As Tennessee Right to Life and pro-lifers in Tennessee (including myself) were celebrating the victories won in the most recent Legislature, some in our movement were saying, “Wait a minute; not so fast!”

Many people, notably those involved in a number of Personhood campaigns all over the country, believe that laws restricting abortion actually help to enshrine abortion in the law.  Or that it has the effect of legitimizing abortion by implying it is acceptable as long as it is properly regulated.

J.D. Ellis, Tennessee Vice-Chairman of the America’s Independent Party (AIP) articulated the views of many:

… according to Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey, the purpose behind SJR 127 is to, “restore common sense restrictions” on abortion, such as a 48-hour waiting period, parental consent, and a requirement that abortions be performed in a hospital after the second trimester. In other words, our “pro-life” leaders want to use this amendment to enact laws defining the conditions under which the murder of unborn children will be accepted. Is this a truly pro-life position? Does this really acknowledge the personhood, and equality under the law, of the unborn? What other group of living human beings would we treat this way?

After World War II, should America have demanded that Germany “restore common sense restrictions” on the murder of Jews? Would we permit the killing of, say, high school teachers, as long as the murderer first waited 48 hours? Or how about the murder of blondes, provided the murder was committed at a hospital? Or the slaughter of 5-year-olds, so long as we first notified the victims’ grandparents? “Common sense restrictions”? On murder? No, when we really view the unborn as persons, and abortion as murder, then such regulations are not “common sense”, but complete nonsense!

Aside from all this, the supporters of SJR 127 also seem to lack the foresight to perceive what would happen next time the Democrats regain control under a Constitution that gives them the power to “enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion”. This amendment would give a Democrat-controlled General Assembly the power to make abortion on demand completely legal in Tennessee, with absolutely no restrictions. Some “pro-life” amendment this is!

What do you think?  Is Mr. Ellis right or wrong to oppose these measures?

For more information on Personhood, click here and/or here.  One of our favorite people in the whole pro-life movement is Dan Becker, President of Georgia Right to Life and a leader in the Personhood movement.  Order his new book Personhood here or here.

Here’s the FAB view.  We will never change public policy unless and until we change public opinion.  And we will never change public opinion until we show people pictures of abortion, because only pictures will make people see that (1) the preborn child is really a baby, even in the first trimester of pregnancy, and (2) abortion is a horrifying act of violence.

Unless and until we show large numbers of voters the truth, then we will never win the legislative battle to change the laws, neither by the Legislature nor by passing Personhood amendments at the state level.

Having said that, we believe there is value in both protective legislation and in Personhood, and we pledge to do whatever we can to support both.

Legislation now saves babies now.  We rejoice over each life saved.  If a building is burning and 100 people are trapped inside, shouldn’t we save 10, 20, or 50, even if that’s all we can do?  And didn’t the abolition of slavery begin with restrictions on the practice?  To win those legislative battles, we must display abortion pictures so that voters can know what abortion is and does.  Even small changes in voting behavior will have a huge impact on the makeup of our legislative bodies.

Speaking of education, many in the Personhood movement believe that ballot initiatives are an excellent teaching tool for educating people about the evil of abortion.  Absolutely!  And to accomplish the education that is necessary to win this nationally, we must include abortion pictures in our voter education efforts.  Otherwise, the public will not apply the kind of pressure necessary to first overturn Roe v Wade and then outlaw abortion nationally.

At FAB, we are much like Billy Martin in some of those Miller Lite commercials from the 1980s.  We feel strongly both ways.  What do you think?  Please comment!

Tennessee Right to Life (TRL) is announcing major legislative victories in the most recent Legislature.  From TRL (edited by FAB for space):

Unprecedented Pro-Life Victories:  SJR 127 Wins Place on 2014 Ballot, Public Gets Vote on Radical Pro-Abortion Ruling

More than a decade after the Tennessee Supreme Court issued a wrong and radical ruling claiming a ‘fundamental’ right to abortion in the Tennessee Constitution, bi-partisan super majorities in the General Assembly have sent the matter for Tennesseans to decide in a public vote during the next governor’s election in 2014.  “At long last the people of Tennessee will have their say in this matter of life and death,” said Brian Harris, president of Tennessee Right to Life.  “Should a handful of activist judges make Tennessee’s laws on abortion or should it be the people acting through their elected representatives in the state Legislature?  We are confident that when it’s all said and done, the power for deciding such questions will be returned to the people,” Harris said.

As required for every proposed amendment to the state Constitution, SJR 127 passed for the first time in 2009 by votes of 77-21 in the state House and 23-9 in the state Senate.  Requirement for super-majority during second passage was achieved in 2011 by votes of 76-18 in the state House and 24-8 in the state Senate.

SJR 127 calls for a public voters to approve inclusion of the following language in the Tennessee Constitution:

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

As written the proposed amendment does not criminalize abortion but overturns the Court’s pro-abortion ruling, returns the Tennessee Constitution to a position of neutrality on abortion and allows the people of the state and their elected legislators to again enact meaningful protections for women and unborn children in our state.

While the Court’s 2000 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist makes it impossible to enforceprotections that violate the state’s newly discovered ‘right to abortion,’ Tennessee Right to Life has encouraged passage of policies which do not directly challenge the Court’s holding. Several such pro-life protections were passed by overwhelming bi-partisan majorities in the final days of the legislative session including:

• State Budget Amendment to Bar Funding for Planned Parenthood.  Further tightens 2009 effort by requiring that federal Title X family planning funds shall be used fully by local, county or municipal health departments and that no funds shall be disbursed to private non-profit organizations or agencies.  Diverts $1.2 million tax dollars from Planned Parenthood affiliates in Nashville and Memphis. Passed unanimously as part of final budget approval.
• Expansion of Tennessee’s Unborn Victims of Violence Act.  Extends current state law to include unborn children prior to viability as victims of assault or homicide.  Previous statute was only enforceable following establishment of child’s viability.  Passed House 80-0 and Senate 26-0.

[Note: if you wish to read the remainder of the TRL announcement, click here.]

Hats off to TRL for their tireless work on behalf of these legislative victories.  And hats off to pro-life people all over Tennessee who worked to elect pro-life candidates.

But some in the pro-life movement are not convinced that victories such as these are really a good thing.  More about that later!

Fr. Frank Pavone and Tom Monaghan

I’m in Ave Maria, Florida today representing CBR at the 2nd annual pro-life leader’s summit, spearheaded by Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life.

Jill Stanek is also blogging from the table.  Her blog has been ranked among the top 100 conservative websites in the nation.  That’s impressive, but FletcherArmstrongBlog is the #1 pro-life blog in all of Karns.

From here, it’s on to Richmond, Kentucky, for our Pro Life Training Academy tomorrow morning.

Photos reveals what each cross really means.

Check out the Crosses for the Unborn display at Eastern Kentucky University.  Photos on each cross represent what each abortion really is … an act of violence that destroys a  human being.

Without the photo, many passersby will reflexively conclude that each cross means that another woman has made a reproductive choice … no big deal.  By challenging that conclusion, the photo gives the crosses real meaning.

Elijah House of the EKU Students for Life wrote to FAB about the impact of the crosses:

There was a young woman who came up to us while we were setting up yesterday and she stopped and thanked us for what we were doing.  She proceeded to tell us that she had lost two nieces and nephew to abortion. 

There was also a young man who stopped and he wasn’t aware that there was a pro life group on campus.  He had gone to a Right to Life conference recently and was excited to get involved with pro life work on campus.

Unfortunately, last night someone pulled up all the crosses, broke several, and tore off most of the cards.  One of my roommates put the crosses back up.  It’s unfortunate to see how others vandalize First Amendment rights.

Unfortunate, perhaps, but it shows that people are conflicted about abortion.  People still have a functioning conscience.

We’re scheduled to be at Eastern Kentucky with GAP next week!  Please pray for our time on campus, as well as this time of preparation.

Crosses at Eastern Kentucky University feature an abortion photo on each cross.

GAP at 2011 March for Life

People always want to know if the pictures work.  Here’s a message left on our AbortionNo.org website:

Yesterday I went to the March for Life 2011 in Washington DC.  I live about 20 minutes outside of DC.  I went with my high school.  People told us we were crazy to go out for 5 hours in 20 degree weather, but I told them I wouldn’t miss it.  At the March, I saw the abortionNO.com billboards and had to stop and look.  My friends and I were aghast.  … [Later, at home that night,] I remembered the posters from this website.  I decided to take a look.  That was about 2 and half hours ago.  I looked at the pictures and watched the videos and read the mothers’ accounts of regret after the abortion.  I am crying.  In the past couple hours, I also started researching about President Obama’s views on abortion, about Planned Parenthood, and about the actual process of abortion.  I have been reading many abortion articles by Michelle Malkin, and I just learned about the Philadelphia Horror.  I JUST HEARD ABOUT IT.  Something that awful and horrific, how could that not be top story on the news???  Reality TV stars get more airtime on the news than actual murder of babies.  I am crying right now, at the injustice of it all!  I watched the news last night to see if there would be coverage of the March.  It got a one minute spot 40 minutes after the program started, after local news, some report about a reality TV star, and 2 weather reports.  Where are our PRIORITIES??

I have spent a good deal of time on this website, at least 2 and half hours.  I am reading all of the reports and looking at all of the pictures because right after I send this, I am writing a letter to my Congressman.  I have never felt more inspired to take action after looking at this website.

I have always been ProLife, having been raised in a strong Catholic family, and having received a Catholic education.  But ever since I began reading all this information and seeing all the pictures online today,  I have never truly understood the injustice.  I promise not to just be a prolife supporter now, I promise to be a prolife advocate.  I will be a voice to those who cannot be heard.  I may only be 15, but I will not stand for the absolute crap that is going on here.  Thank you, THANK YOU, for opening my eyes to the reality of how bad abortion was.

To follow the money, connect the dots:

Dot 1.  PP did 305,310 abortions in 2007 (source), at an average cost of $450 (source).  That amounted to $137 million in revenue for PP.

Dot 2.  ObamaCare will drive private health insurance out of business so that Government becomes the only alternative.  (Arguably, based on Pres. Obama’s own words, that’s by design.)  Once Government becomes the sole provider, health care will become a “right” of every citizen.  The courts will rule that denying coverage of abortion (a “legal medical procedure”) amounts to sex discrimination, regardless of any legislation or presidential order to the contrary.

Dot 3.  Once the government is paying for them, abortions will no longer be subject to the limitations of the current “free enterprise” system, where people generally have to pay for their own.  With government paying the bill, the costs will skyrocket.  Today, the going price for a D&C, an invasive medical procedure similar in scope and character to abortion, is $5,472 (source).  In the new environment, PP would no longer accept $450; they would demand and receive $5,472 for every abortion.  This would immediately increase PP’s abortion revenue from $137 million to $1.7 billion (with a b).

Dot 4.  But there’s more.  According to Abby Johnson, formerly a PP abortion clinic director, all PP affiliates will be required to perform abortions by 2013.  PP is pushing affiliates to aggressively sell abortions.  If they are able to grab just half of the entire abortion business, say 650,000 abortions every year, that will mean a total abortion revenue of $3.6 billion (with a b).

Dot 5.  Unlike contract and grant money PP gets from the government, this new money would be paid as “fee for service,” so there would be no strings attached. PP would still hire the same abortion hacks they use now and pay them the same money, so the new money would be all profit.  There is so much government money to be had, PP will dispatch an army of paid professionals to lobby (and even buy?) your school boards, your principals, and your teachers for even greater access to your children.  They’d be foolish not to.  Marketing sex to your children will become a multi-billion dollar windfall for PP.  This is an outrageous conflict of interest.

Oh, and by the way, get ready to pay for PP’s abortion marketing programs; they will be disguised as “wellness” programs and will be paid for by taxpayer-funded contracts and grants.  Think about that as you watch PP latest outrage, “I didn’t spew.”  (Warning: prepare to vomit.)

In summary, with all the new money from ObamaCare, there’s a big profit to be made by marketing (first) sex and (then) abortion to our children. Planned Parenthood wants to use our schools to position themselves as the sex experts and promote normal every kind of promiscuous and deviant behavior. When many of them get pregnant, as they certainly will, PP wants to be first in line for the lucrative business of “terminating” the “mistakes.”  It’s an obvious conflict of interest.  The stakes are high … on one side are PP and billions of our dollars; on the other side are us and our children.

Unless we know the answers to those key questions, we’re going to waste another generation.

Carol Everett is a great pro-life warrior, and I’ve been privileged to hear her speak a couple of times, but she missed the point when she told an audience at Liberty University, “They know it’s a baby; we’ve won that argument; they just don’t care.” Based on my experience on campus, I was taken aback, because college students want to debate that point more than any other.

When I asked, “Who is ‘they?’” she began to talk about the Texas State Legislature. She might be right about lawmakers, but I can tell you that all the politicians in Austin aren’t nearly as important as a generation of teenagers and college students who are streaming into abortion clinics. They rationalize their abortions because they naively believe their children to be “blobs of tissue” and “parasites.” The abortion industry knows they are uninformed and are all too willing to exploit their youth and ignorance.

As an example of profound teen ignorance, I am reminded of the Rutgers University student who staggered backward, as her knees gave way, when I pulled out a medical textbook and showed her a diagram of a 9-week fetus, complete with fingers and toes. Unlike Texas lawmakers, she didn’t know until I showed her. And unlike so many politicians, she still had a functioning conscience.

It is true that pro-abortion arguments have morphed over the years. Forty years ago, they said, “The embryo/fetus is not a baby nor a human being.” That argument could not withstand basic medical facts, so their argument had to change. Then they said, “OK, it’s a human being, but it’s not a person.” When that position also could not be defended, we began to hear yet another theme. They said, “OK, it’s a person, but the mother’s right to autonomy supersedes the baby’s right to life.” That’s where we are now, hence you can be convicted of murder (i.e., killing a person) if you kill a preborn child, but you can legally abort that same child if you are the mother.

Yes, the more sophisticated pro-aborts have kept up with all of this so they know it’s a baby, but most teenagers and young adults don’t know. The abortion clinics understand this. If a young girl calls a clinic and asks, “Is it a baby?” the clinic doesn’t say, “Yes, dear, it’s a human being with rights of personhood, but we believe that your right of autonomy gives you the right to kill your baby.” No, the abortion clinic says, “Of course it’s not a baby, it’s just a blob of tissue; think about a shrimp with appendages.” (We know they say this, because we called.)

In the annual Roe v Wade issue of World Magazine, Georgette Forney, co-founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, commented that “We’ve won the battle that it’s a baby,” crediting embryoscopy and 4-D ultrasounds that show the life in the womb (Red zone defense, World Magazine, Jan 29, 2011). Again, I love Ms. Forney and the great work she is doing on behalf of babies and moms, but she wrong to say “we’ve won the battle that it’s a baby.”

Yes, many older people, especially those who have sought healing for abortion, might now understand. But most teenagers and college students have not seen the embryoscopy nor the ultrasounds. That won’t happen until later, when they conceive their wanted children and when (hopefully) they’ve grown up a bit. Until then, they are just as susceptible to abortion industry lies as were their mothers. Unless we show them the truth sooner, they will continue to have abortions. We will eventually “win” the argument with many of them, but what good is winning an argument 10 years too late?

I was pleased to a speaker at the Students for Life of America (SFLA) conference in DC yesterday.  There were four of us on a panel discussing the use of graphic images.  I spoke first and used some of that time to talk about the history of social reform.  Successful reformers have always used pictures to help people see (1) the humanity of the victims and (2) the horror if the injustice they sought to correct.  Here are my slides.

Two of the speakers who followed me raised objections that easily could have been rebutted, but I was given no opportunity to do so.  I had actually anticipated their objections and addressed them fair adequately in my opening statement, but I still wanted to reemphasize some of the main points in the face of factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies advanced by my debate partners.  Some of their objections:

1. Because some people who use pictures are not compassionate to women, then showing pictures is not compassionate — An obvious logical fallacy.  Further, Dr. Alveda King, who has had 2 abortions, said she is glad photos are being shown so that other women won’t have to experience the pain that she has endured.
2. Pictures hurt children because it upsets them — Violent photos are routinely seen on magazine covers that children see at the supermarket.  Schindler’s List was shown on NBC and PBS during prime family viewing hours; few people complained.  An emergency siren will terrify young children, but we still put sirens on fire trucks.
3. Some people see the pictures and think we might be violent — Racists and civil rights moderates tried to associate Dr. King with the violent tactics of the Black Panthers.  CBR condemns violence and will not associate with anybody who fails to condemn violence.
4. Other methods can save babies — True, but many women have reported that they didn’t have abortions because of abortion photos and that nothing else but those pictures had dissuaded them.  Also, our goal shouldn’t be just to save a few, but to get rid of the whole bloody mess.
5. GAP was a failure because some people objected to the genocide comparisons and used it to change the subject — Pro-aborts always try to change the subject, no matter what you do.
6. GAP was a failure because a lot of people didn’t stop to talk and therefore didn’t learn facts —The pictures convey at a glance the facts that matter most: the preborn child is a baby and abortion is an act of violence.
7. Most people like arguments more than pictures — Most people don’t care about philosophy, arguments, etc..  They are trying very hard to ignore or trivialize abortions, and pictures don’t let them do it.  We have show pictures and be prepared to debate.
8. There was more but I can’t remember.

I hope we get to do this again.  I am going to ask for more opportunity to rebut arguments.

Operation Rescue is hosting an online debate on personhood.

Speaking before Henderson/Buncombe Right to Life

Thank so much to the Henderson/Buncombe Right to Life for hosting me at the Henderson County Library on Saturday.  This Right to Life group is fired up and ready for more than just “business-as-usual” pro-life stuff.  I look forward to returning.

The title of my talk was “Lessons From the Past: How We Can Win.”  That’s the critical question, because winning is how the killing stops.  I got a good write-up in the Hendersonville Times-News.  My main points:

1. Reformers of history ended (1) the slave trade in Egland, (2) slavery in America, (3) abusive child labor in our factories, and (4) segregation in the South.
2. All of these movements used horrifying pictures to change people’s knowledge of the facts.
3. Successful reformers were willing to accept persecution.
4. They were not content to “reduce” injustice.  They worked tirelessely until they ended the whole boody mess.

I also challenged all present to change the world with only $10:

• Our movement is suffering from censorship.  Not the censorship of government.  It is the censorship of pro-lifers who will not help.
• We are praying that we can increase our campus visits from 6 schools/year to 20 schools/year.  Guess what that will cost.  I’ll tell you … $10.  That’s it.  $10 every month from 1,000 people.  If you have internet/cable TV, you can afford $10.  Please click here and give $10/month.  Your reward is in heaven.

Would you give $10 a month to stop this:

Aborted at 10 weeks - Would you give $10 to stop it?

I am stunned.  This is the best and most encouraging pro-life story I’ve seen in a long time.  I’m speechless.  Check it out.

Not only are the Midland Catholics for Life doing a GREAT job, one TV station is willing to cover it.

Its right out of the CBR playbook.  Educate people about the horrifying reality of abortion, and do it in such a way that compels the media to cover it.  Create conflict—not uncontrolled conflict, but modulated conflict—that draws attention to the plight of the preborn child.  Media might not like us, but they can’t resist conflict.  Thank you Midland Catholics for Life!

The abortion photos on the billboard came from CBR.  We provide graphic images to pro-life groups all over the world who (1) comply with our non-violence policy condemning all abortion-related violence and refusing to associate with groups or individuals who fail to condemn such violence, and (2) agree not to alter the images.

We give all glory to God, and we are so thankful he is using us in this way.  Please share in our blessing by $upporting our work!

Time Magazine has actually endorsed CBR/ProLifeOnCampus tactics! They published a photo of Aisha to (1) show people an injustice they could barely imagine and (2) communicate truth on an emotional level as well as a factual level. Sound familiar? That’s because we display photos of abortion victims for the very same reasons.

Time published the photo to support Obama’s Afghanistan policy (see earlier post).  But more relevant to our pro-life work was the statement by Richard Stengel, Managing Editor of Time.  I’ve extracted his most pertinent remarks:

Our cover image this week is powerful, shocking and disturbing.

I’m acutely aware that this image will be seen by children, who will undoubtedly find it distressing. We have consulted with a number of child psychologists about its potential impact. Some think children are so used to seeing violence in the media that the image will have little effect, but others believe that children will find it very scary and distressing — that they will see it, as Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children’s Hospital Boston, said, as “a symbol of bad things that can happen to people.”

I showed it to my two young sons, 9 and 12, who both immediately felt sorry for Aisha and asked why anyone would have done such harm to her. [Who can forget the words of little 3-yr-old Donn Garton, who asked his mother Jean, “Who broke the baby?“—FAB]

But bad things do happen to people, and it is part of our job to confront and explain them.

The image is a window into the reality of what is happening… I would rather confront … than ignore. … I would rather people know that reality as they make up their minds …

We do it to illuminate what is actually happening … Our job is to provide context and perspective … What you see in these pictures and our story is … a combination of emotional truth and insight into … the consequences of the important decisions …

Wow.  We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

From Dan Becker, President of Georgia Right to Life:

Thanks much for your notice of our endorsement criteria.  It actually is one of the toughest in the nation.

Many people assume that having such strict standards would actually marginalize our influence.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  We began this practice over ten years ago.  Today, the majority of publicly elected legislators in the state of Georgia hold to “life of the mother ONLY” exception.  In the last decade we went from the bottom of the list of states ranked by Americans United for Life (AUL) for its pro-life legislation to our current rating of 8th in the nation.

In the current race for Governor, 6 of 7 candidates supported our position AND support a Personhood Amendment to our Georgia Constitution.

We in the pro-life movement have been misled by our leaders in thinking that a biblicaly based, principled approach to politics is not achievable.  We have demonstrated otherwise.  We are proving that politicians “only see the light when they feel the heat.”

Thanks for all you are doing to end abortion in our day.

For the Sanctity of all life in the 21st century,
Dan Becker, President
Georgia Right to Life

(Note:  Dan Becker, President of Georgia Right to Life, left a longer version of the above as a comment on a previous FAB posting.  We thought his comments were important enough to warrant a reposting for wider visibility. — FAB)

Georgia Right to Life (GRTL) has issued their endorsements for the August 10 runoff election.  Click here.

GRTL has very strict requirements for getting their endorsement.  Each candidate must sign the following statement:

WHEREAS, the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law,” Georgia Right to Life PAC affirms the principle that the right to life is the bedrock upon which all other Constitutional rights are derived.

IN ADDITION, we believe, in the face of compelling biological evidence, that a continuum of human life and personhood begins at the moment of fertilization and ends at natural death, the ethical treatment of human embryos must include their “best interests,”

THEREFORE, as a candidate for public office, I affirm my support for a Human Life Amendment to the Georgia Constitution and other actions that would support these principles. This would assure that regardless of race, age, degree of disability, manner of conception or circumstances surrounding a terminal illness, that the civil rights of the pre-born at an embryonic or fetal level, the elderly and those with mental or physical infirmities are protected by law and are violated when we allow destructive embryonic stem cell research, therapeutic or reproductive cloning, animal human hybrids, abortion (except to save the life of the mother), infanticide, euthanasia or assisted suicide.

As a candidate for public office I agree to uphold these principles and positions.

Note that politicians who support a rape/incest exception would NOT get the Georgia Right to Life endorsement.  What do you think about this agreement?  Is it strong enough?  Too restrictive?  Please comment.

I think I would add a requirement that the candidate also sit and watch a video of abortion, e.g., the video on the www.AbortionNo.org website.  Do you agree?