House bill targets same-sex marriage, hits single parenthood

Via the Huffington Post:

In wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage, Republicans are pushing legislation that aims to protect Americans who oppose these unions on religious grounds. But critics say the language is so broad, the bill creates a license to discriminate that would let employers fire women for getting pregnant outside of wedlock.

The First Amendment Defense Act prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person -- which is defined to include for-profit corporations -- acting in accordance with a religious belief that favors so-called traditional marriage. This means the feds can't revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status or end a company's federal contract over this issue.

The bill specifically protects those who believe that marriage is between "one man and one woman" or that "sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage." Ian Thompson, a legislative representative at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that in addition to targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the bill "clearly encompasses discrimination against single mothers" and would hobble the ability of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal body that protects women from sex-based discrimination, to act.

Lauren Nelson of the Friendly Atheist points out that "[e]ven if the GOP can push it through Congress, there’s approximately zero chance that President Obama signs the bill into law." That's undoubtedly true, and explains why the story has elicited relatively little reaction apart from the usual Republicans-are-stupid-and-evil commentary.

But Nelson missteps when she suggests that state-level versions of this law are likely to succeed because anti-abortion state laws have succeeded. In fact, the same groups that have pushed hard for state-level pro-life laws are also staunch opponents of pregnancy discrimination.

That became abundantly evident last year, when the Supreme Court heard Young v. UPS. Numerous pro-life organizations petitioned the Supreme Court to rule in favor of strong workplace protections for pregnant mothers. Among them? Americans United for Life and the Susan B. Anthony List, two of the biggest forces for pro-life state legislation.

If opponents of same-sex marriage want to pass anything like the First Amendment Defense Act at the state level, they have two choices: either narrow the language considerably, or go up against the heavyweights of the pro-life movement. And so continues the divorce.

A pro-life analysis of Obergefell v. Hodges

Above: Demonstrators await the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage

On June 4, Ryan Bomberger of the Radiance Foundation called out LGBT rights leaders for their hypocritical support of abortion. In particular, he cited Lambda Legal's statement that "reproductive freedom and LGBT rights have been inextricably linked both legally and politically. The ties between these rights are so strong that we really believe that a threat to one directly and profoundly impacts the other."

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, declaring state laws against same-sex marriage void. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, who is widely recognized to be the Court's swing vote on abortion. Notably, he did not cite any abortion cases. However, he did cite contraception cases, which were expanded upon to invent a "right" to abortion in Roe v. Wade. This has some pro-life leaders worried that Obergefell could be a bad decision for the preborn.

Since I am a lawyer, I share this summary for the benefit of pro-life legal advocates as well as the pro-life community at large. In my view, Obergefell is a mixed bag. It provides language the abortion industry can use. It also provides language the pro-life movement can use, and Justice Kennedy's refusal to cite an abortion case is very encouraging. At the end of the day, though, Obergefell is unlikely to have a significant impact on abortion jurisprudence.

Justice Kennedy's opinion opens with a discussion of the history of marriage:

From the beginning to their most recent age, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes more than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.

He then turns to the personal stories of some of the plaintiffs: James Obergefell, whose partner died of ALS shortly after they traveled outside of their home state to marry; April De Boer and Jayne Rowse, who are jointly raising three children but cannot jointly adopt them; Ijpe DeKoe, who served in Afghanistan with the support of his stateside partner Thomas Kostura. "Their stories reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses' memory, joined by its bond."

The opinion next discusses how opposite-sex marriage has changed over time, particularly with respect to the abandonment of "coverture," a doctrine that effectively subsumed a wife's legal identity under her husband's. "These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution of marriage. Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process."

This segues into a discussion of the LGBT rights movement, beginning with homosexual activity criminalized and homosexuality viewed as mental disorder, through the Supreme Court decisions in Bowers v. Hardwick, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and finally the various same-sex marriage decisions in the lower courts.

Finally, the introductions are over and Justice Kennedy begins his discussion of the Due Process Clause. He cites the contraception cases, writing: "[T]hese liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484-486 (1965)."

In a passage that certainly rings true to me as a fighter against the injustice of abortion, Justice Kennedy declares:

The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals a discord between the Constitution's central protections and a received legal structure, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

"Applying these established legal tenets," the Court decided Loving v. Virginia (allowing interracial couples to marry), Zablocki v. Redhail (allowing men behind on child support to marry), and Turner v. Safley (allowing prison inmates to marry).

Justice Kennedy states four reasons why same-sex marriage must receive the same type of Constitutional protection under the Due Process Clause:

(1) "[T]he right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." 

The opinion points to Loving first, but adds: "Like cases concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childbearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make." 

As far as the right to life is concerned, that is the most troubling line in the opinion. "Intimate decisions about childbearing" can be read as polite legalese for killing preborn children. 

The remainder of this section, however, focuses on the unique nature of marriage.

(2) "[T]he right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." 

Justice Kennedy quotes a passage from Griswold about the "association" of marriage, as well as passages from Windsor and Lawrence. The Court adds: "Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other."

(3) "A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childbearing, procreation, and education." 

Here the Court cites precedents protecting a parent's right to place children in private education. The Court emphasizes that children of same-sex couples will benefit from the increased stability offered by marriage. (At the same time, it recognizes that marriages without children are valid too.)

This is a decent section for pro-life advocates. Abortion obviously does not safeguard children. Quite the opposite.

(4) "Fourth and finally, this Court's cases and the Nation's traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order." 

Here Justice Kennedy outlines some of the many legal benefits connected to marriage. The consequence of this legal framework is that, without same-sex marriage, LGBT couples "are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives."

Justice Kennedy then moves to a fifth basis for the opinion: the Equal Protection Clause. "[I]n interpreting the Equal Protection Clause, the Court has recognized that new insights can reveal unjustified inequality within our most fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged." This is exactly the argument that pro-life advocates make with respect to the preborn, whose legal personhood has been stripped from them despite the scientific advancements that make it clear that preborn human beings are as human and alive as the rest of us.

* * * 

So where does all of that leave us?

Justice Kennedy was smart. By writing an opinion that does not cite any abortion cases, he has assured that Obergefell will withstand the reversal of Roe and Casey. Lambda Legal has been proven very wrong.

That took restraint on Justice Kennedy's part, because Casey contains a lengthy discussion of the Due Process Clause—which he authored. He could have had a grand time quoting himself. Instead, crickets. That leaves the door open for him to step back from Casey in the future and be a fifth pro-life vote. It's no guarantee, of course. But if he had cited Casey, I would be writing a very pessimistic article. The fact that he didn't gives me hope.

That doesn't mean abortion advocates won't try to add Obergefell to their arsenal, of course. They'll naturally try any legal argument they can. But Obergefell doesn't say much that's helpful to the abortion industry beyond what was already out there in the contraception cases. And Obergefell  contains arguments that are helpful to the pro-life cause, too, chief among them the recognition that legal injustices that were once commonly accepted may come to light with time and be undone by the Court.

Ultimately, Obergefell is an opinion about the centrality of marriage in people's lives. It is an opinion about "the hope of companionship," commitment, family, and love.

Abortion is many things, but abortion will never be about love. 

Creating an LGBT-Inclusive Pro-Life Community

Students discuss abortion within a human rights framework at a Justice for All outreach.

[Today's guest post by Rebecca Stapleford is part of our paid blogging program. Rebecca attends the University of Georgia and majors in Greek, Latin, and Classical Culture. She is vice president of UGA Students for Life. Her passion is pro-life and disability rights activism.]

It was my first day of Justice for All outreach this past spring at the University of Georgia, and I noticed two counter-protesters holding up signs that said, respectively “If the fetus that you save is gay, would you still fight for its rights?” and “I was not aborted, but turned out to be gay, trans, and pro-choice.” My first reaction was frustration. As a queer pro-lifer, I have faced more discrimination from the LGBT community than from the pro-life community, even though the vast majority of pro-lifers in Georgia are religious conservatives. UGA’s Women’s Studies Student Org passes out stickers that equate abortion rights with LGBT equality; UGA’s taxpayer-funded LGBT Resource Center endorses politicians based not only on their stances on LGBT rights, but also specifically on their support for abortion rights without any restrictions; and the majority of pro-choice individuals that I meet in the course of my pro-life outreach make the assumption that I am straight, opposed to LGBT rights, and that I view LGBT people as inferior, despite the fact that all of these things are false.

I marched over there and informed those two individuals that I felt that they were marginalizing and excluding LGBT pro-life people such as myself; that I had worked hard to make Students for Life @ UGA an inclusive place for all pro-lifers regardless of religious belief, gender identity, or sexual orientation; and that no one associated with Justice for All hated LGBT people. They both assured me that it wasn’t their intent to marginalize me and told me that they appreciated my inclusive stance. We then got into further conversation, and the girl revealed to me that she was adopted by Christian parents who rejected her once she came out as a lesbian. At once, the reasons for her sign became clear. Her only experiences with pro-life people had been with those who devalued her very existence and personhood based on her sexual orientation. I recalled to her my own painful years of struggle with my sexual orientation, which manifested itself in severe depression and suicide attempts, and the fact that I will probably never be able to tell my own father the truth about myself, and we found common ground. We understood each other, despite our ideological differences. I was reminded again that people are never arguments to be won, but individuals to be loved. The JFA staff also showed her love and care, despite the fact that same-sex relationships were against most of their religious beliefs, because one does not have to agree in order to understand and empathize. 

At the same time, an unaffiliated street preacher who frequents our campus came by to let the queer individuals know that they were going to hell and abominations in the sight of God while at the same time declaiming against abortion, and I realized that the pro-life movement as a whole has a lot of work to do, not even to be welcoming, but not to be actively hostile towards LGBT people. I remembered the angry man at a state right to life meeting that I had attended, proclaiming that “the gays” were destroying America, and the comments made at a Students for Life meeting that made a lesbian friend of mine in attendance feel excluded. I looked back on the support that I had received in coming out of the closet and recognized that had I not announced that I would not be dating other women due to my own personal religious beliefs, not only would I have probably not received that support, certain individuals might have even questioned my fitness for presidency of the pro-life club. When the mainstream pro-life movement so frequently combines opposition to LGBT equality with opposition to abortion, is it any wonder that so many LGBT individuals won’t even consider the pro-life point of view?

The counter-protesters returned each day of the JFA outreach, but there was now genuine respect for us now that they realized that we respected them and their humanity. They listened to what we had to say, and we were able to have civil conversations on abortion where we found genuine common ground with each other. Why? Because we all viewed them not as arguments to be won, but people to be loved. That empathy and understanding can make even the most difficult conversations between the most ideologically opposed people not just possible, but highly productive and meaningful for both parties.

That particular outreach taught me that a way forward is possible for the pro-life movement, where all people can be included. It does not require individuals to change their personal religious beliefs, but it does require them to gain respect, understanding, and empathy. It requires our movement to lay aside the demonization of LGBT individuals and to stop pairing opposition to abortion with opposition to LGBT equality. It requires us to speak up when we encounter discrimination and prejudice within our ranks. It requires us to refrain from stereotyping and assumptions. Change is hard, but I believe that it is possible. In the past few years I have seen the pro-life movement grow more queer-inclusive, and I am confident that this trend will only continue, however, we still have a long ways to go. My hope is that the mainstream pro-life movement will realize the ways that they have excluded and harmed queer folks in the past, and work to prevent this from happening in the future.

Atheist, Gay, Pro-Life: An Activist Describes His Conversion

[Today's post is an interview conducted by Sarah Terzo. Sarah is a pro-life atheist, a frequent contributor to Live Action News, a board member of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, and the force behind ClinicQuotes.com.]

The pro-life movement is more diverse than its critics imagine. People of all religions, races, and sexual orientations oppose abortion.

Pok is an atheist and gay pro-life activist who grew up in the Philippines. He was pro-choice until he came to link the struggle for rights for preborn babies with the struggle for gay rights. Below is an interview I did with him.

Why were you originally pro-choice? 

There were several things that made it almost instinctive for me to be pro-choice. I grew up around grinding poverty. I have been lucky that my family has always had enough, but I saw what poverty did to relatives who hadn't been as fortunate. I saw what it was doing to my country, the Philippines, with young kids sleeping on sidewalks and under bridges—hungry, homeless, uneducated. Some my own cousins lived in a house without a roof—literally. Poverty was as ordinary as air.

You could walk down some street and literally step over children, curled up in sleep beneath the fumes of carbon-belching jeepneys and buses. I have an aunt who was involved with family planning at the community center. I think it was in their little house in the projects where I was first introduced to human reproduction and population control. I couldn't have been more than 7 years old at the time, but I started being really afraid of the population bomb. As a kid, I had visions of crowded cities with people standing on top of each in a dwindling space. But my fear was specifically directed at the uncontrolled reproduction among the poor. In my mind, I sincerely believed the way to help the poor was to stop them from reproducing.

Looking back now as a pro-lifer, that strikes me as ominous. In addition, just a few blocks from where I lived was the office of the Center for Population Control. I can't remember if that was the exact name, but I remember it having either the phrase "population control" or "population explosion" in its name. Also, for a small city in a religious country, my family was pretty unconventional. My mom was a single mom, which was pretty scandalous at the time. So, I am used to being odd. By 13 or 14 years old, I had gone beyond mere support for birth control. I was one of only two people I could remember in my debating class who was vocally pro-choice. But once again, my concern was almost wholly directed at the poor. I wanted them to have access to abortions because I saw them as a threat and a burden to the country.

What led to your becoming pro-life? 

My conversion wasn't an event. It happened gradually in the course of several years. By the time I was in college, I went through a depression which worsened year by year for over a decade. By the time I arrived in America, I had, by then, wanted to die. I realized I was gay in college, and the older I got, the more I thought I understood what it meant to be a homosexual. And to me, at the time, it meant a lifetime of unhappiness and ridicule. I had such a dark view of the world, and I simply couldn't see life worth living as a gay man. Every night, I would hope to never wake up again, and every morning, I hated that I was still alive.

I'm not sure if I was too cowardly to simply just jump onto an incoming train or I was always sane enough to actually commit suicide, but dying was constantly on my mind. I was so angry. I felt being attacked from every angle: by family, by friends, by the state, and by the church. I felt so alone, and I felt a terrible sense of injustice that society and its laws couldn't see that I am fully human. That sounds cliché, but I really can't think of any other way to say that. I know I am every bit as human as everyone else, but the law refuses to recognize that. That's the problem. For the first time, I became intimately aware of the difference between being human and being a legal person, but it wasn't until later when I saw the parallels between the status of homosexuals and the preborn. I did my best to deny that, and when I couldn't, I felt horrible for even daring to compare homosexuals to a clump of cells. That was hard to accept as a hardcore prochoicer. I felt like I betrayed my best friend. So, I resisted that for years by employing a bit of selective perception and cognitive dissonance.

I kept telling myself that homosexuals are human in a way that the preborn aren't, but deep down, I knew it was a mere piece of paper, a mere artificial and legal designation that created the difference. And deep down, I knew that the difference between homosexuals and the fetus is the same prejudice that differentiates homosexuals from heterosexuals. I could only deny that to myself for so long. When I saw the video of the hanging of two Iranian teens in 2005, I could no longer deny my denial. [Editor's note: In the incident Pok refers to, the teenage victims were targeted for their sexual orientation.] I could no longer reconcile my sense of injustice at the rejection of the personhood of homosexuals with my own rejection of the personhood of the preborn. We are both as human as the other and both as legal nonpersons as the other. The very same artificial legal boundaries that define what rights I may or may not have are the very same artificial legal boundaries that objectify our youngest human beings as mere body parts that could be thrown away at will.

How did your family/pro-choice friends respond to your new pro-life views? 

We don't talk about abortion openly in the family, except in the few times we had to deal with it directly. And even then, I couldn't say anything. My family is pro-choice. As for my friends, I have lost a few, but everyone of my closest friends are still there. I was lucky to have known them long before my vocal support for human rights for the preborn. We've bonded early on, and we've learned to respect each other and know our limits. But, initially, it created some strains in some of my relationships.

When abortion ever came up, there was this expectation that every reasonable person should be pro-choice. It was awkward to be at dinner parties with friends I've argued with, but we've learned to see past our differences, thankfully. Coming out as pro-lifer has also yielded some surprises from the unlikeliest places. I have friends whom I just assumed would be pro-choice, but let me know in private that they are, in fact, pro-lifers. There are also the pro-choicers who've appreciated hearing, for the first time, a secular side to pro-life arguments other than the usual religious claims.

What have you done in the pro-life movement, and what do you continue to do?

I do what little I can. I've attended the past two marches in Washington, DC, and tried to connect with more secular pro-lifers out there to lend a non-religious alternative voice to the pro-life movement. There's big gap in the pro-life movement that's waiting to be filled by people who are pro-life but are uncomfortable with religion. The pro-choice movement has been very successful in isolating pro-lifers and in making the pro-life movement socially and politically unacceptable.

Part of the problem is because it's easy to ignore and marginalize a movement when it's closely associated to religion at the precise time when the country is growing increasingly agnostic. Secular pro-lifers have been largely AWOL in the abortion debate, and the argument for life has almost entirely been left up the religious. But that's not because a secular defense for life doesn't exist. It's a combination of, both, a still very young organizational structure on the secular pro-life side, and the pro-choice movement's monopoly on the one-way dialogue on abortion.

I, too, didn't know about a secular argument for life when I was beginning move towards being pro-life. Knowing that secular pro-lifers are out there gave me validation for my developing prol-ife philosophy. Prior to being pro-life, I'd already made commitments to some charitable organizations, but being pro-life only underscored the importance of providing sufficient resources for those in need—not just those in the womb, but those already born. My family had also set up a small fund to send our poor cousins to school. A few have since graduated college. It's a small effort, but it's something we hope makes a difference.

Why do you feel that gays and lesbians should be pro-life? 

Homosexuals are natural pro-lifers because they are still insufficiently legal persons, like the preborn. The entire philosophy of revolt of the gay movement rests on a simple but powerful notion that our human rights as homosexuals are intrinsic on the very fact that we are organically human. Laws merely recognize a humanity that already preexists, but it cannot confer humanity, by itself. The absence of the evidence of our existence in our laws doesn't make us nonexistent. They merely make us legally invisible.

This was the very same injustice that the early feminists fought head on. That is why Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, Mary Wollestoncraft, Victoria Woodhull and the first wave feminists were pro-lifers. And that is also why the refusal of our laws to recognize our humanity as homosexuals is so deeply unjust. Legal personhood is a pure legal construct that has nothing to say about our underlying humanity. Laws can artificially accord non-human corporations personhood, or it can make male-to- female transexuals into legal women. Our legal non-personhood is an unjust, artificial, self-perpetuating injustice mitigated by those who've defined the criteria for personhood in a way that disqualifies homosexuals from ever becoming persons. It is the same for those who set the personhood of humans in the womb at the moment of their birth. There is nothing miraculous about birth that biologically transforms a non-human being into a human being when a baby takes her first breath outside the womb. Her rights do not derive from her location and age, but are intrinsic to her humanity, in the very same way that the gay movement lays a claim to human rights on the simple, unalterable fact that we are human.

Trans* people and abortion

National Review reports:

Feminists are now arguing about whether or not it’s offensive to talk about abortion as a “women’s issue” because gender is not that simple and men have abortions too.

National Review's attitude about the matter is rather sarcastic. For example:

At the risk of being branded a “cissexist,” feminist essayist and poet Katha Pollitt wrote a piece for the The Nation today daring to suggest that maybe it’s not totally offensive to link being pregnant with being female.

It would be a huge mistake for pro-lifers to adopt that sarcastic attitude.

As far as population demographics are concerned, the overwhelming majority of people who consider abortion are going to be straight cis women. That's a given. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the minority. If we are committed to saving every child we can, we need to reach out to all families experiencing crisis pregnancies and tailor solutions to meet their circumstances. Those circumstances may include issues of gender identity and sexual orientation.

In fact, when I got involved in the pro-life movement as a college student, one of the first pro-life speakers I ever heard was a lesbian. As a teenager several decades ago, she felt under enormous pressure to deny her lesbianism and "act straight." An unplanned pregnancy resulted.

Of course, to be a lesbian and to be trans* are two different things. But I bring it up because, in both cases, the pro-life movement's failure to recognize a world beyond binary heterosexuality can prevent us from effectively serving those in need.

I actually think inclusion of trans* people is not as radical a step for the pro-life movement as it is for the pro-choice movement.

Hear me out. I realize that the pro-life movement has traditionally been associated with social conservatism. I'm not an idiot. But I also see that among my Millennial pro-life cohort, acceptance of trans* people is commonplace. As with same-sex marriage, it's a generational difference more than a political one.

Critically, the pro-life movement has a long tradition of viewing abortion through a broad lens, and that's a tradition that isn't going anywhere. For us, it has never been merely a "women's issue," as Katha Pollitt would like it to be. We have traditionally been concerned about how abortion affects men (particularly fathers), other family members, and the whole community. Obviously we have been concerned about abortion's effect on the child, a concern which has never been limited to children of a particular gender. (No self-respecting pro-lifer would refuse to save an unborn child because an ultrasound revealed an intersex condition, for example.) In short, the pro-life movement is a human rights movement for all people. Why not trans* people?

By contrast, the abortion movement has political difficulties here, as Pollitt recognizes:

Restricting abortion is all about keeping women under the male thumb: controlling women’s sexual and reproductive capacities is what patriarchy is all about. Indeed, that women should decide for themselves is controversial even now. Although the Supreme Court ruled decades ago that men were not entitled to be notified if their wife was planning to end a pregnancy, some polls show large majorities of Americans believe husbands have a right to know. Once you start talking about “people,” not “women,” you lose what abortion means historically, symbolically and socially. It becomes hard to understand why it isn’t simply about the right to life of the “unborn.” After all, men get pregnant too!

Reading Pollitt's piece, I got deja vu. The problem that pregnant trans* people pose for the abortion movement isn't new; it's the same problem that's posed by the existence of pro-life women! It screws with their rhetoric of abortion as freedom from gender oppression. And given the lack of factual support for the pro-choice position (what's with the scare quotes around "unborn"? As if they're not real??), a threat to rhetoric is a serious threat.

How does the pro-life movement look to LGBT pro-lifers?

Secular Pro-Life strongly encourages pro-lifers from different backgrounds to seek to understand one another and form coalitions in the fight against abortion. SPL’s main focus, obviously, is on different religious backgrounds. We ask our allies in the pro-life movement to help SPL create space for pro-life secularists and give secularists a stronger voice in the movement. In turn, we feel it’s important that SPL helps give a stronger voice to other non-traditional pro-lifers.

Today’s blog post focuses on the perspectives of LGBT pro-lifers. We interviewed four pro-lifers who identify as follows:

Deanna Unyk, a queer atheist.

Nate Sheets, a gay atheist.

Albany Rose Saindon, a pansexual atheist.

Rachel E., a bisexual Roman Catholic.

SPL does not necessarily agree with every view expressed in this post, but we leave the content unedited in order to give a voice to an element of the pro-life movement that is frequently ignored. We hope the perspectives here will help all of us gain better insight into how the pro-life movement looks to pro-lifers of different sexualities.

How would you define the term "pro-life"?

Deanna: I would define "pro-life" as the position that abortion, in general, ought to be illegal.

Nate: People who are pro-life think that there are better alternatives to ending life in the womb. They have a variety of reasons for believing this.

Albany: “Pro-Life,” to me, is knowing all innocent life is valuable, born and pre-born. I think being pro-life means never being cruel, condemning, or saying harsh words towards abortion-minded or post-abortive men and women. We cannot fit into the stereotype that we simply care about the fetus. We must always show love, kindness, and patience. Without that we won't get very far.

Rachel: Generally, I think being pro-life means respecting the right to life of human beings from fertilization to a natural death.

Some people believe abortion has relatively little effect on the LGBT community. Do you think this is true? Why or why not?

Deanna: I guess my shortest answer would be yes and no. Yes, because those in monogamous homosexual relationships would be less likely to have to deal with unintended pregnancy for obvious reasons. On the other hand, though, bisexuals can be engaged in monogamous heterosexual relationships. Lesbians can still get pregnant from rape and gay men can suffer from the past abortions of former lovers. Trans men who haven't had bottom surgery can still engage in procreative sex and end up pregnant and trans women can get others pregnant if they are having procreative sex. So, the LGBT community is not necessarily immune to unintended pregnancy and thus the legal option of abortion.

It is important to consider also that when LGBT people have an experience with unintended pregnancy they may face different challenges than their straight counterparts. They may view the pregnancy as a blow to their personal identity and there are unique challenges that come with that.

Furthermore, from a pro-life standpoint, abortion is the biggest human rights violation in our society, and I believe anytime one group is being mistreated in a particular society it affects all members of that society. In that sense abortion affects all of us, LGBT people included.

Nate: I guess I can understand that perspective. In some ways, abortion has little to do with us, but you could say the same thing about any other civil rights issue. LGBT people have experienced a history of violence, discrimination, and oppression, and so have the unborn, though in a different way. But no, I don't link the issue of abortion to LGBT rights normally. 

Rachel: I definitely disagree with the notion that abortion has little effect on the LGBT community. I think there’s a general principle that we as people are not insular. We can’t simply say “Oh, that’s someone else’s issue.” Injustice against one community of the human family is an injustice against all people. We are LGBT people and we can help change the world.

Beyond the ideas of solidarity with the entire human community, I think there are a few issues that affect the LGBT community specifically:

If there was a “gay gene” that could be detected before birth, I believe some people would take advantage of that. Some people would have abortions simply because the unborn person would grow up to be an LGBT adult.

Transgender men (people designated at birth as female who identify as men) are a particularly vulnerable population in the current climate. Because many of these men have not transitioned physically, they are capable of being pregnant. This poses so many problems for the individual – most do not feel that, as a man, there should be any pregnancy involved. The result of pregnancy in a transgender man can be extremely dysphoric; their body is performing processes that they’ve tried to escape.

Because of the heteronormative nature of most sexual education programs, LGBT people are far less likely to use forms of protection in their sexual activities. The lesbian and bisexual teen pregnancy rate is 12% higher than heterosexual peers, and they experience twice the risk for unintended pregnancy. It’s not what’s usually expected, but LGBT people do get pregnant.

Additionally, many don’t realize that LGBT people are just as susceptible, if not more susceptible, to rape as heterosexual people are. According to 2013 data from the CDC, lesbians and gay men report lifetime levels of sexual violence equal to those of heterosexuals, and bisexual women actually experience significantly higher rates of sexual violence. We cannot forget the very real fact that LGBT people can also experience pregnancies that result from rape.

Finally, many LGBT people are waiting to adopt children. I don’t think this is the first reason to be pro-life, but I think it’s a good supplementary reason.

How would you describe your own position on abortion? How long have you held that position and how did you arrive at it?

Deanna: I would describe myself as pro-life, because I believe most forms of abortion ought to be illegal. Until about 6 months ago, I was pro-choice and I wrote a blog called "Restringing the Violinist" where I focused on defending bodily rights arguments. So I'm pretty new to the movement.

I’ve long thought that unborn children are valuable human persons, but I remained pro-choice because of my view of bodily autonomy. Changing my mind took time and involved many different factors. I still believe that women have the right to refuse to allow other people to use their bodies as life-support. As a result, to me, abortion is an issue that involves a conflict of rights: the mother’s right to refuse and the unborn child's right to (a) not be killed and (b) not have his or her bodily rights violated by being dismembered.

When I was pro-choice my view was similar to David Boonin’s view in his book “A Defense of Abortion.” I believed abortion did not violate the right to life of the unborn child because I believed (and still believe) the right to life does not include the right to use someone else's body to survive. However, I also believe the right to life does include the right to not be killed, and most abortions do actively kill the unborn. Thus, abortion does violate the unborn’s right to life in most cases. Additionally, in surgical abortions the unborn child is often dismembered, and I think bodily rights should really include the right to not be dismembered. In the end I couldn't justify legalized abortion to protect the mother’s bodily rights when the bodily rights and the right to life of the unborn child are violated during an abortion.

Even then I didn't immediately convert to the pro-life side. Being pro-choice was a big part of my personal identity. I identify as a liberal person. But what kind of liberal is against abortion? I think I had this fear in my mind that there wasn't a place for a queer atheist in the pro-life movement. I think deep down I worried that if I wanted to be active in the movement I would have to be surrounded by a bunch of religious old men that would constantly harass me to convert or tell me that my "lifestyle" makes God want to vomit.

So, in addition to the pro-life arguments, my friendship with Josh Brahm was also instrumental in my conversion. Josh and I had been friends for about a year and he remains one of the kindest and most open-minded people I know. Being friends with Josh helped break down the pro-life stereotypes in my mind. Although he never told me explicitly, I knew that I would have an ally in the pro-life movement who would love and accept me for who I was. So I ended up "coming out" again, this time as a pro-lifer. 

Nate: I have a very conflicted opinion on abortion. The issue is framed so there’s a dichotomy between a woman's bodily integrity and a fetus' right to not be dismembered. I am conflicted because I believe strongly in both, and yet there often seems to be an impasse between the two. To me, abortion addresses the issue of bodily autonomy, but in all the wrong ways. 

I used to have a more typical pro-life stance, but now as an atheist and lover of science, my position is much less firm as I see all of the grays that this issue presents. In many ways, I do not blame a woman who gets an abortion because, at least on the surface, there appears to be no alternative that will not ruin the woman's life. People do what they feel like they have to do. Pro-lifers try and present other options, but the pro-choice movement also works with a different agenda.

But, when push comes to shove, I simply cannot fathom the logic that leads people to be okay with dismembering a fetus. As a society, we should be beyond this--we are killing our own children, with the excuse that they are occupying our space? Who the hell do we think we are?

Albany: When it comes to abortion I am no exceptions Pro-Life. Outside of ectopic pregnancies, which most pro-lifers I know do not consider abortions, I do not agree that a situation can justify taking an innocent life. I have held my pro-life beliefs for almost three years now, after being pro-choice for almost my whole life before converting. Shortly after turning 16, I was coerced into an abortion, which lead me down a destructive path and ultimately made me feel like I had to be pro-choice to justify what I had allowed to happen. I ended up becoming pro-life after seeing the ultrasound of our first daughter. Her heartbeat, her little movements, it was like everything I had believed prior about the fetus and abortion came crumbling down all around me.

Rachel: I was raised in a pro-life family, and I don’t know if I ever had any sort of eureka moment. I think as I got older, my views became more mature and nuanced. I learned about the larger complexities of the issue. I certainly believe that when I started blogging about the issues my views became much more firm and I was far more knowledgeable about abortion and the pro-life movement in general.

Have you interacted much with the overall pro-life movement (e.g. walks, rallies, meetings, protests, political activities, sidewalk counseling, pregnancy centers, etc.)? If so, how has that gone? If not, why not?

Deanna: In the time that I've been pro-life I've gone to the Alberta March for Life and I went to an apologetics seminar put on by the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform.

The March for Life made me feel somewhat alienated. I wore a shirt with a short pro-life argument on the front and "Atheist for Life" on the back. Most of the speakers were quite religious and a number of them said things I really found offensive. For example, one of the first speakers (I believe he was a priest) said something along the lines of, "The pro-life position is religious in nature, so in order to recruit people to our cause we need to work really hard to convert as many people as we can!" The most disheartening part about that statement was the thunderous applause it elicited from my fellow pro-lifers. Another speaker said something like, "Concepts like the right to life and intrinsic human value are grounded in Christianity, so we can't appeal to them when talking to secularists." Towards the end of the rally they included about 20 minutes of a Ukrainian Catholic mass (translated to English).

In some ways this March was pretty difficult for me. I see religion and sexuality as somewhat connected. A big part of what made coming out as queer difficult for me was my parents’ reactions, and their reactions were grounded, at least partly, in religion. So religion in general, and the Ukrainian Catholic faith in particular, can trigger my anger over unfair judgment toward my sexuality and fear I once had that God hated me. It was already difficult to be new to the pro-life movement and not having anyone in my city to go to this pro-life event with me. To then be surrounded by triggers and to see speakers act as if pro-lifers like me don't exist made the experience even more exhausting.

However, the March for Life wasn't entirely a negative experience. A man behind me saw my shirt and went out of his way to tell me that he was glad I was there. One speaker mentioned the importance of including secularists in the movement and trying to appeal to them. I was also texting Josh at the time and he was very encouraging and he seemed to be exited that I was already getting involved in the movement. I was also encouraged by the number of young people who attended. A girl, who appeared to be in high school, gave me a sign that looked homemade and read "A Person's a Person No Matter How Small" and I held it up while I longboarded alongside my fellow pro-life marchers.  I was also invited to go to an apologetics seminar put on by the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, which was exciting for me.

A few months after the March I ended up attending the seminar. This was a much more positive experience for me. The speakers were extremely gracious and they emphasized the importance of finding common ground and treating pro-choice people with the respect that all persons deserve. It was also secular, which I appreciated. The tone of the seminar leaders was incredibly kind. I like to say "they oozed kindness" but oozing is clearly the wrong word. I disagreed with some of the arguments they taught, but I did learn a lot and it was helpful just to be surrounded by like-minded people who are passionate about helping others. 

Nate: I have not participated in a mainstream pro-life event for several years. As an atheist, I don't want to feel like I'm at a church service. As a lover of science, I get frustrated with how many pro-lifers say "We have science on our side!" when, in reality, the majority of them have little understanding or interest in "science" beyond some fetal developmental milestones. The irony of the religion with the science rhetoric being all in the same place is too much. So I don’t participate in the mainstream movement, but I currently admin a large Atheist/Agnostic (and LGBT-friendly) pro-life group on Facebook. [If you'd like to join this Facebook group, please read the About section first.]

It is also difficult to participate in one issue with a group of people who you know fight against you on another. In some cases, anti-LGBT rhetoric peppers the conversations at these events. Pro-lifers have this idea that the Right to Life trumps everything else, so any other conflicts are considered secondary. But the fact is, my equal rights and protection under the law are important to me, and to have people who claim to stand up for the rights of "everyone" (meaning, fetuses) while they have disapproval in their hearts and discrimination in their votes against people like me is not something I can easily get past. Thankfully, I am seeing more and more pro-LGBT pro-lifers these days.

Albany: The greatest interaction I have in the pro-life movement (as I'm a stay at home mom with few ways to travel) is that I have become a YouTube vlogger. It has allowed me to reach tens of thousands of people all from my own home. I did participate in one walk for life here in Denver, but truthfully it was disappointing. Right after I told my story and shortly before we began the walk, speakers starting talking about traditional marriage and, "don't forget to vote against [a marriage equality] bill." It was disheartening how they so easily shunned people at an event that had nothing to do with one’s sexuality. The pro-life movement should be about coming together to protect life and should not be used as a billboard for other beliefs. I do enjoy, however, going out to the Planned Parenthood in the next town up and holding a sign that reads, "I Regret My Abortion." While there are negative comments, the overall reaction is positive, and it is clear when it makes someone think.

Rachel: My first activism for the pro-life movement was when I was about seven or so. My mom brought me to a “rosary rally” event, and we passed out the “precious feet” pins and bumper stickers. Right now my biggest activism is done through my blogging on Tumblr. I’ve got about 1,095 followers now. I’ve been to the March for Life in 2013, and over the summer I had an internship with Life Matters Journal.

How accessible is the pro-life movement for you? How could it be more accessible? What are some ways other pro-lifers could make LGBT people feel welcome? 

Deanna: I feel like the pro-life movement needs to work on welcoming LGBT people. Being more inclusive in their language and maybe turning down the volume on the religious aspect could be really helpful. Even saying things like "although I think homosexuality is morally wrong, we welcome everyone into the movement including those from all sexual orientations. We appreciate you being here" would go a long way. Using arguments that appeal to all people regardless of religious or sexual identity would also be extremely helpful. Having other LGBT pro-life role models would be great, so I think those who are already in the movement need to work on finding each other and being more visible. 

Nate: The movement is somewhat accessible. Thanks to social media, there are many smaller groups that you can join that fit what you're looking for. However, if the pro-life movement started leaving their religion at home instead of bringing it to the events, that would be a good start, as well as sticking to abortion and not bringing up gay marriage or other non-related issues. More room for nuanced views--or at least discussion--of abortion would be awesome, too. 

Albany: Truthfully, the pro-life movement isn't very accessible to me outside of my home. While there are some speakers that travel occasionally in the area, and groups go to pray outside clinics, there are not many options for me. However, going back to my vlogging and public pro-life speaker page, it allows me to connect in a more accessible way. I do wish I knew more people in the area who were open to simply traveling short distances to hold signs with me, to sidewalk counsel, or even pro-life chalk.

I firmly believe that if more religious pro-lifers would stop tying in outside beliefs of the church to abortion, such as views on homosexuality or competition with other religious beliefs, it would allow more in the LGBT community to open up and listen. I think many in religion have dug themselves into a hole by perpetuating the stereotype that they want nothing to do with someone who is gay, when in reality many religious people will happily work alongside the LGBT community to help end abortion. The movement simply needs to vocalize that more through love.

Rachel: With the pro-life circles I associate with, it’s been no problem for me. However, when I venture out from more secular and open groups, people can become less than accepting. Some are outright hostile, but many are just patronizing about the LGBT community. Many of the traditional Christian pro-life groups seem to pity us or think that somehow they’re better. I think if many people thought “Let’s leave the sexuality out of it and work on the commonalities,” we could feel more included. We’re queer, and we’re pro-life. I don’t see why there should be any contradictions there.

All You Need to be Pro-Life

[Today's guest post by Kris Skul is part of our paid blogging program.]

This is a follow-up to my March 25 post, “Abortion, Sex Positivity, and the Non-Aggression Principle,” in which I argued that defending the unborn and supporting sexual freedom are not philosophically incompatible. LifeNews.com reprinted it under the title “I Am Against Abortion But Pro-Contraception, So Am I Truly Pro-Life?”

It's a rhetorical question, but to be clear, I have never doubted whether I am “truly pro-life.” I was an active member of Students for Life at my alma mater for years. I’ve been to multiple pro-life conferences. I’ve marched in Washington and in various local demonstrations.

Yet LifeNews’ readership seemed divided.

The disconnect, from what I can tell, is largely a matter of semantics. When I say “I’m pro-life,” I mean I oppose elective abortion. I oppose any deliberate, medically unnecessary act done with the intent to end an unborn human's life. That’s it. My use of the term is limited to the political arena, where its opposite is not “anti-life” but “pro-choice” (meaning “in favor of legal abortion”).

Particularly among those who are religious, however, opposing abortion is just one part of being pro-life. The phrase “culture of life,” common in Christian outreach, connotes reverence for all human life “from conception to natural death.” Under this definition, anything intended to thwart the natural progression of life—including abortion, capital punishment, and assisted suicide—is “anti-life.” Artificial contraception falls here because it separates sex from its biological purpose. So does homosexuality and other “unnatural” sexual behavior.

Therefore it is conceivable (no pun intended) for someone to be against abortion but not, in the strictest sense, “pro-life.” And if that’s what you mean by “pro-life,” then I’m guilty as charged. I don’t think it’s anyone’s place—not an individual’s, not an organization’s, and certainly not the government’s—to tell rational adults how to conduct themselves sexually. I believe family planning should be left up to the parties involved, providing the chosen method does not entail deliberately ending a life. And I proudly support the LGBT community.

But why is any of that important? Over 3,000 human lives are lost to abortion each day in the United States alone. When set against destruction of such magnitude, our differences concerning sexuality and theology seem awfully petty.

Conservative Christians are entitled to their beliefs, just as I am entitled to mine. There’s a big difference, though, between saying one can believe X and be pro-life and saying one must believe X to be pro-life. It’s okay to be against birth control (even though I personally disagree). It’s not okay to insist that being against birth control is a requisite for being pro-life. As I noted in my first post, such a narrow vision excludes the majority of American abortion opponents—people whose contributions could be of great help to the cause.

Here’s the bottom line: if you’re against abortion, I’ll stand with you. I don’t care what religion you practice or how devout you are. I don’t care if you’re straight or gay. I don’t care if you’ve had dozens of sexual partners or if you were a virgin on your wedding night. Because none of that matters. What matters is that your end-goal and mine are the same. And as far as I’m concerned, that’s all you need to be pro-life.

Have To Face It

Last week we discussed a recent Gallup poll showing that the number of Americans calling themselves "pro-choice" is at an all-time low.  William Saleton at Slate.com considered the same poll when asking, "Why are Americans becoming more liberal on homosexuality but not on abortion?"  He points out:

At best, support for abortion is barely holding its ground, way below support for contraception, while approval of gay sex and gay marriage are soaring. Something about abortion continues to alienate people who are willing to take a more liberal view of birth control and homosexuality. What is it?

Saleton goes on to reference many surveys that show the population has become more supportive of women's rights and reproductive freedom in other ways, yet, regarding abortion, public opinion has not shifted toward the pro-choice perspective.  If anything, it has shifted away, toward the pro-life view.  Saleton concludes:

When public opinion turns toward reproductive freedom and equal rights for women but continues to oppose abortion, it punctures our dismissal of pro-life sentiment as a vestige of right-wing sexism. Spin and soundbites won’t make the evidence go away. Sooner or later, you'll have to face it.

(See related SPL articles: "Bunnies and Misogyny" and "Gay marriage, abortion back in campaign spotlight").

"Gay marriage, abortion back in campaign spotlight"

"There's no equivalent embrace of abortion rights in Hollywood's products; films depicting unintended pregnancies generally opt for a birth."

As we head into the fray of election season, the San Francisco Chronicle contrasts the gay rights movement and the abortion rights movement. The article notes several differences between the two issues:

1. Public opinion regarding same-sex marriage has shifted drastically in the last 10 years, with more people accepting the idea; public opinion on abortion has not had such drastic changes (although slightly more Americans now call themselves "pro-life").
2. Americans who are ambivalent about gay marriage can opt for a live-and-let-live mentality; the moral questions involved with abortion tend to allow less flexibility.
3. Homosexuality has been largely accepted in popular culture (e.g. Glee, Modern Family); there's no equivalent acceptance of abortion in Hollywood (e.g. Knocked Up, Juno).
4. Young people are considerably more likely to accept same-sex marriage than older people; there's no equivalent age gap on abortion views.
5. The gay rights movement is attempting to change the status quo; the abortion rights movement is defending the status quo.

We want your take on this, dear Reader.  Why is the abortion debate so intractable compared to other social issues?  How can we overcome some of that intractability and expand the pro-life movement?

News briefs

It's been a busy week for the pro-life movement! Here are some highlights.

The latest 40 Days for Life campaign kicked off on Wednesday, and already there are reports of lives being saved! For information on secular participation in 40 Days, go here.

Our sister blog, Abortion Safety Project, shares that an abortion facility in Rockford, Illinois has been shut down for health and safety violations.

Operation Rescue points out that when 13 people died from tainted canteloupe, authorities were quick to act. But when the abortion pill killed as many women, it remained on the shelves.

The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL) is asking LGBT pro-lifers and allies to take this survey from the Human Rights Campaign. There is a general comment box at the end.

I ask all those who support LGBT issues to take the opportunity to take this survey from HRC. As you know they won't support a candidate who is pro-life no matter how supportive they are on LGBT issues. I ask that you take the survey and in the comments box ask them to reconsider their stance on abortion and consider those in the LGBT community who are pro-life.

A two-child policy is up for consideration in India. We have seen, from China's experience, that such policies lead to skyrocketing abortion rates, coerced abortion, sex selection (against girls), forced sterilization, and other human rights violations. Christians and Muslims are joining together in opposition to the proposal; Human Life International president Father Shenan Boquet applauds the efforts of "Christians, Muslims and all who respect the dignity of human life."

Today's stories

The Department of Defense authorization bill, which contained both taxpayer funding of abortion (the Burris Amendment) and the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, has failed to pass. Now, a standalone piece of legislation has been introduced to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. By divorcing it from the abortion issue, LGBT advocates may be able to pick up some pro-life votes, but whether or not those votes are enough remains to be seen.

For years, Life Decisions International has maintained a long list of companies which donate to Planned Parenthood and encouraged pro-lifers to boycott these businesses. An unusually high number of companies have been dropped from the boycott list in the last few months. The economy may be part of the reason, but doesn't completely explain the timing.

A new report by abortion advocates suggests that ultrasounds before chemical abortions are unnecessary, but pro-lifers respond that the study's own data shows that ultrasounds help detect ectopic pregnancies. The abortion pill does not work in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, which can be life-threatening if noticed too late.

The 2011 Students for Life of America conference has sold out. Over 1600 students are expected to attend! SecularProLife.org will be there with resources for campus activists.

Divorcing Abortion from its Domestic Partner

Editor's Note: Today's post is written by SecularProLife.org member Nick Neal. Thanks, Nick! If you are interested in being a guest blogger, email info@secularprolife.org.

On November 2, 2010 pro-lifers (including me) were partying like it was 1994. After two years of an administration that overturned the Mexico City policy, passed a healthcare bill that will allow for abortion funding, and flirted with F.O.C.A., a pro-life majority in the House was a breath of fresh air. However, there was one election defeat for pro-lifers which wasn’t the fault of NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood or any other pro-abortion-choice group. It was the fault of none other than the Family Research Council.

In 2008, Rep. Joseph Cao was an anomaly in that he was one of the few pro-life Republicans to beat a Democrat in a traditionally Democratic district. On January 2011, he’ll be one of the few pro-life Republicans to lose his house seat. Why? The National Right to Life committee had endorsed him as a pro-life candidate, but the Family Research Council had railed against him because of his support for including sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation as well as overturning Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. This caused a pro-life seat in the house to once again be under the control of a pro-choice Democrat.

Because abortion is often lumped together with gay marriage as "moral issues," we tend to put the two on the same level of morality when really they are not. Gay marriage, no matter what you think about it, does not kill anyone. Abortion does. When the Family Research Council and other religious conservative groups constantly link the act of dismembering an innocent human being with two dudes getting married, that hurts the cause for unborn rights. It puts abortion in the category of sexual morality rather than as a violation of the natural right to live. I am not saying whether pro-lifers should or should not support same sex marriage. What I am saying is that we should no longer link the two issues if we want to do service to the unborn-- and we certainly should not consider gay marriage a more important issue than abortion, as the Family Research Council did.

SecularProLife.org does not take a position on LGBT issues, largely for the reasons Nick states above.

We invite you to come to Roanoke Planned Parenthood and show your support!

I think when going out to the abortion clinics or peaceful protests for life, it's so important to have an array of people with different beliefs and perspectives on life there. Women going in to abortion clinics need to see that if they choose life there are so many different people they can relate to and identify with. We want compassionate people to talk and comfort them. That's why I and my friend Tim are wanting to invite any one with a heart to save children to join us on Saturday mornings at the Roanoke Planned Parenthood at 2207 Peters Creek Rd in Roanoke,VA. It don't matter what your age, religion or sexual orientation is, we want you to come and help us support life! Tim, who is gay, wants to show all pro-choicers that being pro-life is not just for straight folks, but even the gay community has strong feelings for the respect for innocent life here in Roanoke. So if you're gay and proud and feel everyone deserves equal rights in life, then please come show your support with us on Saturday mornings for the unborn that have no voice. We usually show up around 7:00 am and park across the street and walk over to our area (which is public property and our presence there is perfectly legal). I personally bring a chair to sit since we are usually there till about 11:00 am but you can stay as long as you would like. So bring signs showing your pride and care for babies and we hope to see you all there!

Hope to see you there! Remember your presence there could save a LIFE!