Since God Hates the Shedding of Innocent Blood, Can a Christian Vote for Hillary?

By Michael Brown Published on July 26, 2016

There are few sins God hates as much as shedding innocent blood, especially the blood of children. Seeing that Hillary Clinton is a radically pro-abortion candidate and seeing that the Democratic platform reinforces those radical views, can a Christian vote for Hillary in good conscience?

In Jeremiah 19, God explained why the people of Judah were about to go into exile: It was because they worshiped idols and because they “filled this place [speaking of Jerusalem] with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal — something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind” (Jer. 19:4-5).

Because of these heinous sins, Jerusalem was destroyed and the Temple of Yahweh burned to the ground, with tens of thousands going into exile.

Does God hate the shedding of innocent blood any less today, especially when it is the blood of children? Listen again to Jeremiah: “They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire — something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind” (Jer. 7:31).

What, exactly, did this entail? Listen to this description from the medieval Jewish commentator Rashi, who explained that the high places of Topheth refer to the god “Molech, which was [made] of copper, and they would heat it up from underneath it with its hands spread out and heated. And they would place the child on his hands, and he would be burnt and moan, and the priests would beat drums so that the father should not hear his son’s voice and take pity.” What a horror!

Now stop for a moment and look at these images of aborted babies and ask yourself how the Lord must feel about the shedding of this innocent blood — the blood of innocent babies in the womb.

Can you, as a follower of Jesus, cast your vote for a candidate who supports this bloodshed? Can you vote for Hillary Clinton, one of the best friends Planned Parenthood has ever had?

Just look at the stark contrast between the RNC and DNC platforms on abortion.

As reported by, “The proposed Democratic Party platform this year is more extreme than it has ever been, calling for taxpayer funding of abortion and a repeal of the Hyde Amendment. The Democratic Party platform already supports legalized abortion on demand for any reason up until birth.

“‘We will continue to oppose — and seek to overturn — federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment,’ it reads.”

In complete contrast, the RNC platform on abortion begins with: “Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”

The platform supports “a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.” It opposes “using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage.”

It calls for appointing judges who will uphold these values, reaffirms its opposition to partial birth abortion, and salutes “the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation.”

Again, the difference between the two platforms could not be more extreme. It is literally the difference between death and life.

Let’s also remember that Hillary Clinton is hardly a pacifist who would avoid the shedding of blood in war (in contrast with allegedly war-mongering Republicans). And even so, there is a world of difference between going to war to defeat terrorism and killing a baby in the womb.

Some have argued that it doesn’t matter where a candidate stands on abortion since the laws never really change. After all, we’re told, after 20 years of Reagan, Bush and Bush, Roe v. Wade was still not overturned.

That’s true, but one reason is that we also had 16 years of Clinton and Obama. What would have happened if we had 36 years of presidents in the mold of Reagan? What if the progress made under a pro-life president wasn’t undone by a pro-abortion president? What if all presidential appointees to the Supreme Court were pro-life during the last 36 years? The answers are self-evident.

And let’s not minimize the progress that has been made in different states, including requiring women to view an ultrasound of their baby before aborting. Thank God for every life saved.

The bottom line is this: Can you look at pictures of aborted babies — such as baby Malachi — and read verses about God’s hatred of killing children and then vote for a candidate who aggressively defends a woman’s “right” to this bloodshed, even into the ninth month?

It’s one thing to be uncertain about voting for Trump (or other candidates). It’s another thing to vote for a radical, pro-abortion candidate like Hillary Clinton.

I, for one, do not see how you can look Jesus in the eye, look abortion in the eye, and vote for Hillary.

Only God is your Judge, and you and I will give ultimate account to Him. But if you’re a regular “pro-choice” voter, I urge you to reconsider your ways.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

From Fatherless To Father-Led
James Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us