Iowa State Representative Zach Dieken outlined his shift from supporting the pro-life movement to advocating for the abolition of abortion during a presentation Sunday evening, October 18, at Faith Baptist Church in Rock Rapids.
The District 5 Republican and George-Little Rock graduate spoke at an event titled “Rethinking the Abortion Issue,” explaining how his Christian faith shaped his views on abortion and government’s responsibility to protect unborn children.
Dieken is serving his final year representing House District 5. Republican Keith Glienke and Democrat Stephanie Steiner are running to succeed him in the November 3 election.
Faith Behind His Change in Position
Dieken described his change in perspective as the result of studying Scripture and reconsidering his own approach to abortion.
“I became more and more convinced that I was wrong, and that I had been apathetic and pragmatic in my own approach and my own heart. And I needed to repent. I needed to seek the Lord’s wisdom and do whatever I could. My worldview needed to change.”
Throughout the presentation, Dieken contrasted incremental abortion restrictions with an approach that would extend legal protections from fertilization. He argued that criminal accountability should apply to those involved in an abortion, including the woman obtaining it.
In a follow-up interview, Dieken said the accountability he supports could extend to a father or others who help arrange or facilitate an abortion. He said his approach would bring unborn children under existing criminal laws, with those laws determining responsibility for the people involved.
“Thus, my number one foundational assertion this evening is that abortion is absolutely murder…and that murdering anyone should be illegal for everyone, and that anything less than this is unbiblical and not pleasing to God.”
Dieken was among the sponsors of House File 2256 in 2024. The proposal would have included unborn children from fertilization within the definition of a victim under homicide and assault laws and expanded wrongful-death provisions.
The bill did not create a separate offense specifically for fathers or parents. Its stated purposes included removing provisions allowing a person to solicit, command, aid, or counsel a pregnant woman to obtain an abortion.
The proposal also contained exceptions involving miscarriage and unintentional harm during qualifying lifesaving procedures for a pregnant woman. The bill did not advance out of the House Judiciary Committee.
Questions About Heartbeat Law Enforcement
During a question-and-answer session, Dieken challenged Iowa’s heartbeat law, focusing on its lack of criminal penalties.
His discussion included references to the Emma Goldman Clinic in Iowa City and his monitoring of its website. He argued that the law’s enforcement provisions fall short of the accountability he supports for abortion providers.
“And by the way, that means the doctor involved too. So there’s not even criminal sanctions for the doctor involved.”
Iowa’s heartbeat law generally prohibits abortions after cardiac activity is detected, which can occur around six weeks of pregnancy, with specified exceptions. The statute expressly excludes civil or criminal liability for the woman receiving an abortion in violation of that section. Physicians can face licensing discipline or civil fines.
Dieken acknowledged the possibility of professional consequences but questioned whether they provide sufficient accountability.
The restriction began being enforced July 29, 2024, following court proceedings. In a follow-up interview, Dieken said he had not retained screenshots of the clinic’s earlier advertising. The Emma Goldman Clinic’s current website acknowledges the prohibition on abortions after cardiac activity is detected. His account does not establish that the clinic violated the enforceable restriction.
Dieken also argued that declines in abortions provided at Iowa clinics do not capture the full number obtained by Iowa residents, including through interstate travel or medication sent by mail. In a follow-up interview, he said his comparison focuses on Iowa residents. He supplied a chart from the Foundation to Abolish Abortion combining those categories to argue that the broader total has increased.
The chart draws on state reports and research from the Guttmacher Institute and the Society of Family Planning, while applying its own adjustment to telehealth estimates. Its combined figures are not directly comparable to Iowa’s state-reported abortion totals.
Continued Advocacy Beyond the Legislature
In the follow-up interview, Dieken directed criticism toward members of his own party.
“Republicans are not interested in providing equal protection under the law for unborn children.”
He accused Republican lawmakers of campaigning against abortion while failing to support the legal protections he favors.
During Sunday’s event, Dieken also challenged the idea that Democrats alone are responsible for abortion remaining legal, directing criticism toward pro-life organizations and their influence on lawmakers.
“Why is abortion legal in our state? Not because of Planned Parenthood, not because of the Democrats. Stop blaming them. But because all pro-life groups in Iowa lobbied our elected officials to deny equal protection under the law for our preborn, fatherless, innocent neighbors.”
Dieken argued that support for incremental restrictions falls short of the legal protections and criminal accountability he favors.
He urged churches to address abortion through their teaching, outreach, and engagement with elected officials, while emphasizing that he sees legislation as only one part of the effort.
“But the answer to abortion is not legislation. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Although his time in the Iowa House is coming to an end, Dieken said he plans to continue advocating at the Statehouse through a local organization supporting equal legal protection for unborn children.
