Sen. John McCain’s Record on Life Revisited
A Response to Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com

November 3, 2008

by Wesley Strackbein and Bob Renaud, Vision Forum Staff

---

Last week, Vision Forum Ministries published an article entitled, “Sen. John McCain’s Position on Abortion: Setting the Record Straight,” wherein we chronicled the Republican presidential nominee’s checkered record on the sanctity of life. Our conclusion, which we devoted detailed documentation to support, was as follows:

Should Sen. John McCain be elected as the next president of the United States, he will not be a champion for the life of the unborn. While he recently stated that he believes life begins “at the moment of conception,” based on his past record and statements on the life issue, Sen. McCain will not actively seek to overturn Roe v. Wade; will appoint pro-abortion judges, if he deems them otherwise qualified; will continue to support embryonic stem cell research; and will seek to undermine the Republican Party Platform’s pro-life plank which opposes abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.^[1]

In introducing this article, we identified a serious concern that we had with other pro-life conservative leaders and organizations who had buried or sought to minimize a number of critical elements of Sen. McCain’s record to make him appear as a more committed defender for unborn life than he really is. Among those, we named Steve Ertelt, editor of LifeNews.com, who, just two days prior to the publication of our article, used the same term “buried” to suggest that, amidst the furor of discussion surrounding Sen. Obama’s pro-abortion views, Sen. McCain’s true-blue pro-life colors had been obscured. Mr. Ertelt argued that John McCain’s buried “record speaks volumes” and shows him to be a “strong” pro-life candidate.^[2]

The “buried” evidence that we brought to light demonstrated that the exact opposite is true: Sen. McCain is no champion for the right to life, and “his past record and recent claims offer no confidence that he will do anything to advance the ethic of life as president of the United States.”^[3]

Since the publication of our article, Mr. Ertelt has posted responses on several blogs,^[4] along with another article, entitled, “Pro-Life Voters Must Back McCain to Stop Abortion,” on his LifeNews.com website.^[5]

Regrettably, in his two follow-up articles, Mr. Ertelt has chosen to gloss over some of the most critical evidence we have delineated. At others points, he has offered poorly-defended assertions in an attempt to undercut our claims. A response to Mr. Ertelt is thus in order.

The purpose of this article is three-fold: first, to demonstrate that Mr. Ertelt’s response to our article failed to address the substance of our concerns regarding Sen. McCain’s checkered record on the sanctity of human life; second, that Mr. Ertelt has violated the trust of his more than 250,000-person constituency^[6] by burying salient facts concerning the Senator’s equivocation in defending life; and third, to offer some practical and theological considerations that we would urge the body of Christ to consider in preparing to vote in tomorrow’s election.

Pro-life Leaders Troubled by McCain’s Record

In our initial article, we established that prior to McCain’s 2008 nomination as the Republican standard-bearer for President, some of America’s most significant pro-life leaders and organizations voiced serious concern over Sen. McCain’s spotty record on the sanctity of human life. We noted Dr. James Dobson’s strong declarations toward this end and the statement the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) issued in 2000 warning their constituency that support for Sen. McCain could damage the pro-life movement:

On February 20, 2000, the National Right to Life Committee published a hard-hitting exposé entitled, “How John McCain Threatens the Pro-Life Cause.” In this article, they documented Sen. McCain’s “disrespect for the pro-life movement” and pointed out that — at the time — Sen. McCain was publicly championing his “17-year voting record,” even as he had taken active steps to undermine the integrity of the pro-life cause.^[7]

In this same 2000 report, the NRLC stated that “[i]n response to criticism from NRLC and its affiliates” of his pro-life record, the Arizona senator had employed a “diversionary tactic, intended to evade close scrutiny of the inadequacies of McCain’s pro-life positions.”^[8]

In responding to our article, Mr. Ertelt essentially urged readers to believe that this was the “Old McCain” — that, in 2008, we now have a “New McCain” who is more trustworthy when it comes to defending human life. Mt. Ertelt argued that while Sen. McCain’s commitment on life and the reversal of Roe v. Wade was “tenuous” a decade ago, he “proved his pro-life credentials when he voted against a resolution honoring Roe that the Senate hoped to attach to the partial-birth abortion ban.”^[9]

Is Sen. McCain Really a “Forceful Pro-Life” Advocate?

If Sen. McCain “saw the light” in 2003, as Mr. Ertelt has suggested, how does this explain Sen. McCain’s subsequent vote in 2005 in favor of H.R. 3010, which gave tens of millions of dollars to fund Planned Parenthood and Medicaid-sponsored abortions through Title X, evidence from our article that Mr. Ertelt has altogether ignored? How does this explain his ongoing support of abortion — expressed this very year — in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother?^[10]

Moreover, in Mr. Ertelt’s October 29 follow up article, “Pro-Life Voters Must Back McCain to Stop Abortion,” he acknowledged that Sen. McCain has not always been the most outspoken advocate for life; but, he maintained that when the senator “does talk about pro-life issues, he has been forceful.”^[11]

This statement sounds good on the surface, but how does it explain the weak comment that Sen. McCain made during the Republican presidential debate when he suggested that Congress acted “too hastily” in seeking to save Terri Schiavo’s life in March 2005?^[12]

In raising the Terri Schiavo case, we want to make it clear that we applaud Mr. Ertelt’s strident defense of Mrs. Schiavo’s life three years ago and commend him for devoting more than 120 articles on his LifeNews.com website to our generation’s defining pro-life battle. Yet did Mr. Ertelt somehow miss Sen. McCain’s shaky defense of Terri Schiavo in all of his research? Was he not aware of the details of Sen. McCain’s equivocation chronicled on LifeSiteNews.com in an article by fellow pro-lifer Peter J. Smith entitled, “Republican Candidates Romney, Giuliani, McCain Repudiate Government Effort to Save Terri Schiavo”?

On this point, it is important to note that Mr. Ertelt himself highlighted Sen. Obama’s flip-flip on the very same Senate vote in his February 26, 2008, article, “Barack Obama Would Take Back Vote Helping Terri Schiavo Avoid Euthanasia.”^[13] And — in the run-up to next Tuesday’s election — Mr. Ertelt reminded his readers on October 29 of Obama’s repudiation of his 2005 Senate vote. Yet, in the very same article, Mr. Ertelt made no mention of Sen. McCain’s statement questioning the very same Senate vote. ^[14]

Why the silence on Sen. McCain’s equivocation? Why does Mr. Ertelt believe that Sen. Obama’s flip-flip on Terri Schiavo is relevant to his pro-life readers, while Sen. McCain’s is not? Moreover, how does Sen. McCain’s backpedaling on his vote to intervene on Mrs. Schiavo’s behalf accord with Mr. Ertelt’s idea of a “forceful” defense of the sanctity of human life? Does not this evidence militate against the “pro-life credentials” which Mr. Ertelt claims that Sen. McCain proved “when he voted against a resolution honoring Roe” back in 2003?

Weakening the Republican Party Platform

In our previous article, we documented Sen. John McCain’s well-known and longstanding desire to weaken the Republican Party platform on the sanctity of life. Sen. McCain was particularly vocal about his disdain for the platform’s lack of exceptions for abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother in a 2000 televised debate with then-Gov. George W. Bush hosted by Larry King.^[15] In a separate interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer during the 2000 election cycle, Sen. McCain remarked:

I think that we can all be members of the Republican Party whether we are pro-choice or pro-life.... I think that we must go back to party platform of 1980 and 84 [and] we include people who have this specific disagreement.^[16]

In our previous article, we highlighted testimony by Sen. McCain from earlier this year which reaffirmed his desire to see the Republican Party platform’s sanctity of life plank weakened, as reported in an August 30, 2008, New York Times article:

Mr. McCain argued strongly in 2000 for the platform to include the abortion exceptions. He affirmed that position as recently as May [of 2008], in an interview with Glamour magazine...

“My position has always been: exceptions of rape, incest and the life of the mother,” he said. Asked if he would encourage the party to include them in the platform, he said, “Yes,” adding: “And by the way, I think that’s the view of most people, that rape, incest, the life of the mother are issues that have to be considered.”^[17]

In his response, Mr. Ertelt dismissed our evidence of McCain’s efforts to weaken the Republican platform and simply stated:

The authors claim McCain has actively worked to strike the language from the platform that calls for a human life amendment to include rape and incest exceptions. They ignore that McCain gave his approval for the GOP platform to keep the same pro-life language it has had for decades.^[18]

But is this the complete story? Emphatically not.

According to Republicans for Choice — a pro-abortion organization that endorsed Sen. McCain in February 2008 and who had representatives present at the Republican Party Platform Hearing held in Minneapolis this August — Sen. McCain’s staff sought to weaken the platform plank on the sanctity of life by promoting more inclusive language that this pro-abortion group had proposed. And, while their efforts failed due to the fact that “many of the Delegates on that Committee were not McCain Delegates — they were Huckabee and Romney et al Delegates,”^[19] the Republicans for Choice claimed McCain’s cooperation with them as a victory — touting it as the “first” time that a Republican presidential campaign had sought to advance their agenda during a GOP platform proceeding. A statement on the official Republicans for Choice website reads:

Today the sub-committee on the Platform on Crime/Values considered historic language, suggested by Republicans For Choice, that the Party work with those who disagree on the Plank on abortion both within the Party and across party lines to find real positive and pro-active solutions to reduce abortion. This is the first time any GOP Presidential campaign has worked with the pro-choice elements with whom they disagree to try and broaden the Party’s position on abortion. The McCain campaign did not control enough votes on the committee to stop them from stripping this historic language out of the Platform. But this is a step forward.^[20]

Was Mr. Ertelt aware of this activity on the part of Sen. McCain’s staff to undermine the pro-life plank of the Republican Party Platform in August — evidence for which is prominently displayed on the Republicans for Choice website? If so, why the slippery response to our concerns on Sen. McCain’s long-stated desire to weaken the platform’s plank on life? Is Mr. Ertelt prepared to say that our concerns were unfounded? How could it be that this information — along with Sen. McCain’s acknowledgment that he acted “too hastily” in voting to save Terri Schiavo’s life — got overlooked?

Mr. Ertelt owes the pro-life community a clear explanation for this glaring omission.

Support for “Otherwise Qualified” Supreme Court Justices

In our previous article, we pointed out that Sen. McCain has supported the appointments of pro-abortion judges such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer and that he recently stated that he would be willing to appoint pro-abortion judges as president, so long as they met basic “qualifications.” Mr. Ertelt responded as follows:

What does McCain want? He’s laid that out very consistently over and over again that he wants judges in the mold of the pro-life ones who have already said Roe must be overturned.

To support his claim, Mr. Ertelt cited his own February 7, 2008, article wherein Sen. McCain is quoted as saying:

A president should have confidence in the judicial philosophy of those he is appointing to the bench. That is why I strongly supported John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court and that is why I would seek men and women like them as my judicial appointees.^[21]

In addition, Sen. McCain made similar statements during interviews with CBNNews^[22] and Pastor Rick Warren.^[23]

Viewed in isolation, these statements seem to support the conclusion that Sen. McCain does indeed intend to appoint judges who are strict constructionists committed to defending the right to life — federal judges who, if given the opportunity, would overturn Roe in keeping with a plain reading of the U.S. Constitution.

In his response, however, Mr. Ertelt failed to acknowledge substantial evidence to the contrary that we put forward in our article, most notably, Sen. McCain’s remarks that he made to CBS’ Bob Schieffer during the third presidential debate just two weeks ago. In the interest of bringing further clarity on this point, consider a lengthy portion of the October 15 debate transcript:

SCHIEFFER: Senator McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Senator Obama, you believe it shouldn’t.

Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue? Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: I would never and have never in all the years I’ve been there imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court. That’s not appropriate to do.

SCHIEFFER: But you don’t want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

MCCAIN: I thought it was a bad decision. I think there were a lot of decisions that were bad. I think that decisions should rest in the hands of the states. I’m a federalist. And I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test....

I voted for Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg. Not because I agreed with their ideology, but because I thought they were qualified and that elections have consequences when presidents are nominated. This is a very important issue we’re talking about....

I will find the best people in the world — in the United States of America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution. And not legislating from the bench.

SCHIEFFER: But even if it was someone — even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?

MCCAIN: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.^[24]

In contrast to his statements offered to more conservative interviewers such as CBNNews and Pastor Rick Warren, Sen. McCain’s remarks to CBS’s Bob Schieffer less than three weeks before Election Day more clearly reveal his philosophy for the appointment of federal judges. Specifically, we learn that Sen. McCain would not make the right to life — a foundational doctrine enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments — a standard for his appointees — he would consider appointing judges “who had a history of being for abortion rights,” so long as they were otherwise “qualified.” And we further learn that he voted for pro-abortion appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer because he deemed them “qualified.” Based on this testimony, we can find no confidence to conclude that Sen. McCain would abstain from appointing pro-abortion judges to serve on the federal bench.

Sadly, a search of the LifeNews.com archives revealed no article that made any reference whatsoever to Sen. McCain’s telling remarks to Bob Schieffer on October 15 concerning the senator’s judicial philosophy. Did these statements made during this debate that was watched by an estimated 56.5 million viewers^[25] somehow escape the notice of Mr. Ertelt and his staff? Or were they “buried” along with the other previously documented omissions?

Sen. McCain’s Lack of Resolve to Overturn Roe

Arguably, Mr. Ertelt’s failure to even mention Sen. McCain’s comments in the third presidential debate is the most troubling omission we have discussed so far. Why? Because Sen. McCain’s statements on October 15 highlight a fundamental misconception that has been proffered by conservative leaders; namely, that, within the constitutional boundaries that would be afforded him as our nation’s Chief Executive, John McCain would make the overturning of Roe v. Wade a priority if elected President. This notion, however, is ill-founded.

Please follow these next points carefully: Much ado has been made about Sen. McCain’s repeated statements that he would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

We reported in our previous article, however, that, while Sen. McCain has stated on multiple occasions (including 1999 interviews with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer^[26] and the San Francisco Chronicle ^[27]) that he would “ultimately ... like to see the repeal of Roe v. Wade,” he believes that “to do it immediately ... would condemn young women to dangerous and illegal operations.”

Sen. McCain’s apologists counter that it has been eight years since Sen. McCain has made such explicit caveats concerning what the timetable should be in overturning Roe. The suggestion advanced by Mr. Ertelt and others is that the “tenuous” Sen. McCain of two presidential campaigns ago is now a Sen. McCain “resolved” in his commitment to repeal Roe. After all, they argue, Sen. McCain now has a multi-year track record of calling for the overturning of Roe without making disparaging comments about forcing women to “[undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”^[28] To quote Mr. Ertelt, “McCain has...consistently championed the reversal of Roe v. Wade in recent years. The senator has come around fully on this issue.”^[29]

Yet Sen. McCain’s comments to Bob Schieffer during the October 15 presidential debate raise a larger question that must be squarely answered: If Sen. John McCain will not pledge to appoint pro-life judges — something he has plainly refused to do — just how then should we expect Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

The matter is really quite simple: For Roe to be repealed, five of nine Supreme Court justices would have vote to strike it down. If Sen. McCain will make no clear commitment to change the balance of the Supreme Court on the abortion issue by appointing justices explicitly committed to upholding the constitutionally-protected right to life, why should we believe that a McCain presidency would hasten Roe v. Wade’s demise? To advance such a notion is illogical.

In sum, the idea that the “senator has come around fully”^[30] on repealing Roe is misinformation. Though Sen. McCain has repeatedly stated that he wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned, his words ring hollow in light of his unwillingness to commit as president to decisive action that would promote this outcome. To say that Sen. McCain has “championed the reversal of Roe v. Wade”^[31] when he has refused to lead the way to bring it about is sheer doubletalk.

Exceptions for Rape, Incest and the Life of the Mother

In his response to our article, Mr. Ertelt acknowledged Sen. McCain’s compromise in supporting abortion in the case of rape and incest, stating, “Yes, McCain supports abortions in the very rare cases of rape and incest — something I and LifeNews.com strenuously oppose.”^[32] (Curiously, Mr. Ertelt neglects to mention McCain’s “life of the mother” exception highlighted in our article — an exception open to a much broader interpretation than the others.)

We have two key questions in evaluating Mr. Ertelt’s treatment of this issue. The first is this: If, as Mr. Ertelt has argued, Sen. McCain “proved his pro-life credentials when he voted against a resolution honoring Roe that the Senate hoped to attach to the partial-birth abortion ban [in 2003],” then how does this explain the senator’s ongoing support of murdering unborn children who were conceived under tragic circumstances? If Sen. McCain believes that life begins “at the moment of conception,” as he told Rick Warren during his Saddleback interview,^[33] then how could he support the shedding of the innocent blood of these helpless little ones?

Following the publication of our initial article on Sen. Cain’s abortion record, Mr. Ertelt published an article entitled, “Pro-Life Voters Must Back McCain to Stop Abortion,” in which he makes no mention of Sen. McCain’s pro-abortion position in these cases. What Mr. Erfelt did say was this:

In John McCain, the pro-life community has a candidate who has not agreed with us on every point [referencing Mr. McCain’s support of embryonic stem cell research] but has been rock solid on the issue of abortion.^[34]

Our second question is this: What definition of “rock solid on the issue of abortion” is Mr. Ertelt operating from? If he believes that someone can support abortion with these exceptions and still be “rock solid on abortion,” then why does he and LifeNews.com “strenuously oppose” them? Moreover, if Mr. Ertelt does believe that a person can be “rock solid on abortion” and support these exceptions, what harm would there be in informing the more than 250,000 pro-life advocates who receive his e-mails and follow his website weekly about this issue?^[35] Does he think that such a news item would be of no consequence to them as they considered for whom to vote on November 4?

What’s more, the omission on this point is not limited to Mr. Ertelt’s October 29 article. Coverage of Sen. McCain’s support of abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother on LifeNews.com is no where to be found. While Sen. McCain has held to this position for well over a decade, we found not one single news story or editorial commentary (through Google and site searches on LifeNews.com) on LifeNews.com that addressed his pro-abortion stance in these circumstances. Based on our research, it appears that the issue has simply been ignored.

As “an independent news agency specifically devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community,”^[36] LifeNews.com — over which Mr. Ertelt presides as editor and CEO — has let pro-life advocates down by not at least reporting the news of Sen. McCain’s checkered record on these exceptions.

Given Mr. Ertelt’s many years of leadership in the pro-life arena, it strains credulity to argue that he has been unaware of Sen. McCain’s record of support for abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. In fact, following publication of our recent article documenting Sen. McCain’s record last Tuesday, Mr. Ertelt acknowledged the senator’s support for abortion in case of rape and incest to a small blog audience. Yet he continued to tell his large constituency nothing of it, even brazenly advancing the notion that the Republican nominee was “rock solid on the issue of abortion.”^[37]

As with his other omissions, Mr. Ertelt owes the pro-life community a clear explanation as to why he has chosen to bury this information.

Wishful Thinking on Support for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

In view of the concerns we raised over Sen. McCain’s vocal support of embryonic stem cell research, Mr. Ertelt responded fairly and readily acknowledged that Sen. McCain supports this anti-life practice.

This being said, Mr. Ertelt is nonetheless urging Christians to vote for Sen. McCain with the hope that he will change his views on this heinous practice sometime in the future.^[38] While there may be some evidence to suggest that the senator is open to reconsidering his position on embryonic stem cell research, since when was it wise to choose a candidate by assuming they might later stop holding to a policy that we abhor?

If Sen. McCain supported euthanizing the elderly, but was open to receive input by respected pro-life leaders to reconsider his view, would we urge voters to cross their fingers and support him anyway? To what end do we take this logic?

What’s Campaign Finance Reform Got to Do with It?

In our previous article, we explained that, “The National Life to Life Committee’s current characterization of Sen. McCain’s record stands in stark contradiction to the NRLC’s previous findings wherein they documented significant problems with Sen. McCain’s stance on the life issue.” We contrasted NRLC’s February 20, 2000 hard-hitting exposé, “How John McCain Threatens the Pro-Life Cause” — wherein they warned voters that support for Sen. McCain would undermine the pro-life movement — with their 2008 support for him as a strong “pro-lifer.”

Mr. Ertelt’s response to this issue is most curious:

I do not speak for the organization and it can represent its own views, but I would point out that NRLC said in its own endorsement of McCain that any disagreement about campaign finance reform is MUCH less important than the agreement that 1.2 million abortions a year is a travesty. Surely the authors would agree on that point^[39]

A simple review of our previous article reveals that we said not a word about campaign finance reform in describing the NRLC’s turnabout on Sen. McCain, limiting our comments strictly to the abortion issue. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, we have never addressed campaign finance reform on our website or in any of our other publications.

In all candor, Mr. Ertelt’s raising of campaign finance reform in the context of his response is a red herring to this discussion and does not deal fairly with our arguments. Campaign finance reform, while not unimportant, pales in significance to the sanctity of human life, and no one is suggesting otherwise. Waving this distraction in front of readers does nothing to address our core concern with the NRLC: They previously claimed that Sen. McCain was not to be trusted on the issue of life, and now they are glowingly endorsing him as a solid “pro-lifer.”

For Mr. Ertelt to find success in defending his fellow pro-life advocates, he must employ arguments that are germane to the points we raised. As with every other point we have discussed so far in this article, he has fallen short in addressing our concerns.

Is There a Such Thing as “Rock Solid... with Exceptions”?

Mr. Ertelt has gone to great lengths in his response to our article to point out that Sen. Obama’s advocacy of abortion is far more extreme than Sen. McCain’s support of abortion in some cases. On this we agree.

To their credit, Mr. Ertelt and his staff at LifeNews.com have done an excellent job in documenting Sen. Obama’s strident pro-abortion views, and we applaud them for doing so.

Also, it is fair to say that Sen. McCain has voted for positive pro-life legislation in some notable cases (the Partial Birth Abortion ban, for example)^[40]. It is worth noting, though, that some of Sen. McCain’s so-called “pro-life” votes to which LifeNews.com refers concede the premise of abortion’s legality. (Parental notification laws, for example, concede the fundamental presupposition that life must be protected, giving the grandparents of the unborn child the final say on whether the child will live or die.)

Mr. Ertelt and his staff have also highlighted particular bills where Sen. McCain voted against funding for abortions. This is objectively true.

What is not true, however, is Mr. Ertelt’s contention that Sen. John McCain is “rock solid on the issue of abortion.”^[41] Such a claim is preposterous in view of a fair examination of the facts. In short, Mr. Ertelt has done a gross disservice to the pro-life community by seeking to portray Sen. McCain to be something that he emphatically is not: a reliable standard-bearer for the pro-life cause.

As we have documented, Mr. Ertelt has buried a host of key facts concerning Sen. McCain’s record against life and in favor of abortion, including:

• his 2005 support of funding for Planned Parenthood and Medicaid-sponsored abortions through Title X;^[42]
• his longstanding and unequivocal support of abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother;
• his staff’s behind-the-scenes efforts to weaken the Republican Platform’s sanctity of life plank in August of this year;
• his waffling on his 2005 vote to intervene on Terri Schiavo’s behalf; and
• his willingness — despite all of the senator’s rhetoric to want to see “Roe v. Wade overturned” — to support pro-abortion judges.

As we noted previously, for Roe to be repealed, at least five of the nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court would have to vote to strike it down. If Sen. McCain will make no clear commitment to change the balance of the Supreme Court on the abortion issue by appointing judges who will uphold the constitutional right to life, his words ring hollow. To say with Mr. Ertelt that Sen. McCain has “championed the reversal of Roe v. Wade,” when the senator has refused to commit to decisive action that would move America closer to this outcome, is both illogical and misleading.

Why Suppress the Whole Truth from Conscientious Pro-Lifers?

In Mr. Ertelt’s response to our October 27 article, he stated the following:

Fortunately, the authors do not engage in the ad hominem attacks by claiming we are not pro-life.... Ultimately, their pro-life viewpoint is obvious as well as their desire to protect unborn children. As is ours. While we disagree on McCain’s worthiness and political strategy, we vehemently agree on the end goal, and that is babies deserve complete and total legal protection from the time of conception forward.^[43]

Our position toward Mr. Ertelt is reciprocal. We sincerely believe that he wants to see abortion end and life protected in America. We in no way question his heart on this point. Nor do we demand that he agree with us on every point of our political outlook. Good men can, and do, disagree. And they can do so in the Lord. We respect leaders who see things differently than us — even on issues as controversial as this debate.

Yet what we frankly find shameful is the lack of intellectual honesty and forthrightness that Mr. Ertelt has shown in reporting on something as important as a presidential candidate’s record on the core issue LifeNews.com is devoted to defend — the sanctity of human life.

Hundreds of thousands of pro-life advocates across America look to Mr. Ertelt every week for leadership in the battle for life. They depend on his word in light of the position of respect he has earned after thirteen years of diligent service in this arena (a position we recognize and give due honor in considering). Tens of thousands of families — faithful fathers and loving mothers who cherish life and want to see the unborn protected — along with single men and women who care about precious unborn lives, follow LifeNews.com’s regular reports to stay informed and better equipped to play their part in the battle to defend the sanctity of life.

To whom much is given, much is required (Luke 12:48), and we believe that Mr. Ertelt has violated the trust of his constituency by burying salient facts about Sen. John McCain’s checkered record on the sanctity of human life. Our prayer is simply this: that Mr. Ertelt will recognize this error and take the necessary steps to restore his credibility.

Why the Coverup?

In considering Mr. Ertelt’s failure to report Sen. McCain’s equivocation on the sanctity of human life, we must ask ourselves this: What would compel such a well-intentioned leader of the pro-life movement to avoid reporting information he knows to be true? In asking this question, it is important to reiterate: We do not question Mr. Ertelt’s sincerity to end abortion, yet we believe it appropriate to offer an observation that could shed helpful light on this perplexing issue.

In our interactions with Christians around the country and in responses to materials published by Vision Forum Ministries, we have seen a widespread fear of the prospect of Sen. Barack Obama becoming the next president of the United States. As Mr. Ertelt writes:

For the pro-life community, stopping an Obama presidency is absolutely vital to giving any hope to unborn children that Roe will be reversed and the pro-life protections we have fought so hard for during the last 35 years will stay on the books.^[44]

Driven by the desire to defeat strident pro-abortionist Sen. Obama at any cost, we have seen a willingness to sugar-coat Sen. McCain’s record on the sanctity of life in order not to diminish enthusiasm for the McCain candidacy among principled and well-intentioned pro-lifers. The thinking seems to be that that if the committed pro-life grassroots knew of Sen. McCain’s inconsistencies and compromises on the issue of the sanctity of life, they may be less likely to show up at the polls on Election Day, and it may be more likely that Sen. Obama is elected.

To Mr. Ertelt, the choice comes down to a simple, utilitarian calculus. While a McCain administration would sanction the death of x number of children through abortion, under an Obama presidency, this number would likely be much higher. Writes Mr. Ertelt:

[W]e have an election featuring a candidate who supports 100% of abortions (Obama) and one who opposes 99% (McCain).... Undoubtedly it would be nice to protect every single baby from every single abortion and to do so immediately. But Strackbein and Renaud literally throw the baby out with the bathwater by adopting the notion that only candidates with perfect pro-life positions are worthy of support against candidates who will keep 100% of abortions legal for decades. Certainly it would be better to have a candidate who opposes 100% of abortions ... but we don’t have those options. Ending the abortions that happen on 99% of babies matter to those babies and forsaking stopping those abortions for the pursuit of the perfect is morally bankrupt. Certainly we can agree we should save the 99% if we can and get the job done with the rest later rather than putting off saving any unborn children by waiting for the perfect candidate.^[45]

While Mr Ertelt offers no evidence to sustain that Sen. McCain opposes 99% of abortions (this number appears way too high), he nonetheless admits that McCain supports some abortions and argues that we must vote for him as the lesser of two evils. And, yet, to convince conservative voters who have a conscience concerning the sanctity of human life to cast a vote for Sen. McCain, we must do our best to whitewash his blemishes, even as we seek to villianize his Democratic opponent.

Before considering the lesser-of-two-evils argument in particular, we would simply state this concerning Ertelt’s tactics: His efforts to mislead his constituents concerning Sen. McCain’s pro-life record are unacceptable. He owes the truth to those who depend on him for information on this pivotal issue, not carefully-crafted subterfuge. While Dr. James Dobson has decided of late to lend his support to Sen. McCain, he has had the integrity to point out the Republican nominee’s significant flaws and the serious problems that he presents to the Christian community.^[46]

Such candor is what is required for a man in Mr. Ertelt’s position. If he wants to advance a lesser-of-two-evils argument, he should be willing to delineate the “lesser evils” of the candidate he has chosen to support just as readily as he reports the “greater evils” of his counterpart whom he opposes — and then let his constituents decide before God how best to cast their vote.

May Christians Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

Sen. Barack Obama’s ardent support of abortion is evil. Yet Sen. John McCain’s less active support of abortion is evil as well. While Sen. McCain’s advocacy for abortion is less pronounced than his opponent, he nonetheless condones the shedding of innocent blood in some circumstances — something God Almighty abhors (Proverbs 16:16-17).

In view of this fact, many well-thinking Christians have asked this important question: Should we vote for the lesser-of-two-evils in this circumstance? If we believe Sen. Obama will vociferously promote abortion, while Sen. McCain will be less of an advocate for the murder of the innocent, should we cast our vote for the latter?

To answer this question rightly, we must turn to God’s Word, the ultimate source of authority that gives us everything we need for life and practice — including a theory of ethics on how we should approach choosing civil magistrates:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

In considering our duties at the ballot box, we cannot appeal to our human autonomy in deciding this question; we must bow our knees to God’s inscripturated Revelation. William Einwechter states the matter succinctly, “In voting, the question is not, ‘What makes the most sense to me?’ but rather, ‘What does God’s Word require of me?’”

In short, whatever God says goes. To quote the prophet Moses, “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” (Deuteronomy 12:32).

So just what are the biblical requirements for choosing civil rulers? To explore this question in detail, we would urge you to examine William Einwechter’s excellent article, “Biblical Standards for Choosing Civil Magistrates.” For the purpose of this discussion, we offer these brief thoughts.

Exodus 18:21 is among the primary biblical texts that establish the requirements for choosing magistrates:

Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

One of the chief qualifications for rulers found in this passage is that they “fear God.” Elsewhere, King David affirms: “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God” (2 Samuel 23:3).

How do we know if a respective ruler fears the Lord? Among the most important indicators are these: that he hates evil (Proverbs 8:13) and is committed to executing justice as God prescribes (Romans 13:3-4; Psalm 82:1-4; Jeremiah 22:1-3; 7:4-7).

One of God’s primary mandates to civil rulers is to protect the shedding of innocent blood (Deuteronomy 19:10; Exodus 23:7) and to punish those who take life unlawfully (Genesis 9:6; Deuteronomy 19:13) so that evil will be purged out of the land.

A God-fearing ruler will hate what God abhors — including the murder of the innocent (Proverbs 16:16-17), and he will not hesitate to use every means within his duly-constituted power to protect the lives of the defenseless (Proverbs 24:11-12).

Civil rulers who support the shedding of innocent blood invite God’s judgment upon a nation (2 Kings 21:2-4; 24:2-4) and should expect His wrath as punishment (Psalm 106:37-42).

Being mindful of these truths, our nation’s founders wisely recognized the right to life as an inalienable right in our Declaration of Independence, and the framers of our Constitution affirmed this same principle in the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution sought to further protect this inalienable right.

The legal sanctioning of abortion as well as embryonic stem cell research directly violates our nation’s charter documents, but more important than this, these heinous practices violate the fundamental order that God established for His creation and commanded civil rulers to oppose in their jurisdictional posts as God’s ministers of justice (Romans 13:3-4; Jeremiah 22:1-3; 7:4-7).

What then of the lesser-of-two-evils argument? If only two candidates appear to have a reasonable chance of gaining the presidency, should we support the one whose advocacy of the evil practice of abortion is likely to lead to fewer unborn babies killed?

The answer is no, for God holds men accountable for how they steward their individual vote — whether or not they cast it for a biblically-qualified candidate — not for the outcome of an election.

Man’s whole duty is to fear God and keep His commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). We are thus not permitted to break His law in seeking to influence the outcome of an election, even when we believe that our vote could “save more lives.” The Almighty Sovereign governs the affairs of men and nations (Daniel 4:34-35; Ephesians 1:11; Isaiah 46:9-11); and it is He, not finite voters, Who ultimately raises up and brings down the rulers He wills should rule (Daniel 4:17, 25, 32; Psalm 75:6-7), whether they be good (Psalm 78:66-72) or evil (Exodus 9:14-15).

When it comes to our vote in an election, the standard is clear: Duty is ours; the results are God’s. Voting for a lesser-of-two-evils candidate is not a lawful option for us to pursue. God will raise up whom He wills; let us trust Him to decide the election as He deems best.

While their advocacy varies by degrees, both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain support abortion in some circumstances and are thus disqualified from receiving our vote to serve as rulers in the civil realm. Neither man “fears God,” and neither man should receive the support of God-fearing Christians.

Might abortions increase if Sen. Obama is elected as America’s next president? Quite possibly. But as believers, we must fear God more than man. We must fear violating the standards established by our great Creator in how we cast our vote even more than we fear the potential results of a Barack Obama presidency.

Such is our duty before the Lord.

Conclusion

We have spilled a good deal of ink to expose Steven Ertelt’s cover up of Sen. John McCain’s betrayal of innocent life, as well as to sketch out a biblical response to the lesser-of-two-evils argument. The reason for this effort is simple: We believe that it is important for Christians to be equipped to make wise and biblical decisions in tomorrow’s presidential election.

More than anything else, we want the people of God to trust and obey Christ rather than compromise in how they discharge their duties. Our president, Doug Phillips, has summarized the issue quite well:

[O]ur macro concern is far less for the outcome of the election, and far more with the conscience of the Christian community.... When Christians say that a candidate is pro-life who funds and favors some baby murders — we have conceded the debate, sold our souls to partisanship, and mortgaged our children’s freedoms on the altar of temporary political expediency.^[47]

In closing, we note to voters that there is one God-fearing presidential candidate in this election who is pro-life with no exceptions: Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. While his showing at the polls will likely be small, he is a man for whom Christians can cast their vote with a clear conscience before the Lord.

May God’s will be done in tomorrow’s election. May He raise up the righteous and bring down the wicked as He sees fit.

“Wait on the LORD, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it.” (Psalm 37:34)