CBR’s Lincoln Brandenburg at the Chattahoochee Valley March for Life

On January 25 our Georgia Project Director, Lincoln Brandenburg spoke at the 2013 Chattahoochee Valley March for Life in Columbus, GA, noting the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. Hundreds attended, and we gave out 1,500 “Choice” cards, each of which features a graphic abortion photo.   A “Choice” cards in your wallet is an excellent tool for changing minds by simply showing people the truth!  The following are excerpts from his speech.

Forty years is a long time. Too long. And those of you who have given of your time and resources to save lives and to end the killing may be wondering, “Have we made progress?”

Many of you are familiar with the legendary human rights activist William Wilberforce who, in the early 1800’s, led the movement to abolish slavery in the United Kingdom. That campaign was an uphill battle. Slavery, like abortion, was as profitable and invisible as it was cruel and horrifying. But awareness was raised. Abolition bills were introduced, failed, and introduced again year after year. Incremental progress was made over the decades.

Finally, his old and broken body failing, Wilberforce received word that the votes and support were in place, and that legalized slavery in the British Empire would, at long last, come to an end. Three days after receiving this wonderful news, a tired Wilberforce went home to his Savior.

I’m telling you this story, pro-life friend, because it took Wilberforce and his team not forty, but nearly fifty years to accomplish justice. Fifty years of toil and labor, small victories, heavy defeats, and the ridicule of being misunderstood by friend and foe alike.

Though it has been a long journey for us also, we will not give up, because the lives of those precious little ones and the hearts of their mothers are worth fighting for! So stay in the fight, my friend.

I have one more story to tell. This is for friends who are pro-life, but not yet active in this work of saving lives.

In May 1940, German forces attacked Holland. The following years of occupation brought a gradual fulfillment of Nazi policies, resulting in the dehumanization of Jews. There were severe criminal penalties for any who would aid, abet, or harbor them. But that did not stop some. Casper ten Boom was an elderly watchmaker who, along with his two grown daughters, lived out their professed Christianity by risking their lives to hide Jews in their own home and guide them to safety.

A Jewish mother and her baby came to them for refuge. As they sought to find a safe place for them, the ten Booms asked a country pastor if he would take this family in.

Sadly, what this s0-called “minister” of the gospel gave them was not help, but cowardly excuses. “No. Definitely not. We could lose our lives for that Jewish child.”

Upon hearing that, Casper picked up the baby, holding him tenderly, and responded “You say we could lose our lives for this child? I would consider that the greatest honor that could come to my family.”

Eventually, the Germans found this family out. They were shipped to concentration camps, and Casper ten Boom, being sick and elderly, did indeed lose his life for saving the lives of others. But unlike that pastor, he stood before God as one who could give a good account of his stewardship during a dark time in history.

You and I are also living in a time in history during which innocent lives are being snuffed out. But we have it much easier. Unlike the ten Booms, we do not have to keep our efforts hidden. We still have the freedom to peacefully stand up for these children whom our government won’t protect. How much more readily should we do so, given the comparable ease of our task? Friends, change will not come about by us wishing it away. It will not come about by thinking pro-life thoughts. It will not come about by going to a march one day a year and then staying at home for all the rest.

In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right.”

We’ve won the argument but lost where it counts.  So says Meredith Hunt in the Asheville Citizen-Times, responding to the recent cover article by Time magazine.  Link to Hunt’s entire op-ed piece here.  He explains

Time magazine’s Jan. 14 cover story proclaimed, “Abortion-rights activists won an epic victory in Roe v. Wade. They’ve been losing ever since.” This statement is wrong on the only scale that matters. Forty years after Roe, prenatal children are still being aborted legally in our country.

While abortion seems entrenched into our culture, in the realm of reasoned argument, the abortion choice movement has lost the game entirely.  With the advances in observing the life of children in the womb, the work to educate university students on the true nature of abortion, and the logical arguments that demonstrate the humanity and personhood even of an embryo, abortion-choice rhetoric shows itself to be empty.  It’s strong on absurdities, non sequiturs, false history, and demonizing characterizations of pro-lifers.  If you add to our intellectual victory the network of nonprofit agencies that serve women in a crisis pregnancy and confirm the compassionate heart of pro-life ideas, the defeat of the abortion choice position is total.

The problem is, legal abortion isn’t dependent on sound jurisprudence or moral reasoning.  It never was.  “Pro-choice” efforts in those directions have been no more than gauze over the power to kill.  They’re an illusion to make the terrible seem less terrible — to comfort people so they can do what they want, and to mislead the desperate.

Link to Hunt’s piece here.

Class change at UTC.

Another great day of GAP, this time at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.  Early in the day, CBR Virginia Director Nicole Cooley spoke with Amber, whose mother had wanted to abort her.  Her father intervened to save her life, but her mother was a drug addict and abusive during her entire childhood.  The mother had even told her that she never wanted Amber.

But now Amber has made it all the way to UTC, where she is majoring in theatre.  She told Nicole that seeing the pictures in the GAP display has made her realize that every day is a gift, and she has resolved to make her life count.

Nicole prayed with Amber and told her that even though her mother didn’t plan her or want her, she had a Heavenly Father who both planned and loved her.

Debbie Picarello and Nicole Cooley speak with clarity about abortion and about our Savior. They are a light to hurting men and women.

A common logical fallacy they teach in pro-abortion debating school is the ad populum technique.  (That means appeal to popularity, for all you people in Rio Linda.)  It is often combined with the ad hominem attack, like this:

1. Most people disagree with you. (ad populum)
2. Therefore, you are an extremist. (ad hominem)
3. Therefore, you must be wrong.

Rejoice when they try that.  Without exeption, the pro-abortion debater will be so extreme in his/her views as to be an embarrassment to the typical pro-abortion citizen.  A recent Gallup poll found several points on which pro-choice people actually agree with us:

• Third trimester abortions should be illegal.  (79% of pro-choicers agree)
• Informed consent should be required.  (86% of pro-choicers agree)
• Partial-birth abortions should be banned.  (63% of pro-choicers agree)
• 24-hour waiting period should be required.  (60% of pro-choicers agree)
• Perental consent should be required for minors.  (60% of pro-choicers agree)
• Second trimester abortions should be illegal.  (52% of pro-choicers agree)

Compare these results to the typical pro-abortion activist who agrees with none of these statements.

Gallup concludes:

Abortion politics have been quite contentious in the United States; however, self-described “pro-life” and “pro-choice” Americans broadly agree on more than half of 16 major abortion policy matters Gallup tested in June and July.  These policies generally have to do with protections for women’s vital health, preventing late-term abortions, and ensuring that abortion patients and parents are fully informed before an abortion.

FAB will accept these results as largely accurate, because they are within the range of other polling data we have seen.  However, a word of caution is in order.

Always be wary of abortion statistics, whether they be trumpeted by pro-lifers or by pro-aborts.  Unlike many people on both sides of the issue, FAB tries to avoid the two most common errors we see:  (1) dismissing the results we don’t like and (2) taking the results we like as the final word.  It’s almost comical to watch both sides hold up the same poll and claim final victory.

We approach statistics with a certain amount of skepticism.  In that spirit, we found some major curiosities in the results of this poll:

1. Only 97% of pro-choicers agreed that abortion should be legal when a woman’s life is in danger.  What is the other 3% thinking?  How can they claim to be pro-choice?
2. Only 91% of pro-choicers agree that abortion should be legal when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest.  What are the other 9% thinking?
3. On the flip-side, 35% of “pro-lifers” want abortion to be legal in the first trimester.  How could such people claim to be pro-life?  Could it be that 35% of pro-life people simply don’t pay a bit of attention to what they are doing when answering a poll?
4. Gallup says 9% of “pro-lifers” want abortion to be legal when when the woman/family can’t afford a child.  Again, how could such people claim to be pro-life?
5. Only 90% of “pro-lifers” want abortion to be illegal in the 2nd trimester and only 94% want it to be illegal in the third trimester.
6. Bottom line:  Somewhere between 6% and 35% of pro-life respondents aren’t paying attention.  Same is true for between 3% and 9% of pro-choice respondents.

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!

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.

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

The Good

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

The Bad

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

The Ugly

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

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

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

More on my debate at EKU.  See Part 1 here.

These are my opening remarks, sort of. In the interest of continuous improvement, I’m revising them as I go. But this is mostly what I said.

Opening Statement

Thank you for coming to participate in this debate.

I’m going to take it for granted that all of us here tonight want to live justly with respect to our fellow man. We disagree about who constitutes our fellow man and who does not.

I want to caution you not to believe anything I tell you. I’m an advocate, and so is my opponent in this debate. You can’t know if either of us is telling the truth or not, unless you check it out for yourself. You can’t know if I’ve left out important facts. My conclusions might be flawed. Even if I have plausible arguments, perhaps my opponent has decisive ones. You must do your own research and ask hard questions of both sides.

In America today, preborn humans have the right to life if and only if their mothers want them. This is true through all 9 months of pregnancy. That’s the status quo. And I’m willing to support it. I’m willing to concede that Dr. McLean is entirely correct in almost everything she will say. I’m willing to say there should be no restrictions on abortion. It should be treated just like any other medical procedure. I’m willing to say that abortion is certainly nothing like genocide. I’m willing to concede all of this, quit my job at CBR, and go into another line of work. I’ll do all of that … if. I’ll do all of that if and only if Dr. McLean can present good scientific and philosophic evidence to show that the preborn child is not human. I look forward to hearing that evidence.

The difference between us is not that she is pro-choice and I am anti-choice. I am vigorously pro-choice, as much as any person here, and probably more than most. 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.

Unlike many on the political left, I believe people should have the right to choose whether or not they join a union. They should not be forced to pay dues that will be diverted to political campaigns. Washington leftists disagree. I believe doctors and nurses should be free to choose whether they will perform abortions, according to the dictates of their own consciences. Washington leftists say no. I believe people should choose the charitable causes they wish to support, rather than the government choosing for them. Leftists even demand to decide what light bulb you buy, whether you can use a voucher to send your child to the school of your choice, and whether you buy health insurance under ObamaCare.

Yes, we are all pro-choice about some things, but nobody here is pro-choice about everything. Most choices are really matters of personal morality. Even though I may disagree with your choices, I have to respect your right to make them and vice versa. It’s your life. But some choices can be harmful, even deadly, to others. We don’t allow anyone the right to kill another human being simply because she is in the way and cannot defend herself. We don’t allow people to commit rape or child abuse. In a civilized society, no person has the right to unjustly take the life of another.

To put it simple, if the preborn child is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is needed. But if the preborn child is a human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate (except when the mother’s life is in danger).

To open our discussion about abortion, we need to define what it is. And to know what abortion is and does, we need to see it. I’m alerting you up front that some of you will not want to watch the video I’m about to show.  Feel free to close your eyes or look away from the screen.

Some may object to images of abortion because they somehow substitute emotion for reason, but that really misses the point. The question is not whether the pictures are emotional—they are—but whether the pictures are true. If the pictures are true, then they must be admitted as evidence.

Naomi Wolf is a pro-choice author who agrees with us on that point. She wrote,

How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted by them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view of women is unworthy of feminism. (Naomi Wolf, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” The New Republic, October 16, 1995, p 32)

But Ms. Wolf is a bit off target.  With the pictures, our intended audience is not just women, but both women and men, because everybody needs to know.  The Elliot Institute says that as many as 64% of abortions are coerced, and it doesn’t take a genius to know who is doing the coercing.  Men need to know that irresponsibility comes with a heavy price that others will often have to pay.

I’ll show the video now.

[I then showed the Choice Blues video.]

I yeild back the rest of my time.

End of Opening Statement

In Part 3, I’ll describe the unanswered challenge.

On our recent GAP trip, I debated a pro-choice professor at Eastern Kentucky University (EKU). In all of the GAPs we have done, this was only my third such debate. I’ll debate anybody, anyplace, anytime, but few will accept my offer. The Student Government Association at EKU recruited Dr. Meg McLean to answer the challenge.

Dr. McLean got on my good side right away. Early on, she made reference to the Appalachian region, and she said it correctly! Few people from outside Appalachia know how to say it, and Dr. McLean is from Wisconsin. The folks at Appalachian State finally taught ESPN how, but only after their second national championship. For getting it right, we make Dr. McLean an honorary member of the “I know the correct pronunciation of ‘Appalachian’” Facebook group!

Three groups of people show up for debates like this. Pro-lifers come to cheer for our side. Another group comes to cheer for the pro-abortion side. The third group shows up because a teacher is giving them extra credit to be there.  The debate was organized too late to attract many of that third group.  Of the first two groups, Dr. McLean’s cheering section was noticably bigger than mine. That’s cool, because each one of them got to see the Choice Blues video and hear me make the pro-life case!

My opening remarks (sort of) are in Part 2.

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.

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?

It is appropriate that the anniversary of the infamous Roe v Wade decision is observed at the same time as the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday.  We gain perspective and hope from knowing that civil rights activists eventually won their struggle to end slavery and Jim Crow, even though it took nearly 200 years.

They overcome insurmountable obstacles.  For them, like us in the pro-life movement, the discouragement must have been overwhelming at times.  But they fought on, never giving up on their dreams of equality.

If anything, Dr. King’s legacy should inspire us to dream big dreams and pursue bold visions.

I was reminded of this as I read Sen. Bob Corker’s remarks at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Sports Legacy Symposium at the FedEx Forum in Memphis. The symposium pays tribute to athletes who have made significant contributions to civil and human rights.

In his remarks, excerpted below, Sen. Corker spoke briefly about King’s bold vision and how it should inspire us to pursue bold visions of our own:

One of the people who has had a great impact on my life is a man named Jim Rouse.  His work to give low-income citizens the opportunity for decent and affordable housing has improved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people across our country. I met Jim in the 1980s, and he encouraged me to embrace a bold vision. He said, “Bob, if you have a bold vision, even if you only accomplish 80 percent of it, you’ve still accomplished far more than if your goals were small. A bold vision builds momentum and energy.”

Martin Luther King had a tremendous vision of what our country could be. He also had the courage to stand up and pursue it. He had a bold vision – a dream he called it – of human equality. He shared his dream with the rest of us and made sacrifices so that his children and grandchildren would live in a better country than the one he inherited.

Tragically, his life was cut short. But because he had a bold vision and energy behind it, others picked up his cause and today we are a far better nation as a result.

To truly honor his legacy we must dedicate ourselves to our own bold visions, to serving one another, to improving our communities, and to leaving behind a better country for future generations.

FAB is indebted to Dr. Frank Joseph for this excellent essay.  Please comment below!

Debating Abortion on the political stage: Carly Fioriana blew it

Carly Fiorina had a golden opportunity to blow Barbara Boxer out of the water in their California senatorial debate, but she blew it.

An abortion question was asked by a member of the panel, and of course, Boxer went according to script. Said Boxer (paraphrasing and making it short), “I am for a woman’s right to choose.” Never saying the word abortion. “Women shouldn’t have to go to jail if Roe v Wade is overturned, and that’s what Fiorina wants.”

To begin with, this is a lie. Women would not go to jail. They didn’t before Roe and they won’t if Roe is overturned. Democrats just have to lie, just like they did in the 1960s when they said that 5,000 – 10,000 women died every year from back-alley, coat-hanger abortions. Even NARAL founder Dr. Bernard Nathanson now admints that it was a willful lie. The year before Roe, only 39 such deaths were reported to the CDC. Anyhow, only the person who kills the child (the abortion doctor) would be breaking the law and put in jail if Roe is overturned.

Fiorina did not call Boxer on this lie. She did say she is pro-life, but she never mentioned that Boxer not only supports the killing of unborn children, she supports this killing for the entire nine months of pregnancy. She even supports partial-birth abortions, which 75% of the American people oppose. According to polls, more people identify themselves as pro-life than pro-choice (to kill unborn children).

They each had 2 minutes for their final summations. In her statement, Boxer again brought up a woman’s “right to choose” and again falsely stated women would go to jail if Fiorina had her way and Roe was overturned. She kept pounding on that issue.

It seems that when Democrats are in a debate, they go for the throat. Maybe Republicans just don’t want to hurt the feelings of Democrats. I think they just don’t get it.

Fiorina should have mentioned that Boxer lied about women going to jail if Roe is overturned. She should have also said that women who do not have their child killed would decrease their risk of getting breast cancer and decrease their risk of drug and alcohol abuse as well as suicides.

She could have even mentioned that abortions increase the risk of premature babies in subsequent pregnancies, resulting in low birth weights. Such children are more prone to develop physical and mental problems, including cerebral palsy.

She could also have said that she favor’s a woman’s reproductive rights, but when reproduction is over, that is where she draws the line. She could have mentioned that Boxer even supported killing babies while they are being born, at which time they would suffer excruciating pain. As Boxer repeated over and over again what little ammunition she had, Fiorina should have mentioned this over and over again. Sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire.