I cut and pasted the main points from this woman's USAtoday editorial. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...bortion-single-issue-voter-column/4546103002/ People understand that specializing in a subject, working to become more excellent and effective in addressing a problem, is one of the pursuits of adult life. At some point, passions become professions so that change can occur. And it’s the same for people who are engaged in the human rights issue of our day, abortion. With concern for the pain and problems abortion can cause, some voters crystallize abortion as the defining criteria for our vote. I debated the new editor of Christianity Today, Daniel Harrell,... on how people of faith could support President Donald Trump. ... Mark Galli, who argued that, despite the fact that the president has followed through on all kinds of pro-life policies, he should be removed from office. It was a call for a purity test of sorts in political language and demeanor. In the ballot box, voters are not choosing a pastor or pope, but a politician who has the ability to make a direct impact on public policy. And we make our choice from those listed on the ballot, after evaluating what those candidates pledge to do. Every voter must look at the issues of significance to them and make a choice about who will serve those interests. The irony is that organizations fighting things like cancer or diabetes are commended for the noble work they do, while those fighting for the potential of life in the womb face constant criticism, but pro-life Americans won’t give up.