Flower

Archive for the ‘Pro Life Strategy’ Category

Hard questions about disturbing abortion photos, part 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hard questions about disturbing abortion photos, part 3

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

Young children learning the truth of abortion.

What about small children who might see the photos?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hard questions about disturbing abortion photos, part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hard questions about disturbing abortion photos, part 1

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

hung and bleeding

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

Why does CBR display disturbing abortion photos?

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

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

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

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

Pictures work: Statistical evidence

The pictures make a difference. How many lives have been changed by this one photo?

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

by Jacqueline Hawkins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Let’s stop playing nice

Lincoln Brandenburg, CBR Project Director, Georgia

Lincoln Brandenburg, CBR Project Director, Georgia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We were resisting by way of confession, but we were not confessing by way of resistance.” Eberhart Bethge

“We were resisting by way of confession, but we were not confessing by way of resistance.” Eberhart Bethge

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

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

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

“Like Jesus, we should not be surprised when we get flak for speaking the truth in a culture that loves lies.”

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

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

Submitted by Lincoln Brandenburg

In the abortion debate, the facts matter

MM-50

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro-Life Cage Match: The Tussle in Tulsa

Pro-Life Cage Match:  The Tussle in Tulsa

Pro-Life Cage Match: The Tussle in Tulsa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The most compelling points made by Cunningham:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 1 (Tennessee) – Lessons Learned

Amendment 1 No

.

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

Lessons Learned:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 … they are ignorant because they are apathetic.

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

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

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

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

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

Should pro-lifers abandon “incrementalist” strategies?

William Wilberforce

William Wilberforce

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

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

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

Anecdotal evidence and other objections to GAP

Objections

.

We are often challenged by pro-lifers who resist our efforts to expose abortion.  We recently met with a group of students who offered a series of objections to our work.  Here are their objections and our answers.

Objection:  We will be disliked, hated, criticized, etc.

Response:  MLK, Lewis Hine, William Wilberforce, and Thomas Clarkson were all disliked, hated, criticized, etc. … and more.  If we are serious about ending abortion, we need to be as strong as they were.  In Dr. King’s Letter From a Birmingham Jail, he was very clear that reformers must expose evil, in spite of the inevitable negative reaction from those who support the status quo.  Please take a few minutes and read his letter.

Objection:  There is nothing but anecdotal evidence to say that pictures work.

Response: We have ample independent evidence to prove pictures work:

  1. We have the verdict of history that says pictures always work to educate, change public opinion, and ultimately public policy.
  2. We also have the history that reformers who don’t use pictures never succeed.
  3. At Middle Tennessee State, 15% of passersby said the GAP display changed their minds.  That was in addition to the sizeable percentage (40-50%) who said the display made them even more sure of their pro-life beliefs.
  4. Typically, about 10% (range: 5-15%) of the respondents to our informal polls tell us that the GAP display changed their minds.
  5. At the U of Louisville, 65% of an independent group of students said the display was effective at changing minds.  That included 29% who said GAP changed their own minds.
  6. Here is another statistic that is not anecdotal.  At 100% of the venues at which we have displayed GAP, multiple people have told us that our pictures changed their minds.  Others changed their minds but didn’t tell us until later.  Here are just a few examples:
      1. University of North Florida (mind changed 3 years earlier)
      2. University of California Irvine (baby saved 3 years earlier)
      3. University of California Riverside (mind changed 1 year earlier)
  7. The following comments came from just one philosophy class at the U of Louisville:
      1. Student B:  I had always believed in choice … but the pictures were too convincing.   I’m not sure why the relationship between abortion and genocide has never crossed my mind, but the display was surprisingly convincing.  … Abortion is a form of murder and genocide.
      2. Student I:  … it truly changed my perspective on abortion …
      3. Student L:  I had only a few cheap glances over at [the pictures], but what I did see I wish I would have not. … [The photos] made me think about this and I think that the pictures woke me up … and gave me a reality check. … The pictures said enough for me.
      4. Student O:  The first picture stuck in my head and I just stared at it in total shock. It was a picture of a tiny little embryo/baby, its head the size of a dime, lying dead in blood with all its organs visible … They are murdered because of the selfishness of others.
      5. Student P:  I think these photos were used to prove the point that abortion is still murder and in mass numbers, should be compared to genocide.  I didn’t think of abortion in this way until viewing the exhibit.
      6. Student A:  It definitely make everybody not just stop and look, but to really think about the message … It worked!
      7. Student J:  They made the presentation so that you didn’t want to look but you couldn’t help but look.
      8. Student Q:  It was a clear illustration of how a well-planned … [the] project could reach hundreds of people in a very short span of time.

Objection:  This approach is not compassionate to post-abortive women.

Response:  Many post-abortive women have told us to please show the pictures so that others won’t make the same mistake they made.  One such woman is Dr. Alveda King, who had 2 abortions.  Others have said that only by seeing abortion pictures were they able to come out of denial, confess, repent and heal.  One such woman is on this video.  We always try to bring a team of post-abortive women who can reach out to women on campus who wish to discuss their experiences.  Pictures don’t hurt women; abortion hurts women.

No reformers have ever stopped an injustice by covering it up.  Reformers like Dr. King, William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, Lewis Hine, and others have always used horrifying images to educate the public and create a forum in which the purveyors of injustice were forced to defend the indefensible.  The purveyors of injustice had never had to do that before.  With abortion pictures, we create a forum in which abortion apologists are forced to defend the practice of decapitating and dismembering little human beings.  They can’t do it.  But only the display of abortion images forces them to try and thus exposes the frivolity of their arguments.

If we don’t expose injustice, history is clear that the killing will never end.  There is nothing our opponents fear more than pictures.

Use of abortion victim images gaining support

Simply showing people the truth.

What will it take to end this genocide?  Why not simply show people the truth.

I remember the first time I heard CBR’s Gregg Cunningham talk about displaying abortion victim images on campus.  I thought, “You gotta be nuts!  You want me to stand where?  And hold up what?  There ain’t no way!”

But I kept an open mind.

Now, more and more, people are beginning to understand that we can never end abortion without convincing millions of ignorant and apathetic Americans that abortion is so evil, it ought to be against the law.  It sounds like daunting task, and it is, but it’s the same problem faced by Wilberforce, Clarkson, King, Harris, Hine, and others.

They all overcame this problem the same way.  They started out giving speeches that didn’t work, but ended up using graphic victim images to break through denial and apathy.

Here is a recent column entitled Abortion Holocaust: Make Them Watch, in which Bill Muehlenberg takes us back to 1945, when the American military forced German citizens to actually see the death camps.

Not only did they have to tour the camps, but often they had to bury rotting corpses and/or exhume mass graves.  The sights and the stench were certainly powerful wake-up calls to many who claimed ignorance or denied any responsibility.

You can see an actual newsreel on one of these forced visits here.

Muehlenberg says, in the same way, we should force American citizens to see what is going on in the abortion industry:

Our abortion mills are flowing with the blood of murdered babies. But people are claiming ignorance. Perhaps we should force everyone in favor of such baby killing to tour an abortion mill, and look at what happens, and handle the remains of a burned or dismembered baby.

Had German citizens seen what things were really like before 1945, maybe many would have risen up against the Nazis. If people today could see how the victims of the abortionists are treated, they too just might rise up and make a stand.

What will it take to end this genocide?

Maybe it will take pro-lifers willing to leave their comfort zones.  We can’t force people to tour the abortion mills, but we can use pictures to simply show people the truth.  That’s what it will take to end this genocide.

GAP is Media

Zizkov Television Tower, Prague
Photo by C.G. Hunt (Click to enlarge)

by Mick Hunt

“Abortion bias seeps into news.”

Well, we older pro-lifers have known this a long time.  In fact, a stunning revelation of the universal modern phenomena written by a staff writer appeared with this exact title in the LA Times in 1990, 24 years ago.  One reason for the bias, the author says, is because as many as 90% of reporters and editors “favor abortion rights.”

… we bypass the bias and censorship of the news media and go directly to people, which is to say, it is media, carrying the message to readers, listeners, and viewers.

Since Roe v. Wade and before, the American populace has been subjected to daily distortion, misinformation, and news blackouts about abortion and the pro-life movement. No wonder we encounter so much inertia and resistance to protecting pre-natal children.

If anything, what once was bias has transformed into abortion advocacy.

When the old Soviet Union controlled all the open media within its empire, it still could not suppress the truth. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty broadcast news into communist controlled territories. From within, dissidents secretly typed, reproduced on mimeograph machines, and hand-distributed censored publications, including fiction, poetry, and unofficial news accounts, which all was called samizdat.

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) and its Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) are like Radio Liberty and samizdat.  With GAP, we bypass the bias and censorship of the news media and go directly to people, which is to say, it is media, carrying the message to readers, listeners, and viewers.

And not only does GAP communicate and generate discussion at the display and between people around campus, it provokes multiple news stories and commentary.

Soviet dissident and Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn once wrote that even distorted, deceptive propaganda can be informative once you have learned to read between the lines, so keep this in mind as you look into the media reports and published comments.  And with some material, such as this revealing Facebook Event page from the group that attempted to censor GAP at NC State University last spring (as with C.S. Lewis’s book The Screwtape Letters), you have to reverse the values and meanings portrayed.

This summer my son spent ten days in Prague, Czech Republic.  He said a dominant feature of the city skyline was the imposing Žižkov television tower, standing at seven hundred and nine feet tall, a remnant of the Soviet Union’s intention to block television broadcasts from free Germany and the West.

The story is always the same.

With the help of supporters (click here to help), CBR will continue to broadcast the uncensored truth about the oppression of abortion directly to the many thousands of students, staff, and faculty on our nation’s university campuses and to people on our public highways and byways.  We will go back again and again.  And then we pray truth and courage together will topple the abortion empire.

Mick Hunt (Meredith Eugene Hunt) is a FAB contributor.  He has helped organize more than 50 Genocide Awareness Projects (GAPs) all over the southeast and elsewhere.

Feeling good vs. making an impact

Dialogue at Northern Kentucky University

At Northern Kentucky University, showing abortion photos created more informed dialogue than anything else we could have done.

When you suit up for pro-life work, what would you rather do, feel good or make an impact?

Unfortunately, many of us have adopted a form of “strategic relativism,” in which any strategy or tactic used to fight abortion is just as good as any other.  People say things like, “You fight abortion your way and I’ll fight it my way.”

The inevitable result is that many of us (perhaps most) are engaged in activities that aren’t particularly effective at winning hearts, changing minds, or saving lives, nearly as much as they are good at making pro-lifers feel good about doing them.

While it’s true that our movement has multiple components, just as the body has many parts (I Corinthians 12:12-31), this principle does not mean all strategies/tactics are equally valuable or effective.  In business, construction, child rearing, war, and every other field of human endeavor, there are some methods that simply work better than others.  We would be mad to choose whatever feels good, when experience and logic demand we employ tactics that actually work better.

Don’t be a strategic relativist!  The babies deserve your best.

But that’s not all.  The people who give time and treasure to your work also deserve your best.  They give sacrificially.  Shouldn’t they count on you to invest wisely?

And finally, think of yourself.  If you are investing yourself in this work, don’t you want to maximize your own personal return on investment?  Let’s put it this way: if you had a 401K, would you settle for a 2% annual return when another investment was paying a guaranteed 25%?

Abortion pictures are an indispensable tactic because they force large numbers of people (literally, everyone in sight) to learn and reflect on the two most important facts: (1) the preborn child is a living human being, and (2) abortion is an act of violence that destroys a living baby.  Abortion pictures prevent honest people from denying these facts.

Pro-lifers love to talk about creating dialogue.  The record is clear: when you show thousands of passersby exactly what abortion is and does, you create more dialogue (and more informed dialogue) than anything else you can do.

Note:  FAB is indebted to CBR Maryland for inspiring and contributing to this article.  The good folks at CBR Maryland are definitely making an impact!

Conflict is both an indicator and a facilitator of changing minds

Modulated conflict draws big crowds at Auburn U

Sign-holding protesters (right side of walkway) draw big crowds at Auburn University. They tried to defend the indefensible, but could not. Having failed that, they called us names or simply tried to change the subject. But all of it focused attention on GAP and abortion.

History is clear on this point: injustice can be defeated only by reformers who confront evil and accept persecution from angry defenders of the status quo.  People who exploit others are enraged when their cruel tyranny is threatened.  When William Wilberforce used pictures to win the debate over slavery, he was attacked in the newspapers, physically assaulted, and even threatened with death.  But he showed the pictures anyway.

Conflict is not only an indicator that the status quo is threatened; it is also a facilitator of change.  It focuses public attention in ways nothing else will.  Dr. Martin Luther King said, “I am not afraid of the word ‘tension.’  I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.”  This tension created a public forum in which racists were forced to defend segregation.  They could not do it, so the reformers won.

hung and bleeding

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