The Equal Defense Project

Holding public officials accountable to the equal protection of every human life.

equaldefense.org

Concept & Rubric

The Problem

Every year, tens of thousands of children are killed by abortion across the United States. Existing pro-life organizations publish voter guides and scorecards that evaluate politicians on general pro-life votes and activities. None of them evaluate politicians against the standard of equal protection: the principle that the same laws prohibiting the intentional killing of born persons must apply equally to preborn persons. The largest pro-life organizations have not merely declined to adopt this standard. They have actively opposed equal protection legislation at the state level, pressuring legislators to block bills from reaching a vote.

Christians who hold the conviction that equal protection is both the biblical and constitutional standard have no voter-facing resource to determine which politicians share that conviction, which have opposed it, and which have refused to make their position known.

The Standard

The standard is equal protection of the laws for every human life from fertilization.

This is grounded in two sources of authority:

Constitutional. The right to life is foundational to the American legal order. Every person is entitled to equal protection under existing homicide law. Any law that creates a class of persons whose intentional killing is permitted or regulated rather than prohibited violates this principle. Abortion is not a gap in the law. It is a violation of law already on the books.

Biblical. Human beings bear the image of God from conception. The civil magistrate is ordained by God to punish evil and reward good. The deliberate taking of innocent life is murder. A government that permits, regulates, or legalizes it at any stage has failed its God-given mandate.

Scripture speaks to this across multiple genres and contexts:

Genesis 1:27 establishes that humanity is made in the image of God. This is the foundational basis for the dignity and equal protection of all human life. The imago Dei is not conferred at birth, nor does Scripture condition it upon gestational development.

Psalm 139:13-16 declares that God is sovereign over the formation of life in the womb. He knits together, He sees, He ordains. While written as worship, the theological reality it affirms is not limited to poetic expression. If God is the author and sustainer of life in the womb, then the destruction of that life is an act against His work.

Job 31:15 makes an explicit claim of equal origin: “Did not He who made me in the womb make him, and the same one fashion us in the womb?” (LSB). Job grounds moral obligation toward others in their shared formation by God before birth. The same God who made one made all. This is not a prophetic calling narrative limited to a single individual. It is a universal claim about the equal dignity of every person God forms.

Exodus 21:22-25 addresses injury to a pregnant woman and her child. The interpretive history of this passage is long, but the weight of the text assigns real legal consequence to harm done to the unborn. The life in the womb is not treated as property or as less than a person. Harm to that life demands a reckoning.

Romans 13:1-4 defines the role of the civil magistrate: to bear the sword as God’s servant, to carry out wrath on the wrongdoer, and to approve what is good. This is not a suggestion. It is a mandate. When civil government fails to protect innocent life, it has abandoned its God-given purpose.

Any legislation that explicitly or implicitly legalizes abortion at any gestational stage, for any reason, fails this standard. This includes heartbeat bills, gestational bans, and regulatory frameworks that function to authorize abortion before a given threshold, even when framed as restrictions. The test is not whether a bill reduces abortion. The test is whether it upholds or undermines the legal personhood of every preborn child.

Legislation that restricts abortion without authorizing it, and that does not create legal barriers to current or future abolition efforts, may be cited as supporting evidence when evaluating a politician’s overall record. It does not by itself qualify a politician for any category. The guiding question in such cases: does this action move the state closer to or further from equal protection?

Key Definitions

An equal protection bill is legislation that establishes or recognizes the full legal personhood of every human being from fertilization and applies existing homicide law to the intentional killing of such persons, without exceptions based on stage of development, method, or circumstances of conception. It does not regulate, restrict, or authorize abortion at any stage; it applies the law already on the books. “Abolition bill” is used interchangeably with “equal protection bill” in this rubric.

An incremental bill is any legislation that restricts or regulates abortion while leaving the underlying practice legally permitted before a specified threshold. Heartbeat bills, gestational bans (including 6-, 12-, 15-, and 20-week bans), and exception-based restrictions (rape, incest, fetal abnormality) are incremental bills, regardless of how they are marketed. Incremental bills fail the equal protection standard because they functionally authorize abortion below the threshold.

A note on incrementalism. Politicians who sponsor, vote for, or publicly endorse incremental legislation as defined above will be categorized as Opposed Equal Protection, unless they separately sponsor, cosponsor, or vote for an equal protection bill where one is available. This rubric does not treat incremental pro-life legislation as a stepping stone or a partial victory. It treats such legislation as authorization of abortion below the threshold, which violates the equal protection standard. Politicians are free to disagree with this framing. The project is not.

Evaluation Categories

Defender of Equal Protection

A politician whose verifiable public record demonstrates active support for equal protection of preborn life through legislative action and/or unambiguous public advocacy.

Qualifying actions. A politician is categorized as Defender of Equal Protection when their verifiable public record meets any of the following criteria AND their record does not include sponsorship of, a vote for, or public endorsement of incremental legislation where an equal protection alternative was available:

Voting yes on an equal protection or abolition bill. Sponsoring or co-sponsoring an equal protection bill. Publicly advocating for equal protection as the governing standard for the protection of preborn life. Refusing to support incremental legislation that would legalize abortion up to a given threshold when an equal protection alternative was available.

A politician’s full record will be visible. If a Defender previously held a different position and changed course, that history will be displayed transparently, and the change will be highlighted as a testimony to the power of accountability and conviction.

Opposed Equal Protection

A politician whose verifiable public record demonstrates opposition to equal protection of preborn life through legislative action, procedural obstruction, or unambiguous public statements.

Qualifying actions include:

Voting against an equal protection bill. Voting to table, defer, or procedurally block an equal protection bill from advancing. Using a committee chairmanship or leadership position to prevent an equal protection bill from receiving a hearing or reaching the floor. Sponsoring or voting for legislation that explicitly or implicitly legalizes abortion at any stage (see Key Definitions). Publicly opposing the equal protection of preborn persons.

Absence and abstention. Absence or abstention on a clear opportunity to vote on an equal protection bill does not by itself categorize a politician as Opposed. It triggers direct outreach under the process described below. Failure to respond within the outreach window, combined with a pattern of absence on equal protection votes, supports categorization as Opposed.

The rubric does not gradate opposition. In contexts where an equal protection alternative was available, a politician who supports unrestricted abortion access and a politician who supports a 15-week ban are both categorized as Opposed Equal Protection, because both fail the standard. This is not an error of equivalence. It is the standard applied consistently.

This category names what the politician did. It describes their record, not their soul. If their position changes and that change is verified through action, they will be recategorized. The path to “Defender of Equal Protection” is always open.

Record Not Established

A politician for whom no verifiable evidence exists regarding their position on equal protection. This is a data status, not a character judgment.

Search methodology. “No verifiable evidence” means the project has reviewed the politician’s roll call voting record for the relevant legislative sessions, bill sponsorship and cosponsorship records, official press releases, committee activity, public social media accounts, and publicly available interviews and statements, and has identified no position on equal protection or on incremental abortion legislation as defined above. The specific sources reviewed will be listed on each profile so that the reader can verify the search.

This status carries a responsibility.

Public officials hold their office in trust. They represent a constitution that protects the right to life and constituents who deserve to know where their representative stands on the equal protection of that right. The nature of public service does not afford the luxury of private positions on matters of this gravity.

The outreach process:

Every politician listed as “Record Not Established” will receive direct outreach from this project, informing them of their listing and inviting them to make their position known through a verified statement. This outreach will be professional, respectful, and documented.

The outreach process is as follows:

1. An initial written communication is sent to the official’s office, clearly identifying the project, the standard, and the invitation to provide a verified position statement.
2. A reasonable response period of 30 days is provided.
3. If no response is received, a second and final communication is sent, again providing 30 days.
4. Following two documented outreach attempts and a total of 60 days without response, the politician’s profile will be updated to reflect that outreach was made and no response was received.

Non-response after documented outreach does not automatically change a politician’s category. But it is public information that voters deserve to see. A politician who was directly asked to clarify their position on the equal protection of preborn life and chose not to respond has made a decision, and that decision will be visible on their profile alongside the dates and nature of the outreach.

Over time, a pattern of non-response combined with other contextual evidence (voting record on related legislation, public statements on adjacent issues, party leadership actions) may support recategorization. Any such recategorization will be accompanied by a full explanation of the evidence and reasoning.

Evidence Standards

This project will not publish any claim it cannot substantiate with verifiable, public evidence. This is a biblical obligation (Deuteronomy 19:15, Proverbs 18:17) and a practical necessity for maintaining trust.

Admissible evidence:

Official roll call votes and legislative records. Bill sponsorship and co-sponsorship records. Committee hearing schedules and outcomes as documented through official legislative records. Public statements by the politician, including speeches, press releases, interviews, and social media posts that are attributed and dated. Official party platform positions endorsed by the politician. Documented outreach from this project and the politician’s response or non-response.

Not admissible:

Anonymous sources or unverified reports of private activity. Inferences drawn from silence alone when no opportunity to act existed. Guilt by association with other politicians, organizations, or donors. Partisan framing or editorial characterization by third-party media.

Every politician’s profile will display the specific evidence underlying their categorization. Voters will see exactly what a politician did or said, when they did or said it, and the source. Nothing will be hidden behind a label. The evidence is the argument.

Position Changes

People change. This project exists to create pressure for that change and to recognize it when it happens.

Politicians who previously opposed or failed to support equal protection and who subsequently take verifiable action in support of it will be recategorized as Defenders of Equal Protection. Their full record will remain visible. This is not punishment. Transparency serves voters, and a record of change is itself a powerful testimony.

A politician who moves from “Opposed Equal Protection” to “Defender of Equal Protection” demonstrates that accountability works and that conviction can overcome political pressure. These stories will be highlighted and celebrated, not buried.

The Christian faith proclaims redemption. This project will reflect that reality.

Relationship to Existing Work

The equal protection movement is sustained by a range of organizations, legislators, pastors, and state-level abolition societies working to apply existing homicide law to the intentional killing of preborn persons. The Foundation to Abolish Abortion (FAA) has been among the most active in drafting model legislation, analyzing bills, consulting with legislators, and documenting the opposition of pro-life establishment organizations to equal protection efforts. Their published work will serve as key source material where relevant, cited and attributed.

This project does not duplicate the legislative, theological, or organizing work of any of these efforts. It builds a layer none of them have built: a voter-facing accountability tool that makes the movement’s legislative and analytical work accessible to ordinary Christians who want to know where their representatives stand.

Where this project cites the work of others, it will do so by name. This project seeks to complement and amplify the work of those defending the preborn on the ground of equal protection, not compete with it.

What This Project Is

A voter-facing resource for Christians who are convicted that equal protection is the only acceptable legal standard for protecting preborn life. It equips them with verifiable information to support, encourage, pressure, or replace their elected officials accordingly.

What This Project Is Not

It is not a general pro-life scorecard. It is not a partisan tool. Politicians of any party are evaluated against the same standard. It is not a platform for unsubstantiated claims or political attacks. It is not a substitute for the work of organizations like FAA that engage directly in legislative drafting and advocacy.

Revision History

2026-04-20 (v2, pre-launch revision). Added Key Definitions section defining “equal protection bill” and “incremental bill.” Added an explicit note on incrementalism stating that politicians who support incremental legislation where an equal protection alternative was available are categorized as Opposed. Tightened the Defender threshold to require that a record not include support for incremental legislation where an equal protection alternative was available. Reframed “contextual evaluation” of restriction-without-authorization legislation as supporting evidence rather than independent qualification. Changed unexplained absence and abstention from an automatic Opposed trigger to an outreach trigger. Added explicit acknowledgment that the rubric does not gradate opposition, qualified to contexts in which an equal protection alternative was available. Added a search methodology statement for “Record Not Established.” Broadened “Relationship to Existing Work” to acknowledge the wider equal protection movement alongside FAA.

2026-04-19 (v2). Initial publication of version 2 at equaldefense.org/rubric.

The Equal Defense Project

_{Scripture quotations are from the Legacy Standard Bible® (LSB®), Copyright © 2021 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Managed in partnership with Three Sixteen Publishing Inc. lsbible.org}