Equal Justice for the Unborn: A Response to Dan Trippie

 

 In late 2023, the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) published an article entitled Normative but Not Necessary: A Biblical Case Against Criminal Punishment for Post-Abortive Women written by Dan Trippie. Trippie serves as the pastor of Restoration Church and also as Adjunct Professor of Ethics at Liberty University. He is not without influence in Western New York and abroad. Trippie initially posted the title of his essay online when he announced that he had been published. The premise of the article was troubling to me, but I wanted to reserve judgment until I had a chance to read the article in full. JETS subsequently posted the abstract and I have since had the opportunity to read the article in its entirety. My concerns were confirmed. In his essay, Trippie argues that “the evangelical conception of retribution establishes normative values that dignify all life”, but these principles “do not necessarily require criminal punishment when laws are broken.”[1] He attempts to demonstrate that “pro-life evangelicals are logically consistent when they contend for highly restrictive abortion laws while at the same time rejecting the notion of criminal punishment for post-abortive women.”[2] Trippie recommends that pro-life evangelicals “stridently argue for laws protecting the unborn while compassionately caring for those who violated the laws.”[3] This compassionate care, to Trippie, is withholding retribution from the lawbreakers.[4]

We at Faithful Stones Church feel compelled to respond because we believe that Trippie's assertions violate the principles laid forth in Scripture. Furthermore, they serve as a barrier to ending abortion in America. Trippie cites Mary Ziegler, a legal historian, who contends that pro-lifers argue inconsistency when they contend that abortion is murder but also advocate for withholding punishment from women.[5] We agree with Zeigler’s contention. Abortion is murder, and therefore, Christians must advocate for criminal prosecution for post-abortive mothers.[6] The aim of this response is to demonstrate that Trippie’s position, held by the majority of evangelicals, is untenable. We also hope to bring greater awareness to the abolitionist position. Unfortunately, Trippie is correct that the abolition movement has been operating on the fringes up until recently. It is the minority position, but we must not evaluate its correctness based upon popularity. More will be said on this later. We hope that Trippie and all who read this article evaluate their positions with an open mind as we seek to hold them up against the standard of God’s word.

This response is in no way meant to be an attack on the person or character of Dan Trippie himself. It is meant to shine more light on this very important topic as we seek to conform to God’s Word. I have reached out to him personally to ensure that his positions have been accurately represented within this response.[7] His clarifications have been included throughout. If you would like to read his full article, you can contact Trippie or the Evangelical Theological Society. The article remains behind JETS subscription paywall and will be released to the general public in December 2025. The only way to move the conversation forward is to engage with one another on these important issues. Abortion continues to be one of the most important issues of our day and we must do all we can to “rescue those who are being taken away to death” and seek justice in our nation (Prov. 24:11; Is. 1:17).

PART I. BACKGROUND

The Priority 

Trippie notes that in the wake of the Supreme Court reversal of Roe V. Wade, pro-life evangelicals are faced with challenges. Unfortunately, the main challenge that Trippie identifies and the solutions that he proposes are misguided. In a post-Roe world, the priority of the majority of pro-life evangelicals, including Trippie, is to guard against criminal punishment of post-abortive women.[8] The unfortunate reality is that the reversal of Roe V. Wade was less of a victory than most would like to admit. It did nothing to actually decrease the number of abortions taking place in the US. In fact, abortion numbers have increased by as much as 10%!  Abortion remains legal in all 50 states, even within states that had trigger laws to shut down abortion clinics after Roe was abolished. Abolishing Roe only served to transfer abortion practice in some states from the hands of the abortionist into the hands of the mother. Self-managed abortion has skyrocketed. Mifepristone, an abortifacient drug, has been made available over the counter at pharmacies. Women can still legally order abortion pills through the mail and have them shipped to states with even the most stringent abortion laws. Abortion clinics offer tele-health services to remotely guide women through managing their own abortions. Although the removal of Roe V. Wade should be celebrated, we cannot pretend that it was any real, definitive victory. The war rages on. Roe was never truly the problem. It is congress that makes law, not the Supreme Court, and the battle has always been at the state level.

Although Trippie encourages evangelicals to continue advocating for stringent abortion laws, his priority is ensuring that women are shielded from punishment. He fails to identify our true challenge and the most pressing matter: unborn babies are still being massacred.  Our priority must be advocating for the true victim of abortion — the unborn. For many, the priority of “protecting women” outweighs the priority of abolishing child sacrifice. Withholding punishment from post-abortive mothers serves as a hindrance to ending abortion in America. I hope to demonstrate this fact as we move forward. First, we must establish the difference between the pro-life establishment and the abolition movement.

The Positions

Many Christians are unaware that they have been betrayed by the pro-life establishment. First, let me clarify that as I refer to the pro-life establishment and the pro-life lobby, I am not referencing the many Christians who call themselves pro-life but do not understand what the leaders of this movement actually believe. The difference between these two movements is also not the difference between incrementalism and immediatism. There are fundamental theological differences. Please consider what is presented with an open mind. To illustrate the stark difference between the pro-life establishment and abolitionism, consider the testimonies of Bradley Pierce and Jeff Durbin, two prominent leaders in the abolition movement. They are both godly men who have sought to consistently apply God’s Word to the topic of abortion. Bradley Pierce is a constitutional attorney and is the president of both the Foundation to Abolish Abortion and Abolish Abortion Texas. He filed a brief that was in Dobbs V. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe V. Wade. Jeff Durbin is a pastor at Apologia Church in Mesa, Arizona and is one of the leaders of End Abortion Now. Apologia church also funded one of the amicus briefs in the Dobbs case. Both Pierce and Durbin have spent countless hours interacting with legislators and policymakers across America advocating the abolition of abortion and they have identical experiences. In each of their efforts to abolish abortion, their chief opponents have not been Planned Parenthood or the pro-abortion lobby, but rather the pro-life establishment! This may sound like fiction, but sadly it is the truth.

Consider the history of abortion in the state of Arizona, Jeff Durbin’s home state, as an illustration of these realities. Durbin and his team had been working with the Arizona legislature to introduce a bill to abolish abortion throughout the state of Arizona, and had all the necessary votes for it to pass. Then the pro-life establishment, led by Cathi Herrod, the president of the Center for Arizona Policy and a prominent Arizona pro-life leader dissuaded the legislature from passing Durbin’s bill of equal protection just before the vote was to take place. Instead, she persuaded them to vote for her bill. The pro-life establishment of Arizona sabotaged a bill that would have completely abolished abortion in the state of Arizona! What was their motivation? It was fear that rightfully defining abortion as murder would put mothers at risk of criminal punishment. Herrod’s bill allowed abortion to remain legal within the state with the stipulation that proper burial must be provided for the victims. Additionally, she decriminalized abortion for women. No, you did not misread that. This bill passed both the house and the senate, and was sponsored by Republican leadership who also tout the label “pro-life”. This is the true fruit of the pro-life establishment. I highly encourage you to watch Jeff Durbin’s sermon entitled “Rescue Those Being Taken Away to Death” where he details this battle and the rot within the pro-life movement.[9]

How is it that the pro-life movement is acting against the abolition of abortion? What is their motivation? The differing actions stem from different foundations. The pro-life movement is a movement of Christless conservatism. For them, the priority of withholding punishment from women outweighs their priority of abolishing abortion. This is clear by their actions in the state of Arizona. Within their framework a commandment as binding as one found within the Decalogue is “thou shalt not punish women for abortion”. Surprisingly, evangelicals have adopted this foundation! As Trippie noted in his essay, this view is held by the majority of the Southern Baptist Convention.[10] Brent Leatherwood, the current president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), reaffirmed at the 2024 Southern Baptist Convention that “the pro-life movement, the ERLC, the Southern Baptist Convention has never supported the criminalization of women. [They] have always supported outlawing abortion.” In May of 2022, after learning of the upcoming reversal of Roe v. Wade, many national pro-life leaders, including Leatherwood of the ERLC, sent an open letter to all state legislators in the United States of America. The purpose of the letter was not to encourage lawmakers to pass bills that would completely abolish abortion. Instead, they told legislators that “women are victims of abortion” and that they “do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women and [they] stand firmly opposed to include such penalties in legislation.” They recognized the “tremendous opportunity” for states to create policy, but they urged that “the laws that we advance to protect unborn children do not harm their mothers” (emphasis original). It is clear, by their own words and by their actions in many states across America since the reversal of Roe, that the pro-life establishment stands as a barrier to the abolition of abortion. Their priority to shield women from punishment outweighs the priority of putting and end to the murder of the unborn.

Contrast this with the abolition position. Abolitionists say that life begins at fertilization and every life deserves equal protection under the law. Pre-born babies deserve the standards of justice given to every other human made in the image of God. So, if someone takes the life of the unborn child, they are guilty of murder. Abolitionists seek to apply God’s standards of justice without compromise and without partiality. This is not a movement motivated by public opinion or emotion, it is one motivated by the the word of God. Abolitionists recognize that every unborn child is a unique person that God designed to grow inside the womb of its mother. It is meant to be a place of intimacy and safety. A mother's instinct is to love, protect, and nurture, her child. When she chooses to violently murder this precious little baby that God has knit together inside her womb, she commits a heinous act. She is guilty before God and before the law.

Once you understand this fundamental difference between the two movements it becomes apparent that as long as the pro-life movement operates under their foundational doctrine—that women are victims of abortion and must not be considered perpetrators—abortion will never definitively be abolished. They are writing into law that women can commit abortions with immunity and impunity. They will admit that the act of abortion is criminal, yet they are enshrining in our law system that this act can be legally committed by women. The bill of abolition that was proposed by Durbin in the state of Arizona simply read that humans are humans from fertilization and all humans deserve equal protection under the law. This was a bridge too far for the pro-life establishment. Although nothing was written specifically in the bill regarding women, they recognized that if equal protection is applied to pre-born babies, then this would cause the criminalization of women guilty of abortion. Their priority to “protect women” outweighed their desire to end abortion. Not only did they kill the bill that would’ve abolished abortion in Arizona, but they also decriminalized abortion for women. The pro-life establishment has taken similar actions in many other states, including Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.

PART II. ARGUMENTS

The Proposition 

With that background in mind, let’s now consider Trippie’s proposition.[11] Trippie is towing the mainstream evangelical line and advocating withholding punishment from post-abortive women.[12] His article is also attempting to prove that those who call abortion murder yet believe that punishment should be withheld are “logically consistent” in doing so. Most readers would admit that Trippie has a tall task because it is quite obvious that crimes, especially ones so serious as murder, demand justice.

Trippie begins his argument by dealing with the topic of victimization. To his credit, he admits that “victimization arguments are unclear and present problems”.[13] Trippie highlights that labeling mothers as “victims” of abortion was used as a political tactic to secure votes. It is much more popular, politically speaking, to view mothers as victims rather than perpetrators. Trippie also notes that victimization arguments undermine human agency and also give the impression that women are unable to resist male pressure. These are clearly problematic assertions, as Trippie notes. He categorizes the victimization argument as “disingenuous at best and manipulative” at worst, and in that, he has my wholehearted agreement. But Trippie rejects the victimization argument for more than just its insincerity. He fears that if the majority opinion suddenly turned in favor of criminal penalties for post-abortive women, then prosecutors could seek criminal sentencing. Trippie shifts to the biblical text as he notes that the nonpunishment approach must be fixed on a firmer foundation than victimization.

Trippie explains that “pro-life evangelicals unequivocally believe that abortion is unjust killing which is explicitly forbidden in the sixth command.”[14] So, Trippie writes, “the argument about post-abortion punishment is not a debate about the nature of abortion itself.” Rather, the debate is about “the extent to which biblical principles can or should inform one’s conception of modern criminal justice”.[15] He continues by observing that the criminal justice system of Scripture is more comprehensive than “mere legislation and sentencing”.[16] Therefore, Trippie argues, when considering biblical case law, “retributive commands are not absolute when all subsystems of justice are considered”.[17]

Next, Trippie considers the social and redemptive aims of Israel’s legislation. With regard to social aims, he lists four primary purposes for biblical laws: 1. Amplification of human dignity, 2. Establishment of social order, 3. Deterrence of evil, and 4. Direction of spiritual life. He argues that when one considers the “multifaceted nature of biblical law” retributive statutes “did not necessarily demand absolute enactment”, although they created normative standards.[18] Trippie proposes that Christians must also consider how Israel’s laws communicated theological concepts in addition to normative standards of judgment.[19] He explains that the principles of restitution and substitution contained within Torah law “foreshadowed the substitutionary death and restorative resurrection” proclaimed in Christianity.[20] In this, we see the redemptive aims.

Trippie then describes Israel’s policing practices, noting that the community at large was responsible for carrying them out. No crime was to be punished except on the account of two or three witnesses (Deut. 17:6).[21] Finally, Trippie discusses judicial discretion. He argues that although the Old Testament moral code provides foundational principles for justice, that does not necessarily mean that the Bible “supports today’s vision for a strong ‘law and order’ agenda”.[22] He highlights the importance of discerning motives, and he details how cities of refuge were utilized in Old Testament Israel. Trippie writes that “legal cases were not always prosecuted in a straightforward retributive manner” and that “judges considered the nuanced details and intentions of both the accuser and the accused”.[23] Trippie asserts that an “absolute retributive system” falls short.[24] He defines strict retributivism as seeing justice mathematically: a crime is committed, and a punishment is assigned. He lists two problems with this system: 1. Strict criminal retribution punishes overt acts only and fails to take into consideration human motives, individual character, or circumstances, and 2. It cannot convert subjective human motives into an exact objective punishment.[25] He highlights that “genuine justice requires that all relevant factors be taken into account”.[26] He notes that not all violations of God’s perfect moral law cross into the category of crime and therefore do not always require punishment in criminal courts. Yet he allows for the possibility of criminal punishment for “extreme cases”.[27] He concludes that “while God’s moral law does not necessarily require criminal punishment in all circumstances, it also does not restrict criminal punishment under certain conditions”.[28]

The culmination of his essay is his “evangelical response” to criminal sentencing. I will list Trippie’s conclusions and will respond to them in the next section.

1. Properly ordered criminal punishment is unworkable in most abortion cases because it is difficult to calculate the acting agent’s motives, the nature of the action itself, the context, and potential consequences. He reasons that because women often experience distress after abortion, they have a potential inability to understand their true motives and this allows for nonprosecution in most cases.[29]
2. Biblical surveillance principles make proportional punishment unworkable because it would potentially violate HIPAA laws. Trippie wonders how one would determine whether a woman miscarried or chose elective abortion. He cites the private nature of abortion as causing difficulty in obtaining pertinent facts regarding if the woman was coerced or pressured and concludes that this allows for nonprosecution.[30]
3. A person’s cognitive understanding of abortion would likely impact how the system would treat abortion law violations. Trippie speculates that progressive liberal states and areas with low church presence may have less awareness of the immorality of abortion.[31]
4. Biblical law is practical and pedagogical and teaches humanity about morality and God’s character. He argues that restrictive abortion laws teach God’s value for human life and nonprosecution shows that compassion is available. Therefore, Trippie writes, “evangelicals can contend for highly restrictive abortion laws in order to protect and proclaim the value of human life but also express mercy to women caught in abortion’s complexity”.[32]
5. “Conservative evangelicals must resist the urge toward perfectionism when considering abortion law”.[33] Trippie argues that perfectionism attempts to achieve utopia on earth through political means stemming from an “overrealized eschatology” and an undervalued doctrine of human depravity. He notes that the church’s role is persuasion, and he argues that perfectionism is coercive and undermines this goal.[34]
6. He asserts that calling for prosecution is unrealistic and results in a loss of credibility in the public square and an undermining of the church’s prophetic witness. Trippie warns that the church is easily dismissed when fanatical demands for political absolutes are made. He attributes the demand for criminal prosecution to abortion abolitionists and calls those demands “impractical” for our current political climate. Trippie calls for evangelicals to “oppose perfectionist visions” of punishing post-abortive women as he claims it undermines the gospel message.[35]
7. Because the church is not entrusted with the burden of legislation, this tends toward general and absolute demands. He argues that the abortion abolitionist’s demand for criminal punishment treats women as “abstractions” and not humans made in God’s image. He identifies the goal of evangelicals as balancing contending for the unborn and caring for mothers.[36]

The Problem 

As I respond specifically to Trippie’s argument, it is imperative that we dispel with euphemisms and remind ourselves what abortion truly is. Abortion is murder. It is the decapitation, dismemberment, and disembowelment of an innocent child in the place where they should be most protected. In most cases, it is first degree homicide, which is intentional and premeditated. It is an abomination before God (Prov. 6:16-17). If you need to take a break from your reading, as I know this response is lengthy, I recommend you take four minutes to watch “THE PROCEDURE” by Choice 42. This short, animated video is a vivid reminder of the vicious and sickening nature of an abortion procedure. It is an incontrovertible fact that life begins at fertilization and all life deserves to be protected. As we proceed, do not let the term “abortion” pass you by without thinking of an innocent, precious little child being torn to pieces and discarded like trash. We do not hate abortion as we should. God help us to see it for what it is—an abomination—as only then will we respond appropriately.

Let me remind you of another thing that the Lord calls abomination. That is the sin of partiality. Over and over again, the Scriptures warn against this sin (Deut. 1:17, 16:19; Prov. 24:23, 28:21; Mal. 2:9, Jam. 2:9). Paul reminds us that “there is no partiality with God” (Rom. 2:11). God repeatedly calls unjust weights and measures an abomination before Him. In Proverbs 11:1 it says, “a deceptive balance is an abomination to Yahweh”. Again, in Proverbs 20:10, “differing weights and differing measures, both of them are an abomination to Yahweh.” Further, God identifies another abomination before himself in Proverbs 17:15: “he who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination before to Yahweh”. I submit that this is exactly what Dan Trippie and all who hold his position are doing. Selectively applying criminal prosecution of murder is partiality, and granting immunity to women as they murder their children is to condemn the innocent child while justifying the evildoer. This is opposed to Scripture and must be rejected.

We have established that abortion is murder. In many cases it is the worst form of murder—first-degree premeditated homicide—which carries a maximum penalty of death. If we are to practice equal justice under the law, how can one argue that only one subset of the population should be pardoned from this abominable crime? Trippie is certainly not calling for all murderers to be spared from criminalization. He is advocating that punishment be spared only for post-abortive women. This is definitionally a partial system of justice that not only selectively applies the law, but also justifies the wicked. Let us consider the ramifications if we were to apply his recommendations impartially. Should we advocate withholding punishment from all murderers? Should we withhold criminal punishment from the two men in Houston who murdered 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray? What about for the man who committed the mass shooting at Tops in Buffalo two short years ago? Is advocating criminal punishment for these men viewing them as “abstractions” and not humans created in God’s image? Or is it that these murders are less “complex” than murder in the womb? Is criminal punishment for these men “perfectionism”? Did they experience distress after they committed their crimes, and does this make it “difficult to assess” their motives? Why stop at murder? Should we also apply this standard to all crimes? If not all, which? Imagine the titles of the articles that JETS should be publishing with the application of a consistent standard: Normative but Not Necessary: A Biblical Case Against Criminal Punishment for Rapists, or... A Biblical Case Against Criminal Punishment for Sex Traffickers, or ... A Biblical Case Against Criminal Punishment for White Supremacists. Nobody would advocate for this, and it would never be published. You may think this is sarcastic, but it is exactly what Trippie and the broader evangelical pro-life movement are advocating if we were to apply their recommendations impartially. Consider the title of his article if we replace the euphemisms: Normative but Not Necessary: A Biblical Case Against Criminal Punishment for First-Degree Murderers. Do you see the absurdity? Notice that when Trippie considers which situations could warrant criminal punishment, he writes,

“One can imagine a scenario that is so unnatural and heinous, so antithetical to the principles of human life that even natural human pity and mercy must be suppressed in dealing with their perpetrators. For instance, imagine, a man and woman converting to the ancient Ammonite god, Moloch, whether in the past or in the present. According to ancient records, Moloch worship required child sacrifice...Now imagine that a man and woman intentionally become pregnant, dismember the fetus, in utero, and offer dismembered parts to Moloch in worship. Imagine further, single or infertile individuals who also wish to worship Moloch. The childless worshipers contract the fertile couple to provide fetuses for others to sacrifice. The fertile couple agrees to become pregnant yearly to dismember the fetus, in utero and distribute the remains. It seems likely that one's intuition would compel the justice system to act in some manner to prevent further unnecessary killing.”[37]

How is this example that Trippie describes as “so unnatural and heinous” any more abominable than the abortions we see every single day? Does it really matter if the motivation is overt Moloch worship or simple career advancement? It is still demonic, it is still an abomination before God, and it is still criminal homicide.

This raises the question as to how Christians have arrived at the point where they are advocating such partiality. The answer to this question rests squarely on feminism. The influence of feminism heavily impacts the church and many remain blind to it. It doesn’t matter if your church proudly wears the label complementarian, affirms proper biblical roles, and even occasionally advocates homemaking, it can still be functionally feminist. What is your church leadership’s view of women and sin? Valerie Saiving Goldstein is considered the mother of modern feminist theology. In 1979 she wrote an article entitled The Human Situation: A Feminine View. One of Goldstein’s key assertions is that the “feminine dilemma” is opposite that of the “masculine dilemma”. Now, I’m certainly not asserting that most evangelical churches are diving into Goldstien’s or any other feminist’s writings, but this idea of treating the female “dilemma” differently than that of the male dilemma has become deeply rooted within the church and is a direct result of feminist influence both inside and outside the church. This is why so many Christians feel comfortable advocating for the application of a different system of justice to women than men. From this perspective, female sin must be treated with compassion, not justice, and any calls for an equal system of justice that would criminalize women for their crimes are viewed as cold, harsh, heartless, and oppressive. But this blatant partiality is an abomination in the eyes of God, and it must be rejected.

We must also note that much of what Trippie draws from biblical law is already present within our current legal system. Our system of justice certainly takes motive and circumstance into consideration. That is why we have different degrees of crimes and different penalties attached to each. Consider the crime of murder. It ranges from first-degree homicide, which could carry a maximum penalty of death, to justifiable homicide, which demands no penalty. When considering criminalizing abortion, these standards would obviously apply. There would not be some other system of law applied to perpetrators of this crime. If a woman was forced to have an abortion then she would not be guilty, just as those standards are already applied. Further, the absence of criminalization of abortion for women is one of the only barriers standing in the way of prosecuting men who force women to have abortions. Since it remains legal for a woman to have an abortion, men can continue to force them to have abortions with impunity.

Additionally, the social aims of our law system are not dissimilar to that of Old Testament Israel. Although our moral fabric is rapidly deteriorating, our system of law and order also is meant to amplify human dignity, establish of social order, deter evil, and direct spiritual life. The direction of spiritual life is not as clearly seen now as it was earlier in our nation’s history when there were Sabbath laws and criminalization of adultery and homosexuality. Ironically, Trippie accuses abolitionists of attempting to establish utopia on earth through political means and under-appreciating human depravity, when in actuality, his recommendations do that very thing. We as abolitionists and as Christians understand that it is fantasy to think that pardoning the wicked will result in societal good or utopia. We understand that what curbs human depravity (at the state level) is “bringing wrath on the one who practices evil” (Rom. 13:4). And if any aspect of our legal system is a barrier to justice, such as HIPAA, which Trippie mentioned, then we should reform those barriers, not use them as an excuse to withhold justice. There is certainly a conversation to be had regarding practical steps to be taken in implementation, but we must first admit the nature of the crime and the appropriate response.

With regard to the examples of Cain and David, our hermeneutic is never to take the descriptive elements of Scripture and use them to supersede or contradict the prescriptive elements. These examples are not where we find the command for how the civil government should function. Also, God did not pardon Cain or David. Both their actions were called sin, and both suffered severe punishment. Trippie is not advocating for lesser punishment for these women, he’s calling for no punishment. There is no justification to assert that these examples indicate that we should pardon women who are guilty of murder from their crimes.

Trippie repeatedly argued that pardoning post-abortive women proclaims the message of the gospel as it reminds us of the mercy that was bestowed upon us. Although it is true that we were shown mercy that was completely undeserved, the message of the gospel is not one of God merely pardoning the wicked. As we established earlier, God calls that an abomination. The message of the gospel is the message of justice satisfied. Christ took the penalty on Himself as our propitiation, and therefore God can be both just and justifier (Rom. 3:26). Nowhere in the Scriptures does it indicate we should pardon the wicked to convey the gospel message. We proclaim the gospel by doing just that—proclaiming. Trippie rightly noted that the duty of the church is not legislation. But one of the church’s duties is to speak prophetically to the magistrate as they carry out law. We proclaim to the magistrate that their duty as God’s deacon is to restrain evil and promote good (Rom. 13:4). The evangelical church must repent of their sin of proclaiming the ungodly message of partiality regarding abortion to our magistrates. This is not a benign debate. There have been real-world implications to this message of withholding punishment from post-abortive mothers. Abortion remains legal in Arizona and other states today because of this very thing! Those who are heralding this message have blood on their hands.

Pragmatism is also a force to be reckoned with in this debate. We must not be pragmatic. It is easy to see that criminalizing women is an unpopular subject. This is why the Democrats are accusing Republicans of not only advocating for the abolition of abortion, but also the criminal prosecution of women. That is also precisely why the Republican party is distancing themselves from that assertion. Criminal prosecution of post-abortive women, or more properly labeled, equal justice under the law, is an unpopular position. Many pastors realize, as do politicians, that they may lose favorability and maybe even some of their congregants if they started advocating for equal justice. Because of this, they are left doing the types of hermeneutical gymnastics that we see demonstrated within this article. It is pragmatism through and through. The dilemma has become how to feign consistency with two inconsistent positions rather than standing firm on the truth of God's word even when it is unpopular. Trippie’s assertion—that prosecution is unrealistic and results in a loss of credibility in the public square and an undermining of the church’s prophetic witness—is motivated by fear of man and not fear of God. We must obey God even when that makes us unpopular in the public square, or with politicians, or with evangelical elites, or with a segment of our congregations. God rewards faithfulness, not pragmatism.

PART III. APPLICATION

Our Plea 

Abortion is one of the great battles of our day. Our plea echoes that of Isaiah 1 when God told Israel that He refused to heed them because of their wickedness. God revealed that their hands were full of blood (Is. 1:15). I fear that this can be said of many evangelicals. Since Roe, in many states, abortion has shifted from the hands of the abortionist into the hands of the mother. Abortion will never be abolished as long as we refuse to advocate for true justice. A core tenant of the pro-life movement is that women must be shielded from punishment, and this has become a doctrine among many evangelicals. God’s call to His people in Isaiah 1 was to cease doing evil, learn to do good, seek justice, reprove the ruthless, and execute justice among the orphan and the widow (Is. 1:16-17). This is our plea to those Christians who are withholding justice and advocating partiality. The term orphan includes more than just those who are without physical fathers or mothers. It is those who do not have the protection that should rightly come from a father and a mother. The unborn who are being massacred by the millions are orphans in our day. Our duty is to “execute justice” for them. True justice is applying the same protection to them that is afforded every other person made in the image of God.

To Dan Trippie and JETS, our plea to you is to retract your article and publicly reject the partial system of justice for which you advocated. Cease from this evil and seek true, biblical justice for our unborn neighbors. Stop standing as a barrier between abolishing abortion in this nation. Follow the lead of those like Tom Ascol, pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida and president of Founder’s Ministries who made a motion to abolish the ERLC at this year’s Southern Baptist Convention in part because of their role in blocking the abolition of abortion in many states.

To those reading this who are just learning of the difference between pro-life and abolition, continue to educate yourself on this issue. Stop supporting those organizations that have been betraying you behind closed doors. Hold the organizations that you support accountable. Support organizations that advocate for equal justice under the law, such as Apologia’s End Abortion Now. Call your local politicians and demand that they establish justice for the unborn. Hold your spiritual leaders accountable. Ask your pastors and elders their views on this topic and show them in Scripture how withholding punishment from post-abortive woman is an abomination before God.

For those of us who live in a deep blue state where abortion rights seem to be increasing, take the fight to the clinics. Even if the laws will not change in our lifetime, we can have a presence at abortion clinics and plead for the lives of the unborn. Your presence makes a difference. We must not throw up our hands thinking that it is not worth our time because we live in a wicked state and nothing will ever change. We also must dispel with the notion that the abortion mill is no place for the church. It is exactly the right place for the church. This is how we rescue those being taken away to death and this is how we execute justice for the orphan. It is not activism; it’s Christian faithfulness.

Lastly, to those are reading this who have had an abortion, we want you to know that there is forgiveness at the cross of Jesus. The only way that you can truly experience relief is by acknowledging your sin and releasing it to Christ. We are doing a great disservice if we lie about abortion. It is a lie to tell women who have had abortions that they are victims. Loving our neighbor is telling the truth. Our plea is that you acknowledge your sin and experience forgiveness in Christ Jesus.

We can all experience forgiveness in Christ, but forgiveness does not remove human consequences for our sin. This is precisely what we see in the story of David and Bathsheba. David experienced forgiveness before God but still had to suffer severe human consequences, including the death of his child (2 Sam. 11:10-14). Likewise, Zacchaeus experienced forgiveness in Christ, yet he gave four times what he had stolen in obedience to God's law (Luke 19:8). The Gospel does not remove human justice—it establishes it.

Conclusion 

Abolishing Roe V. Wade was no real victory in the fight to end abortion. Abortions have increased, access to abortion pills has grown, and abortion remains legal in all 50 states. Our priority must continue to be ending the massacre of the unborn. Unfortunately, the pro-life movement is acting as though Roe was a definitive victory. Their desire to shield women from just punishment is greater than their desire to protect the unborn. They have repeatedly blocked bills that would've definitively ended abortion in many states. Many evangelicals have adopted their tactics.

Christians are not consistent when they call abortion murder and contend for stringent abortion laws but then advocate for withholding punishment from the chief perpetrators. True justice is providing the unborn with protection under the law that is afforded every other person created in God's image. God hates murder, and He also hates partiality. We are instructed over and over again to be impartial and to judge with equal weights and measures. We must cast off whatever influences are instructing us to approach the topic of abortion with partiality, even if those influences are well-respected and even if it is the majority position. Pro-life leaders, the ERLC, the SBC, pastors, and Christians alike must repent of their partiality and submit to the clear teaching of God's Word. As long as they refuse to do so, they are acting as barriers in the fight to end abortion.

The message of the Gospel is one of forgiveness, but it is also one of justice. God never instructed us to withhold criminal prosecution as a means of proclaiming the Gospel. He commands the church to proclaim the message of Jesus Christ and He commands the civil government to act as his deacon by terrorizing evildoers. These concepts are not at odds with one another and act in perfect harmony. Punishing crimes is pro-life and is pleasing to God. Justifying the wicked is an abomination before the Lord. May we establish justice in our day, defending the lives of the unborn by fighting this war using the principles of justice put forth in God's Word. Let us repent of our attempts to end abortion by using human means and causing further bloodshed.

[1] Daniel J. Trippie, “Normative but not Necessary: A Biblical Case Against Criminal Punishment for Post-Abortive Women,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 66.4 (2023), 751.

[2] Ibid., 752.

[3] Ibid., 769.

[4] Trippie clarified in an email exchange that he is using the words “normative” and “necessary” as philosophical categories. Therefore, when he says “normative,” he argues that the Bible applies principles under normal circumstances. He is “preserving the concept of retributive justice, not undermining it” and he claims to do this not only for theological reasons but also for reasons of capital punishment. When he uses the “necessary” category, he is talking about an act's essential nature. Here, he argues that when “all things are considered,” criminal prosecution does not “absolutely and always” need to be executed. He does this because he claims that 34% of abortions are coerced in some form; so, he does not want absolute category here. (I would like to see his source for this estimate.)

[5] Trippie, “Normative but not Necessary: A Biblical Case Against Criminal Punishment for Post-Abortive Women”,752.

[6] We are not advocating for criminalization to be applied ex post facto, or retroactively.

[7] Trippie offered five brief clarifications via email exchange that are included throughout this response.

[8] Trippie, “Normative but not Necessary: A Biblical Case Against Criminal Punishment for Post-Abortive Women”, 751

[9] Space does not permit me to detail the multitude of examples in which the pro-life establishment has been the primary reason that abortion remains legal in many states as that is not the main purpose of this article, but I recommend you investigate this more yourselves. For more information on this, check out our abortion resource page, which includes Bradley Pierce’s lecture entitled “Image-bearers from Conception” and End Abortion Now’s documentary entitled “The Fatal Flaw: Lies, Laws, & Pro-life Deception”. These provide much more of this important background that is so necessary to understand.

[10] Trippie, “Normative but not Necessary: A Biblical Case Against Criminal Punishment for Post-Abortive Women”, 752.

[11] Trippie reiterated via email exchange that he wants “zero abortions”. He writes, “my heart is to find the most prudent way to save as many babies as possible”.

[12] Trippie clarified via email exchange that he is not arguing that women who seek “elective” abortion will not deal with the consequences, but that these consequences are not “necessarily” administered in the civil courts. He writes, “God is not mocked and often brings judgment much more severe than the civil courts."

[13] Trippie, “Normative but not Necessary: A Biblical Case Against Criminal Punishment for Post-Abortive Women”, 752.

[14] Trippie clarified that when he calls abortion “unjust killing,” he is using the technical term for murder, not denying what abortion “essentially” is.

[15] Trippie, “Normative but not Necessary: A Biblical Case Against Criminal Punishment for Post-Abortive Women”, 755.

[16] Ibid., 755.

[17] Ibid., 755.

[18] Ibid., 756.

[19] Ibid. 762.

[20] Ibid., 762.

[21] Ibid., 763.

[22] Ibid., 764.

[23] Ibid., 765.

[24] Ibid., 765.

[25] Ibid., 765.

[26] Ibid., 765.

[27] Ibid., 765.

[28] Ibid., 766.

[29] Ibid., 766.

[30] Ibid., 766.

[31] Ibid., 766.

[32] Ibid., 767.

[33] Trippie clarified that when he speaks of “perfectionism,” he is not denying speaking truth to power or being a prophetic witness. Nor is he suggesting the church does not boldly declare, “Thus saith the Lord.” However, he argues that civil courts can only do so much and do not have the power to bring about absolute kingdom conditions (Augustine’s City of God and City of Man). Further, he asserts that our political system works by the people's will in the election process, so he argues that we get as much as we can in legislation, but then we need to persuade people’s hearts and minds.

[34] Trippie, “Normative but not Necessary: A Biblical Case Against Criminal Punishment for Post-Abortive Women”, 767.

[35] Ibid., 767.

[36] Ibid., 768.

[37] Ibid., 765-766.