When former President Donald Trump began waffling on issues like abortion and in vitro fertilization, many pro-lifers started grappling with the morality of voting for him.

Some outspoken members of the pro-life community, including Lila Rose, founder of Live Action, have spoken out urging pro-lifers to withhold votes from Trump unless he takes a more staunchly pro-life stance.

“No one owns the pro-life vote,” Rose told Politico. “This is very important. No one owns the pro-life vote. The vote must be earned.” 

Trump has certainly pivoted from his 2016 platform, which was more traditionally pro-life. His presidency was monumental for the pro-life movement, especially because he appointed the Supreme Court conservative majority that overturned Roe v. Wade. But recently, Trump has stated his refusal to ban access to abortion pills if elected and even promised free IVF to voters. 

In August, Trump said he would refuse to enforce the Comstock Act, a federal law that criminalizes mailing lewd or indecent material, and that he wouldn’t ban the delivery of abortion pills via the mail, CBS News reported. 

 Trump may not espouse the tenets of the pro-life movement due to his exceptions for rape and incest. Still, he is the only candidate capable of reviving an America open to pro-life values, and therefore the best choice for the pro-life constituency. 

Make no mistake — Vice President Kamala Harris, the Trump alternative, is an abortion extremist. She supports unrestricted access to late-term abortions and has openly worked to undermine the efforts of the pro-life movement.

Women cite multiple reasons for getting abortions. Chief among their reasons, however, is financial strain, with 40% of women citing it as the reason for their abortion, according to a 2013 study from BMC Womens’ Health. Other reasons for aborting their child include timing, partner-related reasons, and needing to focus on their other children. (A majority of women report multiple of these reasons.)

If his first term was any indication, America under a second Trump presidency would see more financial stability, lower crime rates, and a promotion of traditional values. 

Under Trump, many of the reasons women cite for getting abortions could disappear altogether. 

Rose pointed out that writing in a third-party candidate is always an option if neither party puts forward a nominee that is distinctively pro-life, Politico reported. 

“This idea that you are morally responsible to vote against Kamala Harris by voting for someone like Donald Trump — I don’t buy that,” Rose said.

Rose said she currently can’t see herself supporting either presidential candidate. 

“If the election were today, I would not vote for Harris or Trump based on their policies and their statements and their positions,” Rose said.

In a country in which citizens are free to elect their leaders, voting is a moral act. So is choosing not to vote, or writing in a third-party candidate. 

Of course, there are predictably blue counties and states where a vote for Trump likely won’t change the outcome of the election. But Trump and Harris are working hard to earn swing state voters.

In these battleground territories, pro-life voters have a heightened responsibility to vote, despite the absence of a truly pro-life candidate. 

The issue is that a Harris presidency would result in more unfettered abortion access than a Trump presidency. 

According to her campaign website, Harris will work to codify Roe v. Wade.

“As president, she will never allow a national abortion ban to become law,” Harris’s website reads. “And when Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom nationwide, she will sign it.”

Swing state voters who choose to boycott Trump are, at best, wasting a vote, and at worst, actively supporting an agenda radically more hostile to the pro-life movement. It’s an act of omission or an act of commission.

It’s right to condemn abortion at all stages as wrong. It’s good to want a presidential candidate that does the same. 

In the meantime, however, refusing to vote for Trump because of his tepid stance on life issues does not absolve a single pro-life voter from being implicated in the dark future of a Harris presidency — a future in which far more unborn lives will be ended.

So, is Harris worth the risk?

 

Sarah Katherine Sisk is a senior studying economics.