Here are even more stories from Cody & Caleb’s trip to Florida with our Canadian colleagues.

Showing the truth before it’s too late. After hearing the facts of human embryology, Andre agreed that the preborn are living human beings. But, he raised several concerns, such as foster care, life of the mother, and rape. Andre said, “Logically, factually, objectively, I agree with you, but when put in hard situations, I’m not sure people would make the logical decision.”

That is why projects like GAP and AAP are so important; so that people can see abortion and consider the child’s worth before they find themselves in a terrible situation.

The science of life before birth. Jasmine ranted, “All y’all want to do is talk about the baby and not anything else!” But her true objection was that she doubted our photos were real. So, Cody showed her the See Baby Grow app from the Education Resource Fund (www.ERF.science).

Jasmine was shocked by the endoscopy video of what the baby looks like in the womb so early. She was so visibly affected she could barely even talk. As she was about to leave, Cody gave her information on pregnancy resource centers and post-abortion healing ministries.

A baby is always a blessing. Vincent told Cody that he thought abortion should be permissible only in cases of sexual assault. Cody acknowledged the difficulties regarding conception from rape and Vincent acknowledged that the preborn is a living human being. He was touched when Cody told him the baby would be the only good thing that comes out of that scenario and that abortion would just add another trauma. Vincent walked away with lots to think about.

Each February, our friends from the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) escape the Great White North to conduct their Abortion Awareness Project (AAP) at universities in Florida. (The AAP is similar to our Genocide Awareness Project.)

CBR staffers Caleb Johnson and Cody Levi joined the Canucks and had dozens of life-changing encounters with students. They came back with many fantastic stories.

Human rights for all human beings. Caleb asked a young man approaching the display if he thought abortion was okay. He said, “No, but it’s the mother’s choice.” So, Caleb used three questions to get to the heart of the issue:

· If something is growing, isn’t it alive?

· If a male human and a female human reproduce, isn’t the offspring human?

· Do you believe in human rights?

The student answered “Yes” to all three. Then, Caleb brought it full circle and asked “And who do you think should get human rights?” The young man smiled widely, “Every living human being.”

Food for thought. Another young man flipped the bird, cursed at Caleb’s question and stomped away. However, about ten steps later, he turned around and came back, saying, “You know what, a respectful question deserves a respectful answer. I’m so sorry.” After that, they had a friendly exchange, during which Caleb was able to make our pro-life position clear. We don’t always change someone’s mind on the spot, but we always give them something to think about. 

Silently pro-life. A pro-life woman from Brazil shared that in her home country, if someone finds out that you are pro-life, you are harassed and hounded until you change your mind or until you won’t dare bring up the topic anymore. And we thought we had it bad!

Will the future leaders of foreign nations, influenced by the American pro-life movement, help us if we get to the point that we can’t help ourselves?

by Patti Shanley

The international population at Purdue is one of the largest at any university in this country.  The students who saw GAP will return home with more than a degree.

Sad Song.  Song, from China, struggled to put into English her reaction to the horrifying pictures of tiny, aborted babies.

“Is real?” she wanted to know.  She knew about forced abortion in her homeland, but this was the first time she had actually seen abortion.  She experienced that crucial moment of cognitive dissonance when truth shatters through a long-held belief.  With her head shaking, fighting back tears, all she could say was “No!  No!  No!”

Unimaginable and unbelievable.  “This is not legal in this country, yes?”  Two international students were having a hard time believing abortion is available on demand, without any reason.  He could only stare, and she was almost in tears.   I explained the importance of graphic images in reform movements, and that we want people to see the horror of abortion so they will never accept injustice as a choice.  The students had heard of forced abortions in their own country, but could not imagine voluntary abortions.  When I told them there were about 3,300 each day, the young woman cried out in disbelief.

Disgusting.  Reactions from other international students were similar, and after three days at Purdue, it was painfully clear that this country is in trouble.  Although students from other countries were shocked and disgusted at seeing the truth, American students and faculty called us “disgusting” for showing the truth.  They tried to defend decapitating and dismembering tiny, innocent human beings.  “You people are disgusting,” one faculty member hissed as she walked by.  No, abortion is disgusting.

Patti Shanley is a CBR partner and volunteer from Raleigh, North Carolina.

The leftist media agrees … CBR is changing the nature of the abortion debate.

As part of a series on the pro-life advances across Europe, NBC News devoted an entire article to the growing use of abortion pictures.  They wrote,

“Graphic pictures of aborted fetuses, prayer vigils and protesters.  It’s no coincidence that the anti-abortion movement looks the same from London to Dublin to Warsaw.”

The other side knows the times, they are a-changin’.  Pro-abort activist Goretti Horgan of Northern Ireland said it this way:

“We knew that they were being supported by the U.S. because of their tactics — they were very, very aggressive whereas the anti-abortion people before that had been very respectable.”

By aggressive, she means “effective”.  By respectable, she means “easy to ignore”.

The article credits Gregg Cunningham of CBR as the driving force behind this strategic advance.  NBC’s article created a fantastic platform in which Cunningham and leaders of European pro-life organizations could discuss the history of social reform and the reasoning behind our strategy and tactics.  It also gives an overview of the scope of CBR’s reach, stating that,

“Pro-abortion activists, providers and seekers in Finland, Sweden, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Ireland, England and beyond have been confronted with the same photos of dismembered fetuses as American women from Austin to Buffalo.”

NBC News agrees … because you support CBR, the times, they are a-changin’.

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) is helping the pro-life movement in Europe develop more effective strategies for activism and growth.

So says Neil Datta, secretary of the European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development (an abortion advocacy organization).  Referencing an interview with Mr. Datta, Women’s eNews (a feminist online publication) wrote:

U.S. anti-abortion groups appear to be sharing their expertise with their European counterparts.  Datta cites the example of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, based in Knoxville, Tenn., which ran a poster campaign that links photos of genocide and holocaust next to images of aborted fetuses.  Countries, such as Slovakia and Poland, used a similar ad campaign to promote their agenda at the European Parliament and in public squares, said Datta.

Mr. Datta also described the linkage between good strategy and growth of the pro-life movement:

Datta said it’s hard to prove the financial links between U.S. anti-abortion groups and their European counterparts but signs of growing prosperity are obvious.  In Brussels, he said, for example, about a dozen anti-abortion groups have offices and professional staffs.  “Twenty years ago,” he said, “there were maybe two or three organizations in Brussels.”

See entire article here.

When you support CBR, you not only save lives and change public opinion in the USA,  you enable strategic pro-life activism across the globe!

When she sanctions consumer fraud as a means of victimizing abortion customers, she reveals a view of women that is both archaic and repressive.

Gregg Cunningham recently spoke at a church in Stockholm as part of a month-long European tour.  As perhaps the world’s premier pro-life strategist, Gregg is frequently asked to consult with pro-life leaders in Europe and elsewhere around the globe.  This particular talk was attended by Ida Ali-Abdulla Lindqvist, an extremist abortion advocate who posted a one-sided story on the Swedish state television website.  In this essay, Gregg responds.  Note: your browser can translate the links to English (or something like it).

Swedish Abortion Extremist Clearly Frightened of Abortion Pictures
by Gregg Cunningham

Shortly after my antiabortion presentation at a church in Stockholm, Ida Ali-Abdulla Lindqvist posted an extremist abortion manifesto on the Swedish state television website.  She misrepresented her position on abortion to gain access to our meeting (unnecessarily, because we eagerly welcome our adversaries, particularly if they are journalists) and then misrepresented the events which transpired at that meeting.

Mr. Mats Selander and I advocated the public display of prenatal development imagery and abortion photos to ensure that voters, and especially people contemplating elective pregnancy termination, possess the clearest possible understanding of an unborn child’s humanity and of abortion’s inhumanity.  In advanced societies, healthcare professionals are ethically obligated to present patients with disturbing clinical information, even over their patients’ objection.  The same duty should exist regarding abortion.  Ms. Ali-Abdulla Lindqvist, however, demands that this information be withheld.  Why does she fear the truth?   Because she can’t face the facts without losing the argument.

She incorrectly asserts that our “strongest weapon” is the use of “confusion, shame, and guilt.”  But in reality, our strongest weapon is the truth – the truth which must be seen to be understood.  The truth for which no words are adequate.  The truth revealed in our aborted baby photos.  That truth dispels confusion and can only induce feelings of shame and guilt if abortion is exposed as an indefensible act of violence that kills a real baby – which, of course, is precisely the truth Ms. Ali-Abdulla Lindqvist is trying to hide.

Ms. Ali-Abdulla Lindqvist says our abortion photos are “manipulation” and “mental abuse” of the “most disgusting sort.”  But it is Ms. Ali-Abdullah who is the manipulator and abuser.  Nothing could be more manipulative than abusing women by misleading them into abortions they would have rejected had they been shown the horrifying truth.  When she sanctions consumer fraud as a means of victimizing abortion customers, she reveals a view of women that is both archaic and repressive.

Ms. Ali-Abdulla Lindqvist then falsely accuses us of displaying abortion-related imagery which was not representative of most pregnancy terminations in Sweden.  This is not true.  Because 95% of Swedish abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, 95% of our abortion-related imagery depicts embryos and early fetuses of 12 weeks or younger.  A brief look at our website (www.abortionNO.org) proves this point.

She also criticizes what she mistakenly suggests were a set of questionable “statistics,” but which I clearly explained were not “statistics” at all.  They were merely rough estimates being offered for purposes of discussion.

She refers to a question from a young man who asked whether any of our videos depicted miscarriages.  She intimates that my answer was evasive, but all of our abortion imagery was obtained at abortion clinics.  Women go to abortion clinics for abortions.  When women miscarry, they are generally treated in a hospital or their doctor’s office by the obstetrician/gynecologist who treated them during their pregnancy.  All of our abortion imagery depicts abortions.  Anyone who alleges otherwise is placing themselves on the same moral plain as Holocaust deniers who say Jewish death camp photos are fakes.

Ms. Ali-Abdulla’s racism and gender bias and are on full display as she rages against patriarchy generally and white men specifically.  Half the babies butchered by abortion are male and that alone should give men a voice.  But she is also an anti-Christian bigot.  She asserts that the Swedish Lutheran Church will not be perceived as a “modern institution” unless it suppresses meaningful dialogue regarding abortion.  Censoring speech may be a modern institutional value in some parts of the world, but thankfully not in Sweden.  Christianity is committed to timeless truth, not fleeting modernity.

Ms. Ali-Abdulla Linqvist is frightened of these pictures.  We can hear the fear in her voice.  Like most feminists, she wants no debate over abortion.  She understands that abortion photos make that debate more difficult to suppress.  She understands that abortion photos make that debate more difficult to win.  People yawn at words.  No one yawns at pictures.

Centerfold photo in The Sunday Times of London reached a circulation of more than 1 million readers in the UK.  (Click on photo for a better view.)

Great photo in The Sunday Times of London!  This photo of aborted babies was visible to more than 1 million readers!

Link here to article We Will Shock You.  (You will need to pay a subscription fee to see the entire article.)

Notable quotations from the article:

The pictures are stomach-turningly gruesome, the dismembered figure clearly human — tiny fingers and toes visible in a mess of blood.
***
By far the most radical group in this country is Abort67, who I joined in Reading. They formed at the start of the year with guidance and resources from one of the loudest and most controversial voices on the American pro-life scene: the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR).
***
The group’s founder, Gregg Cunningham, 65, has been involved in the pro-life movement in America for most of his adult life. In the last four years, Cunningham and the CBR have started to spread their reach abroad. This summer he was in Britain supporting Abort67 and giving talks in churches — his fourth visit to the UK this year.
The CBR does not fund Abort67, but it is providing thegroup’s activists with resources, graphic images and a great deal of guidance. Since the start of the year, the group has recruited around 50 volunteers who regularly protest outside clinics in Brighton, Reading, Taunton and London. They claim they have several thousand supporters and counting.
Their protests are having the most dramatic effect in liberal Brighton.
***
The most serious impact has been on the women attending the clinic. One 21-year-old sports coach, who has asked to withhold her name for fear of repercussions, goes there for weekly post-abortion counselling.
“Sometimes it’s just one person with a banner; sometimes there are 20 of them with their children,” she says. “I’ve seen people burst into tears and say they don’t want to go through with it,” she says.
***
[CBR-UK Director Andy] Stephenson is a father of three and, like most of Abort67, a committed evangelical Christian. He is slight, with a dark beard, earnest eyes and an apologetic air; an unlikely crusader, perhaps, but an unrepentant one. “The atmosphere in the UK is changing,” he says. “The abortion lobby has had it easy for too long with no accountability, no consequences and very little meaningful opposition — but there is a new generation of pro-lifers emerging and disillusioned, battle-weary pro-lifers being reinvigorated because theyhave seen the fruits of what groups like ours are achieving with very little resources.”

The article closed with this threat of violence from pro-aborts who are apparently not used to seeing effective pro-life activism:

Brighton Pro-Choice met the week after the trial to plan more radical action against Abort67. One member warned: “If the police won’t stop them, we will have to.”

Andy Stephenson and Kathryn Sloane of Worthing, West Sussex, display CBR abortion photo.

On September 18, 2012, District Judge Stephen Nicholls (Brighton, UK Magistrate’s Court) issued a strong defense of CBR’s speech rights in the landmark criminal prosecution of CBR-UK director Andrew Stephenson and his assistant Kathryn Sloane.  Both activists were acquitted of charges related to three alleged violations of Section 5(b) of the Public Order Act (POA), for displaying graphic abortion images outside abortion clinics.  More here.

We had forced their arrest to set up a test case in which to establish the right to expose the horror of abortion.  The judge explained that he “had not been persuaded” that our signs were “threatening, abusive, or insulting,” as required for convictions under Section 5(b).  Abort67 is the abortion photo display project of CBR-UK and the case could have implications for expressive rights across Europe.  In the remarks below, our British attorneys and Andrew and Kathryn comment on the role played by CBR Executive Director Gregg Cunningham:

Solicitor Michael Phillips, lead defense counsel in the Stephenson/Sloane case:

Gregg’s assistance in the trial of Andy Stephenson and Kathryn Sloane was absolutely invaluable. This was only the second prosecution (that we are aware of) in the UK against people holding graphic images of abortion.  This was virgin territory for all those involved, including the court.  When in the midst of a case and focusing on the details of law and procedure, it is easy to lose sight of the woods through the trees.  This was the benefit of having Gregg; he was able to bring clear insight to the Public Order Act, which helped the defense to construct a clear and cogent defense theory.  This was used throughout the trial and helped to secure Andy’s acquittal (Kathryn was acquitted at the end of the crown’s case) before any other defense witnesses were called (including Gregg) and before closing speeches!  This was a highly unusual move that was in part due to our defense theory.

The acquittal received was on the best possible basis: That the images were not abusive or insulting (this being the first part of the public order offence test), the question of intention etc. therefore did not need to be considered.  Therefore Andy and Kathryn could walk out of the court with their heads held high without a spot on their records, free to continue their good work.

Barrister Paul Diamond, defence co-counsel in the Stephenson/Sloane case:

I want to personally thank Gregg for coming to the UK to be a witness in the trial of Andrew Stephenson and Katherine Sloane at Brighton Magistrates Court.  Additionally, I want to thank Gregg on behalf of Christian Concern.

I want Gregg to know that it was vitally important that he attended at court and I may have need of his services again.  His presence, wealth of knowledge, historical understanding enabled both Mike and me to fully comprehend the case.  I found the interaction between the First Amendment and our limited free speech laws fascinating and informative.  As I kept telling Gregg, he would be an asset to the British bar with both his knowledge of the subject and the eloquence by which he expressed himself (eloquence that I shamelessly appropriated in my submissions to the Court!)

I was re-assured by his presence; and I doubt the case would have been thrown out without his input.  I am sure we will work together again and many thanks.

Andrew Stephenson, CBR-UK director:

It is fair to say that without Gregg’s involvement in this defense, we most likely would not have heard the judge throw out the case yesterday in Brighton.  Gregg has been the architect of the work we do here in the UK and he has been closely involved in adapting it to current UK legislation, which gave us such a strong case.  He has ensured that the issue in the public mind and media is focused on what abortion does to an innocent and defenseless unborn child.

Gregg’s presence here for the court case has not only given Kathryn and me confidence that wouldn’t naturally occur given the circumstances, he has guided the process by which we have won this case against injustice.  Gregg has a unique way of looking at a problem and turning it on its head.  Our very excellent English lawyers have appreciated the direction that Gregg’s wealth of experience has brought.

His ability to put our current situation within the historical context of extinguished injustice has excited everyone and given focus for the future.

Kathryn Sloane, CBR-UK staff:

Since our struggles with the police started years ago, not only in Worthing but Brighton and London too, Gregg’s advice has been the key to developing a strategy to overcome the restriction to freedom of speech we experienced.

If anyone else had suggested we travel the criminal route in court to fight for our right to expose abortion, I would have been extremely cautious, but Gregg’s wealth of legal experience instilled confidence in our display team to question the police in their attempts to silence us (and rightly so it would appear).  This strategy has been most fruitful in exposing inadequacies in our police force as well as effectively exposing abortion to the nation through the media coverage that has so easily come our way following the arrests.

It has been clear during these days in court that Gregg’s advice, planning and tactics for the trial, shared with the legal team in every lunch break and recess, has shaped the arguments brought in each session.  Gregg’s insight concerning the objective first part of section 5(b) of the POA, and subjective second part of the test, changed the face of the case and wrote off the evidence brought by the prosecution entirely.  A stroke of genius!

We would have seen a very different result this week if Gregg hadn’t been here (and I didn’t quite fancy going back into hand cuffs), so thank him for his wisdom.  In fact, these displays may well have been halted long ago if Gregg had not created this long term strategy we are now seeing come to fruition.  It is already changing the way we save babies as we sat in our team meeting today listing all the new places we could display and all the new banners we could print now we have the freedom to do so.  This is because abort67 have been blessed by Gregg’s presence here with us during this trial.  Thank him for his dedication to this case and to our work.  He made it all possible.

John & Pam Rodger, CBR-UK staff:

After meeting with Gregg Cunningham the other day, Pam and I were encouraged more than ever to press on with this great work, and realised that it really is the images that do the work to expose the truth outside these abortion factories.  The recent victory in the court case in Brighton of Andy and Kathryn, with incredible help from Christian Concern and Gregg Cunningham, should also encourage us to push on, and to not be intimidated by the police.

October 11 marked the first International Day of the Girl Child, as recognized by the UN General Assembly.  To coincide with this event, Women’s Rights Without Frontiers (WRWF) has launched its “Save a Girl” campaign to end gendercide in China.  More here.

Gendercide GAP sign used by CBR.

Andy Stephenson

Pro-life and freedom of speech advocates are celebrating a huge victory in the UK.  CBR UK directors Andy Stephenson and Kathryn Sloane have been cleared of all charges related to displaying abortion photos outside an abortion clinic an Brighton.  Best story here.  Other notable stories here and here.

In staging the arrest of the two pro-lifers, Brighton police actively fished for complaints from passersby.  They were operating under the legal theory that speech becomes alarming, distressing, etc., and therefore illegal under the Public Order Act, whenever anybody complains about it.

After the trial, Andy Stephenson commented, “What the police have been doing in shutting us down has had a chilling effect on free speech.  Hopefully this will have a chilling effect on the police now to hold back on their over-enthusiastic, over-reaching arm of the law.”

The Court’s written opinion was expected at 2:00 pm Tuesday.  Stay tuned to FAB for updates.

Andy Stephenson and Kathryn Sloane display CBR abortion photo outside an abortion clinic.

The trail of CBR UK Director Andy Stephenson continues this week in Brighton.  Story here and here and here.  It’s also the top story on BBC (video below).  They are accused of violating the Public Order Act, which is being interpreted in this case to prohibit speech that causes other people to complain.

CBR Executive Director Gregg Cunningham is on hand to testify as an expert witness regarding the history of social reform in the UK.  Had the Public Order Act been been in effect in the 1700s, and had it been applied against anti-slavery advocates in the same way as it is being applied against anti-abortion advocates, William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, and nearly the entire abolitionist movement would have been jailed.

The charges against CBR UK staff member Kathryn Sloane have been dropped.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7mzR750pg4

On this day, 68 years ago, thousands of brave heroes invaded France on the Normandy coast.  They parachuted in from planes, they landed in gliders, they waded ashore, and they climed the cliffs at Pointe du Hoc.

If anything should inspire us to work tirelessly to preserve the lives of preborn children today, it is the sacrifice that so many of these young men, barely more than children themselves,  made on those beaches 68 years ago today.

On the 40th anniversary of this day, President Ronald Reagan visited the site and delivered this address:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEIqdcHbc8I

Blogging for The Telegraph, Cristina Odone wrote that CBR’s Gregg Cunningham got the better of BBC’s John Humphrys in their recent interview (reported here).

Professional pro-aborts learned not to debate us a long time ago — facts and logic make them look silly and they know it — but sometimes the amateurs think besting us will be easy.  This is the mistake that Humphrys made with Cunningham, and Odone pounced on it.  She wrote, in part:

Things, however, didn’t go according to plan.  Despite John Humphrys’s grilling – Humphrys brought up a comparison Cunningham had apparently made of abortion with the Holocaust – Cunningham struck a few blows himself. Yes, he was using horrific images to raise awareness of abortion – but abortion is horrific; and William Wilberforce, in his campaign to end slavery, also used disturbing images of slavery to bring home to the British public what British colonials were doing in the West Indies.

Commenters also chimed in.  Commenter Fallada wrote:

It was plain to me that, as Christina Odone suggests, Humphrys thought Cunningham would be easy prey – easily exposed as a nutcase – but Cunningham was quietly insistent, articulate, agile and sensible. In reaction, Humphrys, it seemed to me, grew increasingly irritated and slightly hysterical.  Cunningham proved one of the most effective interviewees in dealing with Humphrys that I have heard in a very long time while Humphrys sounded partisan.

Commenter JessicaHof wrote:

I, too, wondered at the idea of showing pictures, but Cunningham’s argument about Wilberforce showing pictures of the conditions in which slaves were kept seemed compelling. Slave-owners and their lobbyists, who argued that slaves were not fully human, found that one hard to support when people saw that they were.  I thought Humphrys ended up sounding shrill and somewhat indignant. How dare someone come on the programme and say something which so defied the liberal consensus, and how dare he do so in such a manner.  I have to say that Cunningham made me think again about my own attitude, which has tended to be somewhat liberal.

Entire column (including comments) here.

Earlier today, Gallup published the results of their latest poll on abortion.  What does it all mean?

The Good

1. When given choices between none, few, most, and any circumstances, 61% said abortion should be legal only in a few or no circumstances, whereas 37% say it should be legal under any or most circumstances.  These numbers are very much opposed to the status quo (i.e., abortion legal under any and all circumstances).
2. Only 40% of younger people (18 – 34 years) believe that abortion should be legal under any/most circumstances, whereas 59% believe it should be legal under few/no circumstances.  This is almost identical to the opinions of those in the 35 – 54 age group and the population at large.  Again, a resounding defeat for the status quo.
3. Most people believe aborton to be morally wrong (51%) as opposed to morally acceptable (39%).  This is a 12% margin of victory for our side, but it is also puzzling.  Apparently, there are many people out there, maybe 10%, who won’t say abortion is morally wrong, but still believe it should be generally restricted (i.e., available only under a few or no circumstances).

The Bad

1. The numbers aren’t changing much.  On the main question (whether you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life), the results were 49% pro-choice and 45% pro-life.  This isn’t radically different from the 1998 results, which were 48% pro-choice to 45% pro-life.  Yes, the numbers bounce around, but it is hard to assert there are any consistent trends.
2. Despite a lot of conflicting data that others have touted, this poll shows that younger people (18 – 34 years) are pro-choice by a margin of 51% pro-choice to 42% pro-life, almost the same as the 35 – 54 age group, but more pro-choice than the overall population (49% pro-choice to 45% pro-life).  [Yet, as was detailed in item 2 under The Good, young people also believe abortion should be legal under only a few or no restrictions.]

The Ugly

1. The poll did not differentiate between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd trimester abortions.  Attitudes change dramatically based on the age of the baby.
2. People’s attitudes are inconsistent because most people simply don’t know much about it.  You could see that in the 1998 Wirthlin poll, which found that 61% of the people said abortion should be legal in the 1st trimester, but also found that 58% oppose abortion after the onset of the heartbeat.
3. Since 1998, the numbers have bounced around, with both sides claiming “trends” that could be expected to continue into the future.  The latest data suggest no such trends, only sampling noise.
4. Not much difference between genders, except that women tend to be more polarized.  More women than men thought abortion should be illegal under all circumstances (24% of women vs 19% of men).  But the women’s strong views also are evident at the other end of the spectrum, where more women than men also thought abortion should be legal under any circumstance (29% of women vs 24% of men).  Looking at it another way, 53% of women held one of the two polar opposite opinions, whereas only 43% of men held one of them.

So, is this good news or bad news?  Please comment!

This BBC report on the battle over abortion in Northern Ireland features pro-life activist Bernadette Smyth.

From the BBC report:

What makes the biggest difference to Bernie Smyth’s campaign is what turned her into a pro-life campaigner in the first place: pictures like these.

Check it out:

http://www.belowtheradar.tv/abortionwars.html

.