Why Do Many Christians Oppose Heartbeat Bills?

If you’ve been involved in the fight against abortion in recent years, you may have noticed that some Christians oppose heartbeat bills, which are generally regarded as some of the strongest pro-life legislation being pursued in various states. These abolitionists make the claim that we should oppose heartbeat bills as being fundamentally unjust, distracting, and weak legislation, in favor of bills which completely abolish abortion as murder.

These days, those who fight against abortion tend to fall into one of the following three groups when it comes to the kinds of legislation each is willing to support.

• Pro-Life Regulationist: Those who oppose the criminalization of abortion as murder. These work to regulate abortion, to discourage its practice and save the lives of children. But they actively fight against those who want to grant preborn children equal protection under the law, typically out of a desire to extend compassion to women who abort their children.
• Pro-Life Incrementalist / Gradualist: Those who support the criminalization of abortion as murder as the end goal of the pro-life movement, but who are also willing to accept unjust or distracting pro-life regulations along the way, if a new regulation is arguably less unjust than the current legislation. Sometimes the name “smashmouth incrementalist” will be applied to this group, to distinguish them from the regulationists who also use incrementalism, but oppose criminalization.
• Abolitionist / Immediatist: Those who support the criminalization of abortion as murder, and who oppose the use of unjust or distracting pro-life regulations, as increments on the way to its total abolition.

Regulationists of the first group tend to be either secular pro-lifers, or nominal Christians who don’t view the Bible as authoritative. From a biblical standpoint, it’s easy enough to show that human beings are valuable as humans, because we bear the image of God, and should therefore be granted equal protection under the law from the moment of conception onward (Gen 9:5-6, Exo 21:22-25). Thus for the Christian, the end goal of legislation must be to criminalize abortion, because all human beings should be equally protected from murder, and abortion is the murder of children in the womb. Compassion and healing for mothers who are tempted and/or guilty of murder is brought through Christ in the gospel, but civil law is here to establish justice, to prevent humanity from destroying itself (Rom 13:1-5).

The more involved debate is between those who agree that abortion must be criminalized as murder, but who disagree on the means and the timing of legal change. Most people instinctively fall into the pro-life incrementalist view, because we all pursue large changes in increments as our general approach to life. It takes time to accomplish large things, and incrementalists capitalize on this natural instinct to persuade Christians that any step of progress toward the goal of criminalization is an acceptable step. Abolitionists on the other hand oppose heartbeat bills and other incrementalist regulations as acts that hinder rather than help the criminalization of abortion, through their negative side effects that gradualists often fail to recognize.

When abolitionists oppose heartbeat bills, we typically argue along two distinct lines.

1. The intrinsic injustice of heartbeat bills
2. The distracting nature of pro-life regulations generally

Because the first point is triggering and controversial within the pro-life movement, and because it is the more important reason to oppose heartbeat bills, we’ll spend some time developing it in a little while. But the important thing to understand here is the difference between these two claims. The first is claiming that the legislation itself is morally wrong, and Christians are therefore sinning when we support it. The second point is that the distracting nature of the legislation enables legislators to commit sin by making them look good while doing something less than what’s required.

The difference can be seen in other forms of pro-life regulation that are not fundamentally unjust. For example, Defund Planned Parenthood bills remove monetary support for the abortion provider, and these do not have to include unjust, discriminatory language (though many do). Removing financial support from a murderous organization of assassins is a form of boycotting, and this can be a biblically ethical way to reduce some of the harm being done by the government. It doesn’t remove the government’s duty to establish justice for murder, but it isn’t wrong to boycott Planned Parenthood.

Yet abolitionists will generally oppose defund bills because from a pragmatic standpoint, these allow legislators to shirk their greater moral responsibility to abolish abortion, while looking good in front of their pro-life constituents. When Christians support defund bill initiatives, they are almost always enabling the sin of their legislators, who have a duty before God to establish justice for murder (Rom 13:1-4). The situation is analogous to giving a drug-addicted homeless person money to buy food. It isn’t wrong for a Christian to do this, but those with some experience in homeless ministry know that such charity is often used to buy drugs instead of food, to feed the addiction. So to avoid enabling sin, we go with a different strategy, such as purchasing food and then giving the food to the homeless directly.

Abolitionists oppose heartbeat bills, defund bills, and just about every form of pro-life regulation for the same practical, strategic reason. Even when the legislation is just, supporting pro-life regulation enables sinning legislators to relieve their own consciences, and relieve the pressure of the Christian voting bloc, without having to make the sacrifice necessary to do the right thing before God in the homicide code. And such legislation is often used as a weapon against abolitionist bills running in red states, where legislators would otherwise have no choice but to abolish abortion, to retain the votes of their constituents. Pro-life regulations distract voters from the real issue, allowing their legislators to appear as pro-life heroes while they silently kill bills that would end the practice of abortion altogether.

As bad as the distracting effects of pro-life regulations are, there is a more substantive, moral reason to oppose heartbeat bills along with most pro-life regulation, though as noted it does not apply to every instance. Any pro-life bill that touches the homicide code while falling short of total criminalization is fundamentally unjust, by definition. And many pro-life bills in other areas of law contain unjust language for practical reasons.

The problem can be seen on the other side of the aisle, when leftists create legislation against racism that grants special privileges to minority groups over others in the culture. Conservatives rightly understand that this use of racism to defeat racism is unjust and self-defeating, because it embeds immoral partiality into the law that causes one group of people to be arbitrarily privileged over another. There is nothing inherent in the color of one’s skin that makes him or her deserving of greater support or protection from the government. The morally acceptable law is to treat all people equally independent of skin color or other arbitrary characteristics.

In the same way, pro-life regulations almost always include exceptions that privilege one group of preborn children over another, on account of a child’s age, his viability, the presence of a heartbeat, the nature of his conception, or some other arbitrary characteristic. Collectively, abolitionists refer to these various forms of partiality as ageism, the counterpart in our age to what racism was during the abolition of slavery. It is the dynamic in society which allows various classes of human being to be dehumanized — to have the image of God and all of its protections and privileges removed from that group of people. And just as there were anti-slavery activists who deceived and directed the resources of Christians into racist answers to the injustice of slavery, so there are anti-abortion activists in our day who deceive and direct the resources of Christians into ageist answers to the injustice of abortion.

So in keeping with our predecessors’ commitment to justice in legislation, abolitionists today oppose heartbeat bills because they are ageist in nature, granting one group of people protection from murder, while denying such protection to another. For example, the following is an excerpt from the Tennessee heartbeat bill that took effect in 2022:

(1) A person shall not perform or induce, or attempt to perform or induce, an abortion upon a pregnant woman whose unborn child has a fetal heartbeat. A
violation of this subdivision (c)(1) is a Class C felony.

(2) A person shall not perform or induce, or attempt to perform or induce, an abortion upon a pregnant woman whose unborn child is six (6) weeks gestational age or older unless, prior to performing or inducing the abortion, or attempting to perform or induce the abortion, the physician affirmatively determines and records in the pregnant woman’s medical record that, in the physician’s good faith medical judgment, the unborn child does not have a fetal heartbeat at the time of the abortion. In making the good faith medical determination, the physician shall utilize generally accepted standards of medical practice using current medical technology and methodology applicable to the gestational age of the unborn child and reasonably calculated to determine the existence or non-existence of a fetal heartbeat. A violation of this subdivision (c)(2) is a Class C felony.

— Tennessee Senate Bill 2196

Setting aside the fact that the penalties imposed for the abortion of preborn children are significantly less than for the murder of born people, we can see in the text above that the presence of a heartbeat (and as developed later, the age and other characteristics) grants a child special treatment over other human beings who don’t yet have these arbitrary markers. The development of a heart does not magically grant a child human rights. The child is a distinct human, and is therefore to be protected like other humans, from the moment of fertilization onward. This law is ageist, and in terms of biblical language, it establishes partiality in judgement, which God considers to be evil and an abuse of civil authority (Deu 1:17, Jas 2:4, Isa 10:1-4).

A very understandable response to the abolitionist demand for justice and only justice is to object that we have to take steps on the way to the final goal of criminalizing abortion. To do otherwise would be to leave all children unprotected, when we could have protected some. Do all of the bills that Christians support have to be flawlessly just, or can we accept some evil so that good may come? One thoughtful influencer put it this way,

So I’d like to know your opinion – if there’s a state where there’s complicated politics, there’s a lot of different stuff going on, and the only thing that you can get everybody to agree on is a heartbeat bill. Now, from my perspective – and again, I’m open to being wrong – but if you could actually put in a heartbeat bill that would save some lives, it’s hard for me to see, like why would you not do that? …Ideally, I’d love to see everybody come together and say, “let’s get on board with this,” and if we could do that, I’d be full abolition. But I think with just where we’re at – and what I don’t want to accidentally be doing is making the pragmatic case… But what I’m saying is, you could save some lives. Isn’t that better from a justice perspective, even a biblical justice perspective. Isn’t that better than not saving the lives you could save, because maybe in the future you’ll be able to save more?

— Alisa Childers, The Case FOR Equal Protection for the Preborn

One of the things I appreciate about this quote in particular is that Alisa is narrowing the conversation to exclude even pragmatic arguments, so that we can focus only on the question of what is actually the right thing to do. Much of the pro-life versus abolition discussion is spent dealing with all manner of practical considerations, to the exclusion of what God thinks of our laws. And the abolitionists will argue, quite persuasively, that the most practical thing that Christians and Americans can do is to obey the word of God, even when it seems like foolishness in the moment. But at base, the fundamental question in the abortion debate is a question of morality, one which needs to be answered independent of temporal consequences, because we will all have to stand before God in the final judgement and give an account of what we did and what we supported, regardless of what it cost in the moment. Thank you God for the blood of Jesus.

Alisa’s question really strikes at the heart of the disagreement between abolition and pro-life. The pro-life movement wants to save the lives of pre-born children as its ultimate goal. The abolitionist movement wants to repent and obey God as our ultimate goal, believing that obedience to God will ultimately save children, and repentance will relieve our nation of the wrath that is piling up against us. Pro-lifers see an abortion problem, whereas abolitionists see a God problem that is exacerbated by our commitment to abortion.

This distinction is more than mere rhetoric. It flows out of the fundamental commitments of the two movements, and it affects our respective approaches to the whole issue, not only our legislative differences. Because pro-lifers are humanistic/syncretistic in their ideology, they center their ethics around human life, and make it ultimate in their system of thought. Because abolitionists ground our thinking and our ethics in the word of God, we view the love of our neighbor (i.e. human rights) as being under the higher command to love God.

And one of them, a lawyer, asked [Jesus] a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”

And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Mat 22:35-40)

When pro-lifers say, “This bill will save lives,” that is a deeply questionable statement in and of itself, and there are all kinds of arguments that refute the idea that pro-life bills save lives in the long-term, and often even in the short-term. Usually, pro-life bills merely change the number of lives that are counted, such as reducing the counted surgical abortions, but with with an uncounted surge in abortion pills, etc.

But even if it were true that that pro-life bills save lives, abolitionists would still oppose heartbeat bills and other unjust pro-life legislation on principle. From a Christian view of ethics, it is never morally justified to do something wrong, even if that action promises (according to our very imperfect ability to predict outcomes) to save a lot of lives. Love of God is the priority, and sin by its very nature offends against this greater commandment, because sin is opposed to the very character of God.

To be sure, Christian ethics is deeply nuanced, as complex situations force people into unusual situations that change ordinary behavior. David ate the forbidden showbread when human life was on the line, because human life is weightier in its priority than ceremony (Mat 12:1-8, Mat 23:23-24). But when you’re faced with a choice that is genuinely sinful, Christians (and really, all humans) are obligated to love God above all other considerations, and to refuse the temptation to sin, whatever the cost. This is why Christians would choose to be burned at the stake rather than offer a pinch of incense to Caesar. If human life were the highest good, then such a choice would seem preposterous. But if God truly is real, and if love of God truly is the highest obligation we have as his image-bearers, then there will be times when saving a human life is less of a priority than doing some other thing that God requires of us, such as establishing justice in our law codes.

Human life is massively valued in scripture, but always only under God. When man elevates himself and his wisdom above God and his wisdom, everything starts to fall apart (Gen 3). The fact of the matter is, we are not and never will be equal to God, nor do we have his wisdom, his omniscience, or his omnipotence that are all necessary to work all things out for good. God has told us what is good, and what the Lord requires of us — to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God (Mic 6:8), trusting that his ways are good even when they don’t seem practical. Humanists on the other hand place their faith in man, and in keeping with this philosophy, the pro-life industry can only see what they think man is able to accomplish apart from God, by his own power and wisdom.

This conflict between humanism and theism is seen at the very heart of the gospel, when the religious leaders of Israel decided that a tiny amount of injustice was acceptable collateral damage in the face of far worse consequences that seemed to be on the horizon.

So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” (Jhn 11:47-50)

The Sanhedrin were facing a far more defensible ethical dilemma than the pro-lifers of our day. Pro-lifers will frequently justify legislation that permits the slaughter of large swathes of the human population to save a few children in a protected class, because that’s better than nothing. Here, the Sanhedrin are given the amazing deal of only having to stomach the death of one innocent man to save the entire Jewish nation from Roman destruction. Pro-lifers would decry as insane any in the Sanhedrin who would push back and say, “No, we shouldn’t do something wrong to this man Jesus, just to save the lives of everyone in the nation. Trust God and do what’s right.” Rather, they would like Caiaphas simply answer, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that we must be practical, deal with the political realities of the day. You abolitionists will bring such destruction to our nation for your extremist commitment to justice and justice alone. Isn’t it better to save some lives, on our way to a better situation with Rome?”

In contrast to the humanistic pragmatism of the Sanhedrin, Jesus sets the bar high for Christians through his work on the cross, illustrating a radical commitment to obeying God at all costs — pushed to the limits of utmost absurdity. Jesus showed that trusting God is the logical, and ultimately victorious decision to make every time, even in the most extreme situations. Love of God is practical, and Jesus proved it on the cross. Leaving God for the love of man is impractical, and Adam proved it in the fall. The pro-life movement needs to repent of trusting in the the philosophy of Adam to bring about life through his own wisdom, and turn to follow the true and the living God above all other considerations, even the saving of human life.

There are many practical reasons to oppose heartbeat bills and other pro-life regulations, flowing out of the side effects produced by unjust and distracting legislation. We’ve already looked at one such side effect, namely that distracting legislation can relieve the external and internal pressure that otherwise acts upon a legislator who is called by the people to do the right thing. Other, more substantive side effects have also been gleaned by abolitionists from experience and Bible study.

One of the notable things about Jesus’ interaction with the politicians of his day is that he never traded moral authority for political favor to get things done. He just wouldn’t play ball with the Sanhedrin in their moral and legislative compromise, even when it meant sacrificing the approval and tolerance of those in power (Mar 12:14). Yet by his uncompromising commitment to truth, Jesus maintained the approval of the one who actually possesses all power, showing that faithfulness to God is politically practical in the long-term (Psa 2).

Aside from the obvious benefit of having God as an ally, Jesus’ strategy of cultural change elevated truth as a real and powerful force in human society. Human beings respond to truth, especially moral truth which exposes sin, righteousness, and the reality of judgement to which we are all destined. The Holy Spirit helps to bring conviction in this process (Jhn 16:7-15), that those who hear the truth will respond in repentance. But the quality of a person’s response is also dependent on the quality of the ideas that are sown into his life through biblical teaching (Mat 13:24-30, Rom 12:2, Act 18:24-28).

Because of this dynamic, any strategy that trades the moral authority of standing on truth for mere political advantage has the dual side effects of undermining the effectiveness of the message, and the people’s respect for the speaker. When the ideas are bad, the fruits of repentance are bad, and when the listener knows that the speaker is being hypocritical, his reasoning is that much easier to dismiss, undermining the Spirit’s work of conviction. For this reason, Christians should oppose heartbeat bills and other morally and logically compromised legislation on account of the negative impact they have on our moral authority, as ambassadors of God on the earth. Sin and error are forgivable with humble repentance, but a commitment to error for the sake of political expedience undermines the strength and impact of the Christian witness on culture.

In keeping with the impact of truth and error on political success, many Christians fail to realize that law serves a teaching role as much as it serves a judicial role. We see this in the law of Moses, which featured laws that were unenforceable by its human mediators, but which served an instructive role, such as the command to love God (Deu 6:5). Paul said in one place that the law of Moses taught him about covetousness (Rom 7:7), and we’re all familiar with how external standards of all kinds influence the law of conscience we use for self-government.

Simply put, laws and social standards to which we ascribe authority have a tutoring effect on our personal views of right and wrong. This is the reason that law is often used by the left to change culture; the law is a tutor that informs our personal morals and values. It’s no accident that the class distinctions seen in pro-life legislation (exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother, downs syndrome, lacking heartbeat or pain capability, etc.) are the same distinctions that come up in street activism and outside of the abortion mills. The culture justifies its decisions to murder according to the same arbitrary, ageist standards that exist in our pro-life legislation because compromised law teaches a compromised view of morality.

Ageism in law therefore fuels ageism in the culture because we use law as if it had no theological purpose or boundaries. Civil law isn’t a neutral tool that we can manipulate however we like. In its most essential elements, civil law is a reflection of God’ higher moral law (Mat 5:17-48, Rom 13:2-4). So when pro-lifers create unjust, immoral law in a pragmatic attempt to manipulate humans into better behavior, that has the side effect of instructing the culture with a false understanding of morality.

“Today is the day of salvation,” is what we tell the individual. “You might not have tomorrow; death could come at any time.” Yet when we speak to the heads of state, we tell them, “Tomorrow is the day of salvation, you can repent when it is politically expedient.” This shows that we have lost the concept of God’s wrath against nations as a relevant part of our Christian worldview.

The fact of the matter is, God’s wrath is revealed against nations as much as it is against individuals (Deu 9:4). When, to gain political favor, we replace a prophetic call for immediate and unconditional repentance with a call for repentance at the time of earliest convenience, we treat the sin of the nation differently than we treat the sin of the individual, losing the urgency of repentance without any biblical justification to do so.

In addition to presuming upon the grace and patience of God, delayed repentance also has a hardening effect on the hearts of the people as an expression of God’s wrath. When man rejects the way of the Lord, God doesn’t always judge through outright destruction. He sometimes judges through self-destruction, though the increasing debasement of an increasing devotion to sin (Rom 1:19-32). Practically, this means that the delayed repentance of our nation makes it increasingly difficult to repent with every year that goes by.

Incrementalists may agree with that, and simply claim that their hands are tied — that they cannot force the repentance of the nation’s leadership any more than abolitionists. But that is the very role of truth and prayer in human affairs. At some point we all have to face the truth about our sin, even legislators. A gracious, prophetic message of repentance from the people of God, with the moral authority of uncompromising consistency, does a tremendous amount of good in the culture and in the legislature, even when the legislation fails to pass.

Our hands are not tied; God has given us the means of cultural change — the sword of the Spirit, the word of God. We should not lay down our most effective weapon to pick up the dulled blades of humanism, just because some pro-lifer says, “be pragmatic.” He usually isn’t seeing the whole picture.