Watch this video from Americans United for Life:

Gregg Cunningham’s October letter is available online in both a pdf format for reading and an audio mp3 format for listening.  You can find them both linked from the CBR Newsletter Archive page:  http://abortionno.org/index.php/site/newsletter-archive/

Also, the October 2009 Communique Newsletter as well as other back issues are available at the above link.

PRESS RELEASE:

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) Goes To Berkeley

Monday, October 26^th and Tuesday the 27^th, CBR, in conjunction with Berkeley Students for Life (BSL), will sponsor the Genocide Awareness Project on Sproul Plaza at U.C. Berkeley. The exhibit is designed to establish that abortion is genocide, not health care.

Slavery-Bigotry

10-Reproductive Care

The display will be exhibited from approximately 9:00am until 5:00pm both days. More of the signs comprising the Genocide Awareness Project can be viewed at www.abortionNO.org.

Mark Harrington (614-419-9000), Fletcher Armstrong (865-776-1312) and Don Cooper (541-760-6620) of CBR and Alberto Gonzalez, director of BSL (925-451-5959), will be available for interviews at the U.C. Berkeley campus on the 26^th and 27th. Interviews prior to or following the 26^th and 27^th may be arranged by contacting Gregg Cunningham, CBR executive director, via email at cbr@cbrinfo.org.

Gregg Cunningham

Executive Director,

The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform,

PO Box 219,

Lake Forest, CA 92609

Office Phone: 949-206-0600

Mobile Phone: 714-240-6976

A request recently came to us asking us to reveal the methods and sources we use to acquire our vast abortion imagery archive.  Below is the answer Gregg Cunnigham gave in regards to this matter:

Dear Mr. S,

Your topic is a difficult one about which to conduct an interview because the details of our abortion clinic access agreements are highly confidential.  Disclosing the wrong information could jeopardize the wellbeing of abortion industry workers who collaborate with us and place all future access at risk.

I am quite amazed at some of the ill-considered journalism on the subject of abortion photos.  The New York Times (http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/behind-19/) recently conducted an interview with a woman of whom I had never heard who many years ago photographed late term fetuses taken from the refuse of abortion clinics.  When I began doing this work those were the only photos available and they saved a lot of babies but they weren’t very good.  The ages of the babies were far from being representative of most abortions and age matters greatly in the public mind.  The camera formats produced images which were not large enough for billboard use, which greatly limited their utility.

The pictures themselves were often taken on amateur equipment by amateur photographers.  They meant well but many, such as the woman interviewed for the NYT story was not a professional activist and as a consequence, she seemed more focused on depicting the babies in ways which minimized the violence of abortion (a high percentage of late term abortions involve intact deliveries which mute the visual horror of abortion) which made the pictures of little value in convincing the public that abortion is an evil of sufficient magnitude to justify criminalizing the act.  She and many pro-lifers such as she apparently had little understanding of the history of social reform and their pictures reflected that lack of awareness.

Our photo acquisition work is logistically difficult, emotionally draining, financially costly and in some ways, even dangerous.  We often take hundreds of photos to get one truly powerful image. But we now have by far the largest archive of abortion imagery in the world and it is in use by activists in a growing number of foreign countries.  We concentrate on first trimester procedures because 90% of abortions occur during that phase of pregnancy.  A woman who is seven weeks pregnant will often dismiss a twenty week abortion photo as morally irrelevant to her situation because she rationalizes that she would never abort that late in pregnancy.  She wants to believe her baby is not yet a baby and that denial may work for her unless we show her a six week aborted baby and then if she has a functioning conscience, we have her.  That six week baby photo can save the life of twenty week baby but a twenty week baby photo will much less often save the lives of six week babies.

All the best,

Gregg Cunningham                            
The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform

Below is  a portion of a recent email exchange that is instructive as to why the church’s witness against the evil of abortion is so weak.  The name of the receipient of  this email has been changed for privacy reasons.

Hi Joe,

Because of your generous support for our work and your influential relationship with Liberty University, I am sure you will be interested in the note (below) I received from one of our staff.  He has long experience working with students in our Genocide Awareness Project and is very diplomatic in the way he promotes our work, especially when he encounters resistance, which he often does.  It appears that two unhelpful lessons are being taught to students at Liberty: The first is that it is not appropriate to display abortion photos in public (private showings are approved but not public displays) and that criticizing administration policies at the school, even respectfully, is out of bounds.  Both of these erroneous principles are obviously unbiblical.

It may also be helpful for you to be aware that shortly before Rev. Falwell’s death, I met with him on campus to propose that Liberty create an academic major to prepare interested students for professional careers in pro-life ministry.  I explained that secular schools worked hard to inspire and equip students for careers in abortion advocacy but that there is no corresponding attempt by any Christian school to professionalize the ranks of pro-life activists, the vast majority of whom are amateur volunteers.  We met for more than two hours and he responded enthusiastically.  At the conclusion of the meeting he designated one of the administrators who was present to be the point person who would work with a department chairman to form a curriculum committee to begin the process of designing such a major.  I was encouraged by his supportive response but it was very clear to me that none of the administrators in the room shared his view.  As I feared, I later had great difficulty getting my calls taken or returned and the project died a quick and decisive death.

Christian colleges (and seminaries) are staffed by enormous numbers of administrators who view abortion as someone else’s problem and they see attempts to involve the church in the abortion wars as a threat to ministry.  That view is shared by most faculty members and gets thoroughly internalized by students who go on to pastor churches.  There are students at Liberty who are sexually active.  Some of them are getting pregnant.  Some of those who are getting pregnant are killing their children.  Some of those who are killing their children would have carried to term had they seen the horror of abortion.  Almost none of them will attend our director’s talk on abortion.  Almost all of them would see our photos displayed outside the student union building.  The decision to suppress the truth about abortion is so common at Christian schools that we began using aircraft to tow abortion photos over their campuses.  That is what we had to do to Biola when the school told us that we could only display our signs if we turned them to face a wall behind which passersby would have to go to see them.  We can sue public schools which try to ban our pictures but we have to resort to truck billboards and airplane billboards to reach Christian students.  This is why so many Christian students abort and who so few Christian students every become seriously involved in pro-life activism.  I will pray for your conversations with Matt.

This is a very wide-spread problem.  I remember a broadcast of James Dobson’s radio program on which he interviewed six Christian college presidents and he asked them if they had ever seen a pregnant student on their campuses.  To a person, they said no.  To a person they all believed this was evidence that their students were living chaste lives.  James Dobson was incredulous.  I am not.

Gregg Cunningham

Executive Director, The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform

GAP Returns to State College Today

Dear Pro-Life Friend,

I Timothy 2:2 reads, “And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also …” This passage speaks of the multi-generational transmission of truth. CBR’s mission is to fulfill this command by raising up pro-life leaders to carry the message of the unalienable right to life to future generations. PLI trains. GAP reaches the masses. On September 27, PLI will equip Penn State students in pro-life apologetics and then take them out onto the campus on September 28-29 to use their newly acquired knowledge.

Claire Nelson, Vice President of PSU’s Students for Life, is excited about the upcoming events on her campus:

We the Students for Life are very pleased to welcome the Genocide Awareness Project to the Penn State campus this year. We hope to raise awareness and create meaningful discussion throughout the student body. We believe GAP will facilitate much need debate on an otherwise apathetic campus. This demonstration will be one of our biggest events this year and we can’t wait to see how students will react.

With your help, Claire Nelson is another in a long line of college students who can be influenced by GAP.

YOUR SPECIAL FINANCIAL GIFT WILL HELP US RECRUIT YOUNG PEOPLE LIKE CLAIRE NELSON. WE NEED MORE PEOPLE WORKING FULL TIME TO SAVE BABIES THAN THERE ARE WORKING FULL TIME TO KILL THEM. YOUR GIFT OF $250, OR $100 HELPS US PURCHASE NEEDED RESOURCES LIKE PAMPHLETS AND SIGNS FOR PLI AND GAP AT PENN STATE UNIVERSITY.

The Pro-Life Institute and GAP deliver the one-two punch of training and outreach. Many groups educate. Few motivate. And even fewer provide real time experience in defending ttue with their peers. Here are the dates for upcoming events:

·         September 28-29 – GAP at Penn State University (Day 1 – Palmer Art Museum , Day 2 – Pattee Library)

To send a check, write to:

CBR
PO Box 360503
Columbus, OH 43236

Read CBR’s September 2009 update here.

For more information contact Mark Harrington at 614-759-5195 or mark@cbrinfo.org

Mark Harrington is also the Executive Director of CBR Midwest, and President of Pro-Life Institute

Martyred pro-life hero James Pouillon (white cap) holds CBR sign at Notre Dame Obama protest.----May 2009

See CBR’s official press release regarding the murder of James Pouillon here.

THE CENTER FOR BIO-ETHICAL REFORM

September 11, 2009

The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) condemns the murder of defenseless, pro-life activist James Pouillon, shot by a cowardly passerby while Mr. Pouillon displayed aborted baby photos outside a high school in Owosso, MI.  The New York Times (“Anti-Abortion Protestor Shot to Death,” September 11, 2009) today quotes law enforcement authorities as follows concerning the shooter’s admitted motive in Mr. Pouillon’s murder: “Prosecutors said the suspect, who is 33, singled out Mr. Pouillon because he disapproved of the victim’s protests in front of children at the school.  ‘There was some displeasure with how open he was,’ said Sara Edwards, the chief assistant prosecutor for Shiawassee County. ‘He tended to carry big signs with very graphic pictures of fetuses.’”

Ironically, every student at the school in front of which Mr. Pouillon displayed aborted baby photos was old enough to have an abortion, without parental permission or even parental notice (pursuant to “judicial bypass” procedures imposed by the Supreme Court in every state).  But the shooter apparently believed they were not old enough to see an abortion.  This non sequitur reflects delusional thinking of the most bizarre sort.  Students who are old enough to have an abortion are certainly old enough to see an abortion.

CBR intends to confront the very dishonest double-standard in this country regarding the public display of graphic images.  Disturbing pictures of all kinds are seen by children every day in America.  Even parents who don’t allow their children to watch violence on television or play violent video games, often take them to the grocery store where check-out lines are flanked with magazine racks whose publications feature cover photos which are inches away from young faces. These photos often exhibit bloody images of dead and dying victims of violence, terrorism, natural disasters, etc.  The news organizations responsible for these shocking photos virtually never publish abortion pictures.

Angry parents are often in massive denial about this reality and almost always dispute these facts, so we have put up scores of examples of disturbing news photos on our website (www.abortionNO.org) under “PUBLIC EDUCATION PROJECTS” and then “USING GRAPHIC IMAGES IN PUBLIC.”  Some of those magazine covers and newspaper photos are as gruesome as any abortion photo and they have been seen by countless children whose clueless parents never even noticed.  The reason they complain about our disturbing photos but not the disturbing press pictures is because many feel more guilt when answering their children’s questions about abortion, with which they may well have some humiliating personal experience, than the feel when questioned about a terror attack for which they bear no responsibility at all.

Although CBR does not specifically target very young children for the display of abortion photos, there is no public venue which is reliably free of the presence of young children and public venues are often the only places we can reach women before they become pregnant and lose their objectivity about abortion.  We care about the feelings of born children but we care even more about the lives of unborn children.

CBR has had innumerable women tell us that nothing less shocking than our abortion photos would have sufficed to dissuade them from killing their children.  Many more have told us that had they seen these photos before aborting, instead of after, they wouldn’t have done it.  Large numbers have confided that it took the photos to force them to stop trying to justify a sin they needed to confess and of which they needed to repent, spiritually.  And virtually every person we have ever met in serious pro-life activism had admitted that it was pictures which activated them, making it impossible for them to remain complacent.

Parents and teachers frequently cover-up the horror of abortion.  This is a form of child abuse and/or neglect.  We aren’t going to allow adults to hide the truth from children who will thereby be more likely to kill a baby out of ignorance.  It is the responsibility of the pro-life movement to stop this cover-up whether parents like it or not.  The staff of CBR is frequently threatened and/or attacked for displaying similar photos to students and the public generally (see examples of such threats and attacks detailed on our website), and Mr. Pouillon’s murder only strengthens our resolve to show the truth.

The Associated Press reported (“Mich. Man leaves town after cops say he was target, September 12, 2009) that Mr. Pouillon “was a polarizing figure in Owosso….” Praise God for that fact. CBR’s principal objective is polarization. This battle will be lost when the abortion wars are allowed to end. Most Americans cling to the illusory notion that there is a “middle ground” position on the issue of torturing babies to death. Pictures of babies being tortured to death force those people out of the fictional middle, if they have a functioning conscience.  Our pictures demand a response.  They insist that viewers get off the fence and take sides. 

It should come as no surprise that the press has consistently refused to publish the abortion photo which Mr. Pouillon was holding at the time of his murder. That is the cover-up which allows Americans to remain in the “middle” regarding abortion and it is why we must carry on the important work Mr. Pouillon helped pioneer.

But perhaps the ultimate irony in Mr. Pouillon’s murder are the remarks of Matthew Trewhella, a man who claims to be a “pastor” but who is also associated with an anti-abortion organization called “Missionaries to the Preborn.”  Mr. Trewhella condemns the murder of Mr. Pouillon (detnews.com, “With suspect in custody, police searching for clues in Owosso shootings,” September 11, 2009) but as a leader of this organization, Mr. Trewhella, on the “Missionaries” website (www.missionariestothepreborn.com), calls Paul Hill, convicted and executed for the murders of abortion providers, “the sanest and bravest man of our age.” He says Hill’s murders were motivated by “rational, Biblical reasons….” He says he did not visit Hill in prison “to condemn what Paul did ….” He adds that Missionaries to the Preborn” will not “disparage those whose use force” in anti-abortion activism.

Mr. Trewhella’s refusal to condemn the murder of abortionists robs him of all moral authority in condemning the murder of a pro-life activist.  He is not alone in this moral confusion and the result is tragically predictable. Mr. Trewhella may not have pulled the trigger, but he surely contributed to Mr. Pouillon’s death by glorifying and encouraging abortion-related violence.

We can only pray that an endless cycle of reciprocal violence will not now be initiated.  The rule of law is the only responsible way to settle policy differences, irrespective of the dispute at issue.

Gregg Cunningham

Tonight, President Obama’s health care address to a joint session of Congress was interrupted by Rep. Joe Wilson, (R.- S.C.), who shouted, “You lie!” when the president falsely claimed that “illegal aliens would not benefit from his proposals” (APNewsMyWay.com, September 9, 2009, “Obama:  Time for ‘bickering’ is over on health care”).  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D. – CA) seemed stunned and the AP reported that “first lady Michelle Obama shook her head from side to side in disapproval of the interruption.”  The story added that the “outburst” was “unusual.”  I would argue that it was “unusual” because Mr. Obama’s lies are so seldom rebutted.

Thank God for Rep. Wilson’s outburst because the official Republican response was delivered by Rep. Charles Boustany (R. – LA) who not only ignored the president’s lie about illegal aliens but he also gave the president a pass on the lies he told about “death panels” and “abortion funding” in the bill.

This is not the first time the President has lied about illegal aliens and health care.  He also said it’s “not true” that illegal immigrants “will get health insurance under reform” in a recent radio address (RealClearPolitics.com, Mr. Obama, August 22, 2009, “Debunking Phony Health Care Claims”).  But it is true.  HumanEvents.com reports (“Immigration Distrust on HealthBill,” August 27, 2009) that:

Section 246 of the bill [HR 3200] – dealing solely with insurance subsidies – states:  ‘Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.’

***

It says they should not receive the bill’s new insurance subsidies.  It doesn’t say they can’t receive taxpayer-paid health care.  It doesn’t say they can’t receive other benefits from HR 3200, such as expanded Medicaid.

The article adds that, “There are other avenues for illegal aliens to receive health care at public expense” and that “All efforts to add enforcement language to HR3200 were defeated by mostly party-line votes.  We can expect that the bureaucracy would look the other way under Obama’s control ….”  The story also warns that “The House bill not only makes a major expansion of Medicaid eligibility but also restricts (in Section 1702) inquiries about immigration status.”  This is the worst form of official corruption.  Democrats take money from law-abiding taxpayers and use it to buy votes from illegal aliens, lying about it all the while.  And the state-owned media covers-up the whole charade.

Human Events further reports that:

Federal regulations [7 CFR 273.4 (b)] explicitly require that immigration authorities must be notified if they learn that an illegal alien is within a household applying for Food Stamps.  However, a ‘Catch 22’ was created by the Clinton Administration.  In an ‘Interagency Notice (65 Fed. Reg. 58301, Sept. 28, 2000), bureaucrats were told that unless a person has already had a hearing and been formally determined to be an illegal immigrant, no government agency really ‘knows’ that they are illegal – so they need not be turned in. 

In other words, the burden of proof isn’t on the illegal alien to establish that he is legal, it is on the liberal, Democrat, government bureaucrats to prove that he is illegal.  And with twelve million illegals in the U.S., even if liberal, Democrat, government bureaucrats were willing to enforce the laws they are obligated to enforce, the sheer volume of illegal alien criminality would quickly overwhelm the administrative courts in which their status would have to be adjudicate`.

Democrats have run these kinds of scams for a long time.  For instance, The Heritage Foundation (“The Threat of Non-Citizen Voting,” July 10, 2008) reports that:

Thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote in some states and tens if not hundreds of thousands … may be present on the voter rolls nationwide.  These numbers are significant:  Local elections are often decided by only a handful of votes and even national elections have likely been [decided] within the margin of the number of non-citizens illegally registered to vote.

Democrats also say they support laws prohibiting voting by illegal aliens but they just as frequently oppose the enforcement provisions without which the prohibitions are meaningless.  Ironically, Rep. Eugene Green (D-TX) voted against requiring photo IDs to vote and then required photo IDs for admission to town hall meetings at which he feared criticism from people outside his district (as newsbusters.com puts it, August 11, 2009, you couldn’t make this stuff up).  If federal law can’t keep millions of illegal aliens out of the country, can’t keep them from getting jobs, can’t keep them from getting driver’s licenses and social security cards and welfare, how is it going to keep them from getting health care?

The “death panel” process about which Mr. Obama lied tonight is more euphemistically called Comparative Effectiveness Research.  Martin Feldstein says in the Wall Street Journal (August 18, 2009, “ObamaCare Is All About Rationing”) that it is designed to “reduce costs by rationing care.”  For many, that will mean death.  This strategy is consistent with Mr. Obama’s repeated expressions of skepticism concerning whether his grandmother’s cancer should have disqualified her for hip replacement surgery.  He also questioned whether the elderly mother of a town hall questioner should have been given the pacemaker her doctor recommended.  In a Bloomberg.com piece titled “Ruin Your Health With Obama Stimulus Plan,” Betsy McCaughey says influential Obama health care advisor Tom Daschle believes that “seniors should be more accepting of the conditions which come with age instead of treating them.”

As for the abortion funding lie which even Rep. Wilson allowed to go unchallenged, FactCheck.org says (August 21, 2009, “Abortion:  Which Side Is Fabricating”) “… the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions ‘fabrications.’” 

How slavishly is the state-run media shilling for Mr. Obama?  The Washington Post’s coverage of his address tonight not only ignored Rep. Wilson’s heckling but the story made no mention of Rep. Boustany’s official Republican response.

Another AP story on tonight’s address was headlined “Obama heckled by GOP during speech to Congress.”  It detailed various Republican interruptions of Mr. Obama’s remarks and referred to “The nastiness of August” reaching “from the nation’s town halls and into the U.S. Capitol.”  But “nastiness” may now be the only for us to cut through media censorship and be heard in opposition to Mr. Obama’s attempt to socialize medicine.  When Harvard Professor Henry Gates was shouting down Officer James Crowley, (giving rise to Mr. Obama’s stupid assertion that Officer Crowley “acted stupidly” in arresting Mr. Gates), New York Times columnist and race-baiter Bob Herbert wrote an essay titled “Anger Has Its Place.”  He said America’s reluctance to discuss racial issues (on what planet has he been living?) gives blacks the right to “rant and rave … to confront and … do whatever is necessary to stop a continuing and deeply racist criminal justice outrage.”  I would agree that “anger has its place” and that place is every place where our lying president lies!   

UPDATE:  Rep. Wilson has now apologized to the White House for the “inappropriate” manner in which he called the presidet a liar.  CNN.com quotes many Democrats and Republicans who condemned Rep. Wilson for being disreapectful but none is condemning Mr. Obama for lying.  That is why heckling may be the only effective way to make a point in a political climate which values etiquette over integrity.

UPDATE:  The Senate Finance Committee nogotiators now announce that they will insert enforcement language in the Senate version of the health care bill.  This will be a version of the same language Democrats repeatedly rejected when offered by Republicans before Mr. Wilson called Mr. Obama out as a liar.  The press is reporting that the White House will support these enforcement mechanisms.  There is, indeed, a place for rudeness in the public square. 

Another amazing story about a child who was born “disabled” but is living life to its fullest.

It is not too late to sign up for the 4th Annual Pro-Life Student Leadership Conference.   To be held at the University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee,  September 18-19, 2009.

FOR MORE INFORMATION  CLICK HERE.

THE CENTER FOR BIO-ETHICAL REFORM CONDEMNS ASSOCIATED PRESS JOURNALISTIC HYPOCRISY

Lake Forest, CA, September 4, 2009:

The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) condemns the journalistic hypocrisy of the Associated Press (AP).  The “disturbing” photo of a U.S. Marine dying in combat is not deemed too “disturbing“ for publication because the AP believes it is in the public interest to “convey the grimness of war and the sacrifice of the young men and women fighting in it.”  The AP, however, has steadfastly refused to publish similarly disturbing photos of abortion.  They apparently believe that it is in the public interest to suppress images depicting the “grimness “ of abortion and the “sacrifices” being made by the young boys and girls who are being slaughtered for the convenience of their parents.  The AP publishes bloody photos of the war against the Taliban because they are anti-war.  They censor bloody photos of the war against the unborn because they are pro-abortion.  That is why they will publish this:

But spike this:

1st Trimester, 10 Week Abortion

Here is another related story on which I comment below:

Pictures of war can carry more moral meaning than thousands of words

The US Defence Department may disagree, but the images speak for themselves

TimesOnline

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article6828145.ece

Here are key phrases from this article on the photo of our Marine dying on the battlefield in Afghanistan which I believe have strong abortion relevance are as follows:

“Defenders of the photograph accused Mr. Gates of attempting to sanitize the conflict, by concealing the grim reality of the war at a critical political juncture.” Our adversaries constantly strive to sanitize abortion.  

“The photograph violates one of the oldest taboos, by intruding into the sacred privacy associated with the moment of death. It was published in defiance of the wishes of the dead man’s family and it raises uncomfortable questions about the dividing line between voyeurism and reportage.”  We are constantly being accused of violating privacy rights with our abortion photos privacy means nothing to anti-war activists.

“ … [T]heir [photos’] power to shape our collective consciousness is immense. Knowing this, the authorities that wage war have always sought to control the public image of warfare.”  Image control is the factor which will also determine the outcome of the abortion wars.

“This desire to control the imagery of war reflects the capacity of photography to convey the blunt truth about conflict in a way that no other art form, including the written word, can achieve.”  This is why the political left loves shocking photos when they can be used to make the public anti-war but hates them when we use them to make the public anti-abortion.

“Robert Capa’s photograph The Fallen Soldier similarly evokes the Spanish Civil War: it is irrelevant who the soldier was, and where he had fallen; nor does it matter that the photograph may have been faked, for its power lies in not in the literal evidence it offers, but the greater meaning it conveys.”  We are constantly being accused of “faking” our photos but this writer says the symbolic significance of a faked photo can redeem it despite the fact that it literally untrue.

“The picture’s power lies less in its shock value than its demand for a response:”  The element of our photos which makes everyone on all sides of this issue squirm is that these pictures demand a response.

“ … [D]aily, dirty, arbitrary violence.”  It is the terrible, random, arbitrariness of abortion which makes its violence so “dirty.”

“[H]is [picture’s] influence on history is likely to be profound and lasting.”  We are also using pictures to influence history in a profound an enduring way (as regards public opinion which dictates public policy).      

OF COURSE, NONE OF THIS MATTERS TO A PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT IN WHICH STUPIDITY AND COWARDOUS ABOUND.  IF ONLY OUR PRO-LIFE FRIENDS WERE AS BRIGHT AND BOLD AS THE ANTI-WAR CROWD.

A public service announcement in the UK is using a very disturbing and graphic commercial to teach about the dangers of text messaging while driving.  While the commercial is very disturbing, few if any people are decrying this teaching technique. In fact one news source reporting on this controversy put it this way,

“The use of graphic images to dissuade people from reckless behavior behind the wheel is not a new technique. I remember seeing video in a drivers’ education class in the early 1970s that had a montage of broken cars and gory bodies, some of them still alive and in pain, to warn against bad driving habits.”

Words alone cannot communicate the horror of a traffic accident and the horrible consequences that too often result from driving in a careless manner.  When teaching about abortion the same can be said in that it is impossible to teach in an intellectually honest way the horror of abortion without showing images of it.  Lives are lost when we hide the horror of driving careless and lives are lost when we hide the horror of abortion.

This is another example of the double standard in our education networks and institutions today.  We pray for the day when the same standard of eduction would be applied to education on abortion as is the standard in driver’s education. In the mean time CBR will do its best to educate the world on who the baby is and what abortion does to her. And yes we must do it visually like everyone else.

CBR Southeast in Knoxville, TN is making abortion impossible to ignore or trivialize.  A few days ago we reported on the successful efforts of CBR in Knoxville to stop the expansion of Planned Parenthood in Knoxville.  Click on the photo below to see a sample of what the pro-abortion movement is up against. When the debate is about “Choice” we lose. When the debate is about what is being chosen. We win.

THIS IS THE HORROR WE BRING TO THE SIDEWALKS OF BUSINESSES WHICH SUPPORT ABORTION

To download photos from this display click here.

Dear Friends,

This is what Tiller’s patients should have been shown.  It is an outrage that Dallas Morning News called it “Choosing Thomas,” as though a child is something to objectify and choose or reject at will.  This short video is the heart of God where these little ones are concerned.  It goes to the heart of why we do what we do.

Dear Mr. Pettiford,

Tell your five-year-old daughter what I told mine when she first saw an aborted baby photo:  Tell her that some parents do very bad things to their children but that she has been blessed with parents who love her and will always protect her.  Tell her that what she saw happened to a baby before the baby was born.  Tell her that it never happens to children who are already born so she has nothing to fear from this bad thing.  Tell her that violence is almost never the best solution to life’s problems and that love is always better than selfishness.  If she asks why parents would do such a terrible thing, tell her that the answer is selfishness.  She understands selfishness because you frequently warn her against it.  If she asks what you and your wife are doing to protect other people’s children from abortion, I hope you have an answer which will set the right example for her. 

If she remains upset, I hope you will derive comfort from the certain knowledge that the lives of other children were saved today by the same airplane which upset your daughter.  Had we not flown our plane today, these children would have been killed.  Think about that.  If you still believe allowing a born child to be upset is a greater evil than allowing an unborn child to be killed, we will pray for your soul.

As for our planes over middle schools, please don’t call yourself a “pro-life supporter” if you think middle school students shouldn’t be shown the truth about abortion.  I can assure you they aren’t getting that truth from their teachers or pastors or parents as a rule.  Children as young as nine-years-of-age are getting abortions today and they are getting them behind their parents backs.  The officials at that middle school can take a child straight to an abortion clinic without parental notice or consent.  I am a lawyer but don’t take my word for this.  Ask your own lawyer. 

Get used to these pictures because you are going to be seeing a lot more of them.  We will be displaying them outside churches whose members are “pro-life supporters” who are doing little or nothing to stop abortion.  These are the kinds of Christians who want the horror of abortion covered up so they aren’t bothered by the slaughter.  The problem is that we have given cities like Knoxville a pass on abortion for far too long.  We aren’t going to just focus our efforts on people who support abortion.  They are largely lost souls who have placed themselves beyond reach of reason.  We will, instead, be focusing on the people in the middle who don’t understand how bad abortion actually is.  We will also concentrate on people who oppose abortion attitudinally but not behaviorally.  We can’t stop abortion by ourselves but we do have the power to make sure it is no longer swept under the rug.

I will be praying that you will become as eager to stop Planned Parenthood as you are to stop us. 

Warmest regards,

Gregg Cunningham                             

From: ped08@comcast.net [mailto:ped08@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 6:58 PM
To: Gregg Cunningham
Subject: Shocking

I just wanted to let you know how absolutely disgusting your ads are. I was driving down the road today and saw one of your banners being pulled behind an airplane. Thought it was a little rash and then go a phone call from my wife explaining that my 5 year old daughter had also seen the ad a couple minutes after I did when your plane flew over my house. This is rather upsetting to me. How do you explain to a 5 year old exactly what she is seeing? I am a pro-life supporter and I could only imagine what an aborted fetus looked like. Now I know by seeing that banner fly right over me while driving. I have viewed your site and have seen some of the ads that you run and have noticed that you guys spend most of your time at college campuses. But I think it is rather extreme for a plane to fly over my house which is in a nice country town right outside of Knoxville, TN boasting one of your disgusting ads. If you want to spread your words and photos with other adults that is more than okay, seeing as this is a free country. When my 5 year old is affected by your ad then you have gone too far. I will do all that I can to make sure that ads like yours are where they belong, for mature adults not for our children. I do not think that your organization has thoroughly thought through the actions that ads like these can have on young children. I was told by a handful of 13 year old kids that this same plane has flown over their middle schools the last couple of days. Is this really necessary? I think that education is the key to our youth, not scare tactics or shocking photos. I will admit that abortion has to be a gruesome and vile act but at the same time it is for mature audiences and mature audiences only.

Warmest regards,

Craig Pettiford

More news on the success in Knoxville: Tennessee abortion clinic reneges on expansion

Dear C.,

You asked me the other day, regarding the Joker poster, if we can ever go too far in attempting to provoke outrage and as I am sure you agree, the answer is “yes.”  If we do go too far, we will lose credibility.  If we lose it with the public I would argue that it is no big deal because we don’t have much with them and exposing truth is more important than building credibility with that crowd anyway.  If we lose it with our donors, however, the results could be more dire.  But our donors have shown themselves to be made of sterner stuff.  On the other hand, if we don’t go far enough, babies will die.  Without provoking outrage, we are both invisible and irrelevant. 

It seems to me that we go too far if we make personal attacks on Mr. Obama.  Those kinds of attacks would be gratuitous and excessive and have nothing to do with any policy question fairly at issue.  Accusing him of kicking his dog and cheating on his wife or taxes are obvious examples.  Someone told me the other day that she thought we were going off track into “Randall Terry’s” domain because the Joker poster is not “realistic.”  She apparently referred to the fake blood, etc.  But I see the Joker poster as a type of political cartoon.  It dramatizes injustice and exaggerates for emphasis. I once watched a TV interview with one of my favorite political cartoonists, Steve Kelly.  He was working for the San Diego Union.  The program host asked him if fairness entered into his calculations when working on a cartoon idea.  Without missing a beat, he deadpanned, “Oh yes, if it is fair, I won’t do it!”  I laughed out loud but that will not be our philosophy at CBR.  It has to be fair and I think the Obama Joker poster is.

Heath Ledger’s character in the latest Batman movie (“Dark Knight”) is sinister and erratic.  Beneath his soothing exterior, Mr. Obama is all of that and more.  I believe he is a truly evil man.  He kills newborns without remorse and muses over whether his grandmother should have been allowed the hip replacement surgery she wanted.  I haven’t seen the Batman movie but in trying to decide if we wanted to use this caricature of Mr. Obama (and to get the makeup right once I decided to go with this approach), I watched many YouTube clips of Ledger playing the Joker.  His portrayal is disturbing for many of the reasons that Mr. Obama’s agenda is disturbing.  To put Mr. Obama into the Joker character is merely to expose his true persona.  I would argue that his natural features are the mask and the Joker makeup is his true visage.  With the essay with which we accompany our poster, we provide the context which justifies, as the level of facts and analysis, our portrayal of Mr. Obama.  Our president is much more like the malevolent Ledger character than the benign spoof who was the Joker in the 1960 TV series.

With all due respect, this isn’t Randall Terry.  This is more Michael Ramirez, my all-time favorite political cartoonist.  When you are taking a beating, as we are, you have got to take risks.  This strategy is risky because modulating conflict is always more art than science.  But the risks inherent in not taking risks are much more perilous than the risks involved when losers heave a well-considered “Hail Mary” pass.         

Dear C.,

I am always glad to get the benefit of Ken’s thinking (or that of any other lawyer) and I will look forward to his message but I can assure you that violating prohibitions against interference in business relationships requires more than intent.  It requires impermissible behavior.  I can intend to prevent customers from entering the Safeway store but if all I am doing to stop them is stand in the parking lot and pray silent, imprecatory prayers, I am not violating the law because prayer is not unlawful (yet).  On the other hand, if I tackle customers and hog-tie them and drag them back to their cars, I could be arrested.  The same is true with holding a sign.  My right to display a sign is constitutionally protected, even if my intent is to prevent customers from entering the store. 

Not all “turmoil” is against the law.  Attacking people physically is unlawful “turmoil” but inciting passersby to even unlawful “turmoil” is not unlawful if our only act of incitement is the peaceful display of abortion pictures.  Our incitement would not be unlawful unless, for instance, we blocked the entrance or threatened customers or our signs contained “fighting words.”  In our case, if we really wanted to be cautious, we could merely warn businesses that our lawful display of lawful signs tends to case unlawful “turmoil” without intending that our lawful display of lawful signs cause that unlawful “turmoil.”  The fact that we are aware of the probability that our lawful behavior is likely to incite an unlawful reaction (praying silently on the sidewalk outside an gay, atheist anarchists’ convention could get you punched in the face) doesn’t make our prayer unlawful.  Even the fact that we want to get punched in the face doesn’t, in and of itself, make or prayer unlawful.

There is an enormous body of labor law, for example, which permits striking workers to hold signs outside of businesses for the express purpose of discouraging patronage.  Those signs may permissibly say “SAFEWAY UNFAIR TO WORKERS” but they may not falsely accuse Safeway of selling products tainted with botulism toxin or e-coli bacteria.  That would be an impermissible interference in business relationships.  It is not against the law for us to accurately inform customers that the owners of a business or the property on which a business is being conducted are tolerating or contributing to the performance of abortions and showing them what abortions look like.  It is not against the law for us to encourage customers to go elsewhere.  We can even do this on the private property of a mall if we confine our activity to the immediate vicinity of the offending store.  It is not against the law for us to pray (a constitutionally protected activity) that our photos will cause even unlawful “turmoil” in the parking lot or on the streets or even in the store.  If the “turmoil” we incite by engaging in is lawful behavior is unlawful, the culpability belongs to the people engaging in unlawful “turmoil” and to hold us accountable for the behavior of passersby it would be to confer on the passersby a classic “hecklers veto.” 

It would be against the law for us use painfully amplified bull-horns which create “turmoil” by deafening customers etc.  But it would be the sound laws which would be violated, not the content of the amplified speech or the purpose in speaking.  My point is that we can’t violate the law by intending to interfere in business relationships if the interference is not unlawful apart from our intent.  It would LOVE to litigate that issue if anyone were dumb enough to arrest us or sue us.  But if Ken’s point is that we want to make sure we know applicable state statutes and local ordinances, of course I agree.  But if those laws purport to prohibit the holding of an abortion photo sign in the parking lot of a business involved in abortion, directly or indirectly, those laws would be unconstitutional either on their face or at least as applied and we would challenge them if they were enforced against us.       

Lord bless,

Gregg Cunningham