Roe. is dead, but abortion is still alive in Indiana.

If abortion is the unjustified killing of an innocent human being, then it needs to be treated as such: homicide. Killing innocent humans needs to be consistently criminalized with application to ALL image-bearers of God, even those in the womb. We do not "criminalize women" as some suggest. Rather, we are working to make criminal the ACT of abortion. The novel concept that parents must receive legal immunity from penalties for killing their offspring is a pro-life falsity that has caused extreme harm to the movement.

Parental exemptions create an inherent right to DIY abortions. Especially in light of a large portion of abortions being chemical, the woman is doing the "actual killing" and in these scenarios, having that act of killing being criminal is a deterrent. "... the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and ... ... murderers..." (1 Timothy 1:9)

Furthermore, the original Roe V. Wade decision relied upon the inconsistency of making abortion illegal without criminalizing it! Justice Blackmun wrote in the decision:

"There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?"

On this point he was exactly right. We must be consistent - God's Word demands it, and our preborn neighbors' lives are counting on it.

“But let us remember that, while Christ forgives the sins of men, he does not overturn political order, or reverse the sentences and punishments appointed by the laws.” John Calvin

Rape and incest are some of the most dehumanizing things imaginable. Why is rape wrong? Well, part of it deals with the fact that a stronger person is using their body to violate another person's body. That is exactly what abortion is; the same reason we oppose rape is why we oppose exceptions to equal protection.

Abortion is not a treatment for assault. In the trauma of rape, we need to provide women with loving and careful healing, pointing to the love of Christ. Two wrongs never make a right, and more violence upon humans is never the answer. We do not punish a child for the sins of their father!

There is nothing wrong with increments. In fact, the Scriptures are clear that the Kingdom of God will grow incrementally. However, there is no such thing as "incremental" repentance, and that is what abolishing abortion certainly requires!

We are not opposed to increments. But these increments cannot violate God's will as revealed in Scripture. Proponents of the political ideology of "incrementalism" oftentimes use ungodly means in fighting against human abortion, and attempt to justify these means by calling them "increments."- it is these that we are vehemently opposed to.

We are not overnightists. Things will not drastically change just because we say we want abortion abolished "immedately." But we need to demand the immedate abolition of this evil, call it as it is, and ground that clarion call in Scripture.

The concept of immediatism is explained well by abolitionist of slavery Elizabeth Heyrick in her pamphlet entitled Immediate, Not Gradual Abolition.

“The slave holder knew very well that his prey would be secure, so long as the abolitionists could be cajoled into a demand for gradual instead of immediate abolition. He knew very well, that the contemplation of a gradual emancipation, would beget a gradual indifference to emancipation itself. He knew very well, that even the wise and the good, may, by habit and familiarity, be brought to endure and tolerate almost any thing…

“This GRADUAL ABOLITION, has been the grand marplot of human virtue and happiness; the very masterpiece of satanic policy. By converting the cry for immediate, into gradual emancipation, the prince of slave holders, ‘transformed himself, with astonishing dexterity, into an angel of light,’ and thereby ‘deceived the very elect.’ He saw very clearly, that if public justice and humanity, especially, if Christian justice and humanity, could be brought to demand only a gradual extermination of the enormities of the slave system; if they could be brought to acquiesce, but for one year, or for one month, in the slavery of our African brother, in robbing him of all the rights of humanity, and degrading him to a level with the brutes; that then, they could imperceptibly be brought to acquiesce in all this for an unlimited duration….”

The fallacy in this objection to the immediate abolition of abortion is that it assumes that legislation itself doesn't change the culture. But it does, just as the original Roe V. Wade court ruling helped to change the culture negatively.

Law is a reflection of culture, and culture is a reflection of religion, but this is not a one-way road. Babies are dying, and choosing not to fight for the immediate end whilst promoting vague concepts of "culture change" goes against the biblical witness and standard.

St. Augustine said: "But how do kings serve God in fear, but by forbidding and punishing with devout severity those things which are done against God’s commandments?"

Hezekiah served God by destroying the groves and temples of idols. He destroyed the high places erected against God's commandments.

Josiah served God in the same way.

The king of Ninevah served God by compelling the entire city to please God's anger.

Darius served God by giving the idol into Daniel's power to be broken into pieces and to cast enemies among the lions.

Nebuchadnezzar served God by the proclamation to not blaspheme the only true God.

Did these men passively wait for the culture to change before obeying God to decree righteousness?

No, they obeyed their duty to God and trusted in Him for the results.

That doesn't mean "culture change" is unfounded. It simply means that legislation is one of the means by which culture change occurs. And it is precisely for that reason that we oppose pro-life regulations to abortion which do not result in a significant decreasing of the slaughter, but instead train the culture in iniquity.