Our nation has chosen a leader who is the most extreme abortion advocate imaginable. But our nation has not rejected the pro-life position. Sadly, the campaign of John McCain and Sarah Palin gave voters little opportunity to even consider the benefits of pro-life voting for the nation.

We all know that people need to change their hearts before our nation can hope to have a chance to change the laws and rulings which allow abortion. Changing hearts is not primarily the task of politicians, but it is something that each of us should focus on in our own communities, churches and families whether or not an election is on the horizon.

However, politicians who claim to be pro-life do have a responsibility to not only state their positions, but to help move our nation in the right direction by becoming an agent of change. Both Sarah Palin and John McCain were in a great position to use their personal circumstances to help our nation see why we should outlaw abortion. As I have explained previously, the background of both the Palins and the McCains seems to indicate that they have hearts of justice regarding issues impacting innocent children.

Sadly, from my point of view, they both missed their opportunities in this campaign.

Now I did appreciate the fact that both McCain and Palin were (occasionally) willing to openly, unashamedly mention their positions on protecting children from abortion. It was refreshing to hear them say it for themselves, because far too many “pro-life” politicians seem to be afraid to talk about it. Certainly a politician who is only pro-life in his closet has little potential to be used by God to change people’s hearts.

But McCain and Palin seemed content to treat their pro-life views as just opinions, rather than helping our nation to understand how abortion harms not only children, and not only their mothers, but all of us.

Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect a politician running in a general election to advocate such a position. In a general election, a politician who intends to win has to do more than just attract pro-life voters. But pro-abortion politicians like Obama never stop trying to convince people of the perceived “benefits” of abortion, so why is it so wrong to expect the truly pro-life politicians to talk about why we would all be better off without abortion?

John McCain has officially declared that he will never run for president again, so I’ll focus on what Sarah Palin could have done differently — and what I hope she will do differently in 2012 and beyond.

Regarding Sarah Palin, it is hard to imagine a candidate who was in a better position to be used by God to change people’s hearts about abortion (unless Gianna Jessen decides someday to run for office). The Palins chose not to abort their baby son Trig even in the face of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, and also unashamedly embraced their daughter Bristol when her unwed pregnancy became publicly known. This gave Sarah Palin a great platform with the potential to help change people’s hearts.

Terri and I wrote a strategy paper about a year ago on how to end abortion. The key to the strategy we present is to maintain a dual focus on both the baby in the womb and the pregnant mother (a strategy first suggested by the Willkes). This is a strategy which is desperately needed at every level of the pro-life movement, including politics. Everyone tends to choose to focus primarily on the babies or on the women, but to win people’s hearts, we must focus on both at the same time.

Both Trig and Bristol share the same parents. Sarah and Todd love them both equally (at least I assume that they would say this). As a mother of a child whom many people think should have been aborted, and as also a mother of a pregnant teenager whom many people think should have committed an abortion, Sarah was in the perfect position to be used by God to change people’s hearts about abortion by “loving them both.”

But not only did Sarah Palin miss many opportunities to talk about how abortion harms our nation, she also failed to respond well when directly asked about abortion.

When Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin why she believes that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, here is how Palin responded:

I think it should be a states’ issue not a federal government … mandated … mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I’m in that sense a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now foundationally, also, though, it’s no secret that I’m pro-life, that I believe that a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that’s what I would like to see further embraced by America.

Not a word about babies. Not a word about mothers. Nothing about how her own choice against abortion benefits her own family. Nothing about how abortion has harmed so many women. Nothing about how history has proven that the case brought to the Court in Roe v. Wade was built on lies. Nothing about the way the Court’s decision cited “emanations from the penumbras” of the Constitution because the actual wording of the Constitution wouldn’t support their decision. Not even anything about the importance of strict constructionism.

Could it be that none of these things came into her mind, and that all she thought of was making a vague reference to a “culture of life”? I doubt it. Rather, I suspect that she was coached by her campaign handlers to avoid talking about how abortion impacts babies and mothers and just talk about the “culture of life.”

Incidentally, Palin missed a great opportunity when Couric asked her for another Supreme Court decision she disagreed with. If she had mentioned the Dred Scott decision, not even Couric could have disagreed with her. (But perhaps Palin realized that the Dred Scott decision reveals some of the problems inherent in a “states rights” focus when dealing with life-and-death issues like slavery and abortion.)

Perhaps Sarah Palin’s reluctance to speak her heart can be blamed on Katie Couric’s unmaskable hostility. But in the vice presidential debate (coincidentally located in Dred Scott’s home town of St. Louis), Palin also failed several times to take advantage of opportunities to speak up for the babies and pregnant women. True, none of the questions directly referred to abortion, but somehow Joe Biden found the opportunity to talk about his support of Roe v. Wade, his opposition to Robert Bork, and even the death of his wife and daughter and his experiences as a single parent.

Palin found opportunities in the debate to mention her special needs child, but didn’t add a few extra words to relate her point to abortion. She never once mentioned Barack Obama’s radical abortion advocacy which has extended (beyond what even most abortion supporters can conscience) to infanticide (live-birth abortions). She did use her debate platform to call Obama out on other issues, but not on abortion!

Here we had one of the best pro-life candidates imaginable, facing one of the worst pro-abortion advocates imaginable, and yet it’s the pro-lifer who refuses to engage the public on these life-and-death issues! It seems like some really do not believe that the message of the pro-life movement is a winning message, that the only way we can win is by distracting the public from considering what we really believe.

Palin had the nation’s ear, and was faced with these opportunities to speak up for those whose lives are at risk because of abortion, yet she chose not to do so. Why? I assume that her advisors assured her that she would lose support if she directly referenced abortion.

But I believe that her advisors were wrong. When we are serious about respecting not only the personhood of children in the womb but also respect the personhood of their mothers, opening our hearts to help them through the difficulties they face, most people (even self-avowed “pro-choice” advocates) will respond positively.

Even hardened abortion advocates will support pro-life initiatives, if such efforts seek to provide tangible help to women facing crisis pregnancies. We have seen this first hand. For example, a bitter abortion supporter who read about our efforts to start Elizabeth League groups told me “if all of the churches did this, we wouldn’t need abortion anymore!”

(If the concept of an abortion advocate supporting a pro-life candidate seems too far-fetched, consider the recent words of pro-abort columnist Camille Paglia in Salon magazine who chides Palin’s opponents for their petty attacks, and promotes Palin as a representative of “the next big shift in feminism.”)

But even if speaking up for children and their mothers was a losing battle, don’t those who claim to be “pro-life” politicians have a responsibility to speak up for them anyway? If a politician claims to truly understand that abortion takes the life of an innocent child, and that abortion scars women for life, and that the shedding of innocent blood brings doom upon our nation, how can such a politician treat abortion like it is just another “issue”?

As Terri and I wrote in our strategy paper, our nation’s abortion supporters are not the only ones who need a change of heart. Those of us in the pro-life movement need to allow God to change our own hearts before He can use us to change anyone else’s hearts.

I still believe that Sarah Palin has, in her heart, the courage to stand up boldly for both the children and women who are hurt by abortion. Sarah Palin was (and is) a bright beam of hope for the future of the pro-life movement in our nation. She has faced the worst attacks of the “politics of personal destruction” and remained standing. I believe that Dutch Sheets is correct when he says that Sarah Palin has a huge mantle from God. But sometimes those with a huge mantle from God choose, like Jonah, to run from it. Apparently even Sarah Palin needs a change of heart.

Until we all stop treating our pro-life convictions like an “issue” of our “personal preference” we have doomed ourselves to fail.

It doesn’t matter who is on the other side when we choose to ignore our own message.