Redeemed sinner; reformed author; ambitious researcher; blessed wife and mother.
Joined October 2022
- Tweets2.3K
- Following172
- Followers429
- Likes6.4K
Kayla Suderman retweeted
@sgruber91 has no argument for “substantially equivalent” protection. Or the sin of pro-life incrementalism.
Kayla Suderman retweeted
Abolitionism vs. Prolife incrementalism explained in scripture perfectly:
“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock…And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.”
Matthew 7:24, 26
Kayla Suderman retweeted
Since everyone is trying to come up with new names for Abolition here are a few available ideas.
Eventually Abolition — Abolition now! By “now,” we mean eventually.
Perpetually Pending Abolition — Always the goal. Never the next step.
Permission-Slip Abolition — We’ll oppose the culture as soon as the culture authorizes it.
Poll-Position Abolition — A matter of principle, provided the principle polls well.
Snooze-Button Abolition — A moral emergency, postponed in nine-minute increments.
Consensus-First Abolition — First, convince everyone. Then, bravely lead them.
Permanent Preparation — Getting ready to abolish abortion until getting ready becomes the mission.
Comfort-Zone Abolition — Radical change, without the discomfort of changing anything.
Procrastination Abolition — Why abolish today what you can promise again tomorrow?
Waiting-Room Abolition — Take a number. The culture will be with you eventually.
It's getting crowded out here. I've recently become aware of the following:
- Pro-Life Movement
- Abolitionist Movement
- Permanent Abolitionists
- Premature Abolitionists
- Equal Protection Movement
I assume it's only a matter of time before we have a Premature EP Movement, a Permanent EP Movement, a Substantially Equivalent EP Movement, a Substantially Equivalent Abolitionist Movement, and a Substantially Premature Pro-Life Movement.
Runners-up are The Substantially Permanent Pro-Life EP Movement and the Abolitionist Equal Protection Pro-Life Coalition for Substantially Equivalent Permanence.
But the good news is, we're all abolitionists and we're also all incrementalists. So hopefully that helps clear everything up for those lost in all the new labels popping up each week.
Kayla Suderman retweeted
The problem with incrementalists is not necessarily their motivations (though there are undoubtedly some who are very poorly motivated).
The problem is not merely practical (though incrementalism is demonstrably failing on practical grounds, with abortion numbers rising in states with so-called “bans”).
The problem is theological and moral. When we permit some measure of evil (deciding by legislative fiat which innocent human beings may be killed and which must be protected) we find ourselves in direct opposition to the character and commands of a holy and just God.
He tells us never to do evil that good may come of it (Romans 3:8), to “do justice, and only justice” (Deuteronomy 16:20), to show no partiality in judgment (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17), and not to acquit the guilty (Proverbs 17:15). Yet incrementalist pro-life legislation, insofar as it deliberately withholds legal protection from some innocent human beings while protecting others, violates these very principles. It makes distinctions in the protection of innocent life that justice does not permit.
We cannot hope to win a battle by abandoning the very standards of righteousness for which we claim to be fighting. To do so is folly and a striving after wind.
God does not call us to compromise His commands in the hope of securing a better outcome. He calls us to obey Him and trust Him with the consequences. “To obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Samuel 15:22), and “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Hebrews 11:6).
Consider the twelve spies sent to survey the Promised Land. Ten brought back a faithless report, allowing the apparent impossibility of the task to overshadow the promises of God. Joshua and Caleb, however, trusted that the Lord was able to give His people the land, despite the obstacles before them (Numbers 13–14). The issue was not whether the obstacles were real, but whether God could be trusted to fulfill His promises.
The problem with incrementalism is ultimately a failure to trust God to accomplish His will in His way. We must not do evil that good may come. We must not surrender justice in the name of expediency. We must not measure faithfulness by what seems politically achievable.
Duty is ours, results belong to God.
Kayla Suderman retweeted
Protestia: Preeminent Anti-Abortion Group ‘Abolitionist Rising’ Hits 2.2 Billion Views protestia.com/2026/10/27/pre…
Kayla Suderman retweeted
An individual or organization that professes to “align with” or “support equal protection” is N-O-T the same as the Abolitionists who 👉demand 👈equal justice under law without exception or compromise.
Let the reader understand and then #RepentWithUs if the former describes him/her.
Kayla Suderman retweeted
Kansans, show up here January 26th, and bring everyone you know with you! Follow @AIMKS_2411 for updates and marching orders
Kayla Suderman retweeted
@ERLC & @nrlc say, “we do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women & we stand firmly opposed to include such penalties in legislation…. We will continue to oppose legislative & policy initiatives that criminalize women who seek abortions…”
📣 Missouri Baptists: there will be a pro-life constitutional amendment on your ballot this November.
If passed, this measure would ban most abortions in Missouri, a state which currently allows abortion up to fetal viability.
On the latest episode of the ERLC podcast, Dr. Wes Fowler, executive director-treasurer of @mobaptists, shares about why this ballot initiative matters for Missouri Baptists and how this vote could affect families and communities in the state.
🎙️ Listen here or anywhere you stream your podcasts: erlc.com/erlc-podcast/wes-fo…
Kayla Suderman retweeted
Be sure to read my latest article defending abortion abolitionism! ⬇️
“This is fundamentally treating the preborn as lesser than the born, just like the pro-abortion movement does, and this kind of partiality is explicitly forbidden in Scripture.”
Thank you @RachelReneeRee1 for publishing this.
Kayla Suderman retweeted
🚨 Virginia, vote NO on Question 1. 🚨
Liberty University students showed up. Will you?
🎥 @SFAbolition at Liberty University
#VoteNoOnQ1
Kayla Suderman retweeted
Here's your pro-life law in action, providing immunity for a murderer.
“She’s immune.”
That’s what Jocelyn Byrum’s defense told the court — claiming SC law shields her even after she intentionally took abortion pills to kill her 27‑week unborn daughter.
The baby survived 👶
She’s in state custody 🏛️
And the defense says the law requires zero accountability ❌⚖️
This loophole exists because pro‑life groups demanded maternal immunity and helped write it into law. Now it’s a shield for intentional acts that nearly killed a child. 🛡️🔥
The Solicitor called the argument “absurd.”
He’s right.
What’s truly absurd is that pro‑life groups built this loophole — and still defend it — while victims like this unborn child get no justice. 😡👶
A law that excuses intentional killing is reprehensible 🚫
Not justice.
Not biblical. 📖
When you don't know the Word of God, you will say blasphemous things about that God.
Our appetite for and habituation to violence will be our society’s downfall.
Public executions don’t teach respect for human dignity and God’s image; they make violence a spectacle for public entertainment, and they corrupt the young and innocent. In modern America, there is no need for executions — they only breed vengeance, violence and dehumanization.
Satan loves this.
Kayla Suderman retweeted
Hindu MAGA is the successor to Secular MAGA.
"J.D. Vance is the successor to Donald Trump.
We support J.D. Vance.
MAGA supports J.D. Vance.
J.D. Vance is not an anti-Semite.
If you want to help strengthen this relationship, the sooner you get on the Vance train, the better."
— @WilliamWolfe at NatCon Jerusalem.
"All of law is forcing a moral system on those who reject it. That is not an abuse of the law. That is simply what the nature of law is. The person who says “you can’t legislate morality” is not describing a neutral alternative. There is none... That is what law is: morality with a penalty attached."
bradleywpierce.substack.com/…
Kayla Suderman retweeted
We have seen two major pro-life establishment leaders, @KristanHawkins and @ScottKlusendorf, trying to spin the recent debate between @BradleyPierce and @JojoRRuba as a decisive pro-life victory. Those efforts are not even remotely succeeding.
@StudentsforLife has not yet posted the full debate footage, even though the debate happened nearly two weeks ago, even as @AbolitionistFAA, which has a much smaller production team, posted the debate footage the very next day. Instead @StudentsforLife posted a highly produced podcast episode with @KristanHawkins where she essentially hosts an entire second pro-life versus abolition debate between herself and the least charitable strawman of equal protection she could possibly contrive. @ScottKlusendorf has declined several offers to debate equal protection advocates, including @BradleyPierce, despite constantly speaking and writing against abolition over the past several months, and meanwhile hosted @JojoRRuba on his podcast two separate times to discuss the debate.
The podcast episode with @KristanHawkins has received 7,700 views on YouTube and a mere 95 likes as of this morning, while the episode with @ScottKlusendorf has received 1,100 views on YouTube and precisely 2 likes. These are two major pro-life leaders with serious institutional clout, widespread name recognition, and several decades of combined influence, but they were only able to reach a few thousand people with their message. The comments below these two videos have been overwhelmingly negative.
@ScottKlusendorf in particular has a shockingly low amount of support on major social media platforms, with many of his posts about the debate receiving 0 likes. The vast majority of his engagement comes from equal protection supporters rightly criticizing his positions.
But several clips from these two podcast episodes posted from @AbolitionistFAA channels have received thousands of views, including one with 50,000 views and another with 19,000 on this platform alone, once more with decisively negative sentiments toward the pro-life position. The full debate footage has received 12,000 views on YouTube, which exceeds the views from the @KristanHawkins and @ScottKlusendorf reaction episodes combined.
We should conclude that major pro-life figureheads such as @KristanHawkins and @ScottKlusendorf who oppose equal protection are not effectively messaging to the anti-abortion base, despite their serious advantage in terms of platforms, funding, personality, and institutional longevity.
Instead of convincing their followers to oppose equal protection, these efforts to message about the debate have largely backfired into more suspicion toward pro-life groups and leaders, especially when they oppose equal protection legislation, manipulate the discourse, refuse to engage their opponents, or even actively slander equal protection supporters.
@AbolitionistFAA and the broader abolition movement are meanwhile reaching and persuading the anti-abortion grassroots despite the previously mentioned disadvantages. The equal protection stance is unassailable, which is why pro-life leaders have ceased trying to oppose the position, and are now retreating to arguments about strategy or simply trying to steer the discourse in dishonest ways.
The abolitionists are seeing massive amounts of progress, and by the grace of God, our movement will continue shifting the debate, awakening other believers, and advancing justice for our preborn neighbors unto the glory of our King.
Excellent admonition from @bradleypierce .
