Outside a Baltimore Abortuary

CBR Maryland reports on how a graphic abortion video on the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s (CBR’s) website, AbortionNO.org, was used to save a baby’s life.

“Star” was counseling for only the second time ever outside Planned Parenthood (PP)of Baltimore.  Among the numerous couples she approached was a woman in her 30’s, escorted by her male friend.  While mom didn’t want to speak to anyone, her friend was willing to hang around and chat.  Like most people headed into an abortion clinic, he was convinced that this was the only choice.

Star procured a smart phone and persuaded him to watch the graphic abortion video posted on AbortionNO.org.  He was visibly disturbed and told her that witnessing abortion certainly did change his perspective.  Eventually mom came out again to retrieve her friend, who urged her to view the video herself.  Reluctantly, she did, and experienced the same paradigm shift.

Star continued counseling these two for 30 minutes, aided by other counselors on scene, until at last the couple departed the clinic, armed with information on a local crisis pregnancy center.  Victory!

Star was instrumental in another save that same day, and in a third encounter used the graphic video to persuade a woman to reenter the clinic and attempt to get her abortion-minded friend out of there (result inconclusive).

CBR encourages the use of graphic abortion images outside abortion mills.  The pictures do not make the sidewalk counselors unapproachable, and they have been instrumental in deterring several women from aborting their children.  Praise God that an image of man’s inhumanity can become a tool of life and love!

Ronald Reagan makes us all proud to be Americans.  I hope God will one day bless us again with a leader like that.  Some have said that we have the teenagers and politicians that we deserve.  In the 1980’s, we got much better than we deserved.  Let us pray that God will once again visit our land.

Ronald Reagan had the guts to tell it like it is:

The First Amendment was not written to protect people and their laws from religious values.  It was written to protect those values from government tyranny.

We must be cautious in claiming God is on our side.  I think the real question we must answer is, “Are we on His side?”

The morality and values such faith implies are deeply imbedded in our national character.  Our country embraces those principles by design and we abandon them at our peril.

Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey is now a featured author at FAB!  (OK, he just blasted out this e-mail, but what the heck.)

Boldness in Education Policy is the Only Answer
by Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey

When I first arrived in the state Senate in 1996, Republicans were in the minority. That fact didn’t bother me in the least. I’ve embraced challenges all my life. So when I got to the Senate, my primary goal was to build a conservative majority in the state Senate.

The guardians of the status quo had other ideas. Democrats, of course, pushed back against us. But even those on “my side” warned that talk of a GOP majority was “dangerous” and that I shouldn’t upset the apple cart.

It took a lot of hard work, but today we have not only a majority in the Senate but also a supermajority in both houses of the General Assembly.

Our road to a conservative majority comes to mind often when I am engaged in battles on education policy in Tennessee. The guardians of the status quo, it seems, are everywhere.

While our state is featured frequently at the top of various “best of” lists, there is one area in which Tennessee has historically lagged behind: education. We have ranked near the bottom of states by various different metrics. When Republicans finally got our majorities and captured the governor’s mansion, we moved quickly and deliberately to change that history. And we have.

We abolished the teachers union monopoly on collective bargaining so that teachers, not union representatives, have a voice and a seat at the table. We made test scores part of teacher evaluations so that our best teachers can be rewarded for their hard work. And parents now have more choices in education thanks to our expansion of the state’s charter school law. Most importantly, we have ended the tenure entitlement for teachers.

Results have been encouraging. Already, our schools have posted three consecutive years of gains on state assessments in all areas. Nearly 150,000 more students are proficient or advanced in elementary and middle school math and science than in 2010. And we are one of only two states making double-digit gains in high school graduation rates.

None of this could have been done without the outstanding education reform team we have in place. One member of that team has drawn the ire of the enemies of innovation and the defenders of the status quo.

Education Commissioner Kevin Huffman has been under fire for advocating a new salary schedule for teachers which, for the first time, would reward our very best or highest-need teachers with truly competitive pay. No longer would low-performing teachers receive higher salaries and benefits just for punching a clock. To the old education establishment, this is a revolutionary concept. To most people, this is just common sense.

I find it amazing that just because Commissioner Huffman stands up to special interests to create a better Tennessee for our school children, he gets pilloried.

Opponents can claim that teacher pay will be cut, but the truth is just the opposite. Gov. Bill Haslam and the General Assembly have added $130 million for teacher salaries over the past three years, compared with $22 million over Gov. Phil Bredesen’s last term.

Tennessee is changing the game when it comes to education — and change is not easy. The inertia of the status quo is strong. This “Race to the Top” is not a sprint; it is a marathon.

Fortunately, we Republicans are not immune to hard work. We thrive on it. I’m proud of our governor, our Republican legislators and especially our education commissioner for being willing to battle complacency and strive to do better.

This is about our children. It is about their future and the future of our great state. Boldness in education policy is not just one option among many. It is the only option.

Originally published in the July 20, 2013 edition of the Nashville Tennessean newspaper

New report by Reuters says that graphic anti-smoking ads have resulted in 100,000 people kicking the habit.  Apparently, when people saw pictures of what smoking actually does to people, it motivated them to stop.

You reckon graphic images of abortion might work for the pro-life movement?

.

Jonathan Darnel practicing what he preaches.

Guest column by Jonathan Darnel, Project Director for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) Maryland Operations.  This originally appeared as an online comment to a piece by Gerald Nadal on LifeSiteNews.com.  Dr. Nadal’s piece was in response to a hit piece against the pro-life movement written by Elizabeth Jahr.

Does the March for Life advance or impede the Pro Life Movement?
by Jonathan Darnel

I’m afraid neither Ms. Jahr nor Mr. Nadal is right.  Mr. Nadal has adequately refuted Ms. Jahr in this article, but his belief that the March for Life (MFL) motivates pro-lifers to fight abortion is false.  Rather, the MFL convinces most pro-lifers that all they need to do is march once a year, and spend the rest of the year pursuing their normal lives.

Don’t believe me?  I can prove it.  According to Mr. Nadal, last year’s MFL attracted 600,000 marchers. According to AbortionDocs.com, there are fewer than 800 abortion clinics in America.  Do the arithmetic: 600,000 pro-life marchers divided by 800 abortion clinics equals 750 marches per clinic.  Tell me, are there 750 people targeting each abortion clinic in America?  Are there even 100?  What is the average number of people you see standing outside an abortion clinic on a Saturday morning?

Ask any random pro-life person what they are doing to end abortion and you will hear them say, “I pray, I vote, and I attend the MFL.”  Maybe their church gives a pittance to a nearby crisis pregnancy center.  This is the sum of their dedication.  And they think it’s enough?  Outrageous!  I know plenty of abortion clinics located mere blocks from a Christian church or high school, and nobody seems to notice or care.  It’s the same for both Catholic and Protestant churches.  It is absolutely terrible.

Instead of one large march which gets zero media coverage, we should be conducting thousands of local marches, and maintaining persistent, year-long vigils outside very clinic, every abortionist’s home, every government building, every college campus, and every busy city intersection.  As long as we can do more, we should.  Few of life’s pursuits are more important than ending this wicked Holocaust.

When I attend the MFL, I go there with large banners decrying Christian apathy and calling on marchers to get serious or go home.  Marching once a year is not enough.  It is an insult to the lives we supposedly are there to defend.

CBR Maryland has launched a new project called Run2TheBattle (link here), which aims to help Christians realize that marching once a year is not enough to end the abortion holocaust, and that kids are dying because barely anyone is fighting to save them.  Several other groups around the country are also doing this.  It’s about time.  40 years of apathy is just too long.

Funny video from Debt Limit USA.  It would be funny, if it weren’t so true.

GAP creates modulated conflict that draws a crowd and creates a forum in which abortion advocates are forced to defend the decapitation and dismemberment of little human beings.

In Part 1, FAB reported on a recent column in the University of Alabama student newspaper attacking the Bama Students for Life, apparently for hosting GAP in April.  I responded, and now John Speer has answered:

Sir, you don’t present any reasoned arguments. You offer an emotional appeal which is heartfelt, but lacking in any substantive evidence. You want to shame me by reducing the discussion to absurdity-either I want to kill babies or I don’t. There is more substance to the argument than my feelings. I don’t like abortions, but I have no right to tell an individual what they can or cannot do with their body. Please research some facts on infant mortality, lack of access to prenatal care, and the dangers of pregnancy.

Moreover, I did not call for censorship, I said guidance, also known as teaching.  In other words, we should lead by example and demonstrate to students what respectful debate should resemble. I cannot respect students who engage endorse BSFL tactics. I apologize, but that is the reality. There are pro-life groups I respect, BSFL is simply not one of them.

I responded:

Mr. Speer, thank you for your reply. I’d like to address your points.

The most important objection you raise is that we offered no arguments nor evidence for our position, only an emotional appeal. But in fact, that objection is easily rebutted because the pictures of abortion are the very best evidence that abortion is a violent act that decapitates and dismembers a small human being. I’ll take for granted that we all agree killing human beings is wrong, so why is it OK to kill certain human beings that are smaller and more defenseless than ourselves? Call me crazy, but it seems to me that the burden of proof lies with those doing the killing. Pejoratives and ad hominems do not make your case.

You are right to object to telling an individual what she can do with her own body. We all agree to that. But when an individual intends to carry out an act of violence that kills another human being without justification, then a civilized society is compelled to intervene, to protect the weaker from the stronger. We have a whole host of laws that prevent one person from acting to kill another (laws against murder), harm another (e.g., laws against assault, fraud, etc.), or put another person at risk of harm (e.g., laws against speeding).  All of these laws restrict the choices of people who would harm others.

People who advocate systematic injustice often couch their arguments in the language of choice. Even Stephen Douglas stated that he was opposed to slavery, but he believed that the Southern states should have the right to choose whether to be slave states or free states. At a personal level, people in those states were completely free to exercise choice in whether to own a slave or not. With systematic injustice, everyone gets a choice but the victim.

I know of no facts on infant mortality or lack of access to prenatal care that would justify killing an innocent human being. Regarding the dangers of pregnancy, we make a compelling case that abortion is justified when the life of the mother is in danger. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, for example, removing the baby to save the life of the mother is the only bio-ethically sound alternative.

You absolutely did call for censorship. You said that the BSFL should be “monitored” and given “strong guidance” because they are “uninformed.” Apparently, uninformed means “disagrees with Mr. Speer and his friends.” Of course, you wouldn’t submit to monitoring and “strong guidance” for your own column. In your mind, that wouldn’t be necessary because you are not “uninformed.” Let’s apply your rule both ways. If I claim your column offended me as much as our pictures offended you, and if I claim that your leftist views are a “high-profile disaster” for the entire country, shouldn’t you be subjected to special government monitoring and “strong guidance” as well?

Who is going to decide whose speech needs to be monitored and strongly guided and whose is not? You? Would you be for “strong guidance” if I (or somebody like me) were assigned by the government to monitor you and strongly guide you in the preparation of your column? Call me a simple country boy — which I am — but the line between “strong guidance” and censorship is impossible to discern, especially when it is applied only to certain people (i.e., those who disagree with Mr. Speer and his friends).

You say that you want respectful debate. Imbedded in that claim are two false assertions. First, you imply that the debate surrounding our GAP display was not respectful. On what do you base that claim? Despite enduring many ad hominem attacks throughout both days, we were able to have hundreds of respectful encounters with people who disagreed with us. Some resulted in changed minds. Some concluded with a handshake and a promise to respect each other despite our differing points of view. If you didn’t see that, you just were not looking. Second, your version of “respectful” is that you control the terms and conditions of the debate. You seem to be saying that showing pictures in public is not respectful and comparing the mass slaughter of preborn human beings to the mass slaughter of other people groups is not respectful. In other words, you want a debate in which we don’t present our evidence nor make our arguments. Or maybe you just want the debate to happen behind closed doors, where few people will see it. We don’t think it is disrespectful to show people pictures of reality.

Finally, regarding respect, we ask for none. Social reformers don’t expect to be popular, especially among defenders of injustice. We don’t care what people think of us, nearly as much as we care what people think of abortion. However, we do insist that our unalienable right of free speech be respected.

Bama Students for Life: uninformed, stupid, horridly offensive, creates high-profile disasters, requires monitoring and “strong guidance.”

Crimson White columnist John Speer took a swipe at the Bama Students for Life (BSFL) in a recent column.  Mr. Speer, obviously disturbed by our Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), wrote:

Uninformed groups such as the Bama Students for Life, who create high-profile disasters for an entire campus, should be monitored.  They require advisors who can teach them judicious principles and a voice of reason that can craft savvy, and not horridly offensive, goals.  Good intentions cannot cure stupidity; the only remedy for such a problem is strong guidance.

BSFL President Claire Chretien responded with a column of her own.  She wrote, in part:

I agree with Mr. Speer that photos of abortion are “horridly offensive.”  This is why we show them.  If abortion is so repulsive to look at, then perhaps this violence isn’t something we should tolerate as a civilized society.  Our mentors helped us plan and execute the Genocide Awareness Project, which sparked weeks of campus debate and inspired close to 1,000 pro-life students to join our mailing list.

Did you see that?  GAP inspired nearly 1,000 students to join BSFL’s mailing list!

Anyway, back to Mr. Speer’s original column.  I commented online:

Mr. Speer, ad hominem attacks are no substitutes for reasoned arguments.  If you could offer one good argument why it should be OK to decapitate and dismember little human beings, we would be grateful to hear it.  The fact is, you can’t.  Otherwise, you would make your case and let it stand on it’s own.  Instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks and name-calling.

But even that is not enough for you.  The evil you endorse is so disturbing, you can’t bear to look at it.  You are offended when your evil is exposed, so you want the University (i.e., the government) to “monitor” the BSFL and “teach” them to have goals that are not offensive (i.e., not offensive to you).  That is a thinly-veiled call for government censorship … which is an odd thing for a newspaper to endorse, don’t you think?

Take heart, Mr. Speer, that you are disturbed by photos of violent death.  Even though you endorse decapitating and dismembering little human beings now, your reaction shows that you still have a functioning conscience.  That encourages us to never quit.

But that wasn’t all.  More in Part 2 …

What does Christianity like in a culture that tolerates this?

Great piece by Rolley Haggard over at BreakPoint takes a sober look at the modern Church’s response to abortion:

• The Question That Will Define Us: What Does Christianity Look Like in a Culture That Kills Its Children?

Excerpt:

You remark to yourself that the Christians of this present generation could have spoken up, but they didn’t.

They could have regularly and passionately preached against this horrific evil, but they didn’t.

They could have prayed and marched and held vigils day and night, but they didn’t.

They could have voted and lobbied and advocated and cried aloud without ceasing, but they didn’t.

They could have written letters and held signs and stood outside abortion clinics day in and day out, but they didn’t.

They could have made it clear to their elected leaders, their neighbors, and perhaps most importantly to themselves, that here is an unspeakably great evil that cannot, that must not be tolerated. But they didn’t. By and large they didn’t.

And by their not doing what they could have done about this great evil, they committed an even greater evil, because they knew better than to let it happen and they let it happen anyway.

Link to full piece here.