I woke up this morning to several responses from people to the current president’s name appearing in the Epstein files more than the word “God” appears in the Bible, saying “he was the lesser of two evils.

When I inquire as to why they think so, they state that Donald Trump was the best candidate over Kamala Harris or Joe Biden primarily because of abortion.

But that framing only works if two things are true:

1. The comparison is morally comprehensive.

2. The policy outcomes actually reduce the evil in question.

Right now, neither of those assumptions holds up.

Calling something the lesser of two evils doesn’t make it righteous. It simply means you’re choosing what you believe to be less harmful.

That requires honesty about all the harm involved, not just one issue.

If we are willing to overlook:

-Erosion of due process

-Denying individual rights for women

-Harm to vulnerable families

-Cuts to healthcare and food assistance

-Environmental deregulation with long-term public health consequences

-Policies that destabilize global aid

…then we are not choosing between good and evil. We are ranking which harms we are willing to tolerate.

That is a moral calculation. It should not be disguised as moral clarity.

Also, as several of my wise friends have pointed out to me, the "lesser of two evils" argument is just used as a defense mechanism. If people truly were to vote for the lesser of evils, it would have shown in the primaries and not just on the final vote between two candidates.

Even if it was just between two candidates, for America, the candidate that is promising to be a dictator on day one with repeated behavior of disregarding the rule of law, checks and balances, and the constitution is always the worse of two evils.

In spite of this, many Christians argue that abortion is the decisive issue because it involves innocent life. That is a serious claim. But if that is the standard, then we have to examine whether the policies being supported are actually reducing abortion.

The data landscape since the fall of Roe is complex. Restrictions in some states have not eliminated abortion. Instead, there has been growth in interstate travel for procedures and in medication abortion access. Meanwhile, some public health researchers have reported deeply concerning trends in maternal health outcomes in states with strict bans.

If the stated goal is fewer abortions, then policies must address:

-Healthcare access

-Economic stability

-Paid family leave

-Childcare support

-Maternal mortality

-Infant mortality

-Contraception access

-Confronting domestic violence

-Upholding the rights of women

Without those supports, banning procedures does not eliminate medical needs, it can simply increase medical risk, inequality, and death.

Advocating for policies that actually encourage human flourishing will reduce abortion rates. Harsh legislation and criminalizing methods do the opposite.

If abortion rates are not falling in a sustained way, and maternal or infant outcomes are worsening, then the claim that this is the “lesser evil” collapses under its own logic.

In a state like Idaho, where I’ve lived and pastored my whole life, the real-world consequences of abortion restrictions and healthcare policy are not abstract for me. Hospital closures, provider shortages, and maternal care deserts affect families directly.

When policy reduces access to care for pregnant women while claiming to defend life, especially in a state that constantly claims to be “pro family” and “Christian,” people notice the hypocritical contradiction.

Scripture teaches that every human being bears the image of God (Genesis 1:27). That includes:

-The unborn

-The immigrant

-The child at the border

-The families in Gaza

-The single mother

-The LGBT teenager.

-The elderly person losing healthcare

-The poor family losing food assistance

-The person dying because their insurance won’t cover their medical needs.

Jesus’ moral vision in Matthew 25 is expansive: feed the hungry, care for the sick, welcome the stranger.

A consistent “pro-life” ethic then must consider all human life, not just one category.

If you defend unborn life while supporting policies that remove healthcare, food, environmental protections, or legal safeguards for vulnerable people, that is not whole-life ethics. It is selective moral prioritization. It is to only care about ensuring a baby is born while minimizing the life of the mother and the life of the baby after it is born.

This isn’t “pro life,” it’s actually pro death in many cases.

If the argument then is, “Yes, there are serious harms, but abortion outweighs all of them,” then you are saying some injustices are acceptable collateral damage for a political goal.

But Christian ethics explicitly rejects doing evil so that good may result (Romans 3:8). We cannot condemn one form of injustice while excusing another because it aligns with our preferred outcome.

If someone says, “It’s the lesser of two evils,” you might respond:

-“Lesser compared to what outcomes?”

-“Are we measuring all forms of harm, or just one?”

-“If abortion is your deciding issue, are the policies actually reducing it?”

-“At what point would the other harms outweigh it for you?”

Those questions move the conversation from slogans to substance.

If we are going to claim moral seriousness, we have to be morally consistent.

A “pro-life” ethic that ignores poverty, healthcare, due process, racial justice, environmental stewardship, and global human suffering is not a Jesus centered ethic. It is a narrowed partisan one.

Calling something the lesser of two evils does not absolve us from examining the full cost of that choice.

If we believe every life bears God’s image, then every policy touching human life deserves scrutiny, not just one.

Read more about this topic and the supporting data here: The Pro Life Fracture​

Now I'd like to hear from you! Did you find this helpful? What thoughts came to your mind as you read? Feel free to respond to this email and share your thoughts with me. I look forward to reading them. A 30 Day Day Devotional: I wrote a daily devotional in hopes to provide a companion for people seeking to follow Jesus through the season of we are currently navigating together. You can find out more below: $20.00 Following Jesus In A World Obsessed With Empires: 30 Days of reclaiming the hope, compassion, and justice of Jesus. Today, our world can often feel overwhelmed by darkness, division, and despair. I created this 30-day devotional to... Read more Get it now! ​ Ways to support: If you'd like to support this project, you can do so through one-time-gift of any amount you feel is right. You can also subscribe through a $5/mo, $15/mo, or $25/mo. Several others have also asked for a recurring gift option that is different from the ones offered here, like this one. If you'd like me to set up a different option for you, please just send me an email with the word "support" in the subject line. As always, I really want to thank all of you for reading and for all the ways you support me and this project every single week. I'm thankful for the ways we are building this together and hope it creates a lasting, positive change in our world along the way! I sincerely appreciate you all, Ben Remember, you can now view this and all previous newsletters as well as invite friends to join through this link: https://benjamin-cremer.ck.page/profile.

​