I recently had the opportunity to watch the video of a debate between two female attorneys active in the pro-life movement, one arguing for voting for Donald Trump and the other advocating voting for a third party pro-life candidate for President. It was an interesting and educational discussion, and I came away with a few “take-aways” to share as Election Day nears.

 I found it interesting that the advocate for voting for a third party pro-life candidate admitted that this candidate doesn’t have a chance of winning so hers is more of a “protest vote” than anything. But a “protest vote” does not help a viable pro-life candidate get elected. Millions have bled and died for the right to cast a vote. Throwing it away in protest does not save lives!

 The advocate for voting for Trump made some excellent points. She talked about the importance of electing someone who would appoint pro-life Supreme Court Justices who would not legislate from the bench (Trump has talked repeatedly of appointing Justices like the beloved Antonin Scalia). She talked about the sterling pro-life record of Trump’s running mate Mike Pence, and Trump’s repeated commitments to uphold the Hyde amendment, to defund Planned Parenthood, and to defend against late term abortions. What was most compelling to me though was when she talked about what came with a Trump administration—pro-life judicial appointments at all levels of the federal court, life-oriented interpretations of rules and regulations, and support for freedom of speech and conscience rights for pro-lifers across the country.

 She also pointed out that a Clinton administration would bring with it abortion on demand, paid for by tax-payers, not just here but around the world. A Clinton administration would mean even more pro-abortion judges not just on the Supreme Court, but throughout the Federal court system. It would lead to mean the federal government forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion, and severely restricting sidewalk counselors from doing their life-affirming work outside of abortion centers.

What was most striking of all however, was the overall tone of the debate and its conclusion. There was no name-calling, no shouting over each other, no personal attacks. They both agreed that, no matter how one decides to vote in the Presidential race, it is inherent that pro-lifers vote for pro-life candidates down the ballot. Perhaps most importantly they agreed that while there may be a disagreement on tactics or strategy, all pro-lifers stand together in solidarity to protect those most vulnerable among us from womb to tomb!