Post-Roe FAQs

On June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey through the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling — and since then, many false talking points and myths have been raised by the abortion lobby. As the Pro-Life Generation, it is our job to respond and challenge these falsehoods surrounding the reversal of Roe. To be better equipped in your Post-Roe apologetics, use these Frequently Asked Questions, Facts & Myths, and Action Items below.

Read the actual opinion that reversed Roe v. Wade here.

General Facts Regarding the Reversal of Roe

  • Roe v. Wade (as well as Doe v. Bolton and Planned Parenthood v. Casey) were reversed as a result of a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court on June 24th, 2022.
  • The case that challenged these abortion precedents came out of Mississippi. Called Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it came into being because Mississippi sought to challenge Roe‘s imaginary pre-viability standard by limiting abortions in the state to 15 weeks.
  • There is a difference between the fall of Roe and support for Mississippi. Roe , Doe, and Casey rejected by a 5-4 decision. But Mississippi’s proposed law was supported 6-3.
  • Voting to reverse Roe were Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan voted in dissent. Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with the judgment upholding the Mississippi law but did not join the majority in the opinion to overturn Roe and Casey.
  • The Supreme Court is responsible for the state of abortion violence in our nation … and now, they’ve finally righted a 49-year wrong.
  • You don’t have to take our word that Roe was flawed. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said so among many legal leaders of all political persuasions. From Kristan Hawkins’ recent op-ed in the Washington Times: Justice Ginsburg agreed with that, too, saying that Roe was not a “measured motion” because it “invited no dialogue with legislators.”     
Click here to see how YOU can get involved in a Post-Roe America.

Questions and Answers

Q: Did the reversal of Roe and Casey abolish abortion throughout the country? 

Since the release of the Dobbs ruling, there has been a common misconception (which has gone unchecked by the abortion lobby) that abortion is now illegal in all 50 states – that’s incorrect. We will continue to fight to all protect innocent children from conception because reversing Roe alone did not achieve that.   

Talking Points 
  • Reversing Roe v. Wade sent the abortion decision back to the states. Now, each state gets to vote on their own abortion-related laws, and that means there is a wide variety of abortion laws across the nation. Some states like California have very pro-abortion laws while other states like Texas have very pro-life laws (Texan children are protected from conception). This decision will now allow our Republic to work as intended.
  • This decision was supported by the majority of Americans. Almost 60% of Millennials and Gen Z oppose abortion through all nine months of pregnancy (which Roe and Casey permitted), and post-Dobbs polling found that 50% of Americans overall supported the ruling, while only 45% were in opposition.
  • We have a lot of work to do now that Roe is reversed to ensure that the pre-born are protected and women are supported in all 50 states. Our work on the state level has become even more important, and Students for Life Action (SFLAction) is fighting in key states to protect innocent lives through law and service.

Q: Are women without support in this Post-Roe America?   

Our goal is to make abortion illegal and unthinkable. That means that women should feel so supported in their pregnancies that they never have to consider choosing between the life of their child and their future goals. Our goal is to make a post-Roe America where No Woman Stands Alone.   

Talking Points
  • Women do not need abortion, and the pro-life movement is working very hard to support women and families in unplanned pregnancies with authentic help.
  • There are many life-affirming resources for pregnant and parenting women. SFLA’s Standing With You supportive services initiative has gathered free national and local resources together in one place; it can help with finances, childcare, legal assistance, counseling, baby and maternity items, etc.
  • Pro-life states are supporting women, too. For example, Texas has expanded their Alternatives to Abortion Program by 20 million dollars. These state policies are a part of the pro-life movement’s mission to prohibit abortion (which kills and harms) and increase true support (which helps everyone involved).
  • Pregnant and parenting students are protected under Title IX against discrimination. We fight discrimination against pregnant and parenting people at school and in the workplace
  • With more than 3,000 pregnancy centers and 400 maternity homes, we are ready. Pregnancy resource centers now outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities 14-to-1, and new polling shows that the majority of Americans approve so highly of pregnancy resource centers that they support funding these centers with taxpayer dollars.
  • We have dedicated ourselves to protecting life in law and in service. That’s why nearly 10 years ago SFLA created Standing with You, and why all kinds of organizations and churches have and will continue to provide real support to women and families in unplanned pregnancies. No woman will stand alone in a post-Roe America. 

To learn how SFLA helps pregnant and parenting students whose Title IX rights are violated, click HERE to watch Ruth’s story.

To learn more about Standing With You, click HERE.

Q: Why are we against exceptions for sexual assault?  

Abortion in the case of sexual assault is another trending topic as politicians argue over rape and incest exceptions to pro-life laws. The consistent messaging of the Pro-Life Generation stands firm: We are against abortion in the case of rape because every single human being that is conceived is valuable regardless of the actions that led to their conception.

Talking Points
  • Human life is valuable because it is human, not because of the circumstances of someone’s fertilization. We don’t issue birth certificates in the United States with a rating system based on how someone was conceived. 
  • Abortion in the case of rape is often portrayed as the most compassionate answer. This, however, fails to meet the needs of the woman and to respect the innocent life in her womb. Abortion is another act of violence that may further traumatize the woman after the violent act of rape. Women deserve healing and authentic support; abortion does not offer her either of those.  
  • We support prosecuting sexual abusers to the full extent of the law and authentically helping survivors of sexual abuse, and we mutually oppose discriminating against people based on perceptions of their abilities, sex, race, or parents.   
  • When talking about rape and incest exceptions, we need emphasize the validity and worth of children conceived in rape and incest. Often, the missing link in these conversations are the true stories of children who have been conceived in rape, such as Ryan Bomberger. 
  • We recommend promoting stories like Bomberger’s because we want to humanize these children and show them to be the valuable, unique human beings that they are.

To learn more about how to defend your position on rape and incest exceptions in a compassionate manner, click HERE to check out our blog on this topic.

To read SFLA President Kristan Hawkins’ op-ed at Newsweek entitled “Pro-Lifers Must Protect All Children – Including Those Conceived in Rape,” click HERE.

To learn about how SFLA has led the charge in protecting children conceived in rape, click HERE.

Q: Do we need exceptions for the life of the mother?  

With the possible reversal of Roe many people are focusing on extreme abortion cases to justify abortion in all nine-months. One of the issues that is often raised is the life and health of the mother.  

Talking Points:  

  • “Health of the mother” and “Life of the mother” are two distinct conversations. The first has to do with general health (which is ill-defined) and the second, with whether abortion is medically necessary.   
  • “Health of the mother” is broad, and the language is drawn from the definition in the Doe v Bolton case that legalized abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy under this general “health” reason. The text from that case is: “the medical judgment [to abort or not] may be exercised in the light of all factors –physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”  
  • Most abortions are elective.  More often than we realize, women report seeking an abortion for reasons outside of concern for their life or even ill-defined health.  While we are sensitive to the reasons why women choose abortion because situations are complicated, the reality is that many abortions happen out of convenience such as “not being ready”. The Guttmacher, the research wing of the abortion industry, has listed the top reasons women choose abortion, none of them are life-threatening.   
  • “Life of the mother” is specific to a life-threatening issue such as ectopic pregnancy. 
  • Life-threatening circumstances during pregnancy are scary and mothers in those circumstances need medical attention. Pregnancy complications must be treated with TWO patients in mind, with neither’s well-being prioritized over the other.
Talking Points 
  • Over 30,000 medical physicians agree that abortion is never medically necessary to end the life of a child after the age of viability.  
  • The age of viability is currently cited at 22 weeks after last menstrual period and 20 weeks after fertilization. (It is rare for a threat to the mother’s life to occur prior to 20 weeks.) After this stage, when there is a legitimate threat to the mother’s life abortion cannot be used to save the mother’s life as abortion is typically a 2-3 day process. To save the life of the mother, immediate medical intervention, such as a c-section or induced labor, would be required. So, to prioritize the life of the mother, abortion would not be medically considered unless the goal is to jeopardize life in all circumstances.  
  • These facts are according to the testimony of doctors defending the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act, which was voted down recently on the Senate floor, see their full testimony at The Public Discourse:  
  • For more information on specific cases and responses, please visit:

Do we need abortion for ectopic pregnancies? 

Yes, when Roe is reversed, women with ectopic pregnancies will receive the medical care that will save their lives. This is a non-issue. If it is brought up, remember that the solution to ectopic pregnancies is not abortion.  

Talking Points  
  • The important thing to remember that in the situation where the child will certainly die, and the mother’s life is in danger, we have to save as much life as possible. You want a physician who views both patients as valuable human beings.   
  • There are three ways of dealing with an ectopic pregnancy; Salpingectomy, Salpingostomy, and Methotrexate. None of the ways of dealing with an ectopic are abortions.  

Q: Will reversing Roe affect privacy rights?  

There is concern among some that reversing Roe will impact “privacy rights” like those that were identified in Griswold v. Connecticut (which allowed married couples to acquire contraception) and Obergefell v. Hodges (which legalized gay marriage). 

Those who are panicking about privacy, or simply trying to stir panic among others, are muddying the water by suggesting Roe‘s reversal will have an effect on many other issues. 

Talking Points
  • The language of the draft indicates that the Roe v. Wade decision is hyper-focused on abortion. They are very intentional about distinguishing abortion from an actual issue of privacy because abortion deals with “a critical moral question:” ending a human life. 
    Neither abortion nor privacy appear in the Constitution, yet, in the context of a civilized society, we argue that privacy can’t include ending someone else’s life. Your rights cannot infringe, especially lethally, on someone else’s. 
  • Roe v. Wade itself deviated from its legal foundation in privacy with the 1993 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. On page 51 of the draft, it is written, “When Casey revisited Roe almost 20 years later, very little of Roe‘s reasoning was defended or preserved. The Court abandoned any reliance on a privacy right and instead grounded the abortion right entirely on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” 
  • The Constitution does not include a right to abortion, written in invisible ink unseen until 1973. But States’ rights ARE in the Constitution. The ability of states to legislate on abortion should be respected and supported.  Also missing in the Constitution, any mention of a “right” to privacy on which the invisible right to abortion was attached.   

Q: Does reversing Roe take away bodily autonomy from women?  

With the reversal of Roe, the Pro-Life Gen can expect to hear and see “My Body, My Choice” near constantly. That mantra is just as off-base now as it’s always been. 

Talking Points 
  • It is 2022. The science of how mammals (i.e., humans) gestate offspring is pretty set in stone. There are two (or more) bodies in play during a pregnancy. Multiple sets of DNA, blood types, body parts, etc. 
  • Women should make all decisions concerning their bodies. But that cannot ethically involve killing a human being who resides within it. 
  • The draft decision which looks to reverse Roe says nothing of women’s autonomy. It says that Roe was wrong, and states can set their own abortion laws. 
  • Your rights end where another person’s rights begin. 

Read more about responding to bodily rights arguments here. 

Q: Are most Americans against the reversal of Roe?  

Many mainstream outlets and abortion supporters are arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision to possibly reverse Roe is widely unpopular. However, when American’s are educated on the extreme position abortion, they are against it.  

Talking Points 
  • Nearly 6 out of 10 of young people, the largest voting bloc in America, oppose Roe when they know what Roe allows.  
  • 8 out of 10 young people support being able to vote on abortion policy in their state.  
  •  From Students for Life of America’s Demetree Institute for Pro-Life Advancement poll out this year:   
Roe’s Hijacking of all Public Policy Decisions has Little Support 
  • More than ever, Millennials and Gen Z want a voice and a vote on abortion. An astonishing 8 in 10 want to vote on abortion policy in their states – UP from 66% last year.  
  • Standing firm in their desire for less abortion, once again 3 out of 4 Millennials and Gen Z want limits with more than 4 in 10 favoring either no abortion at all or abortion limited to the exceptions of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. 
  • While the economy is the political issue that most concerns a plurality of voters, 1 in 5 say abortion also motivates their vote (19%). (This compares with a recent Associated Press poll that found 13% of Democrats said that abortion was an issue they wanted the federal government to address, up from less than 1% in 2021 and 3% in 2020.)  
  • In fact, after learning more about Roe, almost 6 in 10 oppose Roe’s radical reach, of abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy.  
  • Now 52% indicated that after a baby’s heartbeat is detected, they want either no abortion at all or abortion only with exceptions made for rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger. That is up from 47% in 2021.  
  • MORE THAN HALF of Millennials and Gen Z would support a ban on abortion when a heartbeat is detected (52% to 48%).  
  • And 2 out of 3 Millennials and Gen Z would support requiring a doctor to check for a heartbeat before an abortion. (This year’s 65% in support is up from last year at 60%).  
  • An individual’s humanity should not be decided by those in power. When considering how devalued people have been treated historically by those in power, 65% of Millennials and Gen Z did not support allowing people in power to decide who is fully human and deserving of legal rights.  
  • About half believed that determining when life begins is tied to early medical milestones and not individual opinions, including judges or politicians.  
  • Initially, 6 in 10 expressed some support for Roe, but those numbers flipped after learning more about Roe’s impact, ending with a 50-50 split — a 10% gain after some education on Roe’s true impact.    
  • After learning about the legal impact of Roe:  
  • 67% oppose sex selection abortion  
  • 60% were concerned about the disproportionate number of minorities lives lost  
  • 58% oppose abortion through all 9 months, which Roe permits.  
  • 55% oppose taxpayers funding abortion or underwriting abortion vendor costs. 

Q: After Roe will women be forced into back-alley abortions?  

With reversing Roe on the horizon, you can expect to see coat hangers and the typical talking point of “sending women back to the back-alleys.”  

Talking Points 

For those genuinely concerned that making abortion unavailable in many places will put women in danger, these talking points can help guide your response. 

  • The ramifications for the reversal of Roe are not fully known. However, ending innocent human life should always be illegal. We also do not know that thousands of women would break the law. 
  • This formula (“We have to keep it legal or else people will keep doing it anyway but more dangerously”) does not work in the context of other crimes. If we were talking about bank robbery instead, advocates for robbery would not be able to argue, “We have to keep armed bank robbery legal or else the robber could be hurt,” without being ridiculed. A crime that hurts other people cannot be legalized via the “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” mentality. 
  • Legalizing abortion didn’t even make it safer. It just moved the “ABORTION” sign from the back door to the front. Read more about how dangerous legal abortion has been here. 
  • Click here to see the list of women who have been killed by legal abortion. 
  • A recent study fully debunks the myth that legal abortion keeps women safer. Dr. Calum Miller, a British physician and ethicist, published findings this spring that actually proved the opposite. 
  • Legalizing abortion didn’t even reduce the number of women having illegal abortions – the number of illegal abortions actually increased, while the number of legal abortions skyrocketed. 
  • The severity of the complications women had increased dramatically when abortion was legalized. The proportion of women admitted to intensive care tripled. And in the following years, there was a further 50% increase in severe complications, and the proportion of women with organ failure quadrupled. 

Myth: Legalizing abortion was necessary to prevent thousands of women from dying of back-alley abortions.  

Fact: In 1959, the medical director of Planned Parenthood, Mary Calderone, stated that “90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians.” The decrease in maternal deaths after Roe, are attributed to the development of Penicillin, not abortion. 

Q: Do we need legal abortion to keep women safe?  

One of the repeated arguments from abortion supporters is that we need abortion to keep women safe. They may even go as far to say that we are not really pro-life because we do not care if women die. This of course is ridiculous… 

Talking Points 
  • The ramifications for the reversal of Roe are not yet fully known, but it is estimated that as many as 321,930 babies could be saved every year once 26 states act to prevent elective abortion. Ending innocent human life should always be illegal, but we do not know who would break or follow the law. 
  • The abortion industry has used their financial backing and political sway to decrease safety standards for women (see below).  
  • Chemical Abortion is four times more dangerous than other abortion procedures, regardless, the abortion industry has actively fought to make Chemical Abortion ubiquitous in America. Women have died from legal, self-induced abortions at home, alone, when Roe was still in place. Chemical Abortions are dangerous drugs that used to be regulated by the FDA to ensure that women were at least seen by a medical doctor before being prescribed Chemical Abortion drugs. The abortion industry fought to remove those commonsense safety regulations. For more information, go to  

Myth: Legal abortion keeps abortion safe.  

Fact: Abortion is not safe now. The abortion industry has actively tried to decrease safety precautions for women. We do not want women to be harmed by abortion ever. That is why we are fighting to support women.  

Here are a few concrete examples of laws the abortion industry has pushed for that have decreased the safety standards of abortion facilities. These laws have harmed women and allowed to abortion industry to continue their abortions without necessary medical oversight.  


“In ten years, at least 71 ambulances have been called to the St. Louis Planned Parenthood.”  

  • The St. Louis Fire Department released a list of 58 emergency calls dating from January 1, 2009, to April 6, 2016.  
    St. Louis Fire Department May 2016 Report  
  • 11 other ambulances were reported between May 2016 to March 2018  
    The Planned Parenthood Medical Emergencies Package by Team Play  
  • Two recent ambulance visits: January 18, 2019 & November 2, 2018,  
    Photo evidence from Coalition for Life Saint Louis  

“In addition, the Missouri Department of Health found multiple staff members handling bodily fluids while failing to practice basic hand washing procedures.”  

  • “Staff JJ, Physician… performed a vaginal exam on the patient removed her right glove, failed to perform hand hygiene.”  
  • “Staff LL, Physician… after the procedure was completed… removed her gloves but failed to perform hand hygiene before exiting the room.”   
  • “Staff GG administered additional IV medication while wearing gloves, picked up a piece of trash from the floor, stood with her gloved hands on her hips, then documented in the electronic medical record. She failed to changer her gloves and perform hand hygiene.”  
  • “Staff CC, Medical Director, Physician, questioned if hand hygiene between glove changes was a new standard; wanted to know whose standard it was.”   

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Inspection Report dated May 25, 2017   


“A patient at the Rocky Mountains Planned Parenthood was forced to undergo an abortion without anesthesia. Following the procedure, the hospital found that the abortion had been botched and body parts of the baby were left inside of her.”  

  • However, before the I.V. was inserted and before the Plaintiff received any anesthesia, the Planned Parenthood Doctor began the procedure to abort the pregnancy. At this time, Plaintiff immediately told the Planned Parenthood Doctor to stop… the Planned Parenthood Doctor did not stop.”   
  • “The abortion procedure had left particles of fetus inside Plaintiff’s body that had caused an infection.”  

Ayanna Byer v. John Doe, M.D., Doctor for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Inc. and Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Inc.   
Complaint and Jury Demand, page 3 -4  


“Planned Parenthood has failed 14 of 30 health inspections since 2017.”  

  1. Planned Parenthood Keystone – Warminster 4/12/17  
  1. Planned Parenthood Keystone – Warminster 8/22/17  
  1. Planned Parenthood Keystone – Warminster 11/29/17  
  1. Planned Parenthood Keystone – Warminster 3/14/18  
  1. Planned Parenthood Keystone – Allentown 8/23/17  
  1. Planned Parenthood Keystone – Allentown 11/30/17  
  1. Planned Parenthood Keystone – Allentown 3/15/18  
  1. Planned Parenthood Keystone – Harrisburg 3/21/17  

Pennsylvania Department of Health Failed Inspection Reports  

“The Allentown Planned Parenthood was caught disposing of aborted babies down the drain.”  

  • “Interview with EMP1 on May 31, 2012, revealed the facility had no provision for the disposal of bloody body fluid waste. EMP1 was uncertain if the facility had approval from the Department of Environmental Resources for disposal of bloody body fluid waste down the sink in the soiled area.”  
  • “Further interview with EMP1 confirmed “we pour the bloody liquid from the procedure down the sink””  

Pennsylvania Department of Health Inspection Results of Planned Parenthood Allentown, dated June 8, 2012,  

“The Philadelphia Planned Parenthood failed to ascertain if several minors had been victims of sexual abuse.”  

  • Six Medical Records (MR) were discovered:  
  • Medical Records 1, 2, 3, and 6 stated “13-year-old unmarried pregnant patient… no documentation that the facility ascertained if the child had sexual intercourse with an individual who was four or more years older than the child.”  
  • Medical Records 4 and 5 stated “MR4…14-year-old unmarried pregnant patient… no documentation that the facility ascertained if the child had sexual intercourse with an individual who was four or more years older than the child.”  

Pennsylvania Department of Health Inspection Results of Planned Parenthood Philadelphia Locust St, dated November 18, 2013, pages 9-10  


 “Tonya Reaves bled to death at the Chicago Planned Parenthood following a botched abortion. Her procedure began at 11:00am, and 91 wasn’t called until 4:30pm.”   

  • “The cause of death of this 24-year-old, black female, TONYA REAVES, is due to hemorrhage resulting from cervical dilation and evacuation due to an intrauterine pregnancy.”  
  • “At approximately 1100 hours, subject had an elective suction D&E at Planned Parenthood”  
  • Subject had post procedure bleeding and was transferred via Chicago Fire Department Ambulance to Northwestern Memorial Hospital at 1630 hrs.”  

Report of Postmortem Examination of Tonya Reaves July 21, 2012  

Office of the Medical Examiner, County of Cook, Illinois   



“The state allows Planned Parenthood to perform their own inspections for certification and accreditation.”  

  • “A physician who performs a procedure under must ensure that the procedure is performed in a facility that is appropriately equipped and maintained to ensure patient safety through accreditation or certification and in good standing from one of the following: (e) Planned Parenthood Federation of America or the National Abortion Federation, for facilities limited to office-based surgery for abortion or abortion-related services.”   

WAC 246-853-650  

Q: Is abortion safer than childbirth?  

Many abortion advocates argue that childbirth is more dangerous than abortion. In a Post-Roe America, it will be essential to understand exactly how dangerous abortion is for women, especially compared to childbirth.  

Talking Points:  

  • There is only one study, the Raymond and Grimes Study (RG Study), that supports the claim that abortion is safer than childbirth. The study has not been replicated because it cannot be.   
  • The reason this study cannot be replicated is because it uses insufficient data and poor reasoning. The research does not support the claim it attempts to make.  
  • The main problem with this study is that it compares “apples to oranges” by using two different data scopes to compare maternal deaths to abortion related deaths.  
  • Low or unknown abortion related death numbers: In the US, Maryland, California, New Hampshire, Washington DC, and New York City do have to report abortion numbers to CDC. With that alone, we do not know the exact number of abortion related deaths. Also, abortion related deaths are not reported to the same standard as maternal death rate.  
  • Inflated maternal death rate: the study uses inflated maternal death rates that according to its own source, the CDC, are inflated: “Maternal mortality is determined by dividing maternal deaths by live births, not by pregnancies…This will necessarily tend to inflate the mortality rate, as many pregnancies end in miscarriage or stillbirth” (Gonzalez vs. Planned Parenthood 2004, pg. 4)
  • In other countries (Finland and Denmark), where abortion death rates and maternal death rates are held to the standard of reporting, studies show that the abortion death rate is higher. This peer review study clearly explains that the RG Study is insupportable. In addition, here is an Ethiopian study that debunks the maternal mortality myth,.  
  • Women deserve care during complicated pregnancies. Killing the children involved is not care. (See above talking points on life threatening situations) 

***Read a new report finding abortion kills more women than childbirth. ***

Read more information on whether abortion is safer than childbirth.  

Q: Will women be jailed for miscarriages/abortions? 

A common fear tactic around the ending of abortion is that women will be thrown in fail of abortions and even miscarriages. This is simply not true.  

Talking Points: 

  • Students for Life of America and Students for Life Action never advocates for jailing women for miscarriages or abortions. We have always held that women are the second victim of abortion.  
  • “How much jail time?” is a contrived question that is both deceptive and desperate. It is deceptive because it ignores the fact that the American pro-life movement has consistently considered the woman as the second victim of abortion. The abortion ban enacted in South Dakota, as well as the abortion bans with post-Roe activation clauses enacted in recently in Louisiana  and several other states, explicitly state: “Nothing in this section may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.” – Dorinda C. Bordlee  
  • The goal of laws limiting or banning abortion is to protect innocent children from abortion violence. The goal of enforcing pro-life laws is to ensure that lives are saved, which means that abortionists would be penalized for abortions. Going to the source of hundreds and even thousands of abortions will reduce the number of illegal abortions. Prosecuting individual women will not.  

Q: Will the reversal of Roe lead to a pandemic of “unwanted” children?   

Many proponents of abortion access will point to the potential suffering of the preborn or the difficulty of bringing new life into the world as a justification for abortion.  

Talking Points:  

  • The most important question in the abortion debate is “what are the preborn?” If the pre-born are not human, then the pro-life movement is wrong. However, if the preborn are human (96% of secular biologists agree than human life begins at fertilization), then abortion is never justified.  
  • Pointing to potential suffering should remind us of our responsibility to alleviate suffering and support human beings. It is inhumane to eliminate sufferers. No one would advocate to alleviate poverty by killing all poor people, so why is it justified to point to poverty as a justification to end an innocent life in the womb?  
  • Labeling someone “unwanted” does not justify killing them. We are working to reform Foster Care and Adoption while fighting for the rights of the preborn. We can do both. 
  • This is a philosophical position and is one that is promoted in our understanding of human rights. The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights belongs to all human beings regardless of what governments have decided. Regardless of the distinction between born and preborn, the emphasis is on our common humanity as the source of our equality. So, if the preborn are a part of the human family, then they must be given basic human rights. Ironically, the declaration excludes pre-born humans even though we know that they are human from the moment of fertilization.