The Texas Heartbeat Bill, part of the Texas Abolition Strategy, which recently passed in the Senate, will hopefully come to a vote in the Texas House of Representatives soon. The bill would explicitly condemn abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

While the bill has wide pro-life support, it has come under fire by both pro-abortion groups and be some pro-lifers. Predictably, the pro-choice groups are upset that the Heartbeat Bill infringes upon the supposed right to end a child’s life in the womb. More confusing to the political layman is the opposition from certain pro-life groups.

To understand the debate here, one needs to understand an in-house debate amongst conservatives which involves more than just abortion. Conservatives across the State of Texas (and the nation, too) acknowledge that Texas is in need of conservative reforms and activism – if for no other reason than to counter progressive lawmakers. How we go about changes is where conservatives may divide. For many issues, including abortion, gun rights, and free markets, there is a spectrum of positions ranging from abolitionist/instantaneous to incrementalist. To oversimplify, the abolitionists are generally more idealistic (not to say that their heads are stuck in the clouds) while the incrementalists are more pragmatic (not to say that they don’t have core principles).

When it comes to abortion, abolitionists want Texans to ignore Roe v Wade and to pass and enforce legislation that will make preborn-baby killing illegal once again. As such, they oppose bills that they feel do not go far enough such as the Heartbeat Bill. Incrementalists stress the importance of chipping away slowly at abortion rights with the hope that Roe will be overturned in the future. As with many things, the correct position is probably somewhere in the middle.

State Senator Bryan Hughes and State Representative Briscoe Cain recently discussed why all should support the Heartbeat Bill. They also defended against some possible misconceptions. First, Hughes and Cain reminded that not all heartbeat bills are created equal. While the Texas Heartbeat Bill specifically condemns and punishes abortion after detection of fetal heartbeat, it also acknowledges that Texas still has pre-Roe statues on the books and that life begins at conception. As such, the Texas Heartbeat Bill lays the groundwork for the total prohibition of abortion. While the abolitionists are right in saying that life needs to be protected under the law from conception until natural death, some have mischaracterized the Heartbeat Bill as a compromise of pro-life principles.

Of course, the abolitionists have reason to be skeptical. Many supposed pro-life bills have been passed which do not save a single baby. However, Hughes and Cain pointed out that ignoring the Supreme Court and totally outlawing abortion would not actually eliminate abortion in Texas. They reminded that liberal district attorneys would refuse to prosecute abortion unless the abolitionist wanted the Attorney General to be more intimately involved at the local level.

While abolitionists are right call out pointless, virtue signaling legislation, they need to think less idealistically and more pragmatically. While they are right to recognize that abortion is not morally equivalent to gun control or manipulated markets, they may fail to see that a pragmatic, but aggressive, approach is the quickest way to save the most babies. While being a full incrementalist is not the way to go, neither is being an abolitionist who is unwilling to endorse steps taken in the right direction.

Douglas Phillips is a native Texan, having been born and raised in the Lone Star State. He writes on political philosophy and current events.