The machine learning security community has developed myriad defenses for evasion attacks over the past decade. An understudied question in that community is: for whom do these defenses defend? In this work, we consider some common approaches to defending learned systems and whether those approaches may offer unexpected performance inequities when used by different sub-populations. We outline simple parity metrics and a framework for analysis that can begin to answer this question through empirical results of the fairness implications of machine learning security methods. Many methods have been proposed that can cause direct harm, which we describe as biased vulnerability and biased rejection. Our framework and metric can be applied to robustly trained models, preprocessing-based methods, and rejection methods to capture behavior over security budgets. We identify a realistic dataset with a reasonable computational cost suitable for measuring the equality of defenses. Through a case study in speech command recognition, we show how such defenses do not offer equal protection for social subgroups and how to perform such analyses for robustness training, and we present a comparison of fairness between two rejection-based defenses: randomized smoothing and neural rejection. We offer further analysis of factors that correlate to equitable defenses to stimulate the future investigation of how to assist in building such defenses. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that examines the fairness disparity in the accuracy-robustness trade-off in speech data and addresses fairness evaluation for rejection-based defenses.