Use of graphic pictures not optional
by Fletcher Armstrong, PhD
Southeast Director of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
I posed this to the SFLA conference in DC on Sunday. In spite of all the evidence that pictures win hearts, change minds, and save lives, some of our pro-life friends not only won’t use them, they actively encourage others to reject their use.
Pictures work for us just as they have worked for social reformers for centuries. Horrifying images helped stop slavery, end abusive child labor, and abolish segregation.
People change their minds every time we put abortion on display. Babies are saved. New people volunteer for activism. Even hard-core pro-aborts are not immune. In her new book Unplanned, former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson credited an ultrasound image of a tiny, mangled abortion victim with “shaking the foundation of [her] values and changing the course of [her] life.” Many others have told us similar stories.
They say pictures are not compassionate. Yet Dr. Alveda King said, “As a woman who has had two abortions, I am grateful that the truth is being shown, so that others can avoid this pain in the first place.” And where is the compassion in hiding the truth from a pre-abortive woman, so that she proceeds with her abortion?
They say pictures hurt children. Yet nobody thinks twice about children visiting the Holocaust Museum or seeing pictures of violence on magazine covers. Besides, if a photo of abortion hurts a child – it doesn’t, but if it did – how much more does the act of abortion hurt a child? Which is worse?
They say pictures just make people angry. Yes, they do. Dr. Martin Luther King said if you don’t create discomfort with the status quo, there is no pressure for change. Dr. King’s letter from the Birmingham Jail remains the very best defense of graphic pictures.
They say people can learn about abortion without seeing pictures. If that were true, people could learn about the Holocaust without seeing pictures of the death camps. Such pictures would not appear in history books nor at the Holocaust Museum.
They say prenatal development pictures are adequate to convey the essential information. If that were true, photos of Jewish families would be adequate to convey the horror of the death camps.
And finally, they say other methods work just as well. It’s true that other methods can save babies by reducing the numbers of abortions. In this way, they are the modern-day equivalent of the Underground Railroad. But the abolitionists of the 1800s never forgot that their goal was not just to save a few, but to end the whole bloody mess.
No social reform movement has ever ended injustice by covering it up. Neither will we.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
You quote Abby Johnson in this article, yet in her book unPlanned, Abby Johnson talks about protesters at abortion clinics holding big photos of aborted babies negatively.
The reality is that while they can turn hearts to the prolife side, photos of aborted babies can also harden hearts away from us. It is important, I think, when considering such protesting opportunities as sidewalk counseling, to seriously consider the unique scenario and to make a decision after a great deal of prayer and contemplation about such matters.
I’m not denying that there is for certain a place for the photos of the brutal truth of abortion. I am simply contending that they are not the best media in all cases. I also find it disingenuous when standing at an abortion mill that provides for early abortion only, to bring a photo of a late-term aborted child. Besides which, the truth in my opinion is much more effective and horrific early on. Photos of a hand at 12 weeks or the like are much more truthful and effective on a woman being told that at 12 weeks her baby is just a “mass of tissue.”
MaryRose, thank you for your comment. I agree 100 % with much of what you said. At CBR, we use 1st-trimester photos almost exclusively. People can look at a late-term photo and respond that they agree with us about late-term abortions, but they rationalize their own 1st-trimester abortions as OK because, “after all, it’s only a blob of tissue in the 1st trimester” (they believe). Pro-lifers really should incinerate their old 3rd-trimester photos and use the high-resolution “Choice” signs that we offer.
Please consider the possibility that the signs Ms. Johnson saw were late-term and thus had no educational effect on her, for the very reason I just mentioned.
Ms. Johnson’s negative reference about the protesters holding graphic signs doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold them. It’s important to make a distinction between the act of holding up a graphic photo and the objectionable behaviors of some people who hold them up. At CBR, we sign an agreement that we will treat people with respect, even if they are being verbally abusive. We are not allowed even to raise our voices. Acting in an unChristian way (e.g., yelling hateful words) is wrong; exposing truth is not.
With many people, there is a sink-in factor when seeing the photos. Sometimes, it takes days or even months for the photos to finally do their work. It’s not surprising that somebody as invested in abortion as Abby Johnson would react negatively the first time she saw them. She may have simply required seeing the photos many times before her ability to resist the truth of them was finally eroded away. Yes, the behaviors of people outside her clinic may have made it more difficult to convert her in the short term, but that doesn’t mean that the pictures didn’t prepare her mentally and spiritually for that one image that would finally change her mind. The lesson here is that we need to be persistent.
In any event, it is clear from Unplanned that it was a picture that did the work.
The first time we did GAP at the University of Tennessee, a local CPC reported that 8 pregnant women came to their center as a result. All of them complained about the pictures, but all of them chose life. The pictures don’t make people like us; they make people re-think abortion.
I fully agree with prayer about what God would have us do. We know of many women who didn’t have abortions because they saw our Choice signs being held in front of the clinics. If there are some who don’t wish to hold up a photo, then fine. But they shouldn’t discourage others from doing so.
Fletcher,
My point about Abby was merely that if you are going to use her as a reference on this, you had ought to be consistent.
Acting in an unChristian way (e.g., yelling hateful words) is wrong; exposing truth is not.
And this is probably the crux of the whole ugly subject! (Ugly being about the need for us to counsel at all.) We must must must behave in a way which does not fail to always recall the humanity of the woman seeking the abortion.
I would still, I think, encourage severely limiting the use of late-term abortions in sidewalk counseling outside of clinics specifically. I think they could be incredibly effective at such locations as college campuses, but I think that when you are dealing with women who are clearly considering abortion, showing them photos of late-term aborted babies will not make a good case for transparency and honesty, and will in some cases I believe push them more fully into the “arms” of the abortionist.
I want to be clear again that I am not opposed to photos of aborted children. I understand and accept that they are only reflections of the ghastly truth and I encourage spreading Truth. I only wish to encourage those who are wrestling with the subject to pray & listen for God’s response before jumping to action.
MaryRose, I think we are in agreement!
:-)
That baby is adorable.
The other photo is hideous.
Both truths need to be told. Excellent post.
If it is a beautiful picture of how developed a baby is early on in a pregnancy, a person, logically, must confront that reality.
If it a picture of a bloody abortion, a person, logically, could say “well, we just need to make sure abortions happen early on to avoid this – dispense the morning after pill on all street corners!”.
I don’t doubt the effect it has – PETA does the same thing. I’ll just forever hold that logically, it is a sloppy argument. In society though, a large chunk of people never think beyond sloppy though, and if it works, it works.
I’ll just say that the one time I saw one of those trucks heading down the road, and I had a three year old in the vehicle, I felt more anger towards that organization than anyone else at the moment.
Ex-GOP,
Miss the other comments before yours, then? The ones where we talked about the importance of early stage of development abortions?
MaryRose – I very much agree with those comments you made. Those comments were not in line with the post though and the general feelings of most of the people on the board. I think there’s some who would advocate mandatory viewing in Kindergarten.
Abortions earlier than 7 1/2 weeks?? When a woman finds out she is pregnant she is already 5-6.
Sorry to say, Carla- women in my city are getting abortions earlier than 7 1/2 weeks all the time. They’ll either do a suction abortion, while warning her that they may have to do a repeat procedure in a few weeks if they “miss,” or they offer RU486.
What is the earliest a woman can find out she is pregnant?
Michelle, the difference between 7.5 weeks and 6 weeks isn’t as important as the difference between most people’s understanding of first trimester—they believe it to be a blob of tissue throught the entire 13 weeks—and the reality that this baby has arms and legs and fingers and toes thoughout much of the first trimester. Most people who are shocked to see the development in a 7.5 week photo are not going to turn around and say, “Oh, well, that baby is a full week older than may baby, so my abortion will be OK.”
Carla – I wish I could find the reference, but my understanding is within 1 week for normal tests. IIRC more sensitive tests can determine within 3 days. Here’s a link that has the medical indicators:
http://www.thelaboroflove.com/articles/whats-the-earliest-a-pregnancy-can-be-detected
Fletcher – I whole heartedly agree with your assertion, but also agree with MaryRose that there must be a time-place to manage the outcome/context with the audience. Photos of horror are insufficient to convey the scope of events. Without discussion and additional evidence, it just appears to be used for shock value.
What’s most powerful is a contrast between the normal fetal development photos and the results of abortion at that stage of development. I experienced this when working with young men, who saw normal embryonic and fetal development videos, but didn’t understand the big deal about abortion. They demanded to see what abortion really looked like.
They wanted the genuine, unvarnished truth, and to be respected as men. So I showed them.
When it was finished, you could have heard a pin-drop. They shook their heads in disbelief, and needed discussion after to really work through what they had witnessed. Uncomfortable? – absolutely. But they clearly understood they couldn’t stand by and let this continue.
Thanks for the excellent post.
Planned Parenthood has been involving itself with children’s education, er I mean, indoctrination, at a young age in the guise of community service. They are in many of our schools right now and all the kids are seeing is condoms, and that makes them giggle. If you want to show them how to have sex, I dare PP to show them what happens during an abortion. That’s FULL disclosure. They don’t have the belly for it. While I don’t like the negative behavior of some people who’ve held graphic signs, I will say this: If we showed EVERYONE what abortion(s) really look like, we’d end this bloody situation a LOT faster.
Chris, thanks for your comments, and thanks for your willingness to use pictures.
However, I’m not sure what you are advocating. Are you saying we should show the photos only when we can have opportunity for dialogue with an audience that self-selects to be present? If so, we will never reach enough people to turn this thing around. A few observations:
Some people don’t need the dialogue. We get messages from people all the time who saw our first-trimester pictures and changed their minds, some on the brink of walking into an abortion clinic.
The reformers of the past who distributed images via fliers, TV images, etc, didn’t normally have an opportunity for dialogue with the people who saw the images. However, that didn’t mean that their audience couldn’t have dialogue with other people (e.g., friends and family) who could further argue for justice. Our public displays of pictures don’t always give us the opportunity for dialogue, but it does plant new information into the minds of our audience that can be exploited later by other pro-lifers. We don’t necessarily have to be the ones doing the talking; we can be successful if we create opportunites for others to “close the sale,” so to speak.
But in the final analysis, the talk isn’t going to work until you disabuse your audience of the myths they believe to be true … that the unborn child is a blob of tissue and abortion just removes a mass of cells. Trying to talk with people who are in denial about basic facts is like trying to discuss planetary mechanics with members of the Flat Earth Society. Can’t be done.
Chris, again, I appreciate your willingness to use pictures. As you said, they really do work. Thank you!
Chris, I’ve never heard of it being that early, wow! Typically implantation occurs 6-10 days after conception. I recall knowing on the 9th day after ovulation that I was pregnant. It was my 2nd pregnancy, and it was due to the cravings I was having. Actually, now that I think of it, my last 2 pregnancies were both like that. I knew on about day 9 due to specific cravings. However, it didn’t show up on a pregnancy test until about 5-7 days or more after that. A blood test would’ve shown it earlier. So, for me, 2 weeks/4 weeks pregnant.
Those of us actively engaged in the pro-life movement understand the horror of abortion, the destruction, dismemberment, and murder of the preborn baby.
However there are many people out there, even those who consider themselves pro-life, who don’t understand what an abortion really is, and how a baby develops in the womb. I fear many of us were gypped when we studied biology in school.
Case in point, my boyfriend who majored in biology and biochemistry, as well as got a masters in cytology and is applying for med school, saw the pictures of abortion aftermath I was looking at on the priests for life website.
He was horrified, sickened, disturbed for the rest of the day – and he had never seen the likes of those before in his life. He kept saying, “I didn’t really understand how developed the baby was.” It was so disturbing to him, and this is someone who can watch surgeries on TV for hours and never flinch!
I like ALL baby pictures. I especially like the ones of beautiful non-aborted babies and believe this should be a part of every childs education. I also know that without those graphic photos of the dismembered babies people can put themselves and/or others into denial about their choice to kill. Let the truth be known.
I’m acutely aware when media is used, there is a “hotness” and a “narrative” that is attached to imagery. An instructive example is the famous photo of South Vietnamese General Nguy?n Ng?c Loan publicly executing Nguy?n V?n Lém during the Tet Offense. This one photo was spun by the media to evoke sympathy for the Viet-Cong. The narrative that joined that photo left out the bigger picture of V?n Lém’s directed attack on the families under General Loan’s command. Even today, it’s used out of a factual context.
We have a stalwart defender of life who protests using graphic signs in front of Planned Parenthood of RI, but he has been ostrasized by everyone, including pro-lifers, because the narrative attached to his effort. At one point, he may have been effective in changing hearts, but PPRI treats him more as a nuisance than a threat.
Without a process attached to the imagery, the product (graphic truth) can be spun in numerous ways that aren’t apparently beneficial – however, used tactfully they can be extremely powerful.
More people need to make the effort to use the graphic pictures productively, but with no wiggle room for denial by the viewer or alternative narratives spun by abortion profiteers and advocates.
Yes – there are those who are downright insane in their denial of abortion impacts, but the best medicine against them is exposing them as detached from reality and facts, using video and story.
FWIW with my first daughter, I know she was conceived Dec 25th and I had a positive blood test on January 6th. I only had the blood test done because I was about to deploy to a remote area for the next several months.
Carla- the tests we use can detect pregnancy as soon as 6-7 days from conception, or almost as soon as implantation occurs. I have done many tests on women who are not late for their period yet and seen a positive result.
Fletcher- A couple of things- the dates I was referring to are from the woman’s last menstrual period, not from conception. The photo at the start of the article is of a 7 1/2 week embryo, which is actually a 9 1/2 week pregnancy. Many women are getting abortions within 2-4 weeks from conception, when the embryo looks exactly as it should at that stage of development- but to the untrained eye, more like a “clump of cells” than anything. I have shown clients at that stage of pregnancy a picture of a human at the same stage of development as the embryo in their womb, and they commonly exclaim that it looks like a leech or an alien. Does your display include pictures of a 14 day or 21 day embryo, or only the stages when the embryo/fetus begins to take on recognisably human features?
The earliest an ultrasound can visibly detect a pregnancy is around 6 weeks from LMP, or four weeks from conception. All you can see at that stage is an amniotic sac, a yolk sac, a tiny “fetal pole” and a flickering heart. Visible limbs and face come later. About two thirds of the abortions in my state are performed before the child has reached the stage of development in the diagram at the beginning of this post.
While I have found that the average person on the street is amazed at how fast prenatal human development occurs, there are many who realise that by 12 weeks the fetus looks like a tiny baby, thanks to the prevalence of 12 week ultrasounds.
I’m sorry, but the “don’t kill unborn babies because they’re cute” approach very often falls on deaf ears when a woman is distressed about a pregnancy. Yes, we need to educate more, yes, science is on our side, and yes, there are some women who find that their maternal instincts are stirred when they learn the details of the miraculous development of their child in utero, and still others who are totally clueless about prenatal development, however, we need to be totally honest. Many of the women I have counselled in the past 10 years either avoid the facts of fetal development when they are offered to them, or shrug it off. If it is forced upon them, they dig in their heels. (They are remarkably more receptive, however, and consistently more impacted, by an ultrasound scan. My theory is that it’s the difference between looking at live images of your own child than pictures of the child of a complete stranger.)
Arguing that an aborted human looks like a mangled human misses the point. We oppose abortion because it kills unborn human beings and hurts born human beings. It is the ultimate injustice, not because of what the victims look like, but because of who they are. The unborn do not need to look a certain way for us to defend them, and many women, particularly in the early stages of an unwelcomed pregnancy, are not swayed by images of the unborn. We seem hesitant to admit that sometimes our pro-choice counterparts are correct when they state that the graphic images of abortion are over used, exaggerated or not representative of the majority of abortions. In many cases, the embryo who died in the abortion could not be identified by the average adult as having ever been human. Our response should not be to argue, but to say- SO WHAT? An innocent human being was killed- we don’t care because of what they looked like, we care because of who they are.
Would you be satisfied if they stopped killing any unborn humans who looked like humans at the time they were to be killed, while everyone else younger than that was still being killed?
(All said in love by someone deeply committed and engaged daily in defending the pre-born and demonstrating truth-in-love to their mothers.)
Kel – Actual hormonal changes begin to take place in milliseconds the moment the zona pellucida is penetrated triggering the acrosome reaction. Every woman’s physiology is unique, but major hormonal changes do occur very rapidly after conception.
Addressing Carla’s question – usually 1 week to 10 days, but time may vary as in your case. In any event, it’s much earlier than the 7 weeks suggested for medical abortions. And if you really want to know, high quality ultrasound and diagnostic equipment can detect a beating heart at 21-24 days after conception.
The earliest I found out (Home pregnancy test) that I was pregnant I was 3 weeks and about 4 days. All my miscarriages (FIVE) have been around the 4-5 week mark. :(
The earliest I SUSPECTED I was pregnant was about 6 days post ovulation, but even the most sensitive hpt won’t detect pregnancy until about 8-9 days post-ovulation (DPO).
Thank you for all of the info!! I learn something new everyday.
Kel – Actual hormonal changes begin to take place in milliseconds the moment the zona pellucida is penetrated triggering the acrosome reaction. Every woman’s physiology is unique, but major hormonal changes do occur very rapidly after conception.
Oh, I agree, Chris, I just didn’t know it was detectable quite so early! I can remember with my 2nd pregnancy thinking, “Really? I’m having cravings already, and this little person’s only been around for 6-9 days??!” Pretty amazing. :)
I’m using the 7 1/2 week embryo on a lot of my pro life sites. <3 amc
EGV,
I don’t see a single commenter arguing that we should be out there screaming and waving brutal photos in the faces of women. I see a very civil discussion about the merits and drawbacks of photos of abortion. And it seems to me that most of the posters so far have shied away from late-term abortion photos and emphasized early-abortion photos.
Besides which, I was in a debate with the author of the article. We agreed on the need for good judgment. So I have to contend that your assertion is based on preconceived notions rather than fact.
Michelle, I think you are completely right. Our compassion for the unborn should not be connected to how they happen to look. There is an astonishing amount of ignorance about prenatal development, but the “it’s just a blob of cells” mentality is not something we can always fight with pictures. Sometimes people are so stuck in abortion land that they will take a look at the tiny creature, with the boxy head and limbs, a big dark spot for an eye, and think it’s not human enough to protect. The point we need to make is that people are not expendable, even if they are too tiny to recognize. Everyone is a blob of cells. We’re just older and more detailed….
I’ve seen firsthand the kind of appearance-based opposition to abortion that you spoke of. I used to know someone who considered herself pro-life, would come to the area march every year in January, but refused to consider a newly conceived zygote to be worth protecting. She had no problem with any form of abortifacient that got rid of a baby before it could implant in the uterus, because she didn’t think those were really abortions, and thought that they were only “one cell” at that point (wrong!).
Clarice & Michelle,
I don’t find that “don’t kill them because they’re cute” is as effective a goal with photos as is, “don’t kill them because they’re human.” The images of very early abortions (tiny hands, bitsy human remains) drive in the reality that what you’re carrying, even from the beginning, is a human life. It ‘makes it real’ for some. It’s like that moment in Juno, when her friend mentions that her baby has fingernails. Saying, this living organism has human dna drives in the point much less than saying, this little human has a beating heart, and fingers and toes.
“showing them photos of late-term aborted babies will not make a good case for transparency and honesty”
Tell that to the victims of Gosnel and Tiller.
Jasper, you didn’t read my posts very thoroughly. “I also find it disingenuous when standing at an abortion mill that provides for early abortion only, to bring a photo of a late-term aborted child.”
I realize that this was an earlier post, but in a short discussion with the same poster.
My point was that using photos of late-term aborted babies is a highly sensitive matter and should be approached as so.
Michelle, you said that arguing that an aborted human looks like a mangled human misses the point. That depends on who you are talking to and why. If you want to reach begin a dialogue with some people, you have to prove to them that everything they have been told is a lie. The first-trimester mangled baby pictures do that. By proving their earlier sources of information to be inaccurate, some people will open up to a more philosophical discussion. If you want to keep a panicked teenager or young adult to refrain from killing their child, you have to realize that they are not thinking analytically but emotionally, so you have to make them more horrified about abortion than they are terrified of their baby. Pictures work. Intellectual arguments can work, but a lot more passersby will stop and listen to your arguments when you arrest their attention with a truthful picture.
Our first-trimester pictures are not altered in any way. They are neither exaggerated nor late-term. I don’t believe for a moment that they are overused. There are still thousands of people in Knoxville who have never seen our truth truck. We are frantically working to raise funding to get these photos into the minds of more people. You can help us, by the way, at http://www.prolifeoncampus.com/support-pro-life-campus-ministry.
You asked if we would be satisfied if they stopped killing any unborn humans who looked like humans at the time they were to be killed, while everyone else younger than that was still being killed? No, of course not. But I will use every tool at my disposal to save every baby’s life that I can. I won’t refrain from showing a 10-week abortion to a person who will be influenced by it just because another person might not be.
MaryRose: Certainly, knowing prenatal development facts touches lives. But we can’t stop there, otherwise, people continue to think it’s okay as long as it’s early enough.
I completely agree!
Tailor the message to the situation. From what I’ve heard, graphic aborted baby pics are more effective the farther from the abortion facility door they are. At the facility, you want abortion-vulnerable women to see you as friendly and approachable, and the gory fetus photos don’t work that way. The gory fetus photos, I’ve been told by an expert (sidewalk counselor Karen Black) belong a couple of blocks away from the clinic, on corners the women will have to go past on the way. Plant the idea in their minds. But once they’re near the clinic, they should only see friendly, concerned faces, and maybe some nice baby pictures. Ask their permission before showing them the graphic stuff.
In fact, I’ve noticed that people seem more open to the graphic stuff when they get the feeling I’m trying to shield them from it. Like the Gosnell report that I wikied. I was just showing it to somebody as why I was so busy all weekend, and I tried to keep her from clicking on links I knew took her to the pictures of Baby Boy A and Baby Boy B, saying, “It’s pretty disturbing. I don’t think you’re gonna want to see it.” She went and looked.
The fetal picture (first on the post) doesn’t look much different than an early stage polliwog. Not very convincing. Try again.
In any event, it is clear from Unplanned that it was a picture that did the work.
With all due respect, nothing in Abby’s book gave me the impression that a static picture “did the work.” I understood her to say that it was the dynamic visualization of AND personal participation in an ultrasound guided abortion that caused her change of heart. Observing fetal dismemberment and demise in real time as one participates in an abortion and listens to the abortionist’s comments isn’t the same thing as looking at a picture of aborted fetal remains.
And here it is, the ‘not cute enough to live’ comment:
“Droppingby:
The fetal picture (first on the post) doesn’t look much different than an early stage polliwog. Not very convincing. Try again.”
So if a fetus looks like a cute baby, then it’s not so nice to murder it. But if it doesn’t look pretty yet, get the cutting tools, get the poison, fire up the vaccuum, right?
Life begins at conception, when there is new and unique DNA and growth/cell reproduction (called mitosis) has begun. All abortion is murder all the time. IUD’s are little abortion devices, “morning after pills” are abortion drugs, and there is no such thing on the planet as “emergency contraception.” If there were, it would probably be a condom in a little box with a glass front that instructs you to break the glass in case you’re about to have sex and need some emergency contraception, haha!! Of course, a cold shower will work pretty well too! lol!
dropping by needs to view a few 3D ultrasound pictures. These are human beings, not frogs
droppingby needs to look at some better photos of polliwogs. Making the argument that they look very much alike is incredibly weak. “Dur, big head makes fetus look like frog”
I mean, really? You don’t have the mental capacity to see the difference, or are you just mostly blind?
Hi droppingby,
IS that baby a polliwog?
Please do remember that that is exactly what you looked liked at 7 1/2 weeks inside your mother. Who chose LIFE!!
Notice how lacking in imagination p.c.ers are? Even a “womb with a view” doesn’t dent their thick skulls!
The fetal picture (first on the post) doesn’t look much different than an early stage polliwog. Not very convincing. Try again.
There are some who are not convinced regardless. Not even when shown photos like those from Gosnell’s “clinic.” They deny the humanity of the unborn child despite all scientific and DNA evidence to the contrary. But hey, y’know, there are still Holocaust deniers around, too.
there is no such thing on the planet as “emergency contraception.” If there were, it would probably be a condom in a little box with a glass front that instructs you to break the glass in case you’re about to have sex and need some emergency contraception, haha!!
LOL, ninek!! :D I needed that laugh!!
You don’t have the mental capacity to see the difference, or are you just mostly blind?
In cases like this, it’s usually willful blindness.
Oh, I know it, Kel, but I like to throw pc-ers own superiority complex in their faces. How one can possibly fail to see the distinct differences between the developing human child and a polliwog are beyond me. Droppingby would be laughed out of any medical facility if he looked at a human fetus and called him/her a frog! Can’t even distinguish between a human and an amphibian. Sad.
MaryRose –
Fine then – do you believe the Truth trucks, which obviously drive down the road and have no control of their audience as they do so – do you think the Truth trucks should have the pictures on them as they do?
EGV,
Do me a favour? As an overall, over-arching, global question: please tell me for what you want to advocate? Your repertoire consists almost entirely of complaining about pro-life efforts, attitudes and beliefs, and complaining about the Republican party. What, exactly, DO you want to see in our country, and in the world? To quote (forgive the banal source) Emile De Becque the musical “South Pacific”: “I know what you are against; what are you for?” Frankly, your attempted “gadfly” routine is becoming rather annoying, especially since it lacks the logic which the “Gadfly of Athens” (i.e. Socrates) brought to his own efforts. Do you just like to argue for argument’s sake, or do you have an actual “positive” position to defend?
EGV,
Honestly, I don’t like the Truth trucks.
But they don’t horrify and offend me. The truth that abortion kills a human offends and horrifies me. Having trucks with the imagery driving around seems much like shooting an arrow into a pond and hoping to hit a fish, but it is truth and I can see it for as much.
I’m not overly eager to explain abortion to my children, but I know that when they are old enough to notice the truth trucks and observe that they are brutal, I will need to explain why they are there and what it is that is truly brutal about them.
So to answer your question, I don’t think they’re effective and I don’t particularly like them. But I’d rather suffer through truth trucks than have developing babies ripped apart in the womb.
At one end of the child abuse spectrum is abortion. At the other is destruction of innocence. Graphic pictures have their place but we should be mindful that we don’t become part of the desensitization toward human life.
On the subject of graphic signs, the blogger Lisa Graas says: “Abortion kills children. Signs do not kill children”. She continues: “I would rather write about the impact of abortion on children than the impact of signs on children…”
Continuing, she states: “It is certainly unfortunate if a child is troubled by these images, but I would not say these images ‘damage’ a child. I would argue that the wardrobe of women appearing on “Dancing with the Stars” do real damage, and that, perhaps, you should write about the truly damaging things appearing daily on television screens. These signs depicting aborted babies can be frightening, yes, but the impact on the conscience is what we should concern ourselves with here…”
I fully concur with her observations and would add that from my experiences in seeing passerby reactions that something else is at play with those adults when they claim they are angry because of their children. It is really their own feelings they are dealing with.
Jerry,
Thank you for posting that. I would have to agree!!
The photos which show the result of abortion are necessary, but they need to be used correctly. Shoving them into the faces of pro-aborts is worthless, of course. Shoving them into the faces of people who are on the fence is usually not effective, either. It’s usually best to convince these people that they want to see the photos. If they choose to see the photos of their own volition, then they will look at them and be changed forever.
Jerry,
I completely agree that there are many worse (and more seemingly innocuous) ways in which our children are being damaged.
But I still maintain that they aren’t the best way to get the truth out. If anything, I worry that they will desensitize those who could have been moved by a photo of abortion in another way (see the comment above mine for a good example). I worry that they aren’t actually helping our cause and that they are in fact hardening the hearts of those on the other side.
I do not supoort using graphic signs for reasons not posed here yet.
I am a pro-life activist, but horrific signs of any kind of violence disturbs my sleep. For crying out loud, I had nightmares about the boiling bunney in “Fatal Attraction”!
PP isn’t stupid. They know that the younger they get our kids, the better. We can learn from them. I am not going to bring my kids around those images, therefore, I am not going to stand in front of PP with you if you have them. Get it? I think 100 prayer warriors standing in front of PP is much more effective than one person holding a graphic sign.
I heard the man who brought graphic signs at the March for Life responding to a passerby. He said, “This is a pro-life march, don’t bring your kids if you don’t like the signs!” Our future IS our kids! I brought my 10 and 12 yr. olds to the march, but I’m glad they couldn’t see the signs.
Abby Johnson made a very compelling point. You are not going to attract women on the fence about abortion by holding those signs. PP has done a very stellar job of positioning us as extremists and by holding those signs you are feeding into that. If women, instead, know us to be loving and supportive, non-judgmental, they will seek us out. THAT is our battle, changing the way the mainstream see us, that is why 40 Days for Life is spreading rapidly.
I have read the testimonies on Fr. Pavone’s website where many people have been converted by graphic signs. I like the way Lila Rose approached that problem in a news story about her being attacked by a PP escort. She has the signs on her, but hidden, and offers to show them if someone confronts her.
We need more people on the streets, we need to show that we are the loving side. Graphic signs won’t help that endeavor.
If you want effective signs, I suggest enlarging high resolution pictures of young parents hugging/kissing/smiling with their infants.
We have one of a black dad’s profile kissing his infant daughter enlarged to 3′ by 4′. Just a few weeks ago, a black man stopped his car and approached the woman holding it. He pointed at the sign and said, “Thank you for that picture; it saved my baby.”
The only words on the sign are “Love Life”.
We have another poster of an italian muscular marine holding his son that says, “Real Men Protect Life” Men driving by love this poster, we get lots of supportive honks and gestures for it.
One man walking by asked if he could hold if for awhile. He was there for almost an hour.
A much more positive approach that rallies the pro-life folks and changes hearts is a better strategy than one that is divisive and angering.
I agree with everything Joann says in her 8:41 post. I was pro-choice for most of my life. I witnessed protesters wielding graphic signs many times, at the abortion clinic in my hometown and on my college campus. They never made me change my mind. If anything, they made me go out of my way to avoid pro-lifers and caused me to miss their actual message. They are desensitizing.
I do, however, respect the right of those who use them to do so. It is their personal choice, and if they have seen positive results of their message then great! Personally, I have never met anyone who was converted to the pro-life side by seeing them other than a few of my jr. high classmates after a big protest in my town waayy back in the day. Some of whom went on to have abortions in high school, anyway.
Thank you Len. I think if you’re going to show graphic pictures at college campuses, you should do so in a tent with a warning. When they’re out in the open, students will look away, avoid the pro-lifers. When they’re concealed, they’re too curious to walk by it, and those generally interested will feel free to talk with us. Just a bit of reverse psychology.
We want them to be open to speaking with us.
For MaryRose, Len, and others who assert that the pictures are not effective,
If you believe images are not effective, then your argument isn’t with us. Your argument is with hundreds and hundreds of people who have seen our images (on video, on trucks, on signs, on our website, etc.) and have told us they decided not to abort their children. Your argument is with the young lady who called my cell phone, thanking me for the photos that saved her baby’s life. Your argument is with hundreds more who have walked up to us at one of our GAP events and told us that they never knew what abortion was and that our pictures had changed their minds. Your argument is with the army of pro-life activists out there who trace their own activism back to an image of abortion. And finally, your argument is with social reformers of all kinds who have used images for 200+ years to successfully end horrifying injustice. It’s one thing to make assertions based on opinion. We present overwhelming evidence that images work just as we say they do.
For Margaret, MaryRose, and others concerned with desensitization of people,
I’m not aware of any body of evidence or even a hint of a suggestion that showing the movie “Schindler’s List” to millions of people all over the globe had the effect of desensitizing people to the extent that they decided that the Holocaust wasn’t a big deal after all. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that showing Black men and women being attacked with dogs and water cannons on TV and in magazines convinced people that segregation and racism were no big deal. In fact, seeing those images over and over again had the opposite effect, and segregation is no longer legal. Our problem isn’t that people have seen abortion pictures too often; our problem is that enough people haven’t seen them at all. Without seeing pictures, it’s too easy for people to ignore or trivialize injustice.
For MaryRose and others who say pictures harden the hearts of our opposition:
You really need to read Dr. King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. He wrote the letter to fellow civil rights leaders who told him that he was too confrontational. They were concerned that he was galvanizing resistance to their work. He wrote this famous letter to say that the only way to eradicate injustice was to expose it, to open it up to the light of day. He knew that the opposition couldn’t defeat them, but apathy could. He knew that unless people were uncomfortable with the status quo, there would be no pressure for change. Please read his letter and explain to me where he went wrong.
For John, who wants to show pictures only to people who ask to see them:
If we wait for people to ask to see the pictures, we guarantee that few people will see them, and the killing will never stop. Those who opposed the slave trade didn’t hide the diagram of the slave ship Brookes in their pockets; they posted this now-famous image on walls and in newspapers for all to see. Yes, people were horrified, but the slave trade stopped. Those who opposed segregation here didn’t hide photos of racial violence in their pockets, just hoping that people would ask to see them. No, they put these horrifying images on TV and in magazines, so that it would be impossible for people to ignore or trivialize the injustice. When the American Army discovered the death camps in Germany, they forced German civilians to come in and see the death that had been going on right under their noses. Participation wasn’t optional; because of that act of forced education, nobody in Germany has ever been able to deny that the Holocaust happened.
We’ve had 38 years of legalized abortion here. More than 50 million people are dead. If I have to make people uncomfortable in order to stop the killing, or even save just one baby’s life, I’ll certainly do it.
For Joann, who wants us to cover up the reality of abortion and show only the pretty pictures of loving families,
I can tell you for certain that I have seen many pictures of Jewish families in their homes in the 1930s, before the Nazis came to power. They are pictures of what every family should be. But none of them give us any idea of what went on in the death camps. In the original post, I gave you four historical examples of reformers who used horrifying pictures to expose and eventually end a particular injustice. Can you offer just one example of a reform movement that eradicated injustice by covering it up?
If you can get 100 people out to an abortion clinic to pray, I’m all for you. I really am. They gathered and prayed for Abby Johnson outside her clinic for years. They prayed and God sent Abby a picture. She saw that picture, and it changed her life.
You mentioned Lila Rose as doing things the right way. Please know that Lila supports our work to expose abortion. Check out her video at http://www.facebook.com/ProLifeOnCampus.
For Joann and others who don’t want to be portrayed as extremists,
Yes, of course they will call us extremists. Social reformers have always been portrayed as extremists. William Wilberforce was an extremist. Lewis Hine was an extremist. Abolitionists here were extremists. Martin Luther King was an extremist. I am honored whenever I am called an extremist. I don’t deserve the honor, but nevertheless, I am thankful for it.
For all of those who believe our only audience is women going into abortion clinics,
Pregnant women are not our only audience. Our audience includes (1) women who won’t get pregnant until a month or a year or five years from now, (2) the boyfriends and husbands who pressure women to have abortions, (3) the boyfriend or husband who won’t overtly pressure, but who withdraws moral support in hopes that she will abort and spare him the guilt for it, (4) the friends and families who will counsel mothers to abort their children, (5) the voters who elect politicians who will turn a blind eye to the killing, (6) the pastors of “pro-life” churches who allow the killing to continue right there in the church and scarcely lift a finger, or a voice, to stop it, (7) etc.
Pictures can be used to reach members of every one of these groups. Sure there will be people who tell you, “They didn’t change MY mind.” But we don’t have to change everybody’s. Dr. King didn’t change everybody’s mind, but he led a movement that ended segregation.
Fletcher, graphic signs scream condemnation, not love. I respect other parents wishes to not show those hideous pictures because I am a parent and I can’t stand them.
Using your reasoning, then you should also be using pictures of fornication because that is what leads to abortion, does it not? Are you okay with showing those pictures? If you condemn pornography, then you have no right condemning us for condemning graphic abortion pictures. You do not have the right to force images on me nor my children that I do not want to see, just as I believe pornographers do not have the right to show their trash to me.
40 Days for Life, which does not allow graphic signs, is proving over and over that they can get people out, people who acknowledge that women are victims too, victims of a culture that has convinced them to live their lives in ways that our not healthy for them. You will convert more by love than condemnation. You will prove that life is the more loving option by being loving yourself.
I said in my post that I acknowledge they can work, but they don’t work for everyone, for some they repel. What good is the strategy if it attracts some but repels others? I know it repelled me when I was pro-choice. I wouldn’t give a pro-lifer the time of day w/ a sign like that. But people lovingly offering alternatives to women, even as a pro-choicer I would have respected that and been open to discussion with them.
Graphic images repel people from us. Loving images invite everyone.
Fletcher,
Amen to all that you have said. Thank you for being out there showing that abortion is hideous. It hideously mangles preborn human beings and that is the truth. All of my children(all under the age of 13)have seen them and every one has said, “That poor baby.”
I had an abortion that I deeply regret and it was the photos you display that led me to grieve my daughter. I would look up babies aborted at 10 weeks and sob over my keyboard. Now I fight in their memory.
Just wanted to let you know that there is a Center Against Forced Abortion and it has letters you can download and keep with you to hand to girlfriends being pressured or forced, to parents and to clinic workers. They have been instrumental in helping young girls get restraining orders against their own parents because they DID NOT want to abort.
http://www.txjf.org/pages.asp?pageid=99931
God bless you!! Keep fighting the good fight!
Carla,
Thank you for that link! I didn’t know about it.
Joann,
You are welcome!
Have seen it all work firsthand!! :)
Women have the right to NOT have an abortion as well.
My mother, a Catholic who attends mass EVERY DAY, tried to force me to have an abortion when I was 19. Even though I considered myself pro-choice at the time, I knew I couldn’t do that. She has never forgiven me, btw.
Fletcher, I am willing to concede that there are good things that come from graphic photos of abortion. I never said that they weren’t important to have. I simply expressed my concerns. I’ll admit it: I don’t know. I don’t know the overwhelming impact of graphic signage among the pro-life movement. I don’t know if it is desensitizing of if it always has an effect. We can make guesses all day long, but the reality is that you don’t really know either. Because you can’t possibly have an accounting of everyone who’s seen the signs and how they were affected.
You make strong points with which I am hesitant to argue. I tend to lean on the side that we should encourage people to look at the photos but not force it on them. I don’t know if I’m right or wrong, but I feel like there are many, many ways to get the abortion debate into the public arena and I don’t necessarily believe that photos of aborted babies are the most effective and most Christian way of doing as much. But like I’ve said before, I simply don’t know. My stance on graphic photos is in nature very theoretical. Who is being effected without knowing it? I don’t know.
I find that with the unborn, it’s hard when you’ve heard so much rhetoric to finally and fully grasp the humanity of the developing baby. While I’ve always been prolife, it took getting pregnant for me to realize how important the movement was. And, at that point, when I went onto some sites with graphic images of my own volition, I was fully impacted with the reality that at every stage of life, we are human. That there is no such thing as a “potential human.” So yes, I will absolutely agree that the graphic images have a place in the abortion debate. But I want them to have the best possible impact. I want to see them -BAM- make that final sway.
And because of that, I am reserved about where and when they should be shown. Reserved, but not decided.
Joann, to address your main points:
First, showing photos of fornication would be silly because they do not educate anybody about the two most important facts that inform people’s views of abortion: (1) that the unborn child is a baby and (2) that abortion is an act of violence. People are not confused about what fornication looks like. They are very confused about the preborn child and abortion. I have never heard anybody ever tell me that seeing a picture of fornication changed their minds on abortion. There is no historical evidence that showing pictures of fornication has ever eradicated or prevented any injustice. They don’t show pictures of it at the Holocaust museum.
Second, we are not forcing you to look at the images of abortion. You may look away. Using your logic, Schindler’s List could never be shown on TV and horrifying pictures of violence could never be shown in magazines or in newspspers. We would never submit to the double-standard that it is OK to display every other victim of violence except for the preborn victim.
Third, we condemn nobody. We are fully aware that women are also victims of abortion and we have said so, over and over again. We have also said that God is just as eager to forgive abortion as he is any other sin. But it is not an act of love to hide from a woman (and her friends, family, support system, boyfriend, husband, etc.) information that will help save her baby’s life. How is it “unloving” to show all of them the truth and spare them the guilt of having aborted a child. Dr. Alveda King has said that she is glad we are showing the truth, so that others can avoid the pain that she has experienced from her two abortions.
Finally, we agree that the pictures don’t work for everyone. Dr. Martin Luther King’s movement did not convert every racist. But he believed, and historians agree, that it was important to expose injustice and push people out of the middle and force them to take a stand one way or other. He didn’t just invite everyone to reject racism; he also compelled people to reject racism by showing them what it really was. He made it impossible for them to ignore or trivialize. He said, “America will not stop racism until America sees racism.” If he was wrong, please tell us how.
Can you offer just one example of a reform movement that eradicated injustice by covering it up? If we are doing the wrong thing, we want to know so we can stop doing it. But we will need evidence for that assertion. Evidence is key. So far, I haven’t seen any. I love the work you are doing, and I want you to keep doing it, but I hope one day it won’t be necessary. America will not stop abortion until America sees abortion.
i use pictures – but only after every avenue is taken. I warn the woman about it being graphic. I do not use large signs of aborted babies when I sidewalk counsel. I’ve only done it a few times – I find the 12 week old model and the pictures at the stages of development to be very good.
Please pray – this morning a young Hispanic woman went into the clinic – she said she ‘had to’ since she was unemployed. Her ex-boyfriend did not help. She was a woman with a good heart, panicked about her situation and could not see her way free. She was lovely – beautiful and smart – and totally paralyzed by the fact she was pregnant and could not see answers.
Honestly – this is what we talk about when women make a choice for intimacy, we know that these other situations follow. But they never consider this possibility, since they think “it can’t happen to me” and “my contraception will work.” It’s what Planned Parenthood counts on.
So instead of knowing the unexpected joy from holding her baby, this mother is in for a surprise – 2 weeks of vomiting/cramping etc. And a lifetime of the reminders of ‘what if.” I only hope that she was too far along to have the RU-486 abortion. I did leave her my number in any case. We offered to help her find a job – to support her and help her, but her upset was bigger than her trust that help was truly there for her. I am now even thinking of offering my home at some point to women in need. when my youngest goes off to school, we’ll have an empty room or two.
A shame – a real shame.
MaryRose,
To address your concerns, I can only point to the hundreds and hundreds of messages we have gotten over the years that our photos, presented in a variety of formats and venues, made the difference for them. Yes, that evidence is anecdotal, but it isn’t inconsequential.
In 2000, when we took GAP to MTSU (http://www.prolifeoncampus.com/anti-abortion-pro-life/projects/debate-on-campus), a sociology professor surveyed his class on abortion attitudes before and after GAP. Every student but one became more pro-life after seeing GAP and talking about it with friends and classmates. He never put that data in a form that could be published, but he did show it to me.
When we look at all of this information, especially in light of the historical precedents for using graphic images—social reform movements that achieved success by using them and no evidence of any movement that achieved success without them—we are compelled to conclude that we must use them. There are some who will not—and that’s fine, everyone doesn’t have to—but we cannot let them dissuade the rest of us from using them to win hearts, change minds, and save lives.
We don’t yell at people. We don’t speak to them unkindly. We don’t condemn them. But we do show them the truth.
Fletcher:
Your comments are appreciated. Signs are controversial–no doubt about it. Pro-lifers who have been active in this approach see it as painful but necessary.
I am a child of the 60’s. The horror of Vietnam war pictures were broadcast far and wide by the MSM as the movement against the war gained steam. There is no doubt they helped turn the tide towards a strong public disapproval of the war. If the media were to do their job and report far and wide of the horror of abortion there would not be a need for these signs. But as we know, the MSM is pro-abort and will not show the truth.
People driving by and seeing the signs are not stupid–they know exactly why they are there. For many women and their unborn babies the signs have been lifesavers. We have no way of measuring the signs’ effectiveness other then the confirmation we have received from women (and men) who have told us they were instrumental in changing their minds about abortion.
Fletcher, I think you’re missing my point about showing pornography. If someone was showing that out in public in front of children, would you be comfortable going up to them and having a civil discussion?
I think you’d be angry and I think you’d have a hard time listening to that person’s point of view especially if your children were watching it.
I’d like to be able to take my children to the March for LIfe and get them involved and educated in the movement, but it looks like that is not my choice.
Again, I do not disparage in using them, but I think people should have the right to decline. And don’t tell me I can turn away, the damage has already been done.
Do you not understand that images like that make some people physically sick? Nightmares? Unable to sleep? They should have a choice in whether or not they see them, and parents especially should have a say in whether or not their children see them.
The image itself is a condemnation, a justafiable one, but one none the less.
Schindler’s list is a movie. I can decide whether or not I want to watch it. I did, and it disturbed me for a long time.
We will not agree. The problem is, your movement hinders mine. Showing graphic pictures keeps good people away from the front lines, because they do not want to be associated with it.
Graphic pictures may also keep women in need from approaching you, or people like me standing next to you. They could actually cost a life. I just don’t think it’s worth it.
Hm. This is genuinely a hard issue.
Just to flesh out the point: Joann, would you object to having graphic abortion images displayed on a college campus (as CBR has been doing, especially in Canada, if memory serves)? It sounds as if your main concern is having young children exposed to the images; is that right?
I can also definitely sympathize with the fear that graphic images might cause adverse reactions with some members of the intended audience… but I’m (personally) even more leery of “soft-pedalling” the message, on this front. It’s one thing to have a gentle discussion about changing one’s political views on a particular issue that doesn’t involve an intrinsic moral evil (e.g. talking about social security, border security, etc.); but abortion is tangled in with a culture which is utterly addicted to casual sex and similar pleasures, so “polite discourse” often won’t reach to the heart of the matter (since the actions are born of impulse, rather than free and reasoned choice). That’s why numerous schools now use graphic movies and imagery to scare students into avoiding drunk driving (waiting until they kill someone is a bit late), avoiding cigarettes (waiting until they or a loved one come down with lung cancer is a bit late), and so on. It’s not much of a stretch to see that graphic images about abortion fit the same mold (i.e. waiting until they take their baby in for slaughter is a bit late).
I want to make utterly clear: the issue of people screaming, yelling, condemning (i.e. yelling “murderer”, etc.), and other violations of charity is a completely separate one. For example: I saw the CBR display in Washington D.C., and I heard the fellow with the microphone describing their position (was that you, Fletcher? Just curious…), and I heard no vindictiveness, vitriol, condemnation (of individuals), or anything other than a heartache-laden plea to “wake up” and stop soft-pedalling the issue. Nothing suggests to me that graphic displays and vile manners need to go together.
Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, is well-known for saying, “America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion.” I’m afraid that’s all too likely to be true. There may be some room for choosing the specific audience for specific dimensions of that message; and I genuinely don’t know the best plan of action for “mixed audiences”, like the March for Life (which many young children attend). But I’d suggest that the graphic images are not, as a general rule, “optional” (i.e. “we could get rid of them, and still be just as effective”).
Carla @ 12:20 pm,
Thanks for the link for the Center Against Forced Abortion! Do you think Jill could include it on her list of Lifeblog links to the right?
len says:
January 28, 2011 at 12:39 pm
My mother, a Catholic who attends mass EVERY DAY, tried to force me to have an abortion when I was 19. Even though I considered myself pro-choice at the time, I knew I couldn’t do that. She has never forgiven me, btw.
I’m so sorry. That must have been pretty traumatic for you. As you know, many Catholics have been led astray regarding abortion and parents are never as perfect as we’d like. I hope this isn’t too personal a question, have you been able to forgive her?
I’m all for college campus displays and non-condemning ways of approaching the subject. And honestly, I’m not saying to stop showing photos. Not at all. I’m just hesitant about how is the best way of introducing the truth about abortion. It is such a sensitive topic and therefore so easy to turn people off. I know I know I can’t step on eggshells all the time (although everyone who knows me personally is aware that I don’t).
I’m sure that my geographical location makes this extra difficult. I live in an incredibly liberal city with a lot of people who hear day-in and day-out how important this choice is for women. When you’re surrounded by that sort of mentality, it’s just so hard to change minds and hearts. I tend to overanalyze our methods as a whole and I probably step too lightly in that sense.
One thing I’ve found incredibly useful is Fr. Pavone’s explanation of just exactly what happens in an abortion. I find that describing the process is much more effective than just saying that it’s brutal. I suppose in many ways, the graphic photos are like that. Seeing is believing and all that.
Joann, just to clarify, when I say pictures are not optional, I am not saying that you yourself should be compelled to use them. Nor should any pro-lifer feel compelled to hold up a sign. The clinics are not my personal venue of choice, nor am I an expert on the dynamics of that particular setting, but my conversations with both the people who hold the signs at the clinics and those who won’t have convinced me that there is a place for both. I’m just saying that in order for our movement to be successful, the pictures must be used in many different formats and venues, and must be used at a greater level than is now the case.
Paladin, I was at the March with the display, but the person you saw wasn’t me. Thank you for emphasizing the point that yelling, screaming, condemnation, lack of civility, etc. is completely separate from presenting the pictures. I have had many encounters that began with a student or faculty member yelling at me, but because I treated that person with respect, we ended the conversation with a handshake. I guess it’s true that “a soft answer turneth away wrath.” On occasion, I have even had that person thank me for coming, because he/she said that whether or not we agreed, it was important to consider both sides.
Fletcher,
Thank you for all you do – our young people are our hope.
May God bless this new generation of mothers and fathers with many children!
They never made me change my mind.
Hi Len, at 10:15am. The graphic signs didn’t change my mind either. I think it’s because of something Fr Corapi likes to point out when he says words to the effect that a message is received according to the mode of the receiver. I wasn’t thinking about abortion in such a way that the images had any impact on me.
“God sent Abby a picture. She saw that picture, and it changed her life”
Is it just me? Is there anyone else who read Abby’s book who finds this statement troublesome? I don’t recall her writing that a static image of post abortion fetal remains led to her conversion. I recall her speaking of PARTICIPATING in an abortion. Of watching a live fetal dismemberment on ultrasound. Of the longstanding compassion prolifers demonstrated for her. Of being led closer on her faith journey toward God. She speaks of many aspects of her life that culminated in her conversion while participating in and observing an abortion. To condense that experience into “she saw that picture” seems unfair.
Janet,
I go back and forth. Now that my daughter is a teen it would break my heart to see her become pregnant and have to go through what I did. It has been a long and difficult journey for me in many ways. We have both been through a lot and I do not want to see her struggle the way I had to. And I still struggle! Financially and emotionally. I can understand my mom not wanting me to go through all of that.
My mom, however, was really more concerned about what other people were going to think and say about us, specifically about her and her failure as a mother by having a young, single pregnant daughter. At least that’s what she drilled into my head while I was pregnant. She didn’t offer an ounce of support while I was pregnant, and my daughter’s father was out of the picture as soon as he found out. At a time when I really needed her, my mom turned her back on me because she was more concerned about her own reputation and what her family and parish were going to think and say. I am still hurt by her actions, many years later.
Len,
I am so sorry about your mother. :(
Janet,
I will ask Jill when she gets back from NZ!
Fed Up,
I agree. That’s why I said that I respect the rights of those who want to use graphic signs if they find that it works for them. Part of my issue with the signs is my own projection, I guess. Like I said earlier, they did nothing but make me avoid pro-lifers and their message. I still think that a lot more people feel this way than many people would like to admit.
Also, because of my experiences with abortion protesters in my own community while growing up, I have come to associate these signs with disrespectful behavior such as yelling and condemnation of women. When I was in college a pro-life protester on campus tried to shove some pro-life literature into my hands. I politely said no thank you, and he responded by telling me I was going to hell! He didn’t even know if I was pro-choice or not! Of course I knew that this man was an extremist, and not a representation of most pro-life people, but I was still very turned off by the whole protest.
Paladin,
I think it’s crucial to have the images on college campuses, but I still think they should be covered with a tent. It should be a persons decision whether or not they can handle the photos.
I became pro-life without seeing them. I became pro-life because I learned what abortion does to women mentally and physically. I became pro-life because I learned how beautiful the teachings of the Church are on sexulity and chastity. I became pro-life because I saw how PP dupes our youth into believing that casual sex is good for them. There are plenty of reasons to join the pro-life side without resorting to graphic photos.
I think it would be a neat experiment. Fletcher, put up a tent at a campus and see what reaction you get, how many go in, what their reactions are and even the reactions of those who don’t go in but approach you for more information. I can’t help thinking that a tent would intrigue many people who would otherwise turn their head and walk away.
Len,
Oh, my word. I am so sorry! (I just caught your earlier comment about your mother, now.)
You almost certainly know this by now, but: in addition to brutalizing you, your mother betrayed the Faith that she promised to uphold (at her Baptism, Confirmation, etc.)… and in a particularly grave, profound and brutal way. If I could suggest praying for her, and for her conversion? That woman’s soul is apparently in very grave danger, and she apparently doesn’t even know it! It was heartbreaking to read your account!
As an aside: I’ve found that praying for the conversion of someone who’s made himself my enemy, in addition to offering up the sufferings they caused for the intention of their conversion (and ultimate good–see Colossians 1:24, etc.), it “unlocks” my ability to forgive them and let go of the pain and anger… even with such a deep, dirt-level betrayal as this.
Thank you, Carla and Paladin.
Paladin, my mother has been attending mass at a new parish a few miles away, where she feels more comfortable than she did in our home parish when I was growing up. I can see a big difference in her in the past year, and I just kind of noticed that in coincides with her attending mass at a different church. She is always talking about how wonderful the pastor is and how nice everyone is to her. I think she has “found her place” in the church? Unfortunately, she doesn’t have the nerve to approach the pastor at her home parish and get his permission to become a member of the new church.
My mom is from a different country and has always been self conscious of that, and hyper-sensitive to they way that others might view her and her family. I think that is a big part of why she tried to pressure me. I have a wonderful father, though, who has always stuck up for me, and I would never have gotten as far as I have in life without his love and support! Can you believe that, when my mother told me that if I kept my baby I could not move home, my dad told her that I was always welcome there and if she didn’t like it SHE could leave!
Fed Up,
You were concerned about the validity of my claim that a picture changed Abby Johnson’s life. In Chapter 1 of her book, she describes seeing an abortion on the ultrasound screen. On page 2, she said, “I could not imagine how the next 10 minutes [note: she was talking about seeing abortion] would shake the foundation of my values and change the course of my life.” On page 5, she said, “The image of the tiny body, mangled and sucked away, was replaying in my mind …” It is that moment, that specific moment of seeing abortion, that has been emphasized over and over again in the telling of Ms. Johnson’s story.
Certainly there are differences between an ultrasound picture of a photo in progress and a still photo of a baby whose abortion has already been completed, but these differences are not as important as the similarities. They are both images that can pierce through the many layers of denial that have built up around abortion for so many people.
It is true that she had seen photos of abortion before. Perhaps she was able to discount them because they were 3rd trimester pictures. (We don’t advocate using 3rd trimester pictures.) Perhaps she was unmoved because of her anger at the people holding them. (Not everyone who sees the pictures gets angry.) Perhaps she resisted the pictures because of the level of her complicity. (Not everyone who sees the pictures is as immersed in the abortion industry as she was.) Perhaps she, like so many others, just needed more time and repetition.
Abby Johnson is but one example of many people who say that images of abortion were important to their conversion. None of the stories are exactly the same. Some saw photos on the web. Some saw an ultrasound. Some saw photos on campus. Some saw photos on trucks. Some were shown to them by friends. Some were shown to them by strangers. Bottom line: pictures work for many people.
Hi, Len!
:) Your Dad sounds like a class act!
I *hope* this new parish is the right place for your Mom; but I also hope that they’re preaching/teaching the truth, rather than some half-baked “idea of the week” which leads people to accept abortion and other crimes (which are flatly condemned by the Church) in the first place.
That being said: for what it’s worth, your Mom doesn’t need the first pastor’s permission to register anywhere else. So long as the second parish is in the same Diocese (i.e. under the same bishop) and is in good standing, she can simply start attending Mass (and such) at the second parish, and (if she wishes) notify that second parish of her desire to register there. Here’s a quick link to some references to that effect, which should be easier than wading through Canon law examples:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=7999
It would be considerate of her to contact the first parish and tell them of her transfer (so that they can update their records, etc.), but if the temperaments of the people involved would lead them to make a “scene” about such a transfer, then such notification wouldn’t be necessary. No canon law requires any given person to attend the parish whose boundaries contain their home; certain documents recommend it, but those same documents also allow one to move to a new parish for a reasonable cause.
I hope that helps!
Joann, you are right about one thing. There are plenty of reasons to join the pro-life side without resorting to graphic photos. The problem is that too many people are not interested in those reasons. They don’t care about Church teachings, beautiful or not. We have to reach them with a message they are ready to hear. The fact that some people respond to one medium and others respond to another is not a reason to choose only one medium; to the contrary, it is a reason to deliver the message in as many different media and as many different venues as you possibly can. In other words, what works for some won’t work for everybody, so you have to deliver the message in lots of different ways.
Regarding your idea of putting pictures in a tent. I’m reminded of the kinds of things people said to Dr. King when he was organizing marches to expose racial injustice. People who remember the time (people older than I) recount how Dr. King’s opponents told him, in essence, it was OK for him to talk about racial injustice, so long as he did it over in the Black church, among people who were interested in hearing about racial injustice. But they said he shouldn’t be doing marches and disrupting the lives of everybody else, because they didn’t want to be bothered with it. Well, Dr. King resolved to bother people with racial injustice until it was eradicated. Praise God for his perseverence.
Len, the actions of your mom remind me of an important audience that we hope to reach. The Elliot Institute reports that as many 64% of abortions are coerced. That’s another reason we work so hard to reach moms and dads and boyfriends and friends and cousins and brothers and sisters and whoever.
Regarding the man who yelled at you, I can tell you that we would never allow that at one of our events. Every one of our staff and volunteers must sign an agreement to never shout at anyone, to treat everyone with respect (even those who are angry or verbally abusive), etc.
Paladin, thank you for that info. I don’t have time now to respond with more detail but I didn’t want to leave your thoughtful post hanging without a reply.
Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, is well-known for saying, “America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion.”
I was one who claimed she was “pro-life” but truly had no *idea* or really hadn’t thought about what abortion did to human beings until I SAW it with my own eyes. I watched The Hard Truth, a 9 minute video (6.5 mins of actual abortion footage) and I’ve never been more grieved in my entire life. It was at that moment I learned the truth, and it was at that moment that I told the Lord, “Whatever you want me to do about abortion, I’ll do it.”
Images have the power to change us. One can read about what the Nazis did in their concentration camps, but how much do we really comprehend it without the photographic evidence?
Fletcher,
You asked for one time in history where injustice was overcome without pictures. I’m no historian, but I believe the early Christians overcame their persecution without pictures because the camera wasn’t invented yet.
I cannot equate the civil rights movement with using graphic images because exposing images to people that do not want to see them is an affront to their dignity, that you do not respect their preferences. The civil rights movement wsa about allowing all people equal dignity and respect. I’ve told you that I (a pro-lifer) don’t like you revealing those pictures to me and my children and you’ve told me “Tough!”
I cannot respect that. That tells me that you only care about your agenda, as noble as it may be. The ends do not justify the means.
It was the photos of Emmet Till beaten beyond recognition, African Americans hanging from trees and police turning hoses on innocent black people that I do believe made an impact in the Civil Rights movement. The ugly truth EXPOSED!
Emmet’s mother insisted on an open casket for her son. She said, “I wanted the world to see what they did to my baby.”
Fletch,
Regarding the man who yelled at you, I can tell you that we would never allow that at one of our events. Every one of our staff and volunteers must sign an agreement to never shout at anyone, to treat everyone with respect (even those who are angry or verbally abusive), etc.
So it’s not okay to offend orally, but it’s okay to offend visually?
You are being visually abusive.
Joann, the early Christians overcame persecution, but it wasn’t because the Christians brought about reform; it was because the Roman Empire ceased to exist. However it happened, it took hundreds of years.
Here’s where we differ. I believe we should care more about the lives of preborn people than the feelings of born people. The ends don’t always justify the means, but saving a baby’s life justifies showing the truth.
Yes, Fletcher, but you never responded to me when I said that using graphic signs can push people away and thereby risk a life. How many are you saving and how many are you losing?
Fletcher @ 4:18PM. My point is that MUCH more than visual imagery was involved in Abby’s conversion and to credit an image alone doesn’t seem consistent with her book.
Kel @ 4:55PM, Yes, images can change us. They can alienate us and further reinforce negative stereotypes. Or they can assist with conversion of heart if we happen to be in a state of receptivity. I found Fr Pavone’s videos helpful when I was going through a period of self-confrontation. I sought out the videos. They weren’t thrust on me before I was ready.
Kel @ 4:55PM, Yes, images can change us. They can alienate us and further reinforce negative stereotypes. Or they can assist with conversion of heart if we happen to be in a state of receptivity. I found Fr Pavone’s videos helpful when I was going through a period of self-confrontation. I sought out the videos. They weren’t thrust on me before I was ready.
I see your point, Fed Up. I also viewed the videos on my own terms. I have to say, though, I wasn’t expecting the brutality of what I saw. I guess I didn’t really know *what* to expect.
Here’s where we differ. I believe we should care more about the lives of preborn people than the feelings of born people. The ends don’t always justify the means, but saving a baby’s life justifies showing the truth.
And I see this point as well. Truth be told, we are not responsible for the hardness of anyone’s heart when faced with the truth of abortion. Showing someone the truth about abortion – what is LEGALLY done in this country to our children every single day – is not the same as showing pornography. I saw earlier in the comments somewhere that it was compared to being shown pornography on the street. Well, I’ve got news for ya – the billboards in NY and other places, the ads in the front of the Abercrombie stores, and the windows of the Victoria’s Secret stores are in our malls and accessible to our children and very few people complain because frankly, soft core porn is more “accepted” in our society than showing the truth about human atrocity.
I became pro-life without seeing them. I became pro-life because I learned what abortion does to women mentally and physically. I became pro-life because I learned how beautiful the teachings of the Church are on sexulity and chastity. I became pro-life because I saw how PP dupes our youth into believing that casual sex is good for them.
Hi Joann, I became prolife after I saw these pictures as a child. I understood the wrongness of this “choice” as a child. I don’t know if I would have seen the wrongness as an adult had I not seen the pictures. I grew up knowing nothing about PP. I also was not open to much the Catholic Church tried to teach me. I stopped going to Mass when I moved out of my parent’s home and became pregnant before marriage. Thank God I saw and remembered the pictures because pressure was put on to me to abort.
It was years later that I returned to the Church and was ready to learn how beautiful the teachings of the Church are on sexuality. I now teach Catholic teens. All I can do is teach them what was taught to me. Some will listen, some will not but I’m putting it out there for them like it was put out there for me.
I also show these teens a picture of an aborted child. I respect your thoughts on this topic and agree to disagree.
I do agree with Fr. Pavone who says, “America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion.”
Joann @ 9:16pm, you ask an interesting question: How many are you saving and how many are you losing?
Unsolicited testimonials about whether these signs/images are effective isn’t scientific proof. I don’t doubt that graphic signs do save some lives. I also don’t doubt that they reinforce negative stereotypes and actually further entrench some people in their proabort positions.
Has anyone ever done research on this? I don’t mean guaging effectiveness by unsolicited testimonials (or hate mail). I mean actually looked at subjects before and after? Using abortion photos, not making generalities from studies done with photos of other types of brutality.
Has anyone ever studied samples of proaborts who changed to a prolife position? I’m guessing we’d find that different methods work, but that timing and personalization of the message are key. If we don’t study the effectiveness of our methods, aren’t we just throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks?
Fed Up, you said “My point is that MUCH more than visual imagery was involved in Abby’s conversion and to credit an image alone doesn’t seem consistent with her book.”
I would be the first to agree. I never said that showing pictures is all we need to do. I just said it was an important part of the recipie. Consider a recipie for angel food cake. It would be a disaster if you leave out the flour. It just wouldn’t work, but that doesn’t mean flour is the only ingredient. It is one of many essential ingredients. For the pro-life movement, the essentials include helping families in crisis, healing for those who have aborted, adoption, apologetics, training, speaking, political action, education (including education about the two most critical facts, the humanity of the unborn child and the horrific nature of abortion), and more.
In terms of my own time, I don’t just hold up pictures. I train students, teach apologetics, write essays, write letters to school papers, speak in churches, write about our Christian responsibility to help stop the killing, recruit activists, and a number of other things. Pictures isn’t all we should do. But if we don’t show pictures as a part of what we do, America will never stop abortion.
Consider Dr. Martin Luther King. He didn’t, nor did the movement he led, do just one thing. He led marches. He spoke in churches. He wrote letters, including his famous letter from a Birmingham jail. He recognized that America needed to see racism, and organized activities to make sure they did, but he also did much more. We still can hear his words, “I have a dream ….” I hope you will read his letter from the Birmingham jail. It is essential for all pro-life activists to read this letter.
Fed Up, you asked if anybody had ever studied the effectiveness of using pictures.
In 2000, when we took GAP to MTSU (http://www.prolifeoncampus.com/anti-abortion-pro-life/projects/debate-on-campus), a sociology professor surveyed his class on abortion attitudes before and after GAP. Every student but one became more pro-life after seeing GAP and talking about it with friends and classmates. He never put that data in a form that could be published, but he did show it to me.
When we look at all of this information, especially in light of the historical precedents for using graphic images—social reform movements that achieved success by using them and no evidence of any movement that achieved success without them—we are compelled to conclude that we must use them.
Consider a recipie for angel food cake. It would be a disaster if you leave out the flour.
Thank you for that analogy. It may help demonstrate my point too. Your cake would be a disaster if you dumped in the flour instead of gradually folding it in. Or if you added the dry ingredients before you whipped the egg whites. Some recipes call for ingredients to be added in a certain order, or for some ingredients to be further prepared (whipping egg whites, for example) before proceeding.
I’m curious about the MTSU prof. Thank you for mentioning that. Does “Every student but one became more pro-life” mean that the students’ reactions were recorded on a reliable scale and found to be statistically significant? Or only that the students’ opinions showed movement in a general direction? It would be interesting to know if the students were still “more prolife” at graduation. Or if there were gender differences, as men tend to be more visual than women.
we are compelled to conclude that we must use them
I don’t dispute that. What I dispute is that we have EVIDENCE that we know how to BEST use them to save the MOST lives. Saving some doesn’t mean saving as many as possible. Or that others aren’t being jeopardized by alienation. Showing pics on campus is different than waving a placard at women entering an abortuary, which is different than someone looking up pics online because they feel ready to look at what abortion is. There are a lot of variables at play. Shouldn’t we make efforts to understand where, when, and for whom pics are most helpful in our cause to maximize the number of lives saved? If you won’t consider the potential harm of this technique, how will you ever learn to maximize its effectiveness?
Fed Up, the MTSU professor tracked each individual student separately. I believe he was able to do this and still keep the identity of the student blind.
I can’t provide statistics between how many are saved by pictures and how many are not. Neither can you. But I believe I have presented enough evidence to convince most people that pictures are an important tool that we need to use. History is clear; No reform movement has ever ended an injustice by covering it up. Purveyors and apologists of injustice have historically always tried to cover it up. I can tell you that the abortion industry and their apologists would very much like to suppress the publication of these photos.
I can tell you that the abortion industry and their apologists would very much like to suppress the publication of these photos.
The fact that proaborts so hate these pictures proves to me all the more that they are an effective tool in our movement.
I can’t provide statistics between how many are saved by pictures and how many are not. Neither can you.
I never claimed to have ”overwhelming evidence” as you did a few days ago on this thread. The bulk of your evidence seems to be anecdotal and biased.
BTW, I never said that pics weren’t an important tool. I suggested that they be used with more discretion. But hey, what do I know? I’m just a former proabort whose conversion doesn’t fit the story line you want to tell. Never mind.
Fed Up, I have presented evidence that I consider to be overwhelming. I don’t know what else I can say. Every single time we put up the pictures, we get a steady stream of people who walk up and say, “I never knew abortion was like this; you changed my mind.”
I would say that your argument isn’t with me. Your argument is with hundreds and hundreds of people who have seen our images (on video, on trucks, on signs, on our website, etc.) and have told us they decided not to abort their children. Your argument is with the young lady who called my cell phone, thanking me for the photos that saved her baby’s life. Your argument is with hundreds more who have walked up to us at one of our GAP events and told us that they never knew what abortion was and that our pictures had changed their minds. Your argument is with the army of pro-life activists out there who trace their own activism back to an image of abortion. And finally, your argument is with social reformers of all kinds who have used images for 200+ years to successfully end horrifying injustice. It’s one thing to make assertions based on opinion. We present evidence that images work just as we say they do, and I believe the evidence to be overwhelming. If you disagree, then I would like to see your evidence to the contrary.
I would be curious to find anybody, much less hundreds of people, who has ever said that he was pro-life and then became pro-choice because he saw an abortion photo.
Your argument is with hundreds and hundreds of people who have seen our images
Nope. I have no argument with them whatsoever. As I said before, I have no doubt that your techniques are effective with SOME people. I also know from my time on the proabort side that your techniques can further alienate some you might have reached by other means. My argument is not with you personally. It’s with your technique.
I believe the evidence to be overwhelming.
I’m sure you do. Problem is, your evidence is anecdotal. You’re relying on those who self-report successes to you. I’m happy for those successes. Believe me, I am! But I’m also concerned about those you alienate who will never take the time to self-report. I sure wouldn’t have when I was proabort.
If you disagree, then I would like to see your evidence to the contrary.
Interesting statement. If I had told you that your pics changed me from proabort to prolife, you’d have accepted that as evidence of success. But from what I see on this thread, if someone reports that your pics didn’t change their viewpoint, you do not consider that as evidence of failure of your technique. You seem to have different standards for measuring success and failure, or perhaps no standard for measuring aspects of your technique that fall short.
I would be curious to find anybody, much less hundreds of people, who has ever said that he was pro-life and then became pro-choice because he saw an abortion photo.
Yes, that would be interesting. But that’s not what we were talking about, is it? I thought we were discussing changing minds of proaborts, not prolifers.
I don’t know what else I can say.
Actually, I think a few of us were just hoping you’d LISTEN. But our experiences with your techniques don’t seem to be the type of feedback you’re interested in. So I’ll just close off my involvement in this thread by saying that I disagree with some of your methods, but I admire your zeal for unborn lives and I wish you well.
Fed Up, you say: “Interesting statement. If I had told you that your pics changed me from proabort to prolife, you’d have accepted that as evidence of success. But from what I see on this thread, if someone reports that your pics didn’t change their viewpoint, you do not consider that as evidence of failure of your technique. You seem to have different standards for measuring success and failure, or perhaps no standard for measuring aspects of your technique that fall short.”
Logically speaking, yes, it is a success when we change a mind. But when somebody doesn’t change his/her mind, our methods could be considered a failure only to the degree Dr. King’s work could be considered a failure because his methods didn’t convert every racist. Converting everybody is a hurdle too high. We have to use every tool at our disposal to convert every person we can. I would implore you to use whatever tools you see fit. But as for myself, before I started using pictures, I didn’t see ANY conversions.
If the pictures only convert 10% of the people from pro-choice to pro-life, but never convert anybody from pro-life to pro-choice, then yes, I would consider it a success. Particularly when you consider that a huge number of the pro-aborts in the US Senate were elected by very slim margins. By changing the voting behaviors of 10%, 5% or even 2.5% of the people, we could make dramatic changes in our legislative bodies. I would call that a success.
Paladin –
Now that the worthwhile debate has died down on this thread, I thought I’d get to your question. I think you must find me quite logical as you can’t seem to easily dismiss me – most on this board I can debate with, even find some common ground with – you seem to be the Principal Rooney to my Ferris Bueller – and I hope that one day you can get beyond the angst of this all.
I’ve quite frankly taken a lot of positions on this board – in regards to this argument, I’ve stated many times that I think graphic pictures is a cheap, illogical argument, while the stunning pictures of babies and the facts that surround their development is much more impressive.
I’ve taken many, many strong positions on health care – that I think reform is a positive step (though just one step), and that, if embraced by pro-lifers, could have been a huge victory politically, and still could be a huge gain in the world of ‘life’.
In regards to abortion – I am a massive supporter to the people and organizations that are actually caring for people and spending money and resources to help mothers and families. I am tired of the political debate – the millions spent on moving the political boundaries back and forth, and back and forth again. At best (in regards to the pro-life cause), we’ll have a fragmented union where some states outlaw abortion, women are trafficked, laws are skirted – not a good situation. So while not ideal, I think the push needs to be made more in regards to reducing the numbers through strengthening families and support of mothers/parents who find themselves pregnant.
Lastly, I don’t hate all things Republican – I used to vote straight ticket, and still vote for a few Republicans. Like your view of me…I just don’t know if they stand for anything – I know what they don’t like, but don’t know what they like anymore. And when they get in power, they are awful. They are a much better minority party.
Paladin, I am convinced that ObamaCare will not only decrease the quality and increase the cost of health care for almost all of us, it will also bring a financial windfall to Planned Parenthood. With more than $3 billion (with a “b”) of government money available to them (in the form of fees for abortion “services”), count on PP to market sex to your children and offer themselves as “experts”, somebody who will provide easy “solutions” for the inevitable “mistakes.” All of it at government expense.
With the government picking up the tab, there will be no end to the kind of lobbying they will do and the kind of access to our children they will be willing to buy. Follow the money. Here’s the link that documents the windfall that PP is set to rake in:
http://www.fletcherarmstrongblog.com/abortion-obamacare-and-planned-parenthood-follow-the-money/
.
Fletcher – Paladin didn’t write that post (that I think you are referring to) – I did.
The planned parenthood component is easily dealt with in regards to general funding provisions.
In regards to your first statement – the last ten years before health care reform, we saw massive decreases in the amount of people covered, and massive increases in overall costs. Our family alone saw an almost 40% increase over 5 years while raising our per-person deduct. from $500 a person to $3k (and we are a young, healthy family – had to get insurance from the general market because our work pool was so bad those rates were crazy).
While health care reform doesn’t solve everything, i believe it has a lot of good tools in place to reign in costs, and I think it is a huge (and good) think to cover people who weren’t covered previously. As a tax-payer, I’d rather subsidize insurance for somebody who then goes in and gets treated for a small ailment rather than pay for them when they become an emergency room case.
Ex-GOP Voter, sorry for the error. It was your post. We’ve had ObamaCare Lite here in Tennessee, and I can tell you that the promises have not been fulfilled. We already know about the funky accounting that was used to distract people from the truth about ObamaCare. But that’ another subject for another day, so I won’t say anything more about that.
What is relevant to the readers of this blog are the implications ObamaCare will have on abortion. I don’t know how else to say it, but how can you look at the kind of judicial activism we have seen over the past 40 years (including Roe v. Wade) and believe that the judges won’t set the law aside and legislate whatever they want? If government health care becomes a “right,” I don’t know of any legal argument that will prevent the courts from sweeping aside any provisions of the law they deem to be “discriminatory.” That’s what courts do.
Fletcher –
What’s interesting though is that health care is a “right” currently – we just pay for it at the dumbest time possible (when it has gotten so bad that it is really expensive), and one of the strongest arguments out there against health care reform is that we should continue to pay for care when it is the most expensive, and we should fight tooth and nail so those folks don’t pay into the system at all. Blows my mind a bit because the individual mandate seems so much like a platform of the right – individual accountability and personal responsibility. Oh yeah, the mandate was an idea of the right!
You are right on the judicial side of things – judges on both sides are becoming more and more political, which I think we both see as a bit alarming.
Blows my mind a bit because the individual mandate seems so much like a platform of the right – individual accountability and personal responsibility. Oh yeah, the mandate was an idea of the right!
Hi EGV. How’s the littlest one doing? She’s what, about 4 months old now? Hopefully she’s got you wrapped around her little finger :) That said ….
Did conservatives propose that the feds determine which insurance companies may sell policies covered under a mandate? That a partisan political appointee would determine what benefits are covered under a mandated policy? And the premium? And the out of pocket expenses? And where the policy may be purchased? That a citizen would be fined despite having coverage that meets the citizen’s needs just because the policy lacked some of the bells and whistles the feds said it should have? That IRS share information about an individual’s entire household income with an individual’s employer? If that’s what conservatives proposed, I’d like to see a link. Do you have one?
Fletcher, I agree with you about Obamacare. Nice we can agree on something. Another thing about Obamacare is that it shreds Roe’s right to privacy. If a woman has a right to decide on abortion without interference, how is it she can’t purchase health insurance or make other decisions with her doc without government interference?
FedUp –
4 1/2 months – doing very well -starting to roll, which is going to make things interesting!
1994 Consumer choice health security act would be an interesting read for you – I don’t know what hits your qualifications on some of the questions you have – from what I’ve read about that proposed Republican bill, it does set standards for insurance bills (Section B, Part 1) and fines for non-compliance (section 126).
The original article from the Heritage foundation supporting the mandate didn’t go into those types of details – was more from the philosophical side of things – but I think we could probably agree that without teeth, it would make no sense to pass it (so assuming things like a fine would be in place).
Here’s the heritage article. The bill I talked about is an easy find. If you just google the subject though, you’ll find a lot of articles through the years – Romeny of course, Grassley was a bit supporter as well.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1990/07/Using-Tax-Credits-to-Create-an-Affordable-Health-System
Hi EGV. Good to know you have someone to keep you on your toes :)
I’ll check out the link you provided, but I’m thinking I already saw it. Can’t remember, but thanks, I’ll look it over again. If Romney supported it, I’m pretty sure I’m not going to like it!
My point was that what the Dems have mandated in PPACA is not what the Repubs proposed as mandate, so to boil it down to an issue of “mandate” is more talking point than substance IMHO. I’m sure you can find some conservatives who would support a mandate for more affordable, flexible, consumer-focused types of coverage than those required by PPACA.
FedUp –
Not positive quite frankly – basic statement in their article is this: “The second central element-in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commitment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the federal government would agree to make it financially possible, through refund able tax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of 3 Butler and Haislmaier, op. cit 6 medical care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.
You should get used to Romney – I think he’s going to be your guy in 2012!
More evidence the pictures work. This is a message we got immediately after the March for Life, where our Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) was on display.
http://www.fletcherarmstrongblog.com/do-abortion-pictures-work/
At the end of the day all that matters is pleasing God, not man! He is the one who sent His Spirit to convict us of our sins and teach us His truth. He can and will use ALL means to save His precious babies and be Glorified in the process. When some of you say we can only do this or don’t do that, you are putting God in a box, denying His strength and power! He changes hearts and minds, not us! He saves lives, not us! If you don’t like graphics, don’t use them but don’t be critical of others for doing so. Have you ever thought about the bloody image of Christ on the cross? Why do you think God chose to leave us with this image of His precious Son?