Every movement operates according to a standard, and every moral claim appeals to some authority. The only question is: whose?
Kristan Hawkins has a standard problem, and so does the broader Pro-Life Movement.
In a recent video posted by Students for Life of America (SFLA), a Students for Abolition (SFA) officer challenged Hawkins—founder and president of SFLA—arguing that her legislative approach violates God’s explicit commands against “unequal weights and measures” (Proverbs 20:23; 11:1).
Hawkins responded by calling the officer’s opposition to a heartbeat bill “wrong” and “sin,” even accusing him of killing babies as a result of his alleged pride. But according to what standard? By what measure is he guilty of pride or sin? The SFA officer, Jeremiah, appealed to Scripture as his standard for legislative ethics. Hawkins, however, did not, indicating that her authority rests not in Scripture but in a manmade, worldly standard.
The Pro-Life Movement operates by a simple but flawed syllogism:
Premise 1: We should aim to save as many lives as possible.
Premise 2: Incremental or compromising laws may save some lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, we should accept incremental or compromising laws to save as many lives as possible.
To test this reasoning, consider a reductio ad absurdum: If the standard is only “saving as many lives as possible,” then any means, no matter how immoral, could be justified by its outcomes. For instance, if bombing an abortion clinic delayed or deterred abortions, would that make it right? Of course not! Pro-Lifers rightly object that vengeance belongs to the Lord (Romans 12:19). Abolitionists wholeheartedly agree.
In acknowledging that not every means is acceptable, Pro-Lifers implicitly recognize a higher principle guiding their efforts—namely, obedience to God.
Yet, this amounts to a pick-and-choose approach to God’s Word, since Scripture also speaks explicitly and implicitly about how civil authorities should legislate and judge. God hates partiality, unequal weights and measures and laws that pervert justice. Biblically, partiality means applying the law unequally, excusing one class of sinners while condemning another (Leviticus 19:15; Proverbs 17:15). Incremental laws commit this very injustice by distinguishing between victims and perpetrators based on gender or circumstance rather than moral truth.
Furthermore, the Pro-Life Movement misunderstands or outright denies God’s design for civil law, which serves three primary functions:
1. Instruction – It teaches what is right and wrong (Gal. 3:24; Rom. 3:20; Deut. 11:18–21).
2. Restraint – It deters and restrains evil (Deut. 13:11; Rom. 13:1–4; Eccl. 8:11).
3. Justice – It executes justice (Prov. 21:15; Amos 5:24).
Civil law, then, operates as a powerful didactic, restraining, and evangelistic tool shaping our culture. When civil laws mirror God’s moral law, they expose lawbreakers to their need for a spiritual salvation that the state cannot provide–creating a wonderful opportunity for Christians to engage these women with the Gospel.
Tragically, the Pro-Life Movement rejects this God-given principle and His divine purpose for the law. Present incremental or compromised statutes neither restrain mothers from murdering their children nor teach moral accountability. Instead, they portray mothers as victims of circumstance rather than moral agents. Even a repentant mother would find, under such laws, nothing for which to repent, since the wrongdoing is framed as something done to her, not by her.
This approach is neither reasonable nor biblically faithful. Sin always harms the sinner, and abortion unquestionably harms the mother. “The way of the transgressor is hard” (Proverbs 13:15). Still, this harm does not erase guilt. We proclaim the Law and the Gospel not to make the sinner’s life easier, but to reveal sin’s gravity and direct them to the mercy of Christ.
This inconsistency is prevalent throughout the Pro-Life Movement. I once asked a Students for Life regional director why their organization supports legal immunity for mothers who have abortions and opposes laws that criminalize the act itself. She had just affirmed her belief in incremental laws because they “save as many lives as possible.” I replied, “That’s interesting–bills equal protection would save more lives and effectively abolish legal abortion, yet you oppose them …”. She answered that she believed mothers are victims of abortion. Her response exposed the movement’s true governing principle: not the unqualified goal of saving lives, but submission to a feminist premise that casts mothers as the “second victims” of abortion.
The Abolitionist position is refreshingly clear, cutting through the fat. It affirms the desire to save lives but insists that our methods must honor God’s commands: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29) and “lean not on our own understanding…” (Proverbs 3:5-6). An Abolitionist like Jeremiah can unequivocally denounce Kristan’s partial, compromising bills as sin, measuring them against Scripture itself. When Hawkins calls his actions sinful, her charge rests on pragmatic reasoning rather than divine command. Her standard is not God’s Word; she is, in biblical terms, choosing to be “wise in her own eyes” (Proverbs 3:7).
Unfortunately, Hawkins continually pits obedience to God’s will against political success, a false dichotomy the abolitionist rejects. Righteousness and political strategy should not be at odds. True victory flows from faithfulness: “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it” (Psalm 127:1). This faithfulness is bearing fruit. In Georgia, 23% of House Republicans supported HB 441; in Louisiana, an Equal Protection bill advanced out of committee; and similar efforts are emerging nationwide. Abolitionist politicians and allies are gaining ground and transforming the culture.
Pro-Life lobbyists tout their “successful strategy,” pointing to compromised bills and boasting of lives saved. Yet these same bills preserve legal exemptions allowing mothers to perform self-managed abortions, which will never be reported to medical agencies. Reputable sources have documented increases in self-managed abortions in states with “Total” bans. (1, 2) When hard data is lacking, Pro-Lifers cite rising birth rates as proof of success, but birth rates are not a one-to-one measure of lives saved. By that logic, will they also take credit for the surge in births during the COVID-19 lockdowns? Their celebrated “strategy” begins to resemble self-deception rather than success or progress.
In contrast, the effectiveness of Abolitionism is not its foundation but its fruit. The Abolitionist’s confidence rests not in outcomes or political momentum, but in the authority of God’s Word and submission to that authority. This reasoning captures this position well:
Premise 1: The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
Premise 2: God forbids partiality, unequal weights and measures, and unjust decrees concerning child sacrifice.
Premise 3: Incremental Pro-Life laws show partiality (protecting some while excusing others).
Conclusion 1: Therefore, such laws are unjust and unbiblical.
Premise 4: The highest virtue is obedience to God.
Premise 5: Establishing laws that deliberately authorize injustice, even for perceived strategic reasons, is disobedience to God.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, incremental Pro-Life laws are immoral.
Ultimately, every moral and legislative argument returns to one question: By what standard? The Pro-Life establishment answers with worldly-wise pragmatism, the ever-shifting measure of what seems to “work” or “save the most.” God’s people cannot be worldly-wise pragmatists. Pragmatism is a worldview that says “the ends justify the means.” The Christian standard is not efficiency but obedience. In obeying God, the results will come. We are not to count our chariots or boast in our strategies, but to trust the hand of God for victory (Psalm 20:7).
When we adopt strategies God condemns, we declare that our wisdom surpasses His. When our civil laws and moral arguments align with the standard of God’s Word, we uphold justice and magnify grace. We testify to the world that Christ is Lord not only of salvation but of legislation, not only of heaven but of earth. Anything less answers the question “By what standard?” or, more accurately, “By whose?” with the wrong name.
Pate Anglin is a founder of the abolitionist organization Students for Abolition and a signer of the Norman Statement.
