Is It OK to Be a Single-Issue Voter?

By: Dan Hart

Every four years, I find myself grappling with the same conundrum. Is it acceptable to vote for a presidential candidate primarily because of his or her position on a single issue?

Since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973, that single issue for me will always be legal abortion. It is the issue that will never go away, because it is the one issue that in my mind remains the most stark and inarguable: legal abortion means that unborn babies — a whole class of human beings — have no legal protection against being deliberately killed by another human.

This is common knowledge. However, the vast majority of arguments I’ve heard in favor of abortion never fully acknowledge it, and I understand why. It’s uncomfortable to talk about, even to think about.

To delve into the methods by which abortions are performed is a stomach-churning experience. And yet we must confront this issue as a country. We must start a “national conversation,” whatever that may entail. Nearly 3,000 abortions are carried out every day in the United States. That’s 3,000 worlds of potential, never given the chance to take a first breath, to feel a mother’s kisses, to live a life of one’s own.

Is it narrow-minded to think that this one issue should be the deciding factor in a presidential vote?

I have often heard the argument that to be truly “pro-life,” one cannot merely consider only the issue of abortion when voting. Universal health care is an issue that is often touted as an equally (if not more) important social issue since it has a direct effect on people’s health, and therefore their life. This is true, of course, but there are many different ways that a government can ensure that health care is provided to those most in need — the public policies that support this goal can and should be debated, and the most effective policies should become law. But abortion is not merely another “issue.” It is the difference between life and death for a baby. It is life itself.

Before there can be a debate about the best ways to improve the quality of life, there has to be a life to improve.

If we can’t protect the weakest and most vulnerable in our society, then how can we have a vision of human life that respects the dignity of every human person?

That is why whenever I find out that a politician is “pro-choice,” my heart sinks. While I understand the sentiment that most pro-choice people are advocating for, that is, to leave this momentous “choice” up to the woman, it amazes me that this is where the discussion often ends. It only begs the question: How can our nation’s laws allow one human being to choose death for another human being? Isn’t the purpose of law to protect the common good? Why doesn’t the law uphold the rights of defenseless preborn babies, just as it protects the rights of defenseless born babies?

To be “pro-choice” should really mean that the mother of an unborn child does indeed have legitimate choices that don’t involve killing the child. She can choose to raise the child herself, or if she decides that the circumstances in which she finds herself are not favorable to raise the child properly, she can give the baby up for adoption. (Statistics show that there are far more couples waiting to adopt a child than there are children available for adoption.)

The fact is that under U.S. federal law, a woman can get an abortion for any reason, and at virtually any stage in the pregnancy, even though babies can survive outside the womb as young as 20 weeks post-fertilization. This makes the United States among the most permissive countries in the world regarding abortion law, far surpassing most European countries. And yet, in the latest poll on abortion conducted by CNN in March 2016, only about 28 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal under any circumstances.

This statistic highlights something that most Americans know in their gut: Abortion kills a human life, and this is something that should be taken very seriously. When I think about who I’m going to vote for every four years, I often daydream about what it would be like if both candidates were genuinely pro-life. Then the abortion debate could at long last make real progress toward an honest discussion about the best public policies that show genuine care for both the mother and child in an unplanned pregnancy. This fantasy is quickly dashed every four years, because one political party automatically and unflinchingly supports abortion on demand, year in and year out.

So for me, no matter how much I disagree with a candidate’s views on a variety of other issues, it always comes back to a single question: Does this person support legal abortion?

It’s the public policy question that has to come before all others. Because if certain categories of human lives do not have a legal right to be protected, it is a violation of the most basic human right, the right to life, from which all other rights flow.

That’s why in November, I will once again primarily be a “single-issue voter.”

Dan Hart is managing editor for FRC (Family Research Council) Action in Washington.

Originally published at www.insidesources.com on October 28, 2016.