Tag Archives: Justice for All

My new role at Susan B. Anthony List

SBA-20_logoOriginally posted June 23, 2015

Dear faithful readers of JillStanek.com:

First, the exciting news: I am honored to have accepted a position at Susan B. Anthony List as its National Campaign Chair! Read more at WorldNetDaily.com. Also read SBA’s press release and a a blurb in Politico’s Pulse.

I have been a long-time admirer of Marjorie Dannenfelser and the SBA List team, many of whom are friends. I partnered with the group during the 2012 election cycle for a bus tour exposing Barack Obama’s abortion/infanticide extremism.

This is a new position, for which I will travel the country on behalf of SBA List, speaking to pro-life activists, donors, and voters to promote SBA List’s aggressive campaign strategy to elect a pro-life president in 2016 and advance the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

This will be a permanent position. After the 2016 election there will be the need to conduct another national pro-life political campaign… and another… and another.

But of immediate importance to me, as you know, is passage of the Pain-Capable Act, because as an RN I witnessed the excruciating deaths of 20+ week abortion survivors who would have been saved had a 20-week abortion ban been in place.

Electing a pro-life president is the gateway to enacting this legislation into law. And, of course, a president also wields a tremendous amount of influence in other areas of importance to pro-lifers, such as funding abortion groups and the pro-death agenda, judicial nominations, and other pro-life/abortion legislation.

I witnessed firsthand how devastating pro-abortion legislators can be when I watched then-state Senator Barack Obama vote four times against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act and take a leadership role in seeing its defeat.

Now, the sad news. Because my position at SBA List will be full-time, I have made the difficult decision to grind almost all activities at JillStanek.com to a halt, after 10 years of blogging here. I will basically be keeping the blog open now for archival purposes, posting my own blogs very infrequently.

After this week we will be streamlining my blog to just those postings, which will also be published at Live Action News. This means no more quotes of the day, pro-life videos of the day, pro-life blog buzz, or pro-life news briefs. Also, there will be no more commenting. All comments will be directed to my Facebook page.

2009-06-04-MSNBC-StanekIt has been a great run. After all, were it not for my blog I would never have been named “Worst Person in the World” by Keith Olbermann!

That goofiness aside, we broke many stories of importance here, including information on late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart’s victims in 2013.

But times online have changed. The timing of all this is good – and God’s.

In the beginning (10 years online are like dog years), pro-lifers had to check several blog and web sources a day to get all the news they needed. Now, in combination with social media, Live Action News, LifeNews.com, LifeSiteNews.com, and StanekReport.com capture everything we need to know. And there are now many great pro-life writers.

11297838_10153274799331622_1900318693_nSpeaking of StanekReport.com, it will soon become HarmsReport.com. Pro-lifer Monte Harms has been the strongest contributor to SR.com behind the scenes and will be ably taking the helm. (Thanks also to Carole, Susie, and Josh for their help with SR.com.)

Monte has a rich pro-life background, having volunteered for Justice for All and Protest ABQ and done sidewalk counseling at abortion mills. He has also run the blogs Stand for Life and Pro-Life New Mexico.

And what about Kelli, our site’s glue? I’m happy to report she will begin working for Live Action News next week, doing much of the same work she did here. This blog would not have been held together were it not for Kelli, who has poured herself into it for over six years.

Kelli is but one dear friend I have made here. I can’t begin to name all the wonderful moderators and volunteers who have dedicated themselves on this blog, although I must highlight some special people who were here from the beginning, or nearly the beginning – Bethany, Carla, LauraLoo, and MK.

Special thanks to Carder, Hans, and Susie, who have steadfastly posted great stuff here, so helpful to our cause. And I’d also like to thank our current mods: Del, Sydney, and last but not least Bobby Bambino, who has also been a mod since we began having mods!

But most of all, I want to thank YOU, pro-life readers and activists, for your support of this blog but moreso the sanctity of life.

Prayers appreciated!

For Life Together,


“Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate analysis, Part VI: Christians and the legislative process

by Clinton Wilcox of Life Training Institute

It is an honor to be able to contribute to Jill’s frankly devastating critique of T. Russell Hunter’s performance in his “Immediatist vs Incrementalist debate against Gregg Cunningham.

churchandstatesignsLate in the debate (timestamps 1:05:10 to 1:07:04), Hunter made the following claim: Christians are not practicing activism at abortion clinics because they don’t trust in the power of God, they trust in incremental legislation.

During cross-examination  (timestamps 1:41:32 to 1:44:56), Hunter made the same accusation, adding pastors and churches, and asked if Cunningham agreed.

Cunningham rebutted that while he agreed churches aren’t doing enough to combat abortion, it is not the fault of incremental legislation. Incremental legislation is a good thing.

Rather, Cunningham observed:

  • Pastors are not being trained properly in pro-life apologetics, and they are not speaking about abortion to their parishioners.
  • Pastors can be afraid of losing members, so they don’t want to engage in any sort of “offensive” speech from the pulpit.
  • Christians, by and large, are not leaving the pews to engage in pro-life activism.

Not to be outdone, Hunter wrote the following as a comment on Jill’s post:

As for specific bills and laws, we do believe that cultural change is necessary to their passage and are focused on doing what we can to “get the votes,” as our anti-abolitionist pro-life opponents always tell us “are not there.” But do look for specific practical actionable bills of abolition to start appearing in 2016.

In other words, legislation is actually fine, as long as it’s AHA’s brand of legislation. And somehow Hunter’s brand will not lull Christians into complacency?

The bigger problem, though, as has been pointed out before, is all bills are necessarily incremental, as would be any bill AHA proposes. If, for instance, you pass a personhood amendment in Texas, all you have to do is go to New Mexico, “…and then you can kill the baby.”

Hunter had an answer for that in another comment on Jill’s blog:

Do I need to explain the difference? Do you see that the statewide abolition bill that bans abortion because it is the murder of human beings is different than a state Not banning abortion and not bringing humans under the protection of law but hexing a certain procedure in which they could be killed?

Of course people would drive to another state to get an abortion but that is because in their state abortion had been abolished as murder.

However, AHA opposes incremental legislation to close abortion clinics because “Shutting down clinics doesn’t halt abortion; it just makes people who choose to sacrifice their children drive further.”

Overt contradictions aside, Hunter is nevertheless playing semantics. If we must oppose all bills that could end with “…and then you can kill the baby,” we must, of necessity, oppose any personhood amendment that doesn’t abolish abortion in the United States as a whole.

morgentalerBut then you run into further problems, because then you could just cross the border to Canada, “…and then you can kill the baby.”

Hunter’s brand of “immediatism” should be rejected because one cannot consistently live as an immediatist as Hunter understands it. All bills we can logically support are incremental in nature; personhood bills are simply the only kind Hunter is happy with.

During the debate Hunter knocked Christian involvement in legislative endeavors as distractive from real work to stop abortion.

So, should Christians be involved in the political process?

Absolutely, if we believe in effecting change for the better. In fact, as brilliant theologian Wayne Grudem pointed out, there have been many times in Jewish history when they gave counsel to ungodly rulers, such as when Daniel counseled King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4, and when Joseph advised Pharaoh in Genesis. Please read the linked article for a more in-depth discussion of Christians being involved in the political process.

It’s true many Christians can use the political process as an excuse not to engage in activism, but this isn’t a problem with the legislative process. This is a problem with education in our churches, and apathy among church-goers.

We should continue to support incremental legislation because that’s the only way we’ll affect change in our current political atmosphere.

Pro-life people want the immediate end to abortion. Incremental legislation is our strategic method for getting there. Planned Parenthood knows this. Pro-choice writers like Katha Pollitt know this (it plays a major theme in her recent book Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights). The only people who don’t seem to get that are the self-proclaimed “abolitionists.”

Clinton Wilcox is a staff apologist for Life Training Institute. He specializes in training pro-life people to make the pro-life case more effectively and persuasively. He is also a certified speaker and mentor for Justice for All. He keeps a personal blog, and you can also follow him on Twitter.

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
Part V: Sacrificing children to the idol of abolitionism
Scott Klusendorf: Debate between Gregg Cunningham and T. Russell Hunter
Jonathan Van Maren: Four observations from the Cunningham vs. Hunter debate

Puppies and sheets: Going great lengths to hide the reality of abortion

Click all images to enlarge.


Abortion proponents have been known to try to censor pro-lifers from showing the reality of abortion depicted in photos of the victims. 

But there has been a recent surge.

It’s interesting to me that showing abortion victim imagery generates so much negative energy from the other side. What’s the problem with owning what they support?

On March 4 abortion proponents “erected a wall of censorship” around a Justice For All display at the University of Georgia according to The Daily Caller:

To prevent members of the campus community from actually seeing the images, students from two pro-choice groups – the Women’s Studies Student Organization and Sexual Health Advocacy Group – stood around the display holding up sheets.

They also held vulgar signs, so becoming.


To be clear, the pro-abortion effort was not simply to counter one expression of free speech with another view. It was to suppress the other’s view. Their rationale? Again quoting The Daily Caller:

Danielle Duncan, one of the pro-choice activists, said the pro-life display constituted “hate speech,” because it could trigger negative emotions to people who saw it.

If this is how hate speech is defined, then there is pretty much no such thing as acceptable speech. But the First Amendment wasn’t written to protect speech everyone agrees with. That sort of speech needs no protection. It was written to protect speech people might disagree with, find offensive.

At any rate, it’s hateful to show what they support? Do they realize how ridiculous and hypocritical they are?

normanAt Norman High School in Norman, Oklahoma, abortion zealots took a different tactic, mockery, when faced with abortion victim imagery displayed by Abolish Human Abortion’s Project Frontlines. According to okcfox.com, February 28:

“Talk to your family, not these yahoos!”

“Know your audience!”

“May the fetus you save be gay!”

These signs of protest aren’t for the passersby at Norman High School. They’re signs protesting the protestors right across the street….

“It’s ridiculous, they shouldn’t be doing this at a school,” said Ryan Steinmeyer, a Senior at Norman High. “If they want to voice their First Amendment rights, I am too. And my First Amendment protects that.”

Steinmeyer says his fellow students are trying to run them off and confuse them with satire.  The message he chose is simple.

“I want everyone to know that the Star Trek sequel wasn’t really that great!”

Others are following suit.  One student held up a sign stating he misses the TV show Firefly.  Another student held up a sign stating he needed a dollar for a bus ticket.

Actually, showing the reality of abortion is perfectly suited for a high school, because high school students get abortions. They should know who they’re aborting. It’s called education.

At Paschal High School in Ft. Worth, Texas, pro-choicers took yet a different tack to oppose the display of abortion victim photos by Project Frontline. According to the Star-Telegram on February 28:

Iris Hayes, a 17-year-old Paschal senior, stood nearby Thursday with a poster bearing images of puppies.

“I don’t agree with the posters,” she said.

She and two Texas Christian University students stood next to anti-abortion activist James Lewis, 25, with their own signs showing both kittens and puppies. They said they brought out pleasant images to make their point: They said they don’t believe a high school campus is the appropriate place for graphic images of abortions.


“Iris,” an interesting name for someone who doesn’t want others to use theirs. And accompanied by two students for a Christian university? Shame on these abortion enablers. Do they also oppose the crucifix? It’s graphic, too.

And countering abortion with puppies? How utterly offensive and degrading to these poor dismembered children.

School officials appear to respect constitutional rights:

[W]rites principal Terri Mossige in a Feb. 26 letter to the Paschal High School community… “As United States citizens, we have the chance to see our rights in action every day. Paschal High School is a microcosm of our society and is not exempt from these situations. However, we can take positive steps to mitigate the distractions and discomfort that might result from these experiences.”

Students who said they were bothered by the exhibitions were referred to school counselors or intervention specialists, Mossige said.

I’m always blown away by the blindness that can be so offended by photos of abortion victims and those who show them, and recognize the photos are so disturbing as to potentially require counseling after viewing, but yet not be  horrified by the atrocity being committed against helpless, innocent babies in the photos.

[Top photo via thefire.org; second photo via georgiatipsheet.com; third photo via okcfox.com; bottom photo via star-telegram.com]

Pro-life news brief 3-6-14

by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

  • A woman seeking to replace Alabama State Rep. Alvin Holmes responded to his comments in which he said white people would encourage abortion if their daughters were impregnated by black men:

    “He said that being pro life was for white people, that’s not true. Pro life is loving babies whether they’re inside the womb or outside of the womb. Whether you’re black or white – it doesn’t have a color,” said Tijuanna Adetunji.

  • An accidental break room fire at Martin Haskell’s Indianapolis abortion clinic caused $30,000 worth of damage. While all patients had left, five clinics staffers were there at the time.


[Photo via Red & Black]

Jivin J’s Life Links 10-6-11

web grab.jpgby JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

  • Here’s some horrid humor from the Abortioneers blog as Desembarazarme discusses how she joked about the possibility of aborting her friend’s planned pregnancy:

    Her pregnancy was incredibly planned, and I knew it was in the works. When she disclosed her expectant status, I screamed and hugged her, and she told me, “I’m scared. I’m not sure I’m 100% happy.” And I hugged her again and made a bad joke about how she has until the third trimester to change her mind (she smiled), and I told her I understand, because I do.I guess if your job is helping to kill unborn human beings, you’d find it funny to joke about the possibility of aborting your friend’s child.

Continue reading

Jivin J’s Life Links 11-24-10

web grab.jpgby JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

Continue reading

Huge pro-abort counter protest of six

The Rocky Mountain Collegian optimistically reported “about 200” pro-abort students were anticipated to greet Justice for All when it brought its graphic abortion photo display to Colorado State University on Tuesday.

This after Campus Feminist Alliance president Lexy Hall bragged Monday afternoon she had garnered “127 confirmed attendees, 99 maybes and 491 awaiting responses,” via Facebook.

Hall assured Silveira her group would stand pro-abort guard against the 18-foot-tall photos of mutilated preborn babies “from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.”

Then came the morning and The Rocky Mountain Collegian’s follow-up report:

Continue reading

Jivin J’s Life Links 10-5-10

web grab.jpgby JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

  • The National Post has information about students who were arrested at Carleton University in Ottawa for attempting to display graphic photos of aborted children:4 of the students are members of Carleton Lifeline and a 5th is a supporter from another campus. Ottawa police took them into custody and charged them with trespassing yesterday after they attempted to erect the display on the school’s Tory Quad.

    “The students feel they were turned down simply because their opinions are unpopular,” said Albertos Polizogopoulos, the lawyer representing the students. “They believe the university has acted outside of their own policies. Those policies include students not to be not discriminated against, academic freedom, free exchange of ideas on campus. This is not a case of pro-life versus pro-choice; this is a free speech issue.”

Continue reading