Gregg Cunningham speaks with Pastor Matt Higa of New Hope Kauai Church at Kapaa, Hawaii.  Watch the entire video below.

Excerpts:

The church response to this holocaust has been tepid, ineffective, timid, and risk-averse.  We are working to change that.

The Church is missing an enormously effective healing ministry [by covering up abortion.]  … We’ve had countless men and women tell us that actually seeing abortion forced them to stop rationalizing what they had done and seek forgiveness and healing.

If what we are doing is socially responsible and Biblically correct when we go onto a university campus to display abortion pictures to students whose professors are covering up the truth about abortion, why wouldn’t we do this on sidewalks outside churches whose pastors are covering up the horror of abortion?

One of my nieces asked me a few weeks back how ObamaCare would be different from the status quo of health care in America.  Good question.   Certainly the status quo isn’t optimal.  But it’s still the best health care system on the planet.  And ObamaCare will make it much worse.  Here’s a partial answer to her question.

The status quo is this:

1. If somebody needs medical attention, they can show up at the emergency room, the hospital is legally required to render assistance, and the cost is borne by the paying customers, and
2. Low-income people can apply for and receive needs-based assistance from Medicaid or one of its state substitutes, e.g., TennCare.

I have some second-hand experience with health-care delivery to a low-income person.  A friend of mine did not have insurance to cover needed cancer treatments.  He received the treatments anyway, as needed, and now he pays a little bit each month toward his bills.  He will never completely pay off those bills, but he will do what he can.  He is thankful for the life-saving medical care he received.  He has since qualified for Medicare.

I’m not arguing for the status quo.  I believe that for most Americans, the dominance of the third-party payers (either the Government for those on Medicare or insurance companies for everybody else) has driven the cost of health care much higher (in fact, many times higher) than it should be.  There are two big reasons for this.

1. First, there is zero cost competitiveness in the health-care delivery system.  If I wanted to look for a low-cost provider, I couldn’t do it.  The system wouldn’t let me.  When our son was one year old, we were told (falsely, it turns out) that he needed a test to confirm reflux disease, but they wouldn’t tell me what it would cost.  I needed to know, because insurance coverage for his condition was limited under a preexisting condition clause.  But they still wouldn’t tell me.  Is there anything else we buy where the supplier steadfastly refuses to tell us the cost before we buy it?  They get away with it because too few people have the slightest motivation to even ask, “What will it cost?”
2. Second, the nearly universal customer disinterest in the cost of medical care means that most of us will buy as much of it as is offered.  I have myself purchased several unnecessary and overly expensive tests because (a) the tests were offered and (b) I had no incentive to pass them up.  I guarantee that I would not have had those tests had I been required to put down a 20% co-pay.  We must find a way to reinstate cost incentives/competition back into medical care, but still provide health care to people who truly cannot afford to pay.  By health care, I mean health care, not wealth insurance for people who choose to forego health insurance premiums in order to purchase beer, cigarettes, cable TV, cell phones, etc.

Now, back to your question.  Here are just a few of the ways that ObamaCare will be different from the status quo:

First, it will hasten our decline into financial insolvency.  We don’t have the money in the Federal treasury to pay for it.  We know it will cost hundreds of billions of additional dollars to implement, and it does nothing to reinstate cost incentives back into the system.  Let’s step away from health care and look at the big picture.  Every election cycle, one political party makes it a point to claim that an ever-growing number of Americans are entitled — entitled, mind you — to a laundry list of free stuff.  Each election year, the number of “entitled” people grows larger and the list of free stuff gets longer.  And who is going to pay for all that “free” stuff?  It is to be paid for by an ever-smaller, ever more despised — despised, mind you — group of producers.  Can this continue?  Consult your own common sense.  If you need an example, see what’s been happening to Greece.

The ever-smaller group of producers couldn’t keep up with all of the Government spending even during the good economic times.  In the early to mid 2000s, the Government revenues were setting record levels, and we still had deficits.  During the more normal times, we have no hope of keeping up with spending.  And even less hope during the inevitable recessions that cycle around.  The cost of ObamaCare will only grow our debt even more, making our next recession even deeper and more painful.

As much as we would like to wipe away every human need in this country, there is simply not enough money to do it.  In the 1960s, it was estimated that if we “invested” 60 billion dollars into poverty programs, that poverty could be wiped out.  Trillions of dollars later, I could argue that the problem is worse now than then.  In fact, the Government instituted expensive programs that actually made poverty worse.  I have no reason to believe that ObamaCare won’t make health care worse than it is now.

Second, the implementation of ObamaCare will reinforce the belief that some people are “entitled” to the wealth created by others.  Without any incentives to limit their medical “needs,” they will demand more and more “free” services … “free” to them but not to those of us who will be paying the bill.  What is President Obama’s plan to deal with all the new demand for limitless health care?  Hire new doctors?  No.  His plan is to hire 10,000 new IRS agents.  (The CBO has said that the IRS would spend $0.5 billion to $1.0 billion to enforce the ObamaCare law.)

Third, it will create a new bureaucracy to administer all the rules.  The law itself was 1,000 – 2,400 pages (depending on who’s counting and what’s counted) of stuff that few, if any, members of Congress even bothered to read.  The final regulations will be tens of thousands of pages.  In fact, bureaucrats had generated 13,000 pages of new regulations as of July 2012, and they’re not done yet.  Who will be tasked with making sure all those regulations are complied with?  Just to simply stay out of jail, medical providers will be forced to hire additional compliance staff.  (Medical providers are already being forced to hire new staff to meet the ObamaCare electronic medical record requirements.)  Of course, the Government will have to hire their own army of enforcement officers.  After all, what good are regulations if they are not enforced?  And guess who will pay for all of that!

Fourth, you mentioned that you have yourself benefitted from the ObamaCare law, because it forced your parents to pay for the cost of your insurance for more years than would otherwise have been the case.  There was no net benefit here; there was only a shift in the costs from one person to another.  Plus, it only reinforced the idea that Government action could create “free” stuff for your benefit.  If you are getting “free” stuff, then others will line up to receive it as well.  I’m not criticizing you for taking advantage of the free stuff that you will eventually have to pay for — with interest payments and bureaucrat labor costs added on, you and perhaps your children will be forced to pay for it many times over — but I’m merely pointing out that “free” benefits aren’t really free at all.  You will pay dearly.

Fifth, ObamaCare drives up costs by mandating that all insurance coverage includes everything imaginable, even free contraceptives.  (The very idea that the guy down the street should be forced to pay for my contraceptives is foreign to me.)  The Government is deciding that you should have an unlimited list of free services, and they make it palatable for you by pretending that somebody else will actually pay for it.  Apply the same kind of thinking to your auto insurance policy.  Imagine that you could buy car insurance that paid for every imaginable automotive expense, including oil changes, new tires, minor repairs, major repairs, etc.  Would you buy it?  No way!  You would never buy that policy because it would be prohibitively expensive.  It would be great for the automotive repair shops, because you and all your friends would be lined up around the corner, demanding that the scratch on your door and the little rust spot on your fender be fixed, but this would drive up the cost of insurance so high, you would not buy it (unless you were forced to do so by law).  A free person acting in a free market would almost always choose a reasonably-priced automobile insurance policy to cover only the catastrophic losses, and accept personal responsibility to pay for everything else.  Most people would agree to pay for such nonsense only if they were forced to do so under threat of incarceration.  It is just as true for health insurance; the only way they can force this system upon us is to (a) lie to us by saying that “somebody else” is actually paying for it, and (b) force us to pay for it under threat of incarceration.  That’s what all those new IRS agents are all about.

Sixth, ObamaCare forces people — employees are people, too — to purchase abortions and contraceptives, a clear violation of conscience for many Americans.  People shouldn’t have to choose between closing their businesses (i.e., firing their employees) and violating their consciences.

Seventh, when this is all over, it will create a gigantic transfer of wealth to the abortion industry.  At $450 per abortion, the industry generates revenues of roughly $550 million (not including premiums for late-term abortions).  I’m convinced that ObamaCare will be manipulated to force that number up to more than $7 billion. (Link here for an explanation.)  Keep in mind that the abortion industry sells abortions at $450 apiece, not $5,472 apiece (the cost of a similar non-abortive procedure), because abortions, unlike every other medical procedure, are paid for directly by the consumer and thus are subject to the normal pressures of consumer economics.  When cost competition in the abortion market is gone, prices will rise accordingly.

Eighth, the cost burden to employers will incentivize them to hire fewer people, thus increasing the unemployment rate.  Who pays for that?  The greatest burden will fall on minorities and young people, because they suffer the greatest rates of unemployment.  But we will all pay a price, because the fewer people working, the more the rest of us have to pay to keep the ship of state afloat.  Worse than the financial cost of unemployment is the human cost: unrealized personal growth and development.  People who are not working lose the opportunity to learn, grow, and increase their value to some future employer.  They are stuck.

Ninth, by decoupling bad behavior from its costs, you only incentivize more bad behavior.  There will never be any shortage of human needs around us.  Some are due to circumstances beyond people’s control, but most are the result of bad behavior.  In this case, bad behavior can include laziness … simply deciding not to work and letting somebody else pay the freight.  When you make it easier for people to leave the ranks of the producers and join the ranks of the “entitled,” you can be sure that more of them will do it.  We all pay for that.  We all lose.  Such people lose their self-respect.  Their children learn dependency instead of self-sufficiency.  We lose their participation in the economy.  Our culture degrades.  We see the victims of degraded culture all around us.

Bad behavior also includes health-destroying activities like drug abuse, overeating, drinking, smoking, etc.  If we really wanted to improve the health of American citizens, perhaps we should spend the extra money (the trillions of dollars of money we don’t have) on programs designed to improve moral fitness.

Anyway, that’s all I have for now, just off the top of my head.  I suspect I have just scratched the surface.

Your loving but fearful uncle,

Fletcher

Role-playing helps PLTA students understand and retain techniques for answering the hardest questions.

Want to learn how to articulate and defend the pro-life position, even in a hostile environment?  How about others in your pro-life student or community group?  Would they want to be confident in answering the toughest pro-abortion questions?

Act now; we have openings for the Fall semester!

At the Pro-Life Training Academy (PLTA), we don’t just tell you what to say.  Instead, you will spend an entire afternoon practicing your best answers to their toughest questions.

But don’t listen to me, listen to Zack Wepfer, who attended the PLTA in Tuscaloosa, Alabama:

I can honestly say that the PLTA exceeded expectations and I feel confident in fully defending the prolife stance against anyone!  I will be able to use that training for the rest of my life.  I would highly recommend the training …

Levi Crawford concurred:

The world wants a philosophical argument grounded in reason, so pro-lifers like myself turn to the Pro-Life Training Academy (PLTA).  With the intuitive learning and detailed outlines we received, we were much more confident and successfully handled opposition at our next pro-life event on campus.  There is no doubt in my mind that the Pro-Life Training Academy was the key to our clear victory over the child murder apologists.  PLTA was simply invaluable.

We spend a lot of time on role-playing.  You will practice and become confident in your best answers to their toughest questions.  Act now; we have openings for the Fall semester!

Course Outline:

• Standing on the shoulders of giants.  Listen to those who came before.
• Modulated conflict is your friend.  Do not fear it.  Embrace it.  Use it.
• What is it?  The slam-dunk scientific certainty that life begins at conception.
• But when is life important?  The philosophical case for personhood at conception.
• Three steps to success:  Columbo Questions, Trot out the Toddler, and SLED.
• Hard questions:  Rape, incest, life of the mother.
• The genocide claim.  Abortion is not just another evil.

Would you like to host a PLTA in your city?  Please call us and we’ll set the date!  Act now; we have openings for the Fall semester!

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.

Outside a Baltimore Abortuary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Jonathan Darnel practicing what he preaches.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I responded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does Christianity like in a culture that tolerates this?

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

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

Excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to full piece here.

You could say that … but probably not 3 times really fast!

Anyway, great story in World Magazine on the Battle for Babies at Biola.  Link to World Magazine story here.  Link to original video here.

Excerpts:

She always considered herself pro-life, but after watching a video of an actual abortion earlier this year, she realized its horror and decided to do something about it.

***

[CBR Executive Director Gregg] Cunningham, pointing to social reforms such as slavery, child labor, and the civil rights movement, says public opinion changes only after people see images depicting the reality of the injustices. He says Christians have been overly concerned with not offending people, and he says schools like Biola help “Planned Parenthood hide the horror of abortion. … We’re losing ground until Christian colleges are willing to get serious and provide systematic leadership in defense of life.”

***

But when the fall semester begins on August 28, CBR is planning to greet returning students with large abortion posters at every campus entrance, along with aerial images pulled by planes flying over the university. Cunningham’s goal is for Christian schools to be radically pro-life, with programs and majors devoted to training activists: “It’s not going to happen until some china gets broken. We don’t wish it to be that way, but some china will get broken.”

For more, link to full story here.

Christian leaders, including the pro-life ones, have 10 people/day coming at them with some kind of agenda.  We pro-lifers are just another one of the 10.  For just that one day.  By the end of the week, we are forgotten and so are the children and moms we represent.  Unless we can create the kind of tension/conflict that forces many more pro-life Christian leaders to think about abortion — and hopefully act to end it — babies and moms will continue to be ignored.

Please pray that God will open doors for the kind of constructive tension/conflict that brings growth.  And pray that God will raise up Christians with the courage to walk through those doors.  To help create more growth-inducing tension at Christian schools, link here.

Maggie Egger

CBR Project Director Maggie Egger shares a story from her recent GAP excursion to the University of South Florida

What about rape?

She was staring intently at the pictures when I approached her and asked what she thought of abortion.  She said “I’ve never really thought about it.  I don’t really have an opinion.”

I’d heard that so many times already that I already had my next question prepared.  “Well, can you maybe think of a hypothetical situation where you would think it was okay?”

She thought for a moment and then said, “In the case of rape, I think it would be up to the woman what she want’s to do.  I guess that would be the only time I would say it would be okay if that’s what she decided.”

I then gave her this hypothetical rape situation:  A married woman has consensual sex with her husband on Monday and then is violently raped on Tuesday.  She discovers she’s pregnant.  After discussing it all with her husband, they decide to continue with the pregnancy because there’s a possibility that the baby is her husband’s.  She gives birth, and then has a paternity test done.  They find out that the father is actually the rapist’s and not her husband’s.

I asked “Would it then be okay for her to kill the month-old infant?”

She replied, “Of course not!”

Then I countered, “So, what is the difference between the month-old infant and the 6-week embryo that makes it okay to kill one and not the other?”

That lead us to a discussion of fetal development and when life begins, as well as the harmful effects that abortion has on women, especially women who have already suffered the trauma of rape.

The conversation was slowing down a bit and she went back to looking at the pictures in front of her.  So I just came out and asked her again, “So what do you think about abortion?”

She paused for a minute, looked at the pictures again, looked at me and said, “Ya know, I guess there is no good reason to do that.”

Indeed.