GAP at Radford University

Does the possibility of adverse economic circumstances justify killing your child?  One student at Radford University thought so.  Read his letter here.

Here is my response:

Responding to Mr. Schall, would you be stunned to learn that millions and millions of Americans have children and don’t go on welfare?

A few years ago, a student asked me “What about a woman who gets pregnant and has to drop out of school, so she and her baby are doomed to a life of poverty?”

Another student overheard and jumped in, “Hey, I know a woman just like that. She was waiting tables and got pregnant and had that baby.” He paused, then said, “And boy am I glad, because I’m the baby.” He said that after his mother had him, she got serious about her life, went back to school, and got a nursing degree. Now she’s the head nurse at a hospital and makes $90,000 per year. He made one final observation, “You know, I think that if my mother had aborted me, she’d still be waiting tables.”

Mr Schall, this student’s mother was not a weakling, and you don’t have to be, either. Part of being an adult is taking care of your responsibilities.

You are justifying killing another human being—your own child, in fact—because that child will be inconvenient to you. You might have to rearrange your life a bit. Yes, parenthood does have it’s responsibilities. It’s always been like that. Others have done it; you can, too.

Fear of poverty is no excuse for killing your child. If you think that’s a good justification, imagine what the judge and jury would say if you tried it on your born child. Tell the judge that your child was getting in the way of your career. If he’s not sympathetic, say “I feel really bad about my choice.” See if that works.

Look, if you can’t take care of your child, there are many couples willing to adopt her and provide the loving home that you are unable (or unwilling) to provide. I speak for many pro-lifers all over the country when I say, “Bring that child to me; I’ll take care of her.”

We never said a woman should be forced to have a child; we said a woman shouldn’t kill a child she already has. If you don’t want to have a baby, that is your choice. Don’t get drunk and don’t have sex. Millions of people wait until marriage to have sex. It doesn’t ruin their lives.

Bottom line: Grow up.

If anybody wants to see what Mr. Schall thinks is such a great idea, see the video at http://www.AbortionNo.org.

GAP stimulates informed dialogue.

After our appearance at Radford University earlier this fall, Radford freshman Joan Laguzza wrote a letter to the RU Tartan, the student newspaper, commenting on GAP.  In her letter, she complained about our presence, but actually agreed with us about one of the most important aspects of the project.  Read her letter here.

Here is my response:

Responding to Ms. Laguzza, my name is Fletcher Armstrong and I am the Southeast Director of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, the group that brought the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) to Radford University.

First of all, we agree with you about the most important aspect of the project. You say that the photos were assaulting, violent, difficult to look at, nauseating, shocking, traumatizing, etc. Those are your words and we agree. Abortion is all of those things. But here is a fundamental question: How is it that pictures of abortion are too horrific to see, but the act of abortion is OK to do?

You say that the pictures “assaulted” you, and that you had no choice but to look at them. I would point out that had you desired, you could have turned your head away from the pictures and walked right on by. We watched many people doing exactly that. Apparently, you didn’t turn your head; in fact, the details in your letter suggest that you studied the images very carefully. We’re glad you decided to study the images, but it was clearly your choice to study them or not.

You apparently claim the right not to be offended by anything you see, that Radford University should prevent you from seeing anything that offends you. Have you considered the implications of your claim? Would you grant to pro-life students the power to remove anything on campus that offends them?

You wonder if Radford is anti-abortion. No, they are not. But as a public institution, Radford has no ability to censor the speech of its students. The right of pro-life students to present their views and, just as importantly, their right to present the facts upon which those views are based, are protected by the US Constitution. That right extends to all citizens, not just those who go along with the ideology of those in power. During your time at Radford, you will be exposed to many ideas. Some of them will offend you; some of them will offend others who disagree with those ideas. That’s just part of living in a free society.

Pro-lifers and conservatives have the right to get their message to those who want to receive it. You have the equal right to get your message out. You and everyone else also have the right to listen or not. What you don’t have is the right to interfere with people who want to offer a message, nor with those who want to receive it. What you witnessed earlier this month was an interchange of information from people who had a message they wanted to offer and other people who wanted to examine that message and consider its meaning.

You said you wanted a more balanced approach. You said you want more diversity. You should confer with your pro-choice friends on the faculty before you say that again, because that’s the last thing they want. In much of academia today, college professors represent the “full range” of political views, from the far left to the extreme far left. The Washington Post reported that on college faculty today, 72% are “liberal” and only 15% are “conservative” (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html). In practice, it’s even worse than that, because most of the conservatives are teaching engineering, science, etc., where abortion is not a topic of interest. Trust me, in your time in academia, you will hear more pro-abortion propaganda than most fair-minded people can stomach.

You wanted an opportunity for intelligent and reasoned thought. You wanted inspired debate. I can tell you that we saw debates about abortion taking place all around the GAP display. The difference between those debates and most debates about abortion is that once people have seen abortion pictures, abortion apologists can no longer get away with asserting the myth that the preborn child is not a baby, but just a blob of tissue. People can no longer pretend that abortion is anything less than an act of violence that kills a growing child.

You say you welcome the opportunity to be exposed to different views. Perhaps you found this presentation so disturbing because we pro-lifers not only presented our views, but also the facts about abortion that make those views compelling.

You wanted filers on a table, so that you could ignore them. Your complaint reminds us of what they said to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., when he marched against racial injustice. They wanted him to confine his activities to the Black church, where he could talk about racism among people who cared about racism. Everyone else didn’t want to be bothered. But Dr. King knew that in order to change the status quo, he had to show people that racism was much worse than they imagined. It was pictures of Black men and women being attacked with dogs and water cannons—those picture appearing on TV and in magazines reaching millions of American households—that turned the tide against segregation in the South.

Our operating principle actually comes from the King family. Dr. Martin Luther King said that, “America will not reject racism until America sees racism.” His niece, Dr. Alveda King, now says that “America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion.” That’s why we are working to make sure that every American sees abortion for what it is, an act of violence that destroys a growing child.

For more information about abortion—no matter what you decide, you want your decision to be informed by the facts—visit www.AbortionNo.org.

CBR Project Director Jane Bullington speaks to a student at UT Knoxville.

I found out for sure what I had always known — my mom aborted 2 children before me.

CBR staffer Jane Bullington met a young man at the UT Knoxville GAP.  Steve had a cocky look on his face.  Jane asked him what he thought — it’s our standard way of breaking the ice.

Steve started out with all the same stuff we’ve heard before:  shock value, misused use of the term genocide, pictures don’t change minds, you are turning people away from your cause, etc., etc., etc.

But then they actually started talking and Steve began to verbalize some of the bad consequences of abortion, the damage to women, the effects on families, the mental stress on women, etc.  He got tears in his eyes.  He said, “In recent months, I have been drawn to everything I see or read about abortion.  I found out for sure what I had always known: my mom aborted 2 children before me.  She treated me … well … different.  She and my dad had troubles.  My home was tense.”

Jane asked him, “Do you have other siblings besides those 2 your mom aborted?”

Steve looked at her with surprise, “I never thought of them as my siblings, but they are.  Yes, I have an older brother.”

Later in the conversation, his position began to move, “I still think women should have a choice, but so many other people get hurt that I want them to know the truth, the truth about what they are doing, and the consequences they will endure, they and their families.  I guess education like yours would be good for women.”

Jane asked Steve if his mom would go to a post-abortion healing ministry like Deeper Still.   He chuckled and said, “Absolutely no.  She believes the ends justifies the means, and she wanted what she wanted.”

Jane suggested he might want to talk to someone else later on in his journey and told him that Deeper Still could be of help to him, as a son, too.

At the end of the conversation, Steve thanked Jane for her time and she gave him a hug — Jane is a mom and moms like that sort of thing.  Steve left, but as he walked away, his eyes never left the pictures.

Dialogue with pro-abortion student. (I got the shade; I was there first.)

This is our 8th day of GAP in the last 3 weeks.  If you count our Pro Life Training Academy, travel, and prep work, it’s my 16th day of hard labor in 19 days.  By hard labor I mean up at 6:00 am and to bed at midnight or later on GAP days … with only slightly more sleep on the other days.  There would be 3 more days after this one.

But God is good.  He knew that we were all tired.  He didn’t test us.  After we got the exhibit set up, I propped myself up on a wall underneath a shade tree, right near the poll table.  They would have to come to me.

At the poll table, students answer the question, “Should abortion remain legal?”  A “no” response means pro-life; we sign them up for the Pro Life Collegians.  A “yes” response means pro-abortion; we initiate dialogue with the goal of helping them rethink their position.  For most of the day, I just quietly asked the “yes” responders, one at a time, “May I ask why you responded that way?”  If they answer, we’re off to the races.

For a nice change of pace, God didn’t send any combative people over to the table this day.  The combative types can offer awesome opportunities, especially if they draw a crowd.  But they are rarely thoughtful and it is hard work to be reasonable with somebody who is unreasonable.  I just wasn’t up to it.

So God sent to me (and all the rest of us) a steady stream of people who were willing to have civil discourse.  He also sent a number of pro-lifers who gave us encouragement.  It was very different from most GAPs, including most GAPs at UT.

Of course, a few passersby gave us the “flying buzzard” as they rushed on past, but the drive-by’s can be easily ignored.  We should aways remember that such people are often facing struggles that we probably can’t imagine.  We should also remember that God loves each and every one of them, too.  But God would have had a hard time loving them through us on this day.  The civil ones got all we had to give.

Liberty students see abortion, many for the first time.

We were disturbed but not particularly surprised at some of the reaction from Liberty University students when we took GAP there a few weeks back.  So many of them wanted to live within the fiction that since they are “pro-life,” whatever that means, that’s all they need to know.  Not trying to pick on Liberty here; Liberty is simply a microcosm of the modern American church.

A particularly disturbing comment from “LU” (his pen-name) appeard on FAB.  It read, in part, as follows:

… Abortion has been in the light of public media for years now and I would say that most adults do know what takes place.  You are not showing us anything we haven’t seen or heard before, you only anger the students of this campus with your lack of tact.  Also, it pains me to see the young children with your group being involved in this protest.  These children are way too young to be seeing these images in the first place and are only being brought up into a lifestyle of intolerance; not a true life of love as we as Christians are called to live.  Children need to be taught both sides of an issue and allowed to develop their own opinions once they are capable to do so. … We need to be able to decide for ourselves through skeptical study of the Bible and beliefs we have been taught.  It is sad to see how Christianity is being portrayed to unbelievers through your work.  I pray for you, your family, and fellow campaigners.

Note how illogical his reasoning is:

1. We shouldn’t show the pictures because everbody has seen them when they were younger.
2. Younger people shouldn’t see the picture’s, either.
3. Showing the pictures is intolerant.
4. Leaving Christians ignorant allows them to figure out for themselves what side they are on.

But wait a minute, if we all followed his advice, none of his classmates would have ever seen the pictures before and the first premise would be invalidated.

I responded as follows:

LU Student, you are mistaken on many points.  Please read my Open Letter to Liberty University, which you can link to from our website, http://www.ProLifeOnCampus.com.

You said that “abortion has been in the light of public media for years now.”  Really? I watch public media all the time.  I see unborn children dehumanized as mere blobs of tissue, masses of cells, products of conception, parasites, etc.  I see abortion euphemized as a reproductive “choice.”  A mere picture would dispel those myths, but the myths are cherished by those in power, so the pictures are suppressed.  With all the talk about “choice,” I’ve almost never seen any attention paid to what is actually being chosen.  The rare exception is when we come into town and some of the local media outlets actually show the pictures we have put on display.  Without any presentation of the reality of abortion in the media, the education system, and even the Church, most people have no idea who the preborn baby is and what abortion does to her.

You say the “shock factor” is not as effective as we would like to believe.  Your argument is not with us.  Your argument is with the countless women and men who have let us know that our pictures changed their minds.  In many cases, they tell us that our pictures saved their own children from destruction at the hands of the abortionist.  You can see many testimonials on http://www.AbortionNo.org and on http://www.ProLifeOnCampus.com.

You say that children should never be shown these pictures, but that you and everybody else at Liberty has already seen them?  How can that be?  If only a few kooks like us are letting our children see the pictures, how can it be that by the time they are 18, everybody has seen them?  We have encountered many, many students who tell us that they grew up in “pro-life” churches, had never seen abortion pictures, had come to believe abortion should be a choice, and changed their minds only after seeing our pictures.

You say that “Children need to be taught both sides of an issue and allowed to develop their own opinions once they are capable to do so.”  Really?  Whatever happened to God’s side?  Whatever happened to “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6)?  We are commanded not to kill their own children (Mark 10:19).  We are commanded to protect and defend the defenseless (Proverbs 24:11-12).  And finally, we are commanded to teach other believers to do the same (Matthew 28:20).  These commands are not optional.

When Christians see the horror of abortion, they are more likely to obey God’s command not to kill their own children (Mark 10:19).  Furthermore, they are more motivated to protect and defend the defenseless (Proverbs 24:11-12).  And finally, they more fully understand their duty as Christian leaders to teach other believers to do the same (Matthew 28:20).

[Note: You can read the entire discussion stream here.]

A plea to the pro-life church.

I sometimes have the occasion to visit with pro-life pastors on behalf of the 1.2 million children being killed by abortion annually.  My plea is always the same: We can help you stop abortion in your church; we need your help to stop abortion in the culture.  The result is almost always the same: “No, thank you, we’re doing enough already.”

After one recent e-mail from a pastor, I wrote back (edited):

Thanks for getting back to me.  I wish that I could just delete your e-mail and go seek help where I can find it, but I feel as if it’s my duty to respond.

I don’t know much about your ministry, so some of what I have to say might not apply, but I would ask you to consider how much of this, if any, might be useful to you.

In all candor, I have to tell you that abortion is happening in America with the permission of the “pro-life” church.  We say we believe abortion is systematic murder, but we don’t act like we believe it.  I don’t know what you are already doing on behalf of unborn children at your church.  I can’t know all that you are doing.  But I can tell you that when we look at what the “pro-life” Church is doing as a whole in this country, it all adds up to almost nothing.  The lone exception is the network of pregnancy support centers that are run by Christians.  They do heroic work.  They are woefully under-funded, under-staffed, and under-visited by Christian couples who, in large numbers, patronize abortion clinics instead.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 1 in 5 women having an abortion identifies herself as a “born-again” or “evangelical” Christian, and the rate of abortion among practicing Catholics is almost the same as the rate of abortion in the general culture.

Christians are aborting their babies in staggering numbers and Church is not doing much at all to stop the killing, neither within the walls of the church nor in the culture at large.  Christians are complicit and/or complacent, in large measure, because nobody has shown them pictures that prove abortion is an act of violence.  They know only what the abortion industry has told them: that the preborn child is a blob of tissue and abortion is just the removal of some cells.  If we don’t show pictures of abortion in our churches, then babies are dying that might have been saved.

If we don’t show pictures of abortion in our communities, then babies are dying that might have been saved.  Every pro-life Christian leader with whom we converse believes that he, his ministry, and his church are doing everything they should be doing.  They are doing everything that God is calling them to do.  They make these claims despite the fact that they are not even warning their own young people of the horrifying truth of abortion.  Nor are they doing very much at all, if anything, to stop the killing outside the church.  This compels us to one inescapable conclusion: Either (1) God doesn’t care about abortion and truly is not calling His church to respond, or (2) God is calling His people to be a witness against evil, and His people simply are not answering His call.

We believe the latter to be the case.  In your e-mail, you mention that there are “widespread concerns about the approach” that we take to educating people about abortion, yet you never articulate what those concerns are.  I am particularly perplexed when I reflect on the fact that we are taking the exact same approach as William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, the abolitionists of the 1800s, Lewis Hine, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  In fact, even Jesus Himself used a horrifying graphic image to help us understand the consequences of sin.

Not trying to be flippant here, but what did all these guys do wrong?  If anybody on your leadership team would be willing to meet with me to discuss that question, I’d welcome the opportunity.   Frankly, if I’m wrong, I’m desperate to know that I’m wrong, so that I can change.  But if I’m right, then babies are dying that could have been saved.

If there is any progress to be made, I’m open to whatever next step you suggest.

This offer is open to all pro-life pastors.  Please contact me here to see (1) how we can help you stop abortion in your own church and (2) how you can help us stop abortion in the larger culture.

After seeing the images on the truck, she said, "I knew I had to choose life for my child."

We hear from lots of supporters (including my own mom) who tell us, “I love your work on campus, but I’m not so sure about your truck!”

Well, Mom, this baby’s for you!

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

A group of Virginia college students, banded together to form The Human Rights and Scientific Honesty Initiative asked me to pass this story along to you:

Abortion, Medical Honesty Battle Takes Shape at University of Virginia

A national treasure of a building, Thomas Jefferson’s Rotunda at the University of Virginia (UVA), has a leaking roof and crumbling columns.  The University and state government have begun the chess game over how much it will cost to repair, and who will be picking up the tab.  But right across the street in the UVA president’s office, they have much bigger worries about what they have been doing with state, federal, and student funds the last 20 years under the leadership of John Casteen .   New UVA President Theresa Sullivan has been handed a series of shocking allegations from our group, The Human Rights and Scientific Honesty Initiative.

Students for Life of America has already identified the University of Virginia as one of the institutions of higher learning that has been financing elective abortions with student health funds, and not even giving their students and their students’ parents the opportunity to opt out of that.  What most people at UVA and Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) are totally unaware of is that these schools have both been secretly performing thousands of elective abortions right in their own teaching hospitals!  And, yes, these are both state taxpayer funded universities who also receive federal education grants to boot.

Elective abortions being performed secretly at taxpayer-funded universities are bad enough.  On top of that, UVA has been giving misleading information on a wide range of reproductive issues, neglecting the principle of informed consent.   Sadly, it seems one of America’s top universities allowed itself to be sucked into the Planned Parenthood template for misinforming women and keeping them in the dark about numerous threats to their health.  Somebody finally noticed.

The national pro life movement has been overlooking the universities for too long.  Sometimes we forget that it is not all about Planned Parenthood.  Pro-life activists have a lot to contend with in Charlottesville, a city of only 45,000 people that already has two other abortion facilities as it is, and a large pro-abortion cabal that includes City Council.  One of Live Action’s recent stings of Planned Parenthood aiding and abetting child sex trafficking took place at their Charlottesville area facility.  But right there, in such a hostile environment, we have a whole new front opening in the battle for human rights in America.  And what better place to start than Mr. Jefferson’s University.

We are accepting additional endorsements for our document.  If you are a student, faculty, or alumnus of any Virginia college or university, you can add your name by sending an email to co-author Siobhan Casey at siobhan-casey@hotmail.com.  Thomas Jefferson, who founded UVA back in 1819 near his home at Monticello, once wrote that “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.”

One of the rising stars in the pro-life movement is Kelsey Hazzard, a law student at the U of Virginia.  She is also the founder and President of Secular Pro-Life.  Her latest project is a new website, AbortionSafety.com, which will target abortion-minded women with malpractice data and other information related to the “safety” of abortion.  Here’s the latest from Secular Pro-Life:

AbortionSafety.com

Secular Pro-Life announces a new women’s health website that will catalogue malpractice complaints against abortionists, and inform women about abortion’s risks and alternatives.  The website, AbortionSafety.com, has already garnered support from key pro-life leaders.

Secular Pro-Life, which encourages cooperation among pro-life people of all faith backgrounds, is organizing the project.

“There is a wealth of information in the public record about abortion providers who have injured or killed women,” said Kelsey Hazzard, the president of Secular Pro-Life.  “But the vast majority of women in crisis pregnancies simply don’t have the time or resources to go digging for that information themselves.  AbortionSafety.com will centralize the data and make it freely available.”

A team of volunteers, primarily students, is working with local advocates to gather information on abortion providers across the country.  AbortionSafety.com is set to go live in November 2011.  Fundraising is underway to cover the cost of advertisements, which will be tied to Google searches for terms like “abortion clinic” and “safe abortion.”

The site has been endorsed by Kristan Hawkins, the executive director of Students for Life of America and Pro-Life Action League president Eric Scheidler, among others.

“AbortionSafety.com is going to be a unique project and tool for the pro-life movement, because it will enable us to save thousands of preborn lives and prevent women from experiencing the trauma of abortion,” Hawkins said.

The project was inspired by the “Chicago Method,” a type of sidewalk counseling developed by the Pro-Life Action League, in which sidewalk counselors distribute copies of malpractice complaints to women entering the abortion facility.

To learn more about how you can support the project, visit AbortionSafety.com.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UOJ-rObuQ8

Shirley Moore models the sign she held at the Planned Parenthood Framing Choice event.

Chris Lefebvre was among the pro-life crowd that attended the Planned Parenthood fundraiser at Market Square on May 6.  Here’s her story.

Hope for the Future

Seven bright-eyed high school students stood in Market Square on a recent Friday night.  Some of them held colorful hand-made signs defending life; others held signs exposing death.  They came to stand with a small group of adults, including at least one post abortive woman.  Together they formed a solemn semi-circle facing the stage where Planned Parenthood was holding its youth photo fundraiser called Framing Choice: What Choice Means to Me.

This small group had made the decision that Planned Parenthood would be confronted wherever they tried to promote their deadly deceptions.  It wasn’t easy to devote a Friday night to standing vigil; some of the folks who passed by made hostile remarks and some gave us disgusted looks.  Many more stopped to inquire and some even thanked us for being there.  Some of the people who browsed the display told us afterward that they had no idea it was a Planned Parenthood event; there were no signs indicating the name of the organization and they were surprised to learn the name from us!

Many of us who were there on Friday night face these kinds of events with a certain degree of trepidation, but it never fails that, when all is said and done, we find abundant blessings in being willing to take a stand.  This event was no different; the questions we were able to answer, the truth that was told about life and death and the seeds planted by that truth will bear fruit in uncountable ways.  The most wonderful blessing of all was the presence of those seven courageous young people.  They give us great hope for the future.

Please pray that God will guard them and add to their number.  Pray also that Planned Parenthood will not go unchallenged whenever and wherever they try to promote their deadly work in our city.

It’s one of the biggest obstacles to effective pro-life activism.

Perhaps the most important task for any pro-life campus group is choosing projects that are both strategic and effective.  Unwise choices leave the most important work undone.

But the transition of leadership from one group of leaders to the next is also very big.  In fact, we frequently encounter groups who have suffered greatly because the former leaders did not effectively pass the mantle of leadership on to the current crop.  Poor project selection and poor execution have been the inevitable result.

But we aren’t doing nothing to help the current leaders identify and train the next crop of leaders.  Each year, we co-host, along with the Students for Life of America (SFLA), our annual Pro-Life Student Leadership Conference.

SFLA has also been working very hard to improve the transition of pro-life leadership on campus.  Here is a video by SFLA’s Mary Kate Cavazos:

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

Got a call from Michael Homula yesterday.  He wanted me (and you) to know about their mobile pro-life ultrasound ministry.

Please comment:  Where would you take this ultrasound bus?  OK, the mall, but where else?  People going to a clinic usually have already made up their minds.  What about places where lots of newly pregnant young people are likely to be struggling with the decision to abort?  Where do you suggest?

ICU Mobile – The Pioneer and Leader of Mobile Ultrasound Ministry

Globally, one in five pregnancies will end in an induced abortion.

One ministry plans to GO change that.

ICU Mobile (pronounced I See You), the pioneer and leader of mobile ultrasound ministry, is a non-profit ministry sharing love, grace and truth to serve women all over the world. Founded in Akron, Ohio in 2003, the ICU Mobile mission is simple: reveal life at the crossroads of decision. The approach is equally simple: reveal truth via ultrasound at a time when a woman is in the decision making process. They provide women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy the free opportunity to confirm that pregnancy via a limited obstetrical ultrasound and see her unborn child in order to make an informed life-affirming decision and hear the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As part of their core values, ICU Mobile delivers this free service without judgment, hate, coercion or politics.

The ICU Mobile fleet, currently at 15 across the country and growing rapidly, is made up of passionate and dedicated people brought together by a common goal to serve women in the name of Christ. As the very first mobile ultrasound ministry, more than 8 years of experience has refined their approach and defined a series of best practices to reach out to women who are confused, scared and unsure with love, grace and a message of hope. Revealing life, life knit together in the womb and eternal life through Jesus, they see hearts and minds change every day. Sure, the free ultrasound draws women to an ICU Mobile, but it’s the love and compassion while revealing life that gives women hope for a better future.

But the why behind ICU Mobile will always be Jesus Christ…God. Because of the unfair trade Christ made for us, our sin for his righteousness, ICU Mobile follows His command to GO (Matthew 28:19a).

GO to abortion-minded women. GO save the unborn. GO make disciples of all nations.

ICU Mobile Effectiveness

Since 2003, the Lord has used the ICU Mobile fleet to serve thousands of women, save thousands of babies and bring thousands to faith in Jesus Christ. In 2010 alone, 87% of women who were considering or planning to have an abortion chose life in the fleet of ICU Mobile. Of the people who heard the Gospel and were invited to follow Christ, 43% made a decision to commit their lives to Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

Go(ing) Mobile

ICU Mobile makes affiliation with their ministry simple, easy to access and provides a turnkey ready to deploy mobile solution for qualified pregnancy centers and ministries. As a non-profit ministry, the only goal is to deploy more mobiles to the mission so they have developed an affiliate plan that actually enables the deployment of the next mobile in the fleet. It is self-replicating.

While it may seem intuitive to park the mobile in front of abortion clinics, and ICU Mobile certainly does that, they have come to know it is better to be involved in the decision making process rather than trying to reverse a decision at the last minute. ICU Mobile credits their effectiveness to God and the fact they GO to where women are, where those who are likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy typically hang out. Leveraging their experience, research and neutral brand, they carefully place themselves where they can have the most effect on the decisions women make.

If you are a pregnancy center who would like to learn more about why mobile ultrasound ministry with ICU Mobile makes sense go to the Go Mobile page on their website.

If you would like to get involved with ICU Mobile please visit the Get Involved page.

To learn more general information about the pioneer and leader of mobile ultrasound ministry please visit http://www.icumobile.org/ or email info@icumobile.org.

A crowd gathers in front of GAP and CBR "Choice" signs at Johns Hopkins University.

On Tuesday, CBR brought the Genocide Awareness Project to Johns Hopkins University (JHU).  This is a private school, and we had no student sponsorship, so we actually set up our display in a grass strip at the front entrance.

About mid-day, a handful of pro-abortion students showed up to provide a stark contrast between reasoned debate and juvenile buffoonery.  Fortunately, we were able to bring the truth about abortion to a steady stream of students entering the JHU front gate.

One of the most curious things said at the debate was Dr. McLean’s charge that pro-lifers are responsible for a network of “fake clinics.”  Dr. Mclean struck me as a fair-minded person, so I have to attribute this charge to spending too much time on uber-left websites in the hours leading up to our debate, because this charge clearly originates from radically pro-abortion groups who are committed to only one choice for women, and that’s abortion.  There is perhaps no charge that is more comcially hypocritical this that one.

I responded that when we are on campus, people routinely demand to know what we are doing to help women in crisis pregnancies.  I tell them we do quite a lot.  Pro-lifers run a network of centers where women and families can go to receive guidance, resources, referrals to doctors who will treat them for free, referrals to housing, etc.  In fact, pro-lifers spend many, many times more money on these activities than on educational projects like we do at CBR.  So, in response to all of this, we are to be condemned for running a network of “fake” clinics?  If that’s the game, we can’t win, because were damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

Secular ProLife and Students for Life of America have published a flier, Fake Clinics: Myth vs Fact, to respond to this charge.  Some of the text:

Claim: CPCs are “fake clinics.”

Pregnancy centers come in two types. The first is a traditional crisis pregnancy center or pregnancy resource center. They are not clinics and do not pretend to be, although in most states they are able to offer pregnancy tests and prenatal vitamins. They provide numerous social services, including parenting classes, options counseling, baby supplies, and other financial aid. The second type is a Pregnancy Help Medical Clinic. These are licensed clinics working under the direction of an M.D. Medical services provided vary from clinic to clinic, but often include ultrasounds, on-site prenatal exams, and/or STD testing. In neither case can these be considered “fake clinics.”

Claim: CPCs only care about preventing abortions.

CPCs serve a variety of women; not only the abortion-minded, but also women who have chosen adoption or parenting parenting, women whose babies have already been born, and women struggling with a prior abortion.

Claim: CPCs use volunteers, who are unqualified.

CPCs do utilize volunteers– and so does Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider and one source of this claim! All CPC volunteers undergo training to ensure that they are qualified.

Claim: CPCs have religious affiliations.

Some do and some don’t. Many respectable non-profits have religious affiliations. People who make this claim are usually implying something further: religious discrimination. This is patently false. No CPC will refuse a client on the basis of her religion.

Continuing the coverage of my debate at Eastern Kentucky University.  Part 3 was here.

As you might imagine, Dr. McLean was big on “choice.” I said in my opening remarks that I was as pro-choice than just about anybody in the room. I believe that every woman and every man should be free to choice her own health care provider, her own school, her own religion, her own career, etc.

What I didn’t say (but should have) is that unlike many on the political left, I even believe people should decide whether or not they will join a union and whether or not they will have money taken out of their paychecks to support union-backed political candidates.

But some choices are wrong, even immoral, like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves.

She also objected to being called “pro-abortion” instead of “pro-choice.”  I admitted that I often use the more pejorative term, but it can certainly be justified.  Stephen Douglas was said to be personally opposed to slavery, but he argued that the states should have to “right to choose” whether to be free states or slave states.  We always refer to him as “pro-slavery,” not “pro-choice.”

Following our prepared remarks, we took questions. Lots of questions. At the scheduled ending, the moderator asked if we would be willing to stay longer. I asked when the Cracker Barrel closed. We ended up staying for an extra hour.

One student asked how many churches support our “hate-filled message.” His question was laden with additional pejoratives, but I can’t recall  his exact words. I had to restrain my laughter, because if the Christian church in America—I’m talking about the self-proclaimed “pro-life” church—had ever taken abortion seriously, this would have been over long ago.

People frequently ask about my religious views, as if abortion were a religious issue. I pointed out that although my religion demands that I care about others, you don’t have to share my Christian beliefs to know killing people is wrong. We’re not asking people to accept a new system of morality; we just want them to apply their own system of morality to all human beings.

More in Part 5