Nevertheless, the conversation between abolitionists (who advocate for a total ban on abortion and do not endorse anything less than this) and incrementalists (who are willing to gradually work towards a total ban on abortion) is an important one. As a Southern Baptist and an incrementalist, I have observed and participated in this debate both within my denomination and in other contexts. Over time, I have grown to appreciate the sincerity and moral urgency of my abolitionist friends. However, as someone who has worked at the intersection of Christian ethics and public policy in Washington, D.C., for the past eight years, I have become convinced that an incrementalist approach to ending legal abortion is necessary given the political realities facing both Congress and state legislatures across the country.

The debate over how to end abortion is taking place among brothers and sisters in Christ, all of whom affirm that Scripture is unequivocally pro-life and that the only faithful Christian position is one that opposes abortion in all its forms. Yet in a post-Roe context, strategies matter more than ever, and I believe that there is a moral imperative to employ the most effective means available to end the scourge of abortion as swiftly as possible.

Accordingly, this article defends incrementalism, understood as the view that while the ultimate goal is the complete abolition of abortion, pro-life advocates should also support measures that limit and reduce abortion in the interim in order to save as many lives as possible. First, I define the relevant terms. Second, I respond to the most common critiques leveled against incrementalism by abolitionist interlocutors. And finally, I summarize recent pro-life victories which suggest that incrementalism is the most viable path for advancing pro-life policies in the post-Roe legal landscape.

Context and Definitions

Incrementalism

Since the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade in 1973, the pro-life movement has largely pursued an incrementalist approach. Incrementalists support legislative measures designed to limit the prevalence of abortion in order to save the greatest number of unborn children while working toward the ultimate goal of completely outlawing abortion. Laws that make it more difficult to end the life of an unborn child, such as heartbeat protections, fetal pain statutes, ultrasound requirements, and parental consent provisions, are examples of incrementalist measures. Legislative provisions such as the Helms and Hyde Amendments, which prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortion, are likewise incrementalist steps. In short, incrementalism views limited but meaningful restrictions on abortion as strategic advances toward the movement’s final objective.

In light of significant cultural and political obstacles, incrementalists recognize that changing both the law and public opinion on abortion is likely to be a gradual and extended process. Although those who adopt this strategy desire the immediate end of abortion, they also maintain that it is morally right to save as many lives as possible within the constraints of the current legal and political climate.

Abolitionism

Abortion abolitionists advocate exclusively for laws that would immediately and completely outlaw legal abortion. Christians who hold this view contend that efforts to limit or regulate abortion incrementally constitute a sinful capitulation to pragmatism. Grounded in the conviction that abortion is morally wicked and that Christians must not compromise with unrighteousness, abolitionists insist that lawmakers outlaw abortion in full and without delay. As one prominent abolitionist organization explains, “The abolitionist calls for the total and immediate criminalization of abortion as murder and never attempts to simply regulate or reduce abortion by treating it as healthcare.”^[1] Likewise, another abolitionist argues, “We’ve got to demand it be wholly outlawed. That demand will rally the people of God. That demand will spread the Kingdom and bring an end to abortion the world over. Anything less undermines those objectives by . . . tacitly affirming abortion’s status as health care, compromising God’s commands, not communicating what actually makes abortion wrong, and lulling the church to sleep.”^[2]

Christians who embrace the abolitionist position frequently appeal to biblical prohibitions against partiality, citing passages such as Romans 2:11, and argue that many pro-life laws enacted to date resemble the “unequal weights and measures” condemned in Scripture (e.g., Proverbs 20:10). In their view, such laws permit abortion in certain situations or under specific circumstances, and therefore institutionalize iniquitous decrees.

On this reasoning, heartbeat laws or restrictions on late-term abortion are considered sinful because they codify partiality by protecting some unborn lives while leaving others legally vulnerable. For example, when Texas enacted a law in 2021 that outlawed abortions when a heartbeat could be detected (around six weeks), one abolitionist group condemned the legislation, stating, “This law is ungodly and Christians should not support it.”^[3]

3. James Silberman, “Abolitionist Perspective on the Texas Heartbeat Bill: Three Quick Observations,” Free the States, September 2, 2021.

Incrementalist Response to Abolitionism’s Critique

Although they constitute a minority within the pro-life movement, abortion abolitionists have leveled serious critiques against those who have pursued an incrementalist approach to ending legal abortion. These critiques raise important questions: Does incrementalism amount to a sinful compromise? Is support for measures such as heartbeat or fetal pain legislation tantamount to endorsing an iniquitous decree?

In response to the concerns raised by abolitionists, here are some important points to consider:

1. Incrementalists and abolitionists share the same end but differ on the means.

Both sides in the debate agree that abortion wrongfully takes innocent life, that abortion is sinful, and that a morally upright society ought to prohibit by law the taking of innocent life. Abolitionists rightly convey a sense of moral urgency and are correct to insist that biblical principles be brought to bear on the question of abortion. Their frustration with the slow pace of pro-life progress and their refusal to grow complacent in the fight for life is understandable and even commendable. Since 1973, more than 60 million unborn children have been killed in the womb. Even after the overturning of Roe, abortion numbers have increased, demonstrating that abortion remains one of the most pressing moral issues of our time. Moreover, too many politicians who profess pro-life convictions have proven ineffective or have wavered in the face of shifting political winds.

Despite this shared moral agreement, incrementalists and abolitionists diverge over how to proceed when the immediate and complete abolition of abortion is not politically achievable. Abolitionists refuses to accept anything short of total and immediate prohibition, whereas incrementalists understand the fight for life as a war of attrition, in which each pro-life measure weakens the abortion industry’s power and reduces the number of unborn children who can be killed. For incrementalists, a perfect law—one that protects all unborn life—must not become the enemy of good, though imperfect, legislation that nonetheless saves lives.

2. Incrementalism does not constitute a moral compromise.

One of the most frequently repeated abolitionist critiques of incrementalism is the claim that incrementalists compromise biblical principles by supporting legislative measures that do not protect all unborn children. This critique, however, misunderstands how Scripture applies absolute moral norms within fallen political and social realities. While the Bible unequivocally condemns the taking of innocent life, it also recognizes that God’s people often act under conditions of constraint and limited authority.

When an incrementalist supports a heartbeat law in a jurisdiction where it can realistically be enacted and thereby saves some lives, he or she is not compromising moral principles but limiting evil to the greatest extent possible under prevailing circumstances. In the United States, committed pro-lifers remain a political minority and therefore operate from a position of relative weakness. In such conditions, wisdom does not require rejecting all partial goods in pursuit of an unattainable ideal. Rather, it calls for pursuing the best achievable outcome among imperfect options. While laws that fall short of protecting all unborn children are not ideal, refusing to enact them when they can save lives reflects a lack of prudential judgment rather than a higher moral standard.

Scripture itself treats the restraint of evil as a genuine moral good, even when evil is not eliminated entirely. The abolitionist critique implicitly suggests that if justice cannot be total, it should not be pursued at all. Scripture teaches the opposite. Zechariah 4:10 warns against despising “the day of small things,” and Jesus commends faithfulness exercised within limited stewardship (Matt. 25:21). Incremental progress toward justice is not condemned in Scripture; it is often praised as obedience under constraint. Indeed, much of the Old Testament’s civil legislation regulated sinful practices—such as divorce or slavery—without endorsing them, precisely in order to limit harm in a fallen society (Exodus 21; Deut. 24:1–4, cf. also Matt. 19:8–9). If regulating wrongdoing were itself sinful, large portions of biblical civil law would be morally suspect. Scripture instead presents restraint as a legitimate, and often necessary, expression of justice in a world marred by sin.

Finally, incrementalism must not be faulted for the injustices it does not yet prevent. Incrementalists seek to cultivate a political and cultural environment in which every unborn child can be protected from abortion. That environment does not currently exist. It is therefore mistaken to attribute the deaths of children not covered by existing pro-life laws to those who advocate for partial protections (e.g., heartbeat laws). Scripture consistently assigns moral responsibility to the wrongdoer, not to those who partially restrain wrongdoing (James 1:14–15). If a law prevents abortions after a detectable heartbeat but not before, the moral blame for abortions that still occur lies with those who perform and defend them, not with lawmakers or advocates who acted to prevent as many deaths as possible under present conditions.

3. The abolitionist approach ignores political reality.

In the summer of 2025 in Dallas, the Danbury Institute hosted an event during the Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). During a panel discussion, I defended the incrementalist approach alongside former Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission president Richard Land, while State Senator Dusty Deevers argued for the abolitionist position.^[4] In the closing minutes of the discussion, I posed a hypothetical question to Deevers: if a state legislature was deadlocked on a heartbeat bill (legislation that would criminalize abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected) and he held the deciding vote, how would he vote? Deevers, consistent with the abolitionist approach, responded that he would side with the bill’s opponents and defeat it. In my judgment, this answer illustrates a central weakness of the abolitionist approach: it forgoes saving lives in the present in pursuit of principles that, while well-intentioned, lack a realistic path to implementation in the foreseeable future.

4. The Danbury Institute, “Abolition vs. Incrementalism: A Panel Discussion,” YouTube, December 18, 2025. 

In truth, all pro-lifers desire to protect every unborn child and would do so immediately if it were possible. The difficulty lies in political reality. Pro-lifers do not currently possess—and historically have never possessed in the modern era—the political power to abolish abortion nationally or in most states. Between 1973 and 2022, federal courts invalidated most pro-life laws as unconstitutional. Even since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, only a limited number of states have demonstrated the political will to enact comprehensive legal protections for the unborn.

This political reality is compounded by the fact that public conviction on abortion, even among churchgoers, remains far weaker than abolitionist strategies often assume. A 2025 report by George Barna found that whereas 63 percent of churchgoers identified as “pro-life” in 2023, only 45 percent do so in 2025.^[5] During the same period, identification as “pro-choice” increased from 22 percent to 35 percent. Although the survey went beyond evangelicals and included Catholics and mainline Protestants, groups that have historically exhibited higher levels of pro-choice identification, the findings underscore an uncomfortable truth: even within the church, pro-life conviction is neither as deep nor as widespread as it should be given Scripture’s clear teaching on the value of unborn life. These realities significantly limit what can be achieved through legislation at present.

5. George Barna and David Closson, “A National Survey of Churchgoing Americans: Social Issues and Worldview,” Center for Biblical Worldview, October 2025.

For these reasons, and stated as charitably as possible, abolitionism rests on a politically naïve strategy. Christians can and should play a prophetic role in calling for the complete abolition of abortion. Yet politics remains the art of the possible. In most jurisdictions, it is simply not feasible to enact pro-life legislation without any exceptions, particularly in a cultural context marked by moral confusion and divided public opinion.

When abolitionists lack the votes necessary to pass an abolition bill, as has been the case in every instance to date, they refuse on principle to support any alternative measures. This approach has yet to result in the passage of a single law. By contrast, pro-lifers pursuing an incrementalist strategy have secured the overturning of Roe v. Wade and achieved the enactment of numerous legislative protections for the unborn. Notably, the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe arose from a challenge to Mississippi’s fifteen-week abortion protection law, an incremental measure. By pursuing attainable reforms while continuing to work toward full legal protection, incrementalists have advanced the pro-life cause and, most importantly, have saved countless lives.

Recent Incremental Victories

In my introductory article for this month’s theme, I highlighted several pro-life victories achieved since June 2022.^[6] Without repeating that analysis in full, it is worth underscoring that incrementalist strategies have produced a number of concrete and measurable gains against the abortion industry since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. For example, while 807 facilities were providing abortions nationwide in 2020, that number had declined to 765 by May 2024. An additional forty-four abortion facilities closed in 2025. Most recently, Planned Parenthood announced that its Rolla, Missouri location had ceased in-person services on January 1, 2026.^[7]

The closure of dozens of abortion facilities can be attributed in large part to state-level pro-life legislation enacted after Roe was overturned, as well as to President Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” passed in the summer of 2025, which prohibits Planned Parenthood from billing Medicaid. Though incremental in nature, this legislation was explicitly cited by several abortion providers as a decisive factor in their decision to close clinics.^[8]

8. Praveena Somasundaram, “Planned Parenthood Closes 20 Clinics After Medicaid Cuts, Warns of Grim Future,” The Washington Post, November 12, 2025.

Another incremental victory for pro-lifers is the law passed by Texas lawmakers in September 2025 that allows private citizens to sue manufacturers and distributors who mail abortion drugs into the state. The law, which took effect in early December, further prohibits the manufacturing of abortion drugs within Texas.

The development in Texas is especially important given that chemical abortion now accounts for the majority of abortions in the United States. Tragically, overall abortion numbers have increased since 2022, a trend driven almost entirely by the expanded availability of abortion drugs. Although these drugs were initially approved in 2000, successive administrations, particularly under Presidents Obama and Biden, progressively loosened regulatory safeguards. In 2025, legal challenges to these drugs continued to move through the courts following the Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision against a group of pro-life physicians on procedural grounds. Against this backdrop, state-level efforts such as Texas’s represent one of the most promising avenues for limiting the reach of chemical abortion in the current legal environment.

Conclusion

As mentioned, it is tragically true that abortion numbers in the United States have increased since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. However, incremental pro-life laws are not responsible for this increase. In fact, a 2025 analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins estimated that pro-life legislation in 14 states resulted in 22,180 additional live births beyond what would have been expected in the absence of such laws.^[9] Nevertheless, the expectation that total abortions would decline nationwide following the Dobbs decision has not materialized.

9. Bloomberg School, “Two New Studies Provide Broadest Evidence to Date of Unequal Impacts of Abortion Bans,” Press Release, Johns Hopkins, February 13, 2025.

As many scholars have noted, abortion numbers have risen for a variety of reasons unrelated to incremental legislation.^[10] These include aggressive legal strategies adopted by pro-abortion states, the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to permit mail-order abortion drugs through telehealth without in-person requirements (in direct contravention of federal law), the shipment of abortion drugs into pro-life states under so-called shield laws, and the designation of certain jurisdictions as “abortion havens.” Together, these developments have enabled pro-abortion states to circumvent strong restrictions on surgical abortion in pro-life states.

10. Mia Steupert, “How Many Abortions Are Occurring in America Post-Dobbs?” Charlotte Lozier Institute, May 22, 2025.

The disagreement between abolitionists and incrementalists represents an important internal dialogue among those who share the same ultimate goal: the complete outlawing of abortion. In my view, abolitionists have articulated many morally consistent arguments that rightly emphasize the equal value of every unborn child, and their motivations are generally well intentioned. Nevertheless, the strategy they advocate has thus far produced no tangible legislative results and has often been accompanied by rhetoric that is unnecessarily contentious toward fellow pro-lifers.

The post-Roe cultural and political landscape has proven far more challenging than many pro-lifers anticipated. The abortion industry and its allies in media and politics continue to advance narratives that portray pro-lifers as hostile to women, while aggressively resisting even modest restrictions on abortion. In the years ahead, pro-life advocates will need to labor with renewed diligence to persuade their friends and neighbors, while also countering the misinformation propagated by the pro-abortion lobby. In the realm of public policy, wisdom requires pursuing strategies that save as many lives as possible, even as moral consistency demands that we remain dissatisfied until every unborn child is protected from the scourge of abortion.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, abortion has remained a mainstay in American public discourse. While pro-lifers rightly celebrated the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision which returned abortion policy to the people and their elected representatives, the ensuing years have produced mixed results as activists, lawmakers, and stakeholders on both sides have continued advocating, legislating, and politicking. Since Roe’s demise, there have been significant pro-life advances. From the passage of strong state pro-life laws to life-affirming actions by the Trump administration, new pro-life policies have been enacted since 2022. However, rising abortion rates and a slew of new pro-abortion laws in progressive states continue to counterbalance pro-life progress.

As we begin 2026, it is helpful to take stock of the pro-life movement, including recent victories and ongoing challenges. Undoubtedly, the election of Donald J. Trump to the White House in the first post-Roe presidential election is significant. The first year of the second Trump administration included a return to many of the pro-life policies of his first term. However, the administration’s reluctance to act decisively to protect women and children from abortion drugs demonstrates that much work remains.

In what follows, I will summarize the history of the pro-life movement since June 2022. In addition to new state laws that protect unborn children, hundreds of abortion businesses have closed, abortion drugs have been challenged in court, federal agencies have committed to reevaluate the safety of abortion drugs, and recent polling suggests that public opinion is trending in a pro-life direction. After reviewing these victories, I will focus on some of the remaining challenges. Notably, most of the victories celebrated since the overturning of Roe have been the result of an incrementalist strategy that seeks to save as many lives as possible while working toward the ultimate goal of making abortion illegal and morally unthinkable.

State Pro-Life Victories

As I document in my book, Life After Roe: Equipping Christians in the Fight for Life Today (B&H Academic, 2025), many pro-life states took immediate action after Roe was overturned. In fact, on the day of the Dobbs decision, several states moved to enact previously unenforceable pro-life laws. For example, within six minutes of the Supreme Court’s decision, then-Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt announced the certification of his state’s pro-life law. Other states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas saw their conditional laws take effect immediately or within a few weeks of the decision.

Significantly, by the one-year anniversary of Dobbs, fourteen states protected life at conception. Additionally, four additional states had similar laws in place that were unenforceable while litigation played out in the courts. Five states had either passed heartbeat bills or already had a pre-Dobbs heartbeat bill on the books. An additional seven states protected unborn life based on gestational age (at the point when science is certain an unborn child can feel pain or at the point an unborn child is generally viable outside the womb), though some were unenforceable due to ongoing litigation.

As of January 2026, about half the states have strong pro-life laws in place. In December 2025, the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research think tank, identified 16 states that it considered “most restrictive” in terms of access to abortion. Another three states (Georgia, Nebraska, and Utah) were labeled “very restrictive,” and seven states were identified as “restrictive.” Guttmacher’s criteria for its most restrictive category included laws that protect unborn children at conception and heartbeat bills that protect life around six weeks.

In short, while much work remains for pro-life state legislators around the country, dozens of strong laws have been enacted since June 2022; 23 states now have laws protecting unborn children in the first trimester. Additionally, in 2025, researchers from Johns Hopkins estimated that pro-life laws in 14 states resulted in 22,180 additional live births above what would have been expected in the absence of these laws.

Defunding the Abortion Industry

According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 807 facilities providing abortions in 2020. Following Dobbs, several abortion facilities were forced to close. By March 2024, there were 765 clinics, a net loss of 42 clinics. Most of these closed facilities were in states that passed strong pro-life protections. In fact, as of March 2024, there were no facilities providing surgical abortions in the 14 states with complete protection laws in effect at that time. Remarkably, these states had a combined 63 clinics in 2020.

Facility closures accelerated in 2025 due, in part, to successful efforts to defund the abortion industry. In November 2025, The Washington Post reported that 20 abortion businesses closed in response to the enactment of President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” The bill, which was signed into law in July 2025, prevents Planned Parenthood from billing Medicaid. Significantly, these 20 shuttered facilities were in addition to more than two dozen Planned Parenthood locations that had closed in the early months of 2025 in response to other federal funding cuts.

The closure of abortion facilities in the United States has attracted national and even international attention. In 2025, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, NPR, and the London-based Guardian carried largely sympathetic stories about the plight of abortion businesses. In a press release published on July 1, 2025, Planned Parenthood warned that nearly 200 facilities were at risk of closure if President Trump’s tax bill became law. According to SBA Pro-Life America, 44 abortion facilities closed in 2025, with many of them citing the GOP’s tax law as the reason.

Additionally, on June 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. In 2018, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster signed an executive order directing the state’s Department of Health and Human Services to remove a Planned Parenthood affiliate from the state Medicaid program due to the affiliate’s involvement with abortion. Planned Parenthood and several Medicaid recipients filed suit, arguing that Medicaid’s “free choice of provider” provision allows recipients to choose any qualified provider, including Planned Parenthood. Lower courts, including the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of the abortion lobby.

However, in 2025, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, explaining that Medicaid patients do not have a private right to sue a state if it excludes a provider from Medicaid. The ruling allows South Carolina to lawfully exclude Planned Parenthood—which performed a record 402,230 abortions and received a record $792.2 million in taxpayer funding during the 2023 fiscal year—from its Medicaid program.

The Supreme Court’s decision sets an important precedent and paves the way for other states to follow suit and exclude abortion providers from Medicaid. If they do, Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers across the country could face the loss of millions in taxpayer funding.

Trump Administration: Pro-Life Policies

Since reassuming office, President Trump has enacted a range of pro-life policies. For instance, within the first two weeks of his second term, the president reversed several pro-abortion executive orders promulgated by former president Joe Biden. In one order titled “Enforcing the Hyde Amendment,” the president revoked Executive Order 14076, a Biden order that had required a government-wide effort to promote and fund abortion. Trump’s order also revoked Executive Order 14079, which had recategorized abortion as a form of health care and allowed individuals seeking abortion to use Medicaid for elective abortions across state lines.

President Trump also reinstated the Mexico City Policy, which ensures that U.S. tax dollars do not fund organizations or programs that carry out or promote abortion abroad. This action was similar to a 2017 order that covered $8.8 billion in so-called “family planning” and global health funds.

At the State Department, Secretary Marco Rubio announced in January 2025 that the United States would rejoin the Geneva Consensus Declaration, an international initiative that affirms that “there is no international right to abortion.” In November 2025, the State Department adopted new guidelines for identifying human rights violations. According to its annual report on human rights violations, government-funded abortions and the distribution of abortifacient drugs are now considered “infringements” on human rights.

Additionally, the Trump administration has used the bully pulpit of the presidency to emphasize the humanity of the unborn. President Trump concluded his first week back in the Oval Office by addressing the March for Life through a video message and JD Vance spoke to march participants in person, promising that the new administration would champion pro-life policies. In the early weeks of the administration, President Trump also pardoned 23 pro-life activists who had been convicted under the FACE Act by the Biden Justice Department.

Finally, in his first international trip as vice president, JD Vance drew attention to the plight of Adam Smith Connor, a British Army veteran who was convicted for silently praying outside a U.K. abortion clinic. Although Vance’s comments drew a chorus of protest from European allies, the vice president did not retract his criticism of illiberal policies that target European pro-life citizens.

Early Legal Challenges to Abortion Drugs

In 2024, pro-lifers were disappointed when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a group of doctors and medical groups challenging the expansion of access to abortion drugs did not have legal standing. However, the case drew national attention to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) removal of safety standards during the Obama and Biden administrations.

For context, a group of pro-life doctors filed a lawsuit in November 2022 challenging the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 and the subsequent removal of safeguards in 2016 and 2021. In April 2023, a federal district court sided with the doctors. Five days later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit allowed a portion of the district court’s order to stay in place, including the prohibition of sending abortion drugs through the mail. Although the Supreme Court paused the district court’s decision pending appeal, the case garnered considerable attention to the dangers represented by the drugs.

Although the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the doctors in June 2024, the decision was based on a legal technicality; the justices did not address the merits of the case. Moreover, the Court affirmed conscience protections for medical professionals. Since the Court’s decision, three states (Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri) have intervened in the lower courts to continue the fight to hold the FDA accountable.

Additional legal challenges to the abortion drug include a lawsuit filed in December 2025 by Florida and Texas against the FDA. The attorneys general for both states argue that the FDA has failed to properly evaluate the drug’s safety and effectiveness since its initial approval in 2000 and has disregarded the risks it poses to women.

Finally, in September 2025, Texas lawmakers passed a law allowing private citizens to sue manufacturers and distributors who mail abortion drugs into the state. The law, which took effect in early December, further prohibits the manufacturing of abortion drugs within Texas.

Concerted Pressure on the FDA to Reevaluate Mifepristone

In April 2025, the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) released a bombshell report that showed 10.93% of women experience an adverse health event following a mifepristone abortion. Adverse health outcomes include sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, and other life-threatening complications. This number was 22 times higher than currently recognized by the FDA. The study, which included an analysis of 865,727 mifepristone abortions from 2017 to 2023, received national attention.

Following the publication of the EPPC report, pro-lifers called on the FDA to revoke its approval of mifepristone, or, at the very least, to restore previously removed safeguards including in-person physician oversight and mandatory adverse event reporting. On June 2, 2025, FDA Commissioner Martin Makary committed to conduct a full review of the abortion drug’s safety. In September 2025, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. confirmed that the FDA was reviewing the safety of the drug.

Despite the commitments from Secretary Kennedy and Commissioner Makary, in October 2025, the FDA approved an additional generic form of mifepristone. Although the White House insisted that the approval was mandated by law and should not be considered “an endorsement” of the drug, pro-lifers expressed frustration. In November 2025, 175 congressional Republicans wrote a letter to Kennedy and Makary emphasizing the importance of reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement for the abortion drug.

Finally, in terms of abortion drugs, the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, passed a resolution in June 2025, officially calling for the revocation of the FDA’s approval of mifepristone and, in the meantime, the restoration of previously removed safeguards. The resolution’s passage drew attention to the issue of chemical abortion among Southern Baptists and the broader evangelical world.

Abortion Polling Shifts in Pro-Life Direction

In an encouraging sign that pro-life sentiment is growing, KFF reported that fewer U.S. adults believe abortion drugs are safe when taken as directed. According to the report, in May 2023, 55% of Americans believed abortion drugs were “very safe” or “somewhat safe.” However, in November 2025, only 42% of Americans held this view. Among women of reproductive age, perception of abortion pill safety fell from 60% to 55%.

Additionally, a 2025 Gallup report indicated that the percentage of Americans who identify as pro-life has grown since the Dobbs decision. Whereas 55% of Americans identified as pro-choice in May 2022 (shortly after a draft of the Dobbs decision was leaked), 51% identified as pro-choice in May 2025. In the same period, the percentage of those who identified as pro-life rose from 39% (May 2022) to 43% (May 2025). Likewise, 52% of Americans indicated that abortion was “morally acceptable” in 2022; 49% held that view in 2025. In the same period, those who believed abortion was “morally wrong” rose from 38% in 2022 to 40% in 2025.

Finally, an October 2025 report by McLaughlin & Associates found that seven in 10 voters want to restore the safeguards for the abortion drug mifepristone that were removed by the Biden administration. Surprisingly, 71% of likely voters believed a doctor’s visit should be required before the abortion drug is prescribed. Additionally, 87% of respondents indicated that FDA drug labels should include the “real-world impact of the chemical abortion drugs on patients who take it.”

Challenges: Abortion Drugs, Referendums, and Confusion in the Pews

Despite the steady progress achieved by pro-lifers since Dobbs, challenges remain. Perhaps the greatest challenge to the pro-life movement is the prevalence of abortion drugs. In November 2025, The New York Times editorial board rightly observed that “abortion pills have transformed the practice of reproductive medicine.” In fact, it is estimated that over 63% of abortions now take place through drugs. Although many states have passed strong pro-life protections, progressive states have passed “shield laws” that legally protect abortion providers who ship abortion pills through the mail to pro-life states in violation of their laws. Although federal law prohibits the mailing of any “article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion,” the federal government, even under the Trump administration, has refused to meaningfully enforce the law to its fullest extent.

Currently, at least twenty states have some form of a shield law in place protecting abortion providers, and eight of those include telehealth provisions, meaning they will not comply with any legal action that a pro-life state takes against a provider who sends abortion drugs within their borders. For example, New York is refusing to help Louisiana or Texas enforce its pro-life laws against a New York abortionist who has prescribed and mailed abortion drugs to abortion-seekers in those pro-life states. Although a New York judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in October 2025, it is likely that federal courts will soon be asked to address the legality of shield laws.

Another challenge facing pro-lifers is the ease by which pro-abortion amendments can be added to state constitutions. In 18 states, citizens can initiate the process to amend their state’s constitution. In many of these states, a simple majority is needed for passage. In 2022, voters in California, Michigan, and Vermont were the first to approve pro-abortion constitutional amendments. In 2023, Ohio voters also approved a pro-abortion amendment. In 2024, six states (Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, and New York) added permissive pro-abortion amendments to their state constitutions. Thankfully, voters in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota rejected similar referendums. However, the outcome of these ballot measures proves that statewide referendums, which can be influenced by tens of millions of out-of-state spending, will remain a challenge for pro-lifers in the foreseeable future.

Finally, although public opinion seems to gradually be shifting toward pro-lifers on a variety of issues, a 2025 report by the Center for Biblical Worldview (published in partnership with Dr. George Barna and Arizona Christian University) revealed that churchgoers remain divided on the Bible’s teaching on abortion. The report, which surveyed churchgoing Catholics, evangelicals, and mainline Protestants, included several surprising findings, especially when compared to a comparable 2023 report.

Whereas 63% of churchgoers identified as “pro-life” in 2023, only 45% identified as pro-life in 2025. Meanwhile, “pro-choice” identification rose 13 points (22% in 2023 to 35% in 2025). Similar to 2023, there was little consensus in 2025 about what the Bible teaches regarding abortion: 26% said never acceptable, 19% said acceptable if the mother’s life is endangered, 12% said acceptable if the child will be born with significant physical or mental challenges, and 4% said acceptable under any circumstance. Fourteen percent insisted, “none of these,” and another 16% admitted they did not know what the Bible teaches on the topic.

In 2025, 54% of churchgoers said the Bible indicates when human life begins, 24% said it does not, and 22% said they did not know. Among those who believe the Bible defines when life begins, 40% said it begins when the female egg is fertilized, 10% said the point at which the child has been delivered and begins breathing, and 9% said the Bible is not specific on the matter (after having just said that the Bible indicates when human life begins), and 7% said they did not know. Ironically, despite the pervasive confusion evidenced by these responses, only 25% wanted more teaching from their church in 2025 on the topic of abortion, compared to 31% in 2023.

Conclusion

Since Roe was overturned in 2022, pro-life states have enacted a variety of laws to protect unborn children and thousands of babies are alive today as a result. The Trump administration has also championed a variety of pro-life policies that have protected federal funds from being used to fund or promote abortion. However, progressive states have worked equally hard to circumvent new pro-life laws through shield laws and mail-order abortions. Some progressive states, such as Washington state, have even vowed to backfill millions of dollars that Planned Parenthood is set to lose after losing access to Medicaid reimbursements.

In short, recent years have brought meaningful pro-life gains worth celebrating. Nevertheless, significant challenges remain, particularly the growing prevalence of abortion drugs, which operate in a largely unregulated environment. With an administration that has been generally receptive to pro-life concerns, it is essential to continue making a strong case to the White House, HHS, FDA, and DOJ for revoking the approval of these dangerous drugs and, in the meantime, reinstating the safeguards that were rolled back under previous Democratic administrations. It is also imperative that the federal government enforce the Comstock Act, which prohibits the mailing of abortifacient drugs.

Beyond federal action, the pro-life movement must continue pressing its case in the courts by challenging the constitutionality of shield laws. And for Christians, it remains vital to articulate the Bible’s pro-life ethic to friends, neighbors, and fellow congregants, grounding public advocacy in faithful discipleship and moral clarity.

On May 30, 2024, Donald Trump became the first former president to be convicted of a felony when a New York jury found him guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records. On June 27, 2024, President Joe Biden’s halting performance during a presidential debate on CNN stunned the nation, and many Democratic leaders urged him to withdraw from the race. On July 13, 2024, Trump narrowly survived an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. And finally, on July 21, 2024, Biden suspended his reelection campaign despite having won over 14 million votes in the Democratic primary. Biden’s vice president, Kamala Harris, quickly secured the party’s nomination.

Since her rise to the top of the Democratic ticket, Harris has offered voters little in the way of a governing vision. Fueled by “positive vibes” and fawning media coverage, the Harris campaign seems content to frame the election around her support for abortion and opposition to Trump. Republicans initially struggled to respond to the new Democratic nominee after spending over a year campaigning against Biden and have only recently begun to regain their footing.

As the nation enters the home stretch of this unpredictable campaign season, Christians hoping to steward their vote wisely have much to consider. One way to go beyond the click-bait headlines, short sound bites, and endless advertisements and gain deeper insight into the priorities of each party is by reviewing the party platforms.

Party Platforms

A party platform is essentially a declaration of a political party’s values and the policy roadmap it intends to follow. Every presidential election year, the Democratic and Republican parties unveil their platforms during their respective summer conventions.

These quadrennial documents are usually quite lengthy. For example, the Democrats’ 2020 platform was 92 pages long, while the Republicans’ 2016 platform (which they readopted in 2020 due to a pandemic-shortened convention) was 66 pages. Most of the time, the drafting of these platforms takes place the week before the convention. A committee comprised of delegates elected to represent their home states and territories meet and spend hours writing different sections of the platform.

2024 Republican Platform

The drafting of the 2024 Republican Platform did not follow the typical procedure. Three months before the platform committee convened, President Trump expressed his desire for a pared-down platform. He specifically wanted to remove or significantly edit sections dealing with politically fraught issues like abortion. According to The New York Times, the Trump campaign worked hard to ensure the platform committee consisted of campaign loyalists. When the 112 delegates gathered in Milwaukee expecting to draft the 2024 platform, they were not afforded the opportunity to examine the platform beforehand or introduce and debate amendments. Instead, they were presented with the version the Trump campaign wanted them to approve. “This is something that ultimately you’ll pass. You’ll pass it quickly,” Trump told delegates over the phone. To facilitate an efficient meeting, grassroots organizations typically allowed in the room to help craft strong policies were banned, C-SPAN coverage of the proceedings was not allowed, and delegates’ personal cell phones and laptops were confiscated. Isolated and not allowed to communicate or deliberate, the platform committee rammed through the Trump-supported platform by a vote of 84 to 18.

All 18 delegates who voted against the platform signed a statement indicating that they did so not necessarily out of disagreement with the platform per se as much as with the process, which intentionally shut down debate and refinement that could have been used to strengthen this year’s attenuated pro-life platform plank.

The 2024 Republican Platform is nearly three-quarters shorter than its predecessor. In many places, it reads like one of Trump’s social media posts and features random capitalization throughout (indeed, it is reported that Trump personally edited it). Due to its brevity, the condensed platform provides fewer policy prescriptions on nearly every issue.

Life

For example, the 2016 Republican platform contained robust pro-life language and outlined a litany of pro-life policies supported by Republicans, including defunding Planned Parenthood, passing the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, prohibiting sex-selective and dismemberment abortions, prohibiting the sale of fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions, and appointing judges who “respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.” The 2016 platform also criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for striking down health and safety standards for abortion facilities in Texas (Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt) and praised states for enacting laws that protect unborn children capable of feeling pain.

The 2024 platform foregoes the robust language of its predecessor, stating somewhat vaguely, “We proudly stand for families and Life.” It cites the fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and argues that “no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process,” and “the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights.” Professor Robert George has argued that the drafters likely erred by citing the Due Process Clause instead of the Equal Protection Clause. Moreover, as George notes, it is a misreading of the Constitution to claim that the fourteenth Amendment empowers states to protect unborn children; the fourteenth Amendment was enacted to give the federal government power to protect people only when states failed in their obligation to protect them. Notwithstanding the legal incoherence of citing the fourteenth Amendment, the platform does indirectly take credit for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and clearly states the Republican Party’s opposition to late-term abortion.

Religious Freedom

The 2024 platform contains strong language on religious freedom. It declares that Republicans are “the defenders of the First Amendment Right to Religious Liberty,” which it defines as “the Right not only to Worship according to the dictates of Conscience, but also to act in accordance with those Beliefs, not just in places of Worship, but in everyday life.” Elsewhere, the platform promises that Republicans will “champion the First Amendment Right to Pray and Read the Bible in school, and stand up to those who violate the Religious Freedoms of American students.” Additionally, the platform pledges that Republicans will create a new federal task force to fight “Anti-Christian Bias” and investigate “all forms of illegal discrimination, harassment, and persecution against Christians in America.”

The 2016 platform went into greater depth regarding the challenges facing religious Americans. For example, it noted that “Places of worship for the first time in our history have reason to fear the loss of tax-exempt status merely for espousing and practicing traditional religious beliefs.” It also pledged to “defend the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans” and “safeguard religious institutions against government control” and endorsed the First Amendment Defense Act, legislation that would bar government discrimination against individuals and businesses for acting on the belief that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman.” The 2016 platform also offered support for religious educational institutions.

Marriage, Family, and Sexuality

On marriage, the 2024 platform diverges significantly from the previous version. Whereas the 2016 platform stated that “natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman” is the “foundation of civil society,” the 2024 iteration states, “Republicans will promote a Culture that values the Sanctity of Marriage, the blessings of childhood, and the foundational role of families, and supports working parents.” Notably, the 2024 platform does not define marriage. Additionally, the new platform deleted language from the 2016 platform that argued children raised in a two-parent household are more likely to be physically and emotionally healthy and lamented that 40 percent of American children are born out of wedlock. Finally, the 2016 platform condemned the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that imposed same-sex marriage on the country; the 2024 version did not mention Obergefell.

The 2024 platform implicitly affirms the biological basis for sex in its discussion of multiple policy issues. Specifically, the platform states, “We will keep men out of women’s sports, ban Taxpayer funding for sex change surgeries, and stop Taxpayer-funded Schools from promoting gender transition, reverse Biden’s radical rewrite of Title IX Education Regulations, and restore protections for women and girls.” Notably, the comments on gender ideology in the 2024 platform are stronger than the 2016 version, indicating how issues related to transgenderism (e.g., biological males competing against females in sports, minor children accessing so-called gender-affirming care, etc.) have risen in prominence.

In short, although the 2024 Republican Platform retains language that strongly supports religious freedom and opposes gender ideology, the new platform retreats on marriage and life, providing less of a contrast with the Democratic platform than in the past.

2024 Democratic Platform

Democrats began drafting their 2024 platform weeks before the national convention met in August, releasing a draft version on July 13. Oddly, when President Biden stepped down as the presumptive nominee and was replaced by Kamala Harris, the platform was not updated to reflect this change; it still contains 20 references to 2024 being an election for Joe Biden’s “second term.”

Life

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Democrats have made abortion the defining issue of their party. During their acceptance speeches at the 2020 Democratic National Convention, neither Biden nor Harris mentioned “abortion” or “reproductive freedom.” However, in 2024, Harris devoted a significant portion of her acceptance speech to abortion, lamenting the overturning of Roe. Likewise, her vice presidential running mate, Tim Walz, promised to protect “reproductive freedom” and touted his home state of Minnesota’s pro-abortion laws.

The 2024 Democratic Platform includes a nearly 1,000-word section titled “Reproductive Freedom” that outlines the party’s stance on abortion. This marks a significant shift from twenty years ago, when the 2004 platform addressed abortion in just one paragraph, stating that it should be “safe, legal, and rare.” In contrast, the 2024 platform makes a full-throated, comprehensive case for legalizing abortion. It laments the overturning of Roe and expresses outrage that more than twenty states have enacted laws to protect unborn children. The platform credits Biden with signing three executive orders and a presidential memorandum related to abortion and praises the administration for protecting access to chemical abortion drugs (using the euphemistic term “medication abortion”) and creating a new path for retail pharmacies to dispense abortion pills.

Although Trump has stated that he would not sign a national abortion ban, the Democratic platform claims, “If he returns to the White House, Trump will ban abortion nationwide.” It also claims that Republicans plan to enforce the Comstock Act (which it describe as “a law from the 1800s”) to prosecute women and doctors for sending or receiving abortion pills through the mail. The platform promises to repeal the Hyde Amendment (the legislative provision that bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortions), “pass national legislation to make Roe the law of the land again,” support “medication abortion” (i.e., abortion pills), and appoint pro-abortion judges.

Religious Freedom

The 2024 Democratic Platform says the party will “protect the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion for everyone” and “maintain the separation of church and state.” It seeks to contrast this approach with Trump’s, claiming that he “attacked religious freedom by demonizing some faiths and preferring others.” The platform asserts that Democrats will not put religious freedom and other civil rights “at war with one another.” It also condemns antisemitism, Islamophobia, and the “decades-long campaign to demonize the Muslim community,” and celebrates Biden’s appointment of Rashad Hussain, the first Muslim to serve as Ambassador for International Religious Freedom.

Marriage, Family, and Sexuality

The platform endorses the Equality Act, legislation that would make sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes in federal nondiscrimination law. Although not mentioned in the platform, it is important to note that the Equality Act expressly exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This means that the government would not need to prove a “compelling government interest” or that it is acting in the “least restrictive” way when infringing on religious beliefs. The platform also supports what it calls “medically necessary gender-affirming care.” (Although not defined within the platform, this includes puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery). The platform celebrates that in just one term, the Biden administration tied the record for the “most openly LGBTQI+ judges appointed.”

In a lengthy section titled “LGBTQI+,” the 2024 Democratic Platform celebrates the passing of the so-called “Respect Marriage Act” that enshrined same-sex marriage into federal law and Biden’s commitment to leading the “most pro-equality Administration in history.” The platform also credits Biden for reversing Trump’s prohibition on transgender servicemembers and lifting restrictions on blood donation by men who identify as gay or bisexual. The platform also criticizes Trump for appointing judges who “oppose same-sex marriage.”

Diverging Positions

The platforms of America’s two major political parties reveal a growing divide between Democrats and Republicans on key social issues. For example, Democrats no longer advocate for abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare” and now consider the practice a fundamental right that the government should fund. In contrast, Republicans mostly continue to support policies that protect unborn children. However, given that the 2024 Republican Platform walked back much of the pro-life language contained in previous versions, it is helpful to recall how the most recent Democratic and Republican administrations have governed on the issue abortion.

Abortion Record

The 2024 Republican and Democratic platforms differ significantly on a variety of issues. This contrast is noticeable despite the Trump campaign’s efforts to avoid specificity on divisive issues like abortion. Even watered down, the Republican platform’s general pro-life posture stands in sharp contrast to the Democratic platform, which exhaustively defends access to abortion.

The diverging positions of the two parties are no surprise. Recent history demonstrates that Republicans have largely pursued pro-life policies. Following his victory in the 2016 presidential election, President Trump honored his campaign commitments by reinstating and expanding the Mexico City Policy, rescinding an Obama-era administration letter that restricted states’ flexibility in removing abortion providers from federal healthcare programs and requiring recipients of Title X family planning money to be financially and physically separate from facilities that perform or refer for abortion. Additionally, the Trump administration spearheaded the Geneva Consensus Declaration, an international declaration signed by dozens of countries that affirmed that there is no international right to abortion. In short, despite some imprecise rhetoric pertaining to abortion in recent weeks, the Trump campaign has a solid record to run on. In light of recent comments and online statements by the former president that have frustrated social conservatives, the campaign would do well to remind them of these accomplishments.

Following his win in the 2020 presidential election, President Biden supported an array of pro-abortion policies, including repealing the Mexico City Policy, withdrawing from the U.S.-led Geneva Consensus Declaration, re-writing rules governing the Title X family planning program to allow taxpayer money to subsidize abortion facilities, issuing an executive order that ordered the Attorney General and White House counsel to convene a group of pro bono lawyers to defend abortion seekers and providers, and issuing a memorandum affirming the FDA’s decision to allow pharmacies to fulfill prescription for the chemical abortion drug mifepristone. Biden also appointed abortion activist Julie Rikelman to the federal judiciary (Rikelman represented the Mississippi abortion facility in the Dobbs case that overturned Roe) and used the bully pulpit of the presidency to advocate for abortion like he did in the 2024 State of the Union address.

Although Biden is no longer leading the Democratic ticket, Kamala Harris is an even more energetic supporter of abortion. Prior to becoming the Democratic nominee, Harris led a national “Fight for Reproductive Freedom” tour that included a visit to a Planned Parenthood facility, becoming the first sitting president or vice president to tour an abortion clinic. In the spring of 2024, Harris took her abortion tour to the important swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Of course, Harris’ ardent support for abortion is no surprise. As a U.S. senator, Harris voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. When running for president in the 2020 Democratic primary, Harris stated she would require federal “preclearance” for state laws affecting abortion.

Conclusion

The 2024 presidential election has been truly unprecedented, full of unforeseen twists and turns. The formulation of the party platforms has also been a source of surprises.

There are still significant differences between the two major political party platforms. Although it is true that Republicans passed the “most watered down platform on abortion in 40 years,” as David French recently noted, it is naïve to believe, as French has suggested, that there will be “ample opportunities for the pro-life movement to work with a Harris administration to enact policies that will make abortion less appealing.” Anyone paying attention to politics over the past few years knows that the Democratic Party—and Kamala Harris in particular—is absolutely committed to expanding abortion at every level of government; any suggestion otherwise is disingenuous.

In addition to the party platforms providing a lens through which the two major parties can be evaluated, both of the major presidential candidates have a clear record on a wide variety of topics. It has always been my view that evangelical Christians should never feel completely at home in either party, and this sentiment is especially relevant in 2024. However, as long as Democrats continue on their current trajectory and persist in pursuing radical policies regarding life, marriage, and religious freedom, I suspect that most conservative Christians will continue supporting Republican candidates, if for no other reason than to blunt the leftward lurch of the Democratic Party.

Q: Why did you write this study guide?

A: In the aftermath of the sexual revolution, and in the midst of a successive LGBT wave, our world today is more confused than ever when it comes to gender, sexuality, and marriage. This reality explains why one of the most frequent requests we get at the offices of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) is for a curriculum that helps the church think biblically about these issues. Until today, we did not have a resource to recommend, which is why we are glad this study is available now. It is our prayer that the church will be edified through it to the glory of God and the good of our neighbors.

Q: What cultural changes have made this study guide necessary?

A: CBMW was founded in 1986 in response to the rapid rise of feminism in the evangelical church. Christian teaching established on Scripture and tradition over more than a thousand years was being challenged and overturned by a powerful cultural force. CBMW stood against this force by reasserting what the Bible teaches: that men and women are created equal yet different from the very beginning — equal in dignity and worth, yet different in crucial ways that impact the order of the home and the church. The question in that day was about the roles of men and women. But today, we’ve seen a drastic shift, and the very foundations of human knowledge are being shaken. Now the fundamental questions surround what exactly a man and woman even are. In 1987 we were able to assume everyone knew what a man and a woman were. Today, we must teach the world what is a man, what is a woman, and to do that we want to take our readers back to the foundation of all human knowledge: God and His Word.

This study begins by providing the biblical rationale for why we should look to the beginning, in Genesis 1 and 2, for answers to the most basic questions regarding gender, sexuality, and marriage. The chapters are foundational not only for our study, but for a Christian understanding of the world.

Q: Who is it primarily intended for?

A: This study is primarily intended for Christians who want to be grounded in the truth of God’s Word on issues related to gender, sexuality, and marriage. These are some of the most pressing issues facing the church today, and we want Christians of all ages and all walks of life to be equipped to give an answer when their neighbor, or maybe even they themselves, have questions about God’s revelation or the world’s folly.

Q: How would you recommend this study be used?

A: We recommend this study be used in a group setting, perhaps in a small group, or Sunday School class, or Bible study fellowship. Each book contains resources for leaders and participants to access, including discussion questions and answers to these questions. Each week is also accompanied by a video from faithful evangelical teachers such as Albert Mohler, Denny Burk, Heath Lambert, H. B. Charles, Christopher Yuan, and Rosaria Butterfield. Below is an introductory video from Denny Burk.

Q: After a person has read this book, what additional resources would you point them to?

A: There are a number of helpful, book-length resources that we would point believers to for extra study on these topics, including:

• Denny Burk, What is the Meaning of Sex?
• Heath Lambert and Denny Burk, Transforming Homosexuality
• Christopher Yuan, Holy Sexuality
• Albert Mohler, We Cannot Be Silent
• Carl Trueman, Strange New World
• Rosaria Butterfield, Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert

Q: What is the format of each chapter?

Here is a sample chapter that illustrates the flow and layout of each chapter. 

Q: Of all the studies on Biblical topics that are out there, why should Christians prioritize this study?

A: It is no secret that LGBT ideology is ascendant in today’s culture. But this ideology stands in direct contradiction with God’s Word, which means the church is faced with a choice. Will we compromise the Bible’s infallible, inerrant, life-giving revelation to accommodate godless, soul-destroying ideology, or will we stand firm in the faith once for all delivered to the saints? We hope this study not only equips believers to make the obvious choice—stand firm on the Word of God—but also to grow in holiness as we are submitted to the lordship of Jesus Christ.

As pro-lifers celebrate the reversal of Roe and its companion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), it is appropriate to consider how we arrived at this moment, reflect on the current state of the pro-life movement in the United States, and acknowledge the remaining challenges facing those of us who care about life.

The Court’s Decision

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, stating in clear, unmistakable language: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.” These words, written by Justice Samuel Alito, represent the culmination of nearly a half-century’s worth of prayer, lobbying, campaigning, and legislating.

For many observers, the scope of the Dobbs decision was surprising. Instead of simply upholding Mississippi’s 15-week protection law, the Court agreed with Mississippi’s Solicitor General that abortion precedents, including Roe and Casey, should be overruled to allow the people’s elected representatives to write laws protecting life.

According to Justice Alito, “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”

Alito’s opinion was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a concurring opinion in support of the Mississippi 15-week protection law but did not sign on to Alito’s opinion to overturn Roe. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that overturning Roe stripped women of constitutional protections and ignored the Court’s long-standing precedent.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas praised the Supreme Court for rejecting the “fabrication of a constitutional right to abortion.” Justice Kavanaugh noted in his own concurrence that the U.S. Constitution says nothing about abortion and that the Court “does not possess the constitutional authority to override the democratic process and to decree either a pro-life or a pro-choice abortion policy for all 330 million people in the United States.” According to Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, the Court erred in Roe by taking sides in the abortion debate and taking the issue away from the American people.

Current Lay of the Land

The implications of the Dobbs decision are far-reaching. For the first time since 1973, states across America can defend unborn babies both from the time their hearts can beat and when they can respond to touch; states can even protect unborn babies entirely from the moment of fertilization.

As of December 2022, eighteen states protect life at conception (with some allowing exceptions for rape, incest, fetal anomaly, or the life of the mother), four states protect unborn life when a heartbeat is detected (generally between five to six weeks gestation), and seven states protect unborn life based on gestational age.

Currently, twenty-one states do not protect unborn life and allow legal abortion throughout pregnancy. Although some of these states have codified pro-abortion laws, other states allow abortion up to the moment of birth through “health exceptions,” provisions in laws that define health so broadly as to effectively allow abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason, including the “mental or emotional health” of the mother.

Prior to the Dobbs decision, more than twenty states had passed laws to protect life from the earliest stages of development that they could not enforce. Now that Roe has been overturned, those laws can go into effect.

Significantly, the majority in Dobbs was clear that their decision does not make abortion illegal. Instead, it returns the issue to the people and empowers them to make their own laws through their elected representatives. For the pro-life movement, this means the battle is not over, and it will not be until the day when every unborn child in America is awarded full protection under the law.

Overview of Dobbs

The Dobbs decision was the culmination of a decades-long movement to chip away at Roe. In the immediate background of Roe’s demise is the conservative legal movement that spent decades training, advocating for, and appointing judges with an originalist judicial philosophy.^[1] The appointment of three justices during the Trump administration (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) proved decisive in tipping the balance of power at the Supreme Court toward a conservative majority.

1. Originalism is a theory of constitutional interpretation that believes the words of the Constitution ought to be interpreted as they were understood at the time of the Constitution’s ratification. This judicial philosophy stands in contrast to judicial pragmatism which allows for interpretation of the text to change based on current circumstances (even if the Constitution or law is not formally changed).

Additionally, for decades, conservatives worked effectively in state legislatures across the country to introduce and pass laws that intentionally challenged the precedent of Roe and Casey. The legal strategy was to secure splits at the circuit level, which would invite review by the Supreme Court.

One of these laws, the Gestational Age Act (also known as House Bill 1510), was passed in 2018 by the Mississippi legislature. The law provides protections for unborn children when the probable gestational age exceeds fifteen weeks. Within the “legislative findings and purpose” section of the law, it notes that the United States is one of only a few nations in the world that permit elective abortion-on-demand after twenty weeks of pregnancy. The law explains that, according to modern medical consensus, an unborn baby’s heart begins beating at five to six weeks of gestation, an unborn baby begins to move at around eight weeks of gestation, all basic physiological functions are present at nine weeks of gestation, and vital organs begin to function at ten weeks of gestation.

In short, the Mississippi law makes a comprehensive and compelling case for the humanity of unborn children and provides a strong rationale for why abortion is a barbaric practice, dangerous to women, and demeaning to the medical profession.

On the same day that Gov. Phil Bryant signed it into law, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Mississippi’s only licensed abortion facility, sued the state. A district court determined the Gestational Age Act was unconstitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling. After the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, Mississippi appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

History of Roe and Casey

Mississippi’s law intentionally challenged the Supreme Court’s holdings in its two most significant abortion cases: Roe and Casey. In Roe, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to abortion based on an implied right to privacy provided by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court, led by Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote the majority opinion, invented an arbitrary trimester framework that allowed states to regulate abortion the further a pregnancy progressed. Under Roe, states could not regulate or prohibit abortion until the third trimester (about twenty-eight weeks of gestation). However, on the same day Roe was decided, the Court issued another opinion, Doe v. Bolton, which said that abortion could not be restricted if it was done for the “health” of the mother. By defining health to include “physical, emotional, psychological, [and] familial” factors, the Court made it essentially impossible to create any meaningful protections for unborn life.

In 1992, the Supreme Court revisited Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a case involving a Pennsylvania pro-life law. Although the Court upheld Roe’s central holding that the Constitution protects the right to abortion, it replaced the trimester system with a prohibition on states creating an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion pre-viability (defined as the gestational age an unborn baby is thought to be capable of surviving outside the womb). Although infants were once thought to reach viability at twenty-eight weeks, modern medicine has determined that children can survive outside of the womb as early as twenty-one weeks, thus moving the point of viability to earlier in gestation than it had been understood to be at the time of Roe. However, the Court left in place the health exception that enables states to permit abortion until birth.

In Mississippi’s legal brief for Dobbs, state Attorney General Lynn Fitch specifically asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn these two decisions, arguing “nothing in constitutional text, structure, history, or tradition supports a right to abortion.” While the Court had heard other abortion-related cases since 1992, Mississippi’s attorneys specifically asked the Court to consider whether all pre-viability prohibitions on abortion are unconstitutional (a question that went to the heart of the legal rationale of Roe and Casey).

The Case for Reconsidering

As I have written elsewhere, we know a great deal more today about what goes on inside a mother’s womb than we did in 1973, when Roe was decided. Scientific and technological advances have given us a front-row seat to an unborn baby’s development from the moment of fertilization to birth.  Everything present at the first moment of fertilization indicates the presence of a human being, and this truth becomes increasingly clear as the baby develops. At fifteen weeks, an unborn baby’s heart has already beat more than 15 million times. Doctors can tell whether a baby is right or left-handed based on which thumb the baby prefers to suck. Moreover, we now know that unborn babies can feel pain inside the womb by 20 weeks.

As Mississippi correctly noted in its arguments before the Supreme Court, Roe placed the United States in an extreme position on abortion compared to the rest of the world. The United States was one of only six countries that failed to protect unborn life at any point during pregnancy (the other five are South Korea, Canada, and notorious human rights abusers Vietnam, China, and North Korea). Most European countries limit abortion prior to fifteen weeks, making Mississippi’s fifteen-week prohibition modest by comparison. The fact that Roe and Casey allowed abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy made the United States one of the most permissive nations in the world on abortion policy.

For pro-life Americans, the case to overturn Roe at the Supreme Court was urgent due to political realities. Tragically, Congress has demonstrated resistance to passing even the most basic pro-life protections. Since the passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (which prohibited a form of late-term abortion known as intact dilation and extraction), Congress has failed to pass any meaningful protections for unborn children.

For example, in 2020, the U.S. Senate failed to pass two commonsense pro-life bills, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Pain Capable would prohibit abortion at 20-weeks post-fertilization (the point when babies can feel pain) while Born Alive would require medical care for babies who survive botched abortions. Although a majority of senators supported the bills, both fell short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture (i.e., end debate and move to a vote on the bill) and overcome a Democrat-led filibuster.

The Senate votes reveal how partisan abortion has become in the United States. On February 25, 2020, the Senate voted 53–44 on the Pain-Capable cloture vote and 56–41 on the Born-Alive cloture vote. The votes were largely along party lines. Two Democrats (Senators Casey and Manchin) voted in favor of Pain-Capable, and three (Sens. Casey, Manchin, and Jones) voted in favor of Born-Alive. All Republicans voted for Born-Alive, while two Republicans (Sens. Collins and Murkowski) voted against Pain-Capable.

These recent abortion votes underscore how the Democratic Party has moved dramatically from the “safe, legal, and rare” position advocated by Bill Clinton in the 1990s to actively opposing any meaningful limits on abortion. In fact, the parties’ respective positions on abortion were illustrated on the day of the Dobbs decision. Whereas the Republican National Committee celebrated the ruling, President Joe Biden lamented the decision, noting, “The Court’s decision casts a dark shadow over a large swath of the land.” Moreover, since 2016, the Democratic Party platform officially calls for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, a legislative provision that prevents government funds from being used to pay for abortions.

2022 Midterm Elections

Not surprisingly, abortion became a major issue in the lead-up to the 2022-midterm elections. Shortly after the Dobbs decision, voters in Kansas decided overwhelmingly against adding a pro-life amendment to their state’s constitution. The proposed amendment would have overturned a 2019 Kansas Supreme Court ruling that interpreted the state constitution as protecting abortion. The August 2 vote signaled that abortion supporters were upset and eager to engage in the political process after the Dobbs decision. In fact, despite the generally unfavorable political environment for Democrats in the forthcoming midterms, the Kansas vote indicated that abortion would be a significant factor in November. The vast spending of pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood Action Fund (which alone committed $50 million to the midterms) also suggested that pro-abortion allies were highly motivated.

On November 8, five states asked their citizens to vote on abortion-related amendments. Voters in California, Michigan, and Vermont overwhelmingly approved amendments to their state constitutions enshrining access to abortion. When the votes were counted, the margin in each state was decisive (66.9 to 33.1 percent in California, 56.7 to 43.3 percent in Michigan, and 76.8 to 23.2 percent in Vermont). In Kentucky, voters rejected an amendment that would have ensured that nothing in the state’s constitution “shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion.” In a surprise to many, the amendment failed in the conservative state 52.3 to 47.7 percent.

Finally, in Montana, voters weighed in on a legislative referendum known as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, a referendum that would have required medical professionals to provide medical care to babies who are born alive following botched abortions. Once again, the pro-abortion side won, with the referendum failing 52.6 to 47.4 percent.

Although pro-life initiatives failed across the country, voters nevertheless handed a narrow majority to Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, ensuring that pro-abortion federal legislation will not advance in the 118^th Congress. Nevertheless, the results of the 2022-midterm elections were undoubtedly a setback for the pro-life movement as the pro-abortion lobby channeled frustration and outrage about the Dobbs decision into wins at the ballot box. Of course, most pro-lifers would gladly accept a poor midterm election showing in exchange for Dobbs. But the importance of persuading our friends and neighbors about the personhood of the unborn remains a challenge for pro-life supporters in the years to come, and the church especially needs to rethink its engagement on the issue.^[2]

2. Stayed tuned to Christ Over All this month, as we take up this task throughout January.

Six Ways Christians Can Respond

How should Christians respond to the Dobbs decision?

First, we ought to thank God that Roe has been overturned. More than sixty million unborn babies have died via abortion in the United States since Roe was decided in 1973. God has answered the prayers of His people, and an untold number of babies’ lives will now be saved because of the Dobbs decision.

Second, we must prepare for what’s next. The pro-life movement has been preparing for a post-Roe America for decades, and now that the moment has come, there are already networks of support in place for mothers and babies. Thousands of pregnancy resource centers nationwide have combined to save over 800,000 lives in the past few years, offering loving support and tangible help valued at almost $270 million in 2019 alone. In the years to come, Christians will have many opportunities to put their pro-life convictions into action. And so, we must prepare ourselves to act.

Third, we should educate ourselves on where the laws in our own states stand and what steps we can take to protect more lives. Overturning Roe was never the final goal. Those who believe that every unborn child is made in God’s image need to stay engaged, working with policymakers in states that have yet to protect life beginning at fertilization.

In anticipation of Dobbs, states such as California and New York expanded their abortion laws, and the abortion industry is already finding ways to circumvent pro-life state laws (like sending abortion pills through the mail, despite the proven risks of dangerous complications and coercion). Since June 24, 2022, politicians like Governor Gavin Newsom have promoted progressive states as “abortion sanctuaries” to draw pregnant women across state lines for abortion services. Newsom even spent money from his own reelection fund to put up billboards with pro-abortion messaging. The California governor even quoted Scripture on some of them. Christians should be aware of these efforts and work to counter misleading messaging.

Fourth, it would be a mistake for pastors to assume that there is a widespread pro-life ethic in their churches. According to a 2021 national survey by Family Research Council, only six percent of Americans have a biblical worldview, and only twenty-one percent of those who regularly attend evangelical church services have a biblical worldview (despite eighty-one percent thinking they do).

Additionally, according to a 2020 study by the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University, forty-four percent of evangelicals believe the Bible is ambiguous in its teaching on abortion. Pervasive confusion within the church about the Bible’s teaching on the personhood of the unborn is an indictment of many pastors. More than ever, congregations would benefit tremendously from expositional sermons on key pro-life passages such as Psalm 139:13–16, Proverbs 24:10–12, and all of Luke 1–2.

As these statistics show, most Americans—including many in our churches—are unaware of the Bible’s teaching on the personhood of the unborn. As Americans consider the legacy of Roe and as states continue to debate their abortion laws, there is no better time for pastors and church leaders to equip their congregations to think faithfully about the sanctity of human life. A steady dose of faithful biblical exposition on pro-life passages will form congregants’ conscience and moral imagination and help them navigate the ongoing conversation about abortion.

Fifth, it is important to recognize and continue to engage with the political process that led to the overturning of Roe. While it is uncomfortable for some to acknowledge, we must revisit the fact that the American political process—a process evangelical Christians have participated in for decades in no small part because of their desire to protect unborn life—was how Roe and Casey were ultimately overturned. All the justices that voted to overturn Roe were appointed by Republican presidents. Conversely, the three justices in the minority were appointed by Democrats.

Moreover, as discussed earlier, the political leaders responsible for passing legislation that led to the overturning of egregious abortion precedents were conservative Republicans. As recent elections have demonstrated, the two major political parties are now on opposite sides of the political spectrum when it comes to abortion. Whereas the Republican Party’s platform calls for protecting unborn children and opposes efforts to use taxpayer money to fund abortion, the Democratic Party’s platform now supports abortion without restriction and even calls for the repeal of current legislative provisions that prevent taxpayer money from funding abortion. In the current Congress, only one pro-life Democrat is serving in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party of the 1990s that believed abortion should be “rare” no longer exists, and Christians need to be aware of this tragic political reality.

Sixth, and finally, we ought to pray, recognizing that the driving spiritual force behind the killing of over sixty million image bearers has been at work since the Fall (John 8:44). While many factors contribute to abortion, we would be amiss to overlook the spiritual nature of the battle (Eph. 6:12). Scripture teaches that the enemy comes “only to steal and kill and destroy” (John 10:10) and the spirit of antichrist is perhaps no more clearly seen than in the ongoing effort to convince mothers they are better off killing their own children. Thus, if abortion becomes illegal in every state, this would happen only through the sovereign mercy of Almighty God—most likely working through a network of thousands of people prayerfully and actively working against this evil practice. May we endeavor to be such people of prayer!

Conclusion

Nearly fifty years of nationwide abortion-on-demand will forever be a glaring moral stain on our nation’s history. The legacy of Roe is over sixty million babies legally aborted. The Supreme Court’s acknowledgement last summer that Roe was “egregiously wrong” was an important step towards restoring a culture of life in America. But the Court’s admission cannot erase decades of pain and trauma wrought by abortion, nor can it bring back children who were lost.

Nevertheless, on the fiftieth anniversary of Roe, it is appropriate to celebrate its demise. The overturning of this infamous decision is an answer to prayer and the result of tireless work. But while we celebrate, we know our work is not over. The results of the recent midterm election show that many of our fellow citizens still need to be persuaded that a culture of life that values everyone is a societal good that fulfills our nation’s highest ideals. And until this vision is realized, the pro-life movement, led by the church, must sojourn on in its efforts to protect every single life.