“No abortion. No exceptions.”  It’s a common statement among pro-lifers. At face value, it makes sense. Or does it?

Exceptions to what, exactly?  When people say the word “abortion,” not everyone means the same thing. Before Roe v. Wade, abortion meant any termination of pregnancy accompanied by or resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus, which would include miscarriage and stillbirth.

Since Roe, the term “abortion” has come to be understood by most people as induced abortions only, thus excluding miscarriage and stillbirth. There is no distinction between procedures performed to save a woman’s life and those done only for convenience. All are abortions.

Many pro-lifers, however, insist that an abortion necessary to save a woman’s life is not an abortion. Perhaps it makes them feel more bold. Regardless of why it is said, saying “no exceptions” is confusing and disingenuous. We must be clear about what we mean, and it’s important that we use correct definitions.  Otherwise, we will be misunderstood, at great cost to our own credibility and our cause.

The general public understands that the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is, by definition, an abortion. Whatever other words you might assign to it, that procedure is the immediate cause of the child’s death.  Therefore, the procedure necessary to save the mother’s life is an abortion.

When many states drafted laws restricting abortion in the wake of Dobbs, the focus became what, if any, exceptions would be allowed.  These debates quickly devolved into false accusations that pro-lifers wanted to ban medical care for miscarriages and let women die from ectopic pregnancies.  Nothing could be further from the truth, but we saw many pro-lifers talking past our opponents because they were unwilling to use the correct definition of abortion, and therefore clouding the definition of exception.

Our new sign quotes almost verbatim from Tennessee House Bill 883, which states that abortion is not criminal if the termination of pregnancy “was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”  TN HB883 goes on to explain that threats of suicide or self-harm or any reason relating to mental health do not qualify.

So, how would this policy be applied?  Here are three commonly raised scenarios:

• If the complication arises early in pregnancy (e.g. an ectopic pregnancy), unfortunately, nothing can be done to save the child’s life. If no action is taken, both mother and child die. The only pro-life response is to save the life you can.
• If the complication arises later in pregnancy (after about 24 weeks), the mother can deliver prematurely, and appropriate efforts will be made to save the child.
• If the mother has uterine cancer, she may act heroically to carry the baby until the age of viability, even if the growing cancer imperils her own life.  However, such a sacrifice cannot be required by law.  She must be allowed any medical intervention necessary to save her own life.

Medical professionals must act in good faith when making medical judgments.  Even if laws with exceptions were not properly applied, however, we would still oppose a legal solution that denies women legitimate life-saving medical care.

Pro-abortion advocates wish to label our side as uncaring toward pregnant mothers with serious medical problems. By clarifying the life of the mother exception, we affirm the value of both mother and child.

When the Tennessee General Assembly opened its 2024 session, CBR was there to greet lawmakers with a timely message: Planned Parenthood (PP) kills more children than guns do.

Recently in Tennessee, PP has been sermonizing on issues that have little to do with abortion, birth control, or even parenthood. For example, PP has cited bans on drag shows for kids and “gender-affirming care” for children as “lowlights” for the 2023 General Assembly. (Thank you, Tennessee!) Another so-called “lowlight” was failure to pass “meaningful gun control legislation.”

So why would PP, who kills children as their primary “service,” then turn around and claim the mantle of protecting children from gun violence? Because they can’t make money killing children in Tennessee anymore, and they have little support in the legislature, so they need to ally with other causes to make themselves appear relevant.

They are not going to just go away, so our goal was to expose their hypocrisy as we reminded lawmakers that abortion decapitates and dismembers little children.

First, we stood outside the lawmakers’ only entrance to the Capitol parking garage, thereby reaching all of them as they arrived for the first day of session. Next, we took our signs to the Capitol entrance to engage pedestrian visitors as they arrived to observe the proceedings. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we hand-delivered a letter (See next week’s email to get the full text) to all 132 representatives and senators in their offices.

Many pro-life lawmakers said they were encouraged and thankful for our presence. One female legislator even said, “I sponsored pro-life legislation in 2019. I had no idea Roe would be overturned so soon. I appreciate you being here.” A well-dressed young man smiled as he told us, “I was all ready to dislike your signs, but you guys actually have it right!”

The positive response from Tennessee legislators is a strong rebuttal to pro-lifers who refuse to expose abortion for fear it might reduce our influence with lawmakers. In Nashville, we showed that the opposite is true.

This was our first Capitol GAP, but we pray it won’t be our last. If you want to see this at your own state capitol, please email us at CBRSoutheast@CBRinfo.org.

CBR has varied its visual message at the March for Life in Washington, DC over the years. What has remained constant, however, is our two-fold purpose. First, we are there to reach school children who attend the March, not because they are pro-life, but because they want to go on the field trip with their friends. These children need to know why abortion is wrong. Second, we are there to convict pro-life people that they should do more than just march once a year. 

Convincing marchers to take abortion more seriously is made difficult by the atmosphere, which is often more like a celebration (of what, we’re not sure) than a call to arms. More like a birthday party than a funeral. This sentiment was made painfully obvious this year by an individual seeking to draw attention to himself just a few yards away from our display. 

Standing atop a cart with a loudspeaker and dressed like a continental soldier, this man was blasting disco music and encouraging marchers to sing along and dance. Many enthusiastically obliged, reveling in the party atmosphere. Ugh.

The next moment, they realized why there is a March for Life. They were confronted with our photos of the dismembered victims of abortion. The juxtaposition could not have been more stark. It was readily apparent on their faces. The smiles vanished, replaced with appropriate expressions of somber realization and grief.

This misguided, disco-loving continental soldier could have set up his sideshow anywhere along the route. Fortunately, he was right next to us. His knavery, though regrettable, made our message all the more powerful. Our photos of the victims of abortion gave thousands of marchers the opportunity to reflect on how they can take further action to end legalized child killing.

Not the point.  One protestor’s sign said “How can I be old enough to be a mother but not old enough to have an abortion?”  Our images show the truth about abortion; it is child killing in the womb.  The age of the mother does not determine the humanity of the child.

Hope in our youth. Two young men were standing near our signs, discussing amongst themselves. Jane overheard one say, “Because I am not in a situation where I can afford to take responsibility for a child, I plan to wait.”

Student to student.  Dan said he was against abortion, but we were “doing it wrong” by showing abortion images.  His friend Ellen had a different view.  She had had an abortion and was lied to; she was told her baby was a blob of tissue.  After learning the truth about abortion, she felt betrayed and regretted her abortion.  She told Dan that we were actually “doing it right” in showing the truth to others who were undoubtedly being lied to as well.  Amen.

The following was written by our 2023 Summer Intern Taylor Breeden.

Before the summer internship, I didn’t have a solid opinion on using graphic imagery to expose abortion. I had researched abortion and seen pictures, but I always felt icky at the thought of placing those images in the public square.

Now I do have a solid opinion: I very much dislike it. Let me explain.

CBR’s activism methods can be overwhelming. It’s difficult to feel like you’re doing good by showing something so horrible. I have found that nobody likes the abortion victim images; pro-lifers, pro-aborts, CBR employees, and passersby alike. Nobody feels completely comfortable with images of a dead baby – and they shouldn’t.

The whole point of our work is to expose the truth about abortion. And the truth is, it’s disgusting, so we should all be absolutely horrified when faced with it.

In A Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated that “we… are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with.” This statement completely changed my mind set on abortion graphics. Before, I thought it was just as disgusting to show the horror of abortion as it was to commit an abortion. I figured it only had a negative impact on the movement, making people turn away from the topic all together.

Once I read Dr. King’s words, I understood that we weren’t making people uncomfortable; abortion was.

After releasing the burden of guilt, CBR’s methods made perfect sense to me. I’ve even come to see it as a necessity in the pro-life movement. So, while I dislike showing graphic images of abortion victims to the public, I do it, because it must be done.

This is the fourth of a 4-part series.  Download the entire series in PDF format here:  Hard Questions About Disturbing Abortion Photos.

Deeper Still’s Karen Ellison and Kay Smith at Market Square GAP.

Why is Deeper Still, a leading post-abortion healing  ministry, associated with the display of abortion photos?

Many post-abortive mothers have said that God used abortion photos to bring them to repentance, peace with God, and eventual healing.  This is what happened with Irene van der Wende, the founder of CBR-Netherlands.

Deeper Still has also counseled women who sought help because they saw CBR’s abortion photos in the public square.

People in denial can’t find healing.  Also, post abortive mothers are at risk to abort again, compounding the trauma.

Further, if we don’t force Americans to see abortion, then the killing will never end.  When CBR shows abortion photos, we know babies and moms are saved.  We also know hearts and minds are changed.

Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper, but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy.  (Proverbs 28:13)

This is the third of a 4-part series.  Download the entire series in PDF format here:  Hard Questions About Disturbing Abortion Photos.

Young children learning the truth of abortion.

What about small children who might see the photos?

CBR does not target children with our abortion photos, but they cannot always anticipate when a child may inadvertently see the photos.

The parents set the tone for what happens next.  Parents who understand God’s heart regarding abortion can use it as a teaching moment and calmly explain this is an evil that breaks God’s heart and we must compassionately and sacrificially help save babies from abortion.

A parent who is not prepared to give an answer can advise the child to look away.

In CBR’s experience, if a parent explodes in anger, the child will be distressed more by the parent’s behavior than the images.  The parent may be projecting his/her own history with abortion onto his/her child.

Children as young as middle school are getting pregnant and having abortions, yet seeing abortion photos can  protect them from aborting their babies.  It is far worse to allow the wholesale slaughter of a million children each year than to risk the possible discomfort of some children.

Children saw Jesus’ battered and bloody body as he carried His cross through the streets of Jerusalem on the way to Calvary.  He died on the cross publicly to show the price He had to pay for our sins.  Should we keep our children from knowing the truth that could spare many lives from abortion?

Assemble the people — men, women and children, and the foreigners residing in your towns — so they can listen and learn to fear the LORD your God and follow carefully all the words of this law.  (Deuteronomy 31:12)

This is the second of a 4-part series.  Download the entire series in PDF format here:  Hard Questions About Disturbing Abortion Photos.

Post-abortive women can say, “I regret my abortion; please ask me about it.”

What about compassion for the post-abortive women who might see the photos?

It is never compassionate to hide the truth when babies’ lives and women’s souls are at stake.  Dr. Alveda King has had two abortions, and she wants women to see the pictures so they can avoid the pain that she has felt.

We know that abortion photos save babies from abortion and spare mothers from unbearable pain.  Further, many post-abortive women have reported that seeing abortion photos was their first step to repentance and healing.

So we must ask which is more compassionate, (a) exposing the truth so that post-abortive women can be healed,  pre-abortive women can be spared, and babies can be saved, or (b) hiding the truth so the killing never ends?

Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it.  Though I did regret it — I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while — yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance.  For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us.  Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.  (II Corinthians 7:8-10)

This is the first of a 4-part series.  Download the entire series in PDF format here:  Hard Questions About Disturbing Abortion Photos.

Images like this educated the public on the evils of slavery. Additionally, they created the kind of tension/conflict that (a) forced the public to think about slavery and (b) created a public forum that forced slave traders to defend the indefensible.

Why does CBR display disturbing abortion photos?

No injustice has ever been eradicated by covering it up.  William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson used images to end the slave trade, because words alone did not work.  Alice Seeley Harris used pictures to end atrocities in the Congo.  Lewis Hine used pictures to end abusive child labor.

Martin Luther King said that America would not reject racism until America saw racism, and his niece Dr. Alveda King now says that America will never reject abortion until America sees abortion.

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.  (Ephesians 5:11)

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.  (Proverbs 24:11)

Perhaps God told us to expose the deeds of darkness (Ephesians 5:11) because in His infinite wisdom, He knows that it works.

by Jacqueline Hawkins

Pictures work.  Anyone who has used pictures knows it.  But now, we have the cold, hard statistics.

In her study, A Statistical Analysis on the Effectiveness of Abortion Victim Photography in Pro-life Activism, Dr. Jacqueline C. Harvey examined the effectiveness of abortion pictures to change minds.  Key findings include:

• Nearly 90% of respondents said that seeing the images increased their negative feelings toward abortion.

• “Those identifying as completely pro-life increased by nearly 30 percent following the campaign.”

• “Those identifying as pro-abortion also decreased in their degree of remaining support for abortion.”

• “Overall, there was a statistically significant gain of nearly 17 percent toward a pro-life world view.”

• “The degree of permissiveness toward abortion was statistically decreased and support for incremental pro-life gains, like gestational limits, substantially increased by 15 percent overall.”

There you have it. The survey proves a statistically significant shift to a more pro-life position when people are exposed to abortion pictures.

Read more at LifeSite News and One News Now.  Read the entire study report here.

Jacqueline Hawkins is a CBR Project Director and a regular FAB contributor.

The following speech was delivered by CBR’s Georgia Project Director, Lincoln Brandenburg, at the 2016 March for Life in Columbus, Georgia. 

What is the goal of the pro-life movement? Jason Jones, the co-producer of the pro-life film “Bella” recently wrote a dynamite article called “The Pro-Life Art of War.” In it, he asks us to:

“Imagine if same-sex marriage were prohibited nationwide, and legal protections for homosexuals consistently struck down or defeated—while sodomy laws were re-imposed and enforced, with billions of dollars in funding from Congress. How effective would you consider the gay rights movement? If the Second Amendment were reduced to a hollow, meaningless shell, and Americans’ guns—even hunting and target rifles—were all confiscated by the feds, what would we think of the gun lobby? If the U.S. abandoned Israel to its fate, and starting sending aid and arms to Hezbollah and Hamas, what would we say of the Israel lobby? Fix each of those scenarios in mind, and let’s ask the question: What should we think of the pro-life movement? The answer is tragically clear: For all the minds and hearts it has changed, it is a comprehensive political failure. American abortion laws are among the laxest on planet Earth…”

Such thinking doesn’t exactly bring out the sunshine on a cloudy day like this, does it? And yet, when you consider the success of the aforementioned movements, contrasted to where we are after 43 years of legalized child killing, one cannot deny that Jones is on to something. In terms of public policy, we really have very little to show for decades of efforts.

Our goal must be to win. We can save a life here and there, but winning is the only way that the killing stops. But we have become entirely too timid to win. Most in our movement are Christians. And it is so ingrained in us to be loving, selfless and nice that we don’t know how to stand firmly and boldly against the evil of child sacrifice. We don’t even have a category for that in our thinking. We know how to be gentle as doves, but we don’t’ know how to be wise as serpents.

I would like to submit that being Christlike – loving, sacrificial and gentle – does not exclude us from also standing boldly against evil. Failure to do so is itself is unloving.

In the introduction to the book “The Bravehearted Gospel,” Pastor Ben Davenport writes:

“The historical Jesus was not crucified because God so loved the world. No! The only begotten of the Father was fastened with iron nails to an unforgiving cross because He spoke the truth with authority and glistened with the light of Heaven and men loved darkness rather than light…

“If Jesus, who was perfect, who never sinned, and who was love incarnate, could not speak the truth without being hated, rejected, and despised, who are we to think that we can do better? Who are we to think that we have figured out a more ‘loving and ‘relevant’ way to present the truth in a more ‘seeker-friendly’ manner than Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

“We have wholeheartedly embraced the sentimental, watercolor Jesus that seems to spend most of His time holding lambs and patting children on the head with some faraway, glazed-over, dreamy look in His eye. And we tend to shy away from, or altogether ignore, that man who spoke the truth of God so boldly that conspiracies were hatched, witnesses were bribed, and politicians were entreated to bring about His painful and public execution.”

This is the side of being Christlike that we are afraid of.

Now does this mean that we shun and condemn women and men who have been involved in an abortion? Does this mean that we scream at people outside of clinics? Of course not! I too have sinned. Were it not for the grace of God, I would still be blinded to sin. From one human to another, I can assure you that God is eager to forgive and to free from bondage to sin, including abortion. “We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers.” If you view such people as the enemy, maybe you need to spend some time with God looking in the mirror first.

This is not a call to become one-dimensional. We have all seen people who became so enamored in a cause that they became cynical and abrasive. They develop tunnel-vision and lose their tenderness towards others, their winsomeness and their clairvoyance. That also is not what God calls us to.

But for the majority of us, that’s not the temptation we face, is it? Our temptation is to be silent and passive. Our temptation is to be content with having a political or theological stance, but not taking sacrificial action. We’re comfortable having our bible studies with people who are like ourselves; talking about “discipleship” and “worship,” and being really, really nice people… but doing nothing about the babies being decapitated and dismembered down the street from us.

After WWII, Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s best friend, Eberhart Bethge, wrote about the weakness of the Confessing Church in Germany during the war. These were not the liberalized, Nazi-pandering churches, but the Bible-believing ones that still held to orthodox theology. He observed that “it became clear where the problem lay for the Confessing Church: we were resisting by way of confession, but we were not confessing by way of resistance.”

Taking a cognitive stance is not enough. The love of God compels us to act. If we will not take a bold stand against the evil of modern child sacrifice, when WILL we finally stand up? What else would it take?

Yes, it is uncomfortable. Yes, we will get flack for it. We will be mischaracterized and called names. At my church we’ve been studying the sermon on the mount in Matthew’s gospel. In chapter 5, Jesus says: “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in Heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” That should put steel in our spines!

“A servant is not greater than his master;” like Jesus, we should not be surprised when we get flak for speaking the truth in a culture that loves lies. When my colleagues and I engage in activism, we don’t yell at people. We don’t call names. We show the truth of what abortion is and attempt to engage in respectful dialogue. People yell at us. They throw things at us. They call us names. But God uses the prophetic message to convict consciences, change minds, and to save lives and souls. And each one of those precious lives and souls is worth it.

Imagine a day when killing preborn children is a thing of the past. We are continuing to support pregnancy resource centers, such as Sound Choices and Seneca, Choices for Life), not because it’s the pro-life thing to do – but because it’s just the Christian charitable thing to do. No other reason. Imagine us getting together like this, not to march for life, but to celebrate the precious lives that are no longer in danger. Imagine standing before the God who purposefully placed you in this time and place of history, and hearing the words “well done, good and faithful servant!”

With that dream in mind, go forward courageously and boldly. Connect with others who are engaging the culture. Let’s stay humble, stay winsome. But let’s also refuse to take no for an answer. Let’s refuse to let up. Let’s stop playing nice.

Submitted by Lincoln Brandenburg

The MM-50 will decide who wins and who loses.

Check out my article at Townhall.com, In the Abortion Debate, the Facts Matter.

There is a place to rate the article, so please let Townhall know what you think.  Look for the graphic just below the Townhall article and sound off!  Leave comments, too.

The column answers the standard arguments against abortion victim photos (AVPs).

To see what I mean by the MM-50, see the graphic at upper right.  As a movement, we give way too much weight to the opinions of (a) our friends, e.g., the pro-lifers who like our stuff on Facebook, and (b) our opponents, i.e., the people who hate us no matter what we do or say.

We should pay more attention to the MM-50, because they ultimately decide who wins and who loses.  They don’t come to our debates, watch our videos, read our essays, or anything else.  For these millions of ignorant and apathetic people, we have only 3 seconds to tell our story and prove it, before they figure out who we are and look away.  Only pictures can prove our case in 3 seconds or less.

Don’t forget to rate the article! Also, please share it on social media.

Pro-Life Cage Match: The Tussle in Tulsa

It could have been billed as “The Tussle in Tulsa.”

On April 25, Gregg Cunningham of Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) debated T. Russell Hunter of Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) on the topic of pro-life incrementalism vs. pro-life immediatism.  You can link to the debate here or watch below.

At the heart of Hunter’s position are the notions that (a) attempts to save some babies and moms from abortion by passing abortion restrictions actually amount to a defacto endorsement of the practice (i.e., “abortion is OK as long as it is restricted”) and (b) the babies saved in the short-term by incrementalist measures will be fewer than the babies saved in the long-term if we would all abandon incrementalism in favor of immediatism.

No matter what we may think of the issues, the debate, or the personalities involved, we praise God for Mr. Hunter and for AHA …  If the rest of the “pro-life” church were doing as much, this would have been over long, long ago.

Hunter and AHA have ruffled the feathers of many in the pro-life movement by harshly criticizing their methods and motives.  Of course, we at FAB must always be open to criticism; we ourselves have not failed to challenge those in our movement who reject or even suppress the only strategy that can ultimately win.  As with any debate, the distinction between instructive criticism and destructive divisiveness can often be a matter of whose ox is being gored.

But for the sake of babies, moms, and families, we must always be open to exhortation and correction (2 Timothy 4:2).  Sometimes we receive it, and sometimes we dole it out.  In this regard, most of us have no problem embracing Acts 20:35, where God tells us it is more blessed to give than to receive.

The Tussle in Tulsa resulted from Hunter’s public challenge calling for any pro-life leader to debate him on incrementalism.  Cunningham accepted.  He is widely regarded as the premier pro-life strategerist on the planet.  (Here at FAB, that belief is unanimous.)

The most compelling points made by Cunningham:

1. Martin Luther King was an absolutist in his goal of equal rights, but an incrementalist in his approach to civil rights legislation.
2. Similarly, William Wilberforce fought for the complete abolition of slavery, but he also endorsed incremental laws that would reduce suffering in the short-term.
3. Even God Himself, although an absolutist when it comes to sin, was (is?) an incrementalist when giving the Mosaic Law.
4. There is no conflict between reducing suffering in the short-term and abolishing injustice in the long-term.  They are not mutually exclusive; we can and should do both.

As a side note, Cunningham addressed Hunter’s criticism of those of us who raise money for pro-life work.  He noted (and praised) AHA’s use of abortion imagery obtained by CBR and provided to others in the movement free of charge.  This is made possible only by an enormous amount of fundraising.  Cunningham observed that Russell does raise funds, but “he just lets me do it for him.”  Then he quickly added, “And I don’t mind that.”

One issue that arose during the Q&A was CBR’s policy regarding spiritual discussions vs. social justice discussions in the presentation of the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP).  FAB will address that issue in a separate post.

In the aftermath of the debate, a number of summaries and analyses have been posted, most of them in favor of Cunningham’s performance/position.  Notables:

1. Scott Klusendorf: Debate Between Gregg Cunningham and T. Russell Hunter
2. Jonathon Van Maren:  Four observations from the Cunningham vs. Hunter debate
3. Jill Stanek: Abolition of Reason: Pro-Life Apologists Deconstruct “Immediatist” Ideology as Presented in Cunningham-Hunter Debate
4. Jill Stanek and Clinton Wilcox blog posts:

• Prologue
• Part I: Let babies die today, we can save the rest later
• Part II: There’s only one way to cut down a tree?
• Part III: Social justice history vs TR Hunter
• Part IV: Straw men and the Bible
• Part V: Sacrificing children to the idol of abolitionism
• Part VI: Christians and the legislative process
• Part VII: So fundraising is wrong?
• Epilogue

If Stanek & Co. get their way, the “Tussle in Tulsa” will now and forevermore be known as “The Tulsa Takedown.”  But there were dissenting opinions:

1. Don Cooper: Former Pro-Life Leader Reviews the Cunningham/Hunter Debate on Immediatism
2. AHA Blog: What about these babies?
3. Abolish Human Abortion Facebook Page (scroll down)
4. T. Russell Hunter Facebook Page (scroll down)

No matter what we may think of the issues, the debate, or the personalities involved, we praise God for Mr. Hunter and for AHA, because (a) they are using abortion photos to expose the cruelty of abortion and (b) they are sharing the Gospel of Jesus.  If the rest of the “pro-life” church were doing as much, this would have been over long, long ago.

As to the debate and the issues, you be the judge.  See it here:

Now that the vote is in, there are important lessons to be learned, not just in Tennessee, but nationally as well.

Lessons Learned:

1.  Until we change public opinion, Amendment 1 (along with the anticipated ensuing regulations) are about as much as we can hope to accomplish with our current strategy.  An outright ban would not have passed.

 Voters believe that abortion is evil enough to be regulated, but not evil enough to be banned.  Americans will not tolerate government intrusion into matters of personal morality, unless there is extreme justification for that intrusion … and they don’t understand how extremely evil abortion really is.

2.  In order for the public to demand protection for every human person, we have to convince millions of American voters that abortion is not just evil, but so evil that it ought to be against the law.

 The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), along with NRLC affiliates and others in the movement, are trying to end abortion by mobilizing public opinion as it currently exists.  The results of Amendment 1 in Tennessee and initiatives in other states demonstrate that this will never work.

 Unfortunately, they have nothing in place that even begins to reshape public opinion, not at the level necessary to challenge the status quo.

3.  In order to reshape public opinion, we must force millions of ignorant and apathetic Americans to see the facts they are desperate to avoid.

 They are apathetic because they are ignorant of the facts, and …

 … they are ignorant because they are apathetic.

 They don’t read our stuff.  They don’t come to our talks and debates.  They avoid new information.

 We have to go to them, they will not come to us.  Our methods must be non-consentual.

 With the average American, we get maybe 3 seconds to prove that abortion is so evil that it ought to be against the law.

 This is the same problem faced by Wilberforce, Clarkson, King, Hine, and other reformers who came before.  They all solved the problem the same way … by using horrifying pictures to engage citizens who were desperate to avoid the truth … after years of trying what didn’t work.

4.  We have a long way to go.  Let’s get started.

There are a number of pro-lifers out there, including friends of mine, who believe that because abortion is still legal, then incrementalist strategies have not worked and therefore should be abandoned.

If we accept that line of thinking, then we would have to conclude that everything we have been doing hasn’t made abortion illegal, so all of it should be abandoned.  This could include (1) showing pictures of abortion victims, because people have been showing pictures for 40 years, (2) praying, because people have been praying for 40 years, and (3) … you get the idea.

Another major objection to incrementalist measures is that they are immoral because they save some but not all.  But we know that the abolitionists in England (Wilberforce et al) did not achieve their ultimate goal all at once.  They were forced to accept small increments of change, but those small steps ultimately led to the abolition of slavery.