In spring 2026, social media users claimed North Carolina Republicans had proposed legislation that would allow anyone to kill a pregnant person seeking an abortion.
The rumor circulated on X, Threads and Reddit.
Oh, so a rapist can impregnate a woman against her will and then legally kill her if she tries to get an abortion. Republicans hate women. https://t.co/r2EgLa15Pf
— Sarah Ironside 💙 (@SarahIronside6) May 27, 2026
The allegation stemmed from a real proposal introduced on May 13 by North Carolina state Rep. Keith Kidwell, a Republican with a history of
Kidwell's proposal, House Bill 1232, would amend the state constitution to declare that life "begins at the moment of fertilization" and to give those "lives" the same rights and protections that a human being has under North Carolina law. That includes the right to self-defense or the defense of other lives via the use of "deadly force" in certain circumstances.
Experts we spoke to had different interpretations of how closely the bill met the parameters of the claim. However, they all agreed that the legislation was so "poorly drafted" that a judge or a jury would have to determine how to interpret the bill in practice. Furthermore, the bill likely would not survive legislative and judicial scrutiny long enough to become law in its current form.
Given that it's impossible to determine how a judge or jury would ultimately rule on vaguely written legislation that has very little chance of passing, we have not rated this claim.
State Rep. Ben Moss, a Republican who initially co-sponsored House Bill 1232, announced in a May 26 X post that he was withdrawing his name from the bill because it was not clearly written.
"The purpose behind this legislation was to affirm the value and dignity of unborn life — not to suggest that women should face capital punishment or to create uncertainty surrounding difficult medical situations," Moss wrote. "I believe additional work, clarification, and discussion are necessary before moving forward with legislation of this magnitude."
Kidwell did not respond to an inquiry as to whether he believed his bill would give anyone the right to kill pregnant people seeking abortions. North Carolina's House and Senate Republican leadership did not immediately return inquires about whether their caucuses were interested in advancing Kidwell's legislation.
The bill
Kidwell's proposal is available on North Carolina's legislative website. Here's the full text of what Kidwell wants to add to the North Carolina state constitution (emphasis ours):
Sec. 39. Life begins at fertilization. It is a matter of indisputable scientific fact that a distinct and separate human life begins at the moment of fertilization. As such, that new human life is recognized by the State as an individual person, entitled to the protection of the laws of this State from the moment of fertilization until the moment of natural death. Any person who willfully seeks to destroy the life of another person, by any means, at any stage of life, or succeeds in doing so, shall be held accountable for attempted murder or for first degree murder, respectively. Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person. The State has an interest and a duty to defend innocent persons from willful destruction of their lives and to punish those who take the lives of persons, born or unborn, who have not committed any crime punishable by death.
(It is worth noting that whether life begins at the moment of fertilization is disputed. Scientists have no widely accepted consensus on when life begins.)
Experts weigh in
Khiara
She added that the "logical inconsistency" of killing a pregnant person to defend the life of a fetus — given that such an action would also kill the fetus — means that a lot of judges would probably consider the "legislative intent," or the history, documents and reasoning behind passing a law. As such, Bridges believes that most judges would determine that the bill, if it became law, would not allow the killing of a pregnant person.
Deirdre Bowen, a law professor at Seattle University and director of the university's Family Law Center,
Bowen made a distinction between giving a person "permission" to kill and providing a justifiable defense for killing under the law. She said a prosecutor could still take a defendant who kills a pregnant person to a criminal trial, and the burden would then shift to the defendant to convince a jury that the use of force, including deadly force, was justifiable.
"People are interpreting it as, 'Oh, you get to kill a woman,'" Bowen said about the bill. "No, it's not giving you permission. It's giving you a potential defense that has very specific guidelines."
She added that since killing a pregnant woman would not protect the fetus, it would be "hard for a jury to see this as justifiable."
In North Carolina, a person justifying use of force under right to defense laws would have to believe there was an "imminent" threat of death or great bodily harm. As such, the bill, if passed, would also definitely not allow someone to kill a woman who is merely planning to get an abortion but has not yet taken action.
Bowen said she's far more concerned about abusers using physical force to keep their partners pregnant under this proposal, given that the use of force doesn't have to be deadly.
"It gives permission for people to engage in violence against women who seek to terminate their pregnancy," Bowen said. "That's a much more likely successful defense."
Marcia Zug, a law professor at the University of
"Ultimately, what I really think it might be doing is giving the right to defend the fetus from harm to a third party. So, for instance, if a pregnant person is being attacked but their life is not in danger but the pregnancy is, then you can use deadly force to defend the fetus," Zug said.
The bill isn't viable, experts say
Zug, like several social media users, also noted that the bill may also "unwittingly" give pregnant people a self-defense argument for abortion.
"If a fetus is a person and it's going to kill you, then it seems to suggest you have the right to kill it in self-defense," she said.
In fact, every expert Snopes spoke to said the bill's vague wording meant it would introduce numerous apparent loopholes if it passed.
As such, the policy would likely not survive legislative and judicial scrutiny and become law in its current
Bowen said someone could go as far to attempt to justify assaulting a mail person to prevent the delivery of abortion pills like mifepristone if the delivery person knew what the package contained. Bridges pointed out that some forms of oral conception and other types of birth control prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, but they don't stop fertilization.
"Every morning before you take your pill, is someone authorized to use force against you? It's a terribly worded bill," she said.