Iowa State Rep. Steven Holt's email signature contains the famous Ronald Reagan quote, "If not now, when? If not us, who?" Sadly, Holt's position on rescuing preborn children from slaughter is more along the lines of "Certainly not now, and definitely not me."

Holt is chair of the Iowa House Judiciary Committee where HF2256, the bill to abolish abortion in Iowa, has been assigned and has sole authority to decide whether the bill will receive a subcommittee hearing. It appears he has chosen not to hear it. On Monday, Holt posted his position on Facebook. (Feel free to respond to his post here.)

Like Greg Treat in Oklahoma and virtually every legislator who kills abolition bills, Holt says saving preborn children is "one of the main reasons I ran for office." This is nothing more than pro-life swamp-speak for "I'm super pro-life. Get off my back."

Holt's main argument is that an abolition bill is not strategically wise given the current situation at the State Supreme Court. In 2018, the Iowa legislature passed a heartbeat bill but the court ruled in 2019 that the Iowa Constitution contained a fundamental right to abortion. In 2022, a more conservative State Supreme Court remade by Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds overturned the 2019 ruling but declined to reinstate the heartbeat bill, opining that the court couldn't reinstate a bill that was ruled unconstitutional at the time it was passed. The court ruled that while the State constitution did not protect abortion, the "undue burden" standard that the State Court had applied while Planned Parenthood v. Casey was still federal precedent would remain governing precedent in Iowa for the time being.

A new, more conservative court is rolling back pro-abortion precedent and everything that used to prop up the undue burden standard is gone. With Roe, Casey, and the State right to abortion all overturned, the next abortion ban is almost certain to be upheld; regardless of whether it is a heartbeat bill or abolition bill. There is no reason the state must move incrementally outside of the preferences of pro-life law lawmakers and lobbyists.

Further, an abolition bill provides stronger, more objective arguments for knocking down an undue burden standard than a heartbeat bill. With an abolition bill, you can argue not only the unreasonableness and illegality of undue burden, but for a consistent position that the State's right and obligation to protect life outweighs all countervailing interests. You can't do the same with a heartbeat bill because it does not protect and is not grounded in the right to life at all.

We've seen this exact scenario play out recently. Last year, the South Carolina Supreme Court struck down a heartbeat bill. The judge who gave the deciding vote explained that the government interests involved in enforcing a heartbeat bill are completely arbitrary, but that if the government were to pass a total ban, its actions would be justified because a total ban is grounded in the objective right to life against which no other right or interest can outweigh. By compromising on when life begins, we are giving up our strongest legal arguments. Watch the brief video below for more on the South Carolina case and the folly of compromising on abortion.

With Steven Holt, as with all abolition obstructionists, we simply have a pro-life committee chair blame-shifting as he kills the abolition bill and permits child sacrifice to continue in his state. And as always, he has the backing of the pro-life organizations as he does it.