Do Women Know About Pregnancy Resource Centers?
at 7:37 pm on Monday, 25 August 2008
There is a belief amongst some in the pro-life community that most women are unaware of the help offered by Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs). However, the facts are that most women are aware of PRCs and the help they offer. Studies also show that most women have a positive view of PRCs.
Recently CBR Executive Director Gregg Cunningham and a pro-life activist discussed this topic. Below is the reply from Gregg on this very issue. Names have been changed to protect the privacy of the individual/organization involved in this discussion.
Dear Ms. Smith, We would be willing to help you with your work but the central premise of your project is incorrect. The vast majority of American women DO know about crisis pregnancy centers and in fact have a positive view of them. Your film is unlikely to improve that already high level of awareness or already positive pubic perception. Americans are unlikely to outlaw abortion unless they can be convinced that women in crisis pregnancy will be offered a viable alternative to abortion. Crisis pregnancy centers provide that alternative. Many of these important centers are highly supportive of women and children but most are under-funded and under-staffed because so few local churches support them. But their larger problem is the fact that the vast majority of women in crisis pregnancies don’t go to the crisis pregnancy center for help. They go to the abortion clinic. One large survey, funded by a prominent pro-family group (Family Research Council) found that some two-thirds of American women know about the crisis pregnancy center in their community and that three-fourths of that group have a positive perception of that center. They stay away in droves, however, because CPCs offer help getting through a crisis pregnancy and most women in crisis pregnancies want help getting out of their crisis pregnancy. Help getting out is exactly what Planned Parenthood offers. That offer is irresistible to young women who don’t believe and don’t want to believe that their baby is a baby or that abortion is a matter of serious moral consequence even early in pregnancy. Most pregnant women have never seen direct videography (as opposed to ultrasound images which are lower resolution even when using advanced equipment) of a baby developing early in pregnancy. Almost none have seen the horror of an early abortion. It has been estimated that only about 10% of crisis pregnancy centers are willing to show any abortion imagery to the very small percentage of pregnant women they see who are actually considering abortion. The painful reality of the CPC movement is that a very high percentage of centers have essentially become private social welfare agencies. A great many of the women they service aren’t seriously considering abortion. These women have already decided to carry to term and they just want the free Pampers and used cribs, strollers, etc. that the centers dole out. This is noble work but it has little to do with abortion. The trend toward crisis pregnancy medical clinics which offer ultrasound scans and other medical services can be a help in attracting more abortion-inclined women but the effectiveness of this important development is still blunted when the center is covering up the horror of abortion. The most fundamental operational problem which reduces the effectiveness of CPC’s is that they are more reactive than pro-active. CBR can complement the work of CPC’s by pro-actively going into the community and working to convince more women to go to crisis pregnancy centers when they find themselves in crisis pregnancies. We don’t wait for these women to come to us; we go to them. We don’t wait until they are panic-stricken over their pregnancy. We engage them while they can still be reasoned with. We use the images displayed by our trucks and planes and campus exhibits to teach these women (and the men who will impregnate them) that their baby really is a baby from the very beginning of their pregnancy and that abortion is an indefensible act of violence from the very beginning of their pregnancy. And we teach them whether they want to learn or not (most don’t). Please feel fee to reply with questions or comments. My wife is a public health nurse who founded and directed some of this country’s first crisis pregnancy medical clinics so we are big fans of the crisis pregnancy support movement. But we believe that it has gotten badly off track. Lord bless, Gregg Cunningham
The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform
Ninth Circuit Says “NO” To Heckler’s Veto, “YES” to CBR’s RCC Outside Of Schools
at 4:44 pm on Tuesday, 5 August 2008
Dear Pro-Life Friends,
On July 21, 2008, we received an e-mail message from a seventeen-year-old girl who lives in Toledo, OH. She had just seen some of our CBR abortion video and photos. Her response proved once again how powerfully these images can cut through the fear and confusion which surrounds crisis pregnancy and abortion: "I am currently pregnant and thought about getting … [an abortion] and my sister told me about this website so I looked and totally changed my mind."
The pictures which "totally changed" her mind about killing her baby are the same photos we display on the sides and backs of the huge box trucks we drive around middle schools and high schools as students are arriving at the start of the class day. And on July 2, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed our First Amendment right to do so. The thirty-four page Ninth Circuit decision (which you can read in its entirety on our website at: http://www.abortionNO.org) overturned a U.S. District Court ruling which had gone totally against us. We had unsuccessfully sued the Dodson Middle School and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for threatening us with arrest if we ever again drove our aborted baby billboard trucks within sight of this school. After getting hammered by the District Court, my first reaction was despair over what seemed the great misfortune of having gotten tangled up with exceptionally incompetent school administrators and sheriff's deputies and a very confused judge, all in the same case! But for Christians, there is no such thing as "fortune" and what man intended for evil, God used for good. (Please see also these article links on our website: Associated Press, July 2, 2008, "Court rules for anti-abortion activists in LA case" and KNBC.com, TV, Los Angeles, July 2, 2008, "Rights Violated After Aborted Fetus Pics Removed From Campus.")
But by losing so badly in District Court and then winning so resoundingly on appeal, we obtained a written appellate decision which is long and detailed and which unambiguously confirms our right to show students the truth about abortion. It is now binding precedent far beyond California. The Ninth Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington (as well as Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands) and the decision will have influence in jurisdictions even where it isn't binding.
This case is important because the court reaffirmed a long-standing principle by stating that "the government cannot silence messages simply because they cause discomfort, fear or even anger" — or as the Court said elsewhere, speech which "is unpopular with bottle throwers." This legal principle is called the "heckler's veto" and it simply means that hecklers will not be given a veto over speech or photos by which they are offended. And we do, of course, frequently encounter "hecklers" who are eager to "veto" our abortion photos by "throwing" objects at us. The Appellate Court's opinion documents this fact:
On the day Plaintiff's [CBR] were at Dodson Middle School, Assistant Principal [Art] Roberts observed some children stopping on the sidewalks and staring at the photographs of aborted fetuses, while others momentarily stood in the middle of the street. Faculty members also reported ‘abnormal' difficulty getting children onto the campus.
Assistant Principal Roberts … saw a number of children express anger over Plaintiff's graphic display. He also overheard a group of boys planning to throw rocks at the truck. The group disbanded only after Roberts confronted them. Assistant Principal Roberts observed two or three girls crying. He also said that at least one class spent time discussing the truck's displayed images of aborted fetuses.
But the opinion also quotes the section of my discovery statement which explains why we must use these shocking photos despite the fact that students are invariably upset by them:
Gregg Cunningham, [The Center for] Bio-Ethical Reform's Executive Director, acknowledged in his deposition that he has seen students ‘faint,' ‘become physically ill,' ‘weep,' ‘avert their gaze,' and ‘leave the room' in response to these pictures. Cunningham said that the ‘typical' reaction is disbelief. He defended …[CBR's] display of aborted fetuses, saying that ‘[s]tudents are routinely exposed to disturbing images, whether it's airliners exploding into skyscrapers or choose your atrocity.' Cunningham also asserted that exposing children to such pictures is the best way to teach them about the ethical issues involving abortion: ‘You can't teach inexpressibly horrific historical fact … [by relying exclusively] on the written or spoken word. Teachers who teach about racial injustice use pictures of black people being beaten to their knees for trying to register to vote.'
The Court's opinion also quotes CBR's belief that "students who are old enough to have an abortion, are old enough to see an abortion." The judges further discussed our conclusion that students who are shown an abortion are far less likely to have one.
All of which begs the question: If an early, unborn baby is "just a blob of tissue," why would a photo of an aborted, first-trimester fetus "upset" or "anger" students? The administrators at Dodson Middle School weren't concerned that students were having abortions; they were concerned that students were seeing abortions. Their real fears were almost certainly political but they dared not admit that they didn't want students to change their minds about "a woman's right to choose." So they dummied up absurd safety arguments.
What was really going on here was pure trial tactics. School officials and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department were attempting to nullify the "heckler's veto" doctrine by creating a "children's exception." Their argument was that since abortion photos are distracting and because middle school and high school students are more easily distracted than adults, our photos should be banned from streets near schools for safety reasons.
The disingenuous Mr. Roberts asserted that "The students' arrival causes ‘heavy traffic' around the school. This traffic can become a safety hazard when drivers or pedestrians become upset, angry or distracted." Thank Heaven, the Court quickly dismissed this absurdity. Should we criminalize every distraction to which kids might be exposed as they arrive at school? Should sheriff's deputies abandon speed traps and set up "sign traps" to ambush drivers of box trucks which display distracting signs? Advertising signs are designed to distract! That is the whole idea! Should the McDonald's hamburger delivery trucks which display giant photos of "Quarter-Pounders wth Cheese and Bacon" be banned for fear that students who believe "meat is murder" might, because of their youth, more easily become "upset, angry or distracted"?
Our three-judge panel did acknowledge that students might more easily become "upset, angered and distracted." And they also conceded that these reactions could have safety implications. But the Court, nonetheless, flatly rejected the Defendants' attempt to grant students a "heckler's veto" on safety or any other grounds:
Children may well be particularly susceptible to distraction or emotion in the face of controversial speech, and may not always be expected to react responsibly.
* * *
There is, however, no precedent for a ‘minor's' exception to the prohibition on banning speech because of listeners' reaction to its content [the Court also noted that there has never been a single reported case which has dealt with the subject].It would, therefore, be an unprecedented departure from bedrock First Amendment principles to allow the government to restrict speech based on listener reaction simply because the listeners are children.
* * *
Unless we create a new exception to the "heckler's veto" doctrine (which we do not do), applying Section 626.8 to Plaintiff's [CBR's]speech would be unconstitutional.
The Court went on to note the obvious fact that the California Legislature could theoretically enact a statutory minor's exception to the ban against "hecklers' vetoes." But the judges declined to speculate on the hypothetical constitutionality of such an effort. It seems unlikely, however, that this Court would embrace the State's attempt to create a minor's exception after rejecting the County's effort to do the same. The fact that the State might use the legislative process where the County employed a litigation strategy in a futile attempt to achieve the same purpose seems irrelevant. It is the violence which would be done the First Amendment and difficulty of applying such a subjective exception which would almost certainly bring it down. We can assure you, however, that in the unlikely event that such an exception were created by the State, we stand ready to litigate it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. For any judge to essentially declare that it is safe for students to have abortions but unsafe for them to see abortions, would be too perverse to pass even the lowly "snicker test."
The Court also ruled that it was unreasonable for sheriff's deputies to detain our drivers for seventy-five minutes while the officers struggled in vain to find something with which to charge us. The judges remanded the case to the trial court to determine, among other things, whether the search of our vehicles was properly conducted in terms of obtaining our permission to do so (our staff denies the proper permission was ever requested or granted).
The Appellate Court emphasized that we had merely driven past the school without engaging in behavior which was, in and of itself, disruptive. This is yet another example of our careful planning and training paying major dividends. When we show horrifying photos, our conduct is unfailingly lawful, reasonable and respectful. We don't give the police or the courts any excuse to change the subject and make us the issue. Our refusal to trespass, or make excessive noise, or block vehicular or pedestrian traffic, etc., denies our adversaries any opening to ban our presence because of our behavior — when their real motive would be to suppress our photos.
Perhaps most amazingly, the Los Angeles Times, July 3, 2008, quoted Planned Parenthood officials in a bizarre story headlined "Federal court upholds abortion foes' 1st Amendment rights":
Mary-Jane Wagle, chief executive of Planned Parenthood, Los Angeles, said her group was concerned that young children may be exposed to graphic and jarring images without proper discussion in school or at home.
‘Certainly we know they will be horrified, but will they understand what they see? We don't know,' Wagle said. ‘We really believe that what's important is for families to talk about these issues at home, in a safe place.'
She admits that our pictures of what she does to babies all day long at Planned Parenthood are "graphic" and "jarring" and "horrifying" but she is going to keep doing it anyway! And what would be the proper discussion to have with students who see this "horror"? How about, "Don't kill your baby!" She wants the discussions to take place somewhere that is "safe" for born children but she has no regard for the "safety" of the unborn children for whose "horrifying" slaughter she is responsible. Will students "understand what they see?" We have yet to encounter any student who did not understand that our photos depict an act of violence which kills a baby. These abortionists are so confused that we couldn't possibly make up the things they say!
This impulse to cover up these photos has become so pervasive that even some pro-life organizations and Christians side with the pro-aborts in hiding the visual reality that abortion is an act of violence that kills a baby. These pictures make everyone so nervous that almost no one wants to mention them, much less show them! If we don't show the truth, we certainly can't count on others to do it for us.
But we know that they save lives and bring sinners to repentance and motivate slackers to get involved in pro-life activism. That is why we are so thankful for your willingness to help us show the truth!
Lord bless,
Gregg L. Cunningham
Executive Director
P.S. On July 17, 2008, a twenty-eight-year-old healthcare professional from Georgetown, TX, wrote us after seeing our abortion video and here is what she had to say:
"I knew abortion was disgusting; I knew it was murder. I never thought of it as genocide or that it was comparable to the Holocaust until I visited your website. I am a Neonatal ICU nurse and have cared for infants that were younger than the 24-weeker you showed that was murdered by abortion who not only lived but flourished in the long term. The denial of their basic right to life is criminal. The pictures spelled out to me how fully formed a baby is early in the pregnancy."
If a neonatal intensive care unit nurse needed to see the pictures to fully understand the truth about abortion, you can imagine how much ignorance there is among students. Please help us reach more of them!
You can make an easy online donation to CBR's work at: http://www.abortionNO.org/donate.html
CBR Continues To Challenge Canadian Censorship
at 4:39 pm on Friday, 18 July 2008
In my June 2008 letter to our supporters I wrote about the student union at Canada’s York University attempting to ban funding for pro-life clubs. Now it’s official; there will be no university funding for any secular student group which opposes abortion. The June 13, 2008 issue of the student newspaper, Excalibur, featured an article titled “Student Union Cuts Funding to Pro-life Groups at York University.” The article reads, in part, as follows:
A motion put forward by the York Federation of Students [YFS] to deny club funding to non-religious pro-life groups has been ratified by the Canadian Federation of Students.
YFS vice-president external Gilary Massa denies that the motion seeks to ban such groups from operating on campus since YFS does not have control over the allocation of club space or if a club gets official status.
* * *
‘… [W]e have decided that anti-choice groups on campus do not provide safe spaces. They don’t provide a vibrant campus and that’s not activity we want to endorse.Margret Fung, former president of Students for Bioethical Awareness (SBA) at York, says … ‘We will continue operating, that’s not going to be a question ….’
* * *Massa says … ‘We’ve been talking about this since March when the Genocide Awareness Project decided to come to our campus. Students showed their opposition then; we passed a policy at our executive meeting, then we took it to our council ….’ [T]he voices of the students that spoke up against this group coming to our campus [have to be taken into account].’
Massa said this in reference to a debate on abortion rights held on March 18 in Curtis Lecture Hall E. The university stepped in and provided a venue for the debate after the Student Center Board of Directors, which includes some members of the YFS, pulled the plug on the debate. It was originally slated for Feb. 28 in the Student Center [and cancelled] less than three hours before it was scheduled to begin.
At issue was the participation of Jose Ruba from the controversial Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR), a group well-known for their graphic posters linking abortion to genocide, and their presentations filled with gruesome images of abortion. Ruba was set to debate Michael Payton from Freethinkers, Skeptics and Atheists at York (FreeSAY).
* * *
Massa says that the abortion debate is over in Canada and that women have been granted the right to choose. …
Where to begin? Ms. Massa says that student government doesn’t have the power to ban pro-life groups but it is pretty clear that she wishes it did. And her allusion to CBR not “providing safe spaces” is true if she means “safe” for pro-aborts whose arguments can’t survive an encounter with an aborted baby photo. So her solution isn’t to revise her arguments; it is to get rid of the pictures. The pictures are the truth which exposes her lies about abortion and she fears them most of all. We aren’t sure what she means, however, by criticizing CBR for not “providing a vibrant campus.” Dictionary.com defines “vibrant” as “exciting; stimulating; lively” and anyone who has attended a CBR debate or Genocide Awareness Project display would have to agree that the excitement is nothing if not stimulating and lively; sometimes so lively that pro-aborts get arrested for violence against our persons and property.
We are thankful that the stalwart pro-life group at York refuses to accept Ms. Massa’s wishful thinking about the abortion debate being over.
It is clear that our pictures are the real issue here. Ms. Massa admits that our use of abortion photos in a debate triggered the cancellation of the forum and an attempt to defund all secular pro-life student groups. Canada is as backward as any Third World police state in its primitive views on freedom of expression.
But with your help, we are determined to bring Canada into the community of civilized nations where freedom of expression is concerned. The pictures will be seen at York, just as they were eventually seen at the University of British Columbia and a host of other Canadian universities which tried to censor our pictures. Every time the administration or student organizations erect barriers, we will continue to knock them down!
Relative Truth vs. Hard Truth
at 7:23 pm on Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Dear Pro-Life Friend,
On June 14, 2008, we received a message from an angry fourteen-year-old boy who lives in Northamptonshire, in the East Midlands of England. He was writing to complain that we had convinced his pregnant, fourteen-year-old classmate to not abort. He had obviously been pressuring this poor girl to end her pregnancy and was upset that CBR’s abortion pictures were winning the argument. The intensity of his anger left us wondering if he might actually be the baby’s father. He said: “My friend is fourteen-years-of-age and having a child WILL ruin her life. Your site is convincing her to keep it. And you call abortions wrong and twisted!” The young mother in this dramatic story might have thought abortion was relatively wrong before seeing its horror. Now she believes it is absolutely wrong. She now understands that it is an abortion, rather than a baby, which “WILL ruin” her life. But the boy remains defiant. Perhaps he is afraid that her baby will ruin HIS life!
The right to abortion is advanced by political activists who bark and growl the word “CHOICE.” “CHOICE” is a demand. It is not an argument. Insistence on “the right to choose” is based on power, not moral authority. It assumes that all truth related to abortion is personal, subjective and relative. Your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth. It is guided by feelings rather than facts. Facts, in fact, matter little to these kinds of people.
The majority of the population does, indeed, believe that conduct involving nominal evil is best left to personal discretion. If reasonable minds could disagree as to whether certain behavior is evil, no one has the right to prohibit that behavior for others. Most see nominal evils as matters which involve only relative truth. It is easy for people to trivialize abortion as a nominal evil if they have never seen it. But most who are forced to look at an aborted baby are also forced to stop pretending. They instantly conclude that abortion is NOT a nominal evil. It is an evil of inexpressible enormity.
Civilized nations believe that enormous evils invoke absolute truths. Most people do have a functioning conscience and they agree that enormous evils cannot fairly be left to personal discretion. Evils on this order of magnitude cry out for the imposition of universal prohibitions. Sadly, the boy who wrote us about his pregnant friend seems typical of those for whom nearly all truth, particularly moral truth, is relative. People of this sort tend to be politically and theologically liberal. They share much in common with Pontius Pilate who, in John 18:38, cynically asked, “What is truth?” They dismiss the very concept of absolute truth.
We have found that good people are “pro-choice” because they are ignorant of the facts. We have found that evil people are “pro-choice” because they don’t care about the facts. Education works because more Americans are ignorant than evil. For most, the pictures change everything. They express truth for which no words are adequate. But the numbers of moral relativists are still appallingly high.
The January 10, 2008 Los Angeles Times carried an editorial mocking parental concern over a new California law which bans discrimination against persons on the basis of their “gender identity.” The problem with the ban is that it doesn’t define gender identity objectively, based on a person’s genetic makeup, but subjectively, based potentially on mere whimsy. It arguably allows men, for instance, to arbitrarily define themselves as women and demand access to women’s restrooms and shower facilities. Men could become women merely because they say they are, switching gender (“their truth”) as often as dictated by predatory libidos.
Peter Wehner, writing for National Review Online, published a May 29, 2008 article about President Bush’s former Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s criticism of his old boss. It is called “Scott’s Truth vs. Reality.” Mr. Wehner quotes from the preface which Mr. McClellan wrote for his new book: “But after wrestling with my experiences over the past several months, I have come much closer to my truth than ever before.” Mr. Wehner observes that “This is a very postmodern outlook that subordinates actual truth for ‘my’ truth. And the validation for ‘my truth’ is not anything objective; it is, rather, based on sentiments which – we see clearly in the case of Scott – can shift like the wind.”
The June 23, 2008 issue of Newsweek featured a “My Turn” column written by a homosexual, formerly “Catholic” man, who had just become Episcopal. It was titled “Let Me Worship as I Am.”
When I turned to the Episcopal Church, I saw a Christianity that was alive and evolving, one that delighted in difference and saw God’s creation in many things, including women and openly gay men serving as priests and bishops.
* * *
It is right to stand before God as I am and speak my own truth.
There it is again: “My … truth.” Also note the reference to “evolving” church doctrine, which assumes that Scripture is essentially the speculation of man rather than the revelation of God. Doctrinal evolution assumes that truth is relative instead of absolute. This new convert goes on to assume that because he was born with a sexual preference for men, he was created that way by God and that his homosexuality is, therefore, irresistible and even sanctified. But his syllogism is as illogical as a heterosexual man assuming that because he was born with a sexual preference for women not his wife, he was created that way by God and that his adultery is, therefore, irresistible and also sanctified. This is an argument in defense of the sort of “genetic determinism” which turns us all into helpless robots. It relieves us of any responsibility to resist any pernicious temptation. And yes, the rejection of Scripture which defines homosexual behavior (as opposed to tendencies) as pernicious is a rejection of the Bible and the faith it defines.
The fact is, that all of us are born with all sorts of dysfunctional affinities – it is called “sin nature.” That is why the Bible is so filled with do’s and don’ts. The foundational problem is “The Fall” and it can only be remedied by Christ’s redemption. But I am making an assumption about the authority of Scripture which is not shared by most “high church” Protestant denominations. I remember once hearing a shocking lecture by a Princeton Seminary professor at a national meeting of Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) leaders (who have in the last few days approved the ordination of homosexuals). He said that the writings of Matthew, Mark and Luke were no more sacred than the writings of Tom, Dick and Harry.
This is truly the age of Oprah, where facts matter too little because feelings matter too much. If you Google “Oprah + “book club” + “my truth,” you get 667 hits. One involves an author trying to make a distinction between “emotional truth” and “actual truth.” She contends that emotional truth is still truth, despite being based on feelings which are contradicted by facts.
People who reject the notion of objective truth, moral or otherwise, also tend to be critical of anyone who purports to speak with moral certainty.
On June 25, 2008, The New Republic published a story about Sen. Joseph Lieberman titled “Irregular Joe” :
Lieberman says that Democrats, who were once ‘unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders,’ now ‘minimize the seriousness of the threat from Islamic extremism.’ Lieberman prefers to use morally confident language like this: ‘The terrorists are at war with us.’
What could be more judgmental (another sin in the eyes of liberals) than “morally confident language” about terrorists, or, for that matter, abortionists?
The New Yorker published a similar piece on June 23, 2008 called “One Angry Man, Is Keith Olbermann Changing TV News?” Mr. Olbermann, about as loony as leftists get, thinks former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was too morally confident: “ ‘The man who sees absolutes where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning is either a prophet or a quack,’ he began. ‘Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.’” Mr. Olbermann joins most liberals in believing that the only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths. He is, of course, flat wrong. It doesn’t take a “prophet” to look at our abortion photos and suddenly have difficulty seeing “nuances” or “shades of meaning.” Baby-killing is black and white to most who have seen it.
The pro-abortion Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have repeatedly ruled that the right to abortion derives from the right to privacy. Privacy is code for secrecy and pro-aborts shroud abortion in secrecy precisely because they know abortion cannot be convincingly defended to most people who have seen it. The pro-abortion website BellaOnline.com perfectly betrays this insecurity in their chat-room warnings that “This forum exists as a support community for people who are pro-choice.” Apparently people who are “pro-choice” are in such desperate need of “support” that they can’t survive the slightest challenge to their “thinking” on abortion. The warning adds that “Posts made here must be supportive of the pro-choice stance. Comments should not question a person’s decision or reasons for being pro-choice.”
The editor, a woman named Elizabeth Ross, says: “I hope to hear from you some time soon …. I thrive on your feedback.” But her pathetic fear of negative “feedback” is the best evidence that she has no confidence in her ability to defend her position. It is easy to understand why she is nervous when she bizarrely urges readers to “Have fun passing this message on to family and friends….” How could a message about killing babies be “fun” to “pass on to family and friends” ? Abortion is decidedly not fun and most people who have seen it know as much, but depraved people do not think it is grim. There are those who do take sadistic pleasure in savage slaughter.
The Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2008, published a story headlined “Migrants targeted for fiery deaths in South Africa.” The horrifying article reported that “South Africans woke Monday to shocking front-page images of a man in flames, one of several victims to be burned alive. Several newspapers reported that onlookers in the township of Reiger Park, east of Johannesburg, laughed as the man rocked in agony.” How would civilized South Africans have responded if their newspapers had urged readers to “have fun passing this message along to family and friends”? Most – but not all –who have seen an abortion react with the same horror as most – but not all – who have seen an immolation.
&