EQUAL PROTECTION
Confronting the logic gap in the Pro Life community
The “Equal Protection” efforts of the abortion abolitionists took a swing at bat last week, unsuccessfully, in the SD House Health & Human Services Committee, failing 8-5 against.
In short, the Equal Protection efforts aim to treat the pre-born baby to the same rights as the rest of us post-borns enjoy, particularly the right all humans are endowed with to not be murdered. While most pro-life folks agree with this general premise, there exists a substantial divide in the punishment aspect of these bills.
As I quickly discovered, this issue is extremely divisive in the pro-life community. Like, bitterly divisive. What to do….
Having come to view myself as an abolitionist over time, I was surprised to read a FB post attacking HB1212 by a prominent leader of a SD pro-life group, in what I took to be an harsh attack, and overly so. Fred Deutsch denounced this effort as a “so-called pro life bill”, among other dismissive snarks. Here is Fred being, uhhh, less-than-honest and Christian with his assertions»>
Irritated & suprised by Fred’s hamhanded attack, I joined in the melee, which I soon came to regret. After speaking with good & decent Christians whose feet are firmly planted on both sides of this issue, I determined that Facebook is not the ideal place for this weighty bombshell of a fight.
And fight it certainly is, and will continue to be, I think. This issue is worth fighting for, but we must fight with gloves on, and no weapons allowed. Fred, this means you will have to sit this one out. Some of us simply don’t trust your motives.
What I would like to do here is refute the seemingly legitimate arguments that are being made against Equal Protection laws. I will try to steelman these arguments, because I do feel that they are mostly made in the same spirit of eventually eliminating abortion as an acceptable practice in American society, & the world.
The following are the bullets points that have been put forward arguing against charging the womb-haver/would-be mother charged with murder after she has committed an abortion:
WOMEN WON’T SEEK POST ABORTIVE COUNSELING AT CRISIS PREGNANCY CLINICS FOR FEAR OF ARREST
TOO DIFFICULT TO PROVE (THAT THEY WERE PREGNANT TO BEGIN WITH)
THIS LAW WOULD ENRAGE THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHO ARE EITHER PRO-ABORTION OR AMBIVALENT, CAUSING A BACKLASH THAT WILL ENSHRINE ABORTION INTO THE CONSTITUTION
THIS LAW WOULD PREVENT FUTURE ABORTION-REGRETTING WOMEN FROM SHARING THEIR STORY, FOR FEAR OF ARREST
MANY WOMEN ARE COERCED OR UNWITTINGLY POISENED WITH THE ABORTION PILL
IT’S NOT FAIR BECAUSE THE ABORTION INDUSTRY LIES TO WOMEN
WOMEN WILL JUST SNEAK OFF TO ANOTHER STATE TO ABORT
I’m probably missing one or two, but these are the main arguments I have encountered. As I mentioned, I want to offer rebuttals to these arguments fairly, in an attempt to thoroughly navigate the cause & effects of how we who call ourselves pro-life/anti-abortion really view this particular wickedness.
Do we actually consider abortion to be murder of an innocent human being? Or is it something a little less atrocious? Do we really think of them as babies who are being slain?
In an effort to address the obvious logic gaps in these assertions, I’d like to create a template that we can apply to every one of these 7 points, and it goes like this:
Instead of a pre-born baby, pretend we are talking about a 4 month old baby.
Here I will offer a counter to the 7 arguments above:
A case can be made that ratcheting up the consequence of committing an abortion all the way up to a potential murder charge will give pause to all involved. As it stands now, there is little fear of any negative consequences to aborting. If the law made this “choice” dramatically more consequential, it is reasonable to assume that many more women (& men) will find themselves in need of the various services offered by crisis pregnancy centers. As for post-abortive counseling, one would imagine that doctor-client confidentiality would be in effect, protecting the privacy of those seeking help.
This is undeniable. With the advent of abortifacients, ending a baby’s life has become a very private affair, and like most sin, easily committed, and irrevocable. Proving beyond a doubt a woman was carrying a live human before consuming this poison may be complicated to prove. But murder by poison usually is. Remember, this is a live baby we’re talking about. (Use the template)
Another valid fear. However, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10). God is sovereign, & He hates sin. We should fear the Lord, not man in his depravity.
Running out of women who commit abortions to give their testimony would be an unqualified success, frankly. Again, pretend we are talking about women who “aborted” their 4 month old infant, and ask yourself if you really think of pre-borns as equal.
This is a huge problem, one that I think would nearly disappear if the people doing the coercing could be charged with accessories to murder. How many parents would encourage their daughter to make an illegal decision that carries the risk of going to prison? Adoption would be a much safer option. As it stands, most people do not consider abortion of a live baby to be that serious of a matter. No downside, only upsides. This dynamic can be flipped.
This is also true. The entire world lies to women about their worth & their identity. Satan is the father of lies, & our acceptance of what amounts to child sacrifice only supports his lies. Our true identity is found in Christ.
Also true, but doesn’t alter the template. Our goal should be to END ABORTION nationwide, because that would be showing full obedience to God’s Law, which forbids murder of innocents.
On that note, I would like to share some thoughts that were posted in response to Alpha Center’s (Sioux Falls crisis pregnancy center) public stance opposing the recent Equal Protection bill (HB1212) in SD, by local pastor Ryan Chase (posted on FB):
“I am grateful for the work that the Alpha Center has done caring for women and babies and standing against abortion in South Dakota. However, this take on HB1212 is wrong.
The same arguments raised against HB1212 could be used against all pro-life legislation. But the Alpha Center has supported such legislation in the past without claiming that women would avoid their services out of fear or shame. We’ve been told for decades that if abortion is banned, women will use coat hangers in back alleys, but the Alpha Center knows that many women turn to them for help instead.
Criminalizing the murder of babies does not remove the opportunity to offer hope, compassion, and care to women, it increases it. If fear of the law deters a woman from murder, that is kindness to her. If a woman faces these proposed legal consequences for murdering her baby, compassion is pointing her to Jesus for the forgiveness of all her sins, not minimizing her sin.
The position outlined by the Alpha Center seeks to honor women, but it actually demeans them. It insults women’s intelligence (assuming scientific/medical ignorance) and treats them as helpless victims rather than morally responsible agents.
The biblical standard is simple: Does the punishment fit the crime? The answer requires defining the crime: Is abortion murder? Just laws are evaluated by their conformity to God’s revealed moral will, not by fearful speculation about how people might feel.
Just laws have several purposes (Rom 13:1–6, 1 Tim 1:8–11):
• They define right and wrong for society.
• They serve as a tutor to shape consciences.
• They restrain and deter people from doing evil.
• They prescribe just punishments for crime.
Until Christians take seriously the claim that abortion is murder, the world never will.”
Thank you, Pastor Ryan. Such bold clairty is a welcome contribution in our modern world of Easy Chrisitanity. What you don’t see in his statement is the (mis)application of John 8:7 that some pro life groups are using to try to convince us that Equal Protection laws are somehow anti Christ in practice; where Jesus prevented a public stoning of a serial fornicating woman with the challenge “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. I call this a misapplication because it should be obvious that Jesus was in NO WAY advocating for the elimination of laws. Instead, He was demonstrating how we all should show grace to everyone around us, not self-righteous condemnation.
Jesus always made it personal.
To which I say Amen! We are not to go around stoning & judging other peoples’ sins. We are to hate the sin in our own wicked hearts, repent and go sin no more.
Job 42:6 NIV
“Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust”
Luke 13:3 NIV
“I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish”
The goal of ending abortion in America must be played as a long game. It took 50 years to normalize this abomination, and over that time many warriors on the pro-life side have, I think, developed a bunker mentality. The sexual revolution of the 1960’s, turbo charged by the invention of birth control pills, began the process of completely unbinding sexual intercourse from marriage. Free love has a steep price, as it turns out. As with all sin, the road is wide and easy, at first.
In 1973 “abortion rights” advocates promised a world of “no unwanted babies”, and yet fatherless children abound, with 40% of ALL BIRTHS occur in unmarried women (4 times the rate in 1970!).
Is this the freedom we were promised?
No, sin never ends in liberty. It builds the chains that sink us to the ocean floor of despair, narrowing our precious “choices” down to Murder or Misery.
One of the arguments I’ve seen against enacting Equal Protection laws is that they won’t stop all abortions, and the old canard that women out of desperation will pursue “unsafe” baby murder methods if they cannot do them legally. Well, apparently there are 20-50 MILLION rapes that occur globally every year, so should we relax those laws too? Or should we treat rape as the ancients did in the Old Testament - punishable by death?
We must wonder if the massively influential sexual revolution is having some unintended consequences; ones that are ruining our culture and arousing God’s wrath against us . Maybe it’s time to RETVRN to the time before Tinder hookups & body counts, when we as a society took these matters much more seriously. When we feared violating God’s Commandments, and treated sexual relations less “casually”.
Maybe it’s time to treat our brothers and sisters who are most vulnerable, just a little vulnerable as a beautiful 2 month old baby, as Equals.
Thanks for this article. I’ve been involved in the pro-life movement for quite a while. After the testimony on HB1212, I’ve become an abolitionist. Abortions have increased in SD since Roe v Wade went down and the pro-life groups didn’t want to do anything about it (my opinion).
Thank you (I think) for this article Chris (or should I call you 'Socrates'?). You have made me painfully aware that I have been artfully kidding myself regarding my pro-life stance.
Let me give you a little background --
In March 2024 I had just returned from an ambassadorial visit abroad when I was approached about running for District 31 Legislator. I took up the offer somewhat reluctantly because the time was so short before the June primary, but the qualifying number of petitions were quickly submitted, and so I decided it was probably best for Lawrence County that I run in that race.
Once committed I gave it my best shot, and so I traveled all over Lawrence County, Nemo to West Boulder Canyon to Whitewood to St. Onge and finally Spearfish.
I had a list of registered Republican voters that I was working from, and while high property taxes was by far the leading issue, I was surprised by how many times I was asked about abortion rights (by the women). I was nettled by this because so often these supposedly 'conservative' voters didn't approve when I answered "I have ALWAYS been pro-life."
After awhile I came up with what I thought was a snappy and conclusive statement regarding abortion -- "I don't discriminate against the unborn, and I don't think anyone else should, either."
But now I realize I was discriminating against the unborn after all; I realize this -- since I initially balked at the idea of incriminating abortive women!
The conventional response to this (of not charging abortive women) goes something like this: "There's already been enough tragic loss and sorrow here; how can we be so cruel as to add to it?" I guess that's about where I was with that.
With that kind of reasoning I wasn't protecting the unborn, or the mothers, or society overall -- because I was condemning the homicide but excusing the perpetrator to go off scott-free, never legally having to answer for her crime.
I know this will produce all kinds of backlash and arguments, as you point out: "What if it's deformed?", "What about the father?", "Whose womb is it?", etc. But our FIRST concern should ALWAYS be the protection of the unborn. If we are going to be a nation of laws, and if law is made for the protection of its citizens, we should begin right there, or we are building upon a crumbling edifice that will eventually collapse under the weight of its own sloth and avarice.
We get pretty adept at sidestepping moral absolutes because we want to see ourselves as high-minded and just; that's what's going on here, I think, and your article masterfully reveals the hypocrisy to us.
Thank you! (I think)