Abolish Abortion TN

Pro-Life Marxism: A Subtle Conservative Practice

By Kayla Sauderman

The Devil Made Me Do It

When the Southern Baptist Convention adopted Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a “helpful tool” (1), conservative think-tanks sounded the alarm. Pastor John MacArthur called CRT “a sickness that cannot be allowed to continue” (2) while theologian Owen Strachan claimed, “CRT tweaks the doctrine of humanity” and “loses sight of the imago dei as our constituent identity.” (3)  The late Pastor Voddie Baucham cautioned nearly 20 years ago that CRT is neo-Marxism in practice, and it fundamentally undercuts the Gospel by replacing it with a new kind of religion.

Baucham warned:

“This is a religious movement. It has all the trappings of a religion. It has its own cosmology, it has its own saints, it has its own liturgy, its own law. It has all of those elements. And a lot of those things are very subtle, which makes them rather attractive to religious people.” (4)

One way CRT undermines scripture is the fact that sin only becomes a collective problem instead of an individual responsibility. If someone from a “marginalized” group commits a crime or offense, the blame is placed on “oppressors” or, at the very least, that person’s lack of opportunity.

One could say that “The Devil made me do it” is the mantra of CRT activists when someone in their victim hierarchy gets caught red-handed. Their solution is not punishment but understanding and absolution. 👇

Quote source: Alex Vitale, “The End of Policing” pg. 169.

CRT scholar Angela Davis wrote:

“The American judicial system is bankrupt. In so far as black people are concerned, it has proven itself to be one more arm of a system carrying out the systematic oppression of our people. We are the victims, not the recipients of justice.” (5)

For CRT activists, the remedy to a broken system is not true justice and impartiality, but rather reduced sentences, abolished bail for low-income individuals only, or dismissed charges for minority defendants. Neo-Marxism aims to remove Lady Justice’s blindfold in order to peek at the accused. As Cheryl Harris, a CRT scholar, says, “Whites are not an oppressed people and are not at risk of becoming so. Those whites that are disadvantaged in society suffer not because of their race, but in spite of it.” 👇

Quote source: George Lipsitz, “Seeing Race Again,” pg. 37.

Judicially, this means if a white and black man are both charged with the exact same crime committed in the exact same state, the black man could receive a reduced sentencing since he belongs to what neo-Marxists believe is a vulnerable group. This neo-Marxist judicial philosophy requires the courts to first exercise prejudice above justice.

This, of course, is an outworking of the anti-biblical worldview evangelical leaders warned about in regard to CRT. Biblically, justice and only justice should be pursued (Deut. 16:19) regardless of someone’s identity. Both the small and the great alike should have their cases fairly determined (Deut. 1:17). Partiality in any form is not good (Prov. 24:23) and is prohibited by God (Lev. 19:15). All people are sinners (Romans 3:23), and the guilty should not be acquitted (Ex. 23:7; Prov. 17:15).

The incompatibility of neo-Marxism with Christianity should come as no surprise, given that Karl Marx, the father of Marxism, openly declared that his worldview was necessary to destroy Christian teachings. Marx boasted that what he taught “abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality.” (6)

Marx insisted that his ideology would result in “the total eradication of God and His worship” (7) disguised in the desire for equitable distribution of goods and favored treatment of “oppressed” people groups.

In other words, Marx knew what he was proposing drastically differed from Christianity. Economic conditions replaced sin, righteousness was exchanged for social equality, and justice no longer meant meeting God’s standard but instead was evaluated in terms of which class benefited or suffered the most.

To be fair, some CRT activists truly desire to correct injustice, but without a biblical framework, they merely propagate identified problems in innovative ways. Neo-Marxism’s moral solution to injustice is simply more injustice. Its fix for partiality is to multiply partiality. Its answer to prejudice is to breed new prejudice. Compassion gets weaponized against justice by becoming a tool that habitually excuses criminal and malicious behavior. 👇


Quote source: Angela J. Davis, “The Best Prospect,” Inquest, June 25, 2024.

Out-Marxing the Marxists

Though conservatives correctly balk at these CRT practices, and evangelical leaders were wise to push back against the SBC Resolution, the Right conveniently overlooks its own implementation of neo-Marxism in other areas. And it shows up in what most people would think to be an unlikely spot.

While the Critical Theory worldview has an ever-growing list of victims, its proponents have yet to enshrine full legal immunity for any of its marginalized groups (something of which conservatives have quite the experience with). Instead, neo-Marxists painstakingly work to exonerate minority defendants on a case-by-case basis through the establishment of progressive judges, politicians and state attorneys. In return, they frequently pervert mercy—a tool of the courts (Deut. 17:8-9)—into the main treatment for wrongdoing instead of sparingly applied to the most difficult cases.

Pro-life activists, in contrast, have outperformed neo-Marxists on this point. The Pro-Life Movement does not attempt to reduce the sentences of every mother who commits prenatal murder: It exempts her altogether.

Instead of installing justices and state attorneys who work around the law to excuse prenatal murderers on a case-by-case basis, pro-life leaders work to elect politicians who will write exemption laws for this class of women and appoint Supreme Court justices who promise to uphold the pro-life tenet of immunity.

Currently, all 50 states grant pregnant mothers immunity from prosecution for their own role in prenatal homicide. This is significant considering 39 states treat prenatal children as homicide victims if someone other than the mother kills them. (8)

In these states, individuals who knowingly harm a prenatal child can face charges ranging from assault and manslaughter to motor vehicle homicide, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder. The remaining 11 states allow similar charges but only after the prenatal child reaches a certain stage of development.

The following examples showcase this special legal immunity written into state homicide statutes for pregnant women:

Although the Pro-Life Movement affirms that prenatal children are human and deserve protection from violent crimes, it still safeguards pregnant women from the same prosecution that any other person would face for comparable wrongdoing against these children.

At the same time, the Pro-Life Movement has worked to allow fathers and other individuals to be charged under homicide law for the murders of prenatal children. Ironically, even the Pro-Life Movement affirms a form of women’s bodily autonomy, because if someone kills her prenatal child against her wishes, that person can expect criminal prosecution. If, however, the pregnant mother does the killing of the child in her own body or desires another to do it on her behalf, she is protected.

This is far more radical than what most CRT leaders promote. In fact, there is no known effort by neo-Marxists to legislatively exempt any group they deem “victims” from the same punishments others must face. Generally, neo-Marxists promote prison reform, restorative justice, and addressing what they consider disproportionate punishment, but they do not advocate blanket legal immunity for their victim groups.

Murder Immunity: A Defining Feature of the Pro-Life Movement

Since the founding of the Pro-Life Movement, pro-life leaders have insisted that pregnant women are victims of the abortion industry and society and must be entirely shielded from homicide law when it comes to crimes against their own prenatal children.

I call such fanatical ideology “pro-life Marxism.” Pro-life Marxism is the legal innovation of the Pro-Life Movement that protects pregnant women from prenatal homicide charges in a way that seemingly outpaces even the most activist neo-Marxists, and frames pregnant women as a vulnerable class in society. This version of neo-Marxism is evident in the clarion call of pro-life leaders:

Quote source: Willke, Dr. and Mrs. J.C., “Abortion Questions & Answers,” pg. 16.

Quote source: Jenny Jarvie, “The Woman Who Brought Down Roe vs. Wade: Marjorie Dannenfelser,” Los Angeles Times, June 24, 2022

Quote source: Melinda Henneberger, “How to Talk Like a Pro-Lifer,” Roll Call, March 30, 2016.

Quote source: Ashley Sadler, “Democrat Congressman Slammed for Deceptive Ad Depicting Mother Being Arrested for Abortion,” LifeSiteNews, October 18, 2022.

Quote source: Clarke D. Forsythe, “The Wrong Tool for Protecting Women from Abortion,” National Review, September 22, 2025.

For decades, the Pro-Life Movement has insisted that only abortionists should be held criminally liable for prenatal homicide, since they are the ones committing the act. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, explains:

“The pro-life position is that you protect both the baby and her mother from a procedure that is destructive of both … The punishment should be for the abortionist, not the baby’s mom.” (9)

Likewise, National Right to Life, the flagship for the Pro-Life Movement declared:

“The National Right to Life Committee, the federation of 50 state affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters today restated its position that, should abortion once again become illegal in the United States, penalties should be imposed against the abortionist himself, not the woman who has the abortion.” (10)

An interesting phenomenon has happened under these pro-life immunity laws: Women have internalized the implicit messaging that abortion is not that serious of a thing, as evidenced by one woman comforting another on a post-abortive forum with, “it’s not a sin. It’s not against the law.” (11) But more importantly, women are now the primary abortionist. Thanks to soft abortion laws, the comfort of being an abortionist has extended from licensed medical professionals to the average woman.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in 2017; (12) 53% in 2020; 54% in 2022; and 63% in 2023. (13) In an era of telehealth medicine and online community, the Guttmacher Institute projects that medication abortions will continue to rise. Evidence shows that chemical abortions are increasingly becoming the predominant method of prenatal murder, with no end in sight.

Supporting this predication are online abortion forums that are filled with thousands of women sharing their prenatal murder experience in the privacy of their homes. Choice 42 recently produced an animated short on this very thing which details the gruesome DIY abortion of twins, with the mother boasting to the abortion pill provider that it was successful and she was thankful her children were now dead.

The New York Times covered the story of a Texas woman racing to obtain abortion pills before her second trimester. At about eight weeks pregnant—just past the cutoff of the then-Texas Heartbeat Bill—she realized she could no longer see an abortion clinician in Texas. The young woman, who wished to remain anonymous, recalled, “I was about to turn twenty-seven, and now I had to choose: have a baby or somehow find a way to be my own abortion doctor.” (14)

Despite mothers being the primary abortionists today, the Pro-Life Movement holds fast to its original ideology of maternal immunity, thereby violating its own tenet to go after those who personally commit abortions:

“Few things cause more alarm than the idea of prosecuting women for abortion, which the pro-life movement as a whole has rejected repeatedly … Pro-life feminists have always advocated prevention and accountability from men and society … As leaders of two national organizations operating in all 50 states and working to pass life-affirming legislation, we state again emphatically that we oppose prosecuting women for abortion.” —Marjorie Dannenfelser, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President & Kristan Hawkins, Students for Life President (15)

Even as the Pro-Life Movement rightly declares that prenatal humans have the right to life, it blurs true justice similarly to Critical Race theorists by shielding women from cases that would normally be treated as homicide. In practice, the Pro-Life Movement violates the biblical commands to do only justice (Micah 6:8; Deut. 16:19; Prov. 21:3; Zech. 7:9-10), to not side with the wicked in judgment (Ex. 23:2), to not write wicked laws (Isa. 10:1-2), to not show partiality (Lev. 19:15; Deut. 1:17; Prov. 24:23; James 2:1-4) and to not acquit the guilty (Ex. 23:7; Prov. 17:15; Deut. 25:1; Num. 35:31).

The Perils of a Pro-Life Marxist Precedent

Both Critical Race proponents and the Pro-Life Movement have their own perceived victim groups and teach that individuals within these classes who commit crime do so because they’re pressured by systemic disadvantages or abusive relationships, and that they would not have made such decisions if their circumstances had been different. Both these flavors of Marxism have seeded damaging effects in the culture.

In particular, neo-Marxism and pro-life Marxism have trained the culture to look the other way when certain classes of people commit crimes. As a result, people’s consciences have become seared and their hearts hardened against sin, leading to a compounding of crime and moral decay within the nation.

Today, the majority of Americans—even pro-life individuals—support abortion for certain circumstances. The entire culture has liberalized on the issue of prenatal murder because those who claim to oppose abortion have merely regulated it like other forms of healthcare and not the murder that it is, and the culture has grown apathetic.

“Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.” —Ecclesiastes 8:11

Being slow to establish justice has led to increased wickedness in our nation. When Marxists feel minorities are wronged by power structures, they set fire to cities, bash in windows, post cashless bail, excuse the guilty party, blame someone else for the wrong, and establish sanctuary cities.

Likewise, when the Pro-Life Movement believes pregnant women are wronged, it follows a similar pattern: it claims men and society are responsible for the abortion problem, emphasizes the woman’s victimhood, redirects blame toward the abortion industry, argues prosecution will make things worse for abortive women, shields her from legal accountability, and constructs legal frameworks that treat a pregnant woman as someone who must be protected rather than prosecuted.

Quote source: “Archbishop Naumann: Women Are the Second Victims of Abortion,” Vatican News, July 6, 2020.

For over half a century, pro-life Marxism has legally defined the pregnant woman as a protected victim class. One has to wonder when the race hustlers will figure this out for their own cause. This is something few conservatives seem to have pondered as they promote such extremist immunity laws.

How would conservatives react if Iryna Zartutska’s murderer Decarlos Dejaun Brown Jr. wasn’t arrested for her death because the law said homicide statutes cannot apply to black men?

What would be the response if transgender Audrey Hale had survived after murdering three children and three staff members in Covenant School in Tennessee but was protected by law to commit such violence because she belonged to a minority group?

How much conservative outrage would there be if Karmelo Anthony had been acquitted by the grand jury in the murder of Austin Metcalf simply because he had enough melanin to be legally exempt from charges for killing someone with less melanin?

The truth is that if neo-Marxists learn from the pro-life playbook, this could one day become a reality. The precedent is already established. The Pro-Life Movement has left a legal template for securing immunity privileges for a class of people while leaving others still accountable before the law.

Activist CRT legal scholar Angela Davis writes:

“Not all so-called progressive prosecutors are doing enough to dismantle mass incarceration … Prosecutors are the most powerful officials in the criminal legal system. They control the system through their charging and plea-bargaining decisions and have almost limitless discretion when making these decisions. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed and sanctioned that power and discretion. A repeal of mandatory minimums and other harsh sentencing laws, partnered with more humane sentencing decisions by judges, would eventually help to reduce the prison and jail population. However, significant progress toward ending mass incarceration will not happen without a fundamental shift in the prosecution function. The progressive prosecution movement offers the best prospect for that necessary transformation.” (16)

While Davis is correct that incarceration for certain crimes isn’t helpful (and Christians could argue isn’t biblical), the alternatives she and other CRT activists propose are not any better. Their ultimate goal is simply to reduce the prison population. To achieve this, they often suggest community service, therapy, or mediated dialogue between the victim and the offender—all of which do little to deliver justice for more violent crimes like assault, rape, and homicide. Because neo-Marxism values community accountability over prison, maybe its proponents will just start drafting their own immunity laws.

In addition to tutoring Marxists on how to be better Marxists, this pro-life mindset can dangerously lead conservatives toward adopting more and more neo-Marxist principles as well. Viewing women who commit prenatal murder as victims instead of perpetrators is a gateway to viewing other violent crimes similarly. Immunity for murder is a radical position. How much easier will it be for pro-life conservatives to eventually join neo-Marxists on issues like decriminalizing lewd behavior, pedophilia, sex work, petty theft, illegal immigration and civil disobedience to name a few things? The truth is, once someone is content to give a murderer a free pass, dismissing other crimes becomes far easier.

Pro-life maternal immunity laws are the Right’s catch-and-release program. They mark the start of a slippery slope for conservatives, leading toward increasingly progressive attitudes toward criminal and immoral behavior.

The Bible Sets the Standard, Not Marxists

It’s bad enough when someone assigned to a victim group escapes justice by the aid of activist judges and prosecutors. It would be much worse if members of these “vulnerable” groups were legally protected and couldn’t even be arrested for their violent crimes. And yet this is the horrific reality pro-life immunity laws have created.

Quote source: Natalie Riel and Sara E. Nolan, J.D., “Why Women Are Not, and Should Not Be, Prosecuted for Abortion,” Americans United for Life, February 15, 2023.

There are fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and grandparents who deeply grieve the loss of their prenatal family members and yet cannot do anything legally to protect them. They cannot even seek justice on their behalf.

Christians can agree with neo-Marxists that the current prison system is not a just treatment for non-violent crimes. Biblically, restitution is required to be paid by an offender to the person he or she wronged. Their debt is to an individual, not society at large. The biblical book of Exodus details the implementation of restitution for theft, property damage, loss of property and fraud. But where Christians should sharply diverge from Marxist thinking is when it comes to partiality and violent crimes such as murder.

The Bible’s treatment of murder, in particular, is not ambiguous. It’s clear and consistent. After the flood account, God reiterates the universal Creation Mandate first stated in Genesis 1 but adds to it a few things. The most important thing added is the punishment for willfully destroying the life of another image bearer of God:

“And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” —Genesis 9:5-6

Countless other biblical texts uphold the command that murder requires the death penalty and that God expects swift justice for such a crime (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17-21; Numbers 35:30-31; Deuteronomy 19:11-13; Psalm 94:21; Proverbs 6:16-17, etc.).

Christians cannot agree with the practice of any form of Marxism that shows partiality toward an offender or minimizes homicide. It is no light thing to look the other way when someone premeditates the murder of another human being.

The second-victim narrative in the Pro-Life Movement is not just bad theology; it’s Marxism in practice. Pro-life Marxism has ensured that a class of murderers will go free. The most staunch, anti-punishment race hustler should be jealous—because no other political movement has secured such sweeping and radical immunity for its preferred offenders.

—Kayla Suderman, author of Post-Roe Reformation

NOTE: This is the first installment in a series of articles exploring the concept of pro-life Marxism. Future posts will examine in greater detail how the pro-life worldview promotes Marxist thinking in its approach to pregnant women and society, actively embraces pro-life Marxists leaders in the 21st-Century, and how Marxist practices became foundational to the Pro-Life Movement in the first place, as previously discussed here.

SOURCES

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Tags

Follow Me