A Vote for Jesus is a Vote for Obama

Please note the word order in the title.

I did not say that a vote for Obama is a vote for Jesus.  That was the mistake of the most enthusiastic Obamaphiles of 2008 when they labeled him a “Lightworker” who is “greater than Jesus.”  All claims to the contrary — in fact, some still insist that he’s a Lightworker and “needed to take us into the New Golden Age” — Obama is clearly not, and never was, a Messiah.  He is a politician like other politicians.  And if it were not for a media that was eager to weave a story of mythic proportions around him, and thus build a movement toward their own progressive utopia, he never would have been elected in the first place.  He should not have been elected.  He was not qualified.  And we have paid with four years of economic stagnation, political gridlock, feckless foreign policy, and a mounting debt crisis for electing a politician with an abundance of élan but an absence of expertise.

No, I’m not saying that a vote for Obama is a vote for Jesus.  I’m saying that a vote for Jesus is a vote for Obama.

Bill Keller

You see, the “world’s most famous internet evangelist” — at least, that’s what Bill Keller calls himself — has called on all Christians to enter “Jesus” on the ballot instead of voting for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

Bill Keller is the founder of LivePrayer.com.  He claims (against all evidence available through third-party traffic analytics) that his website receives 20,000 visitors a day.  The website proclaims: “There are currently over 2,500,000 people who have subscribed to receive the Daily Devotional each day in their email account…We receive daily over 40,000 email prayer requests that a ministry team emails personalized responses to…There have been over 600,000 people that we are aware of who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior.”  I don’t want to make any accusations, but let me just say that I’m skeptical.  Since LivePrayer.com was founded over 14 years ago, prior to all sorts of anti-spam laws, they may indeed have an email list that reaches 2.5 million email addresses.  How many of those addresses reach actual people, and how many people actually open those emails, is another question.  It’s surely false to say, as Keller said in a mass email, that he has “over 2.4 million subscribers worldwide reading the Daily Devotional” he has written for thirteen years.  Sending an email to two and a half million email addresses is not nearly the same thing as having 2.4 million people reading your daily devotional.  And I think a certain skepticism is warranted toward grand claims of hundreds of thousands of people who have, apparently through email, been led to put their faith in Jesus Christ by “the world’s leading internet evangelist.”

Keller’s getting an awful lot of free publicity right now (and some paid publicity as well, as I’ve received press releases on his behalf) because of his drive to get Christians to write in the name of Jesus on their ballots.  Keller founded votingforjesus.com and claims to have 1.6 million people committed.  Snarky progressive Christians like Matthew Paul Turner seem to take this figure seriously, and at least one of Patheos’ atheist bloggers celebrated this as a two-for-one entertainment: a problem for Mitt Romney and yet more occasion to laugh at how stupid Christians are.

Since the traffic analytics suggest that a far smaller number have actually visited the website, again, there’s abundant reason here for skepticism.  I don’t want to suggest he’s lying, but, well, I think he’s lying.  Or at least misled.  Keller founded votingforjesus.com in mid-May.  Ironically, his Alexa ranking (Alexa ranks the largest websites in the world) is — wait for it — 1.6 million.  But a high number here is not a good thing.  It means there are 1.6 million websites larger than this.  If his website had actually attracted 1.6 million unique visitors in the past six months, it would be well into the top 100,000.  One wonders, too, how many laughing atheists will sit at their computers and register ten fictitious evangelicals to vote for Jesus.  And then one wonders about the Obama campaign staffer who’s sitting there all day trying to create the impression of a movement.

But let’s put all that aside.  Who knows?  Maybe he’s not the charlatan I think he is.  Maybe lots of people have made the commitment without visiting the website.  Or something.  And heck, it sounds like some good has probably come out of his internet ministry.

The question is: Is there anything remotely Christian about this?

Keller says this is an election contest of “Satan vs. Satan.”   Obama is “an enemy of God and a true tool of satan!” (I had to include the exclamation mark), and Romney is a “priest in a satanically inspired cult” who would “set aside the US Constitution and enact a Mormon theocracy.”  I can’t seem to summon the will to take this seriously.  It’s ironic in the extreme for an internet evangelist — or any evangelical, for that matter — to complain that Mormons are aggressive at proselytizing.  But when Keller says (without any citation, of course) that “conservative estimates are that over 1 million people in this country alone will become part of his cult without him having to ever say a word,” one starts to suspect that Keller just likes to throw around big numbers he invented in the shower.

Let’s make it simple.  Romney’s theology is different from my own.  But he believes in God and strives to be faithful to him.  He believes that he is saved by the work of Jesus Christ, even though he understands Christ differently than I do.  He is a good man who has always been extraordinarily devoted to his family, his community, and his country.  We can argue over the details and over his personal evolution, but Romney will be pro-life and pro-marriage, a defender of religious freedoms, a strong hand on foreign policy, and determined to rein in government spending and hand on a sustainable and flourishing economy to succeeding generations.  There is no indication that the faith of Presidents sways the faith of Americans.  There is no evidence whatsoever that Romney’s election would lead people to become members of the LDS Church.

The Obama administration must love Bill Keller.  Keller’s readership are about the least likely Obama voters in the country.  Every vote that goes to “Jesus” from the Keller Kamp is a vote taken away from Mitt Romney.

And make no mistake.  On many other issues, we can say that the differences between the two parties are subtle and prudential, sometimes hard to untangle. But we cannot say that on abortion.  The Democratic party simply is the party of abortion.  Witness the lavish celebration of abortion “rights” on Day 1 of the Democratic National Convention.  On this one issue of overwhelming importance for Christians, the Democratic Party is absolutely 100 percent in the wrong.  The Democrats are the abortion regime, and if Obama is President from 2013-2017 then he will be able to install an even stronger pro-choice contingent in the Supreme Court.  It will set the pro-life movement back by a generation.

Some evangelicals make the argument that Obama’s commitment to social services would reduce the number of abortions, but (a) a flourishing economy will reduce the number of abortions and Romney is better equipped to bring that about, and (2) you don’t vote for the guy who celebrates the Holocaust but whose policies might lead to marginally fewer dying there, you vote for the guy who opposes the Holocaust on principle and wants to bring it to an end.

A vote for Jesus is a vote for Obama.  And a vote for Obama is a vote for abortion.

About Timothy Dalrymple

Timothy Dalrymple was raised in non-denominational evangelical congregations in California. The son and grandson of ministers, as a young boy he spent far too many hours each night staring at the ceiling and pondering the afterlife.
 
In all his work he seeks a better understanding of why people do, and do not, come to faith, and researches and teaches in religion and science, faith and reason, theology and philosophy, the origins of atheism, Christology, and the religious transformations of suffering

  • Ron Bangle

    “even though he understands Christ differently than I do”

    You can really stop right there. Mormon’s believe that Christ is NOT the only begotten of God. For Christians the balance of Mormon theology is meaningless. This error is so grave their position is untenable.

    • Daniel Craft

      Actually, Ron, Mormon’s believe exactly that Christ is the only begotten of God. That is exactly what we believe. We use that exact phrase to describe Him during church services. We may understand some of Christ’s teachings differently, and we may interpret scriptures differently (which I note EVERY Christian denomination does), but we believe in Christ as our Savior and the Son of God. In my mind, that makes me a Christian.

    • Greg Smith

      This is utterly false. Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) DO believe that Christ is the Only Begotten of God.

      Leaving aside Bible scriptures (which Mormons also endorse and embrace), see distinctly LDS scripture:

      * 2 Nephi 25:1 (Book of Mormon): “12 But, behold, they shall have wars, and rumors of wars; and when the day cometh that the Only Begotten of the Father, yea, even the Father of heaven and of earth, shall manifest himself unto them in the flesh, behold, they will reject him, because of their iniquities, and the hardness of their hearts, and the stiffness of their necks.
      13 Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Wherefore, my soul delighteth to prophesy concerning him, for I have seen his day, and my heart doth magnify his holy name.”
      Alma 5:48 (Book of Mormon): “I say unto you, that I know that Jesus Christ shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, and mercy, and truth. And behold, it is he that cometh to take away the sins of the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name.”

      Doctrine and Covenants 76:22-23 “22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—”
      ====
      There are many others; interested readers can search the relevant terms at http://scriptures.lds.org

      Bill Keller has long been virulently (and hilariously) anti-Mormon, so his claims are unsurprising, if rather untainted by evidence.

  • Kristen inDallas

    So if we vote for Jesus, we actually get 2 votes? Sounds like a miracle to me!
    Here’s some fun math – me voting for some unlikely 3rd party is *actually* a vote for no one, that abstention from voting for continued immorality is *actually* a vote for Jesus, and the vote for Jesus is *actually* a vote for Obama. Maybe I’ll vote 3rd party and earn myself 4x as much voting power (translation, still basically no power whatsoever) as everyone else. That makes sense right?

    • Kristen inDallas

      I’ll follow that up with – I have no problem with the fact that Romney is Mormon. I don’t buy it philosophically, but I know plenty of very nice Mormon folks. I do have a problem with pretending that someone who has no problem with unjust wars, torture, droning 14 year olds, and killing unborn babies (when politically convinient) is “pro-life.”

      Every valid parliamentary vote MUST contain at least 3 options. Yay, Nay, or Abstain. Obama, Romney, or neither. Consenting to the validity of the question is just as important, and in some cases more important, than the answer to the question itself. Pretending elections are binary has no basis in reality or compassion for a fellow humans freedom to choose.

  • http://markbyron.typepad.com/main/ Mark Byron

    Please note that this isn’t Tim Keller, one of the big guns in modern neo-Reformed thought and a Presbyterian pastor in NYC. He might have a couple of million folks who would hear about that through the Gospel Coalition network.

  • Jeremy Forbing

    With all due respect, Tim– and by now, I hope you do know I am not just saying that, and that I do really respect you even as I forcefully disagree– the impending tension of November 6th seems to be having a negative effect on some of your postings. This particular column has a larger point, that any Christians coerced by this weird website into writing the name of Jesus on their ballot are throwing votes away, and that those are votes which would likely go to your preferred candidate. But in between that, you sneak in a lot of other stuff that seems, at best, uncharitable.

    The closer the election gets, the more you sneak unsupported jabs and mere partisan opinions into the beginnings and ends of your posts, while the rest of the articles include actual arguments from reason and evidence. I am going to ignore the arguments about comparisons between Obama and Jesus, since the President is devout Christian with many years of church attendance who would no doubt be horrified at the assertions of obscure German atheists or New Agey columnists. But please allow me to respond to the other criticisms of the President of the United States you slip in here as if they were statements of fact.

    1. By your own criteria, Obama was qualified. Obama spent 4 years in the Senate. Governor Romney spent 4 years as governor of Massachusetts. In terms of time in a nationally relevant office, Obama and Romney both spent the same amount. Since Governor Romney has your complete and unwavering endorsement, Obama’s qualified by the same criteria… Unless your argument relates to experience prior to taking office, in which case you’re arguing that A) experience in big business qualifies one to be president, but B) years of grass-roots community organizing, defending the rights of fellow citizens as a civil rights lawyer, and intense Constitutional scholarship do not. In which case, this may be an area where you are merely repeating the far Right’s notion that the pursuit of profits on a large scale is more important than any other contribution to society, because otherwise I am not sure how your formula makes sense. But if this last is true, my comments may be a waste of both our time, because we may not have enough common ground in this area to have an honest debate.

    2. The economic stagnation we have lived with since President Bush’s term is the result of economic conditions that no President would have been able to completely reverse. To assert that Governor Romney’s experience in a particularly predatory form of capital investment bestows upon him super powers to do what no other major Western economy’s leadership has been able to do seems illogical. His plan for turning around the economy– in the areas where it does not refuse to divulge details– contains no new ideas, only the old ones that led us to this point.

    3. Political gridlock has been a purposeful strategy by the Republican party to regain power. Even bills that only recapitulate classic Republican ideas have been rebuffed in the name of partisan ambition. The credit rating of the world’s largest economy was even a hostage, to be harmed if necessary to garner Conservative congressmen greater influence. Blaming Obama for the gridlock is like blaming Luke Skywalker for his inability to get along with his dad.

    4. The so-called “feckless foreign policy” has restored our standing in the world while apologizing to no one (despite partisan fantasies to the contrary), started no new unnecessary wars that make us less safe or further drive us into debt, and resulted in the decision to enter Pakistan without permission to destroy our most murderous enemy, a decision Governor Romney indicated he would not have made. But if this policy is so feckless, why is it that otherwise Governor Romney could not summon up any substantial disagreement in an entire debate devoted to foreign policy?

    5. The mounting debt crisis also falls firmly at the feet of the Republican party, especially under the last Republican president. First, they proposed and passed irresponsible tax cuts when we had a surplus under the old tax rates, then they spent billions on an irresponsible war in Iraq that made our country less safe, mobilizing what had been the world’s fourth largest military as an energized Al Qaeda recruiting pool. Then, because their stated number one priority was not helping American pull out of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, but rather making Barack Obama a one-term president, they took things further. They played politics with the previously non-partisan issue of the debt ceiling, which had always been raised without fanfare in the past because it is necessary for the continued function of our government– including the support of servicemen fighting a war overseas– and downgraded the credit rating of the country that should be the world’s economic leader just to make a point about what happens when they don’t get what they want. Then, when a deal was made in Congress to temporarily keep the government running, with the penalty of terrifying economic consequences should compromise not be reached, they tried to hang their own lack of compromise around the President’s neck.

    6. Is abortion really the number one issue on which Christians should vote? If so, why? Are the teachings of Christ more substantial on abortion than on other issues? Or does abortion’s current place as the litmus test for all candidates everywhere have more to do with the fact that, without the issues of abortion and gay marriage, the unholy alliance between Evangelical Christian influence-peddlers and the Conservative movement would have no substantial reason to exist?

    7. The notion that Romney is better equipped to create a “flourishing economy” in the face of global economy depression caused in large part by his own party’s policies is, once again, a sort of magical thinking based merely on his having been in business and not being a Democrat. It anoints him with Ayn Randian supernatural capitalistic gifts, CEO superpowers, instead of a politician like other politicians. Which is just a Conservative version of what you accuse the Left of doing, declaring your chosen candidate to be a mystical figure, but apparently the blessing of major corporations makes this alright, it’s okay if you evoke a sort of large scale prosperity gospel to support the water-to-wealth powers of a Republican world-healer. That is the acceptable sort of economic Savior; it is okay to be a messiah as long as you are the messiah of Mammon.

    8. Evocation of Nazi Germany tends to be the last gasp of a bankrupt argument, so I am surprised to see the Holocaust reference here. But the tragedy of a large number of deaths is, well, the number of deaths. So saying that one should not vote for the candidate likely to decrease that number of deaths, especially when history shows us that banning abortion does not stop abortions, seems a bit of a reach. The fact is, the number one cause of abortion is demonstrably poverty, an issue which the Republican makes a point of only vaguely concerning itself with. Despite the fact that Republican policies have already resulted in record gaps between the richest and the poorest that continue to increase, you point to a candidate of that same party who proudly displays the vast gulf of wealth separating him from the truly impoverished as his greatest qualification to lead the Free World, and say his voodoo economics are irrelevant when considering the effects on abortion, only his unnuanced black-and-white opposition.

    To put it mildly, I think your assertions here are arguable. And personally, I disagree with your analysis.

    But I will agree that we should not vote for Jesus, but not because of the benefit or loss to our personally preference of candidate. We should not vote Jesus for president because the crass politicking of that temporary worldly office is far beneath the King of Kings. So let’s try not to elect a messiah, of either political persuasion.

    • Doug

      Bravo, Mr Forbing.

    • Tanya

      Thank you Jeremy Forbing, for caring enough and taking the time to point out in a loving way, the truth. Mr. Dalrymple is deluded and there are none so blind as those who will not see. Dalrymple’s article left me speechless with anger.

    • http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/ Kenneth W. Regan

      This Christian also says bravo. Especially since “feckless” is nothing more than a GOP talking-point word—and I very much object on Christian grounds to the pandering title No Apology of Romney’s book. Look at the current sub-title, too.

    • ToronadoBlue

      Jeremy Forbing said: ” Is abortion really the number one issue on which Christians should vote? If so, why? Are the teachings of Christ more substantial on abortion than on other issues?”

      The teachings of Christ emphasize being servants, doing unto others, seeking God’s kingdom, and taking care of the ‘least of these’. Although not specifically specified, by their very nature of being dependent on another for his/her very survival, I include the unborn in the ‘least of these’.
      In the US, we have on an annual basis ~1,200,000 abortions. That is roughly ~3200 boys and girls who are terminated everyday. That is a loss of life comparable to a 9/11 on a daily basis.
      Because of the sheer number of lives that are lost, it is an important issue for me.

  • Bobby B.

    In Illinois Obama liked to vote “present.” When Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues were under attack the President failed to show up.

    • http://www.mysite.com future

      I agree with you!

    • Jeremy Forbing

      Yes, the President trusted the expertise of security professionals charged with determining necessary personnel and resources in our hundreds of diplomatic missions. What a dereliction of duty. I am sure Governor Romney would fly to every mission himself and choose the exact details of every personnel and logistics himself, regardless of so-called “professionals” and their alleged “expertise.” And this is absolutely the issue over which we should choose a President.

      • Bobby B.

        I’d assume he’d do more that evening than review his notes in preparation for a fund raising event in Las Vegas and get a good night’s sleep.

  • Bob

    “a vote for Obama is a vote for abortion”

    No, it is NOT! It is a vote for sanity in government. It is a vote for a tax system that does not penalize the middle class to transfer even more wealth upward to the already wealthy. It is a vote against a reckless foreign policy that will likely embroil us in a catastrophic war in Iran or Syria. It is a vote for the environment. It is a vote for ensuring that programs which aid the needy are not gutted while freebies to the rich are preserved. It is a vote for education, for teachers, firefighters, policemen, and our veterans. It is against the divisive and lunatic politics of birtherism, racist dog whistles, and fat cat doners who finance so-called (although everyone knows they’re not – wink, wink) “independents superpacs. It is a vote against the reckless insanity of offshore drilling off the Virginia coastline. (You want the Atlantic coast to look like the Gulf coast? Really?) It is a vote for a grand and prosperous future for the USA.

    You single-issue voters give me a headache! There are many, many factors on which to base one’s vote – not just one. I am opposed to abortion, and have already proudly voted for Obama.

    • Timothy Dalrymple

      If I were a single-issue voter, but my single issue was the environment and it compelled me to vote for Obama, I doubt you would be so irritated.

      It’s not about focusing on a single issue to the exclusion of others, it’s about prioritizing. And while I fully understand those who differ from me on this, I do believe that the right to life is fundamental and ought to be prioritized. In this respect, I’m no different from other voters who prioritize the issue they find most important, whether it’s the environment or health care or the economy.

      I’m not the one caricaturing the opposition. You depict a cartoonish version of Romney’s policies. I’m being completely accurate: Obama is pro-choice. In fact, he’s *very* pro-choice. And placing a pro-choice politician in the presidency for another four years strengthens the abortion regime considerably, given the Supreme Court appointments that will almost certainly be his. It’s a simple logical case.

  • Tanya

    Oh please Dalrymple – a vote for Obama is a vote for abortion? I’ve never encountered such blatant manipulation and disrespect for the people as you just displayed in your last statement.

    • Timothy Dalrymple

      Really? You’ve *never* encountered it? Wow.

      It’s a simple argument, Tanya. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. Given that belief, you should be able to understand why I would prioritize this issue quite highly. You should also understand why I would not want a pro-choice politician in the White House to make (likely) several Supreme Court appointments. Can you really disagree with the statement that voting for Democrats is voting for the party that defends access to abortion? Voting for Obama strengthens the abortion regime. It’s really that simple. I understand there are other issues, and I understand other people feel differently, but I’m doing you the respect of laying it out logically.

      If you want to counter, please offer an actual argument next time.

      • matt

        “I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human being”

        I don’t think that this is true. I don’t think that you believe this. And if you do believe it, then your behavior is monstrous. If I believed that someone down the street from me was going to kill a child or an innocent human being, I would stop it from happening.

    • Sus

      But Tanya, what about all the pregnant women you know that are in hiding from Obama’s goons that come around and force them to the abortion clinic? It’s really scary! Obama wants all babies aborted. When his girls are grown up and married, no babies for them! Obama is going to make a law that all pregnancies must end in abortion.

      Timothy, I think abortion is awful. I’ll be all for banning it once all the issues around it are solved. Until then, it must remain up to the individuals in the situation to do as they want to do.

  • John Haas

    I posted this–without comment–to my facebook site (you’re welcome for the free PR).

    Comment: “This hurt my head.”

  • Matt

    Can we stop pretending Obama is all these things he is not at that he has done a good job? He cannot practice law and was never a full professor so I have no clue if he is an expert on constitutional law. He focused his studies on constitutional law, but also on illicit drugs. His plan is to raise taxes in a bad economy which is something bot Hoover and FDR did which ended badly. Bush did not have a surplus because of a recession. He lowered taxes which got us out of a recession, but his tax plan made loopholes even more onerous to the economy. Romney wants to eliminate some of these loopholes which is a good thing. Bush was able to keep the revenue and deficit levels at historical levels. Obama has not which has made the debt a big issue now. So I am glad Obama has not been able to pass stupid Green Jobs bills. Anyway, I am an under 30 voter who can use google and get passed all these stupid democratic and republican talking points. That is why I am against abortion because 1) it is murder by the fact that you are killing a person. You cannot argue otherwise, which is fine, because sometimes people need to be killed (like to defend oneself). The Democratic argument is that the baby will not live a decent life so kill it now. You are killing the child to save it from life. I find this odd because it costs Democrats tons of easy minority
    votes. I suppose the feminist vote is more important. For republicans, there is this deal with how to take care of the child. Since the government has taken over all childcare functions for single mothers, there is not much Republicans can do since they want to cut the budget. They are letting those children die in poverty instead of killing them in the womb. The actual problem is that people need to care for people as we are called by Christ. The problem is that the Government has taken over that function and both the Republicans and Democrats have be instrumental in that Welfare has increased more under Republicans than Democrats. We need America to go bankrupt to force the change back to communities. Obama will do that, but so will Romney. I am voting for Romney because he is more likely to bankrupt the country faster because Obama is an ineffectual leader who cannot get things done.

  • C.J.W.

    But, do you really believe Mr. Romney is dedicated to the right to life position?? Come on, when has he actually made this a strong point in his platform. He didn’t choose Ryan b/c he is right to life. The economy has been his almost singular focus. I actually do not plan to vote for several reasons. One is pragmatic. I live in the state of TX, which will go to Romney. If I were in a swing state, I would vote for Romney, but I do not believe he can or will do anything more than tackle economic issues. He will not address the issue of abortion in his administration nor support the anti-homosexual platform. So, I do not see how your argument for Romney is anything but ideological. Romney is no more a “savior” to US politics than Obama was spinned to us as. I wouldn’t get your hopes up.

  • Bill L. Harnist

    I believe I have seen a few of the “Vote for Jesus” lawn signs in Minneapolis, MN. I was wondering what that was all about.

  • Jeremy Forbing

    A Catholic theologian, on this election and abortion, first on Romney:
    “All the statistics show a deep correlation between abortion and economic need. More than three out of four women give economic reasons for choosing abortion, and the abortion rate is 300 percent higher among people below the poverty level than those above it.
    A fine instance of good social services reducing abortion is the Massachusetts health-care plan that Gov. Romney signed into law before his flip-flop on health care.
    It has lowered the number significantly, with a 21 percent decrease among teenagers.
    If Gov. Romney makes good on his commitment to rescind the Affordable Health Care Act, coupled with the Romney/Ryan budget proposal that slashes services to poor people, then under a Romney administration, the rate of abortions in the U.S. will skyrocket.”

    Then on Obama: “Meanwhile, President Obama has made good on the commitment that he personally had inserted into the 2008 Democratic platform (reiterated in 2012), namely to ‘strongly support a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and postnatal health care, parenting skills, income support and caring adoption programs.’
    The current Republican Platform, and certainly candidate Romney, has no such abortion-reducing commitment.
    President Obama has signed into law the Pregnancy Assistance Fund — a $250 million program that helps local organizations support vulnerable pregnant women who wish to have their babies.
    He has extended and tripled the Adoption Tax Credit and proposes making it permanent.
    He supports the Child Tax Credit, which the Romney/Ryan budget would cut. Going forward, his overall social policies and affordable health care will insure that the U.S. rate of abortions will decline significantly.
    No one could reasonably assert that my Catholic faith requires me to vote for one or another candidate in this election. However, my Catholic conscience prompts me to support President Obama as a practical strategy to reduce abortion in America.”

    I find myself quoting this column everywhere now, because it makes so much sense.

  • ToronadoBlue

    Jeremy Forbing: “However, my Catholic conscience prompts me to support President Obama as a practical strategy to reduce abortion in America.”
    –As a Christian , my conscience prompts me to support a strategy that not only reduces abortions but also to ban it. I know that even a total ban will not eliminate abortions, much as murder never ceases to exist, however I cannot support a party that sanctions that evil.

    Jeremy Forbing: “More than three out of four women give economic reasons for choosing abortion”
    –This is correct: When asked to choose several factors, ~73% of women cited financial issues for having an abortion. When asked to choose the top reason, only 21% said financial.

    Regarding the teen abortion rates in Massachusetts, it’s possible that numbers are affected by declining pregnancy rates in most age groups (except over 40 group) and the decline in abortion rates since 1983. The teen pregnancy rate has been in a general decline since 1990. There were also several other states that hard sharper declines in teen pregnancies than MA. There were 16 states that had (birth rate) declines that ranged in between 20-29%.

    As an adoptive parent I’m a strong believer in adoption and was very happy when Obama extended the adoption credit that the Bush era tax cuts enhanced. Both Romney and Obama plan to continue this for which I’m grateful.

    Jeremy Forbing: “He supports the Child Tax Credit, which the Romney/Ryan budget would cut. ”
    –Question for anyone: Would this help those in poverty who are most at risk for abortions when they are not paying taxes? Not that I’m against child tax credits, just not sure if this will affect those in poverty and abortion.

    Jeremy Forbing: “Going forward, his overall social policies and affordable health care will insure that the U.S. rate of abortions will decline significantly.”

    –Maybe. Even with very generous social programs, some countries around the world actually have higher abortion rates. Furthermore some countries with higher poverty rates have lower abortion rates. Whether these are proof of anything I don’t know because there are soo many other factors that need to be accounted for. It’s difficult to make sense of it all.

    Never the less, Romney is not my first choice to be President because he is not as prolife as I’d like, but it goes against every ounce of my faith to support a party that allows child-murder to be legal.

  • ToronadoBlue

    CORRECTION: There were 16 states that had (TEEN birth rate) declines that ranged in between 20-29%.

  • Melinda

    I’m a Christian. I would never vote for a Mormon for President. We did not vote for Romney yet I would have voted for most any other republican over Obama. Get off of abortion. I have had one and so have many of my Christian friends. There is something called a First Amendment. If your “religion” prevents you from having an abortion, then don’t have one. But get your darn religion off of me and my choices. God is and has always been Pro-Choice. Stop trying to “rule and reign” over someone else. Get your own house in order. I am a doctor specializing in reproduction. Life does NOT begin at conception. There is way too much science to support it. God is concerned with when your Spiritual life begins. So go get a life and stop meddling in everyone else’s.

    • ToronadoBlue

      You can’t be a christian and pro-choice.

      What would Jesus say about this:

      1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s leg with forceps.
      2. The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
      3. The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.
      4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
      5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The baby’s brains are then sucked out and the head is removed from the womb, completing the procedure.

      “And he [Jesus] took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, ‘Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.’ ” (Mark 9:36)

  • Bob Was Here

    A vote for jesus is only a vote for obama if you were planning to vote for romney otherwise. I voted for jesus and I wanted Obama to win, so my vote for Jesus was actually a vote for Romney.