For decades, our genocidal culture has been killing around a quarter of the babies God has created and placed in the wombs of our mothers. Inured to the bloodshed of infants, the recent ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court may help to awaken us.

Shocked to their core by this decision, the Democratic Party’s media shills have been frothing at the mouth. The half of our nation which does not fear God and has become shameless in its wickedness has no public policy they consider more fundamental to our uncivil disunion than freedom to murder their children. To have the Deep South state of Alabama sign its Human Life Protection Act into law back in 2019 declaring its commitment to protect all preborn “children” was infuriating. But when the state’s Supreme Court extended this protection to the children conceived by In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) earlier this month, their veins stood out on their foreheads and their faces turned purple. Current news headlines read:

The New York Times:
The Alabama Chief Justice Who Invoked God in Deciding the Embryo Case

Mother Jones:
“It Broke My Heart”: The Brutal Effect of Alabama’s Supreme Court Ruling on IVF Patients

The Associated Press:
Bible-quoting Alabama chief justice sparks church-state debate in embryo ruling

Reuters:
Biden says Alabama IVF ruling is ‘outrageous’

The Guardian:
Doctors shocked and angry as Alabama ruling throws IVF care into turmoil

New York Magazine:
Alabama IVF Ruling Is an Assault on the Right to Privacy

The Hill:
Hillary Clinton warns birth control is ‘next’ after Alabama IVF ruling

The Nation:
Alabama’s IVF Ruling Is Christian Theology Masquerading as Law

The New York Times:
Samuel Alito Opened the Door to Reproductive Hell

In our recent statement, Abortion and the Church, Evangel Presbytery has worked to warn the Church concerning the precise nature of the coming pro-life battles we will face across our nation and states. Just as the book was published, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) released their 2022 Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in which they reversed the court’s earlier 1973 ruling, Roe v. Wade.

Contrary to what many think, Dobbs did not criminalize the murder of our nation’s preborn. It should have, but SCOTUS was too cowardly to do the right thing. They refused to declare that preborn children have the same protection of their constitutional rights as other citizens—the same rights our nation had previously restored to Africans by means of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The justices of our Supreme Court did not declare preborn children “persons” under the law, nor did they extend to them any right at all to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They only saw their way clear to reversing Roe v. Wade’s bald-faced lie that the US Constitution contained a right for mothers to murder their babies.

Knowing the backlash their reversal of Roe v. Wade would bring down on them, with Dobbs SCOTUS punted the murder of well over a million babies each year to the fifty states to do as they wished.

Of course we all celebrated this great victory for babies. We’d prayed, wondering if God would grant the repeal of Roe v. Wade to our nation’s little ones. It was a large step toward the protection of babies for our high court to declare the US Constitution granted mothers no right to murder their children.

Given the court punting the issue to states for their own decisions about abortion’s legality, those who honor Christ Jesus assumed the more conservative states in America’s hinterland would pass legislation ending this horrific bloodshed. We knew blue states would keep their bloody rite, but certainly those states where the majority population is Christian would quickly act to protect their little ones granted them by God.

We woke to the bitter reality of conservative states one after another refusing to end the genocide within their own borders.

Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has now thoroughly demonstrated that, when push comes to shove and Christians have to make a choice whether or not to restore protection to God’s little ones, we quibble and cower. Since June of 2022, we have consistently voted to maintain the slaughter while assuaging our consciences with the legislative erection of some guardrails keeping the grisly slaughter within certain pharisaical parameters.

Both nation and states have refused to declare the personhood of our babies, denying them their individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We’ll protect the babies as long as our protections don’t lose us our reputation for “Christian” compassion; but more, our ability to win elections:

  • Abortions will be allowed for the first six or sixteen weeks of pregnancy, but not later.
  • Abortions will be allowed when the baby’s mother claims her psychological health is threatened by this little one God created and placed in her womb; otherwise, abortion will not be allowed (except in the first six or sixteen weeks).
  • Abortion will be allowed if the baby’s mother claims she was raped, if a doctor claims the baby is deformed, or the mother claims the pregnancy is the result of incest. Otherwise, the baby cannot be killed (except in the first six or sixteen weeks).
  • Abortion will be allowed if the baby was conceived in a lab’s petri dish; fathers, mothers, and their healthcare providers will be free to donate the baby for research (to kill him or her), throw the baby out (kill him or her), or imprison the baby in a freezer. For years.
  • Abortion will be allowed if the mother commits it by taking pharmaceuticals’ drugs. Mothers are free to kill their babies who are the same developmental stage as those in the IVF clinic who are imprisoned in a freezer, experimented on (killed), or thrown in the trash (killed).

Only Alabama has refused to turn a blind eye to these murders. It started with Alabama protecting babies in their mothers’ wombs.

Back on May 16, 2019, the Alabama legislature’s Human Life Protection Act was signed into law. It prohibited abortion at any time for any reason other than the protection of the life of the mother, and thus Alabama showed all the world that its people are the most compassionate, just, law-abiding, truthful—indeed, the most progressive, flourishing, and robustly liberal—state of the Union.

Trouble was brewing in the state’s In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) industry, though. The Human Life Protection Act (HLPA) applied to babies inside their mother’s wombs, but this former slave state had not extended the protection which now applies to Blacks to their preborn babies in IVF labs living outside their mothers’ wombs.

This is the heart of Alabama’s recent Supreme Court ruling:

The parties to these cases have raised many difficult questions, including ones about the ethical status of extrauterine children, the application of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to such children, and the public-policy implications of treating extrauterine children as human beings. But the Court today need not address these questions because, as explained below, the relevant statutory text is clear: the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies on its face to all unborn children, without limitation. (p. 7; emphases added)

The court declared that, whether inside or outside their mother’s womb, babies cannot be denied their rights.

It seems absurd any court should have to issue this opinion.  Inside or outside the womb, children are children. Five minutes, five days, or five months after conception, children are children.

But the IVF businesses argued otherwise: no, the babies they imprison in their freezers or kill outright through giving them to fetal experimentation or the dumpster are not babies. They’re not persons. They’re not children.

The Alabama lower court hearing this case prior to the appeal to the Supreme Court had agreed, declaring:

“[T]he cryopreserved, in vitro embryos involved in this case do not fit within the definition of a ‘person’ or ‘child,’ “

The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling, and in their opinion they described the kind of horrors the argument of the defendant (the IVF business) and the lower court would unleash:

[U]nder the defendants’ test, even a full-term infant or toddler conceived through IVF and gestated to term in an in vitro environment would not qualify as a “child” or “person,” because such a child would both be (1) “unborn” (having never been delivered from a biological womb) and (2) not “in utero.” (p. 9)

This argument is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Just yesterday under a post I’d made about man being made in the Image and Likeness of God, a friend and fellow-seminarian from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (who has since converted to Roman Catholicism) commented:

Sorry, but conception outside the womb by artificial means is not a valid human life/Imago Dei.

One hesitates to probe that word “valid,” but as we continue down the road of developing more sophisticated technologies for the industrial production of human life, it is easy to see that a society built upon the slaughter of billions of preborn children conceived and living both in the womb and in laboratories will, in time, extend the killing to the days, weeks, and months following the the birth of the baby; or following the baby reaching full term in the laboratory and being handed to his unfather and unmother.

About this hypothetical of babies being conceived and cared for throughout gestation by technicians in labs, it’s not a question of whether, but when. And if we already have seminary-trained Roman Catholic men declaring the babies conceived in vitro do not possess the Image and Likeness of God, Princeton ethicist Peter Singer will have won:

Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons. [Thus] the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.

[A] period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others. (Singer, in Practical Ethics)

This article is working to convince those of us who worship the Only Lord Jesus Christ to Whom all authority has been given that we must not continue to compromise with the bloodthirsty ones.

By this I do not mean that we must not vote or support legislation that forces incremental rollbacks of the bloodshed of babies. In Abortion and the Church, we discuss this at length and defend such legal strategies as needed at different times and places. But only if we all agree what must finally be done for our states and nation to return to legal codes that obey the Moral Law of God as codes have done previously across Christendom.

We are to keep our eye on the ball and never stop fighting for the full guarantee, nationally, that all persons from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death are protected by our US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Such protections past, present, or future are merely the codification of the Moral Law of Scripture declaring God’s Own command given Noah:

Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God He made man. (Genesis 9:6)

The most important thing to learn from the Alabama decision is that the little ones Alabama’s Supreme Court declares are “children” are the same age or stage of development as the little ones every single form of hormonal birth control kills. No one is admitting it yet, but in time it will become so clear that people will begin to admit it:

If in vitro embryos are now protected under the rule of law, in utero embryos are also protected.

Whether the embryonic little one is living within or without his mother’s womb, the State of Alabama has now declared him a “child.” He is now protected, and any taking of his life violates the rule of law.

That threat may be the dumpster in which IVF employees toss him. It may be the researchers who use him for fetal experimentation. It may be the hormonal birth control used by his mother which denies him attachment to her uterus.

If we want to end the slaughter of our own little ones, why celebrate the defense of babies living in petri dishes while, through our use of hormonal birth control, killing babies living in their mothers?

“But that’s not our intent,” we may respond; “We aren’t trying to kill our children; we’re trying to prevent their conception!”

Every hormonal form of birth control has a long understood and well-documented agency of preventing the attachment of the newly conceived child to his mother’s womb.

Then he dies.

Abortion began with the Pill. It didn’t begin with Roe v. Wade, but two decades earlier when mothers, Christian and non-Christian alike, began swallowing drugs in order to prevent pregnancy.

Regularly though, along with preventing pregnancies they were also and repeatedly killing their in utero children.

This continues today. Our churches are filled with bloodshed, and those carrying out these murders are the same men and women, fathers and mothers, who are celebrating the great pro-life victory of this recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Alabama.

If it’s murder to throw an IVF clinic’s in vitro child into the dumpster, its equally murder to prevent an in utero child of the same developmental stage attaching himself to his mother’s womb.

We, the people of God, must see our guilt and repent. No compromise is possible between the godly and Canaanites sacrificing their children to Molech.

Behold, children are a gift of the LORD,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth.

How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them;
They will not be ashamed
When they speak with their enemies in the gate. (Psalm 127:3-5)


NOTE: For a fuller explanation of the things discussed above, read Abortion and the Church. No pro-life book is as thoroughly Biblical and pro-life.


Thankful for this content? Let others know: