Exposing the Fundamental Flaw in Fighting the Removal of Parental Notification

A call to abolish — not regulate — abortion

The current debate in Connecticut over parental notification is being framed as a moral battle. Many Christians are rallying to defend it, believing that preserving notification requirements represents meaningful progress in protecting life.

I understand that instinct.

But the deeper issue is not whether parental notification is helpful, wise, or protective in certain circumstances. The deeper issue is whether parental notification confronts abortion as an injustice — or merely regulates abortion as a permitted act.

And this is where the fundamental flaw lies.

The flaw: regulation assumes legitimacy

Parental notification laws do not prohibit abortion. They govern the process by which abortion may occur.

That distinction is not technical — it is moral.

When a law regulates an act without prohibiting it, the law communicates that the act itself is fundamentally permissible. The question becomes procedural:

• Was a parent notified?

• Was a bypass obtained?

• Were the requirements satisfied?

The unborn child remains legally unprotected. Only the conditions surrounding the child’s death are supervised.

Notification may involve parents, but it does not establish justice.

The danger of fighting only for regulation

Many Christians view parental notification as a step toward abolition. But there is a serious risk that regulatory victories can unintentionally reshape moral expectations.

When regulatory measures are celebrated as victories, the moral question quietly shifts from:

Should abortion be legally permitted at all?

to

How should abortion be regulated?

That shift matters. It moves the conversation from justice to management. It reframes abortion as a healthcare procedure needing oversight rather than an act requiring prohibition.

In other words, regulation can normalize what abolition seeks to confront.

Law is a tutor

Scripture teaches that law functions as a tutor — it instructs conscience, shapes moral understanding, and signals what a society considers right and wrong.

Laws do not merely restrain behavior; they teach moral meaning.

When law regulates abortion rather than prohibits it, society learns that abortion is permissible under certain conditions. The moral clarity necessary for cultural repentance is weakened.

A just law does not merely supervise injustice; it declares injustice.

Why abolition requires criminalization

If abortion is understood as the unjust taking of human life, then legal recognition must follow moral recognition.

Criminal law has always served as society’s formal acknowledgment that certain acts are wrong. Criminalization is not primarily about punishment — it is about truth telling. It communicates that human life possesses inherent dignity deserving legal protection.

Abolition therefore requires that abortion be treated consistently within the framework of justice, while still recognizing that individual circumstances, coercion, and vulnerability must be carefully considered within any legal system.

Justice and mercy are not opposites. Justice establishes moral boundaries; mercy addresses individual realities.

But refusing even to consider legal accountability communicates a different message: that abortion is morally exceptional and beyond ordinary justice.

That message undermines equal protection.

The difference between pro-life incrementalism and abolition

At its core, the divide between pro-life incrementalism and abolition is not about compassion but about strategy and moral framework.

Incremental approach

• seeks to reduce abortions through restrictions

• accepts regulatory frameworks as progress

• prioritizes political feasibility

• focuses on harm reduction

Abolition approach

• seeks full legal protection for the unborn

• rejects regulation as a substitute for justice

• prioritizes moral clarity over political calculation

• focuses on equal protection under law

Both desire fewer abortions. But they diverge on what justice requires.

Incrementalism works within a framework that permits abortion.

Abolition challenges that framework itself.

The parental notification debate reveals the deeper issue

The fight over parental notification exposes the deeper question facing Connecticut Christians.

Are we content with laws that supervise abortion — or will we pursue laws that protect the unborn?

Are we seeking improved regulation — or justice?

Are we satisfied with steps that feel like progress — or committed to moral clarity even when it is unpopular?

Parental notification may be better than nothing in a limited sense. But it is not justice. It does not abolish abortion. It does not protect the unborn child. It does not resolve the moral question.

It regulates a practice that abolition seeks to end.

A call to clarity

This is not a call to hostility toward those pursuing incremental strategies. Many act with sincerity and compassion. The issue is not motives but methods.

The question is whether regulatory approaches ultimately advance abolition — or unintentionally delay it by reshaping moral expectations.

Christians must be willing to confront uncomfortable realities:

• regulation can normalize injustice

• pragmatism can dilute moral clarity

• procedural safeguards can coexist with continued injustice

• victories can be declared while injustice persists

The call before us is not merely legislative but moral.

Conclusion

The parental notification debate is not ultimately about notification. It is about whether abortion is treated as a regulated procedure or a prohibited injustice.

Law teaches. Culture follows law. Conscience is shaped by both.

If justice is to prevail, the goal cannot be regulation alone.

Not management, but protection.

Not supervision, but justice.

Not compromise, but clarity.

Not regulation, but abolition.