"How can you vote for him?"

As we get closer to November 4th, and it becomes more and more likely that Senator Obama will be our next president, I have seen an increase in comments from other Christians questioning how a Christian could vote for Obama. A lot of this concern comes from his staunchly pro-choice opinion on abortion. Many Christians wonder how someone can call themselves a Christian and support a candidate who supports Roe vs. Wade. Since I am pro-life, a Christian, and a supporter of Barack Obama, I thought I would try to explain my vote for him as it pertains to the abortion issue.

First of all, I am very pro-life. I believe life begins at conception. When I discuss this issue I refer to the unborn as a baby, not a fetus. If I was in charge of things I would outlaw abortion in all cases except to preserve the life and health of the mother. (Of course I would change a lot of other stuff too!)

The way I see it, there are 3 approaches to eliminating abortion and/or greatly reducing abortion.

1. Overturn Roe v. Wade making all abortions (with possible exceptions for the life and/or health of the mother, rape, and incest) illegal.

2. Work to prevent unplanned pregnancies through sex education.

3. Work to eliminate the root causes that lead women to choose abortion over adoption/keeping the baby when they are faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

Obviously the first approach is both the most direct and ultimately would be the most successful in eliminating abortion out right. This approach is very consistent with Christianity, and is favored by the religious right and republican politicians.

The second approach is advocated in different ways. Some support safe-sex sex education, some support abstinence only education, and some support a mixture of the two. Obviously if you can prevent people from having sex at all or from being irresponsible when having sex, you decrease the likelihood of an unplanned pregnancy.

Abstinence only programs also fit in really well with Christian teachings about sex. Recently members of the religious right have succeeded in getting a lot of abstinence only programs off the ground. The findings of the early studies on the effectiveness of abstinence only sex ed are not good.

The third approach recognizes that women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy choose abortion because they believe that abortion is the best option for them. People who advocate this approach want to know why women feel that this is their best choice, and how we as a society can make choosing life the best choice for these women.

On the surface this can seem counter to Christianity because advocates of this approach often do not focus on overturning Roe vs. Wade or working on legislation to make abortions more difficult to attain. (The exception to this would be Crisis Pregnancy Centers who try practical ways to help women choose life and also take a traditional political pro-life stance)

Abortion is a topic that has been widely researched, and social scientists know a lot about why women choose to have an abortion. The leading reasons are economic stress and lack of support. An abortion is much cheaper than prenatal health care, day care, and 18 + years of food, clothing, and shelter. Raising a child also requires a lot more help and support from others than a one hour medical procedure does.

Our society offers very little support for lower income Americans and working mothers, and in many ways our policies make life harder for them. We are one of only 4 nations in the world that does not have paid maternity leave. It is legal in most states to fire a woman for being pregnant as long as the company has fewer than 25 employees. Unlike most European nations, we subsidized pre-school/day care for only a very small number of children. If a father does not pay child support we garnish his wages, put him in jail, or strip him of his business license. If those things don’t work (and they often don’t) the child is just out of luck. If the child’s mother is on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (the welfare program that provides cash for basic expenses), the father’s child support payment goes to the state.

Our support system for lower income citizens is very stingy compared to the rest of the developed world. Citizens are allowed to be on welfare for 5 years total in their lifetime, the average TANF payment is $180, and in order to stay eligible for welfare, one must meet stringent work and/or school requirements. And once a person successfully transitions from welfare to work they are often in worse shape finacially, not because welfare pays so well, but because low skill jobs pay so poorly and typically come with no health benefits.

Our healthcare system, while impressive in research and development, is among the worst in the developed world when it comes to health outcomes. We are the only country in the developed world that does not provide healthcare to all our citizens, even though no other country spends more on healthcare per capita than we do. We also have the highest infant mortality rate and highest percentage of low birth weight babies born in the developed world.

In short, there is a real lack of societal support for women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy. That is why they choose abortion. Increasing societal support for lower income Americans is favored by democrats, and although it is often not recognized as such in the U.S., it is very biblical. (American Christians tend to prefer the church helping lower income people rather than the government. That is a whole other issue).

I favor the third approach mainly because I am the type of person who likes to meet people where they are. It doesn’t do any good to talk about why a woman got pregnant when she already is pregnant. Working to change the law, which is a very long term process (Roe vs. Wade was decided 36 years ago), does nothing to help a woman who is pregnant and struggling right now. I also do not see an end to legal battles over the abortion issue. The moment Roe is overturned, pro-choice advocates will begin work to reinstate it, and pro-life advocates will have to work to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Politics would be super easy if all three approaches to reducing/eliminating abortion were advocated by one party, but they are not. Both parties favor sex ed, but take different approaches to it. As I alluded to earlier, abstinence only education is not effective. Republicans have the market cornered on the legal approach to eliminating abortion but……frankly, the laissez faire, trickle down economic approach advocated by republicans is bad for poor people, single mothers, and struggling families, and makes choosing life more difficult. While I believe the out and out elimination of abortion is a correct and biblical goal, I just can’t support a party that focuses only on that aspect while simultaneously advocating social policies that make it more likely that a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy will feel that abortion is her best option, and offers her and her child very little support if she does choose life.

So I support Barack Obama, despite his commitment to Roe vs. Wade, because I believe his economic and social policies will make it more likely that women will choose life. So there you go, that is my rather long explanation of how a very pro-life Christian can vote for such a staunchly pro-choice candidate.