I just listened to Josh Brahm interview Abby Johnson. As most of you know, Abby is a former Planned Parenthood clinic manager and author of the book Unplanned. She’s now a pro-life activist and helps abortion workers and abortionists exit the abortion industry by providing emotional support, legal counsel, counselling and assistance in finding new jobs. (According to Abby’s experience, having an abortion clinic on your resume hinders future job prospects and she helps workers overcome this challenge.) All this is done through her ministry And Then There Were None.

In the last year, she has helped over 100 people exit the abortion industry. In July, she helped five workers leave one clinic alone, leaving that abortuary without staff.

In the interview she talks about how the pro-life movement needs to reach out to clinic workers and staff in kindness, and not direct their anger and frustration at them. She shares two personal stories which demonstrate her experience with both sides of the prolife movement. One hate-filled activist employed terrible (and ineffective) tactics to pressure Abby and her co-workers at Planned Parenthood to stop conducting abortions. His approach convinced Abby that she couldn’t befriend a Christian sidewalk counsellor who had been reaching out to her. A few years later, the consistent kind words and love of those sidewalk counsellors changed her mind again, and Abby fled to them when she realize that she could no longer work at Planned Parenthood. Abby had witnessed an ultrasound-guided abortion and saw the fetal child fight for his life before being killed, and she knew she could no longer deny the truth about abortion.

So listen to the interview. It’s insightful. Abby makes some fair critiques of the pro-life movement. We still have some work to do.

_____________________

Andrea adds: This is very interesting. I remember when I met with this woman who worked for Planned Parenthood a couple of times for coffee; she was very ardently pro-choice. We were both trying to convert each other, I think, but those were good conversations. It’s way too easy to demonize or point a finger from behind the computer screen.

Janet Harris had a piece run in The Washington Post this week. Entitled “Stop calling abortion a ‘difficult decision,'” she expresses her frustration that pro-choice persons and organizations, including Hillary Clinton and NARAL, call abortions a “difficult decision.” Why does this upset her? Because doing so implies some level of concern or thought for the unborn child:

But there’s a more pernicious result when pro-choice advocates use such language: It is a tacit acknowledgment that terminating a pregnancy is a moral issue requiring an ethical debate. To say that deciding to have an abortion is a “hard choice” implies a debate about whether the fetus should live, thereby endowing it with a status of being. It puts the focus on the fetus rather than the woman. As a result, the question “What kind of future would the woman have as a result of an unwanted pregnancy?” gets sacrificed. By implying that terminating a pregnancy is a moral issue, pro-choice advocates forfeit control of the discussion to anti-choice conservatives.

I have a number of issues with this opinion piece.

The author cares so much about language (does this language fit into our camp’s or theirs?) that the humanity of the unborn gets summarily dismissed. Or perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps she has no concern in general for these guys and girls:

She acknowledges, with stats from the Guttmacher Institute, that the vast majority of abortions are for reasons other than concerns for fetal or maternal health, or pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest.

The far more common situation, accounting for 51 percent of all pregnancies among American women, is an unintended pregnancy, either mistimed (31 percent) or unwanted (20 percent). A 2008 study found that 40 percent of unintended pregnancies, excluding miscarriages, ended in abortion. It is in these cases that the portrayal of hand-wringing and soul-searching is more likely to be at odds with the day-to-day reality.

She then concludes that since the vast majority of these abortions occur because the pregnancies are simply “unwanted” or “mistimed,” that the women must make the decision to abort their children as a matter of fact. That women in these situations don’t struggle with a “difficult decision.” This conclusion seems like a huge leap to me. I think our friends at Silent No More may have some thoughts on that.

She also assumes that since most women state they had their abortions fairly quickly after discovering they were pregnant, that they did not face the harrowing “difficult decision.”

Another survey suggested that “once women suspect pregnancy, most of them who seek an abortion act fairly quickly.” In fact, most women — even those who obtained abortions within the first six weeks of pregnancy — would have preferred to have their abortions earlier than they did.

Could it be perhaps that they felt they had no other choice? They were pressured? They didn’t realize there were resources available to them? That they were coerced? That they believed that once the abortion procedure was over, they would no longer struggle with whatever they were feeling about being pregnant?

This brings to me a few words from the article I posted yesterday, How I lost faith in the pro-choice movement. When we are dishonest with ourselves and each other about the realities of sex, there is reason for an emotional response and confusion. From Jennifer Fulwiler, the author of that piece:

I was looking through a Time magazine article whose infograph cited data from the Guttmacher Institute about the most common reasons women have abortions. It immediately struck me that none of the factors on the list were conditions that we tell women to consider before engaging in sexual activity. Don’t have the money to raise a child? Don’t think your boyfriend would be a good father? Don’t feel ready to be a mother? Women were never encouraged to consider these factors before they had sex; only before they had a baby.

The fundamental truth of the pro-choice movement, from which all of its tenets flow, is that sex does not have to have life-altering consequences. I suddenly saw that it was the struggle to uphold this “truth” that led to all the shady dealings, all the fear of information, all the mental gymnastics that I’d observed.

Sex has life-altering consequences. As a result of sex, you may get a disease and you may get pregnant. If a couple gets pregnant and deems that this pregnancy is “mistimed,” they may rush headlong into an abortion in hopes of simply getting back to their regularly scheduled life. They may not have given themselves the time to research the abortion procedure and its consequences, learn about fetal development or seek out resources and help.

Harris then moves on to the pro-choice movement’s new strategy: collapse in economic concerns to appeal to a broader demographic:

Abortion rights groups are struggling to expand their message from “pro-choice” — which they say no longer resonates with voters as it once did — to more broadly encompass women’s health and economic concerns. The movement needs such recalibration precisely because it was drawn into a moral debate about the fetus’s hypothetical future rather than the woman’s immediate and tangible future. Once these groups locked themselves into a discussion of “choice,” terminating a pregnancy became an option rather than a necessity. Pro-choice groups would be a lot stronger, more effective and more in sync with the women they represent if they backed away from the defensive “difficult decision” posture.

I don’t understand her use of “future.” The fetal child is alive and growing. As far as I’m concerned, something that is alive, kicking and hiccuping and will be born in a matter of months has a “tangible future.” Right? Or is a future only “tangible” if it includes interrupted college studies? Or the fast track at a Bay Street firm? Does not living and being and growing require some kind of “tangible” future? Or do only certain humans, with certain capabilities and a certain quality of life have a “tangible future”?

She then goes on to explain that abortion is a difficult decision “not something any woman wants to go through.” But she explains that this is not due to the fact that most women struggle with the idea of ending the life within them, but because they will feel judgement from others or that abortions cost too much.

I don’t know. I feel more judged now for being pro-life than I ever did being pro-choice. What about you?

There are other aspects of this article that demand comment, but I have to go live out my five month old son’s intangible future with him. I leave you to the comments section. As always, I appreciate your thoughts.

photo credit: drake lelane via photopin cc

I was pro-choice as a teenager without a clue as to what went on in the womb. Had someone at my high school shared with me the facts about fetal development, I would have likely become pro-life then and there.

Some will argue, even when faced with the realities of biology and fetal development, that the killing and dismemberment of fetal children is still somehow necessary. But I hope that most, when faced with the facts, would pause and re-evaluate the pro-choice position.

Like this woman did:

My first tipoff that something was wrong in the pro-choice movement was when I realized that there was a great fear of information…

I found some images and descriptions of fetal development, and was amazed by how much I hadn’t known. For all the time I’d spent talking about abortion rights, I’d never bothered to learn the details about what, exactly, happens within a woman’s womb when she’s pregnant, and no one had encouraged me to do so. I had never heard that fetuses have arms and legs and tastebuds at eight weeks gestation, or that they began practicing breathing at 11 weeks. I paused and thought about that for a long time. It didn’t make me question my pro-choice stance, but for the first time I could understand how someone could be uncomfortable with abortion.

The biggest thing I noticed, however, was that pro-life sites had this information in abundance. The pro-lifers encouraged women to educate themselves about the details of pregnancy, suggested that they view ultrasounds to know what was happening within their bodies, and offered resources to educate women about all aspects of the female reproductive system.

On the pro-choice side, it was a totally different story.

Read the rest here.

h/t Big Blue Wave

These stories cannot get enough coverage:

The incident on the Calgary campus occurred the evening of February 19, 2013. Nicholas McLeod, president of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, ventured to campus and was distributing postcards containing graphic imagery when he was approached by security members and asked to stop.

McLeod said Monday in his first interview since the incident that when he refused to hand over his postcards he was knocked to the ground and swarmed by as many as five guards. […]

McLeod claims he’d been recording the guards on his phone and stuffed the device in his pants to prevent them from seizing it. He said he was taken to a holding room and remained handcuffed for three hours.

“They wouldn’t let me call a lawyer, they wouldn’t let me do anything,” he said. “They put the cuffs on extremely tight . . . I was in agony.”

He’s launched a $120,000 lawsuit. Good for him.

The trailer came out this week for the Fifty Shades of Grey movie.  It will of course be released on Valentine’s Day. (May romance never die.) I never read the books but I watched the trailer. It made me queasy.

Both Matt Walsh and Jonathon Van Maren wrote good pieces about the Fifty Shades phenomenon. I included some portions of their articles below.

The fact that the series is a bestseller is very depressing. What will future generations think about this one? Our bestsellers aren’t literary masterpieces. They are poorly written BDSM filth.  And how poorly written? Walsh includes a few shocking examples here.

I can just imagine how those books or movies would have seriously screwed me up had I read/watched them as a tween or teen. (‘This is what guys expect? This is what sexuality is all about? This is normal?’) I don’t think my parents would have ever let this kind of garbage into our house, but you’d be surprised what is laying out in the open at friends’ homes or a babysitting clients’ homes or…how many young kids and teens are going to be exposed to this?

Ugh.

Van Maren:

It might seem sadistic and rapey, but hey, sexual freedom has allowed us to celebrate “bondage” and sexual liberation has allowed us to liberate our darkest demons from the recesses of our skulls and allow them out to play in the bedroom. Boys used to get taught that they shouldn’t hit girls, but now the culture is telling them that it’s actually a turn-on.

I genuinely feel sorry for many teenage girls trying to navigate the new, pornified dating landscape. I genuinely feel sorry for the legions of fatherless boys, exposed to pornography before they even had a chance to realize what it was, enfolded by the tentacles of perverted sexual material before they even realize what, exactly, they are trifling with. It brings to mind something C.S. Lewis once wrote: “Wouldn’t it be dreadful if some day in our own world, at home, men start going wild inside, like the animals here, and still look like men, so that you’d never know which were which.”

Walsh:

As you may have noticed, the first 50 Shades of Grey preview debuted this week. Apparently it premiered on the Today Show at 8AM, which surely enchanted the millions of parents who might have made the mistake of turning on network television in the middle of the morning while their kids were in the room. Silly moms and dads, what makes you think you can do something like that without being greeted by a nice dose of sadomasochism and stylized sexual violence? Besides, why do you even have problem with a trailer for a movie based on a book that romanticizes a sociopathic pervert who sexually dominates a young, impressionable woman? Puritans. Your kids are in preschool now, it’s about time they learn about this stuff. […]

This isn’t really a film. Film is art. Art exists for a reason. It speaks to us. It communicates a truth. Art is beautiful, moving, real.

This is a business decision. It’s about as artistic as the end cap display at the grocery store. It’s a marketing gimmick. It exists to be consumed, and for no other reason. It will enter into your mind — your medulla oblongata, if you will — and lessen you. It will steal another piece of your humanity. It’s the opposite of art — it’s a complete inversion. It is to art what a black hole is to the sun.

Nobody responsible for this movie ever at any point said to themselves, “Geez, now this is a story that really needs to be told.” It doesn’t need to be told and it isn’t a story. It’s loveless sex and degradation. No narrative, no message, no redemption. If that’s all you want, you’ll find plenty of it at the strip club down the street.

What are these materials good for? I’d say a fire pit. Planned Parenthood would disagree. Apparently Fifty Shades is good sex-ed material. The Colorado attorney general is now investigating Planned Parenthood. One of their counselors recommended to a Live Action actor, posing as a 15 year old girl, to engage in 50 Shades activity:

The anonymous female employee suggested the investigator read the book Fifty Shades of Grey or “even do some internet research on it,” such as viewing porn on her phone so her parents would not see her search history.

“It can be really fun,” she said.

The employee asked if the investigator and her boyfriend had ever gone to a sex shop. “They have whips, ties, everything,” she said.

“That would be a good place for you guys, I think, to go together,” she said, “and get educated together.”

It is illegal for minors to enter sex shops, and in many parts of the country intentionally facilitating a young teen’s access to pornography violates laws against corruption of a minor.

What a world. I’m off to cuddle my kid and pretend we live in a world where we act like we have some kind of moral responsibility towards each other.

If you support conscience rights for physicians, please sign this petition. Here’s an excerpt:

Forcing physicians to disregard their conscience or moral and ethical beliefs in the provision of legally sanctioned non-emergency medical services has serious and far-reaching consequences that affect the integrity and practice of medicine. Cultivating a medical culture that encourages physicians to disregard their conscience by forcing them to do what they believe to be wrong or harmful has the potential to compromise the well-being of patients, physicians, and society.

(You don’t need to create an account or log in to sign the petition at iPetitions.)

Hey all, just a reminder of this opportunity.

If you want to give a gift card for a restaurant so they can order in or for diapers or anything else, I can bring them when I drop off food on the 26th. Just get in touch with me.

You can also do e-gift cards with a number of stores, like Baby R Us. (It’s what I do for baby showers that I cannot attend.)

When was the last time you stumbled upon a memorial site for extracted wisdom teeth? Or  kidneys?

You haven’t. Because there is no need. We don’t mourn extracted teeth.

But families sometimes (perhaps often?) mourn aborted children.

Online for Life created an abortion memorial site. I just spent some time reading through the tributes for the lost children. They are heartbreaking. Here is some info from Online for Life about the site:

A website is being launched this week to allow individuals who have had their babies aborted a chance to acknowledge and grieve their loss, as well as memorialize the unborn child, without guilt or politics.

Located at www.abortionmemorial.com, the website provides a wall where individuals can post thoughts, poems, images or video – whatever they consider a fitting tribute – to honor the life of the child that could have been. Not only for parents who’ve experienced abortion, but grandparents, siblings and extended family and friends are also invited to post in the baby’s honor, acknowledging the loss that they, too, may feel because of the relationship they would have had with the child.

Abortion isn’t just some other medical procedure. It’s the taking of a life.

A few thoughts from Sheila Wray Gregoire:

And so I think there’s something else going on. If you’re a young adult surveying the parental scene, you see harried parents chronically short on cash because hockey costs so much this year. You see them tying themselves in knots because their toddler won’t sleep through the night, their seven-year-old can’t read, or their teenager has gotten into the wrong crowd. It looks like a recipe for an ulcer.

The one thing you can’t see is what’s going on inside those parents. […]

At one point parenthood was one of the experiences that we all had in common.

We had all gone through labour in some form or another, or stayed up all night with a child with croup, or kissed a boo-boo. Even if language or religion or culture or class separated us, we were all parents. When we lose these shared experiences we lose a shared culture. Parenting is hard work, and it requires more sacrifice today, perhaps, than it did a century ago. But it is still worth it. I know some will always choose to remain childless, and that’s okay. But I hope our country as a whole does not turn its back on parenthood. Babies are our future, and they really are irreplaceable.

Ruth Shaw of Ottawa Against Abortion brought this to our attention:

Dear Ottawa pro-life community, we ask that you would consider showing support for a friend of ours, Vanesa Chipi, who just gave birth to her son, Malcom.

Vanesa is a former member of Carleton Lifeline, the pro-life club at Carleton University formerly run by Ruth Shaw. When she found out she was pregnant, Vanesa was preassured to abort but resisted. She and her fiance, Matt, chose life for their little babe and just this past week, they celebrated Malcom’s birth!

We as an Ottawa pro-life community have an opportunity to show Vanesa and Mat support- to be their village. Please consider signing up to take them a meal on this Meal Train that has been created.

LINK: http://www.mealtrain.com/view/?id=Q7l5s2ugeSk%3D

*NOTE please read the instructions in the right hand side of the page.

Sincerely, the Ottawa Against Abortion Team