Tag Archives: Facebook

House to vote on 20-wk abortion ban TODAY – 2nd anniversary of Gosnell conviction

Baby Boy BThe photo, right, is a close-up of the nape of the neck of a 28-week old baby boy whose spinal cord was “snipped” to kill him by late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell after the baby survived his abortion.

Today marks the two-year anniversary Gosnell was convicted for first degree murder of three babies – of likely thousands killed at his Philadelphia clinic over the course of decades. Gosnell was also convicted for involuntary manslaughter in the agonized death of Karnamaya Mongar by anesthesia overdose during her 2nd-trimester abortion.

Today is also the day the U.S. House will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which will ban abortions of babies after 20 weeks because it is known they feel excruciating pain when dismembered to death.

I will be present in the House Gallery to view this vote.

It was over the 20-week abortion ban that I was arrested on March 25, following first the decision by Republican House leadership to renege on a promised vote on January 22, the 42nd anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, and then to go silent for two months, after promising to quickly bring it back.

After all the angst, I will say this, however. The bill today is much stronger than it was on January 22, as I briefly explained last week.

There are several new born-alive protections, an issue near to my heart, as well as other important enhancements. Read bullet points on the revisions in this one-page document of bullet points.

I want to highlight a couple of the provisions.

barack_obamaOne, that a second physician be present in the event a live birth is anticipated, is exactly what then-state Senator Barack Obama opposed in 2002, expressing “confidence” (pages 28-35) in the abortionist to properly provide medical care to the baby who just survived his or her first assassination attempt.

Another, what one of my friends on the Hill calls the “call-the-cops-or-wear-the-cuffs” provision, makes it a federal crime if a hospital or clinic employee, or another doctor, doesn’t report an abortionist’s failure to provide medical care to abortion survivors.

Social Media Rally!

Floor action on the 20-week abortion ban is expected to begin between 4-7p EST, although watch tweets by Congressman Trent Franks (@RepTrentFranks) for fine-tuning on the time.

Meanwhile, a social media rally has been launched to set the narrative and counteract pro-abortion opposition. Hashtags are: 1) #theyfeelpain, 2) #HR36, and 3) #prolife.

  1. RT and share @RepTrentFranks’ tweets.
  2. Create your own tweets in defense and support of HR 36 (see www.paincapable.com or NRLC’s Facebook events page for tweet samples). The more tweets the merrier!
  3. RT and/or Favorite other tweets from supporters of #HR36/#theyfeelpain.
  4. Write your own social media post

Thanks in advance. This is an important bill. At least 18,000 babies a year will be saved when it is eventually signed into law, and Americans will be further educated in the meantime.

As SBA List’s Marjorie Dannenfelser writes at Red State, there is no difference between the murders that Gosnell committed and late-term abortions than a few inches.

“Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate analysis, Part V: Sacrificing children to the idol of abolitionism

Abolish Human Abortion leader Don Cooper wrote on Facebook two days ago:

I am an abolitionist. I am calling for the immediate abolition of human abortion. And anyone who opposes the immediate abolition of abortion I consider an enemy of God, an enemy of my neighbor, and enemy of me.

11178259_10153138428041832_1619056870529681235_nThat’s a noble thought but certainly not earth-shattering. There’s no pro-lifer in the world who “opposes the immediate abolition of abortion.”

Yet, do not be confused. When those calling themselves “immediatists” call for the “immediate” abolition of abortion, they don’t really mean immediate. When pro-lifers challenge them to stop talking and just do it already, they mock us for advancing the Straw Man of Overnightism (right).

AHA co-founder T. Russell Hunter hedged his bets during the April 25 “Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate against Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham, stating the tree of abortion must be hacked with an ax “over and over and over, no matter how long it takes” – a signal for patience.

Except there is one tiny people group for whom patience in this instance is not a virtue – it’s deadly.

big-redwood-postcard (1)In a comment to my Part II post, Hunter wrote to “think of the abortion tree as more like Redwood,” the world’s biggest tree.

In a comment to my Prologue post, Hunter reiterated, “As I said in the debate, Immediatism has to do with what we are calling for and focusing on, it does not have to do with what we do on a daily basis or how long it takes for us to achieve abolition.”

In yet another comment Hunter wrote, “Immediatism often produces incremental results….” What in the world?

And so we return to my “freaked out obsession,” those preborn children caught in that unknown span of time between now and “no matter how long it takes” to abolish abortion.

During the debate Hunter persistently tried to evade Cunningham’s questions about those particular babies, since Hunter and AHA oppose incremental legislation that is proven to save them, even though Hunter admitted three times (I actually found a fourth, at 1:26:11 in the video) he knows such legislation works.

In another comment to my Prologue post Hunter admitted it again, writing: “Sorry Jill, I never say that the numbers saved ‘don’t matter,’ I only say that you guys are being deceived (and deceiving others) into believing that reducing the numbers leads to abolition…”

So, “reducing the numbers” (“numbers” being Hunter’s inhuman term for children) of those slaughtered by abortion doesn’t necessarily equate to abolishing abortion, in Hunter’s opinion, even though for those kids abortion was obviously abolished.

Hunter’s opinion is grossly uninformed, I might add, since Hunter admitted during the debate (at 1:35:26) he hadn’t read the foremost statistical study listing specific “numbers” saved by incremental legislation. So how does he know?

1970609_10203352839766237_395429064_nIt appears the only AHA-sanctioned way to pull children from the branches of abortion during the time between wanting the “immediate abolition of human abortion” and actually abolishing it is protesting at abortion clinics, as Hunter wrote in another comment:

Abolitionists are going into the fields to save as many as we can and change as many minds as we can while we call for the total and immediate abolition of human abortion. We go out to the killing fields to rescue children because we are not just sitting at home and supporting the incremental schemes of politicians and lobbyists who write laws specifying which of the children in the field must be protected now and which in the field must be protected later.

Nice to “call for the total and immediate abolition of human abortion,” but what’s the plan? How many of the 738 remaining abortion clinics in the U.S. (from a high of 2,176, no thanks to AHA) does AHA cover on a daily basis? One? Two? Five?

It would be great if there were fewer to cover, right? No. AHA fights regulations to close those clinics, even though Hunter admitted in the debate (at 1:27:56) he didn’t think William Wilberforce was immoral to regulate slave ships for the same reason.

AHA also fights legislation that would keep pregnant mothers from going to abortion mills in the first place, such as informed consent, parental notification, waiting periods, and abortion bans.

It’s crazy. But what’s crazier is this: Hunter launched his fight against pro-life incrementalism with no immediate and functional plan of his own in place to replace the plan he was seeking to destroy.  Hunter posted this on his Facebook page yesterday, infuriating me even more. Click to enlarge…


So Hunter knew when he launched AHA in 2011 immediatism would take “a long time,” and there would be “a long period in which it was impracticable.” But he had no safety net prepared for the children from whom he would go on to rashly attempt to remove protections. He had no immediate and workable plan in place to save the children he was pulling the rug out from under.

To this day, four years later, AHA has no cohesive, wide-ranging plan to save these kids.

Did Hunter “think it through”? Clearly not.

All one can conclude is Hunter would prefer that these children die rather than be saved in a way in which he disapproves.

And mock those standing in a gap he is too small to stand in…

Confession: In some things, I am incrementalist. Posted by T. Russell Hunter on Tuesday, 5 May 2015

It’s all just so funny, isn’t it?

Steve at the Triablogue blog nailed it yesterday:

It’s risky for AHA to level the charge of “methodological moral relativism,” for that’s apt to boomerang. AHA mortgages the lives of babies here and now in the hopes of saving every baby’s life in the future – except for all the babies they sacrifice in the interim in the furtherance of their long-range goal. What’s that if not ruthlessly “pragmatic” and methodologically “relativistic”?

Read previous posts:

Part I: Let babies die today, we can save the rest later
Part II: There’s only one way to cut down a tree?
Part III: Social justice history vs TR Hunter
Part IV: Straw men and the Bible
Scott Klusendorf: Debate between Gregg Cunningham and T. Russell Hunter
Jonathan Van Maren: Four observations from the Cunningham vs. Hunter debate

“Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate analysis, Part IV: Straw men and the Bible

1010893_636469939752357_1169770429_nAbolish Human Abortion followers love to use the term “straw man” to dismiss pro-life arguments that point out their inconsistencies.

(For example, during their recent “Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate, AHA’s T. Russell Hunter called it a “very, very silly straw man” when Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham challenged Hunter for saying he would let a secularist save the life of his 2-year-old but not let a secularist help him save the lives of children marked for abortion [beginning at 1:20:20 on the video].)

So today let’s talk about straw men.

Repeatedly throughout the debate, Hunter blamed incrementalists for the fact that abortion has remained legal in the U.S. for 43 years, and this because we don’t have enough faith in God. Excerpted from his closing argument (1:53:39-1:59:47), italicized/underlined emphases mine for points to make afterward:

The Word of God is clear on at least this point. When there are grave injustices and evils going on in your midst, you ought to, because you love your neighbor, do justice and show mercy.

My big beef – my big problem- with the incrementalism is that people, instead of trusting in the Word of God and coming together as the bride of Christ and bringing the Gospel into conflict with the evil of the age, and doing what we are commanded to do, instead of being like Jonah to Nineveh, we go and we say, “What do the laws say? What can I get within the current federal ruling?”…

The debate between immediatism and incrementalism, when it’s couched in the, “which should we rally around, which should we come together,” if all Christians had to say, I’m going to go all my funding all my energy, my time, my talent, my church, which project should the people of God do? You may call it binary. Should we all pick up the ax and lay it to the trunk of the tree over and over and over, no matter how long it takes…. Should we do that – should that be what we unify around – or should we continue to say that’s good, I like that, but I’m gonna work on cutting down these branches….

My contention is that the people of God are under a false delusion that incrementalism is what they ought to be paying attention to. They ought to be unifying….

I don’t find incrementalism in the Bible. I don’t find incrementalism in the historical record of fighting social justice, except for that it is as a tutor to tell us don’t play around with it….

It’s just a question of like, do you believe in that God?…

If we can get people to believe in Him and trust in Him we can abolish abortion. But if we can’t get people to believe in Him and trust in Him we will not abolish abortion.

chewing-gumThe emphasized sections highlight three flaws – straw men, if you will – in Hunter’s logic.

False premise

First, Hunter sets up a false premise, claiming we must choose between immediatism and incrementalism.

But Hunter is the only one “couching” it as an either/or. As Cunningham repeatedly rebutted, Hunter’s assumption is flawed and binary. Incrementalists pursue both strategies. We can walk and chew gum. Hunter apparently can’t.

Let babies stuck in the branches die

Second, Hunter glosses over the babies he is callously willing to sacrifice while focusing on chopping down the abortion tree with his ax, “no matter how long it takes.” Russell repeatedly refuses to stop and own the span of time between when immediatists began axing and when the tree falls. How exactly do we “show mercy” to our neighbors caught in the branches of abortion while ignoring them to hack at the tree “over and over and over, no matter how long it takes“?

Blame incrementalists when immediatism fails

Third, Hunter says we only need faith to stop abortion, but apparently the faith of he and his band isn’t strong enough. If they fail, it’s our fault. International Coalition of Abolitionist Societies reiterated their convenient escape hatch/scapegoat in a recent Facebook post:


In other words, there’s a Goliath II blocking AHA from getting to Goliath I.

Scott Klusendorf of Life Training Institute responded to that logic fail in his article analyzing the debate:

Hunter never once said how his policy of immediatism plays out in the real world. How, exactly, does it work to insist on the immediate abolition of abortion? Got the votes for that? Here is where Hunter’s argument is truly self-sealing. He states that if only all incrementalists would become immediatists, we could take the ax to the root and win.

So there you have it. When you can’t explain how your strategy actually works in the real world, you just fault your opponents for your failure to execute. This reminds me of faith healers who blame the victim for “not having enough faith” when he doesn’t immediately recover from a systemic illness….

… Hunter’s reply was that pro-life incrementalists don’t trust the power of the risen Lord and thus don’t embrace immediatism. But wait. If Hunter truly believes the power of the risen Lord enables us to end abortion immediately, why wait for us? Doesn’t that same power enable small groups as well as large ones?

If so, stop blaming the pro-life movement for not joining your immediatist crusade. After all, the gospel proclamation began with just twelve men, accompanied by signs and wonders, proclaiming the power of the risen Jesus in the very city where he was crucified in the face of hostility far worse than Hunter faces today.

Hunter also stated, “I don’t find incrementalism in the Bible.” If so, it’s only because he doesn’t want to. Cunningham gave but three examples (2:00:12-2:02:16), as summarized by Klusendorf:

First, Paul (1 Cor. 3) works incrementally to convey hard truths to weak brothers in the faith. He gives them milk instead of solid food. He revealed God’s law to them incrementally so they could digest it. Second, Jesus (Mark 10:4) says that God instructed Moses to relax the law on marriage because the people were not ready for tough divorce codes just then. Gradually, however, Christ toughens those laws. Jesus said this! Third, when Peter asked about paying the temple tax, Jesus compromised and paid lest he offend weaker Jews. Jesus was skillfully picking his fights!

Klusendorf added:

Commenting on the debate, Dr. Marc Newman, professor of rhetoric at Regent University and well-known debate coach, writes:

Look at Acts 17, with Paul on Mars Hill. He preaches a sermon during which he, quite interestingly, doesn’t cite a single scripture, but does invoke the local religion, philosophers, and poets. At the end, some scoff, some convert, and others say that they want to hear more on this subject.

Similarly, God in his foreknowledge and omnipotence, could convert all of the elect in the womb, but he does not. C.S. Lewis came to Christ incrementally: from an atheist, to a mythologist, to a theist, to a Christian – and this road has been traveled by many others.

God saves people in much the same way that incrementalists save children. God makes it clear that it is His desire that all be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-4), and that He takes no delight in the destruction of the wicked (Ez. 33:11). Nevertheless, we all come, one at a time. This one gets saved, then that one.

Imagine if the apostles waited until they crafted a strategy that resulted in the salvation of everyone before they actually began evangelizing? The Church would have been strangled in its cradle. No. The Apostle Paul says that he works separately among the cultures in all ways that don’t require him to compromise the core of the faith, becomes all things to all men, that by all means, he might saves some – not all, some (1 Cor. 9:19-23). Paul even declares that he will live as one under the law, even though he is not under the law, if by doing so he can save some. If Paul was an incrementalist, count me in.

In short, if Paul and the other apostles didn’t immediately end the social ills of their day by applying the power of the risen Christ, what makes Hunter think he can do so today?

Actually, as he stated during the debate and elsewhere, Hunter doesn’t believe “immediatism” means “immediate,” the topic of my next post.

Also read:

Part I: Let babies die today, we can save the rest later
Part II: There’s only one way to cut down a tree?
Part III: Social justice history vs TR Hunter
Scott Klusendorf: Debate between Gregg Cunningham and T. Russell Hunter
Jonathan Van Maren: Four observations from the Cunningham vs. Hunter debate

AHA’s dangerous foray into cyberbullying

Screen Shot 2015-03-09 at 3.23.21 PM

I’m writing today about the latest development in the Abolish Human Abortion saga, because I’m concerned someone may end up dead if this doesn’t stop.

Everyone who spends time online has heard the term “cyberbullying.” Defined, it is:

… bullying that takes place using electronic technology. Electronic technology includes devices and equipment such as cell phones, computers, and tablets as well as communication tools including social media sites, text messages, chat, and websites.

Examples of cyberbullying include mean text messages or emails, rumors sent by email or posted on social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles.

Particularly note, “rumors… posted on social networking sites.”

Background first.

AHA’s communicative forté is social media, particularly Facebook, stemming from the fact it grew to prominence online.

Pro-lifers who have heard of AHA will say the group is known for attacking both the pro-life movement and the Catholic Church. (Interestingly, AHA has scrubbed several of its most flagrant attacks at the links provided.)

AHA may dispute these as its claim to fame, although it freely admits it seeks to “clash.”

I’ll not get into AHA’s problems with the Catholic Church other than to say it shuns the papal structure, which I think plays into the current situation.

Screen Shot 2015-03-09 at 4.27.03 PMAs for the plm, AHA’s foremost complain is against its strategy to incrementally overturn abortion. AHA advocates “immediatism” and rejects any pro-life law with any exception whatsoever.

So, for instance, even if the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act had no rape/incest exception, AHA would oppose it because it only protects babies 20 weeks and older.

To be clear, the default position of the plm is immediatism, but given the fact that abortion is legal in the United States throughout all nine months of pregnancy, together with the judiciary and political climate, and we are at this point saving who we can when we can. This strategy is comparable to that undertaken by the Underground Railroad or Nazi resistors like Corrie ten Boom, Oskar Schindler, and Irena Sendler.

If you take AHA’s immediatism to its logical conclusion, it can only support a worldwide ban against abortion, IVF, and hormonal contraception. All other laws are incremental.

I gave that background to get to this.

In recent weeks, some AHA members have begun turning against fellow members and publicly outing many perceived sins and unrepentant sinners on Facebook. This includes accusing one person of having a mental illness. This includes posting a secretly recorded phone conversation. Some of the “evidence” was received secondhand or even thirdhand.

Seems to me this is the natural flow of AHA’s legalism, now turning inward against its own people, although those making the accusations will say they are following Jesus’ mandate in Matthew 18 to try to turn fellow Christians from sin.1369195772_Nibblefest-Contest-ACEO-The-Scarlet-Letter

One difference is, of course, when Jesus said to “tell it to the church” after all private appeals had failed, He didn’t mean to tell it to millions of people on Facebook, both inside and outside the Church, which is how AHAers have been doing it.

In recent days, two of those “called to repentance” on Facebook were involved in a vehicle accident.

Their van was totalled, although thankfully neither they nor their children were hurt.

About this the AHA administrator who had publicly rebuked them responded, “wonder if it is divine discipline a wake up call to them.”

Screen Shot 2015-03-09 at 2.10.47 PMThis is simply a heinous response.

The other problem is AHA leaders aren’t cleaning their own house by condemning these cyber witch hunters – who are posting on an AHA Facebook page or in their capacity as AHA members or administrators.

Those claiming not to be in charge say they can’t do anything because there is no hierarchal structure to AHA – because the Pope.

AHA leader Don Cooper brought up the Pope a couple times to explain why there is no one in authority to stop AHA inquisitioners in his YouTube video, “Open Rebuke on Facebook: Right or Wrong?,” in which he would not answer that question, by the way.

Screen Shot 2015-03-09 at 3.35.14 PMThis denial of responsibility has become increasingly ludicrous, particularly since AHA now has many chapters, or “societies,” around the country and even in Australia, has trademarked its logo, has incorporated (in which “principals” had to be legally be named, see left) as the International Coalition of Abolitionist Societies, Inc., and has a for-profit “small business” side venture called The Basileian Group, through which it sells its wares.

In fact, it is opening the door to anarchy to deny anyone is in charge of a group.

Such as concept may work in hippy communes but not in real life, though Cooper tries (beginning at 18:56):

If indeed it was wrong what this person did in, you know, rebuking this person on Facebook, then that needs to be proven, that needs to be argued out, that needs to be, “Let’s show in the Scriptures where that’s wrong, or let’s show that the person” – you can’t just say it’s wrong, and you need to apologize for it. That’s not how it works.

Now if we were like a cult, if we were like an organization that was run by one person or maybe like this small board of people, then you could do that. The Pope of the organization could say, “Ah, you broke our rules you’re out of here. Ah, I declare that’s wrong. There’s no discussion, no debate. You can’t try and defend yourself. This is wrong, because I as the leader have decreed it wrong, and so be it. I interpret the Scriptures to say you are wrong, and that’s that. Now let’s move on.”

If the abolitionist movement or Abolish Human Abortion was that kind of entity, then that would work, right? But it’s not. The abolitionist movement is a body of believers, people who in – there’s no hierarchy of organization to say this person’s in charge except for Jesus Christ.

This is so mixed up. To even wonder whether posting a one-sided tome itemizing another person’s perceived sins on Facebook is right or wrong – is WRONG. That’s just WRONG, Don.

Some of those accusations were highly personal and embarrassing, dare I say earth-shattering to some, and the Internet never forgets. Google a person’s name, and AHA accusations pop up? (Will someone sue?)

Then to create a straw man, in this case the Pope, to rationalize why leaders of an organization can’t censure behavior that might go so far as to send a weak or unstable person over the bend to harm him or herself is also WRONG, Don.

So if AHA leadership can’t come out and say it, I will: STOP with the Facebook witch hunts before someone gets hurt, or worse.

BREAKING: Pro-lifers announce sit-in at Speaker Boehner’s office to #FreeTheBan


On March 25 it will have been just over TWO MONTHS since Republican House leaders reneged on their promise to vote on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act on January 22, when hundreds of thousands were participating in the March for Life.

If GOP leaders thought we might forget, they were mistaken. More than enough time has passed for them to right their wrong.

Today, I joined pro-life activists Rev. Pat Mahoney and Troy Newman in announcing a peaceful protest and sit-in at Speaker John Boehner’s office on March 25 at 11 a.m.

11047060_10206487690176768_1543167714_n (1)On that day there will be a pro-life social media effort called #FreeTheBan to compel GOP House leaders to pass this measure, which has overwhelming support among the American people across all demographics, as shown in this HuffPo poll.

Republican House leaders were roundly criticized for ineptly pulling the ban, such as in the Washington Post. 

Politico predicted re-election troubles ahead for those who blocked the ban, including Reps. Renee Ellmers, Jackie Walorski, and Charlie Dent. Even bill co-sponsor Marsha Blackburn has been identified as a potential culprit.

All pro-life activists in the Washington, D.C., area are urged to attend this important event. Those who do not wish to risk arrest are encouraged to offer support by their presence and prayers.

Sign up to join the event and show your support at our Facebook event page, where you can also learn more and get questions answered.

Pro-lifers not in the D.C. area are asked to plan to set aside time that day to cause a stir on Facebook and Twitter.

Read more at this Christian Examiner piece.

Pro-lifers are saying ENOUGH ALREADY. Pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act!

Read my previous posts on the topic:

“GOP’s Abortion Barbie causes a meltdown – of more than just the GOP”

“It has been two weeks since GOP leaders torpedoed the 20-week abortion ban, and I’m madder than ever”

GOP’s Abortion Barbie exploits pro-life millennials for photo op

Click to enlarge…


On February 3, a group of Millennials with Students for Life of America paid a second visit to the Washington, D.C., office of Congresswoman Renee Ellmers.

Ellmers calls herself pro-life but infamously torpedoed a vote on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act two weeks ago, a bill that would protect babies 20 weeks and older from abortion.

I was with SFLA the first time its students visited Ellmers’ office on January 22. The student group has been particularly keen to speak with Ellmers, since one of her reasons for opposing a vote on the 20-week ban is that it might turn off young people. According to National Journal:

In a closed-door open-mic session of House Republicans, Rep. Renee Ellmers… [said] she believes the bill will cost the party support among millennials, according to several sources in the room.

“I have urged leadership to reconsider bringing it up next week.… We got into trouble last year, and I think we need to be careful again; we need to be smart about how we’re moving forward,” Ellmers said in an interview. “The first vote we take, or the second vote, or the fifth vote, shouldn’t be on an issue where we know that millennials—social issues just aren’t as important [to them].”

Had Ellmers bothered to attend the March for Life, she would have seen a throng of 500,000 pro-lifers comprised largely of Millennials. There’s also a Knights of Columbus poll, a National Journal poll specifically on a 20-week ban, and even research by the pro-abortion group NARAL – all corroborating Millennial opposition to abortion.

SFLA wanted to speak with Ellmers about her misunderstanding of Millennials and to express disappointment in her sabotage of the 20-week ban, as described here:

At her door, we were eventually greeted by a representative who directed us to a Legislative Assistant, Kristi Thompson.  She instructed us out into the hallway probably because our students would have crowded the office.  Our students patiently took turns sharing their concerns about the Pain Capable bill being delayed in January….

Kristi listened intently, thanking us for our comments.  After about 10 minutes of discussion we began to wrap things up when the Congresswoman herself approached her office.  It seemed she had just come in from outside since she was wearing her coat and carrying a coffee cup.  Congresswoman Ellmers appeared happy to see us and invited us to share our concerns again with her personally. However, when we tried to videotape our conversation, Kristi insisted we not use video, only photos.

As I wrote in a previous blog post, Ellmers apparently thought she was walking into a student photo up and got stuck.

unnamed (2)

So Ellmers turned around and created her own self-serving photo op.

Michele Hendrickson, Capital Area Regional Coordinator for SFLA, described the scene:

The staff person caught our students off guard and was like – hey, let’s pose for a photo! We did not ask for it. The students obviously didn’t realize what she was doing, and it didn’t feel like my place to tell them whether or not to get a picture with her. I felt pressured to be in the picture, but I politely excused myself from it.

As you can see in the Facebook post above, Congresswoman Ellmers was happy pose with some of the very Millennials she said don’t care about abortion, going so far as to exploit SFLA’s name for misleading political gain. As SFLA responded in a Facebook comment:

We weren’t there for a photo op. We wanted to ask Congresswoman Ellmers why she was using millennials as a scapegoat to note vote on the 20 week abortion ban.

The right thing for Ellmers to do is answer SFLA’s question, then see to it that the 20-week abortion ban gets a vote SOON, contacting all the people she lobbied to oppose it and tell them she was wrong.

Either that, or remove the photo, Congresswoman Ellmers.

Abortion proponents in uproar over pro-life handcuff mailer


The abortion lobby has taken note of Pro-Life Action League’s mailer project and doesn’t like it.

On January 22, the 42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision, the League sent a mailer to every abortion clinic in the U.S.

Inside was a pair of plastic handcuffs, a photo of Oklahoma City abortionist Naresh Patel being arrested last month, and a note asking, “Could you be next?”


The note encouraged abortion workers to get out of the business for their own good and included PLAL’s Eric Scheidler’s personal cell phone number.

The list of abortionists and workers who have been arrested in the past four decades since abortion was been legal and supposedly moved off the back alley is as long as the reasons: extortion, tax evasion, sex abuse, drug abuse, illegally prescribing and selling drugs, murder, negligence, on and on. criminality.

And it makes sense. Those in the business of killing babies for a living have already demonstrated rather gaping character flaws. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude they’ll commit other crimes.

But abortion proponents are up in arms. Quoting Planned Parenthood executive VP Dawn Laguens from a Cosmopolitan article devoted to the mailer:

“I think it reads like what it is: intimidation and harassment and a very implied threat,” she said. Abortion opponents “want to outlaw abortion and put women and doctors in jail. I think they’re sending about as clear a message as they can that that’s exactly what they want to do.”

How PLAL’s mailer could be construed as a threat to lock up women is a stretch, but Cosmo wasn’t alone. Kudos to BreitbartUnmasked.com for adding an illustration for flourish….


leftinalabama.com saw menace in the mailer as well, also accusing PLAL of supporting China’s one-child policy by buying Chinese-manufactured handcuffs – really.

I asked Scheidler, why all the attention? It’s not as if pro-life activists haven’t done similar mailings before.

“One reason is they think it makes us look like we’re trying to intimidate someone,” said Scheidler. “But if you think about it for more than a second – toy handcuffs and a signed letter including a personal cell number – a threat of what? If you’re committing crimes and I know about it, then I am going to turn you into the police; that’s not a threat.”

10390410_870043059709307_1527616349872351724_n (1)Eric noted the League gets pro-abortion counterparts – mailers with red coat hangers on them.

“We just laugh,” said Scheidler.

But PLAL’s mailer also hit close to home.

“I think they have a guilty conscience,” noted Scheidler. “Arrests like that of Naresh Patel put them in such a bad light. It exposes them for who they are. It has been really surprising to have two abortion providers actually call me as a result of the mailer – a pro-life activist – to try to justify what they’re doing.”

One, Anise Burrell from Summit Medical Center in Detroit, argued with Scheidler on the phone for 10 minutes.

“She kept repeating, ‘This is an ugly cruel world’ she was sparing children from being born into,” said Scheidler.

Abortion industry types know mailers such as PLAL’s may have the intended impact and prompt abortionists and workers to walk away. Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards tried to mitigate the damage in a tweet…

Scheidler has indeed received calls and texts from workers wanting out.

But there is a flip side.

“I’ve received countless crank calls and crank texts,” noted Scheidler, adding someone complained to Facebook about him yesterday, which led to his account being suspended for three hours.

Then there are real the real harassers.

Plus-size supermodel clarifies why she didn’t abort

downloadIf you really think that my sole consideration for whether I should bring a life into this world was based on how my body would look afterwards, then I am sorry for your lack of logical reasoning skills.

~ Plus-size supermodel Robyn Lawley, clarifying on Facebook her reasoning for carrying her surprise pregnancy to term. In a December 4 Cosmopolitan article, Lawley appeared to say she considered aborting out of concerns for her career and that her body wouldn’t “bounce back.”