Article adapted from episode content.
The pro-life movement currently stands at a critical juncture regarding its legislative strategy. As various red states seek to further restrict abortion, a new wave of advocacy has emerged pushing for what are termed “equal protection” bills. The core premise of this legislation is that the same legal penalties applicable to the killing of a born person should be applied to women who undergo abortions. Proponents argue that anything less is inconsistent, unprincipled, and ultimately unbiblical. However, an examination of the current cultural landscape, the primitive state of public education regarding prenatal development, and the realities of our legal system suggests that while the moral logic of equal protection is sound, its current legislative application is strategically imprudent and potentially disastrous for the cause of life.
The Reality of the Playing Field
To understand the imprudence of equal protection bills, one must first recognize the “playing field” of public opinion. Approximately two-thirds of the American people believe abortion should be lawful in the first trimester. This is a staggering and problematic statistic given that 90% of all abortions take place in the first 90 days of pregnancy. Public support for abortion only begins to fall off dramatically in the second and third trimesters, where it drops to 40% and eventually into the single digits.
This disparity in support is driven by “form and function” assessments; as a baby begins to look more infant-like on a refrigerator-door ultrasound, the public becomes less supportive of abortion. Conversely, public perception of the first-trimester baby is almost non-existent. For decades, the secular culture has maintained a narrative that the early embryo is merely a “blob” or “nothing,” and our technology has, until recently, been too primitive to effectively challenge that myth.
The Technological and Educational Gap
A central pillar of the argument against prosecuting mothers for murder is the issue of fundamental fairness. In our system of jurisprudence, a person’s criminal culpability is deeply tied to what they know or don’t know regarding the facts of the situation. Currently, the American public is profoundly ignorant of prenatal development; one study indicated only one in four citizens could accurately answer basic questions on the subject.
This ignorance is facilitated by the limitations of standard ultrasound. Research-grade ultrasound imagery of a three-to-five-week-old embryo is often indecipherable to the average person. However, newer technologies like endoscopy—direct videography used in invasive surgeries—reveal a stunningly different reality. At just three weeks, when most women do not even know they are pregnant, an embryo already possesses a strongly beating heart, visible eyes, and vertebrae. By six weeks, the brain is producing measurable brainwave activity, and the embryo can turn its head and move its limbs.
If the vast majority of women are told by their doctors, schools, and media that the entity within them is not a human life, it is legally and morally “absurd” to attribute to them the same level of culpability as someone who kills a newborn or a toddler. We are currently in a “wild west” of self-managed abortions using pills ordered online, characterized by a profound lack of medical supervision or education. While every woman may have a vague sense in her heart that terminating a pregnancy is “not right,” that sense does not rise to the level of knowledge required to justify imprisonment or capital punishment.
The Failure of the Gatekeepers
The blame for this ignorance does not rest solely on secular institutions. The church has fallen silent. Research suggests that 80% of evangelical pastors are reluctant to speak on abortion, often feeling their seminary training did not prepare them for the issue. Consequently, only 4% of sermons nationwide even mention the word “abortion” over a given year. When the church fails to teach the wonder of prenatal development, as described in Psalm 139, it leaves its congregants defenseless against cultural propaganda. Instead of prosecuting women for murder, one could argue it would be more appropriate to “prosecute pastors for negligence” regarding their failure to disciple their flocks on the sanctity of life.
The Strategic “Train Wreck”
Beyond the moral and educational arguments, the push for equal protection bills represents a strategic “train wreck” for the pro-life movement. As a former legislator and prosecutor, I can attest that the legal system is not prepared to handle these cases in the way advocates imagine.
If a state were to attempt to prosecute a woman for a first-trimester abortion, several things would happen immediately:
- Reluctant Enforcement: Police officers will be extremely hesitant to arrest a young, panicked, or potentially drug-addicted woman for taking an abortion pill in a dorm room.
- Prosecutorial Backpedaling: District Attorneys will be reluctant to charge women because they know a conviction is nearly impossible to secure against a sympathetic witness. We have already seen this in Georgia, where DAs and judges have moved quickly to distance themselves from such prosecutions.
- Jury Nullification: Even if a case makes it to trial, juries are unlikely to convict a young girl when the public remains convinced that first-trimester abortion should be legal.
- A Narrative Victory for the Opposition: The failed attempt to prosecute would provide endless ammunition for the “relentless campaign of vilification” against the movement. It would reinforce the narrative that pro-lifers are “women haters” and “misogynists” who wish to see women on death row.
Ultimately, you would endure a costly, stressful, and highly public legal battle that results in zero convictions while causing massive damage to the reputation and efficacy of the pro-life cause.
A Call for Prudence and Education
We are not going to legislate, litigate, or regulate our way out of this crisis; we must educate our way out. The movement must move away from the imprudent push for murder charges and toward the “smart” work of dramatizing the humanity of the unborn.
The strategy for moving forward should be twofold:
- Utilize Advanced Imagery: We must point people to resources like erf.science (the Education Resource Fund), which hosts the most remarkable compilation of endoscopic prenatal imagery in the world. Seeing the reality of a three-week heartbeat or a six-week brainwave is more effective than any legislative mandate.
- Empower Personal Advocacy: We must encourage every pro-lifer to download tools like the Seb Grow app, which allows individuals to use their own phones to show friends and family the stunning reality of life in the womb.
In conclusion, while the principle of equal protection for all human beings is a biblical and moral North Star, the current push to prosecute mothers for murder is imprudently considered. It ignores the profound ignorance of our culture, the failure of our educational and religious institutions, and the practical realities of our legal system. To save as many lives as possible, we must remain prudent, focusing our efforts on revealing the undeniable humanity of the child rather than pursuing a legal strategy that the culture is not yet prepared to sustain.