CLICK HERE to respond to the bills mentioned in this update.
In today’s post, we’re diving into several significant bills making their way through Delaware’s legislature. As an organization committed to restoring a culture that upholds life, marriage, family, and religious freedom, we’ll be examining these proposals through the lens of Scripture—while also drawing on relevant legal precedents. Why? Because Truth isn’t subjective or shifting; it’s unchanging and universal. And when we talk about policies that impact life and human dignity, we must anchor ourselves in the very Truth that created them.
The Nature of Truth–Objective or Subjective
During the March 10th Senate hearing on SB 5, Senator Sturgeon opened with a prayer asking that we be “freed from the idolatry of thinking there’s only one right choice.” Now, that might sound reflective or humble on the surface, but let’s examine the deeper implication. As Christians, we recognize this sentiment as a rejection of absolute truth. It suggests that truth is relative.
John 14:6 reminds us: “Jesus answered, ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” Truth isn’t a social construct, nor is it up for debate or personal interpretation—it’s a reality grounded in God’s character. But when truth becomes subjective, law becomes arbitrary.
What Senator Sturgeon’s prayer inadvertently reveals is the heart of the subjective moral framework being applied to legislation like SB 5. If we reject objective truth, we open the door for laws based on feelings, personal preferences, and popular culture, rather than God’s law that is eternal and unchanging.
The Constitutionalization of Abortion
After Senator Sturgeon’s opening prayer, the hearing continued with a moment of special recognition. The Senate took time to honor Colonel James L. Ford of the Delaware State Police. Colonel Ford, who passed away on March 1st, was remembered for his more than 50 years of dedicated service—both to the state of Delaware and to our nation through his military career. He retired in 2004, but his legacy of duty and sacrifice left an indelible mark. In a solemn moment of silence, the Senate chamber reflected on his life and contributions. It was a brief but powerful reminder of what it means to serve others and to uphold the values of courage, honor, and the sanctity of life itself.
But the focus soon shifted to a proposal that strikes at the heart of life—SB 5. Supporters argue that SB 5 is a protective measure in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade. Yet, by attempting to constitutionalize abortion, SB 5 denies the preborn their most basic right: life.
The arguments in favor of SB 5 continued with this pattern. Senator Townsend, who sponsored the bill, responded to Senator Richardson’s amendment to remove the “mental health” exception by citing the tragic death of Josseli from Texas—a woman who died from sepsis following a miscarriage. He argued that restrictive abortion laws caused the delay in her care, more than suggesting that a “mental health” exception could have saved her life. But this heartbreaking case was not the result of pro-life legislation. It was due to medical negligence and malpractice, not a failure in public policy.
The so-called mental health exception Townsend advocates for is another avenue for abortion on demand. We’ve seen this play out before. In Doe v. Bolton (1973), the companion case to Roe, the Supreme Court interpreted “health” so broadly that it included emotional, psychological, familial, and even financial factors. This opened the door to elective abortion at virtually any stage of pregnancy, for almost any reason—undermining any meaningful limits.
SB 5 adopts the same flawed logic. There are no clear standards in the bill defining what qualifies as mental distress sufficient to justify abortion. This leaves the door wide open to subjective interpretation, erasing any objective standard for protecting the unborn.
When mental health becomes the criterion, without boundaries or accountability, we lose sight of the foundational truth that every life has inherent dignity and worth—whether that life is wanted or not, whether that life is convenient or not. And it is that truth we are called to defend!
Senator Sturgeon’s earlier prayer set the tone for a conversation centered on subjective autonomy, rather than objective truth. But Deuteronomy 30:19 offers us a clear directive: “I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore, choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” SB 5 fails to reflect this call to choose life. Instead, they promote a worldview where personal preference outweighs the God-given sanctity of life.
Regret, Satisfaction, and the Law’s Role
Senator Sturgeon cited studies claiming most women are satisfied with their abortions. But satisfaction doesn’t equate to legality or morality.
Here’s the thing—many women do report immediate relief after abortion. But what about the long-term emotional and spiritual impact?
We know that Romans 2:15 teaches us about the law written on our heart—our conscience. For many women, years later, that God-given conscience begins to stir, and they struggle to process the pain, loss, and guilt associated with their abortion. That’s why ministries like Rachel’s Vineyard exist—to provide healing and hope for women wounded by abortion. And yet, proponents of SB 5 suggest that because some women feel no regret, abortion should be elevated to a constitutional right.
We don’t determine morality by who feels regret and who doesn’t. Sin doesn’t cease to be sin just because it makes someone temporarily happy. The law doesn’t legalize murder or theft because some people feel good about their actions. Our system of justice is built on objective standards, not subjective feelings.
Consider Gonzales v. Carhart (2007). The Court upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion, acknowledging that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting fetal life and the integrity of the medical profession—even if some women desire the procedure. Justice Kennedy’s opinion stated: “the State’s interest in respect for life is advanced by the enactment of this statute.” That decision reminds us that the state can and should protect life, regardless of fluctuating public sentiment.
Despite opposition, SB 5 passed the Senate and has now been assigned to the House Administration Committee. While no hearing is currently scheduled, we are closely watching for an announcement.
Meanwhile, HB 14 is also moving forward. This bill would also allow constitutional rights under the guise of privacy—the very same legal phrasing that underpinned Roe v. Wade. While SB 5 focuses on reproductive autonomy, the verbiage of HB 14 provides a much larger blanket. HB 14 is scheduled for a hearing this Wednesday at 3:00 p.m. in the House Administration Committee.
HB 46 and Parental Consent—A Common-Sense Safeguard
Now to HB 46, introduced this week by Representative Shupe. It requires minors under 16 to obtain parental consent for abortion, rather than the current requirement by DelCode for parental notification.
This isn’t radical! It’s not only basic common sense, but consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s own rulings. In Bellotti v. Baird (1979), the Court upheld laws requiring parental consent for minors seeking abortions, so long as there was an option for judicial bypass in cases of abuse or neglect.
HB 46 offers precisely that safeguard—allowing Family Court to intervene when there may be abuse, neglect, or coercion present. The Bellotti decision emphasized that minors often lack the maturity and judgment needed for such life-altering decisions, and that parental guidance is an important protection. That emphasis affirms God’s design for family authority as parents are accountable before God for their children.
If Delaware law requires parental consent for ear piercings, tattoos, and school medications, why not for abortion—a procedure with permanent physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences?
HB 46 is scheduled for its first hearing in the House Health and Human Development Committee this Wednesday at 11:30am. This is a critical step in advancing parental rights and safeguarding young girls from making life-altering decisions alone.
HB 140 and the Legal and Moral Slippery Slope of Assisted Suicide
Let’s take a moment to talk about HB 140, Delaware’s proposed assisted suicide bill, as a contradiction has arisen. Sponsored by Representative Eric Morrison, this bill would legalize assisted suicide for terminally ill patients seeking to end their lives. Supporters call it a choice of compassion and point to supposed safeguards to protect the vulnerable, but we’ve seen how that has played out elsewhere.
Since as early as 2017 and as recently as last year, states that first legalized assisted suicide have steadily dismantled the very safeguards they promised would protect patients. What started as a limited and heavily regulated practice has become something far more troubling. California, Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington State have all loosened their original restrictions. They’ve shortened or eliminated waiting periods, broadened eligibility beyond terminal illness, and even allowed prescriptions to be written through telemedicine—without ever seeing a patient in person.
Meanwhile, in some of these states, the largest assisted suicide advocacy group, Compassionate Choices, continues to push for even fewer protections. They are actively engaged in litigation to remove what was once referred to as safeguards, calling them instead “barriers.”
Despite these alarming trends, HB 140 charges forward, ignoring the hard lessons learned in other states. It even adopts a subjective standard of suffering, leaving it up to patients to decide if their lives are worth living. That’s not compassion—that’s dangerous.
Here’s the contradiction: while Representative Morrison sponsors HB 140, he also introduced HB 54, which creates the Office of Suicide Prevention. So, we’re preventing suicide in one office, while facilitating it in another. This moral paradox would seem to beg the question: if suicide is considered a personal right for some, why not for everyone?
Last year, Delaware came closer than ever to passing this misguided legislation—it made it all the way to the Governor’s desk. But this week offered a hopeful reminder that many are standing firm. On Tuesday, the Patients Rights Action Fund (PRAF) hosted a major lobbying day at Legislative Hall.
That effort followed a prayer gathering, led by Bishop Koenig, where believers came together to seek God’s intervention against this dangerous policy.
But again, this debate isn’t just about policy—it’s about truth. Scripture teaches us that life is sacred, because we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). He alone holds authority over life and death. Legalizing assisted suicide violates that fundamental truth, and no government office can reconcile such a contradiction.
HB 140 is set to be voted on by the full House this Tuesday. It only needs a simple majority—21 votes—to pass.
HB 36 and Redefining Identity Through Legislation
Another recent proposal from Rep. Eric Morrison is HB 36, a bill that expands Delaware’s non-discrimination laws by broadening the legal definition of sexual orientation. Last year, his legislation added asexual and pansexual to this definition, and now, HB 36 seeks to weave those additions into the rest of the state’s non-discrimination laws.
At first glance, this might seem like a simple update. But it’s part of a much larger shift—a movement that increasingly defines human identity by subjective self-perception, not by objective truth grounded in biology and design.
This emphasis on radical personal autonomy has accelerated since the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). That ruling redefined marriage and, in doing so, cracked open the door for many of the identity debates we’re seeing today. Since then, legal challenges across the country have pushed to enshrine additional identity categories as protected classes under civil rights laws.
But sexual identity isn’t something we construct or redefine—it’s a gift from God. “Male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).
During last year’s House committee hearing on this issue, I asked a simple but important question: Where will it end? This question met much backlash from committee members, but yet remains unanswered. Maybe it’s too much to hope that they’ll be answered this upcoming Wednesday as HB 36 is scheduled for a hearing in the House Administration Committee, alongside HB 14.
If we keep adding more categories to the definition of sexual orientation, how many will there be next year? And the year after that? At what point do we recognize that this endless reshaping of law to accommodate subjective identities leads to instability and confusion? Our laws are meant to serve and protect people, but they can’t do that well if they’re constantly being rewritten to reflect every cultural whim.
SB 55—Protecting Minors from Life-Altering Gender Decisions
Finally, we turn to SB 55, also known as the SAFE Act. This bill seeks to protect minors from undergoing irreversible gender transition procedures before they are mature enough to make such life-altering decisions. SB 55 prohibits these procedures for minors and emphasizes the importance of waiting until adulthood for such significant choices.
SB 55 will be heard in the Senate Health and Social Services Committee on Wednesday at 10am. Senator Richardson, who is championing this effort, has faced considerable opposition and will need strong public support as the hearing approaches.
The Big Picture—Truth Under Assault
This was only the first week back in session for Delaware legislators, and they’ll be making decisions on these policies and more until they break for Easter in April. But if there’s one thread running through everything we’ve talked about this week, it’s this:
➡️ A rejection of objective moral and legal truth in favor of subjective autonomy.
➡️ A devaluation of life, whether preborn, terminally ill, or struggling with identity.
➡️ A legal system increasingly shaped by personal feelings rather than moral absolutes or constitutional principles.
But we as believers are called to stand in the gap. As Micah 6:8 says, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”
Justice demands that we uphold the dignity of life. Kindness requires that we speak the truth in love. And humility calls us to recognize that God is the ultimate lawgiver—“For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king” (Isaiah 33:22).
So what can we do?
- Pray
We’ve put together a prayer guide specifically focused on SB 5, but it’s a great resource to help you pray over all these critical issues. Use it as a starting point and continue from there! You can find the link on this post, delawarefamilies.org/calltoprayer. Let’s cover these decisions—and the people making them—in prayer. - Engage
When we send out action alerts, it’s your opportunity to reach out directly to lawmakers and make your voice heard. Every call, email, and message makes a difference. And if you’re interested in taking it a step further by testifying in person, we’d love to help! Several people who spoke at the Senate hearing for SB 5 did so for the very first time—and you can too. Just email us at [email protected], and we’ll make sure you’re equipped and ready to stand for truth. - Stay Informed
The more you understand both the biblical perspective and the legal implications of these issues, the more effective you’ll be in conversations and advocacy. Make it a habit to stay in God’s Word and follow trusted resources that provide clear, factual updates on these laws. - Be Ready to Act
Thank you to everyone who has already responded to our alerts—you are making an impact! We’ll keep you updated as things move forward, and when the time comes to speak up, we need every voice. Yours counts. [Respond to the bills in this email, let your legislator know your values on the issue!]