§ 1 Key language
“our laws should not punish a woman who has an illegal abortion”
Family Council, January 20, 2023
§ 2 Scorecard
Composite 8 of 12 — explicit opposition to a tenet. Each dimension is scored 0 (none), 1 (implied) or 2 (explicit); the rationale column is the editor's one-line reason for every non-zero score.
| Dimension | Score | Meaning at this score | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 Exceptions | 0 | None | — |
| D2 Immunity for the mother fault line | 2 | Explicitly opposes prosecuting or criminalizing women | Four stated reasons not to prosecute women. |
| D3 Incrementalism | 2 | Explicitly endorses a regulatory or gestational bill instead of abolition | Prefers existing incremental law. |
| D4 Opposition to abolition or equal-protection bills fault line | 2 | Explicitly opposes or lobbies against one | Opposes HB 1174. |
| D5 Framing | 1 | Implied | Pragmatic enforcement framing. |
| D6 Secular framing | 1 | Mixed — mentions prayer or faith, or mixed religious signers | Mixed. |
§ 3 Spokesperson
1 signature row · Single organization. A single-organization record; the spokesperson row is illustrative, not a signature block.
| # | Name as printed | Title as printed | Organization as printed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jerry Cox | President | Family Council |
§ 4 Organizations on this letter
1 distinct organization and 1 named individual, after normalizing renamed and affiliated entities.
§ 5 Sources
Letter/statement text read from the organization’s own document.
familycouncil.org/2023/01/20/bill-wou…https://familycouncil.org/2023/01/20/bill-would-make-it-possible-to-sue-prosecute-women-in-arkansas-who-have-abortions/
Primary source
Editorial note
The rubric records distance from the standard published by Abolitionists Rising, not a moral verdict; every organization scored here regards itself as pro-life. Scores are judgment calls applied consistently by the published rubric; a disagreement is a disagreement with the rubric's conventions, not with an individual cell.