Abortion, the intentional killing of an preborn child sadly did not end with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. There is an unfortunate division on the side of those who want to end this evil – the pro-life vs. abolitionist positions.

Both positions want to see the end of abortion. There are clear differences in strategies. Pro-lifers will support legislation like heart-beat bills or bans at another point in the pregnancy. Abolitionists see these efforts as compromised. Abortion must not be regulated in any way except banned. Abolitionists favor what are called Equal Protection Bills.

An equal protection bill, in the abortion context, is a piece of legislation that would apply the same homicide laws to the preborn that already apply to born persons — meaning that a woman who obtains an abortion, and anyone who assists her, could be prosecuted for murder under the same statutes that govern any other killing.

Most pro-life laws have targeted abortion providers while shielding women seeking abortion from prosecution.

On May 10, 2026, Scott Klusendorf (president of Life Training Institute) published an article entitled, “Why Equal Protection Bills Harm Pro-Life Efforts.” This article was published on the Gospel Coalition website. Scott knew that his article would engender debate as he indicated on Facebook.

I want to use this article as a means of healthy disagreement as well as giving honor to whom honor is due. I believe that God has given to Scott and Life Training Institute a wonderful open door for ministry. Scott has spoken on the campuses of over eighty universities and reaches thousands of high schoolers each year. Scott was a special speaker for the Illinois Family Institute’s annual worldview conference in 2023.

What is the core of Scott’s argument against Equal Protection Bills? Do they truly harm the pro-life effort to end the killing of the preborn?

To be clear, Klusendorf does not regard abortion as anything less than a grave moral evil — his disagreement is entirely about strategy. What is the best way of trying to save lives?

Scott’s article concludes with this statement:

“Pro-lifers must never compromise their principle that it’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings at any stage of development. Our laws should say so. But we can, given current political and cultural realities, adjust our tactics on penalties to save as many lives as possible.”

I should observe that Klusendorf in 2021 wrote a similar article for the Gospel Coalition on a defense of incrementalism, “Saving Some, Standing for All: A Defense of Pro-Life Incrementalism.”

Saving lives is certainly a noble effort. All pro-lifers must agree that this is part of our calling. This certainly undergirds our efforts outside of killing centers. We know that we will not stop all abortions, but we bring a witness seeking to save at least one baby or as many as possible. But what about legislative efforts? Should Christians encourage equal protection laws in states where it is possible to enact such laws?

Klusendorf argues that Equal Protection Bills harm pro-life efforts. But in my careful reading of his article, I don’t believe Klusendorf has proved his assertion. He has argued well for his position, but this is different than proof.

Let me evaluate some of the evidence that Klusendorf has used.

First, just before his final paragraph, Klusendorf shares a quote from Gregg Cunningham of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. He is a credentialed pro-life figure who agrees with Klusendorf. Certainly, Cunningham’s position deserves to be heard, but technically this is an appeal to authority rather than proof.

Second, Klusendorf shares a very troubling statistic that only 43% of churchgoers identify as pro-life, down 20 points in two years. I do think this statistic is worth more investigation, but this sad statistic does not prove what Klusendorf implies. Are we to believe that this drop is because of Equal Protection bills? There is certainly no proof of this. Assuming that this statistic is accurate, it means that both pro-life and abolitionists must work together all the more to proclaim the truth.

Churches must seek to do a better job teaching on this issue and discipling members.

Third, the opening example of the defeat of legislation in Tennessee saddens me in that pro-life efforts contributed to its defeat. While I don’t directly identify as an abolitionist in exclusion to just being pro-life, I think it is absurd that supposedly “pro-life” efforts have helped stop abolitionist legislation in various states. This is not the only time where pro-life supporters have killed abolitionist bills in state legislatures. Why not work together instead of seeking to kill these bills.

Fourth, Klusendorf uses a fictitious illustration of an 18-year-old named Lily charged with first-degree murder for taking an abortion pill. As an illustration it is powerful. Abolitionists must be willing to deal with situations like this, but this illustration is far from proof.

Fifth, Klusendorf’s strongest argument is his discussion of mens rea, the state of mind of one charged with a crime. The traditional rule is that a crime requires a guilty act and a guilty mind. There are levels of culpability starting with purposely, to knowingly, to recklessly, to negligently.

To argue that abolitionist efforts would be stymied by the concept of mens rea would mean that just about any crime committed by a mother could be taken off the table. Abortion is not the only crime that some mothers commit. There are very sad cases of serious neglect and abuse where mens rea must be considered.

Klusendorf’s mens rea objection assumes the charge must be first-degree murder. But equal protection legislation doesn’t require that. Courts already assign graduated charges — manslaughter, negligent homicide, accessory liability — based on the defendant’s actual mental state. Our justice system has to wrestle with this constantly.

I would like to call a truce between pro-life and abolitionists. We need to come together to witness, educate, and seek to legislate. If an abolitionist bill is able to be passed, all pro-life leaders and supporters should endorse it. If in another case only a partial bill against abortion can be passed, I would say that all pro-life and abolitionists should at least support this legislation.

When life is on the line, let us seek to do all that we can do!

So, what is my argument in support of abolitionist laws when it comes to the unjust killing of the preborn? It is the same argument that should be used to punish those guilty of all other crimes – theft, fraud, abuse, etc.

Those who are guilty should be punished.

Let’s take the example of a gang killing of an innocent victim. The one who pulls the trigger in the killing is charged along with the one who drove the get-away car. Levels of guilt and responsibility have to be determined. The same thing should be true for abortion. The abortion provider certainly bears the highest level of responsibility. The level of guilt and responsibility for the one procuring the abortion must also be determined.

Yes, I realize that this legislation has typically not been part of pro-life efforts. But that is not an argument against seeking such legislation. Klusendorf has argued his case well. But on the question of whether Equal Protection Bills truly harm the pro-life cause, the proof is still missing — and until it arrives, I see no reason pro-lifers and abolitionists cannot stand together.