The Abolitionist Case: Why Prosecuting All Participants in Abortion Is Justified

Abortion is not a political inconvenience or a private choice—it is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. For the Abolitionist pro-life movement, this truth is non-negotiable: every abortion ends a life that deserves legal protection. While mainstream pro-life strategies often focus on limiting providers or granting immunity to mothers, Abolitionists insist that true justice requires accountability for all participants. The movement is grounded in the conviction that the law must treat the unborn as persons, not as a class of human beings who can be sacrificed for convenience or political expediency. By confronting abortion as what it is—murder—Abolitionists aim to restore both legal clarity and moral integrity to society’s treatment of its most vulnerable members.

Countering Christopher Maska: Where Pragmatism Crosses into Compromise

Christopher Maska, J.D., is a highly respected figure in the mainstream pro-life movement. Serving as General Counsel for Texas Alliance for Life, Maska has decades of experience advocating for pro-life policies, attending the first-ever March for Life, and earning recognition for his legal and moral commitment to defending the unborn. His expertise and dedication are undeniable.

However, when it comes to the question of prosecuting mothers who participate in abortion, Maska’s arguments reveal a surprising alignment with positions that, in practice, dilute the protection of the unborn. By advocating blanket immunity for mothers, he prioritizes a pragmatic strategy over a principled defense of life. In effect, this creates a Venn diagram where his pro-life intentions overlap with pro-abortion outcomes: by shielding mothers from legal consequences, many abortions proceed without accountability, leaving the unborn unprotected under the law.

From an Abolitionist perspective, Maska’s position—though well-intentioned—shares a critical similarity with pro-abortion policies: both limit legal consequences for abortion participants. While Maska frames his approach as a rational, life-saving strategy, it inadvertently normalizes abortion by creating legal exemptions that contradict the principle that abortion is homicide. The Abolitionist critique is simple: justice cannot be selective. The unborn deserve equal protection under the law, and accountability for all participants—mother, provider, and facilitator alike—is the only legal and moral approach that fully honors their right to life.

By presenting mothers as immune, Maska’s framework shifts the law from an absolute defense of life to a conditional, convenience-based policy. Abolitionists argue that true pro-life advocacy must not only reduce abortion numbers but also uphold the principle that every human life, born or unborn, is equal and deserving of protection. Any strategy that excuses or immunizes participants risks undermining this fundamental truth and, ultimately, the integrity of the pro-life movement itself. Christopher Maska argues against prosecuting mothers for abortion, claiming it is impractical, unnecessary, and potentially politically damaging. From the Abolitionist perspective, however, these objections misunderstand both the moral and legal foundation of pro-life principles.

1. Abortion Is Homicide: Principle Comes First
Abolitionists hold that abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. This is not a matter of pragmatism—it is a matter of justice. When a law permits an act that ends a human life, it is inconsistent to selectively shield participants from accountability. Granting blanket immunity to mothers may seem expedient, but it treats the act of taking a life as less serious if committed by the woman herself. Justice and the protection of life demand that all who participate—whether mother, doctor, or facilitator—face legal consequences.

2. Accountability Strengthens Protection for the Unborn
Maska claims that prosecuting mothers risks reducing cooperation in prosecuting abortion providers. Abolitionists respond that strategic legal frameworks can balance justice and enforcement. Conditional cooperation, plea agreements, or graduated accountability can still protect mothers from excessive punishment while signaling that abortion is never morally neutral. Allowing mothers to escape consequences entirely undermines the moral seriousness of the law and erodes societal respect for life.

3. Constitutional Grounds Support Equal Protection
Abortion violates the right to life of the unborn, who are human beings from conception. Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, Abolitionists argue that laws protecting life should apply to all humans equally, without arbitrary exemptions. The fact that federal courts have historically declined to recognize unborn children as “persons” is a legal artifact, not a moral or constitutional truth. Abolitionists see the law as a living instrument that must be interpreted to protect life consistently, rather than bending principles to fit political convenience.

4. Legal Rationales for Exempting Mothers Are Overly Narrow
Maska invokes the rational basis test to justify immunity, claiming it reduces abortions. Abolitionists recognize that policy considerations are relevant, but they are subordinate to justice. Laws that hold mothers accountable are rationally consistent: they communicate that abortion is homicide, discourage its practice, and affirm society’s commitment to human life. Alternative legal mechanisms—like mitigating circumstances or tiered penalties—can address concerns without sacrificing principle.

5. Social and Moral Clarity Matters More Than Backlash
Maska warns that prosecuting mothers could provoke public backlash. Abolitionists counter that justice cannot be contingent on popularity. Many morally urgent laws—from anti-slavery statutes to civil rights protections—faced initial opposition. The role of law is not to appease opinion polls but to protect the innocent. Upholding accountability for all participants reinforces society’s commitment to life and provides a clear moral compass for future generations.

6. The Practical Case: Abortion Abolition Requires Comprehensive Enforcement
From a strategic perspective, Abolitionists argue that immunity for mothers creates a loophole that undermines the deterrent effect of the law. If abortion is legally considered murder, then partial immunity erodes both deterrence and moral clarity. Treating all participants equally strengthens the legal and social norm that ending an innocent life is unacceptable. It also prevents the message that certain human lives can be sacrificed without consequence.

Pro-lifers may fight clinics and providers, but they leave the largest class of perpetrators (mothers) untouched, meaning the legal system still allows widespread abortion.

1. Definitional point

• Pro-life as commonly practiced today often means supporting laws that restrict abortion but still exempt mothers from criminal liability.

• Abortion is still legally available through loopholes, civil immunity, or prosecutorial discretion. The mother, who actively participates in ending a human life, is largely shielded from consequences.

From an Abolitionist standpoint, this is equivalent to saying: “You’re pro-life, as long as women can kill their own unborn children without fear of punishment.” That is functionally pro-abortion, because the core actor in the act of abortion (the mother) remains legally immune.

2. The Venn Diagram analogy

• Imagine a circle of all abortions committed.

• Pro-life legal enforcement only targets a small fraction (providers, clinics). Mothers are outside the circle of liability.

• Abortionists (providers + pill traffickers) overlap with the pro-life enforcement circle — they are targeted, but not the largest participants in abortion numbers.

• Mothers constitute the majority of participants but are outside the legal enforcement circle.

Thus, the area that pro-life law actually touches is mostly the providers. From an Abolitionist perspective, the majority of abortion “killers” are effectively legal. Therefore, pro-lifers are legally and practically supporting continued abortion by not holding mothers accountable.

Countering Maska’s Characterization of the Abolitionists and Texas Laws

Christopher Maska portrays the Abolitionists as “latecomers” to the pro-life movement and paints their position—that mothers who undergo abortion should face legal accountability—as extreme or even exclusionary. From an Abolitionist perspective, these claims misunderstand the movement’s moral and legal rationale.

1. Abolitionists Are Not “Latecomers,” They Are Principled Continuers
Maska emphasizes that Abolish Abortion Texas was founded in 2016 and frames them as a regional, marginal group. Abolitionists reject this characterization. The movement is not defined solely by longevity or size but by its adherence to a principled defense of life. While traditional pro-life groups often compromise on accountability for mothers, Abolitionists insist that abortion is homicide and should be treated as such in law. Their timeline does not diminish the legitimacy of their position; rather, it reflects a modern resurgence of a principle long recognized but diluted by strategic concessions.

2. Protecting the Unborn Means Upholding Equal Accountability
Maska suggests that the Abolitionists’ insistence on prosecuting mothers is morally rigid and strategically impractical. Abolitionists counter that moral clarity is essential: if abortion is murder, then everyone complicit—including mothers—must face legal accountability. Shielding mothers under civil or criminal immunity sends a contradictory message: that the law condones the destruction of innocent life under certain circumstances. True protection of the unborn requires uniform enforcement of justice.

3. Misrepresenting Abolitionists’ Moral Reasoning
Maska claims that Abolitionists attack straw men and dismiss critics as suffering from “born privilege.” While their rhetoric can be provocative, the underlying principle is sound: society routinely grants full legal protection to humans based on status (e.g., age, health, dependency) without exempting participants from accountability. The Abolitionist critique challenges the moral inconsistency of exempting mothers while punishing providers. It is not personal; it is a defense of universal human dignity.

4. Texas Laws: Pragmatism vs. Principle
Maska highlights the Texas Heartbeat Act and the Human Life Protection Act as examples of mainstream pro-life legislative success, noting their exclusion of mothers from liability. Abolitionists agree that these laws have reduced abortions, but they point out the limitations:

• Civil enforcement only: By making enforcement civil and private, the Heartbeat Act avoids confronting abortion as a criminal act. Abortion remains legally tolerated in practice if mothers face no accountability.

• Exempting mothers: Immunity for mothers preserves a legal loophole that undermines the moral principle that abortion is homicide. While pragmatic, it signals that certain participants can act with impunity, weakening the deterrent effect.

• Partial reduction, not abolition: The Heartbeat Act reduced monthly abortions from 4,456 to 2,357. Abolitionists argue that moral and legal clarity could accelerate the elimination of abortion entirely. Laws that excuse mothers limit the full protection of the unborn and tacitly allow abortions to continue.

5. The Venn Diagram Problem: Where Pragmatism Meets Compromise
By prioritizing political expediency over absolute justice, laws like the Heartbeat Act create overlap with pro-abortion outcomes. Mothers remain unpunished, abortion providers face only partial deterrence, and the law communicates that ending an innocent life is acceptable under certain circumstances. From the Abolitionist perspective, this is a moral compromise: it achieves some reduction in abortions but does not fully defend life as a legal or ethical principle.

6. Abolitionists’ Approach: Principle First, Strategy Second
Abolitionists maintain that abortion must be treated as murder under the law, without exemptions that compromise justice. While other pro-life strategies emphasize pragmatism and political feasibility, Abolitionists insist that principle cannot be sacrificed for expediency. Protecting the unborn fully requires acknowledging the full moral and legal consequences of abortion, ensuring that every participant—mother, provider, or facilitator—is accountable.

Countering Maska’s Critique of the Human Life Protection Act and the Heartbeat Act

Christopher Maska portrays the Texas Human Life Protection Act and the Heartbeat Act as legislative successes, noting their restrictions on abortion, high criminal penalties for providers, and the exemption of mothers from prosecution. While these laws have reduced abortion rates in Texas, from the Abolitionist perspective, they fall short of fully protecting unborn life. The key point of critique is not the reduction in abortions but the principled inconsistency inherent in exempting mothers from legal accountability.

1. Abolitionists’ Core Principle: Equal Protection for the Unborn
The Human Life Protection Act treats abortion as a first-degree felony, punishable by up to 99 years in prison, yet explicitly exempts mothers from prosecution. From an Abolitionist viewpoint, this creates a fundamental legal and moral inconsistency. If the unborn child is recognized as a human person entitled to constitutional protection, then all participants in the act of abortion—including the mother—must face accountability. Exempting the mother undercuts the very principle of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment: the law protects some humans (the born) from homicide while granting impunity to those who actively participate in the killing of preborn humans.

2. Legal and Historical Basis Supports Abolitionists’ Position
Maska’s defense relies on pragmatism and political feasibility, but historical precedent shows that abortion laws originally did not excuse participants. Under common law and early statutes, abortion was considered a crime regardless of who performed it. Conviction required proof of pregnancy, fetal life, and death caused by the abortion, but the principle was universal: abortion is homicide. Exempting mothers is a modern innovation, driven by strategic considerations rather than justice or consistency. Abolitionists argue that reverting to comprehensive legal accountability restores the original moral and legal intent: all who participate in ending a human life are culpable.

3. Moral Clarity Requires Accountability for All Participants
The Abolitionist critique of the Heartbeat Act and HLPA is not simply a matter of legal theory—it is a moral argument. By allowing mothers to escape consequences, these laws send a message that abortion is sometimes acceptable, or that some human lives can be taken without full legal consequence. True abolition of abortion requires that society recognize the act as homicide and that accountability is universal. Without this, the law tacitly condones partial protection for preborn life and diminishes society’s respect for life as a universal principle.

4. Roe v. Wade’s Misrepresentation Supports Abolitionist Concerns
Maska cites Roe v. Wade as a point of historical and legal context. Abolitionists argue that the Roe majority misrepresented both history and logic regarding maternal immunity. If the fetus is a person, why should the mother not be a principal or accomplice? The exemption of mothers contradicts equal protection and perpetuates a legal double standard. Abolitionists do not merely seek stricter laws—they insist on principled consistency: if abortion is murder, all responsible parties must be subject to criminal law.

5. Pragmatic Reduction Is Not Enough
It is true that Texas’ HLPA and Heartbeat Act have significantly reduced abortions, with elective procedures near zero and only a few life-and-health exceptions reported. Abolitionists acknowledge this as progress but argue that partial enforcement leaves a loophole. By not holding mothers accountable, the law implicitly treats abortion as morally permissible under certain circumstances. From an Abolitionist perspective, protecting life fully requires both enforcement against providers and recognition of maternal accountability, ensuring that the law consistently affirms the value of every human life from conception.

6. Principle Over Strategy
Maska frames the exemption of mothers as a strategic necessity to reduce abortion. Abolitionists reject this compromise. True pro-life advocacy prioritizes justice and the intrinsic value of life over political expediency. Pragmatic loopholes may temporarily reduce numbers, but they fail to restore moral and legal clarity: abortion remains partially tolerated, and society is taught that some human lives are legally disposable. The Abolitionist position demands absolute protection for the unborn and consistent accountability for all participants, as a matter of both law and conscience.

Countering Maska’s Practical Arguments on Maternal Immunity and Abortion as Homicide

Christopher Maska argues that mothers have historically been granted immunity from prosecution for abortion, citing practical, historical, and legal reasons. While these points are often framed as pragmatic, the Abolitionist perspective finds several critical flaws in this reasoning.

1. Historical Immunity Does Not Justify Modern Exemptions
Maska notes that, prior to Roe v. Wade, mothers were rarely prosecuted, often due to “practical considerations” such as the need for testimony against abortionists. Abolitionists argue that historical pragmatism should not dictate modern justice. Past decisions were shaped by outdated medical conditions, societal paternalism, and legal limitations on women’s rights. These were compromises of convenience, not principled stances on the value of unborn life. The fact that immunity existed historically does not prove it is morally or legally correct today. Modern medicine and investigative methods remove many of the practical barriers that once justified exemptions. If abortion is murder, accountability must be applied consistently, not selectively.

2. Abortion Is Not a Special Case That Excuses Impunity
Maska portrays abortion as a “unique homicide,” difficult to detect and prosecute compared to postnatal murder. While it is true that abortion may be harder to detect, this does not change its moral status as the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Difficulty of detection or investigation is a challenge for law enforcement, not a justification for exempting participants. By this logic, other difficult crimes—such as white-collar fraud or complex conspiracies—do not escape prosecution simply because they are hard to prove. Abolitionists assert that homicide is homicide, regardless of practical obstacles.

3. Prioritizing the Abortionist Over the Mother Is a Strategic Choice, Not a Moral Requirement
Maska emphasizes that abortionists have the potential to perform multiple abortions and thus should be the focus of prosecution. Abolitionists do not dispute that abortion providers are highly culpable, but they reject the notion that mothers should be automatically excused. Both mother and provider are morally and legally responsible for ending a human life. The idea that prosecuting mothers would prevent convictions of abortionists is speculative and can be addressed through legal mechanisms such as conditional immunity or graduated penalties, without creating blanket exemptions that undermine justice.

4. Comparing Abortion to Adult Homicide Is Not a Fair Distinction
Maska argues that abortion is fundamentally different from killing a grown adult, citing concealability, detection difficulties, and the mother’s knowledge of the pregnancy. Abolitionists respond that these practical differences do not affect the moral equivalence: intentionally killing an innocent human, born or preborn, is homicide. The concealability or secrecy of a crime does not alter its culpability under the law. If anything, the reliance on secrecy reinforces the need for consistent legal accountability to deter and expose these crimes.

5. Practical Concerns Cannot Override Principle
Maska’s repeated appeal to practicality—difficulty of detection, reliance on maternal testimony, historical precedent—privileges expediency over principle. Abolitionists argue that the law’s primary purpose is to protect human life. If reducing abortions is the only goal, immunity might seem appealing, but protecting life fully requires moral and legal consistency. Partial exemptions erode the societal recognition that abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent person.

6. Modern Law and Investigative Capability Remove Historical Barriers
Maska points to historical difficulties in prosecuting mothers due to medical dangers and evidentiary challenges. Today, modern medical records, reporting requirements, and forensic investigation remove many of these barriers. The legal system can now prosecute abortion comprehensively, holding all participants accountable while still providing reasonable mitigating measures for mothers under specific circumstances. Historical immunity is no longer necessary as a pragmatic measure.

Abolitionist Rebuttal — point‑by‑point

1) Detectability and secrecy do not change moral status

Maska argues abortion is easy to conceal—so prosecutions are hard—and therefore mothers should be immune to secure convictions. That is a pragmatic observation, not a moral justification.

• The question at stake is whether intentionally killing an unborn human is homicide. Secrecy, concealability, or investigative difficulty do not alter that moral fact. Law does not grant impunity to a category of killers because some homicides are harder to detect than others.
• The proper legal response to secrecy is not blanket immunity; it is improving investigative powers, reporting requirements, and forensic capability. Difficulty of detection is an enforcement problem, not a reason to exempt a class of perpetrators from criminal responsibility.

2) “Difference in potential for killing” is a strategic preference — not a moral imperative

Yes, an abortion provider can kill many over time; a mother’s biological capacity is limited. But moral and legal responsibility does not depend solely on how many lives one can take.

• The fact that someone can be a repeat offender makes them a priority enforcement target — Abolitionists agree. But prioritizing enforcement against providers does not require wiping mothers’ culpability off the books. One can and should prosecute providers vigorously while still retaining laws that make mothers responsible.
• Removing mothers from legal accountability sends a social and legal signal that undermines deterrence and moral clarity. If society treats abortion as homicide only when committed by certain actors, it teaches that the value of preborn life is conditional.

3) Immunity as a tool — useful in some cases, dangerous as a rule

Maska argues blanket immunity makes it easier to convict providers. That is true in a narrow tactical sense — but it creates perverse incentives and violates equal protection principles.

• Targeted, case‑by‑case immunity is a legitimate prosecutorial tool. Abolitionists can accept and endorse using prosecutorial immunity as a narrowly tailored tool to obtain evidence against high‑volume providers. But blanket, statutory immunity for all mothers is different: it converts a tactical tool into a legal shield.
• Blanket immunity sacrifices principle for expedience. It institutionalizes the idea that some participants in homicide are above the law. That is precisely what Abolitionists reject.
• Better alternative: codify conditional immunity or statutory mechanisms that allow swift, predictable cooperation agreements (no-plea limbo, rapid review, witness protection, streamlined procedure) so mothers can cooperate without guaranteed blanket impunity, preserving both enforcement effectiveness and legal accountability.

4) The accomplice‑corroboration problem can be solved without wiping out maternal liability

Maska warns accomplice testimony doctrines will make prosecutions impossible if mothers are treated as accomplices. This overstates the legal obstacle.

• Corroboration doctrines exist to protect against unreliable accomplice testimony. But legislatures can craft evidentiary rules tailored to the abortion context: require corroboration in certain situations; specify types of admissible corroboration; or allow corroborated accomplice testimony where physical or digital evidence exists.
• Modern evidence sources — medical records, pharmacy orders, shipping logs, digital communications, payment records, GPS/toll/ATM data, clinic logs, forensic pathology in cases of fetal death — provide corroboration far beyond the nineteenth‑century record. The law can require corroboration but also permit modern corroborative proof.
• Judicial safeguards against false testimony are preferable to blanket statutory immunity that prevents any accountability.

5) Medical abortions and the “pill underground” are enforcement challenges, not reasons for impunity

RU‑486 and mail‑order pills complicate enforcement, but they do not change the legal or moral claim that abortion kills an innocent human being.

• Pills leave records: online orders, shipping manifests, payment trails, provider communications, telemedicine records, courier routes, text/email communications, social‑media coordination. Those traces are exploitable by investigators.
• Smuggling networks — like any illicit supply chain — create choke points (manufacturers, wholesalers, cross‑border couriers, distributors). Law enforcement can and does interdict supply lines when statutes and resources are applied. The existence of a smuggling trade is an argument for more aggressive interdiction, not for granting immunity to perpetrators.
• Abolitionists can and should push for laws that criminalize and prioritize interdiction of supply chains (manufacturers/distributors) while also preserving culpability for recipients who knowingly procure and consume contraband medical abortifacients.

6) The “leverage” argument cuts both ways

Maska claims if mothers and abortionists are both criminally liable, abortionists can intimidate mothers into silence. Abolitionists have two replies:

• First, that kind of intimidation is precisely a reason to have prosecutorial tools like victim/witness protection, anonymous reporting channels, expedited immunity applications, and robust witness‑safeguarding procedures. The solution is law‑enforcement architecture, not statutory exemption.
• Second, making the mother legally liable increases the abortionist’s risk in another dimension: he cannot reliably count on secrecy or on forever silencing a woman. That possibility works as additional deterrence.

7) Public sympathy and media framing are real political concerns — but not decisive moral arguments

Maska worries the public will sympathize with prosecuted mothers and backlash will undermine enforcement. Abolitionists answer:

• Moral truth is not determined by media sympathy. Many important, moral legal reforms (anti‑slavery, civil rights) faced public backlash and sympathetic figureheads; the rightness of the law was not negated by negative headlines.
• Smart policy design can mitigate adverse optics: prosecutorial discretion to prioritize providers and traffickers, proportionality in sentencing for mothers, diversion programs focused on restoration and support rather than harsh punishment for vulnerable women, and clear public messaging that distinguishes between victimhood, coercion, and culpability.
• The political case can be made: protecting life requires consistent law; shielding some participants erodes the principle and, over time, normalizes the killing.

8) A principled, pragmatic package — how to reconcile enforcement with compassion

Abolitionists are often caricatured as seeking draconian punishment for every woman. A principled abolitionist approach can combine legal accountability with proportionality and mercy:

• Criminal prohibition against intentional abortion for all participants (mother, provider, trafficker).
• Prioritize enforcement resources on providers, traffickers, and large‑scale suppliers; use targeted investigations and major case prosecution.
• Conditional immunity statutes: create a clear, readily accessible statutory pathway for a woman to receive immunity in exchange for immediate cooperation (no need for expensive counsel or delays). This preserves the ability to get provider convictions while not granting a blanket amnesty that signals impunity.
• Mitigating sentencing frameworks: allow courts to impose non‑custodial, restorative sanctions for mothers in many circumstances (mandatory counseling, parenting support programs, social services, community restitution), reserving lengthy prison terms for providers and traffickers with numerous offenses or aggravating conduct.
• Witness protection & anonymous reporting: build administrative pathways for safe reporting and rapid prosecutorial review.
• Supply‑chain interdiction: criminalize and prioritize investigation of smugglers, online distributors, and international suppliers; cooperate with federal and international partners to disrupt flows.
• Public support infrastructure: invest in childcare, parental leave, financial supports, adoption services, and pregnancy resources to address root causes that drive women to abort.

This package preserves the Abolitionist principle (that abortion is homicide and requires legal prohibition) while treating mothers with legal fairness, proportionality, and compassionate mitigation in sentencing and social policy.

9) Legal principle and equal protection

Finally, the Abolitionist core claim remains: if the unborn are persons under the law, then equal protection and criminal law must be applied consistently. Tactical accommodations are permissible as prosecutorial tools—but statutory carve‑outs that convert immunity into a permanent legal status are inconsistent with the equal‑protection principle Abolitionists defend.

Bottom line

Maska’s practical objections—secrecy, accomplice issues, pill smuggling, media sympathy—identify real enforcement problems. But they do not justify blanket maternal immunity or the abandonment of legal consistency. An Abolitionist stance can be both principled and pragmatic: prosecute and dismantle providers and supply chains aggressively, use immunity and cooperation as targeted prosecutorial tools (or codified conditional mechanisms), expand investigative capabilities and corroborative evidence rules for modern realities, and adopt proportionate, compassionate sentencing frameworks for mothers when appropriate. That approach protects unborn life, preserves moral clarity, and addresses the legitimate enforcement concerns Maska raises—without surrendering the fundamental claim that intentionally ending an innocent human life must be unlawful and accountable.