In a hard-hitting op-ed appearing on Newsweek, Father Frank Pavone points out why a candidate’s position on abortion should matter most to voters – and why it doesn’t with far too many people.

Father Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, begins his article with a hypothetical question:

“If a candidate said, ‘I support the use of terrorism to achieve my agenda,’ would you respond, ‘Well, I disagree with your support of terrorism, but if we agree on education and health care funding, maybe I’ll vote for you’.”

Of course we’d never say that! Why? Because we would be so repulsed by the politician’s support for wanton acts of terror that we wouldn’t care what other positions he or she held. Support for terror would be a game-changer regardless of what other positions the voter might have in common with the candidate.

If this is the case, then why do so many people who know abortion is the taking of a human life still vote for “pro-choice” candidates just because they agree with them on other issues?

“That can only be explained by the fact that most people don’t really know what abortion entails,” Father Pavone writes.

“We’re all sickened by images of terrorism. Any of us who saw the carnage and destruction of 9/11, Orlando, San Bernardino, or other such scenes don’t need to have the act of terrorism explained to us. We know that there is no justification for its violence and inhumanity.

“But the act of abortion is one that most don’t see – not even the women who undergo the procedure itself. When we do view it, though, abortion can no longer remain ‘just another issue’.”

He goes on to explain how just reading about abortion techniques can be disturbing to the average citizen. This fact was proved by a major national newspaper that once refused to sell him space for an advertisement because it contained written descriptions of how abortions were performed.

“The paper said that just the words of the ad would traumatize its readers,” Father Pavone says.

“That’s because abortion is just as violent as terrorism. We are not talking here about the mothers themselves. We at Priests for Life minister to them every day, we know their heart-wrenching circumstances, and we see that they are not evil people who want to kill their children. We do not judge them, and we do not compare them to terrorists. What we are comparing, however, are the actions themselves: both abortion and terrorism are the violent destruction of a human life.”

This is why any candidate who says abortion should be legal must be removed from the list of people qualified to hold the public trust, regardless of what else he or she believes.

He quoted from St. John Paul II’s 1988 Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici, in which he said: “Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.”

“False and illusory. Those are strong and clear words that call for our further reflection,” Father Pavone writes.

“When a candidate says he stands for ‘comprehensive health care,’ that sounds great. But if he considers tearing the arms and legs off of unborn babies as part of ‘health care,’ then his understanding of the term is quite different from its actual meaning. It’s literally false to say that killing is part of health care. It’s illusory to promise health care and deliver death.”

He goes on to say that if a candidate supports the building of affordable housing, this might sound like a great plan to support, but not if he or she supports killing the very people who will live in that public housing.

“If, in short, a candidate speaks up for any human rights, but claims that government can permit the taking of life itself, then that candidate is saying that those human rights for which he stands belong only to some, not to all. And therefore they cannot be human rights. That’s why the claim is false and illusory.”

He concludes: “Elections can be confusing, but if you start evaluating candidates by asking where they stand on abortion, you can save yourself a lot of time. If a politician says he will support laws protecting unborn babies in the womb, he has declared his fitness for public office. If he says he’s in favor of keeping abortion ‘legal,’ there’s nothing else you need to ask. If he doesn’t care about the smallest, most vulnerable members of the human family, how can we expect him to care about us?”

© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace®  http://www.womenofgrace.com