Pro-Life advocates are touting nine Pro-Life changes that the new administration enacted within its first week in office, including reinstating the “Mexico City Policy” blocking U.S. federal funding for non-governmental organizations that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of birth control.
Among the most notable was President Donald Trump’s pardon of 23 Pro-Life prisoners who had been convicted of violating the Freedom to Access Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. These non-violent activists entered abortion facilities and blocked entry, resulting in their arrest and multi-year sentences in federal prison.
Most of these prisoners acted out of their Christian moral conviction to stop abortion, which they believe to be the taking of innocent human life, a position consistent with historic church teaching. This act of civil disobedience, referred to as “Rescue”, has received support from several Christian denominations.
The Wesleyan Church defends individual conscience to act from civil disobedience for the anti-abortion cause. Their statement on the Sanctity of Life says,
“The Scriptures require us to obey civil authority, except where our conscience on the issues requires obedience to a higher authority. In this case, some Christians feel that the killing of the unborn is an issue which calls forth their higher obedience to God and conscience, even at the risk of civil disobedience.”
Likewise the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) released a similar statement in 1987 on the allowance of civil disobedience depending on one’s conscience conviction, while still uplifting a high regard to civil authority (Romans 13).
The statement, Propriety of the Christian’s Nonviolent Disobedience to the Civil Magistrate in the Abortion Controversy describes a reality of a Christian protester blocking the entrance to an abortion facility, the same act which the prisoners received federal sentences for.
“The Christian abortion protester blocks the doorway at the abortion clinic out of a deep sense of Christian duty. He is willing to attempt to forbid entrance of a pregnant woman to an abortion clinic, even to the extent of violating the law, in order to save the child’s life. He feels the need to intervene on behalf of the child. His purpose in blocking the doorway is not primarily or essentially for publicity, nor to work a change in the law, nor to impose his moral code on the mother or doctor involved. Rather, he believes it is his duty to do what he can to protect and preserve the life of the unborn child who is only moments away from death. In this regard, his action is substantially identical with that of the Hebrew midwives. Unlike the Supreme Court, but like the Presbyterian Church in America, he believes the unborn child to be a person. He believes that this person has a right to expect a helping hand in his time of need.”
Pardon of these prisoners sheds light on the severity of the FACE Act, which Pro-Life members of Congress seek to repeal. On January 21, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) introduced a bill to repeal the FACE Act, which 25 other representatives co-signed. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) sponsors this bill in the Senate.
Outside of congressional efforts to repeal the FACE Act, the Department of Justice has issued new guidance on enforcement of the law. On January 24, the department received a memo from Chief of Staff to the Attorney General Chad Mizelle stating that FACE Act violations will be left mostly to state and local law enforcement and that federal prosecutions will be enforced only under “extraordinary circumstances” and in instances of serious bodily injury, severe property damage, or death.
These changes to FACE Act enforcement may encourage Christian civil disobedience to the anti-abortion cause. Instead of facing federal sentencing for Pro-Life, non-violent, civil disobedience, violators may face only a trespassing charge or other local enforcement. Christians may be more willing to partake in civil disobedience, if their conscience convicts, much like the movement Operation Rescue.
Whether Christians will choose to partake in civil disobedience or not, it is clear that all Christians must mutually seek to uplift human dignity and respect for governing authority (Romans 13).
It is still unknown how these changes will be enforced and what the future of the Pro-Life movement will look like in this post-Dobbs age, but it is clear Christians must preserve a notion of the sacredness of human life amidst a world that screams death.
Comment by David on January 30, 2025 at 7:42 am
How about blocking or disrupting churches whose beliefs one considers morally wrong? The 17th century Quakers did this, sometimes in a state of nudity. This led to harsh punishments for them.
Comment by Gayle on January 30, 2025 at 10:52 am
“How about blocking or disrupting churches whose beliefs one considers morally wrong?” Just to respond to David’s comment, there is no comparison between hypothetically disrupting a group because of their (constitutionally protected) *beliefs* and trying to prevent an *action* from taking place. And if you don’t like someone’s beliefs, there is zero chance you will change those beliefs by disrupting a church service.
Comment by David on January 30, 2025 at 12:55 pm
Abortion is constitutionally protected in a number of states. Surgical abortions are far less common today.
Comment by Diane on January 31, 2025 at 2:25 am
I have teacher friends whose religious beliefs oppose discrimination of trans students. They plan to continue to use a student’s preferred pronouns and share with parent’s only their Hilda’s academic progress, not the child’s gender identity if it’s different than the birth assigned one. One of those teacher friends is an ordained pastor. If anti-lgbtq citizens want to use their religious beliefs to discriminate against lgbtq people, religious beliefs can be used to defend trans people.
Comment by Thomas on January 31, 2025 at 1:23 pm
The most appaling is how come the Democratic Party went in 60 years from being largely social conservative and pro-life, both VP candidates in 1972 where pro-life, and Sargent Shriver remained pro-life until the end, to having no respect whatsoever for unborn human life to the point of opposing any restrictions and saying babies that survive abortions have no right to live. There is something truly demonic in this pro-abortion radicalism. We can`t forget that the legacy of the Democratic Party includes their support for slavery, the Civil War, segregation in the South for 100 years, the Ku Klux Klan, Margaret Sanger support for racism and eugenism. No person who is remotely pro-life can vote for a radical pro-abortion agenda, unless he or she wants to be considered a complete hypocrite.
Comment by Tim Ware on January 31, 2025 at 7:34 pm
Regarding the comment about using religious beliefs to defend trans people…this understanding of trans is too exclusive because it only includes gender trans.
Who is fighting for the rights of trans-species or trans-racials? Why do we deny them their rights?