The question of how Christians should pursue pro-life policies has taken on renewed significance since June 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and returned abortion legislation to “the people and their elected representatives,” as Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the Dobbs decision. No longer a merely academic exercise, the strategies pro-life advocates adopt now have direct and measurable consequences for the laws that are enacted, particularly in states with pro-life majorities. Regrettably, at the very moment when unity among pro-lifers is most needed, the movement finds itself fragmented and engaged in an ongoing intramural debate over strategy and approach.
Nevertheless, the conversation between abolitionists (who advocate for a total ban on abortion and do not endorse anything less than this) and incrementalists (who are willing to gradually work towards a total ban on abortion) is an important one. As a Southern Baptist and an incrementalist, I have observed and participated in this debate both within my denomination and in other contexts. Over time, I have grown to appreciate the sincerity and moral urgency of my abolitionist friends. However, as someone who has worked at the intersection of Christian ethics and public policy in Washington, D.C., for the past eight years, I have become convinced that an incrementalist approach to ending legal abortion is necessary given the political realities facing both Congress and state legislatures across the country.
The debate over how to end abortion is taking place among brothers and sisters in Christ, all of whom affirm that Scripture is unequivocally pro-life and that the only faithful Christian position is one that opposes abortion in all its forms. Yet in a post-Roe context, strategies matter more than ever, and I believe that there is a moral imperative to employ the most effective means available to end the scourge of abortion as swiftly as possible.
Accordingly, this article defends incrementalism, understood as the view that while the ultimate goal is the complete abolition of abortion, pro-life advocates should also support measures that limit and reduce abortion in the interim in order to save as many lives as possible. First, I define the relevant terms. Second, I respond to the most common critiques leveled against incrementalism by abolitionist interlocutors. And finally, I summarize recent pro-life victories which suggest that incrementalism is the most viable path for advancing pro-life policies in the post-Roe legal landscape.
Context and Definitions
Incrementalism
Since the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade in 1973, the pro-life movement has largely pursued an incrementalist approach. Incrementalists support legislative measures designed to limit the prevalence of abortion in order to save the greatest number of unborn children while working toward the ultimate goal of completely outlawing abortion. Laws that make it more difficult to end the life of an unborn child, such as heartbeat protections, fetal pain statutes, ultrasound requirements, and parental consent provisions, are examples of incrementalist measures. Legislative provisions such as the Helms and Hyde Amendments, which prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortion, are likewise incrementalist steps. In short, incrementalism views limited but meaningful restrictions on abortion as strategic advances toward the movement’s final objective.
In light of significant cultural and political obstacles, incrementalists recognize that changing both the law and public opinion on abortion is likely to be a gradual and extended process. Although those who adopt this strategy desire the immediate end of abortion, they also maintain that it is morally right to save as many lives as possible within the constraints of the current legal and political climate.
Abolitionism
Abortion abolitionists advocate exclusively for laws that would immediately and completely outlaw legal abortion. Christians who hold this view contend that efforts to limit or regulate abortion incrementally constitute a sinful capitulation to pragmatism. Grounded in the conviction that abortion is morally wicked and that Christians must not compromise with unrighteousness, abolitionists insist that lawmakers outlaw abortion in full and without delay. As one prominent abolitionist organization explains, “The abolitionist calls for the total and immediate criminalization of abortion as murder and never attempts to simply regulate or reduce abortion by treating it as healthcare.”[1] Likewise, another abolitionist argues, “We’ve got to demand it be wholly outlawed. That demand will rally the people of God. That demand will spread the Kingdom and bring an end to abortion the world over. Anything less undermines those objectives by . . . tacitly affirming abortion’s status as health care, compromising God’s commands, not communicating what actually makes abortion wrong, and lulling the church to sleep.”[2]
1. See “We Are Abolitionists,” Free the States, accessed April 29, 2024.
2. See James Silberman, “Immediate, Not Gradual Abolition of Abortion,” Free the States, February 28, 2019.
Christians who embrace the abolitionist position frequently appeal to biblical prohibitions against partiality, citing passages such as Romans 2:11, and argue that many pro-life laws enacted to date resemble the “unequal weights and measures” condemned in Scripture (e.g., Proverbs 20:10). In their view, such laws permit abortion in certain situations or under specific circumstances, and therefore institutionalize iniquitous decrees.
On this reasoning, heartbeat laws or restrictions on late-term abortion are considered sinful because they codify partiality by protecting some unborn lives while leaving others legally vulnerable. For example, when Texas enacted a law in 2021 that outlawed abortions when a heartbeat could be detected (around six weeks), one abolitionist group condemned the legislation, stating, “This law is ungodly and Christians should not support it.”[3]
3. James Silberman, “Abolitionist Perspective on the Texas Heartbeat Bill: Three Quick Observations,” Free the States, September 2, 2021.
Incrementalist Response to Abolitionism’s Critique
Although they constitute a minority within the pro-life movement, abortion abolitionists have leveled serious critiques against those who have pursued an incrementalist approach to ending legal abortion. These critiques raise important questions: Does incrementalism amount to a sinful compromise? Is support for measures such as heartbeat or fetal pain legislation tantamount to endorsing an iniquitous decree?
In response to the concerns raised by abolitionists, here are some important points to consider:
1. Incrementalists and abolitionists share the same end but differ on the means.
Both sides in the debate agree that abortion wrongfully takes innocent life, that abortion is sinful, and that a morally upright society ought to prohibit by law the taking of innocent life. Abolitionists rightly convey a sense of moral urgency and are correct to insist that biblical principles be brought to bear on the question of abortion. Their frustration with the slow pace of pro-life progress and their refusal to grow complacent in the fight for life is understandable and even commendable. Since 1973, more than 60 million unborn children have been killed in the womb. Even after the overturning of Roe, abortion numbers have increased, demonstrating that abortion remains one of the most pressing moral issues of our time. Moreover, too many politicians who profess pro-life convictions have proven ineffective or have wavered in the face of shifting political winds.
Despite this shared moral agreement, incrementalists and abolitionists diverge over how to proceed when the immediate and complete abolition of abortion is not politically achievable. Abolitionists refuses to accept anything short of total and immediate prohibition, whereas incrementalists understand the fight for life as a war of attrition, in which each pro-life measure weakens the abortion industry’s power and reduces the number of unborn children who can be killed. For incrementalists, a perfect law—one that protects all unborn life—must not become the enemy of good, though imperfect, legislation that nonetheless saves lives.
2. Incrementalism does not constitute a moral compromise.
One of the most frequently repeated abolitionist critiques of incrementalism is the claim that incrementalists compromise biblical principles by supporting legislative measures that do not protect all unborn children. This critique, however, misunderstands how Scripture applies absolute moral norms within fallen political and social realities. While the Bible unequivocally condemns the taking of innocent life, it also recognizes that God’s people often act under conditions of constraint and limited authority.
When an incrementalist supports a heartbeat law in a jurisdiction where it can realistically be enacted and thereby saves some lives, he or she is not compromising moral principles but limiting evil to the greatest extent possible under prevailing circumstances. In the United States, committed pro-lifers remain a political minority and therefore operate from a position of relative weakness. In such conditions, wisdom does not require rejecting all partial goods in pursuit of an unattainable ideal. Rather, it calls for pursuing the best achievable outcome among imperfect options. While laws that fall short of protecting all unborn children are not ideal, refusing to enact them when they can save lives reflects a lack of prudential judgment rather than a higher moral standard.
Scripture itself treats the restraint of evil as a genuine moral good, even when evil is not eliminated entirely. The abolitionist critique implicitly suggests that if justice cannot be total, it should not be pursued at all. Scripture teaches the opposite. Zechariah 4:10 warns against despising “the day of small things,” and Jesus commends faithfulness exercised within limited stewardship (Matt. 25:21). Incremental progress toward justice is not condemned in Scripture; it is often praised as obedience under constraint. Indeed, much of the Old Testament’s civil legislation regulated sinful practices—such as divorce or slavery—without endorsing them, precisely in order to limit harm in a fallen society (Exodus 21; Deut. 24:1–4, cf. also Matt. 19:8–9). If regulating wrongdoing were itself sinful, large portions of biblical civil law would be morally suspect. Scripture instead presents restraint as a legitimate, and often necessary, expression of justice in a world marred by sin.
Finally, incrementalism must not be faulted for the injustices it does not yet prevent. Incrementalists seek to cultivate a political and cultural environment in which every unborn child can be protected from abortion. That environment does not currently exist. It is therefore mistaken to attribute the deaths of children not covered by existing pro-life laws to those who advocate for partial protections (e.g., heartbeat laws). Scripture consistently assigns moral responsibility to the wrongdoer, not to those who partially restrain wrongdoing (James 1:14–15). If a law prevents abortions after a detectable heartbeat but not before, the moral blame for abortions that still occur lies with those who perform and defend them, not with lawmakers or advocates who acted to prevent as many deaths as possible under present conditions.
3. The abolitionist approach ignores political reality.
In the summer of 2025 in Dallas, the Danbury Institute hosted an event during the Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). During a panel discussion, I defended the incrementalist approach alongside former Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission president Richard Land, while State Senator Dusty Deevers argued for the abolitionist position.[4] In the closing minutes of the discussion, I posed a hypothetical question to Deevers: if a state legislature was deadlocked on a heartbeat bill (legislation that would criminalize abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected) and he held the deciding vote, how would he vote? Deevers, consistent with the abolitionist approach, responded that he would side with the bill’s opponents and defeat it. In my judgment, this answer illustrates a central weakness of the abolitionist approach: it forgoes saving lives in the present in pursuit of principles that, while well-intentioned, lack a realistic path to implementation in the foreseeable future.
4. The Danbury Institute, “Abolition vs. Incrementalism: A Panel Discussion,” YouTube, December 18, 2025.
In truth, all pro-lifers desire to protect every unborn child and would do so immediately if it were possible. The difficulty lies in political reality. Pro-lifers do not currently possess—and historically have never possessed in the modern era—the political power to abolish abortion nationally or in most states. Between 1973 and 2022, federal courts invalidated most pro-life laws as unconstitutional. Even since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, only a limited number of states have demonstrated the political will to enact comprehensive legal protections for the unborn.
This political reality is compounded by the fact that public conviction on abortion, even among churchgoers, remains far weaker than abolitionist strategies often assume. A 2025 report by George Barna found that whereas 63 percent of churchgoers identified as “pro-life” in 2023, only 45 percent do so in 2025.[5] During the same period, identification as “pro-choice” increased from 22 percent to 35 percent. Although the survey went beyond evangelicals and included Catholics and mainline Protestants, groups that have historically exhibited higher levels of pro-choice identification, the findings underscore an uncomfortable truth: even within the church, pro-life conviction is neither as deep nor as widespread as it should be given Scripture’s clear teaching on the value of unborn life. These realities significantly limit what can be achieved through legislation at present.
5. George Barna and David Closson, “A National Survey of Churchgoing Americans: Social Issues and Worldview,” Center for Biblical Worldview, October 2025.
For these reasons, and stated as charitably as possible, abolitionism rests on a politically naïve strategy. Christians can and should play a prophetic role in calling for the complete abolition of abortion. Yet politics remains the art of the possible. In most jurisdictions, it is simply not feasible to enact pro-life legislation without any exceptions, particularly in a cultural context marked by moral confusion and divided public opinion.
When abolitionists lack the votes necessary to pass an abolition bill, as has been the case in every instance to date, they refuse on principle to support any alternative measures. This approach has yet to result in the passage of a single law. By contrast, pro-lifers pursuing an incrementalist strategy have secured the overturning of Roe v. Wade and achieved the enactment of numerous legislative protections for the unborn. Notably, the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe arose from a challenge to Mississippi’s fifteen-week abortion protection law, an incremental measure. By pursuing attainable reforms while continuing to work toward full legal protection, incrementalists have advanced the pro-life cause and, most importantly, have saved countless lives.
Recent Incremental Victories
In my introductory article for this month’s theme, I highlighted several pro-life victories achieved since June 2022.[6] Without repeating that analysis in full, it is worth underscoring that incrementalist strategies have produced a number of concrete and measurable gains against the abortion industry since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. For example, while 807 facilities were providing abortions nationwide in 2020, that number had declined to 765 by May 2024. An additional forty-four abortion facilities closed in 2025. Most recently, Planned Parenthood announced that its Rolla, Missouri location had ceased in-person services on January 1, 2026.[7]
6. David Closson, “Abortion in America After the Fall of Roe: Important Advances and Remaining Challenges,” Christ Over All, January 1, 2026.
7. Nancy Flanders, “Planned Parenthood Closes Rolla, MO Facility, Will Continue Telehealth,” Live Action, December 31, 2025.
The closure of dozens of abortion facilities can be attributed in large part to state-level pro-life legislation enacted after Roe was overturned, as well as to President Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” passed in the summer of 2025, which prohibits Planned Parenthood from billing Medicaid. Though incremental in nature, this legislation was explicitly cited by several abortion providers as a decisive factor in their decision to close clinics.[8]
8. Praveena Somasundaram, “Planned Parenthood Closes 20 Clinics After Medicaid Cuts, Warns of Grim Future,” The Washington Post, November 12, 2025.
Another incremental victory for pro-lifers is the law passed by Texas lawmakers in September 2025 that allows private citizens to sue manufacturers and distributors who mail abortion drugs into the state. The law, which took effect in early December, further prohibits the manufacturing of abortion drugs within Texas.
The development in Texas is especially important given that chemical abortion now accounts for the majority of abortions in the United States. Tragically, overall abortion numbers have increased since 2022, a trend driven almost entirely by the expanded availability of abortion drugs. Although these drugs were initially approved in 2000, successive administrations, particularly under Presidents Obama and Biden, progressively loosened regulatory safeguards. In 2025, legal challenges to these drugs continued to move through the courts following the Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision against a group of pro-life physicians on procedural grounds. Against this backdrop, state-level efforts such as Texas’s represent one of the most promising avenues for limiting the reach of chemical abortion in the current legal environment.
Conclusion
As mentioned, it is tragically true that abortion numbers in the United States have increased since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. However, incremental pro-life laws are not responsible for this increase. In fact, a 2025 analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins estimated that pro-life legislation in 14 states resulted in 22,180 additional live births beyond what would have been expected in the absence of such laws.[9] Nevertheless, the expectation that total abortions would decline nationwide following the Dobbs decision has not materialized.
9. Bloomberg School, “Two New Studies Provide Broadest Evidence to Date of Unequal Impacts of Abortion Bans,” Press Release, Johns Hopkins, February 13, 2025.
As many scholars have noted, abortion numbers have risen for a variety of reasons unrelated to incremental legislation.[10] These include aggressive legal strategies adopted by pro-abortion states, the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to permit mail-order abortion drugs through telehealth without in-person requirements (in direct contravention of federal law), the shipment of abortion drugs into pro-life states under so-called shield laws, and the designation of certain jurisdictions as “abortion havens.” Together, these developments have enabled pro-abortion states to circumvent strong restrictions on surgical abortion in pro-life states.
10. Mia Steupert, “How Many Abortions Are Occurring in America Post-Dobbs?” Charlotte Lozier Institute, May 22, 2025.
The disagreement between abolitionists and incrementalists represents an important internal dialogue among those who share the same ultimate goal: the complete outlawing of abortion. In my view, abolitionists have articulated many morally consistent arguments that rightly emphasize the equal value of every unborn child, and their motivations are generally well intentioned. Nevertheless, the strategy they advocate has thus far produced no tangible legislative results and has often been accompanied by rhetoric that is unnecessarily contentious toward fellow pro-lifers.
The post-Roe cultural and political landscape has proven far more challenging than many pro-lifers anticipated. The abortion industry and its allies in media and politics continue to advance narratives that portray pro-lifers as hostile to women, while aggressively resisting even modest restrictions on abortion. In the years ahead, pro-life advocates will need to labor with renewed diligence to persuade their friends and neighbors, while also countering the misinformation propagated by the pro-abortion lobby. In the realm of public policy, wisdom requires pursuing strategies that save as many lives as possible, even as moral consistency demands that we remain dissatisfied until every unborn child is protected from the scourge of abortion.
