life candidates to public office. And no new pro-life laws can be enacted if we do not elect pro-life candidates this year. Several recent pro-life measures in Minnesota—including bills banning taxpayer funding of abortion and protecting pain-capable unborn children—were stopped precisely because voters had chosen pro-abortion candidates.

Progress has been made, but abortion remains the supreme injustice and leading cause of human death in Minnesota. Much more work lies ahead, and it begins on Nov. 4.

This article was published in the Sept./Oct. 2014 issue of MCCL News.

The Dayton-Smith gubernatorial ticket

Al Franken's record: Advocating unfettered abortion until birth

U.S. Senator Al Franken is up for re-election this year. What's his record on right-to-life issues?

Franken's consistent record

Since taking office in 2009, Franken has earned a zero percent pro-life voting record, according to the National Right to Life Committee.

In 2009 he vocally opposed and voted against an amendment to remove abortion subsidies from the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). In 2011 he denounced legislation in the House that would have stopped federal funding of abortion.

In 2011 Franken also spoke out and voted against a measure to deny federal funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading performer and promoter of abortion.

In 2013 he voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, a bill intended to curb the transport of minor girls across state lines for abortions without parental involvement.

Abortion until birth

Franken is currently one of 35 Senate co-sponsors of the "Women's Health Protection Act" (S. 1696), a misleadingly titled bill designed to nullify most state and federal limits on abortion.

The proposed legislation would (for example) wipe away state laws protecting unborn children after 20 weeks as well as meaningful restrictions after viability (when a broad "health" exception would make bans impossible). It effectively would establish abortion on demand until birth nationwide.

The bill also would eliminate informed-consent laws such as Minnesota's Woman's Right to Know, which requires that women be provided with basic factual information at least 24 hours before an abortion. Woman's Right to Know empowers pregnant women and, in doing so, makes abortion less likely.

But Franken won't stand for any of it.

Standing with abortion industry

Franken, whose campaign website boasts that he is "a fierce defender of a woman's right to choose," doesn't just vote against the lives of unborn children—he actively champions his commitment to the abortion industry.

In 2010 Franken delivered the keynote address at a NARAL Pro-Choice America luncheon celebrating the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. He called the abortion advocacy group's work "indispensable" and told them, "I'm proud to stand with you."

Franken was one of only two elected officials to speak at a July 2013 Planned Parenthood rally in opposition to the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would protect unborn children at the point (20 weeks) when they can experience pain.

"You have my promise to keep fighting. Thank you, Planned Parenthood," he told the crowd.

Minnesotans should know what Al Franken is fighting for.

Who is Tina Smith? Dayton running mate, former abortion industry leader

Who is Tina Smith? Most Minnesotans have no idea.

Smith is Gov. Mark Dayton's running mate in the Nov. 4 election. She served as his chief of staff during his first term. And she’s a former vice president for the state’s leading performer and promoter of abortion.

Smith put her marketing background to work for Planned Parenthood from January 2003 to February 2006. The organization performed 9,717 abortions in Minnesota during that period. It was also reimbursed $458,574.74 by Minnesota taxpayers for performing 1,892 abortions on low-income women. Planned Parenthood became the largest abortion provider in the state in 2004—and has held that position ever since. It received $12.65 million in government grants from 2003 to 2005.

As a top representative for the abortion industry, Smith strongly opposed commonsense legislation such as the Positive Alternatives Act of 2005, which provides pregnant women in need with practical assistance and life-affirming alternatives to abortion. During Smith's tenure as chief of staff, Dayton vetoed seven different pro-life measures, including licensing of abortion facilities and protection for pain-capable unborn children. He also vetoed a bill to stop the public funding of abortions at facilities like Planned Parenthood.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund honored Smith in 2012 "for her passion and commitment to Planned Parenthood." It's clear what Tina Smith fights for: no-limits abortion, subsidized by taxpayers.

Is this who Minnesotans want in the governor's office?

MCCL's 2014 General Election Voter's Guide is available online

MCCL's 2014 General Election Voter's Guide is now available online. It shows where candidates for the U.S. Senate and House, Minnesota House, governorship and state offices stand on right-to-life issues such as abortion, assisted suicide and health care rationing. It also explains what is at stake and how pro-life laws save lives (see page 2). Candidate comparison fliers for the governor's race and U.S. Senate race are also available online.

The election will be held on Nov. 4. More information about voting is available here.

Mark Dayton's record on protecting human life: Veto, veto, veto (etc.)

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton is up for re-election this year. What's his record since taking office in 2011? Where does he stand on right-to-life issues? And what are the stakes on Nov. 4?

Dayton's record as governor

Dayton addressed activists at "Pro-Choice Lobby Day" shortly after becoming governor. He pledged to prevent any pro-life bills from becoming law. "It will not happen here in Minnesota," he told them.

Dayton kept his promise:

• The Legislature passed a bill to stop the killing of unborn children who can experience pain when they are dismembered in abortion procedures (babies at 20 weeks post-fertilization and later). Dayton vetoed the bill.

• The Legislature passed a bill to stop the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. Dayton vetoed the bill.
  
  Taxpayers will pay about $3.5 million for 14,000 abortions during Dayton's four years as governor. If a 2009 estimate from the Guttmacher Institute (a staunch advocate of unlimited abortion) is applied to the public funding numbers in Minnesota, about 3,500 fewer Minnesota women would have had abortions over Dayton's tenure if the state did not pay for abortions.

• The Legislature passed bans on human cloning and the taxpayer funding of human cloning, but Dayton vetoed both.

• The Legislature passed a bill to license abortion facilities (applying to them the same safety standards as other outpatient surgical facilities) and allow for inspections. Dayton vetoed the bill—even though poor health conditions and dangerous practices have been uncovered in abortion centers in numerous other states.

• The Legislature passed a bill to require that a doctor be physically present when administering chemical abortions. This would have stopped the "webcam abortions" Planned Parenthood is now remotely conducting in Rochester. Dayton vetoed the bill.

Planned Parenthood, the state's leading performer and promoter of abortion, responded to these actions by presenting Dayton with its Courage Award at a 2012 gala.

Dayton's other positions

Dayton strongly opposes Minnesota's existing Woman's Right to Know law—which requires that basic information regarding risks and alternatives be offered to women considering abortion—and Minnesota's law requiring parental notification before a minor girl has an abortion. He has harshly criticized the work of pregnancy care centers that help pregnant women in need, claiming in a 2010 questionnaire that they "scare [women] into not having abortions."

During his time in the U.S. Senate, Dayton voted in favor of abortions in military facilities, endorsing Roe v. Wade, keeping partial-birth abortion legal, funding abortion-promoting organizations overseas, and funding embryo-destructive research. He also voted against parental notification before an abortion is performed on a minor from another state. And he cosponsored the radical Freedom of Choice Act, which would have eliminated virtually every limitation on abortion, no matter how modest.

As Dayton explained in a 2010 letter:

I strongly support a woman's right to choice, and I have a 35-year record in strong support of that right. As a U.S. Senator, I voted consistently for pro-choice measures. I voted against the so-called "partial-birth abortion" ban. And I voted against Senate confirmations of Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alioto [sic], in significant part because of their anticipated anti-choice positions.

My positions earned me very high ratings and frequent commendations from NARAL, including "Hero of the Month."

Dayton's running mate is Tina Smith. She is a former executive at Planned Parenthood, the state's biggest abortion business and a fierce opponent of pro-life laws like Woman's Right to Know and Positive Alternatives.

The stakes

Mark Dayton, who was described by the Star Tribune as "an ardent advocate of abortion rights," is an abortion absolutist. Late-term abortion? Yes. Partial-birth abortion? Yes. Taxpayer funding of elective abortions? Yes. Informed consent for women before undergoing abortion? No. Basic health standards in abortion facilities? Nope. Parental notification before minor abortions? Certainly not.

Since becoming governor, Dayton has single-handedly (literally) prevented seven different pro-life measures from becoming law. Lives that could have been saved weren't—simply because voters had not elected a pro-life governor. No laws to protect the unborn and their mothers can be enacted as long as Dayton remains in office.

That's the kind of difference a governor can make.

MCCL's Primary Election Voter's Guide is now available

MCCL's 2014 Primary Election Voter's Guide is now available for free online. It shows where candidates for the U.S. Senate and House, Minnesota House, governorship and state offices stand on right-to-life issues such as abortion, assisted suicide and health care rationing. It also explains the significance of the Primary Election and the importance of electing pro-life public officials (see page 2).

The Minnesota Primary Election will be held on Aug. 12. More information about voting is available here.

Human lives are at stake in this critically important election. Please read and share MCCL's Primary Election Voter's Guide (and upcoming General Election Voter's Guide), and remember to vote pro-life in the Aug. 12 Primary Election and in the Nov. 4 General Election.

What hasn't changed

Last week's election was disappointing for the pro-life movement. Here in Minnesota the results were not so bad. The Minnesota House of Representatives retains a pro-life majority (including a number of newly-elected pro-life Democrats), while the Senate is very narrowly divided on the issue. Three of our four pro-life members of Congress were elected to another term. Most MCCL-endorsed candidates won.

Elections can change the political landscape and impact our laws and public policies, for better or for worse. But the facts of embryology have not changed. The reality of abortion -- the killing of unborn children on an industrial scale -- has not changed. The urgent need to educate, to persuade, to help pregnant women in need has not changed. The importance of involvement in the political and legislative process -- to secure protection for innocent human beings in all stages and conditions -- has not changed. Lives are still at stake. The moral imperative is just as clear.

No election outcome can change the fact that many unborn children have been saved by pro-life efforts (including political and legislative efforts) in the past. No politician can deter our commitment to saving more lives in the future.

And so the mission continues. As it must.

What you need to know before you vote

On November 6 you will vote to elect candidates to public office. I have compiled links to resources to help you make thoughtful, informed decisions in the voting booth.

What is at stake?

Can pro-life voters reasonably support pro-choice candidates?
'Only one issue'
The Golden Rule and pro-life voting
The most important question in our politics

Opposing candidates usually agree about basic goals and principles (e.g., growing the economy, helping the disadvantaged) while disagreeing about the best means to achieve those ends. But abortion is different. Candidates who support abortion (who are "pro-choice") support the legalized and often government-subsidized intentional killing of a class of innocent human beings.

This is unlike any other issue or concern in American society today (excepting the other right-to-life issues of embryo-destructive research, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia). In no other area are some human beings placed outside the protection of the law and allowed to be killed for any reason.

At stake is the principle of the equal fundamental dignity and right to life of every member of the human family, irrespective not only of race, gender, religion and social status, but also of age, size, ability, stage of development and condition of dependency. Human equality is on the ballot.

Lives are also on the line. The candidates we elect will affect our laws and policies in ways that will influence the incidence of abortion, which accounts for more than 11,000 deaths in Minnesota and 1.2 million nationwide every year.

In the presidential contest, one candidate has enacted policies to expand and subsidize abortion on demand; the other has pledged to support policies to limit abortion and protect unborn children. Federal pro-life legislation, Obamacare, abortion funding overseas, and perhaps even the U.S. Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade all hang in the balance. Likewise, our choices for the state Legislature and Congress will determine whether we have state and federal laws that will save lives or sacrifice them.

Minnesota races

For information about where the candidates for the state Legislature (House and Senate) stand, see the MCCL Voter's Guide (pages 3-5, 8). For information about candidates for the Minnesota Supreme Court, see the Voter's Guide (page 11).

For information about where the candidates for the U.S. Congress stand, see their responses to the MCCL questionnaire in the Voter's Guide (pages 9, 11) and the candidate comparison fliers for the first, second, sixth and eighth district races. For information about the U.S. Senate race, see the comparison flier and stories on the positions of Kurt Bills and Amy Klobuchar.

Visit MCCL's PAC site for information about our endorsements.

To find your polling location, and to see the candidates on your ballot, visit http://pollfinder.sos.state.mn.us. You may contact MCCL for more information.

Presidential race

Barack Obama's record: Expanding, subsidizing abortion on demand
Mitt Romney offers pro-life contrast to Obama
Paul Ryan's commitment to the right to life
Why the Supreme Court matters
The moral confusion of Joe Biden
Obama and infanticide
Obama and the abortion industry
'A politician who has never once lifted a hand to defend the most helpless and innocent'
Obama's convention speech: 'We the people'
Assessing Obama's statement on Roe v. Wade anniversary

Please learn the facts about the candidates and the stakes. Recognize that abortion is the greatest injustice in American society today and that human lives are on the line. And then vote for life on Nov. 6.

Barack Obama and infanticide

Then-state Senator Barack Obama publicly argued in 2001 that babies at this age, even ones who have already been born, should not receive legal protection.

Barack Obama is so committed to unlimited abortion that he voted repeatedly to condone a form of infanticide. He is so committed to winning elections that he spent years misrepresenting those votes.

From 2001 to 2003, as an Illionois state senator, Obama was confronted with legislation called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). The bill simply defined "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development" to be an individual protected under the laws of the state. That's it. So legal protection applies to any baby who has been born ("the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother") and is alive -- even if that baby was born as a result of a failed abortion rather than natural labor. The only point of the legislation was that we shouldn't kill or abandon living, already-born human beings. They are persons who deserve to be treated as such. The bill had no affect on the legality or availability of abortion. A federal version of BAIPA passed Congress in 2002 without a single dissenting vote in either house; even NARAL chose not to oppose the bill.

What prompted BAIPA? Many babies have been born alive during labor-induction abortions and then set aside to die, sometimes without assessing whether they are capable of long-term survival (with the appropriate medical assistance) and without even providing basic comfort care (regardless of whether they have good prospects for survival). Former nurse Jill Stanek helped uncover this practice at a Chicago hospital. In testimony before an Illinois Senate committee, Stanek explained: "It is not uncommon for live aborted babies to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital one of these babies once lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift." One night Stanek found an aborted Down syndrome baby left to die, she explained to a Congressional committee. "I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old." BAIPA would ensure that newborn babies who are born alive prematurely because of abortion are treated with the same care and respect as babies at the same age who were not marked for abortion.

Then-state Senator Obama voted against BAIPA four different times. In 2001 he was the only state senator to speak out against the legislation. In 2003 he led the committee he chaired in killing the bill. BAIPA finally passed after Obama left for Washington.

The Golden Rule and pro-life voting

Pro-life voters recognize, as a matter of biological fact, that the human embryo or fetus is a whole human organism, a living member of the species Homo sapiens no different in nature than you and me. And they are convinced, as a matter of moral principle, that there is a fundamental equality among all human beings, including those very young and vulnerable humans at the earliest developmental stages. All have worth and dignity and deserve respect and protection. The unborn child is "one of us" -- a full-fledged member of the human family. The command to love our neighbor includes our neighbor in the womb.

Given these facts, it is helpful, as Notre Dame professor Gerard V. Bradley writes, to apply a "Golden Rule" test in assessing the claims made by some that pro-life support for pro-choice candidates is justified.

[U]nder what circumstances is it morally permissible to vote for a "pro-choice" candidate, particularly one [e.g., Barack Obama] who promises not just to uphold the abortion license, but even to expand our unjust structure by introducing government funding of abortion and by removing some brakes upon abortion, such as parental notice laws?

To answer this question we have to consider the matter from the perspective of those who suffer the foreseeable harm resulting from the perpetration of "pro-choice" policies -- the unborn who are killed. Then we have to apply the great moral principle we call the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Golden Rule makes us walk in the others' shoes, makes us count the stranger and his or her well-being just as one welcomes the benefits and avoid the harms of what one does when the beneficiary or victim is oneself or someone near and dear. The Golden Rule pushes back particularly hard against our tendency to discount the harms we visit upon those we do not know -- those who cannot object, those who cannot offer effective resistance. The Golden Rule steers us to the morally right choice despite the fact that, though we may believe everyone is equal, we do not treat them that way. The Golden Rule leads us to be fair to everyone whose lives and fortunes are foreseeably affected by our actions -- as justice requires.

The test is best put like this: Would any given reason for voting for a candidate committed to the legalized killing of unborn children also work to justify voting for a candidate committed to the legalized killing of some other segment of the human family? If not, then in accepting that reason we are not treating unborn human beings as we treat others, or as we would like others to treat us. We are rejecting the Golden Rule.

Consider the candidate who says he wants to address the "root causes" of abortion but refuses to actually restrict the practice. May pro-lifers vote for him? Bradley writes:

Suppose that approximately 1.2 million American women are killed each year by domestic violence. Suppose further that a Presidential candidate said the following: "Friends, I think we must stop wasting resources prosecuting domestic violence. Let us get the law out of the picture. Maybe someday we could arrest men who kill women at home. But that day is not today, for anyone can see that arrests and convictions have not slowed the rate of domestic violence very much at all. Besides, we are talking about private family matters where people make hard choices. Let us instead join together and attack the root causes of domestic violence, causes which have to do with ignorance and poverty. I propose therefore to give angry men jobs and money to attend anger management classes. And I think we should start teaching all of America's children early on that every man and woman deserves to be treated well."

Anyone who refuses to vote for this candidate but who would vote for a "pro-choice" candidate is, at least presumptively, guilty of failure to apply the Golden Rule.

What about pro-life voters who say a candidate's positions on other issues outweigh his position in favor of abortion?

The question which these people must ask themselves is this: Would they vote for a "pro-choice" candidate on the strength of his preference for more government-provided health care than his rival proposes in his comparable plan, if doing so exposed their children to mortal danger? Suppose the candidate's commitment to a policy of "choice" referred, not to so many tiny and invisible people, but instead to hundreds of thousands of immigrants, or to the same number of prisoners or mentally handicapped or physically infirm people. Would they still support that candidate, even if his policies on energy, taxes, and employment were superior to his rival's?

A vote for a candidate who favors "pro-choice" policies on abortion by someone who does not answer the preceding questions "yes" does not, I think, satisfy the Golden Rule.

Applying the Golden Rule might be difficult when victims are small, unseen, without a voice and without a vote. But the point of the Golden Rule is that those factors don't matter morally. Everyone counts.

I explain in detail why pro-lifers should vote for pro-life candidates -- and I respond to objections, including the two Bradley discusses -- here.

'Only one issue'

Amherst College professor Hadley Arkes observes that historian James G. Randall criticized the famous debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1858. Why? Because they spent too much time talking about slavery when there were so many other pressing issues. Randall wrote:

With all the problems that might have been put before the people as proper matter for their consideration in choosing a senator -- choice of government servants, immigration, the tariff, international policy, promotion of education, west ward extension of railroads, the opening of new lands for homesteads, protection against greedy exploitation of those lands ... encouragement to settlers ... improving the condition of factory workers, and alleviating those agrarian grievances that were to plague the coming decades -- with such issues facing the country, those two candidates for the Senate talked as if there were only one issue.

Sound familiar? Arkes notes:

That complaint, read today, is bound to strike readers as churlish, even oafish. And yet why? ... [I]s it because there was truly something more fundamental in that question of just who were those beings who were the objects of concern in all of these other issues? [T]he issue had to run back to the root of things, to what John Paul II crystallized as the question of "the human person": Who, after all, are the persons whose injuries count as we scan the landscape and notice injuries or injustices that call out for remedies at the hands of the law?

Who counts as "one of us," entitled to the moral regard of others and the protection of the law? That was the question at the heart of the debate over slavery, and it is also at the heart of the debate over abortion and embryo-destructive research. There is no question more foundational to a just society. The abolitionist answer then, and the pro-life answer today, was and is that all members of the human species, regardless of race or skin color and regardless of age or developmental stage or condition of dependency, bear a profound and equal dignity and a right not to be enslaved, mistreated or killed. This is the position of inclusion, acceptance and equality, what Arkes calls the "expanding ... circle of those who are protected."

As we vote next Tuesday, abortion, like slavery in 1858, isn't "only one issue." Human equality is on the ballot.

Can pro-life voters reasonably support pro-choice candidates?

Not all voters who hold a pro-life position plan to vote for pro-life candidates for public office in the Nov. 6 election. As in 2008, some pro-life Catholic and evangelical protestant Christians are undecided or expect to vote for "pro-choice" (pro-legalized abortion) candidates in contests between pro-life and pro-choice options, such as in the presidential race between Mitt Romney, who supports protection for human beings in the womb, and Barack Obama, who supports unlimited abortion.

Some of these voters simply don't know (yet!) where the candidates stand. But some do know and plan to vote for pro-choice candidates anyway. Public examples include evangelical figures like Jim Wallis and David Gushee and Catholics like Doug Kmiec, Charles Reid and Stephen Schneck. Does this make sense? Here are a number of (often-overlapping) explanations, some of which I have heard from ordinary pro-lifers and some of which are offered by academics and commentators. I respond to each. I also respond to pro-lifers who plan to either sit out the election or vote for third-party candidates.

(1) Abortion isn't the only issue. There are many important issues, and I'm not a single-issue voter.

As Scott Klusendorf notes, abortion isn't the only issue today any more than slavery was the only issue in 1860. But if the pro-life position on the ethics of abortion is true—as those I am addressing here believe—then abortion is a uniquely important issue, as slavery was a uniquely important issue in 1860. First, abortion is a question of basic justice unlike any other issue or concern in American society today. In no other area is a class of innocent human beings placed outside the protection of the law and allowed to be killed for any or no reason. At stake is the principle of the equal fundamental dignity and right to life of every member of the human family, irrespective not only of race, gender, religion and social status, but also of age, size, ability, stage of development and condition of dependency. Human equality is on the ballot. Second, abortion is the leading cause of human death (at 1.2 million unborn children killed annually in the United States), and the candidates we elect will affect our laws and policies in ways that will influence the incidence of abortion. Lives really are on the line. Even if a pro-life voter agrees completely with a pro-choice candidate on every other issue, it is difficult (if not impossible) to see how voting for that candidate can be reasonable given the moral gravity and scale of what is at stake regarding abortion.

None of this is to deny that there are many important political issues. It is just to say that some issues are more important, and more foundational, than others.

Obama’s record: Expanding, subsidizing abortion on demand

"I'm not going to give any ground" on the issue of abortion, Barack Obama said earlier this year. And he hasn't.

Obama says abortion is a "fundamental constitutional right." He has never wavered or compromised in his commitment to the unfettered killing of unborn children for any reason at any stage of pregnancy. In many cases he wants such killing to be subsidized by taxpayers—as if abortion were a public good.

Below are some of the highlights (or, rather, lowlights) of his record since becoming president less than four years ago.

Abortion promotion overseas

On his third day in office, in January 2009, Obama issued an executive order to fund organizations that perform and promote abortion overseas. His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, later told Congress that the administration would advocate "reproductive health" worldwide and that "reproductive health includes access to abortion." Obama also restored and increased U.S. funding to the pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which has aided the enforcement of China's one-child policy that has included barbaric campaigns of forced abortions and sterilizations.

In March 2009 Obama issued an executive order to provide federal funding for research that requires the killing of embryonic human beings (research that, unlike adult stem cell research, has yet to yield any therapeutic benefits). He also, inexplicably, reversed a prior (George W. Bush-issued) order that encouraged ethical and non-controversial forms of stem cell research.

Obamacare, taxpayer funding of abortion

In March 2010, after months of debate, Obama very narrowly won enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a far-reaching health care overhaul. "Obamacare," beginning in 2014, will provide federal subsidies for millions of health care plans that will pay for abortion on demand; it also includes a number of other mechanisms and funding pipelines that can be used to subsidize and expand access to abortion. Obama helped defeat an amendment that would have removed these abortion-expanding elements. Obamacare also contains provisions that will lead to government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical care.

In 2011 the Obama administration issued formal veto threats against the Protect Life Act, a bill to repeal the abortion-expanding provisions of Obamacare, and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, a bill to permanently stop any federal program from funding elective abortions. Obama also succeeded, for 16 months (2010-2011), in removing a ban on taxpayer-funded elective abortion in the District of Columbia.

In February 2011 the Obama administration rescinded a George W. Bush-issued regulation that protected health care providers from being penalized for refusing to participate in providing abortions.

Planned Parenthood, sex-selection abortion

During a 2011 budget showdown, Obama indicated he would veto the entire federal spending bill—forcing a government shutdown—rather than accept a provision cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading performer and promoter of abortion. He preserved hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually for the abortion business. His administration has also blocked efforts by several states to deny government funds to Planned Parenthood.

In 2012 Obama came out against legislation in Congress to prohibit performing or coercing sex-selection abortions, in which abortion is chosen solely because the gender of the child (almost always female) is not desired. Obama is firmly committed, as a matter of "women's rights" and "privacy," to the legality of killing unborn girls simply because they are girls.

Court-imposed abortion on demand

In 2009 and 2010, Obama appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court two justices who (almost certainly) believe that Roe v. Wade and its mandate of nationwide abortion on demand should be preserved. In both cases an opportunity to install the decisive fifth vote to overturn Roe was lost—because Obama had been elected president. Obama fiercely believes that the Court should not allow the American people, through their elected representatives, to determine their own abortion policies. He has even argued that legal protection for newborn babies who survive abortion and bans on partial-birth abortion cannot be permitted under the Constitution. (These facts, though shocking, are a matter of public record.)

Barack Obama will not let us, the people, have a say on abortion, the premier injustice in American society today. But we will have a say on Nov. 6.

Where do the MN congressional candidates stand on life?

Minnesota's eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are up for election on Nov. 6. Below are links to candidate comparison fliers available on the MCCL website; you may also order copies by contacting MCCL.

• First congressional district: Allen Quist (pro-life) v. Tim Walz (pro-abortion) 
• Second district: John Kline (pro-life) v. Mike Obermueller (pro-abortion)
• Sixth district: Michele Bachmann (pro-life) v. Jim Graves (pro-abortion)
• Eighth district: Chip Cravaack (pro-life) v. Rick Nolan (pro-abortion)

Also available are comparison fliers for the U.S. Senate race between Kurt Bills (pro-life) and Amy Klobuchar (pro-abortion) and the presidential race between Mitt Romney (pro-life) and Barack Obama (pro-abortion). All of these, as well as the MCCL Voter's Guide, are available online or for order.

It's time to get taxpayers out of the abortion industry, Mr. President

Last night President Obama repeatedly criticized (five times!) Mitt Romney for wanting to deny federal funding to Planned Parenthood, a criticism Obama has made throughout the campaign (often inaccurately, claiming that Romney wants to "get rid" of Planned Parenthood itself rather than its government subsidies). The president's own record is clear. Obama indicated during the 2011 budget showdown that he was willing to force the federal government to shut down rather than cut any of the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that currently go to Planned Parenthood each year. And his administration has blocked the efforts of multiple states to de-fund the abortion provider, even threatening to withhold states' Medicaid money. Planned Parenthood, in turn, has spent millions trying to ensure Obama's reelection and defeat any candidate, like Romney, who dares challenge the organization's hefty take at the public trough.

Obama is very wrong on this issue. Planned Parenthood is the nation's leading practitioner and champion of the greatest injustice in American society today -- and its government funding is fungible and clearly works to support its abortion practice. Planned Parenthood performs hundreds of thousands of elective abortions every year while raking in hundreds of millions of government dollars. As funding has increased the abortion total has increased at a corresponding rate. American taxpayers should not be made a party to this. Obama absolutely, resolutely insists that they be. He has even decided to make this a primary talking point during his campaign. But that can only work if he obscures the facts.

Obama claimed last night that Planned Parenthood's ability to perform mammograms is at stake in this election. Planned Parenthood does not even offer mammograms. It can only refer women to other, better clinics that provide more in the way of actual health care for women in need. There is no "health care" justification for directing valuable funds to a controversial abortion business instead of the many non-abortion health care facilities. Those who oppose taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood don't oppose health care for low-income women, as Obama and his Hollywood supporters falsely claim. But they do think funds can be used more effectively for the genuine benefit of women. Obama is an ideologue who won't even consider such a thing -- because this debate isn't really about health care.

Planned Parenthood is an already-wealthy, hyper-political, scandal-plagued marketing machine that profits immensely from performing abortions on women and from soaking the American taxpayer with the help of political BFFs like Barack Obama. We, the American people, should get out of the abortion industry. The first step is on Nov. 6.

The MCCL Voter's Guide is available

MCCL's 2012 General Election Voter's Guide has already been distributed widely across Minnesota. But you can still order copies for yourself, your family and friends, your church, etc. (this version of the guide does not endorse candidates and is suitable for distribution in churches). Contact MCCL to order copies. It is also available online.

The Voter's Guide includes responses to questions about right-to-life issues such as abortion, euthanasia, health care rationing and human cloning from candidates for the state Legislature, Congress and White House. It also includes information about how to vote, a discussion of the stakes in this election, and more.