In the wake of the Pence-Kaine debate, the fallout from Senator Kaine’s subpar performance continues. In true flip-flop fashion, Kaine previously supported the Hyde Amendment ban on taxpayer funding of abortion but now supports Hillary Clinton’s call to force all American taxpayers to pay for elective abortion. The senator is also being criticized by leftist groups for not hammering Gov. Pence hard enough over his faith and views on marriage while they praise Hillary Clinton’s recent op-ed in a LGBT Philadelphia newspaper. This only further highlights the fact that the difference between Clinton and Trump on policy and the role of the state in civil society could not be greater. Hillary’s op-ed supports nominees to the Supreme Court who would continue to rewrite the Constitution according to liberal ideology rather than rule based on what the Constitution actually says. She endorses the Court’s redefinition of marriage as well as Obama’s executive orders creating special status and protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.

In stark contrast to Hillary’s op-ed, Donald Trump sent a letter to Catholics defending religious liberty and calling out the Obama administration’s HHS contraception mandate, which persecutes Christians like the little Sisters of the Poor, forcing them to pay for abortifacient drugs and devices that violate their conscience. In the letter, Trump points out Hillary’s hostility to “life, religious liberty, Supreme Court nominations, affordable and quality healthcare, educational choice and homeschooling.” Trump rightly calls out Kaine for worsening Clinton’s hostility toward Catholics through his flip-flop on natural marriage, a stance Kaine held firm on until 2013.

With Justice Scalia’s passing the next president will have one vacancy on the Court waiting to be filled. There will likely be two to three more over the next four years. Trump makes his position clear: “I will appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench, like Justice Clarence Thomas and the late and beloved great Catholic thinker and jurist, Justice Antonin Scalia.” Hillary makes it clear that she supports activist Supreme Court rulings, from Roe v. Wade to Obergefell v. Hodges. One of her most clarifying statements reveals her plan to use the law to prevent any disagreement over matters related to marriage and sexuality. In her October 6 op-ed, she writes, “I know that differences of opinion on LGBT equality still exist in the hearts of some Americans, but they should not exist under our laws.” Her promise to bring about this “inclusive” view to the nation would essentially mean that she will use the law to force her views on all Americans. As the Left has repeatedly said, “The debate is over!” Embrace this radical redefinition of human sexuality or be punished by the government. Hillary’s view of the law even contradicts that of Justice Kennedy’s Obergefell ruling, in which he affirmed the right of natural marriage supporters to be free to not merely hold but advocate for their view. While Hillary and Kaine claim Americans can have “faith,” they want it shuttered from the public square, and they clearly intend to use the force of law to impose the Left’s ever changing view of morality on the nation.

Laws, however, are not morally neutral. I’ve never heard a liberal call for helping the poor as if there was no moral reason for doing so. Hillary has repeated innumerable times that the rich should pay their “fair share.” Is “fairness” not a moral category? We may disagree with the Left’s policy goals — do they actually help the poor? Do deals with Iran and tyrannical governments protect human rights and international security? Do government-imposed regulations on the environment further conservation? Do higher taxes help create jobs? But let’s not adopt the naïve falsehood that those policy goals are unrelated to morality. The question is, whose morality? Clinton has made herself clear. Trump has too. While conservatives don’t always share the same personal values as Donald Trump, we share many of the same concerns about the direction of our country. We share the same concerns about life, religious liberty, educational choice, control over health care, and a Supreme Court that will respect the Constitution. The choice could not be clearer.

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.