Blog

‹ Back

On the Criminalization

of Abortion

 

(Image credit: Wesley Tingey)

 

“Unequal weights are an abomination to the Lord,
and false scales are not good.”

Proverbs 20:23¹

 

In our previous article we pointed out that both the pro-abortion and pro-life industries are agreed that mothers should not be penalized for having their preborn children aborted. One of the five components of an abolition bill² is that in order to provide equal justice for preborn human beings, abortion itself must be criminalized. Below we offer:

 

 

Fifteen Reasons Why the Act of Abortion
Must Be Criminalized As Murder

 

 

1. The nature of the act requires it

 

Murder is the premeditated killing of an innocent human being with malice aforethought. It is the unjustified, intentional destruction of human life. This is what abortion is, applied to preborn human beings.

 

Murder as concerns born human beings is an exceedingly serious criminal act for all individuals involved in the committing of it. Because abortion is prenatal murder, it must be an equally serious criminal offense for all parties involved. To preemptively give immunity to any party is to treat abortion as if it were an entirely inferior category of crime — indeed, often as no crime at all — and as something much different than what it most undeniably is, as something far, far lesser than what everyone knows it to be: murder.

 

 

2. The creational identity of humanity necessitates it

 

The scriptural Genesis account of the creation of all things peaks on the sixth day when God made man:

 

“So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27).

 

Notice the words immediately following the declaration that God has created man: “in his own image.” It is foundational to the identity of mankind that God made human beings in his own image.

 

And it is precisely for this reason that murder is so heinous: it is an attack upon an image bearer of God, and therefore an attack upon God himself. This is why, after the flood, God declares:

 

“From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9:5–6).

 

To have laws that allow someone to choose to have an innocent human being murdered (so long as the victim is still in the womb), make all necessary preparations for the act, carry it through to completion, and yet suffer no penalty whatever for the involvement (without which the murder never would have happened), is to scorn God’s requirement and to devalue preborn human beings as not bearing the image of God at all, but to fabricate some other infinitesimally smaller amount of worth for them.

 

 

3. The law of God demands it

 

Far above created man’s opinions, his ideas of morality, or his concept of ethical legislation, sits the eternal God, the Creator and Lord over all, enthroned in the heavens, glory be to his name. When the Lord speaks, his creatures must listen. What he commands, it is our duty is to obey. If he says, “This is good,” we had better agree. If he says, “That is evil,” we ought not doubt him. Our place is to humbly submit to his decrees.

 

In considering whether any law is righteous and just or not, the question must be asked: According to what standard? It is our contention that the standard for just law is the holy law of God, and that any other starting point will be arbitrary, by the very nature of the case.

 

“The law of the Lord is perfect,” the Bible tells us (Psalm 19:7). We know that “the rules of the Lord are true, / and righteous altogether” (v. 9), and that “all his precepts are trustworthy” (111:7). We are to love his commandments above fine gold (119:127). “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12).

 

When it comes to the matter at hand, and whether the act of abortion should be criminalized as murder, what does the law of God have to say? What do God’s righteous rules tell us?

 

His law is straightforward: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13).

 

Now, who all is included in this “you” who shall not murder? Will anyone legitimately claim that some are meant to be left out? Or that this command does not apply to everyone?

 

And what should result if murder is committed? Should the penalty be soft, or even completely absent? Does the law of God give one set of rules concerning murder victims in one category (like the preborn or very young) and another set of rules for murder victims in another category (e.g., those who are older)? The answer to these two questions, emphatically, is no. (See, e.g., Genesis 9:5–6; Exodus 21:12,22–24; Leviticus 19:15; 20:2; 24:17,21–22; Numbers 35:30–31,33; Deuteronomy 16:19; cf. Psalm 139:13; Proverbs 28:17; Acts 25:11; Romans 13:4).

 

Does the pro-life industry apply the command “You shall not murder” equally to all people? Do they even believe that abortion is murder? Or do they employ a double standard: one for born people, and one for preborn; or one for pregnant mothers, and one for everyone else? Do they ask, “Did God actually say…?”³ Would God’s law not need to be amended to fit the pro-life movement’s ideals? “You shall not murder — unless you’re a mother, and the one being murdered is your preborn child. In that case, no matter your involvement, you shall be considered innocent of all wrongdoing under the law” (Exodus 20:13, “Pro-Life Version”).

 

Again, the Almighty Lord declares, “[D]o not kill the innocent and righteous” (Exodus 23:7). Now, who is more innocent than a human being in the womb? And who is more righteous (in a civil sense) than a child not yet born? Yet if a mother can willfully choose to have such an innocent and righteous person killed and suffer no punitive consequence, then surely she is the exception to the command? Here as well, the only way to have God’s law fit the pro-life paradigm is to add to his words: “Do not kill the innocent and righteous. That is, unless you’re pregnant and the innocent person is your own preborn child, or the righteous one is yet in your womb. For in such situations, the law will hold you guiltless, and ‘Do not kill’ will not apply to you” (Exodus 23:7, “Pro-Life Version”). This is despite God’s clear instruction: “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32).

 

God also proclaims in his law, “You shall not be partial in judgment” (Deuteronomy 1:17).

 

In an abortion, the parents, and in particular the mother, hold all the power. (This does not includes cases of coercion, which will briefly be mentioned later.) The preborn child is completely and totally helpless. Whether the parents willingly bring the baby of their own accord to a killing facility (the abortionist does not seek the child out) or the mother takes pills in her own home to poison the child to death (in which case she is her own abortionist), the poor child can do nothing stop them. Pro-life ideology espouses that the mother cannot be held legally responsible for such actions. No court case is needed to determine this. The prejudgment is given before the murder is even committed, and certainly without any trial. And the judgment is this: The preborn child is condemned to death with extreme prejudice, while the mother is pronounced innocent of any and all wrong.

 

If this is not partiality, dear reader, nothing is.

 

“You shall not pervert justice,” God’s holy law says. “You shall not show partiality” (Deuteronomy 16:19). “Justice, and only justice, you shall follow” (v. 20), is the decree from the Almighty. But can one human being be a principal party in the murder of another, yet be absolved of any guilt under the law whatsoever, and it honestly be claimed that no partiality was shown? Is this following carefully after justice, and only justice? Or is this a perversion of the justice which God commands?

 

 

4. The motto of our state calls for it

 

Since 1867, the year Nebraska became a state, our motto has been, “Equality Before the Law.”⁴ Yet surely it is evident that preborn children are not considered equal before the law, in complete disregard of our noble motto. And under pro-life laws, preborn children are and can never be considered equal before the law. For they can be killed by their own fathers and mothers, and the law will protect the parents and leave the children to their deaths.

 

It is worth pointing out here: no abolition bill, no law of equal protection singles out women or mothers. Rather, an equal protection law applies the existing laws against murder equally to all. Any principal actor, any co-conspirator, any accomplice — all must be brought to justice. No one is exempt. Not father, not mother, not physician, not relative, not friend, not anyone else.

 

It is the pro-life laws that specifically single out mothers as exempt. This is favoritism. It is partiality. It is not equality in any sense, but the height of inequality. That mothers have been singled out for immunity when they commit murder is a grievous wrong that must be corrected in our laws. To the extent that mothers are mentioned in an article like this is in order to counteract the terribly unbiblical idea of special murder rights for mothers.

 

Fellow Nebraskan, do you believe that all people should be equal before the law? Are children in the womb human beings, or are they not? Should they be given equal treatment or not? Should we perhaps change our state’s motto to “Equality Before the Law, for Born Persons Only”? How long will innocent preborn children continue to languish and go to their merciless deaths, year after year, while we as a state pretend that we care about equality?

 

 

5. The Nebraska Constitution is in accordance with it

 

At least, for now it is. Both pro-abortion and pro-life groups seek to change that. (For more on this, see previous articles on our blog.)

 

The initial paragraph in the first article of our Constitution declares, “All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty…”⁵

 

We ask: Are preborn persons free if they can be slain by their mothers, who face no penalty? And how can their right to life be considered inalienable, if their mothers can take away that right of their own choosing? Do babies have an inherent right to liberty if their mothers can willfully put them to death before they even take their first breath?

 

Paragraph 3 reads, in full: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor be denied equal protection of the laws.”⁶

 

Nearly everything about this paragraph is rendered null and void by the pro-life concept of immunity for mothers who commit abortions:

 

1. Preborn persons are deprived of life,
    
2. They are deprived of liberty,
    
3. There is no due process for this deprivation, and
    
4. They are denied equal protection of the laws.

 

The ideology of the pro-life industry is inherently incompatible with our state’s Constitution as it now stands, while an equal protection law is perfectly consistent with it.

 

 

6. The duty of the civil magistrate insists upon it

 

Before we leave Nebraska’s Constitution, let us go back to section 1 in article I. Regarding all persons’ inherent and inalienable rights, the Constitution says: “To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people.” Don’t miss this. It states that the very purpose of civil government being instituted is to secure the rights delineated in our Constitution.

 

Yet it is manifestly the case that the rights of preborn human beings are not secured. No, their rights have been completely and utterly deserted. It is the duty of our elected public officials to secure back those rights again. But this will never happen so long as governing officials listen to pro-life groups who tell them that mothers should be permitted to murder their own preborn children without any penalty.

 

Now, as important as our Constitution is, it is not the highest standard. Rather, it is the holy, authoritative, and inerrant Word of God that is the supreme and ultimate standard. And how do the Scriptures instruct the civil magistrate to conduct himself?

 

“For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:3–4).

 

God says that he hates the hands that shed innocent blood (Proverbs 6:16–17), and it is the civil magistrate’s bounden duty to God, as his servant, to carry out God’s wrath against such evildoers by bearing the sword. But instead of this righteous form of government, under the pro-life way of looking at abortions, we have the following:

 

1. Rulers are not a terror to bad conduct.
    
2. You can do what is evil and you will receive their tacit approval.
    
3. They do not bear the sword, for no punishment is meted out.
    
4. God’s wrath is not carried out on the wrongdoers.

 

The Almighty Lord calls out from his holy abode in heaven:

 

“Who will rise up for me against the evildoers?
Who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?” (Psalm 94:16, NKJV).

 

When will any civil leaders answer this call? When will the citizens who elect them require them to fulfill their God-given duty?

 

 

7. Substitute laws which are contrary to it encourage more and more abortions

 

What happens when rulers are not a terror to evil conduct? What is the outcome when no sword is borne against wrongdoers? What is the result of laws which permit murder, so long as you’re a mother and the victim is still in your womb?

 

Ecclesiastes 8:11 answers these questions: “Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.”

 

The passage is worth meditating on, but in summary, as it pertains to the present situation on abortion:

 

1. Abortion, being murder, is evil.
    
2. Committing this evil deed deserves punishment for anyone involved.
    
3. Yet no sentencing is carried out against these evil deeds, so long as those choosing to commit them are pregnant mothers.
    
4. Not only is no sentencing carried out, and not only is the crime not brought before a court of law, but it is not even considered to be a crime at all.
    
5. This is as far from swift justice as it is possible to be.
    
6. Therefore, the hearts of mothers are fully set to commit evil abortions, and the hearts of fathers are fully set to wickedly encourage them to do so.

 

 

8. The depravity of man desperately needs it

 

Why are the hearts of human beings fully set toward doing evil when we can get away with it? It is because, since the fall of mankind, every person has a sin nature.⁷ This nature is so corrupted that there is no faculty that has escaped the taint: not the heart or mind,⁸ not the will,⁹ not the desires and affections.¹⁰ There are no exceptions: all human beings are totally depraved, and in need of the redemptive work of Christ.¹¹ This does not mean that every person is as bad as he could be, no. But it does mean that no aspect of anyone’s existence has escaped the corruption of sin.

 

“For out of the heart proceed…murders” (Matthew 15:19, NKJV).

 

 

9. It will deter abortions from taking place

 

A key function of the law is that it serves as a deterrent to crimes being committed. Nowhere is this more obvious than when the statistics between murders of born and preborn people are compared.

 

The CDC issued statistics reporting that there were 24,849 counts of homicide nationwide in 2022.¹²

 

Consider this in parallel with the opening line of a March 2024 Guttmacher Institute article: “New findings from the Monthly Abortion Provision Study show that an estimated 1,037,000 abortions occurred in the formal health care system in 2023.” Despite the overturn of Roe v. Wade, “It is…the highest number and rate measured in the United States in over a decade.”¹³

 

Keep in mind that this study is only reporting on abortions occurring “in the formal health care system.” As Guttmacher Institute acknowledges, “It is important to note that these annual estimates are almost certainly an undercount.”¹⁴ It does not include self-managed, pills-by-mail abortions. An analysis from earlier in 2024 by the Foundation to Abolish Abortion estimates that the number of self-managed abortions occurring in just fourteen states with abortion “bans” has reached nearly 100,000 over a twelve-month period.¹⁵

 

Putting this together: in the United States, murders of preborn people occur at a rate of at least 45 times more than murders of born people. Why is this? Is it not because murder of preborn children is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, not considered punishable by law?

 

Even in the states with abortion “bans,” it’s still completely acceptable, according to the laws in those states, for mothers to kill their preborn children, just as long as they don’t involve someone with a medical license. And therefore, abortions in those states continue at very high rates. This is where the pro-life concept of not criminalizing abortion, as an act, leads. The mothers become their own abortionists.

 

Consider the account provided below, where a man confesses that he and his girlfriend would never have murdered their preborn child, had there been harsh penalties for doing so. Pastor Jason Storms, at a hearing for the Abolition of Abortion in Texas Act (HB 896) on April 8, 2019, gave the following testimony:

 

“I was guilty as an accomplice in the murder of my own child, and I should have been prosecuted accordingly… Mothers and fathers — parents — right now in Texas can be charged with parental neglect, parental abuse, and even parental homicide when we see the tragedy of parents taking the lives of their own children. It’s because mothers and fathers have a duty to love and protect their children. That responsibility doesn’t start when they’re born, but it starts when they’re conceived.

 

“Here’s a fact: my girlfriend and I, if we knew we would’ve been facing homicide charges, would never have aborted that child. That child would be alive today. I’d have a 22-year-old little child that I could celebrate life with right now that’s not here. The law is a deterrent to crime. We shouldn’t think of this only as a matter of putting a woman on the stand. We should think of this as a great deterrent. Men and women would not think of doing this if we stood firm on the law and provided equal protection for these children.”¹⁶

 

The law functions as a deterrent. If abortion, as an act, were treated legally as it really is — murder — people would be much less likely to follow through with their evil desires, and the abominable crime of abortion would be greatly reduced.

 

To put it simply, for those who have a preference for the pragmatic: which is more likely to result in fewer abortions — if there is no penalty whatever for those who choose to commit them, or when it is considered to be unlawful to the same degree as murder?

 

 

10. It will teach the culture that abortion is a great evil

 

Another role of the law is that it serves as a tutor. Laws instruct. They teach us what is right and what is wrong. Having an equal protection law on the books would train everyone in our state that each and every person in the womb really does have a right to life which cannot be deprived without due process under the law, and that human beings really are made in God’s image and cannot be destroyed without very serious civil ramifications.

 

But what has happened in Nebraska is that pro-life laws have, for decades, taught the culture lessons like these:

 

• As long as a woman is well-informed by a licensed professional of the risks to her in aborting her child, she can go ahead and have the little one killed.
   
• Partial birth abortions are bad, but there’s no need to partially deliver the child first. Just make sure you kill the child before delivery. Schedule an appointment early enough. Then it’s totally OK. All good here. No crime has been committed.
   
• Provided that a mother sees a picture of her preborn child via ultrasound, then she can go ahead and commit murder.
   
• Minors can get abortions too, that’s fine. No worries! Just as long as their parents say it’s ok.
   
• Actually, come to think of it, perhaps it is wrong to have an abortion. Well, only sort of. Just a little bit. Only in later stages of development, when hardly any abortions take place anyway. And even then, it’s completely acceptable in no less than three instances: rape, incest, and precarious pregnancy.

 

After year after year after year of this kind of messaging, is it any wonder that we still have thousands of legal abortions in Nebraska every year? Why wouldn’t mothers kill their preborn children, when this is what they are taught by the culture which pro-life laws produce?

 

Following are a few negative examples of pro-life laws functioning as a tutor:

 

“Senator Paul Scott from Oklahoma, when arguing for a heartbeat bill, said, ‘What this bill does is it defines life when life actually begins: when the heart begins to beat and when brainwaves are proven to exist in the fetus.’ [And] Ohio State Senator Andrew Brenner’s aide told…James Silberman, ‘It’s Senator Brenner’s personal religious conviction that life begins at a heartbeat.’ This is the unintended result of ‘pro-life’ legislation. People actually start believing and spreading this dehumanizing misinformation about preborn human beings.”¹⁷

 

“Russell Hunter discovered the same thing while pleading with an abortion-minded mother outside a Norman abortion facility in 2016. Russell was pleading with her not to go through with the abortion when she told him, ‘It’s okay. My baby won’t even feel any pain.’ Where did she learn that it’s okay to murder your baby as long as he or she doesn’t feel pain? From the pro-life movement and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act which highlights pain as the reason abortion should be illegal.

 

“While doing anti-abortion outreach at a university campus in California, Sam Riley…discovered another dehumanizing aspect of pro-life bills. A female student, intrigued by the display, approached Sam and asked whether he opposed abortion even in the case of rape. Sam explained to her that abortion is wrong for the same reason that rape is wrong — it’s a violent act of aggression against an innocent human being, and that it’s unacceptable for us to give the death penalty to a child for the sins of the father. The young woman broke down in tears. ‘Thank you for saying that,’ she told him. ‘I was conceived in rape and when people talk about a rape exception for abortion, what I hear is that my life is less valuable.’ Not all pro-life bills have rape exceptions, but many of them do. These bills dehumanize those conceived in rape.”¹⁸

 

It is far past time to enact laws that will rightly teach our culture that murdering anyone is wrong for everyone.

 

 

11. The early history of the Church supports it

 

Should a woman who is party to having her preborn child put to death be considered guilty of murder? How has Christ’s body, the Church, spoken about this question in the past? The following sampling of early Church fathers and writings are from around the first four centuries. Notice how frequently the word murder is used.

 

• The Didache (c. 100): “There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference.… [D]o not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant.”¹⁹
   
• The Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st or early 2nd century): “Thou shalt love thy neighbor more than thine own soul. Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born.”²⁰
   
• Athenagoras (c. 133–90): “[W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder?”²¹
   
• Tertullian (160–225): “[I]n regard to child murder…it does not matter whether it is committed for a sacred object, or merely at one’s own self-impulse… In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fœtus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth.”²²
   
• Hippolytus (c. 170–235): “[W]omen, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time!”²³
   
• Minucius Felix (died c. 250): “There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels, and thus commit a parricide [i.e., the murder of a family member] before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods.”²⁴
   
• Basil of Caesarea (330–79): “The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder.… Women also who administer drugs to cause abortion, as well as those who take poisons to destroy unborn children, are murderesses.”²⁵
   
• John Chrysostom (344–407): “Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication… Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? where there are many efforts at abortion? where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevent its being born. Why then dost thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?”²⁶
   
• Jerome (347–420): “Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder.”²⁷

 

 

12. The gravity and urgency of the crimes cry out for it

 

Before the Israelites were to enter the land God had promised them, God warned them in Leviticus 18 against committing many kinds of sexual sins, and against committing child sacrifice, or the murder of newly born infants in sacrifice to pagan demons and false gods.

 

The Lord told them that by such practices, “the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants” (v. 25). But what would take place if Israel, once in the land, committed those very practices? The same thing would happen to them as to the other nations: “[D]o none of these abominations,” God warned, “lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you” (vv. 26, 28).

 

This is precisely what did in fact happen. In Psalm 106, a history of Israel’s sins and crimes is listed, culminating in child sacrifice:

 

“They sacrificed their sons
and their daughters to the demons;
they poured out innocent blood,
the blood of their sons and daughters,
whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan,
and the land was polluted with blood” (vv. 37–38).

 

How did God respond?

 

“Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against his people,
and he abhorred his heritage;
he gave them into the hand of the nations,
so that those who hated them ruled over them” (vv. 41–42). See also Jeremiah 32:26–35.

 

Modern-day abortion parallels the ancient practice of child sacrifice. There are minor differences — the goal may be comfort or “free” sex or career, rather than fertile crops, and the location of the child is in the womb rather than having just been born — but the principal factors remain the same:

 

• The parents sacrifice the life of their own child in order to achieve their intended ends.
   
• The innocent, helpless baby is murdered and dies a merciless death.
   
• The demons, active then and now, are pleased with the offering.

 

That we have had legalized child sacrifice in Nebraska for decades now is evidence of the very advanced stage of our iniquity. The unavoidable conclusion, with reference to the passages above, is that our state deserves the temporal judgment of God for its terrible wickedness. If the voice of just one person’s blood cried out to God from the ground (Genesis 4:10), what must the cry be like that goes up to God now, after decades of the ruthless slaughter of innocent children? “But if any nation will not listen, then I will utterly pluck it up and destroy it, declares the Lord” (Jeremiah 12:17). See also Leviticus 20:1–5.

 

Child sacrifice is a demonic practice. Devils love abortion. Shall we compromise with demons when we make laws? “Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?”²⁸

 

If we are to have any hope of receiving the mercy of the Lord upon our state, we must repent of our great evils, and we must establish justice in the land through legislation that equally protects all human beings. And equal protection is impossible if anyone is allowed to murder with impunity.

 

 

13. Love of God and neighbor compels us to work for it

 

It is loving to our God to seek to institute laws in society that accord with his good and righteous commands. He has charged us with seeking justice and correcting oppression (Isaiah 1:17), and surely there is no higher injustice in our land, no greater oppression, than that of the systematic butchery of over a million preborn children in our nation over the space of just a single year’s time. The Lord tells us that partial laws are an abomination to him (Proverbs 17:15; 18:5; Isaiah 10:1–2). Therefore, we must work to establish just, impartial laws in their place. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

 

It is likewise loving to our neighbors who are in the womb to seek to protect their lives through enacting legislation that would give them the same level of protection under the law as anyone else.

 

But not only this, it is also loving to our neighbors who would otherwise seek to commit crimes against those very preborn human beings. For what is loving about permitting mothers to kill their own children without any legal repercussions? “You can murder your closest neighbor and get away with it.”

 

How many mothers have committed murder via abortion, and later regretted doing so, and have carried a load of guilt and shame for years? And how many fathers lament the support they gave to have their own preborn children killed, and have deeply wished time and again that they had not done so? And, conversely, how many other parents have become hardened in their sin, aided by pro-life laws that tell them they have done no wrong, and chosen to have additional abortions? Or, again, how many Nebraskan parents would afterward be forever grateful for a law that teaches them the truth about their children — that they are made in the very image of God — and gives them a strong deterrent to refrain from doing any harm to them?

 

Is it loving to women to tell them that they can commit murder and not be held responsible for their actions? Adam blamed Eve. Eve blamed the serpent. Women who commit abortions in Nebraska are told by pro-life groups that they can blame the abortion industry, while at the same time, pro-life laws themselves teach and instruct mothers that they are completely absolved of any responsibility for their crimes of murder by abortion. How is this loving?

 

For those who would suggest that women who kill their own children should be shown mercy, we point out that without justice, there can be no mercy. For how can any level of leniency be shown to an offender, if she is considered not even to be an offender in the first place? Mercy where justice is completely absent is not mercy at all.

 

 

14. Righteous aspects of our justice system will be upheld under it

 

Under an equal protection bill that would criminalize the act of abortion as murder:

 

• Every person would bear the right of due process of law.
   
• The presumption of innocence until proven guilty would be in place.
   
• Prosecution must present evidence to prove their case.

 

These are important characteristics of a fair and equitable justice system, and none of that will be negatively affected when abortion is abolished in Nebraska.

 

On the contrary, note how both pro-abortion and pro-life laws destroy the above principles:

 

• Preborn children in virtually all cases are not given any due process under the law.
   
• Mothers who commit abortions are not considered innocent until proven guilty. Rather, there is a whole category of crime (murder via abortion) for which they are considered innocent without the possibility of being guilty. In the matter of abortion, mothers are always innocent, never guilty.
   
• There is no prosecution, and no evidence is needed. It is the ultimate prejudgment: the case is decided before there is even a case. No arguments are heard. The Bible calls this foolishness (see Proverbs 18:13).

 

What an abolition law would do is remove the unfair discrimination that is currently taking place in our state under the law — discrimination against human beings based on their age. Nowhere in an abolition bill is some harsher penalty applied to a woman — it is the same standard applied equally to all persons.

 

Also, an equal protection bill is not retroactive in its effect. Why? Because an equal protection law is a just law. First comes the revelation of the law, then the punishment if that law is broken.

 

Lastly under this point, because an equal protection bill is simply taking existing laws that protect born people and applying them equally to all human beings, including those yet preborn, each case that arises from violation of that law would be reviewed individually in accordance with the evidence presented, before determining the appropriate penalties. “Equal protection would not mean that every mother or father who murders their child would receive murder charges. There are all sorts [of] mitigating and exculpating factors that might lessen or eliminate the penalty for an aborting parent in a given situation. Some women are victims who are coerced into having abortions, and will not face any charges. Some will deserve second- or third-degree murder charges based on the circumstances. Some will receive immunity by testifying against the abortionist or pill trafficker (the big fish, so to speak). Each person charged with murder by abortion would receive all the same due process and opportunities for appeal that all defendants receive. This is the abolitionist position.”²⁹

 

 

15. Hindrances to the gospel present under current laws will be removed by it

 

As we said at the beginning, both the pro-abortion and the pro-life movements are agreed in their messaging to women: you can choose to abort you own children yet be considered by the law to be not guilty. Such a position is anithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Foundational to the message of the gospel is that all are guilty before a holy God because of their sin. But if a mother can go so far as to commit murder, yet be told that she is herself a victim, and therefore by her victimhood, innocent under the law, then what need has she of repentance? Jesus said, “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” (Mark 2:17, NKJV). What is there to repent of, if no wickedness has been committed? This is of eternal consequence, for the place of unrepentant murderers will be the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8).

 

God’s prophet Isaiah called out:

 

“[L]et the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon” (55:7).

 

See the compassion and kindness of the Lord, who will forgive the wicked who repent! And the unrighteous who turn back to him and confess their iniquity, how abundantly God will pardon! For there is forgiveness in Christ to be found for all who repent of their sins. None who come to him with a contrite heart will be turned away.

 

But pro-life laws teach women that they can murder and yet be righteous (not wicked), for under the law they are held guiltless. When being pro-life has become the default Christian position, and pro-life organizations claim to speak for all pro-lifers, then why should mothers think that God would hold them guilty, when the pro-life organizations say they can murder and yet be considered legally innocent? Why would women need to forsake their way if they have done nothing wrong worthy of any penalty? Humankind already has such a tendency to suppress the truth, and pro-life legislation aids in this suppression. This is a tragedy, since it brings the judgment of God (see Romans 1:18ff.).

 

An equal protection law, once established, will speak plainly to all citizens that murdering anyone, without exception, is a most serious crime for everyone, without exception. Thus the law of God will be more present in society, to bring its weight to bear upon people’s consciences that murder is an evil act. And so works of darkness will also be publicly exposed as such. All this will be favorable to the proclamation of the gospel of repentance from sin and of faith in Jesus Christ, who reigns as Lord over all.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Abortion is the murder of human beings made in God’s image. The law of God, not to mention our state’s Constitution and motto, call us to equally protect all people. It is the duty of our civil magistrates to replace laws that God hates with just laws that will deter people from committing crimes of murder, will teach them to do what is good, and will penalize them if they choose to violate others’ God-given rights. And since we live in a constitutional republic, it is our duty as citizens to call upon our leaders to institute just laws, and if they do not listen, to replace them with righteous men who will properly represent us and faithfully follow the Lord God.

 

Because we have lived in such a state of wickedness for so long, the situation is very grave, and the matter extremely urgent. Therefore, we must be completely unwilling to compromise any longer on the demonic practice of abortion. And out of love for God and our neighbors, we must humbly and diligently be very careful to use God’s Word and his law as our primary reference point and our ultimate standard in every action that we take, and steadfastly reject anything that contradicts what God commands. Every thought must be taken captive to obey Christ, and every argument or lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God must be destroyed (2 Corinthians 10:5).

 

This is our hope:

 

“Hate evil, and love good,
and establish justice in the gate;
it may be that the Lord, the God of hosts,
will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph” (Amos 5:15).

 

 

Questions?

 

We hope that the reasons provided above have been useful to you if you are considering the subject of just law as it pertains to abortion. If you have remaining questions, would you write us to ask them? We’d love to hear from you.

 

And as you think through this, one resource that may be useful as well is the site #NotAVictim (notavictim.org). Check out their FAQ. Read some of the true stories. Watch a few of the videos. It may well be eye-opening.

 

And if you found merit in our article, would you » copy this link « and share it?

 

 

Footnotes

 

[1] Scripture references are in the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.

[2] The others being: prohibiting abortion from conception/fertilization, eliminating every exception, repealing or superseding all laws which allow for abortion, and defying any federal tyranny that may be present.

[3] Genesis 3:1.

[4] James E. Potter, “‘Equality Before the Law’: Thoughts on the Origin of Nebraska’s State Motto,” Nebraska History 91 (2010), 117.

[5] Neb. Const. art. I, § 1.

[6] Neb. Const. art. I, § 3.

[7] Ecclesiastes 7:29; Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12,19.

[8] Jeremiah 17:9; Ecclesiastes 9:3; Ephesians 4:17-18; Genesis 6:5; Matthew 15:19.

[9] John 8:34; 2 Peter 2:19; Titus 3:3; Galatians 4:8; Romans 6:16.

[10] Ephesians 2:3; Proverbs 21:10; John 3:19; 8:44.

[11] Romans 3:9–12; Psalm 143:2; 2 Chronicles 6:36; Romans 7:18; Isaiah 1:5–6. For more on this subject, see “Total Depravity,” Monergism, https://www.monergism.com/topics/anthropology/total-depravity, and esp. “Total Depravity Verse List,” Travis Carden, https://traviscarden.com/total-depravity-verse-list. Also useful is “Doctrines Of Grace – Categorized Scripture List,” Monergism, https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/gracelist.html.

[12] “FastStats - Homicide,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm.

[13] Isaac Maddow-Zimet, Candace Gibson, “Despite Bans, Number of Abortions in the United States Increased in 2023,” Guttmacher Institute, March 19, 2024, https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/despite-bans-number-abortions-united-states-increased-2023.

[14] Maddow-Zimet, Gibson, “Despite Bans.”

[15] “Babies Unprotected: An Analysis of Self-Managed Abortion Numbers in States with ‘Bans’,” Foundation to Abolish Abortion, January 2024, https://faa.life/sma.

[16] As quoted under “Pro-life bills only criminalize the abortionist. Why does an abolition bill criminalize the mother too?” in “Abolition Bill FAQ,” Free The States, https://freethestates.org/abortion-bill-faq/.

[17] Michael Lockwood, “My Pro-Life-to-Abolitionist Conversion,” Free The States, July 7, 2020, https:// freethestates.org/2020/07/my-pro-life-to-abolitionist-conversion/.

[18] James Silberman, “Five Reasons Abolitionists Oppose Incremental Pro-Life Bills,” Free The States, March 26, 2020, https://freethestates.org/2020/03/five-reasons-abolitionists-oppose-incremental-pro-life-bills/.

[19] Didache, 1.1, 2.2, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.viii.i.iii.html.

[20] The Epistle of Barnabas, 19, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/lightfoot/fathers.ii.xiii.html.

[21] Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, 35, https://ccel.org/ccel/athenagoras/plea_for_christians/anf02.v.ii.xxxv.html.

[22] Tertullian, Apology, 9, https://ccel.org/ccel/tertullian/apology/anf03.iv.iii.ix.html.

[23] Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 9:7, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05/anf05.iii.iii.vii.viii.html.

[24] Minucius Felix, Octavius, 30, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/anf04.iv.iii.xxx.html.

[25] Basil of Caesarea, Letters, 188:2,8, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.clxxxix.html.

[26] John Chrysostom, Homily 24 on Romans, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.xxvi.html.

[27] Jerome, Letter to Eustochium, 22:13, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.XXII.html.

[28] 1 Corinthians 10:22.

[29] “Criminalization,” Abolitionists Rising, https://abolitionistsrising.com/criminalization/.