- - Monday, August 24, 2020

This is an election season unlike those in the past, but more than anything else, it is a time when Americans will make a decision between two philosophies for the future of this country. 

On Nov. 3, voters will not only elect a candidate, but they will also decide the role government should play when it comes to morality and individual freedom. The two parties vary widely when it comes to this area, and there is no policy that makes this dichotomy more obvious than that of abortion.  

Americans are not as resolute on the legal status of abortion as some in the media and popular culture would like them to believe. According to a study by the Pew Research Center, “Though abortion is a divisive issue, more than half of U.S. adults take a non-absolutist position, saying that in most — but not all — cases, abortion should be legal (34%) or illegal (26%). Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be either legal (27%) or illegal (12%).”

In this election, voters should look at the reasoning behind a candidate’s stance on abortion rather than simply whether or not they are pro-life or pro-choice. Many Americans find themselves in the middle of this issue, and they should be fully aware that the Democratic ticket increasingly does not align with a centrist view. 

In recent years, prominent figures in the Democratic Party have not only supported less limitations on abortion, but ultimately, they have promoted a worldview that will lead to a destructive cycle on how to value a human life. 

When it comes to the presidential election, Joe Biden’s nomination of Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate made his radical position on abortion clear. The American people need look no further than Ms. Harris’ stance on abortion to see how they will govern.  

Kamala Harris voted twice against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, the sole purpose of which is to provide medical care to infants who survive an abortion. This is a radical position on its own, but her views on states’ rights and personal liberty are more alarming.

She was a co-sponsor for the Women’s Health Protection Act, which “would invalidate any and all state-level protections for unborn children after the point of viability — indeed, up until birth.” According to National Review, “The legislation would also make it impossible for states to enact or enforce informed-consent laws and waiting-period requirements, which have often been upheld by courts as permissible under our current abortion jurisprudence.” 

While she was attorney general of California, Ms. Harris targeted pro-life activist and investigative journalist David Daleiden after the release of his videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s illegal practice of selling body parts of aborted infants. Ms. Harris met with Planned Parenthood executives two weeks before ordering a raid on the pro-life whistleblower’s home. 

According to Mr. Daleiden’s attorneys, the search warrant for the raid “should have never been issued according to California’s shield law, which explicitly protects citizen journalists’ unpublished materials.” 

Ms. Harris’ agenda on abortion would dismantle the ability for states and individuals to decide how far is too far, for each community to make a decision on where they morally stand on this topic. Even people who are pro-choice should be wary of Ms. Harris’ tactics when it comes to promoting her positions — perhaps not because of the specifics of the policies, but because of the philosophy behind them. 

Voters have been told that Ms. Harris will play a leading role as a potential future vice president. According to Mr. Biden, she will be the “last voice in the room” when he makes key decisions. If this is the case, it should be an indication to Americans that a Biden-Harris administration would do its part to inflict legislation on states and individuals who have different convictions than they do. 

Policies of the two parties will always differ in American politics, but if voters are unsure about the specifics of lawmaking, it may be more beneficial to instead look at the difference in approach and philosophy. The agenda of the Democratic Party is one that is increasingly moving away from the concept that all human life has inherent worth.

This shift reveals how they will act on other issues. It is a sign that there is no “hard line” when a party is ruled by the small voices in the media who report on a culture they want the world to emulate. 

Many voters find themselves in the center of this difficult matter, unsure on which side they may fall. They can find a home within the party that acknowledges the heartbreak that abortion causes, yet also recognizes that the individual citizens of each state should have their voices heard when deciding how it will impact their communities. 

• Charlotte Pence Bond is the author of “Where You Go: Life Lessons from My Father,” and the daughter of Vice President Mike Pence. She regularly speaks on the topic of abortion in the culture, and currently attends Harvard Divinity School, where she is a candidate for a masters in Theological Studies.

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide