I’m pro-life.

Because I’m pro-life, I won’t vote for Donald Trump. Instead, I’m planning to vote for Hillary.

To many of my fellow pro-lifers, this seems confusing and inconsistent. I understand that. Hillary firmly believes women should have the right to abortion. In the earliest days of my blogging, I wrote that if I were to be a single issue voter, abortion would be that issue for me.

So what’s changed?

Nothing.

Well, nothing in my stance toward abortion. I’m still opposed to it. But since Roe v. Wade, most Republicans have talked a lot about abortion while doing little to make meaningful change in that area of policy. Furthermore, they’ve opposed or even stalled measures that could prevent abortions by targeting the underlying causes, like poverty, education, lack of access to healthcare, and supports for single parent and low-income families. In fact, I suspect these reasons contribute to why abortion rates rose under Reagan, rose under the first Bush, dropped under Clinton, held steady under the second Bush, and have been dropping under Obama. As such, I’m not sure we can hold that voting Republican is the best thing for abortion rates in this country.

That’s my nutshell answer, but I think this topic deserves a more detailed analysis. If you just want the summary, feel free to stop here. If you press on, please trust that I did my best to edit down my thoughts but you’ll still be wading through a few thousand words. I wanted to offer a comprehensive, thoughtful, and well-researched presentation of my stance, and I’ve never been one for brevity.

So buckle up, y’all. We’re in for a ride…

Why not Trump/Pence? Donald doesn’t have a pro-life track record, even a little bit. On Meet the Press in 1999, Trump said, “Well, I’m very pro-choice” in response to a question about partial birth abortion. Later that year, he stated, "I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors,” to the Associated Press. “I support a woman’s right to choose, but I am uncomfortable with the procedures,” he wrote in his book The America We Deserve in 2000. Even more concerning, a few years later during an interview with shockjock Howard Stern, Trump talked about how his first response to Marla Maples’ surprise pregnancy with one of his children was “what are we going to do about this?” In other words, he felt like he should have the right to consider abortion, so why believe now that he thinks other Americans shouldn’t?

Yes, he chose Pence, which to some demonstrates that he’d choose pro-life judges too. But I think all it means is that he’ll pick someone who will help him win pro-life votes. I believe both candidates are opportunistic (who in politics isn’t?) but, in Donald’s case, I’m convinced this shows up in his newly minted pro-life stance. He knows it’s what’s necessary to win conservative votes. Because he has no political track record, we can only go by his words, which are inconsistent, unreliable, and highly subject to change based on what's politically convenient for him.

Less than a year ago, in a remark that defies his supposed pro-life stances and also smacks of nepotism, he said he thought his sister would make a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice. Nevermind that she, Maryanne Trump Barry, declared partial-birth abortion to be a constitutionally protected right in a decision she authored as an appellate court judge. Even more recently, this past April, on Face the Nation, he said the laws on abortion are set and should stay as they are. Does this sound like a pro-life candidate, even on the topic of abortion?

(Lest I sound as if I’m ignoring Hillary’s pro-choice record, I assure you I am not. I expect that anyone reading this is well-versed in her public statements over the years. I’m just pointing out, like this article does, that if you’re looking for a genuinely anti-abortion candidate, then Trump isn’t your guy any more than Hillary is your girl.)

But it’s on the other pro-life issues that I find Trump the most lacking and Hillary the far superior candidate. In other words, my stance isn’t a choice between the lesser of two evils. I’m not simply voting against Trump. If so, I’d be abstaining on principle (which is a valid choice, no matter what some may argue) or considering a third party candidate. I don't consider it morally appropriate to vote against someone; in my personal convinctions, I must be able to vote for the person I choose on the ballot. So if I were a NeverTrumper and a NeverHillary, then I'd choose someone else or abstain. Those are viable options, even if someone tries to bully you into believing they aren't. But I find enough I can affirm and identify with in the positions and record of Hillary Clinton, so my stance to be with her isn’t based in an opposition to Trump. Aside for abortion – which I do care about deeply – I see the Democrats as the party that champions other pro-life issues more effectively and consistently. This is why I changed my registration to unaffiliate with any party several years ago, after having been a Republican for years, based largely on my abortion stance.

What other pro-life issues? you ask. Well, if we call ourselves the pro-life movement, then we’re not just anti-abortion, right? I spoke at the Evangelicals for Life conference in DC back in January, and plenty of the speakers addressed issues beyond abortion. I was one of them, talking about the lives of people with disabilities. Starting with that group, here are 10 ways in which I find the Democratic nominee more pro-life than the Republicans…

1. The lives of people with disabilities

If you’ve ever read my blog before, you know this is a top issue for me. Even before I parented children with disabilities, I taught them in public school classrooms, became friends with many adults with disabilities, founded a robust inclusive special needs ministry at a large church, pioneered outreach events to provide respite care for their families, and found myself living with a minor degree of physical disability myself due to rheumatoid arthritis and a couple other chronic conditions. Now my husband and I are also raising six children, whose collective diagnoses include epilepsy, FASD, cerebral palsy, sensory processing disorder, and likely autism.

Hillary’s history with people with disabilities shows her esteem for their lives. Our family has directly benefited from IDEA, the federal law requiring the inclusion of children with disabilities in public schools. She was not only involved in its reauthorization but served as a pioneer to pave the way for it in the first place. Hillary began her law career before IDEA or its predecessor Public Law 94-142 had been passed, yet one of her earliest projects with the Children’s Defense Fund was advocating for kids with special needs to have a place in the classroom. Beyond that, she has spoken out about the need to end the sheltered workshop models for the employment of adults with disabilities, which is absolutely needed but often ignored. Work provides dignity, and to me, ensuring that those with disabilities can both work and be paid a fair wage is a pro-life issue. Beyond that, her proposals about autism services and research are cutting edge and reflect true listening to adults with autism instead of focusing on causes and cures, which we’ve unsuccessfully done for years. Her pledged support for the Disability Integration Act, furthermore, shows that adults with disabilities are on her radar (with long term care in the DNC platform this year), which shows a distinctly different value for these lives than what we’re seeing from any candidate before her and, in particular, from Trump.

Trump’s public stance on people with disabilities is appalling. He insultingly mimicked Serge Kovaleski, a reporter with a physical disability. Prior to that, he had mocked Charles Krauthammer, a conservative journalist who uses a wheelchair who is critical of Trump, as being someone who can’t even buy a pair of pants. Before that, he called another journalist “retarded” for criticizing him. Last week, one of Wednesday’s DNC speakers was a man with a form of dwarfism, and Thursday afternoon Trump said he wanted to punch several of the people who spoke the night before, in particular “a very little guy.” I don’t think that’s a coincidence. No, he was once again mocking someone with a disability and, this time, threatening harm against him. Beyond that bullying, as a businessman, Trump’s properties were found again and again to violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. On multiple occasions, including during GOP debates, he’s made scientifically disproven remarks about autism-vaccine links, continuing to misdirect people from the real issues surrounding autism. I don’t see anything pro-life in his words or actions here. On Supreme Court nominees, I don't trust that he'll consider the rights or lives of those with disabilities in his appointments, and our treatment of that oft-vulnerable group is as much a measure of our values and affirmation (or refutation) of the truth of the gospel as how we treat babies in the womb.