Friday, September 4, 2015

A very special announcement...

For as long as Secular Pro-Life has been in existence, we've sponsored a booth at the Students for Life of America (SFLA) annual conference in Washington, D.C. When SFLA added a second conference for West Coast students, we set up shop there too. We've always placed a very high value on our interactions with campus pro-life leaders: young people are more likely than average to eschew religion, and the pro-life movement is increasingly student-led. In fact, Secular Pro-Life itself has its roots in the student pro-life movement; Kelsey Hazzard founded the organization shortly before her college graduation in 2009. Young people form the core of our membership. Bottom line: the connection goes deep.

We are very excited to announce that in 2016, Secular Pro-Life won't only have a booth at the SFLA conferences. This time, we'll also be part of the program!

Kelsey will present at both the East Coast and West Coast conferences as part of a workshop entitled "Inclusive Campus Movement: Tactics of Inclusion." (Other speakers for this workshop are to be announced.) The workshop will equip pro-life student organizations to escape "the Catholic/Christian ghetto" and reach the entire student body. We are thrilled that SFLA is offering this vital workshop, and excited to offer our insight.

Conference registration is not yet open—we'll be sure to let you know as soon as it is!—but now is the time to start making your plans. The East Coast conference will be on January 23, 2016 (the day after the March for Life), in the D.C. suburb of Upper Marlboro, MD. The West Coast conference will be on January 24, 2016 (the day after the Walk for Life West Coast), in San Francisco, CA.

Secular Pro-Life will naturally be part of the March and Walk as well. Stay tuned for details on that.

And finally: January is traditionally the most expensive month of Secular Pro-Life's year. There's the cost of the booth space, the cost of printing the SPL literature we distribute to the thousands of pro-life students attending these conferences, and so on. If you have the money and appreciate what we do, please help us out by making a donation. Thank you!

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Advice: How to respond when I'm asked where I attend church?

We love to offer advice to readers who ask. The latest person to write to our informal advice column is J. M., who asks:
I am a new pro-lifer. I started a pro-life blog this year and I have been reading about the abortion issue. I am passionate about protecting the lives of the unborn and supporting women in choosing life. As of now, my main concern is how to fit into the pro-life movement and community. I am Christian, which is the stereotype of pro-lifers. However, I am not a church-attending Christian for personal reasons. Where I live, the majority of pro-lifers attend a church and a lot of pro-life activism is centered around the church-attending Christian community. When I go to pro-life events, I am often asked what church I attend. Due to this, I sometimes feel as though I am not welcome or do not belong. Since this is Secular Pro-Life, I am wondering if you have any advice for someone like me who wants to be a part of the pro-life movement, but feels different.
We answered:
I'm so glad you've found Secular Pro-Life! First of all, I hope you'll take comfort in the fact that you're not alone. Many pro-lifers fall outside the stereotype. Don't let anyone make you believe you're the only one.
When I'm asked about my religion, I usually just say something like "I'm not religious. I'm pro-life because abortion is a human rights issue." In my experience, most Christians have responded positively, either accepting it at face value or asking friendly follow-up questions out of genuine curiosity, wanting to know how I became involved, and even how they can be more welcoming! The negative responses have been few and far between, and are best responded to with humor. (For example, some stranger on a blog commented that Secular Pro-Life is a dangerous plot by the devil to damage the spiritual core of the pro-life movement or some such nonsense; I pointed out that if I had made a deal with the devil, I would be much, much wealthier.)
So you might say something like "I don't usually attend church. I got involved in the pro-life movement recently, through..." That brings the conversation back around to common ground.
She liked that advice, but agreed to let us share this conversation on the blog so that you can chime in. What advice do you have for J.M.?

[Got your own question for Secular Pro-Life? Contact us.]

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Are CMP's full footage videos actually the full footage?

Planned Parenthood hired Fusion GPS to analyze the CMP videos.

On August 25, a forensic research firm called Fusion GPS produced a report on the first four Center for Medical Progress (CMP) videos. The report has been well-covered by the media (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NPRLos Angeles Times) and Planned Parenthood (PP) supporters are pointing to it as evidence that the CMP videos are maliciously edited to the point of giving no real information.

Not long before Fusion GPS released the report, I read what I considered a very objective, reasonable article on the CMP videos. The author, Sarah Kliff, has written a follow-up in response to the Fusion GPS analysis in which she seems to agree that Fusion GPS has some serious points CMP hasn’t sufficiently addressed. I expect many of us pro-lifers are going to be suspicious of anyone hired by PP who decides PP is innocent, but because Kliff's first article already seemed reasonable and objective to me, her follow up concerns made me more concerned about the Fusion GPS report than I otherwise might have been. The full report is available online, so I read it myself.

In their report, Fusion GPS talks about how CMP edited not only their shorter videos (a fact CMP has readily admitted from the beginning), but also their longer videos, which CMP has labeled simply “full footage.”

Specifically, Fusion GPS says they've identified “cuts, skips, missing tape, and changes in camera angle” and that “the full footage videos contained numerous intentional post-production edits.” The report states upfront that “many of these edits removed likely irrelevant content from the beginning and end of the interviews” but goes on to point out that there were “edits that removed content from the middle” of all four videos as well. 

The Fusion GPS report sometimes seems to grasp at straws.

The report discusses in detail the edits from the middle of interviews: video cuts that ranged anywhere from 14 seconds to a few minutes to up to an hour. The report also discusses issues with CMP’s transcripts, including words in the transcripts missing from the videos, and phrases in the transcripts that seemed unintelligible in the videos. 

In particular, the report discusses at length why Fusion GPS believes PP employees were unlikely to have said the phrases “it’s a baby” or “another boy.” Here I think the report gets pretty subjective. A forensic report should give facts (e.g. “this video was cut at this timestamp,” “an independent transcription firm could not discern this phrase” and so on). Fusion GPS moves from fact to opinion when they start discussing whether phrases like “it’s a baby” are things a PP employee would likely say. Moreover, they seemed unable to find any facts to suggest the phrase “another boy” was faked or incorrect; indeed, their report states they found no evidence of audio manipulation in any of the videos. But instead of leaving the analysis at that, they veer into speculation by wondering what context might make the phrase "another boy" less jarring.

Fusion GPS also speculates as to what might have been in the footage cut from CMP’s “full footage” videos. (Perhaps CMP actors were the ones to bring up gender?) Again, this kind of speculation seems to veer from a forensic report; it sounds more like Planned Parenthood damage control. Similarly, Fusion GPS details places where the video shifts from one camera to another, but they don't suggest these shifts represent any loss of video or audio, so what is their point? Lumping changes that don't affect meaning with changes that do just makes it seem as if they want their report to be as heavy hitting on PP's behalf as possible, as opposed to simply being a report of the facts.

But I wouldn't want to dismiss every point Fusion GPS makes just because some of the points are iffy, especially since that is exactly the type of dismissal we pro-lifers are hoping the public won't do with CMP. Fusion GPS makes several points that are significant and, I believe, pretty disconcerting.

CMP released "full footage" that was actually still edited.

While pro-life bloggers (LifeNewsLiveActionMatt Walsh) have dismissed Fusion GPS for being biased for PP and grasping at straws, I think Fusion GPS did make some very significant points: CMP appears to have cut large chunks from its “full footage” videos, and there is footage in the short, edited videos that never appears in the full footage videos.

For example, page 4 of the Fusion GPS report states that CMP cut about 30 minutes of footage from the meeting with Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast. Moreover, the report suggests that the missing content seems to be the same content from which CMP created some of the edited video. This is particularly troublesome because the purpose of releasing full footage is to show the entire context of edited footage. If the edited footage doesn't even all appear in the “full footage,” it defeats the purpose of releasing the "full footage" at all. On top of that, Fusion GPS states that the missing section of the “full footage” video coincides with about 4,000 words of dialogue in CMP’s transcript that isn’t in the “full footage” video either, meaning independent analysis couldn't confirm whether that part of CMP’s transcript actually took place.

There are other examples of this kind of manipulation besides the Gulf Coast video.  In general, CMP’s short, edited videos contain some camera angles, video, and audio that never appear in the “full footage” videos.

CMP’s initial response to Fusion GPS 

As I said earlier, I get that we pro-lifers will be suspicious of a firm hired by PP that determines PP is innocent. But CMP's own response to Fusion GPS furthered my concerns about CMP's "full footage." CMP issued a one paragraph response stating, “The absence of bathroom breaks and waiting periods between meetings does not change the hours of dialogue with top-level Planned Parenthood executives…” This isn't at all reassuring. 

First, their response seems to acknowledge that, yes, they did cut chunks from the videos they labeled “full footage.” Right away this is a major problem. Many pro-life people and groups, including Secular Pro-Life, have responded to the “heavily edited” accusations by saying CMP released the full footage for anyone’s perusal. Now CMP seems to be admitting they did not release actual full footage, but rather a kind of extended footage that was still edited in some ways. 

Second, their response is dismissive, not detailed and concrete. 
  1. It doesn’t matter if the reason they cut footage was they deemed it too boring or irrelevant to leave in. The whole point of releasing full footage is to leave in everything so people can see for themselves that CMP didn’t cut any context that changes the overall meaning of the videos. As a contrasting example, Live Action has released full footage videos that include over 20 minutes of someone just sitting in a waiting room before an appointment with Planned Parenthood. That is full footage, that’s what everyone assumes you mean when you say “full footage,” and that is apparently not what we have with CMP.
  2. It’s not at all clear that CMP really did just cut bathroom breaks and waiting periods. It would have been more transparent (though still not full footage) if they had left in a dialogue along the lines of “I’m going to use the restroom,” fade to black, and then fade back in with, “Okay, so where were we…” (or whatever was said). Likewise, the 30 minute cut doesn’t appear to be between meetings but instead appears to begin and end in the midst of the same meeting with Melissa Farrell. The way CMP cut their “full footage” isn’t transparent; it’s suspicious. And given PP suporters and the uncomfortable “mushy middle” will look for any reason to be suspicious and ignore videos like this, CMP had every reason to be much more careful and forthright.
  3. CMP did leave in a lot of other boring and irrelevant footage in their “full footage” videos, which raises the question: why did the cut footage merit getting cut if they weren’t cutting all boring, irrelevant footage?

The CMP videos made compelling points.

As Sarah Kliff summarized well, the first few CMP videos contain fairly damning footage. Planned Parenthood claims it only recovers costs for fetal tissue donation, yet Dr. Mary Gatter sounds very much as if she is haggling over prices. Planned Parenthood has been known to underplay and dismiss fetal development, yet we hear PP employees discussing hearts, brains, livers, and kidneys. There’s also the bioethical issue of altering an abortion procedure in the interest of obtaining intact organs instead of the interest of what is best for the woman. More recent CMP videos have brought up concerns about whether Planned Parenthood employees are even consistently obtaining consent from the women before collecting the fetal organs. And then there’s the broader issue of late-term abortion. The average American is not okay with abortion after the first trimester, and if more people realized both how frequent and how gruesome it is, maybe we could get enough momentum to make some changes.

The CMP videos bring all of the above issues to the forefront, and that’s why the videos are so important. But the videos are only going to be influential insofar as people trust the source, and that’s why CMP’s apparent edits of the full footage are also so important.

We should not need to manipulate information.

It’s possible that CMP really did cut a bunch of irrelevant content that would not change the meaning of these videos one way or another. But if that’s the case, they really had no reason, no benefit at all, to making the cuts in the first place, and especially no benefit to making the cuts without being upfront about what they cut and why.

We pro-lifers are trying to find ways to get the people on-the-fence—the begrudgingly pro-choice—to face head on how unhindered acceptance of abortion can produce such a cruel and callous disregard for fetal life. Getting people to face abortion is a real challenge. Many of you have told us about how you share the CMP videos and basically get back crickets—no one wants to talk about it, no one even wants to consider it. There are very strong emotional and social reasons for people to just ignore abortion, and if we are going to overcome those strong biases, we have to be a movement they trust. If people believe the pro-life movement will lie and manipulate to try to win a debate, they aren’t going to listen to us even when we have evidence of real atrocities. (I’ve talked about this before, specifically in the context of pro-life sting videos.) That’s why the Fusion GPS analysis is a big deal: if it appears CMP can only make their point by manipulating information, any evidence CMP has of real horrors will be readily ignored.

We pro-lifers must be meticulous about our facts. If we sacrifice some transparency for a more compelling narrative, we cut our own feet out from under us and we do a great disservice to the unborn lives we are trying to protect. We can’t afford that.

Post Scripts

According to a LifeNews article from yesterday (August 31), CMP has further responded to the Fusion GPS report by releasing the missing half hour from the Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast video along with a much more detailed rebuttal to the report. While I wish CMP had included this half hour in the original "full footage," I'm glad they've released it now. The release and the subsequent rebuttal are steps toward more transparency, which are steps in the right direction.

Monday, August 31, 2015

Sex makes babies, but it shouldn't

[Today's guest post is by Sean Cahill, a recent graduate of the University of Arizona College of Law. She says: "Because it changes the way my voice is heard when it comes to life issues, I feel compelled to state that I'm a woman, despite what my name suggests."]

Pro-choicers claim that a woman has a “right” to an abortion. To be clear, this is not merely an argument that to obtain an abortion or allow abortion would be morally permissible, but a claim that the absence of legal abortion on-demand is morally impermissible. Where does this “right” come from?

When claiming this “right,” people cry “My body, my choice!” A person’s body has an inherent dignity and we should have a right to choose what happens to ours. To which pro-lifers reply: in the vast majority of abortions, didn't the woman choose to have sex? Didn't she exercise a choice, regarding her own body, a choice that could result in a pregnancy and in this case, did?

Abortion advocates respond to these inquiries often with an all-knowing head shake and an eye roll, leaving the questioner waiting for the earth-shattering retort, that somehow we have all been wrong, that our parents lied to us during that sex talk in grade school, that we were right in preschool: sex doesn't make babies, a stork brings them. Instead, the answer is some variation of: “A woman consents to sex, not to the resulting pregnancy.”

All of us, pro-life and pro-choice, know that sex makes babies. But many of us wish it didn't. We know that in every pregnancy, a brand new human being has been created, with a unique DNA sequence that is distinct from any that has existed before. We know this to be true, but we wish it wasn't. The phrase that ten year olds taunt each other with on the playground while giggling, confounds many adults: “Sex makes babies.”

We know that women's bodies have the amazing ability to carry life, to give this brand new person sustenance and a place to grow. We know this is to be expected, but we wish it wasn't. Ultimately, we wish that women's bodies didn't work the way they do. We wish we could completely divorce sex from babies. When we can't, this makes us angry, indignant even. So angry that when a healthy woman's body acts as women's bodies have for millions of years, and a new life comes into existence within her womb, a common reaction is to ask: What went wrong? What can we do to fix this? We want to fix one of the defining features of the female sex, as if a woman getting pregnant is equivalent to a car breaking down.

We scratch our heads and ask: How could this be? In this day and age, with all our technology: sex still makes babies? We can put a man on the moon but sex still makes babies? There must be something we can do about this. We can make it less likely through contraception and education, but what can we do to stop it all together? Nothing? That can't be! We have a “right” to stop this! Sex is always going to make babies?

Then there's only one thing left to do: kill the babies.

Friday, August 28, 2015

Registration open for Vita et Veritas conference at Yale October 2-3

Join Secular Pro-Life on the evening of Friday, October 2 and all day Saturday, October 3 for the third annual Vita et Veritas conference at Yale University. Registration is now open, and very affordable at $20 for students and $35 for adults. And if you just want to stop by for the Saturday talks without getting food, it's free!

As she has done for the past two years, SPL president Kelsey Hazzard will contribute to a pro-life interfaith panel, which will also include a Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim. They might even walk into a bar. (You can watch last year's video here.)

Go to for the full conference lineup. The interfaith panel will be on the Saturday at 10:45 a.m.

Registration is available up until the day of the event. However, they're also doing an essay contest this year, and those submissions are due by September 18 (three weeks from today). The contest is open to current students and those who have graduated in the last five years.

Hope to see you there!

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

One or Many

Much has been said about bodily rights arguments, the arguments that state a woman has a right to do whatever she wants with anything inside her body, or that no woman should be forced to remain as life support for an unborn human being. I have responded to these arguments elsewhere. However, a similar argument used by some is that it's the dependency on her body that justifies the mother's right to kill the child. Usually one of the responses to this idea is that even born children are completely dependent on their mother for survival. An infant cannot feed himself, change himself, drive to the store to pick up necessities, etc. And the response to this is usually before birth, the child is dependent upon only one person, the mother, for survival, whereas after birth many people can take care of the child. Therefore, before birth the mother can kill the child (since no one else can take care of him), but after birth it's wrong because someone else can take care of him.

This is one of those arguments that just makes you scratch your head about how anyone can find it compelling. Why is it that the fewer people you burden, the more right someone has to kill you? And at any rate, this idea seems to be backward. The more dependent you are on somebody, the more of an obligation they have to help you, not less.

Former director of Justice for All, David Lee, uses the following analogy to respond to this idea. Suppose you're at a public pool, and you're the last one out. You're drying off but you hear a splash. You look in the pool and a child has fallen into the deep end, drowning. Assuming you can swim, do you have an obligation to save this child? It would seem that yes, you do. You can't just walk away, because you're the only one this child is now dependent on to save his life.

This is one of those arguments that won't seem to ever die. Nevertheless, it can be pretty easily dispatched.

Edit: a few people pointed out that I wasn't very clear in what argument I was responding to. I'll chalk it up to fatigue of spending a few hours trying to write something, then rejecting it, and eventually writing this at 12:00 midnight, which is way past my bedtime (I'm an early to bed, early to rise kind of guy). :) I've edited this to make it clearer.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Recap: SPL at #ProtestPP San Jose

Last Saturday, tens of thousands of protesters converged on Planned Parenthood abortion centers across the country to denounce the organization's brutality toward unborn children, unethical organ harvesting practices, and constant lies.

Secular Pro-Life's very own Terrisa Bukovinac Lopez delivered the following remarks to a crowd of 500+ people in San Jose, CA:
This morning, pro-lifers are gathering at over 300 protest sites across the United States. For many of you, this is a time of prayer. Not for me.

My name is Terrisa Bukovinac Lopez, and I am a pro-life atheist. I’m here representing the organization Secular Pro-Life. There are more non-religious pro-lifers out there than you might think. I am here because I feel I have an ethical duty to speak out. And I thank Karen of 40 Days for Life for giving me this opportunity.
This morning, the pro-life movement is united. Because whatever your religion, whatever your race, whatever your gender, whatever your age, we all feel the same emotions when we watch those videos. Horror. Shock. Anger. And above all, grief for those who have lost their lives.
We must never allow our desire for scientific knowledge to eclipse out consciences. Planned Parenthood crossed that line a long time ago. Women deserve better, and Planned Parenthood deserves zero taxpayer funding.
Terrisa reports that her speech was well received. A question and answer session followed, in which she explained how she came to hold the pro-life view and how religious allies can make the pro-life movement more inclusive. Afterward, pro-lifers thanked her and she even received an invitation to speak at a local Catholic gathering.

Planned Parenthood staff stood at the facility entrance and listened silently.

Terrisa addresses the crowd gathered on the sidewalk outside of Planned Parenthood San Jose.

A portion of the attendees. Good thing Terrisa had a microphone!

Monday, August 24, 2015

Media coverage of the Planned Parenthood protests

On Saturday, pro-lifers across the country peacefully protested outside hundreds of Planned Parenthoods, calling for the industrial purveyor of abortion to be defunded in the wake of damning videos from the Center for Medical Progress. (Watch the videos or, if that’s too gruesome, read the transcripts at Here's how the media reacted:

LifeNews: Thousands of Pro-Life People Protest at Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinics in Over 350 Cities

Live Action News: Pro-life advocates line sidewalks nationwide outside 300+ Planned Parenthood centers

Breitbart: National Day of Protest Against Planned Parenthood to Be Held in Over 320 Cities, 5 Other Nations

Washington Post: Thousands protest outside Planned Parenthood clinics around the country

Reuters: Anti-abortion protesters rally at Planned Parenthood sites

ThinkProgress: Thousands Rallied to Defund Planned Parenthood. This is What They Look Like.

Jezebel: Thousands Rally Across the Country to Protest Planned Parenthood

Despite coming from sources that tend to have very different perspectives, these headlines are pretty consistent. But a look at the first lines of each article shows a little more variety: "tens of thousands"/"thousands"/[no number given] "pro-life advocates"/"anti-abortion protesters" against Planned Parenthood "abortion clinics"/"facilities"/"clinics," also described as "the controversial health-care organization" or "one of the country's largest health providers."

LifeNews: "Tens of thousands of pro-life advocates across the country — perhaps as many as 50-75,000 people in all — protested at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics..."

Live Action News: "Almost half of the 668 Planned Parenthood facilities in the nation were flooded with pro-life protesters Saturday in a nationwide effort."

Breitbart: "#ProtestPP, is a coalition headed by Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, Created Equal, 40 Days for Life, and the Pro-Life Action League, and is co-sponsored by more than 50 state and national pro-life organizations, states a press release."

Washington Post: "Thousands of antiabortion activists descended upon Planned Parenthood clinics on Saturday to participate in a nationwide protest aimed at cutting off federal funding for the controversial health-care organization."

Reuters: "Thousands of anti-abortion protesters on Saturday demonstrated at Planned Parenthood sites around the United States where they called for the federal government to end funding for the health organization."

ThinkProgress: "On Saturday, thousands of anti-abortion protestors demonstrated in front of Planned Parenthood clinics throughout the nation, calling for the defunding of one of the country’s largest health providers."

Jezebel: "Anti-abortion activists held protests in front of Planned Parenthood clinics across the country on Saturday."

What other media coverage did you see?

Screen Shot 2015-08-22 at 8.26.24 PM

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Why Personhood Ultimately Doesn't Matter in the Abortion Debate

Today, Dennis Prager released an excellent video presenting five non-religious moral arguments against abortion. Please give it a watch. I'd like to focus on the first of Prager's five arguments, which is that even if the unborn are not persons, it doesn't mean, ipso facto, that abortion is moral.

Now, I've argued elsewhere that the unborn certainly count as persons. Being a person is about the kind of thing you are (an individual substance of a rational nature), not about the kinds of things you can do. However, let's look at it the opposite way. What if the unborn really aren't persons?

In a compilation of essays, philosophers Frank Beckwith (pro-life) and Louis Pojman (pro-choice) wrote the following: "Another popular prolife argument goes something like this: Because the unborn entity is a human being from the moment of conception, and because it is morally wrong in almost all circumstances to kill human beings, therefore, abortion in almost all circumstances is morally wrong. Although the prolifer is certainly correct that the unborn entity is a human being in the genetic sense from the moment of conception, it is not clear from the biological facts alone, without philosophical reflection, that the fetus is a human person and possesses the rights that go with such a status." [1]

Other philosophers argue that the question of personhood is meaningless because all people mean by "person" is "an entity with rights and value," which is exactly what is at stake in the abortion debate. So from this perspective, arguing the unborn are persons is just redundant because the debate is about whether or not the unborn have rights and value. Plus, I am certainly identical to the embryo that was in my mother's womb, even the zygote that was conceived from my mother and father. That biological entity was me, so if I have a right to life now, I had a right to life then. So even if I didn't qualify as a "person," it is by no means certain that I did not have the right to live.

So contra Beckwith and Pojman, two intellectuals I respect, I don't think it's true at all that "it is not clear from the biological facts alone" that a fetus is a human person and has rights. Our forefathers certainly didn't agree with Beckwith and Pojman. In the Declaration of Independence, they wrote that they considered it self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A fact that is self-evident is one that is evident even without philosophical reflection. These are human rights because these are rights we all have by virtue of being human, whether or not we are persons. The term "person" has been used in the past to justify all sorts of atrocities. The unborn are just the most recent group of human beings to be denied their basic rights.

So again, while I think it can be argued very persuasively that the unborn are persons too, it ultimately doesn't matter in the abortion debate. What does matter is that the unborn are human beings and all human beings have rights by virtue of their nature as human beings.

[1] Introduction, from The Abortion Controversy, 2nd Ed., ed. Louis Pojman and Frank J. Beckwith (Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998), p. xiv.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

SPL to speak at San Jose Planned Parenthood protest this Saturday

This article has been updated with a MAJOR CORRECTION: They want us to speak at the San Jose location, not the Fresno location. Sorry for the confusion!

This Saturday, August 22, beginning at 9:00 a.m., pro-life advocates will protest at Planned Parenthood offices across the country. So far there are well over 200 protest locations.

Terrisa Bukonivac Lopez, the most recent addition to the Secular Pro-Life speaker team, will address the crowd at the San Jose, CA protest. She will share a message of secular opposition to Planned Parenthood's brutality, and encourage unity across religious lines in the pro-life fight for justice.

The address is 3131 Alum Rock Avenue, in front of the Planned Parenthood.

We hope to see you there! We'll do our best to make video footage available for those who can't make it.