Could be. But the question is one of prudence, the application of right reason to a particular situation.
Since we don't know that every Christian will mobilize as you have suggested, and, since we are not certain of how effective that might be, is that a risk thats reasonable to take if being wrong results in deaths that could be prevented?
From a moral standpoint to merely tolerate but not intend a lesser evil so that a good can be achieved would be a reasonable effect. The moral act involved in this legislation is not the intent to kill babies but the desire to save some.
Here’s the difference between you and me: you’re making Utilitarian arguments, and I’m making moral and constitutional arguments.
Utilitarianism is a godless ideology. It has an appearance of wisdom on the surface, but it never works out in the long run. Why? Because God decreed at the beginning of the creation that you would reap what you sow. All things reproduce after their kind.
Doing what is right may look likely to be “unsuccessful” in the short term, but it always wins in the end, if prosecuted to the end by men and women of principle and courage.
As for the Utilitarian strategy you, and American politicians like Walker, continue to promote, we already know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it doesn’t work.
But look, if forty years of obvious utter failure won’t convince you of that, most likely nothing I can say in by brief time on this thread is likely to make any difference in your thinking.