Why We Ask Christians Not to Support Duress or Reasonable Steps

Many Christians support duress and reasonable steps language because they want to reduce harm and save lives. We understand that desire. But good intentions do not make unjust law righteous.

We are asking you to look carefully at what these clauses actually do in law and what Scripture actually requires of us.

Duress: There Is No Biblical Exemption to Sin

In proposed equal protection bills, duress language is being used to exempt mothers from accountability if they are said to be acting under duress, usually when the mother’s life is claimed to be in danger.

The argument is that the pressure is so great that the mother should not be held responsible for the choice that is made. Scripture does not teach this.

The Bible never gives anyone an exemption to sin because the situation is hard, tragic, or frightening. God’s commands do not come with escape clauses for extreme circumstances.

“You shall not murder.” – Exodus 20:13

That command does not change when a person is afraid for their own life.

In these situations, the mother is still faced with a choice. She may choose to obey God, or she may choose to save herself by murdering her child. The pressure is real, but the choice is still a choice. Scripture never teaches that fear removes moral responsibility.

“We must obey God rather than men.” – Acts 5:29

Obedience to God has always required faith, even when obedience involves suffering or personal loss. The Bible does not redefine sin based on how understandable the motive may seem.

Duress language teaches that self preservation can outweigh obedience to God. That is not a biblical standard.

It also destroys equal justice. The child is denied protection under the law, while the mother is preemptively excused from accountability.

“For God shows no partiality.” – Romans 2:11

Equal protection cannot exist when one image bearer is killed and the other is automatically shielded from responsibility.

“You shall do no injustice in court.” – Leviticus 19:15

Once duress is written into law as an exemption from accountability, it establishes a principle: there are circumstances where murdering an innocent child carries no responsibility.

While duress focuses on excusing the mother, reasonable steps language shifts the focus to excusing the act itself.

Reasonable Steps: Knowing the Outcome and the Language Matters

Reasonable steps language is often presented as careful, compassionate, and balanced. In reality, it still allows the intentional killing of an innocent child.

Supporters of this language often argue that the doctor does not intend to kill the child, only to save the mother. This argument fails to deal honestly with what the doctor knows before acting.

When a medical procedure is chosen with full knowledge that it will result in the death of the child, that death is not accidental. Foreknowledge matters. Choosing an act while knowing it will kill an innocent human being is still a moral choice.

It has been acknowledged that under reasonable steps language, children who are still alive in ectopic pregnancies can legally be removed, even though that removal guarantees the child’s death.

It has also been stated in defense of this language that ending the life of the child in these cases is considered pleasing to God when the mother’s life is in danger.

Scripture does not support this claim. God is never pleased by the intentional killing of innocent human beings.

“God hates the hands that shed innocent blood.” – Proverbs 6:17

Calling the act life saving, medically necessary, or compassionate does not change what it is. The language may soften the description, but it does not change the reality of the act.

Reasonable steps language is also subjective and vague. The law does not clearly define what steps must be taken, how much effort is required, or what qualifies as reasonable.

This vagueness shifts life and death decisions away from clear legal standards and places them in the hands of individual doctors, hospital policies, ethics committees, and institutional pressure.

Vague standards do not protect life. They create loopholes. What is considered reasonable in one hospital or circumstance may not be considered reasonable in another.

No other group of human beings is denied full legal protection because their survival is considered unlikely, their care is difficult, or their death is expected.

Reasonable steps does not establish equal protection. It establishes a sliding scale of protection based on circumstances, predictions, and professional opinion.

Why This Matters

This is not just a legal debate. It is a moral and theological one.

Duress and reasonable steps language do not abolish abortion. They redefine it. Instead of asking whether it is lawful to intentionally kill an innocent child, the law shifts to asking when that killing can be excused. Abortion becomes an act that is justified under certain conditions rather than an injustice to be ended.

Once the law excuses the intentional killing of some human beings because of circumstances or outcomes, equal protection is no longer equal. The right to life becomes conditional, with some lives protected and others treated as expendable.

Scripture does not call us to manage sin more gently or regulate it more carefully. It calls us to put it away.

The goal is not to create laws that feel compassionate, but laws that are just, truthful, and aligned with God’s commands, even when obedience is costly.

We are not ignoring hard cases. We are refusing to call sin obedience or injustice mercy.

A law that allows the intentional killing of innocent human beings, even in tragic circumstances, does not honor God and does not protect life.

“Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” – Ecclesiastes 12:13