There are many things pro-lifers can do to help stem the tide of our abortion holocaust. Many creative ideas have already been utilised, and we can always use some more. Just as various means and methods were employed by the abolitions to help turn the tide of public opinion on slavery, so too here, we need to use every available strategy and option possible.
One important component in all this is dispelling the myth that the mother is simply carrying a blob of tissues or a clump of cells. If most women actually knew about the developing new life in their womb, they might have a rethink about killing the baby.
Thus different tactics are being used in various places to help ensure that women are really given all their choices, and in fact have real informed consent. In the US there are now a number of states which have passed ultrasound laws. These laws compel women seeking an abortion to first look at an ultrasound of the baby in their own womb.
Virginia has been the latest state to pass such a law. One article discusses this as follows: “Jonathan Falwell, senior pastor at Thomas Road Baptist Church, applauds a new Virginia law that requires pregnant women to view an abdominal ultrasound image of their unborn baby before undergoing an abortion procedure.” He said this:
“Yesterday, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell signed into law a state bill that would require pregnant women to view an abdominal ultrasound image of their unborn baby before undergoing an abortion procedure. The purpose of the bill is information, giving women the ability to have a firsthand look at the fetal image of their baby before making such a fateful decision.
“I believe this is important legislation because some women, once they see the image of the baby in their womb, will choose to give the baby life. And that is always a cause for celebration. This bill (HB 462) notes that ‘at its heart’ is ‘a woman’s right to know medically relevant information before making a life-altering decision.’ Advocates for the statute say the ultrasound image gives a woman the ‘right to know’ about her unborn child’s development.
“Medical technology gives us a wonderful ability to illustrate to women the life that is growing within them, and I believe this bill wisely compels them to have an understanding of that life. I think it truly should be the right of women to have a keen awareness of their baby’s physicality before making such a critical, life-altering decision.”
Cal Thomas discusses this here: “The debate in Virginia and elsewhere over ultrasound legislation should include the voices of women who favor ultrasound laws. The media speak of ‘women’ as a monolithic group who consistently subscribe to the liberal-secular line. But there are many women – I have met a few – whose voices are rarely, if ever, heard. These women either decided to give birth after seeing an ultrasound image, or regretted having had an abortion and would testify that if they had seen an ultrasound image before the procedure they would have made a different choice. Does not seeing an ultrasound image change the reality of abortion?
“There are several websites featuring testimonies from some of these pro-ultrasound women. One is: http://www.projectultrasound.org/testimonies.html.
“Why would anyone want to deprive women of the joy they experience after seeing a picture of their baby and deciding to preserve their baby’s life? Why would anyone not want to protect these women from the pain many have experienced from not seeing a picture and going forward with the abortion, only to later regret it?”
A very similar sort of action which is proving to be real effective is a small pro-life group in Texas led by 23-year-old David Pomerantz. He brings the ultrasound to where the action is at: just outside an abortion clinic. His van has all that is needed for women to see what they are really aborting.
One write-up about this story says this: “He hails from Philadelphia, but he was attending Word of Life, a two-year Bible institute in New York, when he met Chris Slattery and Julie Beyel of EMC (Expectant Mother Care), a Manhattan pregnancy resource center. He was astonished to find that EMC had formulated a ‘new model’ for approaching women outside abortion clinics.
“EMC had a bus equipped with a sonogram machine. By approaching women outside the clinic with the offer of free help, with no mention of a pro-life ideology, they were able to see a staggering success rate. In fact, by their estimate, about 70% of women who got on the bus for a sonogram decided not to abort. In one day, they saw nine women decide on life for their children.
“They did some simple math, and realized that if this success continued, 15 to 25 women a week, or about 800 a year, would choose life. Excited by the possibilities inherent in this new approach, Dave contacted his friend and mentor Joe Baker, who flew in from Philly to see the results firsthand. Equally impressed, the two began to ferment the idea that would become Save the Storks.
“Dave was already planning on attending Southwestern Theological Seminary in Dallas, so he headed down south. With Joe Baker developing the art and marketing, and the generous help of Dallas-based organization Get Involved for Life and other private donors to bring to life a sleeker, smaller, more mobile ultrasound vehicle, they were off and running.
“Save the Storks was born. Or, if you prefer, flown in through the window. ‘We don’t want to intimidate anyone. We don’t want to force anyone. We just want to serve’.”
The article continues, “The Save the Storks bus is slick, recognizable, welcoming, and – horror of horrors – it sits in between a mother and the abortion clinic doors. With a simple offer of no-strings-attached help – ‘Would you like a free ultrasound?’ – and a bright, comforting image, it appeals to the desperate woman before she reaches the clinic.
“She is not confronted. She is offered help. And while I firmly believe that virtually all sidewalk counselors and activists outside clinic are there for no other reason than to help women, the Storks are able to present help first. That is the key. The average clinic sidewalk approach is, of necessity, ‘Please don’t kill your baby. Here’s why. And here’s help.’ Because they have their awesome bus, Save the Storks are able to say, ‘Here’s help. Now please don’t kill your baby. Here’s why.’
“Because they don’t have to lead with agenda, there are no warning bells for a desperate and defensive mother. There is only a friendly face. This new model will absolutely revolutionize the front lines of pro-life activism. What is the battle cry of the pro-abortion movement? ‘Choice!’ It is their mantra. What do you constantly hear from abortion advocates? ‘These desperate women feel like they are out of options.’
“Right here, on four wheels, parked in front of the clinic, is another choice – one they might not even know they have. Inside that bus is an image of their baby waiting to be seen. Connected to that bus is a support system – in short, options. Dave and the team have high hopes, and they should. The approach is breathtakingly simple and, if early tests are any indication, profoundly effective.”
Now that is a creative and winsome approach. I am not saying it is the only one, nor am I saying it should replace previous methods. It is just one more helpful idea and tactic in the fight for life. And it seems to be working. May its tent increase.
The only way abortion can be eliminated is by creating incentives to do otherwise. I personally find the suggestion that women with unwanted pregnancies can sell the parental rights to willing parents to be the best idea that might end abortion.
Lee Herridge
If it saves babies from being murdered, it’s a good law.
Marcus Anderson
Bill, you know I deeply respect your contributions to the pro-life fight and everything else you do to wage the culture wars against immorality.
But I want to suggest something — a perspective — maybe you haven’t considered before.
Ultrasounds are powerful, and the Stork Bus is a great way of making them available to women who might change their mind. Pro-lifers should use them as much as they are able…. just without compelling it by law.
When we compel women to meet a condition before having an abortion, we’re reinforcing the idea that she has a right to make that choice. Rather than simply offering a moral alternative, we accidentally and unintentionally participate in the fiction that it’s government’s role to decide which innocent humans can be killed — meet this condition, so that you can see for yourself this is a human being, and then if you choose to kill that innocent human being, that’s your right.
We may not believe in that right, we may not agree that it’s a right, and it may be perfectly true that in a de facto sense the government considers it a right. But if pro-lifers regulate abortion we are unintentionally acceding to the fiction of it being a right, and I think we thereby lose ground in convincing others that it shouldn’t be a right.
Ed Hanks, US
What a fantastic idea! Thanks Bill for this article. Hoping that it will be able to be implemented in Australia.
Alison Stanley
Thanks Ed
Yes I do understand your point, and it is an important part of our overall thinking and deliberating on this fight. But there are nuances here, and differing perspectives as you say. Of course abortion should not be a right, and we should be working to end that “right”. But in the meantime, what are effective tactics along the way? As Marcus says, if lives are being saved, that is a very important consideration as well.
The debate is similar to the big arguments of the pro-life movement over other sorts of tactics and strategies in the past. For example, when I and others have argued at times for a piecemeal approach, eg., working on stopping late-term abortion for starters, other pro-lifers have attacked us saying we should oppose all abortions. They see it as an all or nothing situation, and suggest that to focus on just one area is somehow to be guilty of compromise. Again, eliminating all abortion is our aim, but realism also states that if we can stop some abortions now, while working to stop all abortions eventually, that is also a morally good thing. If we cannot save all babies now, is it not at least a good thing in the meantime to save some?
So there are in fact some shades of grey here, and pro-lifers always will agree to disagree on what are the best strategies and tactics, the most efficient ones, the most moral ones, etc. So here we can argue about whether it is best for these laws to simply have ultrasounds on offer, or whether they mandate that they be utilised, or whether such laws are in principle wrong altogether.
So it is not a case of my having not thought about these things. I and others – like yourself – have thought long and hard about such things, and we need each other to help refine our thinking, maintain conceptual clarity, and sort out the various ethical dilemmas, as we work at making abortion history. So thanks for your thoughts. I am more than happy to hear others on this as well. None of us have all the answers. None of us have all the perfect wisdom on this. So differences will continue to arise as we seek to work together to end this evil. Thanks again brother.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Hi Bill, this is the first time I’d heard of ‘save the storks’ and I am excited by it’s effectiveness and potential in saving lifes. I think ‘save the storks’ is approaching this issue in exactly the right way. However, I’m with Ed that a pre abortion ultrasound should not be regulated. As well as the issues spoken of by Ed above I don’t think it would do much good anyway. I can just see some pro abortion doctors saying to women ‘If you don’t want to see that clump of cells growing in your body, just sign here to say you have seen it so we can get on with the procedure’ or something to that effect. I do however believe, that women should be able to request at any time a free ultrasound before having an abortion. That way we’re not making it a requirement to have an ultrasound before having an abortion thereby confirming that right to have an abortion. We are simply creating a new right, the right for women to see the baby they are about to murder.
Luke Beliks
Thank you, Bill! And of course I haven’t considered this in a vacuum either — we’ve been watching these laws in action for a while here in the US. There are many who argue exactly as you have — the short term gains of regulation even as we work to end the whole evil.
The question which must be asked is this: Do we, by seeking short term gains by what means are immediately available, actually undermine our long-term goal of ending all abortions? Most pro-lifers will quickly say no. But many of us who have observed the situation carefully — and I’m a political communicator, so it’s my job to understand how people think and why — are coming to think that regulations accede to the status quo in a way that nip around the edges, saving some babies, but on the whole helps the other side convince citizens that abortion is, in fact, a right, and that only a “reasonable” medium must be met.
So the question is whether we, in fact, are creating resistance to total victory at the same time as we “progress” incrementally.
Another question is whether “abortion-ultrasound laws” harden the hearts of women — “Yeah, yeah, I’ll look at your silly image. I know it’s a child, but I also know I have the right to kill him, so get out of my way.”
Lastly, I’ve proposed a “principled incremental” approach, which to my knowledge has never been tried, but which also, in my opinion, avoids the ethical questions while accomplishing the same results as more typical versions of “abortion-ultrasound” — why not require ALL pregnant women to be provided an ultrasound as part of their treatment, regardless of whether they’re seeking an abortion or not? That way the same anti-abortion effects are achieved without legitimizing abortion in any way — on paper, the law has nothing to do with an “abortion right”. A similar approach could be used for regulating all clinics where “invasive medical procedures” are performed.
So it’s not really a matter of “all-or-nothing” as it’s often characterized. It’s a deep concern among many that pro-lifers not seem to legitimize the status quo while at the same time meaning to work against it.
Ed Hanks, US
Thanks Ed
As I say, we all can learn from each other here. None of us have all the answers. None of us have the one and only perfect solution to ending abortion. None of us have a monopoly on the truth about the right tactics and strategies. So we must work together, showing grace to each other, and seeking to stay humble as we think and act through all this together.
And of course not only are these debates far from new, but they in fact have been rehearsed time and time again in other contexts. The same sort of discussions – and at times heated arguments, if not major fights – over how best to end slavery of course occurred a few centuries ago. Learning from the lessons of history is also a helpful part of our way forward here. Thanks again for your thoughts.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Focus on the Family (US) had (and may still have) a program that raises money to purchase Ultrasound machines for this express purpose. They have had the same results as mentioned in the article – the overwhelming majority of woman who view their babies are reluctant to then proceed with the abortion. Focus put out a powerful short video on a young mum who chose life after viewing her babies (yes, she was carrying twins which the Ultrasound revealed). She gave birth and adopted the two beautiful boys to a loving couple who now raise them as their own (and she has involvement with the young boys). Very moving and an example of a ‘win.’
To consider the alternative is unconscionable (2 destroyed lives, a couple who remain childless, and a woman left to suffer emotional and psychological pain [which at least anecdotally seems to be the case]).
Another thing – SBS ran a production on abortion and studied the lives of 6 women (I think it was 6). Simply allowed them to dialog about their experiences – no religious angle, just raw discussion. Of the 6 women, 1 had no regrets. The other 5 shared their considerable pain (grief, guilt, haunted thoughts) and to me was a massive indictment against the claim of the pro-choicers of a ‘simple, harmless, non-invasive’ procedure.
I, too, appreciate Ed’s comments. We chaff against the laws until they are altered. In the meantime, we work at every turn and in every way (regardless of how small) to circumvent the evil – and that in no way fails to endorse the truth of the way things should be, but becomes another building block for change. We are in this cultural mess through a series of small changes and so we can employ the same strategy. Challenge and convert the culture whatever the means…
Peter Jackel
Thanks Peter
Yes, whatever means to save some. But of course we should also be discerning, realising that some means may be better than others, more effective than others, more moral than others, or may in fact be more or less counterproductive in the long run. Again, all this comes down to questions of strategies and tactics. And there is some room to move on all this. What might work well in one place may not work so well in another, eg.
And I believe it is not a question of either-or (regulation, or convince the conscience of a nation, as in personhood arguments to the public). Slavery of course was stopped by regulation – but it was also stopped by a major campaign to educate people about the personhood of blacks. Thus it was a case of both-and, not either-or. It seems the both-and approach is needed here as well.
Again, we have been there and done that – the abolition movement went through very similar debates about strategies and tactics several centuries ago. For example, some wanted a more incremental approach, while others demanded 100% abolition, with no exceptions. The truth is, there were aspects of their abolition campaign which were incremental as well. Consider just the way legislation was presented and passed. Recall that the Abolition Act was passed in 1807, while the Emancipation Bill only came about in 1833. So slavery was not ended overnight. It took quite a while, and to some extent it was a piecemeal, incremental process. So we need to learn from history here as well.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I have just come from a peaceful pavement protest this morning actually. The ultrasound van sounds like a great idea, as long as it is permitted! Some tight restrictions here in Perth … at one clinic, apparently, signs with pictures of developing babies are not permitted! I wonder why?!
Anyway, I have noticed that there doesn’t seem to be any atheists or satanists standing outside the clinics protesting (but don’t satanists like death and that sort of stuff?) It seems that it’s mostly Catholics that make a stand about abortion. About 20 Catholics there this morning. I am a Protestant, BTW.
I heard the other day, that just one man was standing outside a clinic alone and a girl came up to him and said that because of him – because she saw him standing there she was now going to keep her baby!
So yes, I agree Bill. Bring on the ultrasound vans, but let’s also keep doing all we can … even if it means standing alone.
Annette Nestor
Well done Annette. You are a champion. We need more folks like you. Keep up your great work.
Blessings,
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Well I would like to shake David Pomerantz hand and little old me, doesn’t like the don’t give the beggar some food because he will keep coming back approach or the yes your helping but please step out the way and let the big boys do the big picture, approach. It’s not our job to decide who should be helped and how much.
Daniel Kempton
Thank you, Annette! Protestants are late to the struggle, I think, but in the US at least that’s changing substantially.
Ed Hanks, US
Yes there are far more Protestants – mainly evangelicals –involved in these sorts of battles now in the US than here in Australia. But I and other Protestants are certainly trying to stir up fellow Protestants to get much more involved. And it is slowly happening.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Bill,
I would argue that regulations in the US did not make progress toward ending slavery, but only toward limiting it. And when limiting it to the South, it wasn’t so much fighting against slavery as putting the question off. The anti-slavery activists who advocated regulation were keeping it out of their own backyards, but by keeping it in the distance they didn’t have to deal with it. They accepted popular sovereignty, rather than treating it as a moral issue of principle.
In fact, I think most historians would back me on this — those presidents who proposed the status quo limitations for decades perpetuated slavery, rather than making progress toward ending it. The only real progress toward ending it, from a political angle, were those who suggested legislating an end to slavery altogether by arguing for the Personhood and moral status of the slaves. While Lincoln never really took this position, other politicians did, and they were given strength by the strong grass-roots abolition movement which didn’t wish to settle for limiting slavery, but rather wanted to end it as a moral blot upon our national conscience.
Historians today will not credit any president before Lincoln for having any positive impact upon slavery, and they blame several predecessors for perpetuating slavery. Those predecessors are those who supported the status quo of limitations, and were willing to allow Congress to prevent the spread of slavery to new territories, but at the same time were unwilling to go so far as to suggest rolling slavery out of territories where it already existed.
You might correctly point out that those laws were not really analogous to anti-abortion regulations today, but for that same reason I think they cannot be applied as a positive example either.
One place where they are analogous is here — those regulations which limited the geographical spread of slavery recognized the right of a state to deny the Personhood of a human being. It was a political version of, “If you don’t like slavery, don’t own slaves.” Or, “I would never own a slave, but it’s not my place to tell another person he can’t.” These regulations denied the humanity and Personhood of Blacks in the South, even as they purported to uphold the freedom of Blacks in the North. And because no one — no one but the “extreme abolitionist troublemakers” — was arguing that a state couldn’t treat some human beings differently, society in the North for decades accepted a class system that treated even free Blacks as a lesser form of human being. Some Southerners argue — with much justification — that the North was more racist than the South, partly for this reason.
When slavery was ended — as is pointed out in a remarkable biography of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called All On Fire — it wasn’t those other anti-slavery activists who were given the honor of replacing the US flag over a recaptured Fort Sumpter (a symbolic reversal of the capture of the fort which started the war), but it was Garrison, who had been rejected and ridiculed by many anti-slavery activists as an extremist. He was essentially being recognized as the primary causative leader who ended slavery, and he was the one who never accepted compromise, and who rejected regulation in favor of a Personhood strategy.
I’m not meaning to paint anybody into a negative role here, but simply trying to point out that I see the experience of regulations vs. abolitionism in the US against slavery as having all its lessons in favor of Personhood and against the effectiveness of regulations. I’m seeking to paint concepts, not people, so that hopefully one can consider without being offended.
Ed Hanks, US
Thanks again Ed
Of course I was referring mainly to the situation in Britain. The point is there are lessons we can take from past struggles. And of course they may not always be fully transferable. Some things which worked back then with slavery may or may not work today with abortion. And some pro-life strategies which are successful in one place today may not be as successful in another place.
So in part my point is that a one-size-fits-all strategy may not always be ideal. Sure we seek to learn from past successes and failures. But we are all in this together. And we all may have different callings as well. Some may be called as Wilberforce was to use regulation and law to help win the day. Others may be called to stand outside abortion clinics and pray. Some may work for ultrasound laws, while others may argue that they are not so effective. There is room to move here. It is possible to get carried away with a particular strategy and end up insisting that everyone conform to it, and/or see others as standing in the way of ‘progress’. So let us all keep trying to be humble and gracious here as we seek to together find ways to best win this war.
I also am unsure why we must be forced to take sides here: either say no to regulations and say yes to personhood, or the other way around. Again, the situation in the UK shows that both were needed and both brought slavery to an end. We may be making false dilemmas when they are not needed. Sure, we can argue that some strategies may be more effective than others in some situations, but to say that we must absolutise just one strategy and reject all others does not seem all that helpful here. Ending abortion is an absolute, but the various means to that end are not. The danger in insisting that only one strategy can and should work, and in effect deriding others who differ, can be problematic and can lead to unnecessary division.
God is much bigger than anyone of us, and he can use all sorts of people and strategies to accomplish his purposes. So yes we try to see what is most effective and viable in the long term, but we need to extend grace to those who are doing things differently than we are in the pro-life movement. If a baby is saved when a woman reads a harsh anti-abortion sign, we rejoice, even though we may not be thrilled with the method, or recommend it.
But we all keep at it as best we can, and yes we need to try to learn from one another. I look forward to seeing your new book when it appears. Keep up your great work.
Blessings
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
This is indeed great news Bill, bring on the Stork Bus. How long will it take to get this idea entered into Australia?
Life is under a lot of pressure from many angles, the unborn, to war torn nations,to places like The Netherlands where they have now introduced the mobile euthanasia clinic. This is to allow that form of killing to proliferate, even when the G.P. does not agree. Even people feeling lonely can avail them self of this service. Heaven forbid that this country ever catches up on some of these horrors.
Bill Heggers, Perth
Recently I spoke with someone who had been a high school counselor and she said that the girls who had abortions needed more counselling than those who had a baby.
Any volunteers to help hold the banner at parliament house?
Katherine Fishley
I would love to see these vans in Australia. The clinics that could be targeted are the ones where clients have to park outside on the street, rather than the clinics with car parks within their property. Of course, it is still possible that with good advertising, the sight of the Stork Bus may create interest in getting a spontaneous, last-minute, FREE ultrasound … just to be sure.
Annette Nestor
I think it’s a great idea. Maybe Ed’s idea to make U/Ss compulsory for all pregnancies has merit, till then, Go “Save the Storks.”
“And you shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free.”
Graeme Cumming
This video has been distributed to our MLA’s, MP’s, Premiers and other politicians in Canada, produced in BC, Canada (Send it around the world…):
“Do No Harm” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhAJWzAojX0
The “Planned Parenthood” advocates have fallen:
“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.” (John12:40)
We can only Pray for them, to loosen the scales from their eyes, ears and hearts.
Monica Craver
I agree with you bill, God has more than one weapon in His arsenal against evil and we as His soldiers should rejoice in the successful employment of each of these weapons.
Sadly, I believe the example of the abolition of slavery is only partly correct. Slavery has not been abolished, not worldwide and not even in the west, though it has changed its target group and purpose somewhat, eg sex and child slavery now, gone thankfully largely under ground in the west where it ought to be, not sanctioned by law – and that is what we want to achieve in the case of abortion. Jesus said “the poor you will have with you always”. I wonder if that meant that until He comes back, sin will be always with us, seeing He did not create poverty or condone it, though He in is economy uses it for His own good purpose.
I think, Proverbs 4:18 can be helpful here when we need encouragement to stick with it and not give up because we do not see the good results we long to see. Some strategies are short term and others are long term. We need to do the short term ones without losing sight of the long term goals and we need discernment to know when to change from one strategy to another. I too am exited about the van and pray that apart from lives being saved, the gospel of Jesus Christ may also be made known, as that is clearly the motivation of the people that run the van.
Many blessings
Ursula Bennett
THanks guys
Related to ultrasound laws, see also this development from the US: “The Oklahoma state Senate has approved a bill that allows women to know they can hear the heartbeat of their unborn baby before having an abortion — something abortion centers don’t normally let women hear beforehand.”
Hi Bill and everyone else, I think its great to hear of even the smallest of victories or movements in the right direction. The ultrasound laws, will definitely make a difference and wouldn’t it be great to see that implemented here. Annette I am surprised by the Catholic stand you mention here, I would hope it is only a minority who do not understand what they are doing (rejecting Gods truth). The Catholic Church does appear to be mobilizing in the battle against abortion if this video is anything to go by:
Hey Bill! The problem in Queensland here is that abortion is illegal. Standing outside the clinic here in Rockhampton and counting the number of ladies who enter, I’m guessing there is anywhere between 500 and 1000 babies killed each year – the size of a large primary school. Here in Rocky, there isn’t any place to put a bus that would be accessible and if we are still there much after 9am, the police come and move us on with an order not to be in that vicinity for the next 24 hours. Still we continue to try every strategy we can think of: a stall at the local Show, a well attended rally on the riverbank, a sticker designing competition in the catholic and christian highschools, information packages for churches and para-church organisations, a television ad campaign, an October Baby movie event… anything that we can think of really. So while the bus wouldn’t work for us, we continue to do everything we can to educate and change culture. From some of what I’ve seen though, the areas with strong anti-abortion laws like South Korea and to some extent Queensland, have some of the highest rates of abortion in the world. It’s great if we can successfully get meaningful and well-thought-out legislation in place, but I would suggest that without culture change, without society re-learning to fall in love with the unborn child, we’ll get nowhere.
Jonathan May
The only way abortion can be eliminated is by creating incentives to do otherwise. I personally find the suggestion that women with unwanted pregnancies can sell the parental rights to willing parents to be the best idea that might end abortion.
Lee Herridge
If it saves babies from being murdered, it’s a good law.
Marcus Anderson
Bill, you know I deeply respect your contributions to the pro-life fight and everything else you do to wage the culture wars against immorality.
But I want to suggest something — a perspective — maybe you haven’t considered before.
Ultrasounds are powerful, and the Stork Bus is a great way of making them available to women who might change their mind. Pro-lifers should use them as much as they are able…. just without compelling it by law.
Why? I have a visual aid that may help.
http://bit.ly/ivL4kX
When we compel women to meet a condition before having an abortion, we’re reinforcing the idea that she has a right to make that choice. Rather than simply offering a moral alternative, we accidentally and unintentionally participate in the fiction that it’s government’s role to decide which innocent humans can be killed — meet this condition, so that you can see for yourself this is a human being, and then if you choose to kill that innocent human being, that’s your right.
We may not believe in that right, we may not agree that it’s a right, and it may be perfectly true that in a de facto sense the government considers it a right. But if pro-lifers regulate abortion we are unintentionally acceding to the fiction of it being a right, and I think we thereby lose ground in convincing others that it shouldn’t be a right.
Ed Hanks, US
What a fantastic idea! Thanks Bill for this article. Hoping that it will be able to be implemented in Australia.
Alison Stanley
Thanks Ed
Yes I do understand your point, and it is an important part of our overall thinking and deliberating on this fight. But there are nuances here, and differing perspectives as you say. Of course abortion should not be a right, and we should be working to end that “right”. But in the meantime, what are effective tactics along the way? As Marcus says, if lives are being saved, that is a very important consideration as well.
The debate is similar to the big arguments of the pro-life movement over other sorts of tactics and strategies in the past. For example, when I and others have argued at times for a piecemeal approach, eg., working on stopping late-term abortion for starters, other pro-lifers have attacked us saying we should oppose all abortions. They see it as an all or nothing situation, and suggest that to focus on just one area is somehow to be guilty of compromise. Again, eliminating all abortion is our aim, but realism also states that if we can stop some abortions now, while working to stop all abortions eventually, that is also a morally good thing. If we cannot save all babies now, is it not at least a good thing in the meantime to save some?
So there are in fact some shades of grey here, and pro-lifers always will agree to disagree on what are the best strategies and tactics, the most efficient ones, the most moral ones, etc. So here we can argue about whether it is best for these laws to simply have ultrasounds on offer, or whether they mandate that they be utilised, or whether such laws are in principle wrong altogether.
So it is not a case of my having not thought about these things. I and others – like yourself – have thought long and hard about such things, and we need each other to help refine our thinking, maintain conceptual clarity, and sort out the various ethical dilemmas, as we work at making abortion history. So thanks for your thoughts. I am more than happy to hear others on this as well. None of us have all the answers. None of us have all the perfect wisdom on this. So differences will continue to arise as we seek to work together to end this evil. Thanks again brother.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Hi Bill, this is the first time I’d heard of ‘save the storks’ and I am excited by it’s effectiveness and potential in saving lifes. I think ‘save the storks’ is approaching this issue in exactly the right way. However, I’m with Ed that a pre abortion ultrasound should not be regulated. As well as the issues spoken of by Ed above I don’t think it would do much good anyway. I can just see some pro abortion doctors saying to women ‘If you don’t want to see that clump of cells growing in your body, just sign here to say you have seen it so we can get on with the procedure’ or something to that effect. I do however believe, that women should be able to request at any time a free ultrasound before having an abortion. That way we’re not making it a requirement to have an ultrasound before having an abortion thereby confirming that right to have an abortion. We are simply creating a new right, the right for women to see the baby they are about to murder.
Luke Beliks
Thank you, Bill! And of course I haven’t considered this in a vacuum either — we’ve been watching these laws in action for a while here in the US. There are many who argue exactly as you have — the short term gains of regulation even as we work to end the whole evil.
The question which must be asked is this: Do we, by seeking short term gains by what means are immediately available, actually undermine our long-term goal of ending all abortions? Most pro-lifers will quickly say no. But many of us who have observed the situation carefully — and I’m a political communicator, so it’s my job to understand how people think and why — are coming to think that regulations accede to the status quo in a way that nip around the edges, saving some babies, but on the whole helps the other side convince citizens that abortion is, in fact, a right, and that only a “reasonable” medium must be met.
So the question is whether we, in fact, are creating resistance to total victory at the same time as we “progress” incrementally.
I’ve included more thoughts along those lines in this blog: http://lookontherightside.blogspot.com/2010/03/personhood-works-regulations-dont.html
Another question is whether “abortion-ultrasound laws” harden the hearts of women — “Yeah, yeah, I’ll look at your silly image. I know it’s a child, but I also know I have the right to kill him, so get out of my way.”
Lastly, I’ve proposed a “principled incremental” approach, which to my knowledge has never been tried, but which also, in my opinion, avoids the ethical questions while accomplishing the same results as more typical versions of “abortion-ultrasound” — why not require ALL pregnant women to be provided an ultrasound as part of their treatment, regardless of whether they’re seeking an abortion or not? That way the same anti-abortion effects are achieved without legitimizing abortion in any way — on paper, the law has nothing to do with an “abortion right”. A similar approach could be used for regulating all clinics where “invasive medical procedures” are performed.
So it’s not really a matter of “all-or-nothing” as it’s often characterized. It’s a deep concern among many that pro-lifers not seem to legitimize the status quo while at the same time meaning to work against it.
Ed Hanks, US
Thanks Ed
As I say, we all can learn from each other here. None of us have all the answers. None of us have the one and only perfect solution to ending abortion. None of us have a monopoly on the truth about the right tactics and strategies. So we must work together, showing grace to each other, and seeking to stay humble as we think and act through all this together.
And of course not only are these debates far from new, but they in fact have been rehearsed time and time again in other contexts. The same sort of discussions – and at times heated arguments, if not major fights – over how best to end slavery of course occurred a few centuries ago. Learning from the lessons of history is also a helpful part of our way forward here. Thanks again for your thoughts.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Focus on the Family (US) had (and may still have) a program that raises money to purchase Ultrasound machines for this express purpose. They have had the same results as mentioned in the article – the overwhelming majority of woman who view their babies are reluctant to then proceed with the abortion. Focus put out a powerful short video on a young mum who chose life after viewing her babies (yes, she was carrying twins which the Ultrasound revealed). She gave birth and adopted the two beautiful boys to a loving couple who now raise them as their own (and she has involvement with the young boys). Very moving and an example of a ‘win.’
To consider the alternative is unconscionable (2 destroyed lives, a couple who remain childless, and a woman left to suffer emotional and psychological pain [which at least anecdotally seems to be the case]).
Another thing – SBS ran a production on abortion and studied the lives of 6 women (I think it was 6). Simply allowed them to dialog about their experiences – no religious angle, just raw discussion. Of the 6 women, 1 had no regrets. The other 5 shared their considerable pain (grief, guilt, haunted thoughts) and to me was a massive indictment against the claim of the pro-choicers of a ‘simple, harmless, non-invasive’ procedure.
I, too, appreciate Ed’s comments. We chaff against the laws until they are altered. In the meantime, we work at every turn and in every way (regardless of how small) to circumvent the evil – and that in no way fails to endorse the truth of the way things should be, but becomes another building block for change. We are in this cultural mess through a series of small changes and so we can employ the same strategy. Challenge and convert the culture whatever the means…
Peter Jackel
Thanks Peter
Yes, whatever means to save some. But of course we should also be discerning, realising that some means may be better than others, more effective than others, more moral than others, or may in fact be more or less counterproductive in the long run. Again, all this comes down to questions of strategies and tactics. And there is some room to move on all this. What might work well in one place may not work so well in another, eg.
And I believe it is not a question of either-or (regulation, or convince the conscience of a nation, as in personhood arguments to the public). Slavery of course was stopped by regulation – but it was also stopped by a major campaign to educate people about the personhood of blacks. Thus it was a case of both-and, not either-or. It seems the both-and approach is needed here as well.
Again, we have been there and done that – the abolition movement went through very similar debates about strategies and tactics several centuries ago. For example, some wanted a more incremental approach, while others demanded 100% abolition, with no exceptions. The truth is, there were aspects of their abolition campaign which were incremental as well. Consider just the way legislation was presented and passed. Recall that the Abolition Act was passed in 1807, while the Emancipation Bill only came about in 1833. So slavery was not ended overnight. It took quite a while, and to some extent it was a piecemeal, incremental process. So we need to learn from history here as well.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I have just come from a peaceful pavement protest this morning actually. The ultrasound van sounds like a great idea, as long as it is permitted! Some tight restrictions here in Perth … at one clinic, apparently, signs with pictures of developing babies are not permitted! I wonder why?!
Anyway, I have noticed that there doesn’t seem to be any atheists or satanists standing outside the clinics protesting (but don’t satanists like death and that sort of stuff?) It seems that it’s mostly Catholics that make a stand about abortion. About 20 Catholics there this morning. I am a Protestant, BTW.
I heard the other day, that just one man was standing outside a clinic alone and a girl came up to him and said that because of him – because she saw him standing there she was now going to keep her baby!
So yes, I agree Bill. Bring on the ultrasound vans, but let’s also keep doing all we can … even if it means standing alone.
Annette Nestor
Well done Annette. You are a champion. We need more folks like you. Keep up your great work.
Blessings,
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Well I would like to shake David Pomerantz hand and little old me, doesn’t like the don’t give the beggar some food because he will keep coming back approach or the yes your helping but please step out the way and let the big boys do the big picture, approach. It’s not our job to decide who should be helped and how much.
Daniel Kempton
Thank you, Annette! Protestants are late to the struggle, I think, but in the US at least that’s changing substantially.
Ed Hanks, US
Yes there are far more Protestants – mainly evangelicals –involved in these sorts of battles now in the US than here in Australia. But I and other Protestants are certainly trying to stir up fellow Protestants to get much more involved. And it is slowly happening.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Bill,
I would argue that regulations in the US did not make progress toward ending slavery, but only toward limiting it. And when limiting it to the South, it wasn’t so much fighting against slavery as putting the question off. The anti-slavery activists who advocated regulation were keeping it out of their own backyards, but by keeping it in the distance they didn’t have to deal with it. They accepted popular sovereignty, rather than treating it as a moral issue of principle.
In fact, I think most historians would back me on this — those presidents who proposed the status quo limitations for decades perpetuated slavery, rather than making progress toward ending it. The only real progress toward ending it, from a political angle, were those who suggested legislating an end to slavery altogether by arguing for the Personhood and moral status of the slaves. While Lincoln never really took this position, other politicians did, and they were given strength by the strong grass-roots abolition movement which didn’t wish to settle for limiting slavery, but rather wanted to end it as a moral blot upon our national conscience.
Historians today will not credit any president before Lincoln for having any positive impact upon slavery, and they blame several predecessors for perpetuating slavery. Those predecessors are those who supported the status quo of limitations, and were willing to allow Congress to prevent the spread of slavery to new territories, but at the same time were unwilling to go so far as to suggest rolling slavery out of territories where it already existed.
You might correctly point out that those laws were not really analogous to anti-abortion regulations today, but for that same reason I think they cannot be applied as a positive example either.
One place where they are analogous is here — those regulations which limited the geographical spread of slavery recognized the right of a state to deny the Personhood of a human being. It was a political version of, “If you don’t like slavery, don’t own slaves.” Or, “I would never own a slave, but it’s not my place to tell another person he can’t.” These regulations denied the humanity and Personhood of Blacks in the South, even as they purported to uphold the freedom of Blacks in the North. And because no one — no one but the “extreme abolitionist troublemakers” — was arguing that a state couldn’t treat some human beings differently, society in the North for decades accepted a class system that treated even free Blacks as a lesser form of human being. Some Southerners argue — with much justification — that the North was more racist than the South, partly for this reason.
When slavery was ended — as is pointed out in a remarkable biography of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called All On Fire — it wasn’t those other anti-slavery activists who were given the honor of replacing the US flag over a recaptured Fort Sumpter (a symbolic reversal of the capture of the fort which started the war), but it was Garrison, who had been rejected and ridiculed by many anti-slavery activists as an extremist. He was essentially being recognized as the primary causative leader who ended slavery, and he was the one who never accepted compromise, and who rejected regulation in favor of a Personhood strategy.
I’m not meaning to paint anybody into a negative role here, but simply trying to point out that I see the experience of regulations vs. abolitionism in the US against slavery as having all its lessons in favor of Personhood and against the effectiveness of regulations. I’m seeking to paint concepts, not people, so that hopefully one can consider without being offended.
Ed Hanks, US
Thanks again Ed
Of course I was referring mainly to the situation in Britain. The point is there are lessons we can take from past struggles. And of course they may not always be fully transferable. Some things which worked back then with slavery may or may not work today with abortion. And some pro-life strategies which are successful in one place today may not be as successful in another place.
So in part my point is that a one-size-fits-all strategy may not always be ideal. Sure we seek to learn from past successes and failures. But we are all in this together. And we all may have different callings as well. Some may be called as Wilberforce was to use regulation and law to help win the day. Others may be called to stand outside abortion clinics and pray. Some may work for ultrasound laws, while others may argue that they are not so effective. There is room to move here. It is possible to get carried away with a particular strategy and end up insisting that everyone conform to it, and/or see others as standing in the way of ‘progress’. So let us all keep trying to be humble and gracious here as we seek to together find ways to best win this war.
I also am unsure why we must be forced to take sides here: either say no to regulations and say yes to personhood, or the other way around. Again, the situation in the UK shows that both were needed and both brought slavery to an end. We may be making false dilemmas when they are not needed. Sure, we can argue that some strategies may be more effective than others in some situations, but to say that we must absolutise just one strategy and reject all others does not seem all that helpful here. Ending abortion is an absolute, but the various means to that end are not. The danger in insisting that only one strategy can and should work, and in effect deriding others who differ, can be problematic and can lead to unnecessary division.
God is much bigger than anyone of us, and he can use all sorts of people and strategies to accomplish his purposes. So yes we try to see what is most effective and viable in the long term, but we need to extend grace to those who are doing things differently than we are in the pro-life movement. If a baby is saved when a woman reads a harsh anti-abortion sign, we rejoice, even though we may not be thrilled with the method, or recommend it.
But we all keep at it as best we can, and yes we need to try to learn from one another. I look forward to seeing your new book when it appears. Keep up your great work.
Blessings
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
This is indeed great news Bill, bring on the Stork Bus. How long will it take to get this idea entered into Australia?
Life is under a lot of pressure from many angles, the unborn, to war torn nations,to places like The Netherlands where they have now introduced the mobile euthanasia clinic. This is to allow that form of killing to proliferate, even when the G.P. does not agree. Even people feeling lonely can avail them self of this service. Heaven forbid that this country ever catches up on some of these horrors.
Bill Heggers, Perth
Recently I spoke with someone who had been a high school counselor and she said that the girls who had abortions needed more counselling than those who had a baby.
Any volunteers to help hold the banner at parliament house?
Katherine Fishley
I would love to see these vans in Australia. The clinics that could be targeted are the ones where clients have to park outside on the street, rather than the clinics with car parks within their property. Of course, it is still possible that with good advertising, the sight of the Stork Bus may create interest in getting a spontaneous, last-minute, FREE ultrasound … just to be sure.
Annette Nestor
I think it’s a great idea. Maybe Ed’s idea to make U/Ss compulsory for all pregnancies has merit, till then, Go “Save the Storks.”
“And you shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free.”
Graeme Cumming
This video has been distributed to our MLA’s, MP’s, Premiers and other politicians in Canada, produced in BC, Canada (Send it around the world…):
“Do No Harm”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhAJWzAojX0
Who best to give testimony, but those women who have been through abortion? http://www.canadasilentnomore.com/
The “Planned Parenthood” advocates have fallen:
“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.” (John12:40)
We can only Pray for them, to loosen the scales from their eyes, ears and hearts.
Monica Craver
I agree with you bill, God has more than one weapon in His arsenal against evil and we as His soldiers should rejoice in the successful employment of each of these weapons.
Sadly, I believe the example of the abolition of slavery is only partly correct. Slavery has not been abolished, not worldwide and not even in the west, though it has changed its target group and purpose somewhat, eg sex and child slavery now, gone thankfully largely under ground in the west where it ought to be, not sanctioned by law – and that is what we want to achieve in the case of abortion. Jesus said “the poor you will have with you always”. I wonder if that meant that until He comes back, sin will be always with us, seeing He did not create poverty or condone it, though He in is economy uses it for His own good purpose.
I think, Proverbs 4:18 can be helpful here when we need encouragement to stick with it and not give up because we do not see the good results we long to see. Some strategies are short term and others are long term. We need to do the short term ones without losing sight of the long term goals and we need discernment to know when to change from one strategy to another. I too am exited about the van and pray that apart from lives being saved, the gospel of Jesus Christ may also be made known, as that is clearly the motivation of the people that run the van.
Many blessings
Ursula Bennett
THanks guys
Related to ultrasound laws, see also this development from the US: “The Oklahoma state Senate has approved a bill that allows women to know they can hear the heartbeat of their unborn baby before having an abortion — something abortion centers don’t normally let women hear beforehand.”
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/08/oklahoma-bill-women-can-hear-babys-heartbeat-before-abortion/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Hi Bill and everyone else, I think its great to hear of even the smallest of victories or movements in the right direction. The ultrasound laws, will definitely make a difference and wouldn’t it be great to see that implemented here. Annette I am surprised by the Catholic stand you mention here, I would hope it is only a minority who do not understand what they are doing (rejecting Gods truth). The Catholic Church does appear to be mobilizing in the battle against abortion if this video is anything to go by:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/priest-warns-obama-better-knock-the-catholic-church-out-now-youve-awakened
Has anyone else seen this clip? Is it the real deal? Bill do you know anything about it?
Let us keep praying for change to come, in the hearts of all men and women who do not know or are ignoring the truth.
Fred Merlo
Thanks Fred
Yes I have written earlier about how Obama’s audacious move is firing up Catholics in particular and Christians in general: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/02/11/obama%E2%80%99s-imperial-reach-and-war-on-faith/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Hey Bill! The problem in Queensland here is that abortion is illegal. Standing outside the clinic here in Rockhampton and counting the number of ladies who enter, I’m guessing there is anywhere between 500 and 1000 babies killed each year – the size of a large primary school. Here in Rocky, there isn’t any place to put a bus that would be accessible and if we are still there much after 9am, the police come and move us on with an order not to be in that vicinity for the next 24 hours. Still we continue to try every strategy we can think of: a stall at the local Show, a well attended rally on the riverbank, a sticker designing competition in the catholic and christian highschools, information packages for churches and para-church organisations, a television ad campaign, an October Baby movie event… anything that we can think of really. So while the bus wouldn’t work for us, we continue to do everything we can to educate and change culture. From some of what I’ve seen though, the areas with strong anti-abortion laws like South Korea and to some extent Queensland, have some of the highest rates of abortion in the world. It’s great if we can successfully get meaningful and well-thought-out legislation in place, but I would suggest that without culture change, without society re-learning to fall in love with the unborn child, we’ll get nowhere.
Jonathan May