How to vote like an abortion abolitionist this Tuesday
A guide to equal protection for candidates, judges, and ballot measures.
Every election, Christians walk into the booth believing they are standing up for the unborn. We look for the pro-life label. We vote for the heartbeat bill, the fifteen-week bill, the amendment the church bulletin mentioned. We walk out with a sticker and a clear conscience.
Then the bills get signed, the press releases go out, and children are still killed by the hundreds of thousands every year in this country. Legally. With the state's permission.
That gap should bother us. If you want to know how to vote like an abortion abolitionist, start with one uncomfortable question: are we voting to abolish abortion, or are we voting to decide how much of it the law will tolerate?
This is not a post about party loyalty, and I am not going to predict who wins on Tuesday. I want to hand you one standard, equal protection under the law for every human being from fertilization, and show you how to hold candidates, judges, and ballot measures up against it. Political expediency asks what we can get. Abolition asks what justice requires. Those two questions lead to very different ballots.
1. The fundamental divide: incremental pro-life vs. equal protection
Mainstream pro-life legislation works by degrees. It draws lines at six weeks, twelve weeks, fifteen weeks. It writes in exceptions for rape, incest, or a hard diagnosis. And nearly every abortion ban on the books includes a clause saying the woman who has the abortion cannot be prosecuted, which puts all of the criminal liability on the provider.
The strategy is easy to understand. Pass what you can, save who you can, come back for more. Many of the people behind it love children and mean every word.
But look at what a gestational limit actually says. A law that bans abortion after twelve weeks does protect the child at thirteen weeks. It also draws a line, and on the near side of that line, killing a child stays legal. The law has made a decision about who counts.
A restriction is not an abolition.
The abolitionist objection is not mainly that partial bans fail to work. It is that they write the wrong principle into law. A right that switches on at a developmental milestone is not a right. It is a permission the state hands out by size and age. A child at eleven weeks is no less human than a child at thirteen weeks. She is smaller and younger. That is all. When the law treats those two children differently, it is not protecting human life. It is grading it.
Equal protection starts from the other end. This is a human being, so the law that protects you protects her. No cutoff week. No category of children the state has agreed to look away from. Equal protection cannot have a gestational age requirement.
2. The four non-negotiable principles of abolitionist voting
Equal protection from fertilization
Scripture lays the foundation. "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27, NKJV). David describes God forming him in his mother's womb (Psalm 139:13-16), and God tells Jeremiah He knew him before He formed him (Jeremiah 1:5). Bearing God's image is not something a person grows into. It is what a person is from the start.
Those passages establish human dignity. They do not spell out an American legal argument, and I won't pretend they do. The legal application is ours, and it goes like this. The Fourteenth Amendment forbids any state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Abolitionists argue that a preborn child is a person, so a state that protects born people from homicide but not preborn people is denying equal protection.
Be honest about where the courts stand. No U.S. Supreme Court decision has recognized preborn children as persons under the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe said they were not, and Dobbs sent abortion back to the states without settling the question. Prenatal personhood is a position abolitionists are fighting for, not settled precedent. But a state legislature does not need a court's permission to protect its own residents. It can pass a law that treats a preborn child's life the way it treats everyone else's. That is what an Equal Protection Act does.
James warned the early church about partiality, treating people differently because of who they were. "If you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors" (James 2:9, NKJV). He was writing to believers about how they treated the poor, not drafting a statute. The principle still carries. A law that values some human beings and discounts others is partial by design.
No exceptions that deny equal protection
A child conceived in rape is still a child. A child with a terminal diagnosis is still a child. Rape is a horror, and the church owes that mother every kind of care we can give. But her child did not commit the crime, and the law should not sentence the child for it. An exception that permits the intentional killing of one group of children tells them their protection was conditional all along.
There is a real distinction here, and abolitionists have to keep it sharp. Intentionally killing a child is one thing. Treating a mother whose life is in danger is another. When a doctor treats an ectopic pregnancy, or delivers a baby early to save a mother from a life-threatening condition, the aim is to save life. If the child dies, that is a tragic result the doctor worked to avoid, not the goal. Equal protection forbids the first. It has never forbidden the second, and any honest bill should say so in plain words.
Equal accountability under the law
Most abortion laws today punish the provider and declare the mother immune, whatever the facts. The motive is compassion. Many women are pressured, lied to, or abandoned into abortion. I see it on the sidewalk. It is real.
But a blanket immunity clause also does something else. It creates a class of victims whose killing can never be charged against one of the people who intentionally brought it about. No other homicide law in America works that way.
Equal accountability does not mean every woman goes to prison. Criminal law already deals with culpability. It weighs coercion, duress, deception, mental state, and the facts of each case. Prosecutors use discretion. Judges and juries weigh circumstances. Equal protection asks for that same ordinary process, not a guaranteed outcome and not a carve-out written in advance. The law protects the victim equally. The court judges each person fairly.
Abortion is homicide, not a special legal category
Abolitionists want intentional abortion handled under ordinary homicide law instead of a separate code of clinic rules, waiting periods, and licensing penalties. Regulation treats abortion like a medical service with paperwork problems. Homicide law treats it as the taking of a human life.
That does not turn every pregnancy loss into a crime scene. A miscarriage is a loss, not an act. A stillbirth is a grief, not an investigation. Homicide law requires intent or recklessness, and equal protection does not change that. Recognizing that a child is a victim is one question. Deciding what punishment fits a particular person is another, and that belongs to the courts, case by case. (I wrote more about this in Miscarriage is not abortion.)
3. The lesser of two evils: when pragmatism becomes compromise
The strongest argument for incrementalism goes like this. A six-week ban isn't perfect, but it stops some abortions. If the alternative is no law at all, how can you vote against saving some children? Half a loaf beats none.
I take that seriously. People who vote this way are usually not endorsing abortion. They are trying to rescue someone. Proverbs 24:11 tells us to "deliver those who are drawn toward death," and they believe that is what they are doing.
Walk through the questions anyway.
- Does a six-week ban establish equal protection for a child at five weeks?
- Does a fifteen-week ban protect a child at fourteen weeks?
- Does a candidate who supports a rape exception believe every preborn child deserves equal protection?
- At what point does a strategy for reaching equal protection become an acceptance of unequal protection?
The answers matter because laws teach. When a legislature passes a twelve-week ban, it does not only stop some abortions. It announces, with the authority of the state, that killing a child at eleven weeks is lawful. The politicians who passed it defend it. It becomes the "reasonable middle." And the next time someone files an equal protection bill, the leaders who should champion it explain that the state already has a strong pro-life law and doesn't need to go further.
Scripture has something to say about double standards. "Diverse weights and diverse measures, they are both alike, an abomination to the LORD" (Proverbs 20:10, NKJV). Paul calls the civil ruler "God's minister to you for good" who bears the sword against evil (Romans 13:4). Isaiah pronounced woe on those who write unjust decrees to rob the needy of justice (Isaiah 10:1-2). A government that protects some of its people and licenses the killing of others is using two measures.
Here is a test I keep coming back to. Suppose the victims were born. Would we vote for a candidate who promised to protect every child over age three while leaving two-year-olds without legal protection, and call it a win? We would see right away that the law had split people into the protected and the expendable. The womb doesn't change that math.
If a candidate promises to protect some preborn children while explicitly preserving the legal destruction of others, what exactly are we voting to protect?
Now the hard part. On many ballots there is no abolitionist candidate. Sometimes the choice is between someone who wants abortion legal through all nine months and someone who wants a fifteen-week ban with exceptions. That is not easy, and I am not going to hand you a rule that settles it for every Christian in every race. Some abolitionists will vote for the candidate who would do less harm while refusing to call that candidate's position justice. Others will leave the line blank or write in someone who stands for equal protection, because they will not put their name to a platform that keeps some killing legal.
What I will say is this: name it honestly. A vote for a regulator is not a vote for abolition, and no campaign mailer should convince you otherwise. Don't let a party tell you the restriction is the goal. Whatever you do on Tuesday, the work on Wednesday is to press every official you elected toward equal protection.
You cannot abolish injustice by negotiating how much injustice is acceptable.
4. How to evaluate abortion ballot measures
Campaign ads tell you how a measure wants you to feel. The ballot text tells you what it does. Read the text, and ask four questions:
- Does it create a right to abortion, or take one away?
- Does it restrict abortion by gestational age, or by exceptions?
- Is it a constitutional amendment, which binds every future legislature, or a statute lawmakers can change?
- If it repeals something, what does it put in its place?
Four states have statewide abortion measures on the November 3, 2026 ballot. Here is what each one does according to its official text, what each side argues, and how an abolitionist should weigh it.
Proposition 1: Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act
What it does. Creates a legal right to make reproductive decisions, including abortion up to fetal viability. The state could regulate abortion after viability. Because it is a statute and not a constitutional amendment, the legislature could later amend or repeal it.
What it replaces. Idaho now bans abortion, with exceptions to save the mother's life and for reported rape or incest in the first trimester.
Supporters say the current ban has driven doctors out of the state and endangers women facing serious complications, and that these decisions belong to patients.
Opponents say it would dismantle the protection Idaho now gives preborn children and make abortion a right up to viability.
Abolitionist view. Prop 1 creates a right to kill preborn children. Vote no. But be clear about what "no" keeps: Idaho's current law already makes exceptions for rape and incest and does not treat abortion as homicide. Defeating Prop 1 defends ground. It does not finish the job.
Question 6: Right to Abortion
What it does. Adds a fundamental constitutional right to abortion until fetal viability, and after viability whenever needed to protect the life or health of the mother. Any restriction has to pass a "compelling state interest" test limited to the patient's health. Voters approved it in 2024, and Nevada requires a second approval before it takes effect.
Current law. Abortion is already legal to 24 weeks under a 1990 referendum the legislature cannot change without a public vote.
Supporters say it locks those protections into the constitution so future politicians can't touch them.
Opponents say Nevada law is already permissive, and the amendment would strip voters of the power to regulate abortion, threaten parental notification, and open the door to late abortions under a broad health exception.
Abolitionist view. Vote no. A constitutional right to kill is the direct opposite of equal protection, and once it is in the constitution it binds every future legislature.
Question 1: Right to Reproductive Freedom
What it does. Adds a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, explicitly including abortion, to Virginia's Bill of Rights. The state may regulate abortion only in the third trimester, and even then may not prohibit one a physician judges necessary for the mother's life or physical or mental health, or when the child is judged not viable. It also forbids the state to penalize or prosecute anyone for exercising this right or for helping someone else do so.
Supporters say it protects private decisions about pregnancy, contraception, miscarriage care, and fertility treatment from government interference.
Opponents say it makes no exception for minors, puts parental involvement laws at risk, and leaves third-trimester limits nearly empty because of the broad health language.
Abolitionist view. Vote no. This is the clearest case on any ballot this year of a government writing unequal protection into its founding document, complete with constitutional immunity for anyone who takes part.
Ballot question and full text, Virginia Department of Elections
Amendment 3 (2026)
What it does. Repeals the 2024 amendment, also numbered Amendment 3, that made abortion a constitutional right up to fetal viability. In its place it writes a near-total ban into the constitution, with exceptions for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, fetal anomalies, and rape or incest before twelve weeks. It lets the legislature pass laws regulating abortion, requires parental consent for minors, and separately puts a ban on gender transition procedures for minors into the constitution.
Supporters say it is a "middle of the road" option that restores protection for most unborn children while including exceptions many voters want.
Opponents say it overturns what voters approved two years ago, that the exceptions would not work in practice, and that it bundles two separate issues into one vote.
Abolitionist view. This is the hardest call on any ballot this year. Amendment 3 would tear out a constitutional right to abortion, and that is a real good. It would also write permission for some abortions into the state constitution itself. A leading supporter has said plainly that lawmakers could not pass anything more restrictive than the constitution allows. That means a future Missouri Equal Protection Act, and one was filed in the legislature this year, would collide with the very amendment pro-life groups are asking you to pass. An abolitionist cannot call this justice. Some will vote yes to remove the 2024 right. Many will vote no or leave it blank rather than put exceptions into the constitution. Whatever you decide, decide with the text in front of you, and don't let anyone tell you Amendment 3 abolishes abortion in Missouri. It doesn't.
Missouri Secretary of State, 2026 ballot measures · Full text (HJR 73)
5. The abolitionist candidate evaluation guide
"Are you pro-life?" tells you almost nothing. Ask questions a slogan can't answer. If you can't ask in person, email the campaign, look up their voting record, and read the bills they have sponsored.
Questions for state legislative candidates
- Will you sponsor or vote for an Equal Protection Act that covers preborn children under the same homicide laws as everyone else, from fertilization?
- Do you believe legal protection should begin at fertilization? If not, when, and why that point?
- Will you vote against gestational-limit bills that leave younger children unprotected, and push for equal protection instead?
- Do you support exceptions for rape, incest, or fetal diagnosis? How do you square that with equal protection?
- Should the same homicide laws, with the same defenses for coercion and duress, apply to everyone who intentionally ends a preborn child's life?
- Will you vote to repeal blanket immunity clauses in current abortion law?
Questions for judicial candidates
Judges cannot promise how they will rule in a future case, and you should not ask them to. Ask how they read the law.
- How do you determine the meaning of "person" in equal protection and due process clauses?
- When a court finds a right that isn't written in a state constitution, what limits that power?
- Should a court defer to a legislature that defines a preborn child as a person under its homicide laws?
- When you interpret a criminal statute, do you apply the text as written, without adding exemptions the legislature didn't write?
- Can you name a case where your reading of the law led you to a result you personally disliked?
Questions for governors and attorneys general
Governors sign or veto bills and direct state agencies. Attorneys general defend state laws in court, issue legal opinions, and in some states bring prosecutions. Neither can make law alone, and both are bound by the state and federal constitutions.
- If the legislature sends you an Equal Protection Act, will you sign it?
- How will you enforce the abortion laws already on the books?
- If an equal protection law is challenged in court, will you defend it fully, through every appeal?
- If a federal court or agency acts against a state law protecting preborn children, how will you respond, and where do you see the limits of your authority?
What if no candidate meets the standard?
Often none will. Pointing out a candidate's shortcomings is not the same as telling you what to do with your ballot. Pray. Read. Know exactly what you are voting for and what you are voting against. Don't let party loyalty do your thinking for you. And tell the candidate why. A short note that says "I voted for you, and I expect you to support equal protection," or "I couldn't vote for you because of your exceptions," puts the issue in front of the people who write the laws.
6. Don't ignore the down-ballot races
Since Dobbs, abortion law is mostly state law. The offices near the bottom of your ballot often matter more than the ones at the top.
- State representatives and senators write the law. Equal Protection Acts have been filed in a growing list of states, including Missouri, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Alabama, Ohio, Illinois, and Kentucky. As of this writing, none has become law. These seats decide whether that changes.
- State supreme court and appellate judges decide what the state constitution means. In 2019 the Kansas Supreme Court found a right to abortion in that state's bill of rights. A court can create a barrier no legislature can easily remove.
- Attorneys general defend state laws when they're challenged, and their legal opinions shape how those laws are enforced.
- District attorneys and prosecutors decide which cases get charged. Some have publicly pledged not to enforce abortion laws. A law on paper means little if the local prosecutor refuses to use it.
- Local ballot measures rarely touch abortion directly. Most city and county offices have little authority over it. Read before you assume, and don't let a measure's title do your research for you.
Look past the party label and the endorsement list. Check voting records, sponsored bills, and who is funding the campaign.
7. The abolitionist voter's checklist
Before you vote
- Does the candidate support equal protection from fertilization?
- Does the candidate reject gestational limits that leave some children unprotected?
- Does the candidate reject exceptions that deny equal legal protection?
- Does the candidate support equal criminal accountability under the law?
- Does the candidate support abolition rather than merely regulating abortion?
- Have I read the actual language of every ballot measure?
- Have I evaluated judicial and down-ballot candidates?
Screenshot this box and take it with you.
8. Conclusion: duty belongs to us, results belong to God
Go back to that voting booth. Christians are not called to back whichever strategy promises the most convenient outcome. We are called to pursue justice faithfully and leave the results with God. "Open your mouth for the speechless, in the cause of all who are appointed to die" (Proverbs 31:8, NKJV). And Proverbs 24:12 strips away the excuse that we didn't know. We know.
If every preborn child is equally human, every preborn child deserves equal protection. Not most of them. Not the ones past a certain week. All of them.
So this Tuesday, read your ballot. Read the measure text, not the mailer. Ask candidates the hard questions, and if Tuesday is too late for that, ask them on Wednesday. That is how to vote like an abortion abolitionist: one standard, every child, no exceptions to the image of God.
How is your state handling abortion legislation and ballot measures this year? Tell me at connect@defendlifeproject.com or on our Facebook page.
And if you are pregnant and scared, none of this is about punishing you. Reach out at help@defendlifeproject.com or visit our Need Support page. We will walk with you.
- Virginia Department of Elections, Question 1
- Ballotpedia, Nevada Question 6 (2026)
- KCUR / St. Louis Public Radio, Missouri Amendment 3
- KY3, Missouri Amendment 3 ballot language
- MultiState, 2026 abortion ballot measures