March for Life expands direction
With attendance estimated to range between 200,000 to 500,000, the March for Life is the largest annual civil rights event in the world.
For 40 years, founder Nellie Gray, pictured right, dedicated herself to the March for Life. “The last call she made before she died was about the March,” new M4L president Jeanne Monahan told me in an interview. Jeanne was appointed to her position after Nellie passed away in August 2012.
Jeanne and her team are now exploring ways to expand on Nellie’s vision and to capitalize on the innate power M4L holds. With advances online, in texting, and social media, I’ve hoped for the day when M4L would tap into the strength of its vast yearly crowd of mostly young people to promote the sanctity of life in a greater capacity. Jeanne agrees: “We want to make March for Life a year-round thing.”
M4L was founded as a 501(c)3 nonprofit educational organization. Many don’t know Nellie also created a 501(c)4, which can involve itself in politics through lobbying legislation that advances the sanctity of life and also support pro-life candidates.
“The March for Life has always been ‘no exceptions, no compromise,'” said Jeanne. “But very few bills and candidates are that pure. M4L seeks to move both in that direction.”
Seeking to reactivate its political arm, M4L wooed Family Research Council Vice President Tom McClusky, pictured left, earlier this month to head its (c)4 division. His vision?
“I’m basically heading a 40-year-old brand new organization,” Tom told me, since the (c)4 has not been active for a number of years. “But I’m not looking to replace any other organization.”
Tom said he tried to look at what was unique about the M4L, which, of course, is its populace. “But they come to D.C., march, go back home, and then what?” Tom noted.
So Tom wants to create citizen lobbyists – get young people to call their legislators. “Currently neither Senate nor House leadership whips on pro-life issues, but that is going to change,” Tom promised. Tom wants to keep marchers engaged, much as Barack Obama did during his campaigns as well as the Tea Party.
Tom also sees M4L as a relationship builder between pro-life groups. “My role would be to help them on the Hill,” Tom explained.
But M4L is primarily concerned with education. That is its heart. “We want not just to make abortion illegal but also undesirable to any woman or man. We want people to know abortion is never good for anyone – the baby, mom, or dad,” Jeanne explained.
As for the M4L itself, leaders are focusing on outreach to Evangelicals, “because we know the event is mostly Catholic, but most of America isn’t,” said Jeanne. To that end M4L has hired Bethany Goodman, a member of McLean Bible Church, and has also formed an Evangelical task force.
Jeanne, pictured right, would additionally like to use M4L’s platform to encourage adoption as a heroic choice and to spotlight that abortion hurts women. And Jeanne is working to expand M4L’s presence in the media and as an educational organization.
In 2014, M4L organizers will also encourage marchers to post on Facebook and Twitter and work harder to capture email addresses and phone numbers. They will also foster unity by having all the major groups represented on stage during the rally.
“Politics is downstream from culture,” Jeanne summarized. “We want to stand on the shoulders of a giant, Nellie, and work both upstream and downstream to create a culture of life – with no exceptions.”
[Top photo via LifeSiteNews.com]
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.
I think they must be cautious. There is like anywhere else turf battles, and one of the good things about the March is that it has been largely free of major tensions, especially to the average Marcher attending. It has been simply an expression every year of our shared concern for the unborn. I don’t want them to lose that power and diminish the March itself, it’s a powerful tool for inspiring newcomers to the prolife movement. That said, it would be better if many of the Marchers got more engaged in other activities than simply the March!
Go BOLD! There is so much potential for change that can be tapped with the March as the base. Go for it Jeanne!
There’s alot more educational stuff that could go on! Right ON! The major groups should be represented, not just politicians p.o.v.’s get the footsoldiers involved. All the major groups-there’s lots of them, and go Global, while your at it! The tables at the mariott need to be PUSHED BIG TIME–Make sure everyone has a flier with all the major DEETS on them-and everyone goes home happy with a prize baggie-stuff in it that pertains to their area of mission-of course, with appropriate price points so that everyone wins, here. Social events should also be well markedted-this is a hugh party in a way-we are CELEBRATING LIFE not just memorializing those lost, so there’s alot of fun to be had-I have found if you want to get someone’s attention the best way is a winning smile! So what not make it a really good time! More music! more fashion! More art! More, More… More… More… LIFE!!!
I think it’s good that he’s talking about reaching out to evangelicals. A lot of people tend to think everyone that’s against abortion is Catholic, but evangelicals are actually very pro-life as well.
Prolife Logic 101:
http://i.imgur.com/mWhcamg.jpg
Uh Merit,
Pro abortion logic 101:
It was your side that argued that legalizing abortion would mean no more unwanted children, child abuse, poverty, or hunger. We’ve had 40 years of legal abortion so these social problems should be non existent, wouldn’t you agree?
Also, it was your side that howled like banshees that cutting off Medicaid funding of abortion was going to cost the taxpayers bigtime. I recall the argument was that a Medicaid abortion was considerably cheaper than paying for the child of a poor woman.
Proabort Logic 101:
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/13/12/5b/13125b1b8e5eb9f884a3a37a3535cb57.jpg
Then just imagine the mess things would be in if abortion wasn’t available Mary. How many more hungry. How many more women unable to achieve their best. How many unemployed. The levels of child abuse. Impact on the crime rate. It’s almost too much to contemplate!
Reality ~ It really is in everyone’s best interest to: (1) get rid of gram and gramps before 80 years old, or whenever they start to have expensive health costs, be a “burden to family” and have a poor quality of life.
(2) wait til kids reach age 5, determine which ones are smart, talented, have desirable character traits, and/or are not being fed by taxpayers and then off the ones who don’t cut it then.
We just don’t know who is worthy of life in utero – it’s sooooo annoying.
If you want to promote enforced euthanasia and the termination of five year olds you’re on your own LifeJoy.
It’s not just about who may be ‘worthy’ of life, we have no way of telling. It’s about the life circumstances that await as well as the life circumstances of the woman.
Yeah, because a woman’s life circumstances will never change. . . .
Well they do, of course they do. Why would you think otherwise? Women can’t put a pregnancy on hold until life circumstances make it more feasible and/or desirable to have a child though can they.
“If you want to promote enforced euthanasia and the termination of five year olds you’re on your own LifeJoy.”
You know I certainly don’t, but not because I find it any less acceptable than terminating five week olds or five month olds, or …
“It’s not just about who may be ‘worthy’ of life, we have no way of telling. It’s about the life circumstances that await as well as the life circumstances of the woman.”
What “about” it? Certain life circumstances make life not worth living? Much better. Thanks for clarifying.
“It’s not just about who may be ‘worthy’ of life, we have no way of telling.”
See I think that we have no business judging – but not because we just don’t have the proper techniques yet.
“You know I certainly don’t, but not because I find it any less acceptable than terminating five week olds or five month olds, or … ” – yeah, not my cup of tea either.
“What “about” it? Certain life circumstances make life not worth living? Much better. Thanks for clarifying – ” – I would have thought you’d already know that.
“See I think that we have no business judging – but not because we just don’t have the proper techniques yet. – ” – judging is not required.
Well, the irony of well- fare tales of pro_ choicer come to the fact that they ignore that humanity do not depend of economics, economics depend of humanity. the cave-men was financially broken.
the saddest of this mess is that some value more their money than their lives. I truly look for a social divorce. where the liberals (anarchist) are left to live by themselves.
Is a matter of biology, at the end we win. while you prevent you own peers to reproduce we don’t. we have pro-life generations to come.
Don’t feed the trolls.
OK :-)
Mary and Praxedes I appreciate your reasoning but its lost on ‘merit” and tmeister. Both have shown here that whatever argument they can use to diminish the value of human life, they will. “merit” and tmeister lost humanity long ago…
Mary says:
August 26, 2013 at 9:59 pm
Uh Merit,Pro abortion logic 101:It was your side that argued that legalizing abortion would mean no more unwanted children, child abuse, poverty, or hunger. We’ve had 40 years of legal abortion so these social problems should be non existent, wouldn’t you agree?
(Denise) I used to correspond with a woman named Renee Nicely — in prison for beating to death her 3-year-old son, Shawn Nicely. This beating took place the day after his mother had an abortion. Coincidence? The prosecution wanted the death penalty. The jury was swayed by the defense argument that this woman’s mind was unhinged by her abortion so she was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Carla doesn’t like it when I belabor the same points but I said it before and I’ll say it again: It is possible Shawn Nicely would be alive today had his mother not aborted.
Amen, LifeJoy. Killing fetuses to solve societal issues is so ineffective. Killing 5-year-olds is a MUCH better way to help women achieve their educational dreams, prevent hunger, lower unemployment, etc. Keep the kids who are smart enough to contribute to society and off the rest. Humanely, of course.
Anyone who objects to this plan doesn’t care about women and the suffering of children. Any pro-choicer who objects because 5-year-olds are born and therefore “real people” is using circular reasoning.
Indeed, SM! And for Reality’s sake, we could also ask the 5 year olds if their “life circumstances” make them want to go on living. Even the smart kids could opt out if they weren’t happy.
California Senate passes bill to allow nurses to perform abortions:
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/27/california-senate-approves-bill-allowing-nurses-to-do-abortions/
Without saying anything against abortion (note Carla), I’d like to point out a similar but different possibility. Mothers who are likely to have great difficulty raising their children may be taken into the homes of affluent couples and “mentored” in caring for the baby. They could also be helped in other respects such as financially and in avoiding future pregnancies. Becoming part of a larger family and being “mentored” may meet the needs for companionship and affection so the mother will have less desire for a romantic/sexual relationship. (Note again, Carla: nothing about chaperoned dating.)
I heard that too Merit,
Must be there just aren’t physicians willing to perform abortions. Now why do you suppose that is?
Mary, they probably don’t want to be shot.
But here’s some other positive news:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/kan-abortion-clinic-counters-ad-ban-petition-20086737
“Killing fetuses to solve societal issues is so ineffective. Killing 5-year-olds is a MUCH better way to help women achieve their educational dreams, prevent hunger, lower unemployment, etc.” – I strongly disagree but would be interested in knowing what brought you to such a conclusion.
“Anyone who objects to this plan doesn’t care about women and the suffering of children.” – it’s a bit late after 5 years!
“Any pro-choicer who objects because 5-year-olds are born and therefore “real people” is using circular reasoning.” – circular reasoning? What an odd thing to say. It’s based on science.
Gee, I guess Merit’s going to find that Time article a little too optimistic for her taste.
You know, a lot of people become police officers or joined the armed services and we all know that they get shot at a whole lot more frequently than abortion docs. In fact, statistically abortion docs are pretty safe. Their little bitty victims? Not so much.
Now, we don’t condone violence against adults anymore than we’d condone it against children. Who condones violence against children? Oh yes, reality and merit. Because last time I checked, a tiny human isn’t given a 30 day eviction notice with time to pack his tiny little bag. Last time I checked, evicting a PERSON from his first home is a very violent and bloody event.
Merit,
The physicians don’t want to get shot. LOL. The non physicians do?
Doesn’t address the question Merit.
BTW, I have known plenty of docs who will pay lip service to abortion, even pay to have a mistress discreetly aborted, but do it themselves? Never. Legal or not, the abortionist is still looked down on in the medical community. Tolerated, but looked down on. Its sort of like the drug dealer. Sure, one can enjoy a little coke or pot on occasion, but do I consider those lowlife drug dealers as morally equal to me? You can’t be serious.
@ Jill Stanek: You should be wary of the entire idea of “expanding direction.” You wrote a previous blog entitled “Don’t Water Down the March for Life.” It was triggered by a flyer in which people were called to march again “the death penalty,” “euthanasia,” and human trafficking. As a death penalty supporter, that flyer very much offended you. In addition, it hardly seems necessary to march against “human trafficking” which is opposed by just about everyone.
“Expanding” could be seen as similar to “watering down.” As I’ve pointed out, “life” issues could not only include the death penalty but a very wide variety of things quite unrelated to abortion: smoking, alcohol abuse, distracted driving, obesity, and the list could be endless.
Denise, the expanding direction M4L has in mind remains focused on abortion.
Denisenoe,
No need to type my name in all of your comments.
Yes, Mary. Many nurses are more energetic about being prochoice.
BTW, will this site have a correction to the Texas legislature story about the jars of feces and urine?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/27/texas-department-of-public-safety-troopers-documents-feces-urine-jars-abortion/2706037/
Merit,
That’s not what I asked you. I asked if they don’t mind getting shot since you claim that’s why doctors quit doing abortions.
Just postulating in response to your question Mary.
I think it may be likely that most nurses who would conduct abortions would be female.
Currently, most abortion doctors are male.
The extremists who tend towards violent acts against abortion doctors usually hold extremist viewpoints in a number of areas, including being sexist. Therefore they are less likely to perpetrate violence against women than men.
Why is marriage in trouble? Because it’s no longer really needed. The original reasons for its foundation are a shadow of their former selves. We’ve seen how in some states people marry young because of things such as abstinence programs and subsequently experience high rates of divorce. Divorce also used to be more difficult and expensive to obtain. Then there was the fact that if a woman left a marriage she would likely becaome all but destitute because of factors such as wage differentials and the general social ignominy.
Reality,
Postulating indeed. So how do you explain male and female doctors and medical personnel who work in combat zones and some of our nation’s ERs, which are combat zones? Also, as a nurse who worked on a floor that was used to hospitalize the state’s most violent criminals, I can assure you deranged and violent people are not sensitive to gender.
What is it that you are asking me to explain? Combat zones and even ER’s are quite different situations and scenarios for medical personnel to work in than an abortion clinic.
Violent criminals in the environment of which you speak operate in a much different way than rogue individuals who decide to shoot an abortion doctor or bomb a clinic.
The main difference is that specific individuals are being targeted.
Reality,
LOL. You are indeed correct, combat zones and some of our nation’s ERs are quite different situations and scenarios for medical personnel to work than an abortion clinic. The working situations in the combat zones and ERs are considerably more dangerous.
Please Reality, your argument is ridiculous. Whether you are specifically targeted or not, you are no less dead.
You appear to have completely missed the point Mary.
In regard to the scenarios you described, the protagonist is an inherent part of the environment.
Not so with abortion doctors and clinics.
I still proffer that –
“I think it may be likely that most nurses who would conduct abortions would be female.
Currently, most abortion doctors are male.
The extremists who tend towards violent acts against abortion doctors usually hold extremist viewpoints in a number of areas, including being sexist. Therefore they are less likely to perpetrate violence against women than men.”
and you haven’t provided anything to negate this.
denisenoe
Just because you type my name doesn’t mean I won’t delete it.
Please stop talking to me.
Reality,
Your argument continues to be ridiculous. End of discussion.
ROFLMBO :-)
Is that it? Seriously? You can’t negate what I postulated so you frown, tut, shake your head and walk away. Why not address the points I originally made?
In a combat zone, people attack whoever is in front of them. They don’t know who they are and they don’t target one specific individual.
In an ER ‘combat zone’ they lash out at whoever is in front of them.
Same thing with violent criminals in a hospital situation.
The targeting of abortion doctors and clinic buildings is a significantly different scenario. I also note that the predominantly female nurses who work assisting the abortion doctors are not generally targeted even though, in the eyes of anti-choicers, they are just as culpible.
I would be quite happy for you to dispute that it is likely that most abortion nurses would be females.
I would be happy for you to dispute that most abortion doctors are male.
And I would be happy for you to dispute what I have said about the extremist’s thinking.
Reality,
Quit while you are ahead, by that I mean before you look and sound even more ridiculous.
Lol I love feminists. First, violence against women is a sign of sexism. I can dig that. But now, if there ISN’T equal violence against women than it’s sexist!
Look Reality, people target males more than females for death always. In every demographic except for domestic violence men are murdered at much higher rates than women are (I’m speaking of developed nations here). This isn’t something that is confined to the random anti-abortion activist who goes nuts and kills an abortion doctor.
Oh I forgot, other than domestic violence, female babies in China and India are also targeted disproportionately. But for adults, and especially in the US and Europe, most murder victims are male.
Will we have reached true equality when women are murdered at the same rate men are? Lol. That’s a fine goal.
Well you can’t say I haven’t given you a fair chance. But it is of course, your choice.
So you agree Jack, that male abortion doctors are much more likely to be targeted than female nurses? And that some sort of ‘sexism’ may have something to do with it?
I think it might be better to say that we will have reached true equality when men are murdered at the same rate as women. That would hopefully indicate less murders overall.
Yes. If we stop socializing males to see violence as an acceptable way to deal with each other, our overall murder rate would be pretty dramatically lower (the way we deal with the drug trade would also change this). And if we could get the problem of domestic violence under control, the female murder rate would drop to nearly nothing (most murders of women are domestic, females comprise 2/3 of domestic violence murder victims).
I do agree it’s sexism, against both genders. But I don’t agree that crazies who claim to be pro-life while they murder people are more likely to hold those views. You can see from the murder stats that these disparities between the gender of murder victims are systemic.
The crazies who claim to be pro-life while they murder people often (inappropriately) cite biblical references Jack. I tend to think that this sort of thinking and interpretation would cause them to seek out male targets rather than female, given the position that some extreme elements alot women.
So you think it’s a religious sexism type thing? How do you explain countries that are much less religious than the US having the same disparity between genders of murder victims? Seems far more like a human issue than a religious issue.
No Jack, I’m not blaming religion for it. I’m blaming someone’s twisted interpretation of it. The same one which tells them it’s ok to target abortion doctors and clinics. It’s not a religious issue per se, it’s what some crazies use as their ‘reasoning’.
Reality, so what you’re saying is that male doctors are targeted because their attackers are too sexist to mow down a female nurse? I must say, that’s the most bizarre thing you’ve said on this thread. The fact that female “fly in” abortion doctors do all they can to remain anonymous, and that a female ex-Planned Parenthood director receives death threats from male abortion opponents four years after she became pro-life seem to contradict this. It’s far more likely that they go after doctors instead of nurses because they directly perform the deed (rather than merely assisting it) and because they’re a lot more difficult to replace.
Of course, it’s hard to know for sure when the sample size is so small.
@ Jack: What is considered old-fashioned “masculinity” may be necessary for the protection of women and children. The majority of women survived the Titanic and the majority of men died — because of a rule made by men for women.
In war, you sometimes need infantry combat — which can only be done by men.
Sometimes the socialization of men into protectors misfires and makes them aggressors against the very people we want them to protect. The problem is that a society may not be able to socialize a boy into a George Patton, a Dwight Eisenhower, a Colin Powell without inadvertently socializing another boy to become a Richard Speck, a Ted Bundy, or a John Gotti.
I wrote “without saying anything against abortion” when I meant to write “without saying anything against adoption.” Very young and impoverished mothers probably can’t raise babies without EXTENSIVE help. Thus, responsibility for a baby may have to be spread around a bit. There are ways to do this without severing the link that was biologically formed between mother and child.
Those who support adoption may want to get busy and ensure that the “open-ness” of an adoption is legally enforceable. Birthmothers have complained that many adoptive parents promise an open adoption only to close it up.
Pro-life extremists (those that commit violence against abortion providers) do not discriminate in the way that tmeister argues here. The gender of the abortion provider is mostly incidental to the targeted “clinic.” But Navi is correct that there are more male abortionist “doctors” in the “industry” than female.
But here’s the good news: it has long been a fact that the states with the most active pro-life laws have seen the biggest abortion declines…
Denise, I don’t agree that women’s lives are more important than men’s. Generally people who CAN protect others should regardless of external characteristics. I don’t think “protect women and children” should be the goal. It should be “protect everyone who needs protecting, regardless of gender or age.” Biological reality may dictate that it’s usually going to be an adult male protecting an adult female or child, but the goal shouldn’t be that women and children are somehow more deserving of life than anyone else.
That way of thinking also has the side effect of infantilizing and holding women back from living their lives as they choose.
Oh, and it was 100% unnecessary for so many men to die on the Titanic. There was room on the lifeboats for more than they took. They could have saved all the women and children and still been able to save some more of the men. It’s not really brave at all, it’s just tragic.
Thank you for your response to the points I actually postulated (not asserted) Navi.
What is actually bizarre is the reasoning provided by those who perpetrate, threaten or incite violence against abortion doctors and clinics. From pieces I have read of what they’ve had to say I would conjecture that in some cases at least they may be more likely to attack the male partner of a female abortion doctor because ‘he allowed her to do this’. I ponder this because of the extremely deranged thinking these people display.
Since female “fly in” abortion doctors do all that they can to remain anonymous, do you think those who may expose their identity are culpible if the doctor is attacked by some crazy for conducting a legal activity?
But yes, you are right, the sample size is too small to draw a definitive conclusion.
I don’t, Reality. If Jones exposes the fact that Smith’s wife is cheating on him (a legal activity that she’s presumably tried very hard to keep secret), he’s not automatically culpable if Smith goes crazy and resorts to violence (even though that sometimes does happen).
Would you identify a gay person to a mob of violent homophobes?
Or to couch the question in a better way, do you think someone who points out a gay person to a violent mob of homophobes bears any culpibility if the gay person is attacked?
Someone that deliberately outs a gay person to a mob of violent homophobes could bear culpability (as an accessory to said crime). But that would be comparable only to a pro-lifer that directly reveals the identity of a fly-in abortionist to the Army of God (not one that reveals it on a public website). More on the mark would be outing a teacher as a NAMbLA member, or outing politicians (with anti-gay records) as homosexual in a documentary (a highly controversial practice, but not one that makes you culpable).
So you think it’s ok to expose people undertaking legal activities to the crazies in some circumstances but not others?
Do the Army of God not have internet access?
No, I just don’t equate informing the public (or a subset of the public) of a person’s legal activities with directly exposing said person to “the crazies”. The former is ok in some circumstances. The latter is illegal and wrong.
Sure, the Army of God have internet access. They also have access to fuel stations and hardware stores if they want to make Molotov cocktails or nail bombs. Running a public store where potential bomb materials are sold is acceptable in some circumstances. Deliberately selling them to someone you know wants to build an improvised explosive device is not.
“No, I just don’t equate informing the public (or a subset of the public) of a person’s legal activities with directly exposing said person to “the crazies”.” – seriously? The ‘la la la’ approach then.
“The former is ok in some circumstances.” – how do you differentiate?
“Sure, the Army of God have internet access…..Deliberately selling them to someone you know wants to build an improvised explosive device is not.” – do you see the comparative link? Your mixed message? You think it’s not ok to knowingly arm crazies but it’s ok to knowingly provide the target.
I find it ‘interesting’ that you would consider someone culpible for identifying a gay person directly to a group of violent homophobes but not culpible for identifying an abortion doctor despite knowing that the Army of God would find out.
Therefore, placing a photo, description and the whereabouts of a gay person on the wall of a bar where violent homophobes gather wouldn’t indicate any culpibility?
seriously? The ‘la la la’ approach then.
Call it what you like, though I think calling it the approach a court of law would take is more apt. The fact is that you cannot be charged unless you have actual knowledge of the crime and know that your actions are aiding it (or, at very least, believe it probable that you’re rendering aid to a person that intends to commit a crime even if the crime is never actually committed). Publicly releasing information (that wouldn’t normally be illegal) is not enough, even if a criminal somewhere might benefit from and use such information. If you publish something, you are not responsible for everything anyone does with it.
how do you differentiate?
That’s not an easy question to answer. Most in the gay community would object to outing a sensitive university student but would be divided on outing dead people, public figures, or hypocrites. Directly revealing information to someone that wants to commit a crime is also illegal. What is relevant is that it’s not always wrong to inform the public (or a subset of the public) of a person’s legal activities against their will. The examples of the cheating spouse and the NAMbLA member illustrate this.
do you see the comparative link? Your mixed message? You think it’s not ok to knowingly arm crazies but it’s ok to knowingly provide the target.
No. My point is that a legal activity like revealing that someone performs abortions to the general public (even if the Army of God eventually obtains this information) is not equivalent to knowingly providing a target to the Army of God. The same way a legal activity like selling potentially hazardous materials to the general public (even if it eventually results in a domestic terrorist obtaining them) is not equivalent to knowingly arming violent criminals. There’s no contradiction.
Therefore, placing a photo, description and the whereabouts of a gay person on the wall of a bar where violent homophobes gather wouldn’t indicate any culpibility?
From a criminal standpoint, I’m not convinced they would be culpable. What would you charge such an individual with, and what legal precedent would you cite? The only possibility I can see would be publicly disclosing private facts (which is irrelevant to the abortionist case, both because sexual orientation is more intimate and personal than how one offers medical services, and because an individual’s sexual orientation is much less relevant to the public interest).
“My point is that a legal activity like revealing that someone performs abortions to the general public (even if the Army of God eventually obtains this information) is not equivalent to knowingly providing a target to the Army of God.” – unbelievable!