Five Minutes Earlier Why the Tragedy in Perry is an Indictment of the Pro-Life Establishment
Why the Tragedy in Perry is an Indictment of the Pro-Life Establishment
A baby girl is dead in Perry, Iowa.
According to media reports, 20-year-old Stephanie Ubaldo gave birth in the bathroom of the daycare where she worked. Investigators allege the baby was born alive and crying. Ubaldo allegedly told investigators that she intentionally injured the baby’s face in an effort to stop her from crying and then placed her in a trash bag. The child was reportedly estimated at 32 to 36 weeks gestation, and her death was ruled a homicide. Ubaldo has been charged with first-degree murder. She has not been convicted, and the allegations must be proved in court.
It is horrifying.
But it raises a question Iowa’s pro-life establishment needs to answer.
What if she had killed her daughter five minutes sooner?
Not five months earlier.
Five minutes.
Same mother. Same daughter. Same DNA. Same level of development. Same intent to take her life.
What changed?
Morally, nothing.
Yet legally, those five minutes make all the difference. Five minutes earlier and Stephanie Ubaldo would have immunity and impunity under Iowa’s current laws.
Earlier this year, Rep. Zach Dieken introduced HF2316. The bill’s purpose was explicit: to ensure that unborn children were protected from homicide and assault by “the same criminal and civil laws protecting all other persons.” It defined unborn children as human beings and sought to apply Iowa’s homicide laws equally when they were the victims.
House Judiciary Chairman Steve Holt killed the bill, and he publicly explained why.
Holt wrote that under HF2316, women who have abortions could be subject to first-degree murder charges. His response was simple: “I cannot support such an approach.” He went on to argue against subjecting women who obtain abortions to arrest, trial and imprisonment.
Now look at Perry.
A woman allegedly intentionally killed her daughter after birth, and Iowa has charged her with first-degree murder.
So move the clock backward five minutes.
What changed?
That question matters because Holt’s objection was not that the unborn child is biologically something other than a human being. His objection was that applying homicide law equally could result in prosecuting the woman who kills her unborn child.
The Perry case strips away the abstraction.
According to the reporting, this was a baby estimated at 32 to 36 weeks gestation who was born alive and cried.
Take that exact child and move the alleged killing five minutes earlier.
Why should the law suddenly view the person who intentionally killed her differently?
Rep. Jon Dunwell’s HF2332 makes the distinction even more explicit.
Dunwell, who now serves as Director of Outreach and Engagement for The FAMiLY Leader, introduced HF2332 as legislation addressing elective abortion and feticide. The FAMiLY Leader described the proposal as strengthening protections for unborn children while “shielding women from prosecution.”
The actual bill said:
“A pregnant woman shall not be prosecuted for the death or serious injury of her unborn child.”
That was not something critics read into the legislation. It was written into the bill.
Now put HF2332 beside Perry.
If the allegations are proved, Ubaldo intentionally killed her daughter after birth. She faces a first-degree murder charge.
Move the act five minutes earlier, while the same daughter is still inside her mother, and Dunwell’s bill explicitly says the pregnant woman shall not be prosecuted for the child’s death.
That is the issue.
What happened during those five minutes?
Did the child become human?
No.
Did her DNA change?
No.
Did she suddenly become her mother’s daughter?
No.
Did her moral value increase as she passed through the birth canal?
No.
Did she have the imago Dei imparted to her as she passed through the birth canal?
No.
The child changed location.
That is why saying “life begins at conception” is not enough to resolve the question.
Holt says he believes unborn children should be protected, but he has objected to legislation when equal application of homicide law would mean prosecuting women.
Dunwell introduced legislation that increased penalties for killing unborn children while expressly excluding the pregnant woman from prosecution for the death of her own unborn child.
Perry gives us a concrete case against which to test that distinction.
If this little girl was worthy of justice five minutes after birth, what characteristic did she lack five minutes before birth that would justify a different standard of accountability for intentionally killing her?
Her humanity did not begin when she cried.
Her identity did not begin when someone heard her cry.
Her value did not begin when she crossed the birth canal.
Was it something that changed with the mother? Did she suddenly acquire culpability when her daughter was born?
If intentionally killing her daughter after birth makes a mother answerable for her death, what happened five minutes earlier that would erase that culpability?
This is the question Steve Holt, Jon Dunwell, and Iowa’s pro-life establishment need to answer:
What happened in those five minutes?
Because whatever changed physically, the little girl did not become more human, more valuable, or more deserving of justice. She was made in the image of God from conception. And that does not merely entitle her to the recognition that she is alive. It demands the protection of equal justice.
My Dear Pro-Life: A Satirical Critique of the Current Pro-Life Strategy
My dear Pro-Life leaders,
I recently attended the pro-life prayer rally for the unborn and wanted to say thank you. I have never taken part in a pro-life event before, and as a liberal realist and champion for the oppressed I thought I would be diametrically opposed - and how wrong I was! I was impressed with the depth of understanding of the oppressive plight of women. Though I have heard criticisms of the Left regarding the reality of intersectionality when applied to racial diversity, equity and inclusion, it was gratifying to see the Right apply it so effectively and directly to the plight of women suffering under the patriarchy.
You are indeed correct when you say “Women are as much a victim as a baby” in the healthcare of abortion (though we know that “babies” is such a loose term as to be meaningless - fetus is far more accurate). In fact I say, women are MORE the victim - not because of their decision to terminate, but because years of tyranny under the patriarchy mean they are vulnerable and victimized by their very bodies!
I was especially encouraged to see how many Christians took part in your event. As you know, Christians are some of the most difficult of the populous to please. How often I have heard their rhetoric of a creator “God” out there somewhere who imprints its image on each conception and fetus. They hold to this in an infuriating way, and with those arguments have even shamed to silence some liberal pro-choice leaders. But I am glad to see how you have side-stepped their death grip on that argument and won them to your cause. With the orthodox Christian allergy to intersectionality and critical theory (thanks to their obnoxious exaltation of a dusty religious book written by oppressive white men), your efforts to win them over to your position are noteworthy. As a skilled activist myself, I’d encourage you to continue 3 things:
Play on their sympathies to the oppressed women's experience, even and particularly how “bad” some women feel about it. As long as Christians’ eyes are held to the god of their bible, you will make no movement in keeping them quiet. So ensure you stress long and hard the suffering of the woman who exercises her rights over her body and chooses to terminate a pregnancy.
Related to this is your use of “the Victimhood of the women” who chooses termination. Master stroke! You have and can continue to move the Christians to blind pity, and thus paralyze their grating call to honor this invisible “God”. In this way you can more effectively help them avoid their own doctrinal teaching on the mandate of complete justice for the fetus.
Emphasize the need to move slowly - or as some say, incrementally. It would be dangerously easy in nearly every state to apply existing homicide law to cover pregnancies, and your position, as you’re aware, is tenuous. Moving slowly is especially helpful, because it responds to any objections by pointing to work supposedly in progress, and, in the unlikely case of a legislator having a conscience prick, takes the wind from the sails, so to speak. This is especially true if you can get stalwarts to be labeled as “abolitionists.” That way any legislators who may be sympathetic to their cause will instead be anxious of losing political merit with their party and your lobbyists, and perhaps even begin to criticize those who support applying murder law to fetuses by focusing on disagreements with their “tactics.” An additional bonus of moving slowly is the aggravation of your opponents; hopefully they become hasty and even more agitated. When they do,
Divert as much attention as you can to any strong or impulsive language they use instead of to the substance of the arguments they are making. If you can ensure pro-life leaders are appropriately offended by their conduct alone, you will win the sympathy of many of the uncertain, including a broad number of their Christian pastors. Internal disagreements, weariness, and silence will then follow in their midst, and you can keep urging “bills that restrict abortion” to maintain political momentum and financial support as you please.
Lastly, I consider myself an honest person, so must say that I am not completely in favor of how politically strong your pro-life advocacy makes the Republican party. However I do trust that your legislators will never risk losing the party’s capital by implementing actual laws that limit abortion. That aversion, at least, is helpful to us on the Left by quieting down Christians with the illusion of rescuing fetuses. Thus even with my dislike of most tenets of the Republican platform, I must say again I am truly grateful for your pro-life/pro-choice work and look forward to your next rally.
Thank you for staying awake to the rights of women,
Your Liberal Friend,
They/Them
The Biblical Case Against Non-Member Protests at Churches: A Call to Unity and Obedience
In recent years, a growing movement of abolitionists—those passionately advocating for the immediate end to abortion—has taken to protesting outside churches. While their zeal for justice is commendable, a concerning trend has emerged: many of these protesters are not members of any local church themselves. This raises profound questions about biblical authority, accountability, and the proper way to address perceived shortcomings within the body of Christ. As we examine Scripture, it becomes clear that such actions, though well-intentioned, often contradict key biblical principles. This article explores these issues through the lens of God's Word, urging a return to faithful practices that honor Christ and His church.
One foundational biblical command that speaks directly to this matter is the call to committed church membership. Hebrews 10:24-25 exhorts believers: "And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." This passage underscores the necessity of regular, intentional gathering within a local body of believers. Church membership is not optional; it is a divine mandate for mutual edification, accountability, and growth in faith. When abolitionists who are unaffiliated with any church protest outside another congregation, they bypass this structure. Without being under the shepherding of elders or accountable to a local fellowship, their actions lack the biblical framework for correction and encouragement, as commanded in Hebrews 13:17 and elsewhere. Protesting from the outside, without the bonds of membership, can inadvertently undermine the very unity Scripture commands, turning advocacy into division rather than stirring up love and good works within the body. James 1:20 says, “the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God” (LBS). In other words, if abolitionists want to get God’s results, we must do it God’s way.
Furthermore, Jesus Himself provides principles for addressing faults in others: the need for self-examination before confrontation. In Matthew 7:3-5, He warns, "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." This teaching emphasizes humility and personal repentance as prerequisites for correcting others. Abolitionists protesting outside churches must first ensure they are living under biblical authority themselves. If they are not part of a church, they may be overlooking a "log" in their own spiritual life—neglecting the command to assemble and submit to leadership. Only after addressing this can one approach others with clarity and grace. Protests that skip this step risk becoming judgmental spectacles rather than loving rebukes, potentially hardening hearts rather than fostering change.
Scripture also instructs believers to focus on shepherding their own flock and to refrain from judging those outside their immediate sphere. In Acts 20:28, Paul addresses the Ephesian elders, saying, "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood." Here, the emphasis is on tending to the flock "among you"—not overreaching into other churches. This principle limits our direct involvement to the congregation where God has placed us, trusting Him to handle others. Similarly, Romans 14:4 asks, "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand." This verse prohibits judging another believer's service, recognizing that each church and its members answer ultimately to Christ. For non-member abolitionists to protest at churches, presuming to correct entire congregations without relational or authoritative ties, violates these boundaries. Instead, we are called to entrust other churches to God's sovereignty, focusing our energies on faithfulness within our own. It bares saying here that we must distinguish between “churches” and churches. The word of God gives us clear guidelines for determining what is and is not a church. The clear confession of the gospel and faith in the Lord Jesus is a clear boundary that must be respected and those on the gospel side of it, even when important disagreements arise, must be handled based on 1 Corinthians 13:7 “[love]… hopes all things, endures all things” (LSB).
In summary, the practice of non-church-affiliated abolitionists protesting outside churches, while rooted in a desire for righteousness, contravenes several key biblical directives. From the command to faithful assembly in Hebrews 10:24-25, to Jesus' call for self-examination in Matthew 7:3-5, to the instructions in Acts 20 and Romans 14 to shepherd our own flock without judging others' servants, Scripture paints a clear picture of orderly, humble engagement within the body of Christ. I plead with all believers—abolitionists and otherwise—to embrace these practices: commit to a local church, examine your own heart first, and trust God with the rest. Let us treat fellow Christians as brothers and sisters, even in disagreement, reserving judgment and separation only for cases of biblical excommunication through proper church processes. In doing so, we honor Christ, preserve unity, and advance His kingdom with grace and truth.