No, they’re not.  A pregnant mother can murder her unborn child with impunity in all 50 states, including North Dakota.  Women no longer need a clinic to obtain an abortion, they can simply swallow a few pills easily accessed online, and thanks to pro-life legislation, they have every right to do so.  In every state with a so-called abortion ban, legislators have made it illegal for everyone except the pregnant mother to purposefully cause the death of an unborn child.  Abortion will never come close to being prohibited while a specific class of citizens remain exempt from the legal consequences of murdering an unborn baby.

In this country, we don’t criminalize groups of people, we criminalize behavior.

Many women go through terrible suffering and guilt after having an abortion, and they should be offered compassionate post-abortive care that points them to the love and forgiveness of Christ, but that does not mean they are victims of the decision they made. The pro-life mantra that women are victims of abortion has become so ingrained in the doctrine of our movement, that we have become blind to the intellectual and moral inconsistencies of our stance.  Should a mother who purposefully takes the life of her born child face the criminal justice system? Obviously, yes. Pro-lifers who oppose equal protection need to explain why it is more egregious and worthy of prosecution for a mother to kill her born child than it is to kill her unborn child whom they claim has the same inherent worth as anyone else.

Some will claim that because women live in a culture of lies and propaganda, they should be exempt from any liability for killing their baby. But is “living in a culture of lies” adequate legal justification for the murder of an innocent life? Can we use that justification in any other context? Injustice for the innocent always follows the replacement of impartial justice with emotional reasoning. One clear way to fight against the pro-abortion propaganda within our culture is to have the truth - that all innocent lives deserve to be legally protected - clearly outlined and codified into law.

Providing a legal boundary specifically for pregnant mothers considering abortion would be the ultimate act of compassion because it would act as a deterrent. Many women have expressed that they wish there had been a clear legal consequence in place for having an abortion because it would have kept them from making the biggest mistake of their lives. The women who are self-administering their own abortions go through significant physical pain and suffering, and we should be protecting them from being able to access these dangerous drugs. Of course, women who are determined to abort their baby will find a way to do so, but for many women considering abortion, knowing there could be legal consequences for pursuing a self-managed abortion would be enough to cause serious reconsideration. The end result will be more babies and mothers saved from the tragic consequences of abortion.

First, it is illegal in the state of North Dakota to coerce a woman into having an abortion. Secondly, the vast majority of women choosing abortion are not coerced into their decision, but for those that are, existing law already contains protections from coercion to commit crimes. Our justice system determines which cases were committed willingly or under a state of duress.

In the rare cases of pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, it is the perpetrator who should be sentenced to death, not the preborn child who has no control over how he or she is conceived. Humans who have been conceived through rape or incest have the same inherent worth and value as anyone else and deserve equal protection under the law.

It is never necessary to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother. In the extremely rare circumstance that a choice must be made to end the pregnancy in order to save the mother’s life, the unborn baby can be treated with dignity and delivered whole. All efforts should extend to saving the life of the baby as much as it is medically possible.When a woman is pregnant, there are two patients, made in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-27), and we have a duty to attempt to save both lives. The mother’s life is not more valuable than her baby’s life.

If the pregnant mother and baby are facing imminent death together and if every attempt has been made to save them both, it is morally ethical to relocate the baby outside the womb (from one location where he is dying to another location where he is dying) via emergency delivery. A premature delivery (relocation) is only ethical if the purpose is to save one patient, the mother, rather than allowing two patients to unnecessarily die together (mother and baby).

Bear in mind that premature delivery is only ethical if the child, no matter how small, is given all available medical care – even if he dies in the end – and treated as an image-bearer of God, even in death.

Note: murder requires intent. If the intent of the premature delivery is to favor the mother's health over the baby's or stems from a "rush to kill" spirit to limit the doctor's liability, then that is abortion and murder.

However, if the emergency delivery (relocation) is made after all attempts to save the mother AND the preborn baby have failed, then the intent is to save as much life in the room as possible (triage). That is an ethical solution. The equal protection bills allow for ethical rescue attempts of the mother.

Self-Managed Abortions (SMAs) are abortions that are performed by the pregnant woman without assistance or oversight from a clinic or provider. She simply orders the abortion pills online and uses them at home. SMA’s, unlike medication abortions provided through telehealth, are not reported to state or federal agencies, so it is difficult to get a clear picture of how many women are choosing that option. However, a study published in November 2022 in the Journal of the American Medical Association examined data provided by Aid Access, the single largest provider of SMA pills, and found a significant increase in abortion pill requests following the reversal of Roe. One year after the Dobbs decision, Aid Access self-reported a 270% increase in average daily pill requests and that they had shipped abortion pills to over 3,500 people living in states where abortion is banned. Do we know exactly how many women are ending their pregnancies with abortion pills in ND? No. Does it matter? Again, no. A better question for someone opposing equal protection for the unborn might be this: Is there a certain number of babies dying through medication abortion that is acceptable to you?  We don’t need data on exactly how many women are ordering abortion pills in North Dakota to know that they should not be able to do so.

All major pro-life organizations oppose equal protection for the unborn because it goes against their central doctrine that women are victims of abortion.  This widespread agreement among established organizations is used to dismiss the minority view of establishing equal rights for the unborn. Listen to the experts, we’re told. But if recent and ancient history has taught us anything, it’s that consensus of opinion among the experts and professionals tells us very little about what is right, what is correct, and what is Biblical.