The Democrat Party has not always been staunchly pro-choice. Only ten to twelve years ago, “Legal under any circumstances” became the pre-dominate view among Democrats. In1975, only one in five Democrats held that position.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.aspx
Interestingly, Jesse Jackson, protégé of Martin Luther King, Baptist minister, and prominent Democrat who ran for president as a pro-choice candidate, was originally an outspoken pro-life advocate, eloquently defending life in a 1977 article. https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/consistent/jackson.html
Seven years later when running for president, he expressed a different message. While saying he “would never encourage abortion”, he advocated for “a woman’s right to choose” and supported government funding for abortion. President Clinton adopted a similar stance saying abortions “should be safe, legal, and rare”. This was the beginning of a slippery slope that still has no bottom.
Why did Rev. Jackson and Democrats in general compromise and eventually abandon their pro-life instincts?
Today, the Democrat Party has a new young pro-choice minister: Texas Senatorial candidate James Talarico. Talarico argues choice, along with other contemporary Democrat positions on cultural issues, is entirely compatible with Christian theology. He re-interprets the Bible to align with Democrat positions. If you can’t beat them, join them–or in this case, steal their theology. Democrats now believe they don’t have to cede the biblical worldview to Republicans. Per Talarico, Democrats are the best Christians after all, and Jesus is clearly a Democrat.
However, Rep. Talarico strays very far from Christian orthodoxy on many issues, saying:
- “God is non-binary.” Christianity calls God our Father and Genesis says: “When God created human beings, he made them in the likeness of God; he created them male and female. When they were created, he blessed them and named them humankind.” Genesis 5:1-2
- “Science has proven there are six genders”. Science also once claimed the earth was flat and the sun traveled around it.
- Biblical prohibitions of “men lying with men” may be euphemisms. The Bible is, in fact, unambiguous: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination” Leviticus 18:22.
- “Trans children are perfect”. How can transgenders be “perfect” if surgery is needed to alter God’s original design?
Yet, Rep. Talarico convinced 1.2 million Texans (and many Christians) to vote for his heretical cutting-edge theology. Democrats see in him an opportunity to win back culturally conservative Christians. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, the more “diverse” and more well-known candidate, the seeming heir apparent to the Senate seat, was forced to make way for Talarico who is now “the standard bearer for Team Blue”, per the Washington Post wash-post-opinion-2026-03-04 .
Jackson in 1977
Rev. Jackson began his 1977 defense of life by addressing the fundamental question of when life begins, a question muddied by so many today. Jackson provided the one consistent answer to this question:
How we will respect and understand the nature of life itself is the over-riding moral issue, not of the Black race, but of the human race.
From my perspective, human life is the highest good, the summum bonum . Human life itself is the highest human good and God is the supreme good because He is the giver of life.
Therefore, life is the highest human good because life is sacred.
Rev. Jackson also unequivocally condemned abortion:
In the abortion debate one of the crucial questions is when does life begin. Anything growing is living. Therefore human life begins when the sperm and egg join and drop into the fallopian tube and the pulsation of life take place
Human beings cannot give or create life by themselves, it is really a gift from God. Therefore, one does not have the right to take away (through abortion) that which he does not have the ability to give.
The solution to that problem is not to kill the innocent baby, but to deal with her values and her attitude toward life–that which has allowed her not to want the baby. Deal with the attitude that would allow her to take away that which she cannot give.
Rev. Jackson describes the deceptiveness of the notion of “choice” (i.e. right to privacy) in this passage:
There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of higher order than the right to life. I do not share that view. I believe that life is not private, but rather it is public and universal. If one accepts the position that life is private, and therefore you have the right to do with it as you please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic. That was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside of your right to concerned.
Rev. Jackson also aptly compares abortion to slavery. Slaves could be killed by their masters because their life was considered not their own. The same argument is used for “choice”; today, the parents, often the mother, makes the “choice” for the child. The child, like the slave, is at the mercy its parents will, who our benighted society has deemed to be the “owner” of the child’s life.
Rev. Jackson had the calculus right and he supported his argument convincingly. He was a legitimate moral thought leader among the Black community and he spoke directly to that community throughout this piece. But that leadership wavered.
Jackson in 1984
As a presidential candidate , Jackson said the following:
“I choose to put my emphasis on sex education and self discipline before the fact. I would never encourage abortion, except under medically extenuating circumstances. On the other hand I do support freedom of choice…” Jesse Jackson, May 18, 1984
When confronted during a 1984 presidential debate he said: “I am not pro-abortion. I am freedom of choice.” https://www.c-span.org/clip/public-affairs-event/user-clip-jesse-jackson-on-abortion-1984/4652741.
Jackson insisted his views had not changed:
Why-pro-life-black-christians-rejected-pro-life-politics
when he launched his presidential campaign for the 1984 election, he insisted that he retained his moral opposition to abortion even as he defended its legality. “We must never encourage abortion,” he said, even if he did not want the government to stop someone from having an abortion.
But his views had changed:
- In 1977, he said we cannot allow women: “to take away [a life] that which she cannot give.” Yet, in 1984, he said the government should condone taking away that life.
- In 1977, he said: “As a matter of conscience, I must oppose the use of federal funds for a policy of killing infants.” In 1984, he supported Medicaid funding for abortion.
Why the change? The easy answer is: he was influenced by politics. Perhaps, his hardline 1977 position would cost him votes. Perhaps, he thought he could split the baby, remaining somewhat true to his original sentiment (“I would not encourage an abortion”) while expanding the tent to bring in more voters. If this was his calculation, it was a moral failure because the 1984 language was actually a seismic shift from his unambiguous 1977 position. Perhaps, he began to consider himself more of a politician and less of a minister, and the politician in him acknowledged the American public was softening on abortion and would continue to grow more comfortable with abortions. From this perspective, he may have made the right political calculation.
However, some argue his new views were not political calculations. They argue Rev. Jackson’s strong opposition to President Reagan and the Republican Party, who were coalescing around the pro-life position, led to his shift. He did not want to align with the party he opposed on so many other issues. Still, why would an honest and sincere politician abandon a core principle to the opposing party? Rev. Jackson could have remained allied with them on this one issue.
Some also say Rev. Jackson’s original position was based not on a biblical understanding of life, but on the view that black population was being targeted (i.e. reduced) through abortion:
why-did-jackson-change-views-on-abortion
This analysis says: “the presence of a sizeable number of population-control advocates within the abortion rights movement alarmed them. “
Nearly every Black American who spoke against abortion in the 1970s called it “genocide”—which was the term that Jackson’s own denomination, the Progressive National Baptist Convention, used in its anti-abortion resolution in 1973.
Indeed, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, openly spoke of a “Negro project” to limit the black population, but she proposed this through birth control not abortion. https://concernedwomen.org/the-negro-project-margaret-sangers-eugenic-plan-for-black-americans/
Rev. Jackson beautifully defended life in 1977, but six years later, he supposedly switched his position on abortion because annihilation of the black population was no longer threatened by whites. That argument is too cute. His language in 1977 was concise and clear. His language in 1984 was compromised by concerns not present previously.
As a leader, he staked a clear position, and he should have maintained it when others waffled:
AME Church and the National Baptist Convention, most of which had been strongly anti-abortion in the 1970s. “Abortion is usually wrong,” the senior bishop of the AME Church said in 1990, but it should nevertheless be “a decision of the woman and her family and not of the government.”
As the Democratic Party became ever more committed to abortion rights, so did these denominations, both in their official statements and, polling suggests, in the thinking of the average person in the pews.
In the end, I cannot find an adequate explanation to square this circle. I regret that he changed his original position and never publicly returned to it. The momentum towards pro-choice only increased in the years to follow.
Governor Northam in 2019
Rev. Jackson and others cracked opened the door to accepting abortion. In the years since, many states now allow partial birth abortion–aborting the baby even as it is being born. While this procedure is rare, it should never be contemplated; one such loss is too many. Former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam in 2019 walked through that wide open door:
If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that is what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
In other words, the parties decide whether the baby lives or dies. Governor Northam says let a child die if everyone agrees. I wish this were a bad fiction story. Although Rev. Jackson didn’t contemplate deciding a child’s fate after leaving the womb, his words still apply to this situation:
Therefore, one does not have the right to take away (through abortion) that which he does not have the ability to give.
For so many, there is no longer a moral objection to abortion. It has become a practical matter of choice, and nothing else.
https://www.christianpost.com/news/bill-maher-respects-abortion-absolutists-its-murder-but-ok.html
“I scold the Left when they say, ‘Oh, you know what? They just hate women, people who are pro-life,’” he continued. “They don’t hate women. They just made that up. They think it’s murder, and it kind of is. I’m just OK with that. I am.” Bill Maher
James Talarico in 2026
Rev. Jackson ended his 1977 defense of life with a question which should have been considered twenty years later–and should still be asked fifty years later:
What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person, and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually?
These are dangerous times when a political party seeks to convince Christians that murder and sacrifice to Molech (the demon of child sacrifice) is the actual will of God.
Rep. Talarico now has the pro-choice mantle; unlike Rev. Jackson, he begins his political career unapologetically pro-choice. He demonstrates how far astray Democrats have moved since Rev. Jackson’s defense of life.
Many politicians today say: political beliefs and private religious beliefs must remain separate. Rev. Jackson made this argument in 1984, privately, opposing abortion while supporting it as a presidential candidate. Rep. Talarico, on the other hand, seeks to avoid the contradiction other politicians have displayed: “Being pro-choice is absolutely consistent with being Christian”, he says. His says his faith is fully integrated with his job as a legislator, and guides his decision-making.
Talarico is right on this account; the problem is his Christian theology is not even remotely aligned with the tenets of the major Christian denominations. His thoughts on the Annunciation of Mary and its relationship with “choice” are troubling to say the least:
“You cannot force someone to create. Creation is one of the most sacred acts that we engage in as human beings, but that has to be done with consent. It has to be done with freedom.”
God asks for Mary’s consent. Which is remarkable. . . . The angel asks Mary if this is something she wants to do, and she says ‘if it is God’s will, let it be done.’. …. That is an affirmation that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create…
I have no real issue with his commentary to this point. Yes, God needs our participation in the act of creation, and yes, Mary accedes to God’s will. Whether or not Mary’s act could be defined as “consent” is perhaps a matter of semantics.
But then Talarico goes badly awry, using Mary’s consent as a defense of “choice” . Essentially, he says Mary had a choice (she could have said no), so other women should have the same choice as well.
And that’s how I come down on that side of the issue [abortion]. I’m open for my fellow Christians to disagree with that, and they have scriptural passages they point to, to be anti-abortion. I feel that is a debate we should feel comfortable having. All I am saying is that it shouldn’t be assumed because you are a Christian, you are anti-gay or anti-abortion because there are so many Christians out there who don’t subscribe to either of those policy positions [on homosexuality and abortion].
Talarico’s argument crumbles immediately. Mary’s consent was before conception, not after.
The angel said to Mary: “the power of the Most High will overshadow you”, and Mary responded “May it be done to me according to your word.” (Luke 1).
The dialogue takes place before conception, regarding events in the future. The “choice” in abortion is after conception. The real choice–ours and Mary’s–is made before conception. There is no equivalency to Mary’s assent (“May it be done to me”) and the “choice” made to continue a pregnancy. This analogy is ludicrous and Talarico’s rhetoric dangerous.
Talarico’s argument for choice is so easily deconstructed that it can only be designed to deceive; it reassures those seeking justification for their own abortion or support of the policy, but is without substance. Christians must affirm and value life, as the Bible does repeatedly and as Rev. Jackson did in 1977.
See, I have today set before you life and good, death and evil.
I call heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live. Deuteronomy 30:15,19
Rep. Talarico, prior to his political career, expounded on choice frequently: “the disagreement about the legality of abortion is not a disagreement about life,” he says. He concedes “an embryo is biologically alive,” but claims the real discussion is about “personhood”: when does life actually begin?
He says scripture rejects “embryonic personhood” (without proof). The Old Testament I am familiar with confirms the “personhood” of children in the womb.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. Jeremiah 1:5
For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb. Psalm 139:13
Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be. Psalm 139:16
He then says scripture affirms: “female personhood”, i.e. it affirms the person given the “choice”, the one he says scripture says can legitimately reject “embryonic personhood.” What convoluted nonsense!
Rep. Talarico also claims:
“There are interpretations of certain passages from the Torah where some folks will even say there are subtle instructions for how to perform an abortion in the ancient world.”
Biblical passages saying the opposite are numerous and not subtle at all.
Who to Believe?
Belief in Jesus and familiarity with scripture is not a seal of approval for Christians. We learn during Jesus’s temptation (Matthew 4), that Satan also believes in God and is familiar with scripture. A ministry degree is not sufficient either; the Pharisees were scholars, but poor ministers.
Talarico says: “Christianity points to the truth. I think other religions of love point to the same truth.” One must believe in something, not believe in everything. Believing in Christianity (or any other faith) means discounting some views of other religions. They cannot all be true. Furthermore, one who re-defines the Bible in support of a political ideology must be considered suspect
Talarico’s message is certainly twisted, but perhaps, he is a product of our contemporary ideologies. Still, we can defer to a colleague of Rep. Talarico to obtain a measure of the man:
“When I put forth legislation to secure our elections, it gets killed by the Democrats. When I put forth legislation to end the social transition of children, it gets killed by the Democrats. It’s evil. Talarico is part of that group. I served with James Talarico from 2019 through to today. This guy is as evil as they come.
“There is a darkness to this man’s life … if you doubt that there is a wickedness and an evil and a demonic presence in the world, you only have to look at James Talarico. He’s an awful, awful person. Awful person.” Texas Rep. Steve Toth, March 4, 2026.
Democrats will pour hundreds of millions of dollars into Rep. Talarico’s campaign this year. Let’s pray Texans see through this false prophet. I don’t want him or the Democrat Party to steal and re-write my religion.
Let’s pray also we return to the basics Rev. Jackson laid out in 1977. This hopeful message is articulated below: https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/06/why-pro-life-black-christians-rejected-pro-life-politics-dobbs-anniversary/
But now there’s a new opportunity to build a multiracial coalition in defense of unborn life. The predominantly white pro-life movement achieved a major goal in the Supreme Court decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade three years ago today, launching a new era of abortion politics. Meanwhile, many younger African Americans are leaving the established Black denominations that have given such strong support to the Democratic Party and instead joining multiracial, nondenominational megachurches that are less monolithically partisan. And some Black pastors have adopted views on abortion that are a lot like the one Evans promoted: They want to defend unborn life, but they want to do so as part of a larger, “womb to tomb,” consistent life ethic that includes expanded, government-funded health care and help for women facing crisis pregnancies.
Dave https://seek-the-truth.com/about/
https://seek-the-truth.com/category/faith/
https://seek-the-truth.com/category/life/
seek-the-truth.com
Seek the Truth 