I am going to talk about how regulationists are attempting to appropriate the term "abolitionist" in exactly the same way that they did with "animal rights" in the 1990s. That is, in the 1990s, many regulationists claimed that they embraced animal rights as a long-term goal but advocated welfare reform as a means of achieving rights. Similarly, many regulationists are now claiming to embrace abolition as a long-term goal but propose welfare reform as a means to that end. In both cases, the regulationists fail to understand that the status of animals as chattel property imposes a structural limit on welfare reform. Moreover, the regulationist position necessarily assumes that the lives of nonhumans have a lesser moral value than do the lives of humans. I will also discuss other aspects of the abolitionist approach to animal rights that I have developed.