• Are you planning to stay home on Nov. 2 because you don't think there's anyone you can vote for?
• Would you not vote for a particular candidate who does not have a "pure enough" pro-life position or pro-life vote?
• Would you ever vote for someone who is pro-abortion in order to advance the pro-life cause? Is this like saying the ends justify the means?
Have you ever asked yourself any of these questions? Have you ever thought it was sinful to vote for any candidate who was not 100% pro-life? While this conviction is understandable, it merits more thought.
For instance, imagine two pro-abortion candidates are facing one another in the election. You must first study their platforms and voting records. What if one supported, say, parental notification and the other did not? A strategic vote to advance the cause of life would limit evil. Not voting in this race might allow the candidate who did not support parental notice to be elected.
There are many pro-lifers who, because they thought a less than 100% pro-life candidate was not good enough, have not voted and will not vote. This tactic has enabled pro-abortion legislators to be elected and to have a stranglehold on Illinois government.
The Roe v. Wade decision overturned all laws that banned or limited abortion in all 50 states. This decision then has forced us to take an incremental approach—the only way to eliminate it is by eroding it. Some candidates, while not 100% pro-life, may be very helpful in legislatively promoting this erosion process. There could be huge benefits for Life in voting this way.
Conversely, not voting because the candidate isn't "pure enough" has allowed abortion to continue unabated in Illinois. Winning this battle requires an incremental strategy.
Please take a moment to reflect on these things and then vote for Life.
Date Published: August 24, 2010
