The Bible Does Not Support Abortion: Guest Column

In February, James Talarico, a U.S. Senate candidate from Texas, claimed that the biblical story of the Annunciation from the Gospel of Luke supports his proabortion position. On the Joe Rogan podcast, Talarico asserted that because the angel sought Mary’s consent, a woman has a right to choose her own procreative destiny. 

The most obvious flaw with this assertion is that the angel did not ask Mary’s permission. In fact, the angel of the Lord said, “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” Mary submits to accept God’s will, but the only person with questions in that conversation was Mary. The angel declared what was going to happen. Mary was humbled and accepted it as the calling on her life. 

The deeper flaw in this and most other proabortion arguments is the assumption that whatever is in the womb is not a human life worth protecting. The inherent value of life in the womb—as evident throughout Scripture from Psalms to Jeremiah to Isaiah to Job to Joshua–is something Christians have insisted upon since the earliest days of the Church. To deny that theological reality, as Talarico did, is also to commit a Christological heresy. In the same chapter in Luke, Elizabeth declared that her baby, who was John the Baptist, leapt in her womb when he heard the voice of “the mother of her Lord.” In other words, both John in the womb and Elizabeth out of the womb sensed that the Lord was present though still in His mother’s womb.  

Other passages of Scripture that are wrongly used to argue for abortion include Exodus 21. In the middle of several laws covering violent crimes, the text reads, “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined.” If there is harm, the passage continues, then there is a harsh penalty.  

Pro-abortionists argue in this passage that only harm to the woman matters and the child is not as valuable. However, the more reasonable interpretation is if,because of a fight, a woman goes into premature labor and the baby lives, then “there is no harm.” Thus, there’s a financial penalty. If the baby dies or is injured—“if there is harm”—the attacker should face punishment up to death. 

Another example is Numbers 5. In a list of rules, Moses provided a test for a husband’s claim of his wife’s unfaithfulness. The accused woman was to take an oath of innocence and drink a mix of water and dirt from the tabernacle floor. If innocent, nothing would happen. If guilty, then, among other things, she would become infertile. 

It is a strange passage, and theologians differ on how best to understand it. Some suggest it is a psycho-somatic test to root out a woman’s guilty conscience. Others think it a sneaky way for a defenseless woman to escape her husband’s jealousy. Pro-abortionists assert that it is an example of an abortion ordered by God’s law. For that to be the case, however, the punishment would involve the death of a baby. However, the curse reference here is not the ending of a current pregnancy but the prevention of future ones. 

These etymological gymnastics attempts aside, the Bible is consistent. Human life is sacred. In the womb, babies are valued, purposed, and yes, human. Throughout the biblical text, including war and sacrifice as in Leviticus2 Kings, or Jeremiah, the worst crimes and horrors someone can commit are to murder children. In no way does God’s Word dismiss, much less justify, the slaughter of the innocent. 

Contrary to Talarico’s claim, the message of Annunciation Day is not that life and death is left to our choice. Rather, it is in God’s hands. Even in the womb of His mother, Jesus Christ was the Messiah, fully God and fully human. Even in the womb of our mothers, we are fully human, in God’s image.

Copyright 2026 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.

Abortion Drugs Are Not About Women’s Health

Our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom recently released a video highlighting how abortion drugs are not about women’s health.

Right now, Alliance Defending Freedom is working in court to protect women and unborn children from mail-order abortion drugs.

In June of 2022 the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. That good decision let several states — including Arkansas — enforce pro-life laws generally prohibiting abortion.

But in January of 2023 the Biden Administration’s FDA permanently removed the in-person dispensing requirement for RU-486 and made abortion drugs available by mail.

In October of last year, ADF attorneys and the State of Louisiana sued the FDA for letting abortionists mail these drugs across state lines.

In February, Family Council joined 43 other pro-life leaders in an amicus brief supporting ADF’s lawsuit against the FDA.

The amicus brief argues that states have the authority to restrict or prohibit abortion, and that the FDA’s abortion drug rules undermine states’ authority to enforce their own pro-life laws.

New evidence shows that abortion drugs are much more dangerous than the FDA previously thought.

A recent study by the experts at the Ethics and Public Policy Center found abortion drugs are at least 22 times more dangerous than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling indicates. Nearly 11% of women experience serious health complications from abortion pills — including sepsis, infection, and life-threatening hemorrhage.

These drugs should not be available at all — much less through the mail. We appreciate ADF’s commitment to defending life in federal court.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

Group Tells Pulaski County Court that the Right to Life Includes a Right to Abortion

An organization suing to overturn Arkansas’ pro-life laws in Pulaski County Circuit Court claims that prohibiting abortion violates the right to life.

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and since then Arkansas law has prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother. Last year the state legislature took excellent steps to strengthen and clarify Arkansas’ pro-life laws.

But in January, attorneys with a pro-abortion group filed a lawsuit in Pulaski County to strike down those good laws. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin told media outlets at the time that the lawsuit on its face appears to have little legal merit. Family Council agrees with the attorney general.

The attorney general’s office has asked the court to dismiss the case. In response, attorneys representing the pro-abortion group filed a brief on Monday making the bizarre argument that Arkansas’ pro-life laws violate the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed under the Arkansas Constitution.

The brief says:

“Arkansans do not lose their fundamental constitutional rights to life, liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness simply because they are pregnant. . . .

“As particularly relevant for Patient Plaintiffs, protection of life and liberty ‘encompasses many personal freedoms including the right to enjoy domestic relations and the privileges of family and home.’

“Other state Supreme Courts interpreting similar inherent and inalienable language have concluded it protects pregnant people and that abortion bans violate those fundamental rights.”

There really are no words to describe the irony of arguing in court that the constitutional right to life means abortionists are free to kill unborn children.

It reminds me of something President Ronald Reagan wrote in 1985: “No longer can advocates of abortion deny reality: Abortion is not merely a matter between a woman and her doctor. For when they say that, surely they are forgetting the unborn child whose very life hangs in the balance.”

Arkansas has been named the most pro-life state in America for the past six years, and lawmakers have enacted excellent legislation protecting women and unborn children from abortion and supporting women with unplanned pregnancies.

Public opinion polling has shown time and again that most Arkansans are pro-life and oppose abortion on demand.

Arkansas’ pro-life laws reflect Arkansans’ pro-life views. These laws protect everyone’s right to life — including the unborn child’s.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states like Arkansas are free to enact laws restricting or prohibiting abortion. We are confident our courts ultimately will uphold Arkansas’ pro-life laws against this legal challenge.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.