Gallup Poll: More Americans are Pro-Life than Pro-Choice

May 15, 2009

A recent Gallup Poll has found that more Americans are pro-life than pro-choice. I personally don’t find this to be terribly surprising. I’ve always thought that when the choice between the life and the death of an unborn child is on the table, most individuals that value life would logically choose life. And while a CBS poll taken back in 2007 indicated similar results, this is the first time in the history of Gallup’s poll that pro-life has ever overtaken pro-choice.

Pro-Life: 51% Pro-Choice: 42%
Pro-Life: 51% Pro-Choice: 42%
The poll found that in most categories, the number of pro-life individuals has increased. Such categories include not only conservatives and Republicans, but also include moderates, Catholics, Protestants, and even those of other religious preferences. Also among Republicans, the amount of pro-choice voters has dropped from 36% in 2008 to 26% in 2009, the lowest it has been in 9 years.

Could it be that the Obama administration’s pro-choice policies are polarizing to the American people? Note the sharp downturn in pro-choice voters from 2008 to 2009: 50% to 42%. That’s quite a drop.

I’m hoping that these trends will continue throughout the elections in 2010 and 2012, except yielding different results than in 2008. America badly needs pro-life leaders to champion the cause of life in the face of an extremely pro-choice Obama administration.

Barack Obama is Pro-Abortion

October 28, 2008

Contrary to what some may believe about Barack Obama, it is a known fact that he is pro-choice. His record and his platform clearly demonstrate that. There is no sense of ambiguity. There should be no doubt. Barack Obama is a staunch supporter of a woman’s right to take the life of her unborn child.

But in an effort to remove all misconception or any form of doubt you may have, allow me to address Senator Obama’s stance on this topic.

Direct Quotes

This is a direct quote from his website: “[Senator Obama] has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.” From this statement, it’s very clear that Obama stands by Roe v. Wade and does not want it to be overturned.

When speaking about the importance of sex education, he said “look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” I’ll try not to interject too much into this statement, but it seems obvious to me that he considers unplanned pregnancies to be some type of punishment to the mother of the child.

Infanticide in Illinois

I personally find this part of Senator Obama’s record to be extremely troubling. As a State Senator in Illinois, a bill known as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) was first introduced in 2001. This legislation was designed to protect the lives of infants who were born alive after failed abortions. Obama opposed this measure in 2001 and in 2002, claiming that the language used in the bill could have the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade.

However in 2003, the bill was proposed again, with language that addressed the concern that many pro-abortion groups had about it potentially overturning Roe v. Wade. Obama voted against it again, even after NARAL had dropped their opposition to it. A federal version of this bill containing much of the exact same language passed through the U.S. Senate 98-0 in 2002. Obama claims he would have supported the federal bill, but if actually he stood against the same bill at a state level, can you really trust that statement?

When aborted babies were being born alive and left to die alone in soiled utility rooms and there was legislation proposed in Illinois which would have stopped it, Barack Obama opposed it three times in a row. Fortunately, the bill passed through the Illinois Congress in 2005, after Obama had left to become a U.S. Senator.

The Freedom of Choice Act

Barack Obama has voiced ardent support of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). In fact, he has said that one of the first things he’ll do in office is to sign it into law as soon as it passes through Congress.

Pro-Choice Organizations complain that after Roe v. Wade, many of the federal and state laws that have passed since then have “eroded” the “fundamental right” to abortion. However, they firmly believe that FOCA will ensure abortion rights in spite of the possibility that Roe v. Wade could be reversed. It has been estimated that FOCA would result in 125,000 more abortions per year due to the nullification of certain state and federal abortion laws caused by its passage.

On top of all that, FOCA would allow for taxpayer-funded abortions at any stage of pregnancy. Just imagine our taxes actually paying for virtually every kind of abortion at any time during the pregnancy. If that’s not contrary to the nature of American values, I don’t know what is.


Speaking for myself as a Christian and as a pro-life conservative, I cannot morally condone voting for anyone who supports abortion. But throughout Senator Barack Obama’s career, he has adamantly, by his own admission, supported abortion rights. Not only that, he has supported the right to abortion at practically every stage of a pregnancy. I cannot fathom how anyone who considers themselves pro-life could support a candidate like Senator Obama. If you believe in the sanctity of human life, I strongly urge you to consider this information when you vote on November 4th.

Romney Nails the Religion Speech

December 6, 2007

I think it’s hard to deny how good Mitt Romney’s speech on “Faith in America” was.

Granted, I’m not sure it was perfect. But I think it was as close to perfect as it could have been.

He appealed to religious liberty, the liberty that America was founded on. He pointed to what a lack of religious freedom can lead to. And I think he did an excellent job of showing Americans that he is indeed an ally in the fight for the collective faith of all Americans and the religious freedoms we too often take for granted.

Support him or not, it’s hard to disagree with anything he said. He’s a true patriot and an important part of the conservative movement in this nation, as was demonstrated in his speech.

I support Mitt Romney more now than ever before.

For a transcript of the speech (prepared for delivery), you can go here.

Mitt Romney, His Religion, and Evangelicals

October 23, 2007

What is the first thing that pops into the mind of an evangelical when they think of Mitt Romney?

“He’s a Mormon.”

Whether they like him or not, that’s probably the first thing that comes to mind. He’s one of those people that thinks he can become a god. You know, those folks that wear the weird underwear and practice polygamy. Well, for the record, the LDS church hasn’t practiced polygamy in over 100 years, but I think you see my point. Romney is a member of one of the largest yet strangest religions in the United States.

Now, I’m not here to defend Mormonism by any means. I’m a Christian, and I guess you could even call me an evangelical (though the connotation seems a bit deceptive). I would readily agree with most evangelical Christians in thinking that Mormonism is a cult. I’d also say that Mormonism is not a form of traditional Christianity because of some of its peculiar beliefs about Jesus Christ, among other things.

So I suppose I can sympathize with the reservation that evangelicals have concerning a Mormon president. Electing a Mormon to the White House will give that “cult” some form of “validation.” At least, that’s the logic that certain evangelicals have.

However, I take an alternate perspective. I have not and will not vote for a candidate on the basis of religion. I’m not voting for a religion, I’m voting for a candidate. If I was voting for the religion of a candidate, I never would have voted in my life. Not a single candidate I’ve voted for has a had a religion just like mine. Have I compromised my own beliefs or values in doing that? I hardly think so!

What is ironic in all of this is that no one is really discussing the religion of other candidates. Rudy Giuliani is a Catholic. Fred Thompson is a non-churchgoing member of the Church of Christ, which is by far the closest to my own religious affiliation. John McCain was an Episcopal and converted to Baptist (couldn’t that be considered flip-flopping?). Mike Huckabee is a Baptist. Ron Paul is some form of Protestant. Yet, their religious beliefs are not nearly as scrutinized as Mitt Romney’s.

While Romney may be the main candidate in this race scrutinized on the basis of his religion, he is certainly not the first. John F. Kennedy was also criticized for being a Catholic. The sentiment was that a Catholic would not serve the needs of Americans, but instead, he would yield to the authority of the papacy in Rome. However, as Kennedy’s presidency would show, this was not the case.

Believe it or not, a founding father of this nation would not be considered worthy by evangelicals today. This individual held beliefs like the idea that Christ was not divine, the Bible needed to be “corrected,” and that Christ was simply nothing but a great moral teacher. Besides the idea of “errors” in the Bible, these beliefs extended to an even further extreme past traditional Christianity than that of Mormonism. What kind of ghastly infidel such as this could dare make his way to the office of Commander-in-Chief? None other than Thomas Jefferson.

I certainly wouldn’t say that Jefferson’s religious beliefs were validated by his election to office.

On the flip-side, let’s look at a few evangelical Presidents. What about Bill Clinton? He’s a Southern Baptist, so he’s got the right credentials, doesn’t he? What about Jimmy Carter? He was also a Southern Baptist, even a Sunday School teacher as I recall. Would these men be better for our country than a Mormon? Are these men what we would call “evangelical standard-bearers?”

Personally, when people say they won’t vote for Mitt Romney because he’s a Mormon, I can’t see it as anything but a form of bigotry.

Look at the top four candidates: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Fred Thompson. Which one of those has been married to the same woman for the past 30 or so years? Mitt Romney. Doesn’t that count for something? Shouldn’t that speak volumes for his personal convictions?

Mormons are known for their moral lifestyles. Their values are generally on par with that of evangelicals. Why can’t we put aside specific religious beliefs to support a candidate that shares our values?

How many Baptists voted for Bush, a Methodist? How many Catholics? Mormons? How many people in the realm of Christendom have voted for a candidate that doesn’t share their exact religious beliefs? Most people vote for the politicians that share their values, not their personal religious beliefs.

And all this talk of Romney flip-flopping on abortion also grinds my gears. Whenever an evangelical says they can’t vote for Romney because he “used to be pro-choice,” it’s as if they are admitting that the pro-life movement is unable to change the hearts and minds of Americans: “The very idea of that Mitt Romney thinking he can be pro-life! You must be born pro-life! No one can become pro-life!”

Such reasoning is lost on me. If anything, as a fellow pro-life voter, I appreciate that Romney has embraced our values.

The sadly ironic thing about all of this is that there are actually evangelicals out there that would sacrifice their pro-life convictions and vote for Giuliani instead of Romney because Giuliani isn’t a Mormon and because he’s the “only candidate” can beat Hillary Clinton. And to those people, I say shame on you.

If you don’t like Mitt Romney, that’s fine. Disagree with his stances on healthcare, taxes, the economy, the war in Iraq, the federal government, or whatever. Just don’t be ignorant enough to not vote for him on the basis of his religion. And if you’re an evangelical, don’t be naive enough to think that his morals and values are all that different than your own.