by Fletcher Armstrong

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Observer:  People on both sides of the issue spent half their time trash talking people who opposed them instead of keeping it to the issue.  The pro-lifers compared the pro-choicers to Germans who ignored the Holocaust, while pro-choicers compared pro-lifers to racists who fought to keep public schools segregated.  This constant mud-slinging contest is exactly why people don’t like talking about important issues.

CBR Response:   Observer, thanks for your comment.  We did not invent the comparison of abortion to the Holocaust and slavery.  Martin Luther King, Jr. often compared racial injustice in America to the Holocaust.  Rev. Jesse Jackson later extended the comparison to abortion.  Both of them cited some of the same factors that we highlight in our display, including denial of personhood, dehumanization of the victims, etc.  But it would be wrong to accuse them of “trash-talking”.

It isn’t trash-talking to point out that perpetrators of genocide always redefine personhood in terms that exclude the intended victim class.  Our Supreme Court declared preborn children to be non-persons in the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, applying a developmental criteria (trimesters).  The Court did the same thing in 1857, by declaring Black men and women to be “subordinate and inferior” beings.  The Nazi court declared Jews to be non-persons in 1936.

Another common theme is the language used to dehumanize the intended victims.  For example, Nazis called their victims rats, pigs, vermin, and untermensch (subhuman).  We all know the language used to dehumanize Black men and women in this country.  So what do we call preborn children.  A wanted preborn child is called a “baby” — “look at the ultrasound of my baby” — but an unwanted preborn child is never a baby, but is often referred to as a “parasite”, “blob of cells”, “products of conception”, etc.

These are all true historical facts.  Stating facts is not mud-slinging.

Of course, these facts have relevance only if the preborn child is a living human being, but science tells us that the preborn child is both human (not a pig, cow, or horse) and alive (not dead, but growing).  So can anyone tell us why it OK to decapitate and dismember some human beings and not others?  And what criteria is appropriate to decide which human beings may be decapitated and dismembered and which may not?

by Fletcher Armstrong

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Science Student:  Your “movement” implies that those who have had abortions are “murderers” and compares them to those who oversaw the holocaust [i.e. “Nazis”].

CBR Response:  We explicitly state that women who have had abortions may not be compared to Nazis.  In fact, aborting mothers are often more victim than perpetrator.  They’ve been lied to.  Many face enormous pressure and even threats of abandonment (or worse) by irresponsible or predatory males who should be supporting them.  Some “choice.”

We compare abortion to the Holocaust because in both cases, (1) the victims are denied rights of personhood, (2) perpetrators use dehumanizing terms to describe the people they intend to kill, etc.  But we also compare slavery to the Holocaust, for all the same reasons.  Does that mean that we believe George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and William Clark were as evil as Nazis, because they owned slaves?  Of course not.  These men are personal heroes of mine, but they were very wrong about a grave moral issue.  They grew up in a society in which slavery was an accepted part of daily life.

Perpetrators of genocide almost always discount the humanity of their victims.

by Fletcher Armstrong

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Justin Barr:  I agree with not calling people against abortion pro-life because 9/10 time they really aren’t pro life, their pro birth and than screw you afterwards.

CBR Response:  Justin, that is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Name-calling and ad hominems are no substitutes for reasoned arguments.  If you have a reasonable argument that justifies decapitating and dismembering little human beings, we’d all love to hear it.  You could save us all a lot of trouble if you would make a coherent case.

by Fletcher Armstrong

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Thinking Logically:  [I] called you out on your shame tactics and blatant disregard for the emotional wellbeing of people who have gone through both the procedure in question … Can you perhaps choose another argument?  I think we all get that you are under the impression that abortion “decapitate and dismembers little human beings” or something along those lines. … Abortion isn’t genocide. Genocide is government sanctioned; there is propaganda (again government sanctioned and supported) demeaning the humanity of the targeted group, and military action is taken to eradicate the ENTIRE group.  Firstly, the government does not sanction abortion; there is massive controversy around the subject.  Secondly, you don’t turn on the television and see advertisements saying, “Eradicate the parasites known as the Unborn!” You don’t leave your house and walk down the street and see posters with demonizing pictures depicting “the unborn” and how we should “eradicate” them.  Thirdly, in saying that it is a genocide you are saying that we seek to eradicate ALL unborn children.  In what universe do you actually think that anyone would eradicate the potential life that fuels and sustains our population on earth?  Another thing is that genocide does rely on mob-mentality, bandwagoning, and most other appeals to people.  Does that sound familiar?

CBR Response:  Thinking Logically, If abortion is just another medical procedure necessary for the well-being of women and society, then why would a picture of it shame anybody?

I repeat the fact that abortion decapitates and dismembers little human beings because that is an important fact that is the crux of the matter.  If you can offer any compelling evidence to the contrary, we would gratefully thank you for the enlightenment and find something more productive to do.  If you could provide a coherent argument for why it is OK to kill some human beings without justification, and give us some rational way to decide who may be killed and who must be protected, then we would gratefully thank you for the enlightenment and find something more productive to do.

Knowing that such simple evidence/arguments would get us to shut up and go away, why don’t you offer them?  You don’t offer such facts nor such arguments because they don’t exist.  To cover up for your lack of facts/arguments, you respond with ad hominem attacks and falsehoods (e.g., preborn humans are not human).

We will offer relevant facts and arguments as long as pro-aborts offer no coherent response.

Your comments are confused because you didn’t read the UN definition of genocide, nor did you read what we said about it.  We use the definition of genocide as stated in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96 (11 December 1946): “Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, … and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations. … The General Assembly, therefore, affirms that genocide is a crime under international law … whether the crime is committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds …” (source, accessed January 15, 2011)

Note that the action doesn’t have to be government-sponsored in order to be considered genocidal.  The genocide in Rwanda was not government sponsored.

You say that one of the defining characteristics of genocide is the demeaning of the humanity of the target victim group.  True.  Note that we often call a WANTED preborn child a baby, but an UNWANTED preborn child is never a baby, but is rather a fetus, embryo, products of conception, potential life, parasite, not a human, etc.  Can’t get much more demeaning than to call somebody a parasite.  The only difference between the baby and the parasite is that the one is wanted and the other is not. Personhood based on wantedness …  When have we seen that before?

You say that in order for it to be genocide, somebody has to be targeting an ENTIRE group.  With abortion, the entire group being targeted for destruction is UNWANTED, PREBORN children.  Not all preborn children, not all unwanted children, but all children who are both unwanted and preborn may be killed.

How can you say that the government doesn’t sanction abortion?  Haven’t you read Roe v. Wade?  Don’t you know that the abortion industry receives hundreds of millions of dollars from the US government every year?

You said that genocide depends on mob-mentality, bandwagoning, and most other [fallacious?] appeals to people.  You asked if such a characterization sounded familiar.  Yes, it does.

by Jacqueline Hawkins

Sibling rivalry.  It happens.  You can even say it’s natural.  But with abortion, it can be dark and disturbing.

“If my mom didn’t have an abortion, I wouldn’t be here today!”  We hear it all the time.  Okie from Georgia Southern U said that because his father coerced the abortion of two older siblings, he was able to raise successful, productive sons later on, of which Okie was one.  In other words, “I’m glad my big brother is dead.  If he had lived, things sure would be different for me!”  Kill or be killed.  Dog eat dog.

As the sister of a dead brother (not because of abortion), this is disturbing to my very core.  I can’t imagine being grateful he’s gone because his death makes my life somehow “better.”  Statements like that ring cold and cruel in my ears.

There’s even a children’s book called Sister Apple, Sister Pig, written to help children rejoice over their sibling’s abortions.  It’s about a boy who is looking for his sister in various places at his family’s farm.  His sister was aborted, and according to the boy’s father,

“…You have some good reasons to not have a sister right here, right now.  Maybe you will have another sister when there is more time, and there is more money.”

See kids, if your sibling hadn’t been murdered, there wouldn’t be enough time and money for you!  In fact, that is the exact conclusion the young boy comes to in the story.  He says,

“I’m not sad that my sister is a ghost!  If you kept my sister, you would be tired, and sad, and mad! … Because we would be wild and loud and sometimes we would fight.  Mama might be scared that she could not buy enough food for us.  Mama might not have enough time to read to me, to paint with me, to play with me, to talk with me … Sister is a happy ghost!”

I’m starting to realize that this is a vital survival mechanism.  How can a child process the news that his own mother or father murdered his own brother or sister, without going completely insane?

Sister Apple, Sister Pig isn’t a story about a boy who has come to healthy acceptance of his late sister’s death.  This is a story about a little boy who rationalizes his sister’s murder to avoid completely losing his mind.  The same can be said of the people we have met, on campus and elsewhere.  When a parent turns against a child, it’s only natural for the remaining children to turn against the victim as well.  This protects him from the shattering effects of cognitive dissonance.  You can’t be pro-slaughtered-baby and pro-slaughtering-parent at the same time.  This is especially true when you are related to both.

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

by Fletcher Armstrong

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Man:  You’re comparing a woman’s right to choose whether or not she wants to carry a potential child to term (and dramatically change her life, cause unforeseen health issues, potentially lead to a bad life for a child, etc) to an event which imprisoned/killed millions of [already born] people and caused the death of countless other via a global war?

CBR Response:  We are comparing killing human beings who are little with killing human beings for any number of other arbitrary reasons.

We are comparing the dehumanization of unwanted preborn children with the dehumanization of other people groups singled out for destruction.  For example, you claim that the preborn child is only a “potential” child, because you want to kill him or her.  Similarly, Nazis said that their intended victims were “untermensch” (subhuman).  Where does that end?  Why not kill infants because they are only “potential” teenagers?

If you think somebody is going to have a bad life, you can kill that person?  Where does that stop?  We all know many people who came from difficult life circumstances; do you think they should be dead?  How can the potential for future difficult life circumstances be used to justify killing anybody?

You mentioned the process of birth?  How does that change anything about that baby?  What is essentially different about a baby 10 minutes before birth and that same baby 10 minutes after?  Why do you believe it is OK to decapitate and dismember the one and not the other?

Perpetrators of genocide almost always discount the humanity of their victims.

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Science Student:  Given that you’re pro-life, I’m assuming that you’re also religious — Weird to see you attempting to cite “science” for something in that context.

CBR Response:  Famous scientists who believed in God: Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, and many, many others.

According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes, a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prizes Laureates have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.  Overall, Christians have won a total of 72.5% of all the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, and 62% in Medicine. (source)

Science is a way of discovering truth about the natural world.  Some scientists claim that all phenomena have a naturalistic explanation, but that is a statement of philosophy, not a conclusion of science.

Science can only tell us that the preborn child is both human and alive from the moment of conception.  Science cannot tell us whether killing humans is immoral or not, nor can science tell us which human beings may be decapitated and dismembered and which may not.

Diana Jeminez broke the rules to display this abortion victim photo at Biola University.  A baby was saved and Biola later apologized for their abusive treatment of her.

In recent years, CBR has encouraged students at Christian universities to display abortion victim photos, in spite of demands by university administrators that these images be covered up.  This has included Biola University and Liberty University, but CBR is committed to growing this list.

As Christians, we are commanded to obey those in authority over us (Hebrews 13:17, Romans 13:1), presumably even if, in our opinion, the authorities are in the wrong.  So, therefore, we must ask the question:  Is it permissible for Christians to break rules in order to save lives?

In the case of rules which prohibit students from saving the lives of children on Christian university campuses, the answer has to be an emphatic “Yes!”

We can start with Mark 3:4.  Jesus asked the religious authorities, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?”  When babies are dying all around us, when Liberty University parking stickers are seen at nearby abortion mill parking lots on a regular basis, when 1 in 5 women who aborts her child identifies her as a born-again or evangelical Christian, and when the Church leaders are trained to believe that abortion is somebody else’s problem, then we think it’s fair to ask the question, “Which is lawful at Liberty University (or Biola, or wherever), to do good or evil, to save life or to kill?”

And no student has any Biblical obligation to obey school rules which conflict with God’s laws.    God’s law regarding injustice mandates that we intervene in defense of its victims (Isaiah 59:15-16, Proverbs 24:11-12).  Ephesians 5:11 proscribes intervention by “exposing” the deeds of darkness, not covering up those deeds.

CBR has seen countless pregnant students change their minds about killing their children after seeing abortion photos on public university campuses.  Christian university administrations, however, have spent more time and energy stopping the display of abortion imagery than they have ever spent trying to stop abortion.  Publicly, these universities profess to be pro-life.  Christians are scandalized to learn that the unwritten rules at these Christian universities actually censor pro-life speech on their own campuses.  That is an inconsistency that deserves to be exposed and resolved.

Our experience at Biola has been very instructive.  Biola’s treatment of Diana Jimenez can only be described as abusive, even after she had graduated.  Biola has since apologized to Diana, but Biola’s claims that CBR’s video was “edited” and had “given a false impression” can rightly be compared with Planned Parenthood’s response to the CMP videos released in 2015.

In the face of all of this, God has actually used Diana’s courage to save at least one baby’s life.  The following message was posted online:

There are a lot of people bashing Diana right now but first hand I can tell you she did what she was told to do.  I am 20.  A student of Biola and always claimed to be pro-life.  I thought that until I got a positive pregnancy test.  This came after a night of partying just outside the campus and had a one night stand with a youth pastor in training.  I was going to go to Planned Parenthood that day and as I walked through campus her signs made me realize there is a human life in my womb ….  In that moment I went to my dorm room got on my knees and asked that I would have the strength to be my baby’s mom.  STOP saying she didn’t follow her stupid rules.  God came through for me because of her.  (emphasis added)

Matthew 23:23 says, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!  You give a tenth of your spices – mint, dill and cumin.  But you have neglected the more important matters of the law – justice, mercy and faithfulness.”  We don’t want to make that mistake.

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.”

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.

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

CBR’s husband-and-wife team Bill and Jeanette Schultz.

by Jacqueline Hawkins

We are pleased to welcome Bill and Jeanette Schultz of Raleigh, North Carolina, to the CBR family.  Hitting the ground running on Day 1, they have already spearheaded a number of CBR projects, including a GAP at Fayetteville State, Choice Chains at NC State and Wake Technical Community College, a School Choice project outside Millbrook High School, and a Pro-Life Training Academy for Raleigh-area activists.

Bill and Jeanette are formerly the owners and operators of Schultz Construction in Albany, NY.  In 2004, after retiring from the construction business, they moved to  Raleigh and began to focus more on God’s business.  They soon founded the Street Samaritans and Gospel Ministry, whose mission was to plead for both lives and souls, primarily outside abortion clinics and high schools.

Since 2009, Bill and Jeanette have been a regular presence on public sidewalks outside Wake County (Raleigh area) high schools.  In addition to displaying abortion photos, they have delivered God’s mail by handing out tens of thousands of pieces of pro-life and abstinence literature.

Welcome aboard, Bill and Jeanette!  We are already seeing great things from you!

If you’d like to share in this work, it’s quick, easy, and secure to support CBR online.  Whatever you can do will make a huge difference.   To support Bill and Jeanette’s work, designate your gift for “Carolina Projects (SE-NS).”

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

Philip Hamilton speaking to a pro-choice supporter at the GAP on Market Square in Knoxville, Tennessee.

by Philip Hamilton

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) recently displayed photos of aborted fetuses in downtown Knoxville, reminding passersby on Market Square that abortion decapitates and dismembers little human beings.  CBR’s display, known as the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), exposes the devastating effects of a “woman’s right to choose” by focusing attention on what is actually being chosen.

The Market Square GAP was my first one as a new staffer for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.  During the course of the day, I encountered many people on both sides of the debate.

I spoke with a homeless couple who had lost custody of their children due to drug issues; they were staunchly pro-life.  They said that while their children did not have an ideal childhood, there is always the option of adoption.

Later, I got a pro-choice progressive to admit that late term abortions were morally wrong.  I told her about Planned Parenthood’s sale of fetal organs.  We discussed Virginia’s ultrasound law, which she supported because a woman should at least be able to see an ultrasound of the child before being able to kill him.  I told her that there should be at least a 24-hour waiting period after the ultrasound is done, so that women can have more time to make and informed choices between life or death for their children.  [The more time women have to think about their decision, the more likely they are to choose life.]  She supported a waiting period after I discussed the reasons why the a waiting period is actually “pro-woman.”  After seeing GAP, this progressive woman rejected some of the most extreme pro-abortion positions.  Not a complete conversion, but it’s a start, and not a bad one in only 15 minutes.

At the end of the day, I spoke with a woman with two young women in tow.  She supported our message, but ordered her children to look away from the pictures as we talked.  In spite of her belief that children should not look at aborted fetuses in a public square, she believed that teenagers and adults must see them before they can make an informed decision on the effects of “choice.”

We have a choice, too.  We have a choice whether to spend our time and treasure on winning hearts, changing minds, and saving lives.  Will you devote your time and treasure to stand for the right to life?

With our prenatal development GAP sign, we show how a “clump of cells” is endowed with arms and legs and fingers and toes.  Some “clump of cells.”

by Kendra Wright

At Tennessee Tech, a Middle Eastern student told me that he is Muslim and in his country, killing the unborn is just like killing a born person.  But he knew very little about abortion.

He was very shocked to hear that 1.2 million die every year in this country from abortion.

He asked why people get abortions and if “not wanting” the child is a frequent justification.  I confirmed that this is often the case.

I started explaining the difference between a wanted child and an unwanted child.  If a child is wanted, we call it a baby.  If it is unwanted, we call it a clump of cells.

He was shocked.  “A clump of cells?!”

He could see right away that a baby is not just a clump of cells and calling it such is ridiculous.

Kendra Wright is a CBR project director and a regular FAB contributor.

Ruth Rawlins of the UK traveled all the way to Michigan to show this professor how genocide perpetrators always claim they are making society better.

by Ruth Rawlins

Americans do almost everything on a much larger scale, so I wanted to see how the colonials defend unborn children!

I lead the CBR UK team in London, so I was thrilled to travel to the USofA (along with colleague Mark Williams) to take part in the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) at Oakland U and Grand Valley State U.

Before stepping foot on campus, we attended the Pro Life Training Academy (PLTA).  Although we had attended similar training before, the PLTA was extremely helpful.  The new material and interactive role-playing really brought the subject matter to life.  I learned new ways to answer the tough questions.

“She told me that she was still pro-choice, but wanted me to know that I had saved any of her future children, in that she would never have an abortion herself.”

The huge GAP display, the many CBR staff and volunteers, the pro-life students, the Truth Truck, and even the pro-abortion protesters created a real buzz on campus.  Students told us it was “the talk” all around the campus, not only in the hallways but in the classrooms as well.

I was particularly impressed with the warm and friendly approach of the GAP volunteers as they engaged the pro-abortion protesters.  I was pleasantly surprised by the openness of those they were engaging, enabling real conversations to flow, something that rarely happens in the UK with those who oppose us.  I witnessed many individuals soften through the way they were treated with such love and grace, which obviously counteracted the false preconceptions that pro-lifers are hard, cold, and angry!

I had many conversations, including one with a hardened professor who saw the strength and logic in our arguments that abortion is genocide, but stubbornly refused to accept the truth.  Thankfully, the students were much more intellectually honest.  Many young men and women listened, asked questions, and saw the terrible injustice in abortion.  Some of these also signed up to join the pro-life college group, to find out more, to get involved, and to make a difference.

The most significant conversation for me was with a young woman protesting against GAP.  This polite young lady came over to see what we had to say, asking all the questions she had, possibly trying to catch me out.  She also disclosed some personal situations from her past.  I sensed that she, like so many, didn’t have great self-worth.  If these students do not see their own lives as worth much, then what worth can they attribute to a so-called “bunch of cells” or a hidden being?

Pointing to the images, I answered her questions.  I also posed the question that “shouldn’t all human beings have worth?”  She agreed that they do.  She thanked me for the discussion, we hugged, and she walked away.  First thing the next morning, before the other pro-abortion protesters had come out, she walked over to speak to me.  She told me that she was still pro-choice, but wanted me to know that I had saved any of her future children, in that she would never have an abortion herself.

She said she had gone home and looked at the leaflet and thought how it is true that everyone should have worth, no matter their size.  I was so encouraged – especially to hear her say the word “worth”.  But I pressed her further about her friend’s children, “Aren’t they worth something, too?”  She agreed and said she would try to persuade them not to abort if they were in that situation.

She was deeply moved, although she did continue to the bitter end to stand in protest with her pro-choice friends with her new banner “pro-choice doesn’t mean pro-abortion”.  I too was deeply moved at her humility to share that change of heart with me.  And I believe that the good work God has started in her will continue until she can proudly stand in defense of all pre-born children.

The GAP project showed me the huge importance of reaching these young people at this critical college age, where they are typically open to debate, open to logic, soft-hearted, and not so set in their ways as older people can be.  It is vital that we continue to support educating and mobilizing this next generation to bring this genocide of the pre-born children to an end in their life-time.  And I am so encouraged that, with the continued growth of projects such as GAP, they will do just that.

Ruth Rawlins is on staff at the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform UK and a first-time FAB contributor.

GAP commands the attention of all. Only by reaching the unwilling audience can we ever hope to reform culture. When the culture embraces our message, our work is done.

by Lincoln Brandenburg

Pro-life students at Western Kentucky University (WKU) were trepid about using victim images, so we brought the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) under the university’s vendor policy.

Rather than participate in GAP, they set up a free-speech board about 100 feet away, with the question “How can we help pregnant women on campus?”  According to their president, they wanted to gauge the responses of students to GAP before committing to using victim images.

We acknowledged that many students would not be thrilled about it!  But we also guaranteed that GAP would be more effective than anything else they have ever seen.

But they didn’t have to just take our word for it.  They saw it with their own eyes and heard it with their own ears.  Near the end of a fruitful first day of GAP, one of the SFL members approached.  He said, “We’ve had a lot of people tell us they changed their mind on abortion because they saw your pictures!”

During our conversation, I mentioned that the most outspoken students tend to be those who are upset by abortion victim images.  He assured me that, “Oh, the students who’ve talked to us were upset, but they realized that abortion is wrong.”  They had been upset because they realized that abortion, by it’s very nature, is upsetting.

Social reformers are never popular until after they achieve their goal.  Martin Luther King got thrown in jail.  But reformers don’t wait for the culture to approve; they act against the evils that society tolerates and celebrates.

According to Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, “Perhaps the most important principle … for the pro-life movement to adopt at this point in time, is that pro-life activity which relies on the voluntary consent of the audience is insufficient. … To put it rather bluntly, effective social reform requires forcing the message on an unwilling audience.  It means confronting the culture with what it does not want to hear.”  (Source: The Unwilling Audience)

Lincoln Brandenburg is a CBR project director and a regular FAB contributor.

Philip Hamilton

CBR is pleased to announce the appointment of Philip Hamilton as our newest project director in Virginia!

Philip was born in Norman, Oklahoma and spent part of his childhood in Germantown, Maryland while his father worked at NASA.  Philip currently resides in Springfield, Virginia.

He has a Bachelor’s of Science in Administration of Justice from George Mason University (GMU), a Paralegal Certification from GMU, an advanced Paralegal Certification from Virginia Tech, and a Master’s of Science in Administration of Justice and Security from the University of Phoenix.

He has been active in politics for more than a decade, with a growing emphasis on the pro-life movement after joining the GMU Students for Life (SFL).  This illustrates the effect that CBR is having on campus.  CBR started the GMU SFL, recruited and trained the founding president, and continue to bring abortion photos to the GMU campus every two weeks.  All of this influenced Philip to join the pro-life movement full-time!

Recently, Philip has written several pro-life articles for The Fairfax Free Citizen.  Philip has also written articles supporting the Unborn Child Pain Capable Act, promoting counseling for women considering abortion, and supporting the GMU SFL.

He looks forward to winning hearts, changing minds, and saving lives at CBR.  Welcome aboard, Philip!  We’re expecting great things from you!

If you’d like to support Philip (or any of our staff members), it’s quick, easy, and secure to support CBR online.  Whatever you can do will make a huge difference.  To support Philip’s work, designate your gift for “Virginia Project Director (SE-PAH).”