Leftists' opposition of the controversial Texas Heartbeat Act seemed to catch on to some pro-lifers who now have been reported to oppose banning abortion themselves. Christian information resource provider Catholic Answers cites the sudden change and provides the means on "how to refute them."

Catholic Answers reported last September 4 in an Instagram post that some pro-lifers themselves have joined the bandwagon against the Texas Heartbeat Act due to three main objections that delve on "society's responsibility," prejudice to a "particular group," and negative effect on the image of the "prolife movement."

"Is banning abortion a bad idea? The obvious pro-life answer seems to be 'No,' yet in the wake of Texas's new 'heartbeat' law, we've been seeing some pro-lifers arguing 'Yes'," Catholic Answers said.

The Texas Heartbeat Act, more commonly referred to as Senate Bill 8 or SB8, was implemented on September 1 after a case filed against it in the Supreme Court by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union was ruled against in a 5-4 vote.

The law is said to be a unique one in that it empowers anyone to file a case against medical professionals or the parties involved in an abortion that was conducted after the heartbeat of the unborn was detected for pregnancies six weeks and beyond.

In an article titled "'Pro-Life Catholics' Who Oppose Banning Abortion?", author Trent Horn identified the objections that he said he encountered in social media.

"What's most surprising in the wake of these proceedings are self-described 'pro-life Catholics' who oppose the Texas law. Some object to the law's reliance on private lawsuits; others offer criticism that sounds more like what a pro-abortion advocate would say, and not a faithfully pro-life Catholic," Horn remarked.

Specifically, the three objections are:

  • "Society has a responsibility to make sure no pregnant women is in need before it outlaws abortion."
  • "It's wrong to pass laws that disproportionately affect a specific group of people like poor pregnant women."
  • "Abortion bans will just get struck down in the courts and make the pro-life movement look bad."

Horn, a Catholic convert turned apologist, then addressed each objection that would also be helpful to others confused on the issues raised against SB8 or in need of a guide to discuss the matter with leftists or with "Devout Catholic" Democrats like President Joe Biden.

Horn likened claims of laws banning abortions avoids the social responsibility to pregnant women "in need" to that of a plantation owner having "all the machinery he needs to harvest his crops before outlawing slavery." He said this line of thought contradicts many laws that, basing on their claims, should also be removed. He also raised that poor people often commit crimes of "shoplifting and burglary" out of their "financial strain," which does not mean society has to remove the law against shoplifting.

"That's like saying society must make sure every plantation-owner has all the machinery he needs to harvest his crops before outlawing slavery. By this logic, many other laws should be taken off the books," Horton said.

"The most common crimes a poor person commits due to financial strain are things like shoplifting and burglary. Does society have a responsibility to make sure poverty is eradicated before it outlaws crimes like shoplifting? Of course not, and the same applies even more to economically motivated violent crimes like aggravated robbery and abortion," he added.

Horton disclosed that there are numerous couples who choose abortion not out of their "lack of material resources for a child" but because of their lack of desire to "take on the burdens of parenting a (or another) child" as well as out of not wanting "to alter their life plans."

On the second objection, Horn underscored the fact that laws on a certain group of people do not make the law "unjust." He said such laws are not "immoral" or that crimes towards these are restricted on should be made "legal" on the grounds that "a certain group of people are more likely to break a law." The same goes for laws that prohibit"acts of " from engaging in a grave evil is not a harm; it's an act of love that protects his soul as well as the persons he would have harmed."

Horn clarified that the third objection is more of a "prudential judgment rather than a moral argument" and called it as "irrational" for it is a matter of "strategy."

"Arguing that pro-life advocates should never try to restrict abortion on a wide scale because the laws might be struck down seems irrational," he emphasized. "If civil rights activists had waited to challenge unjust laws until they were assured absolute victory, then minorities might still be waiting for equal and just treatment under the law."