Multiple pro-life organizations rallied outside the offices of the US Attorney General to demand indictment of Planned Parenthood (and its business partners) for fetal organ harvesting and organ trafficking after three years of an open investigation. Signs with messages such as "PP sells body parts" put succinctly their calls for indictment.
Terrisa (right) preparing to kick off the DOJ protest. Photo courtesy of Pro-Life San Francisco.
Our own Terrisa Bukovinac began the proceedings by calling on AG Barr to indict PP now that even more evidence of PP's long term practice emerged from the Daleiden trials. Bukovinac noted her FOIA requests to the UCSF for records on fetal harvesting have been significantly delayed: "I shouldn't have to sue for what the DOJ already has." She believes actual DOJ prosecution would challenge and inhibit the crime of fetal organ harvesting and trafficking.
Pro-life protesters with a sign quoting parts of the agreements to sell fetal organs. Photo courtesy of Rehumanize International.
Jamie Jeffries of Abortion on Trial spoke on just how common the practice of fetal organ harvesting is, and the perverse incentives it produces on medical providers to encourage abortions. These same providers rarely ask for maternal consent to harvest organs. Jeffries introduced Nicole Atkins, who was injured by an abortion which was altered — without her consent — so that the abortionist could extract her baby's brain; Atkins spoke on the need to inform women on the "mental, emotional, and physical toll" of abortion, including death, as her sister, Keisha Atkins, died from an abortion. A lack of law enforcement on this practice has real victims.
Photo courtesy of Rehumanize International.
Rehumanize International likewise called on Barr to begin prosecutions "now," given the quantity of evidence produced by the graphic conversations recorded by the Center for Medical Progress and by the subsequent trial of the undercover reporter. (Watch Aimee Murphy's full speech here.) Other speakers pointed out that after two Congressional investigations and FBI inquiries, the foundation for the DOJ to act is well established. One characterized the "harvesting of human organs from victims of violence" as "disgusting."
Several speakers, including Mayra Rodriguez (former Employee of the Year of PP of AZ) cataloged serious legal infractions from PP: helping minors avoid parental reporting laws; failing to investigate human trafficking; committing Medicaid fraud; falsifying medical records to hide medical malpractice; having unsanitary practices; and harvesting and trafficking in fetal organs. Herb Geraghty of Rehumanize International and The Pro-life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians noted his shock that Planned Parenthood still receives taxpayer funding at all (watch his statement here). Planned Parenthood as a whole has a widespread culture of corruption.
Bill Barr can and must prosecute Planned Parenthood for its crimes. There is more than enough evidence for an indictment. Democrats for Life argued that Trump's election was in large part a pro-life mandate, and many chanted "Bill Barr, do your job!"
The attorney general is the top cop. "When someone traffics in baby parts, we expect the cops."
On May 18 the Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy published "Standing Up For Women? How Party and Gender Influence Politicians' Online Discussion of Planned Parenthood." In this study, researcher Morgan Johnstonbaugh analyzed tweets by members of the 114th House of Representatives regarding Planned Parenthood. She narrowed the focus to tweets made between July 1 and Novemeber 1, 2015, during a heated debate on whether to defund PP in response to the CMP videos suggesting PP sells fetal organs.
Johnstonbaugh hypothesized that women would write more tweets about Planned Parenthood than men, and Democrats would write more than Republicans.
For her hypothesis about gender, Johnstonbaugh theorized that "men may be disinclined from dicussing and addressing women's issues because feminine issues are perceived as having lower status." (If she is aware of the "no uterus, no opinion" factor — the vocal and persistent insistence that men have no right to speak about abortion — she doesn't mention it.) Johnstonbaugh's analysis did find that female Democrats are more vocal about this issue than male Democrats, and female Republicans are more vocal about the issue than male Republicans.
For her hypothesis about political party, Johnstonbaugh theorized that there would be more PP-related tweets from Democrats than Republicans because Democrats focus more than Republican's on women's issues. To her surprise, though, her analysis found the opposite to the be the case.
Female Republicans constituted 5% of the House and wrote 12.6% of the tweets about Planned Parenthood while male Republicans made up 51.7% of the House and wrote 68.6% of the tweets about Planned Parenthood.
and
While it is clear that women write more tweets about Planned Parenthood than men within their political party, female Republicans are the most active members in the online discussion.
Female Republicans were the most vocal group, followed by male Republicans, female Democrats, and lastly male Democrats.
Rep. Mia Love, R-Utah
As I read these results I wondered if they reflect the "intensity gap" between pro-choice and pro-life people: the idea that those of us against abortion are more likely to feel passionately about the issue than those who support the status quo. For example, according to PRRI, "Americans who oppose the legality of abortion (27%) are significantly more likely than those who support the legality of abortion (18%) to say they will only vote for a candidate who shares their views on the issue."
Apparently Johnstonbaugh didn't enterain the intensity gap theory, though. Instead she speculated that Republicans wrote more PP-related tweets because pro-life ideas are simplistic, whereas the pro-choice perspective is too nuanced to convey over Twitter:
This unexpected finding may be related to the ease with which provocative pro-life propaganda can be spread on Twitter by incorporating videos, images, and only 140 characters for each message, compared to regulations or statistics meant to support Planned Parenthood, which may require a greater amount of text or explanation.
This theory is so transparently biased I actually laughed a little when I read it. I expect pro-lifers will continue to mystify researchers who can't see past their own worldviews.
Not all pro-choice tweets require a lot of nuance.
Johnstonbaugh points out that previous research found female Democrats are traditionally the most vocal about women's issues, suggesting an apparent contradiction with this study's finding. However the contradiction exists only if we view Planned Parenthood solely through a "women's issue" lens. Johnstonbaugh's additional analysis confirms that many people see more factors in the PP controversy.
She examines how often House members framed the Planned Parenthood discussion in the following ways:
Women's Issue: defunding PP is important particularly to women
Planned Parenthood Healthcare: defunding PP will harm people who rely on the org for healthcare
Alternative Healthcare: there are better healthcare options than PP
Fetal Rights Issue: defunding PP will help protect unborn children
Condemn Planned Parenthood: defunding PP is a way to condemn PP for immoral treatment of fetal tissue
Unsurprisingly, she found almost exclusively Democrats used the frame "Planned Parenthood Healthcare," while Republicans used the frames "Alternative Healthcare," "Fetal Rights Issue," and "Condemn Planned Parenthood." Both parties used the frame "Women's Issue," though Democrats used it more. But here's the important part:
While both female Republicans and Democrats discussed Planned Parenthood as a women's issue and healthcare issue, Republican women also discussed it as a fetal rights issue.
If you have any understanding of the pro-life perspective, this finding should be predictable. Pro-life people recognize the fact that abortion kills humans. We view those humans as children (morally relevant young humans deserving protection). So we view abortion first and foremost as a human rights violation. Of course pro-life politicians are going to discuss Planned Parenthood in the context of fetal rights. That's basically another way of saying pro-life people will discuss abortion from a pro-life perspective.
Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Missouri
Johnstonbaugh's finding about Republicans vs Democrats is mystifying only if you view PP solely through the "women's issue" framing, but I don't know why anyone would do that. You don't have to be that involved in the abortion debate to know that many people view PP as a more complicated and controversial organization. Huge swaths of the country — including countless women, btw — see abortion as an issue that affects not only women but also preborn children. Pro-life Republican women might be less vocal about women's issues generally, but Planned Parenthood is not simply a "women's issue" topic. It goes well beyond that.
Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Indiana
Johnstonbaugh called her findings about Republicans vs Democrats "unexpected," "counterintuitive," and "surprising," but they shouldn't be. Pro-lifers have been quite vocal, for decades, about the facts that we view abortion as a human rights issue and we care deeply about the problem. If pro-choice people could internalize our most basic premise — not agree with it necessarily, just recognize it's what we think — they would be caught off guard less often.
Linda Couri worked at Planned Parenthood but left and became pro-life. She gave an interview on the WeDignify podcast where she spoke about her experiences working for the largest abortion provider in America.
Couri believed in Planned Parenthood's mission, which she saw as educating young people about sex and providing health care. In retrospect, she thinks one reason she worked at Planned Parenthood was the affirmation they gave her about her own abortion. Couri was strongly pro-choice but had never been able to convince herself that abortion was not killing a baby. When she had her own abortion, she says she just “tucked it away into a little spot far, far away for a long time” and tried not to think about it.
Workers at the Planned Parenthood facility affirmed her choice and eased any lingering sense of guilt:
[I] could surround myself with a lot of really good, caring women, self-sacrificial women working at Planned Parenthood, who would surround me and say, "yeah, it's okay. It's okay that you did this. It was your right. Not only that, it was probably better for the whole world." And so, it helped to keep the psychological distress of the abortion at bay.
While working at Planned Parenthood, Couri struggled with the issue of abortion:
What did cause me distress was the issue of abortion, merely because although I was pro-choice, i.e., you shouldn't take away the right of a woman to control her own body – I was highly convinced of that – but I also knew that something really bad was happening, like killing very small people. So that had always made me uncomfortable. But the dissonance that that created, I often was able to avoid. Avoid, and just not deal with it.
Couri mainly worked in sex education, but she was sometimes asked to counsel women considering abortion. One day, she was asked to talk to a pregnant 16-year-old. Couri says:
She's crying and scared. My job was to go through her options, and after comforting her and letting her know it would be okay, I said, "Well, you have three options. The first is, you can keep the baby. That will be difficult, but we can help you through that.… And I said, "you could give up your baby for adoption. That too will be hard, but we can help you with that." Because we did have connections with adoption agencies, and to help girls through their pregnancy. And then I said, "or you can have an abortion."
Although Couri attempted to be neutral, she was convinced that abortion was the best choice for the girl:
[I]n my mind, at the time, I really, truly, from the bottom of my heart, believed that abortion was the best option for her. I saw her carrying the baby and keeping the baby as really ruining her life. For making her life way too difficult. And I saw her, quote, “giving the baby up” for adoption … But I also saw that option as being very difficult. So, in my mind, abortion really was the best option. After all, I had had an abortion, and it [had] seemed like the best option to me – I was unscathed, right?
But I saw it as her choice, so I presented these three options.
The girl asked Couri, “Please tell me one thing. If I have an abortion, am I killing my baby?"
Couri describes her response:
It was hard, because I knew that she was. But I decided to answer by saying, "Well, you will be terminating the product of your conception." Which was meant to deflect the question. And I knew it. And she looked at me kind of confused, and she scheduled an abortion. Which I really thought was the best option for her, but I was really stressed out, because I didn't answer her question. [I] rhetorically tricked her.
Couri felt guilty for being dishonest. She went to her supervisor:
I went to go talk to my supervisor. Who was really great. I said, "I just lied to her." And she and I – we didn't play the semantics game, like, oh, it's not a life, it's not life – we both kind of just went straight to the issue, which was like, this is the best option for her. Abortion's the best option. This is a hard job that we have, and it's a hard choice, but [it's] the best choice for her and for her life. That's what we believed. But still, there was, like, this fuzzy dissonance. It was like static in my head.
This was not the last difficult conversation Couri had with other staff. One day, a nurse who worked at the facility came into Couri’s office, upset and on the verge of tears. Couri explains:
She came into my office, and she seemed to be upset, and she shut my door. And she said, "I don't understand why I'm so upset, Linda. I've been doing this for a long time, but for some reason it's really getting to me because I just saw a little hand, during an abortion procedure." And, she and I sat, knee to knee – two women that were being paid very little to do the work that they do, feeling like we had a mission – sitting knee to knee holding each other's hands. And being really sad, kind of weeping a little bit, and saying, "Are we doing the right thing?" And spending a bunch of time convincing each other that we were. Hugging each other and saying "Carry on. Onward and upward! Let's go do the right thing."
These incidents unsettled Couri, but then she discovered something else. Couri was thinking of doing an academic research project on women’s responses to abortion. In the past, the abortion facility had left journals in the recovery room for women to write down their feelings after abortion. Couri decided to look at them for her research. Couri had always believed that she was helping women by providing abortions. But she was in for a shock:
I noticed that in the abortion clinic that there were stacks and stacks of journals down there... So, I was like, oh wow this is great. I have untainted, qualitative research in terms of how women feel right after their abortion. So, in my mind it would've been a fabulous research study. So I went down to the clinic one day when nobody was there, and was just like, I'm going to peek through them and kind of see what they say. And some of them said things like, "I'm so relieved, everyone here has been so kind," but as I started flipping through the journals there were entries like, "Oh my God, what have I done? I killed my baby." Like, panicked writing.
These entries had a profound effect on her:
And I can remember the feeling I had where I was literally confused. I was like, wait what? I couldn't believe it. I had fully expected that people would [be] relieved. You know, projecting myself onto them – that they would be relieved. But it was all these other reactions and they were written down. It caused me to double take, and I was like, wait what? People – and then I started thinking, where do these people go? Some of them are young. What did they do? They're leaving here. What kind of support systems do they have? They feel this way – it really messed with my world.… It did not match up with what I thought reality was, and I couldn't deny it, because it was written down. There was no agenda behind these people writing it down. It was just pure unadulterated reaction to how they felt after an abortion.
The journals caused Couri to reconsider what she was doing. It began to dawn on her that abortion was not helping women. At first, she tried to set up a post-abortion support group in the facility. But she had trouble attracting women to it. Many women seemed to want to forget their abortions happened. They did not want to return to the abortion facility or talk to Couri.
Shortly after gaining this new perspective, Couri left the abortion industry.
Last year before the San Francisco Walk for Life, Monica (SPL co-leader) gave a brief speech about "comfortable" pro-choice people, essentially outlining the most ubiquitous myths that allow people to be comfortable with the pro-choice political position. [And she did this speech before pro-choice people started insisting embryos don't have hearts.] You can watch the video here and/or read the transcript below. Sources are linked in the transcript.
My name is Monica Snyder, I’m an atheist, and I work with Secular Pro-Life. And normally I do discussions about diversity and inclusivity and fact-based research, but that’s not what I want to talk about today. I have been thinking a lot about—I’m pretty fed up, actually. And that’s what I want to talk about today.
I’ve worked with Secular Pro-Life for 10 years. I’ve had many, many conversations about abortion—some of them have been very good. I’m always happy to have thoughtful dialogue with people who are interested in exploring each other’s views. Even if we’re not going to change minds, I’m happy to have thoughtful dialogue.
Kinda over the other kind of conversation though—and by that I mean conversations with who I’ve started to think of as the casual, comfortable pro-choice person. And by that I mean people who—this isn’t a top political topic for them; it’s not something that they know a lot about or dig into a lot, but they still identify as pro-choice because they’ve picked up on the idea that that is the right side to be. The right side of history, the side of progress and freedom of religion and equality. And so even though they don’t know a lot about the situation, it doesn’t stop them from being kind of scandalized that I think…whatever it is I think, they don’t actually have any idea, but it probably involves hating women or something. And so they sort of clutch their pearls at the fact that I’m against abortion. They talk to me as if I owe them an apology or an explanation, even as they say many nonsensical things that they can’t back up in any way.
So, for example, many people have no understanding of American abortion law. I can’t tell you how many people have told me that abortion is illegal after the first trimester. That’s not true literally anywhere in the country. Even in the most restrictive state—Mississippi—you can get a non-medical abortion until the 5th month, okay? They think that anti-choice forces are bringing us into the dark ages. They don’t realize we have some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. We are 1 out of only 7 countries where it’s legal to get a non-medical abortion after 20 weeks—right there with North Korea and China. They don’t realize that Roe v. Wade makes us this way. They think that all Roe v. Wade did was made abortion a legal option. Actually what it did was make it almost impossible to have any kind of restrictions before viability, which is about 6 months into the pregnancy.
And even if they believe me when I tell them that, it doesn’t shock them because they don’t know anything about fetal development at 6 months into the pregnancy! These are the same people who will tell me that biology—not philosophy—biology doesn’t tell us when life begins, which is complete anti-science nonsense. They’ll use the phrase “clumps of cells” as if we’re aborting amorphous spheres of genetic material instead of small humans with heartbeats and brain waves and organ systems. And if you show them video footage of Planned Parenthood harvesting those organs, they’ll just say “Heavily edited! Heavily edited!” over and over again, even though there’s no evidence that part was heavily edited. They don’t know what they mean when they say that. There’s no evidence of audio manipulation, and Planned Parenthood itself doesn’t even deny that they take organs from late-term fetuses. But sure, they’re taking brains and livers from “clumps of cells.”
And if they believe that part, they still think that it’s only because late-term abortions are done for severe medical reasons. So even if, yes, they take those, it’s from a tragic situation that had to happen anyway so at least it’s useful, right? Unfortunately, the research actually shows that even at 21 weeks or later, 80% of these abortions are not done for health-related reasons. It is a pleasant fiction to think that we are tearing children apart limb from limb only in the most tragic and dire situations. The reality is far less…comfortable. We even have abortion providers—and they’ll talk openly, in interviews, publicly, about how in third trimester they will abort healthy, viable babies. But the comfortable pro-choice people don’t want to talk about that, or hear it at all.
And even if they believe me when I point out that we’re killing small humans, that are abortion laws are insane, and that late-term abortion is not usually for health reasons, what is the comfortable pro-choice person supposed to do? They can’t be on our side! We’re the side of the old, rich, white conservative Christian men, right? Unfortunately that’s not really real either. Actually young people are just as likely to be against abortion as our parents and our grandparents. Poor people are more likely to be against abortion than rich people. Latinos are more likely to be against abortion than white people. And it’s true that we skew conservative and Christian, but 1 out of 5 Democrats is against abortion. 1 out of 5 non-religious people is against abortion. And what about the men thing? Everyone’s heard the “war on women” trope, right? All of the highly educated empowered women are fighting to control their bodies while regressive religious men are trying to stop them, right? Right? NO! Actually women are just as likely as men to be against abortion. There are literally tens of MILLIONS of American women against abortion! And when I point this out you see their true feminist colors, because then the answer is it must be that I am an internalized misogynist! I couldn’t possibly be against abortion because it’s destroying millions of humans! It must be because I hate myself. What a convenient, comfortable theory so that you don’t have to think too much about this. Everyone who disagrees with you is just deep-seated prejudice, right?
The reality is that I am a young, atheist, pretty broke, Millennial woman who is strongly against abortion, and I am standing right HERE! So stop acting like I don’t exist!
So all I ask is that if you’re going to defend our insane abortion laws, at least own what you’re defending. The inconvenient truth is that we’re killing small humans, our laws are insane, and we do late-term abortions even for non-medical reasons. And if you own that in your position, you’re not the one I have a problem with, because you’re doing it with eyes wide open. But if you are comfortable being pro-choice because you bury yourself in euphemisms and nonsense, then I ask you to step up. If you really want to defend this, do it with eyes wide open. That’s all I’m asking, thank you.
Planned Parenthood recently released this political ad:
The bolded lines below are a transcription of the ad and the unbolded text are my first thoughts.
Can I be blatantly honest? My life is at stake in this next election.
Yeah, lots of lives are at stake in that next election. Pro-lifers think about that a lot, trust me.
It is a matter of life and death to have access to quality health care.
It is a matter of millions of lives and deaths if we restrict or liberalize abortion law, considering how much the law affects abortion rates.
And that's not happening right now.
Which part? Contraception use has held steady for well over a decade, and comprehensive sexual education sees wide public support. Planned Parenthood always tries to soften its abortion-on-demand efforts with these other very popular endeavors, but once again they're really just talking about abortion.
Our reproductive rights have come into question yet again.
If you mean we question whether elective abortion should be a reproductive right, that's true. No matter who wins the next election, that question is not going away.
I was a young nurse when Roe v. Wade was passed. Now we worry about protecting it every day.
Good. Roe, and the American abortion laws allowed by it, are ridiculous.
There is no reason politicians should be telling me when or if I can build a family.
Are there politicians telling you this? We aren't saying you either can't have sex or must have sex. We're saying don't kill anyone as a result of your freely made sexual choices. This isn't actually The Handmaid's Tale.
We need to go forward, not backward.
Yes! Forward into a society where we don't legally kill hundreds of thousands of our offspring every year.
We didn't always have the right to vote. Many of my family members grew up in segregation.
We're very pro-voting and anti-segregation. *fist bump My dad grew up in a country where he didn't have a voice. But I do. Voting is a way to do something when you wish you could just do something. That's the whole point of our system! It's the basis of our democracy.
Yes! Voting is a way to try to create a society that reflects our values and priorities. Or, as pro-choice people like to phrase it, it's a way of imposing our morality on everyone else, amirite? Politicians think they decide what we do with our own bodies?
If by "what we do with our own bodies" you mean non-defensively killing tiny humans, then yes, certain politicians--and the millions of American men and women who voted for them--think we should outlaw that. But guess what? We decide. To go out there and make the change that we want to see. We decide who our leaders are. Nosotros elegimosnuestro futuro. [We choose our future.] We decide our future.
And more specifically, apparently, whether the children we carry will even have a future. We decide. We decide.
Indeed. We will see you at the ballot box.
It is universally acknowledged among pro-lifers that Planned Parenthood is an abortion corporation that should not be supported nor funded through taxpayer dollars. But how many pro-lifers can say that they have actually been to a Planned Parenthood, with the intention of having an abortion? Sadly, I have experienced this first hand, and by sharing my story today I hope that I can prove once and for all that Planned Parenthood is not about “women’s rights” or “healthcare,” it’s about profiting from ending lives prematurely.
It all began in November of 2017. I was in my junior year of college and had just discovered that I was pregnant. I was a resident advisor, taking 15 credit hours, and working a part-time job. I was preparing for graduation and applying to graduate school. A baby was honestly the last thing on my mind. “Just get an abortion,” my friends told me. “You don’t want this one mistake to derail your entire life.” Living in a pro-choice society led me to believe that my baby really was just a clump of cells. With no one encouraging me to continue with my pregnancy, I called Planned Parenthood to schedule my appointment, figuring that it was the best solution for my current situation.
I went into the clinic the following day, and was told to sit down and fill out some paperwork. The clinic itself was clean and brightly lit; encouraging plaques were on the wall that said, “I make my own destiny,” and “ This does not define you.” The emotion in the room, however, was something entirely different. Though I was accompanied to the clinic with my boyfriend, many women sat in that waiting room alone. I saw one girl who could not have been more than 15 years old, silently crying as she filled out paperwork. Her mother sat next to her, stony faced and staring straight ahead. I saw another woman with marks on her arms and neck, foundation poorly covering over what the man sitting next to her had clearly given her. Finally I saw two women who were sitting next to each other laughing as they filled out the paperwork. They were talking about getting manicures after their appointments and “making a day of it.” Though we each came from different walks of life, I couldn’t help but feel connected to each of these women, in the worst way possible.
My name was called after about an hour, and both my boyfriend and I stood up to walk inside. “No,” the nurse said, “he has to wait here, and you have to leave your cell phone and any other recording devices with him.” I couldn’t believe it. Here I was, about to go through a very traumatic experience, and not only was I forced to go through it alone, I couldn’t even have my cell phone with me to use as a distraction or to text my boyfriend. Just wanting the entire nightmarish experience over with, I silently handed my cell phone over to my boyfriend and followed the nurse into the back.
Once I was in the back I was told to sign paperwork stating that I had come there of my own free will and that no one was forcing me to have an abortion. I couldn’t help but think of the young girl and the woman in the waiting room who had clearly been abused by her boyfriend. It hadn’t seemed as if they were there of their own free will, and yet these nurses were doing nothing to help them. I dumbly signed my name on the dotted line and followed the nurse into the examination room.
In the room I was forced to get undressed and was only given a small paper sheet gown to cover myself with before the doctor came in. As I sat there shivering, I kept asking myself, “Am I really doing this? Is this what I really want?” The nurse didn’t ask me if I was okay; she simply sat there, filling out paperwork as we both waited for the doctor. Finally, a middle aged man came in the room and shut the door. “Excuse me,” I whispered. “But isn’t there a female doctor who can examine me?” “Listen lady,” the doctor snapped, “We are short staffed as it is, so if you want this procedure then you’re going to have to deal with me.” “Ok,” I said, “I’m sorry.” The doctor then gave me a transvaginal ultrasound and stated matter-of-factly, “This pregnancy is ectopic.” “What does that mean?” I asked. “It means the pregnancy is developing outside of the uterus,” he stated. “It’s most likely developing in the fallopian tube. Based on the date of your last missed period, you should be 6 weeks pregnant. However, there is no pregnancy showing up on the ultrasound, which leads me to believe the pregnancy is ectopic. We can do a test and schedule an abortion for next week.” And maybe it was the fact that the staff here seemed to have no soul and no sympathy towards me or the other girls, or maybe it was the fact that I was all alone back there. “I want to leave, now,” I said. “Alright,” the doctor said, unfazed, “but schedule your abortion with the receptionist before you leave. I’m a very busy man and only have a few open appointments next week.”
I left Planned Parenthood in tears that day. My boyfriend consoled me, and told me that he would support whatever I decided to do. The following week I went to an actual hospital, and received proper prenatal care. My beautiful baby girl showed up on the ultrasound screen that day, no bigger than a pea. She was not an ectopic pregnancy at all; she had simply been hiding from the evil abortion doctor that day. Nine months later I gave birth to beautiful and healthy Noelle. She is perfect and I am so thankful for every moment that I get to spend with her. Sharing this story is not easy, as I still feel guilty for ever even thinking that I could get an abortion. However, I had decided to share my story today so that others can finally know the truth. Planned Parenthood is not about women’s rights, or about reproductive rights. It only has one bottom line, to make a profit. And they make that profit by attempting to exploit young girls like me and by trying to perform as many abortions as possible. Say yes to life and no to the abortion corporation. Say no to Planned Parenthood.
Imagine a video featuring various people talking about how happy they were to be alive. They shared how they had narrowly survived car accidents, cancer, attempted murder by an abusive partner, and other near-death experiences. They danced and sang and declared their intention to make every moment count, while upbeat music played in the background. And at the very end of the video, there's a logo for... an anti-abortion group.
What would you make of such an ad? The most generous thing you might say is that while it conveys a positive message about the value of life generally, it misses some pretty key elements of the abortion debate. Less generously, you might denounce it as manipulative, and as shamelessly exploiting good causes to draw attention to something else entirely.
The reason I ask is because Planned Parenthood recently came out with the pro-choice version of that hypothetical video, entitled "My Body Is My Own."
For those of you who can't watch the video, it features people of various ages, races, abilities, and gender identities (primarily women and girls) responding to the prompt "My body is my own when..." Answers include "when I can embrace my imperfections," "when people say I'm a good friend," "when I'm boxing," "when I'm dancing," and my personal favorite, because it is a goal I have yet to achieve, "when I can parallel park really fast." Interview segments touch on such worthwhile topics as gender stereotyping, body image, and bullying.
And at the very end, there is the Planned Parenthood logo.
No mention of contraception. No mention of pregnancy. No mention of sexual health. And of course, no mention of the lethal practice of abortion, beyond a vague reference to "making decisions."
If not "pro-choice" (and not, they vehemently protest, "pro-abortion"), what do they want to be called? The answers vary, but there's a common theme: they want to ride on the coattails of genuine good causes. In an Alternet piece, Planned Parenthood talks about supporting "economic security," while abortion advocate Monica Simpson, whose efforts are focused on the Black community, wants to link abortion to a "safe and healthy environment" for children and freedom from domestic violence. And of course, there's the time-tested method of hiding abortion in the tent of "women's health."
... Based on the signals we're getting from pro-choice media commentators, we need to be particularly vigilant in our charitable endeavors. Pro-lifers are as active in charitable organizations as anybody else, so we have the ability to impede the pro-choice strategy here. Whatever causes you are involved in, be on the lookout for activists looking to co-opt them in the name of abortion—and when it happens, speak out against it, quickly and loudly!
With this video, Planned Parenthood's co-opt strategy has officially jumped the shark.
Not long ago, there was a strong push by abortion rights groups to “expose” crisis pregnancy centers, or pregnancy centers that do not provide or refer for abortions, as “fake clinics.” These advocates goal was to educate women about a service NOT offered at places that offered a multitude of other services for FREE. Whatever the faults of pregnancy centers, I have never heard of a pregnancy center EVER charging a client for ANY services received no matter what choice that woman ends up making after she leaves that center. With “comprehensive” clinics that provide or refer for abortions, it is the complete opposite. Sure, many clinics have sliding scale fees, relief scholarships, or fundraisers to help defray the cost of SOME women’s abortions, but not every woman seeking abortion services receives free or reduced cost services (most don’t).
I have volunteered, or attempted to volunteer for, various pregnancy centers throughout Ohio for over five years. I have run the gamut of experiences visiting, touring, and learning about facilities offering help for women facing unplanned pregnancies. As someone who actually knows what it’s like being involved with these entities, let me educate you on what they are and what they offer.
Pregnancy centers run by private, often faith-based organizations are of two types: medical models or aid-based models. Aid models provide options counseling, basic testing (urine over the counter pregnancy testing), adoption agency referrals, government social services resource lists, and in house resources in the form of parenting classes or tangible goods needed for caring for a baby, usually up to one year in age (this is not an exhaustive list of all services offered by aid based clinics). Medical models provide many or all of the options of aid models, but also usually provide a free basic viability/dating ultrasound, free referral to an OB/GYN doctor, free consultation with a nurse, and sometimes medical model clinics offer free STD testing.
Medical model pregnancy clinics employ counselors, nurses, doctors, and sonographers to provide the medical care clients receive, free of charge. Sometimes these medical professionals are volunteering their services for free, sometimes they take a reduced rate of pay from the center, and sometimes these professionals get special training to be able to perform multiple job functions to save pregnancy centers money. Often medical model pregnancy centers will get nurses to take classes from REGISTERED DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL SONOGRAPHERS or other credentialed medical professionals so that they can learn to perform limited OB viability/dating scans. These nurses are supervised by a person who holds a registry in ultrasound and are trained to perform limited protocol scans on pregnant women.
The important thing to know about medical model pregnancy centers is that they have medical professionals doing these services. Either a doctor, nurse with ultrasound training, or a REGISTERED DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL SONOGRAPHER is, and should be performing all medical services.
In America, there are laws pertaining to who can practice medicine, how they are trained, how they are licensed or certified, and how they maintain that license or certification. The legitimacy of doctors and nurses is more secure and trusted because of these measures put in place to protect the public. What is less widely known is that the person doing ultrasound scans is not regulated with the same vigor. Without the extra push of legislation, there is no requirement for who provides ultrasound scans to be licensed or certified in any way.
In the United States there are two bodies that provide credentialing for people who have received specialized training in performing ultrasounds: the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT), and the American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonographers (ARDMS). Before anyone can sit for the tests that each of these organizations offers, their educational background is scrutinized and confirmed. Their academic and hands on clinical hours scanning real patients under supervision are verified, and there are minimum clock hours for both requirements. Once confirmed, someone who has studied ultrasound can take an academic knowledge test and become registered.
According to the Society of Diagnostic Medical Sonographers, a professional trade organization for those in the field of sonography, there are only four states that require a sonographer to be licensed at this time; they are New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oregon. What these state licensure requirements are trying to do is standardize the level of education needed to perform ultrasounds that are diagnostic. All four states accept the requirements set forth by national accrediting agencies for sonographers as an adequate minimum qualification for the state license, meaning if you are registered through ARDMS OR ARRT, then you will be able to get a state license. For all other states, this means that anyone with any training could be doing your ultrasound, with the only repercussion being retroactive lawsuits filed by patients hurt after a medical procedure.
The general public does not know about this lack of requirements for people running ultrasound machines. The people who work in radiology giving CT scans, MRI scans, doing X-rays or doing nuclear medicine studies all have to be trained, educated, and registered, just like nurses and doctors. Sonographers too must be registered to work in hospitals and outpatient clinics, and the majority of medical facilities recognize and hold professional medical support staff to this standard for the safety of all patients. The fact that there are no laws mandating this level of training isn’t much of a problem in the medical professional community, until you run in to an organization that puts profit before patients best interests and safety.
The campaign by abortions rights activists to “expose” fake clinics was amplified by many mainstream media news sources. Many of the pieces I have read covering this push to expose facilities were very clearly biased and agenda driven. As someone who sits on the fringes of the pro-life movement, I have a unique position and ability to provide commentary on some unique factors related to a clinic's legitimacy and/or bottom line. Allow me to educate you; this is a REAL job listing for a “real” clinic that provides “comprehensive” reproductive options (right-click and select "open image in new tab" to enlarge). Currently there are no laws requiring licensure of sonographers in Ohio.
Notice the first two essential duties and responsibilities listed: perform ultrasound imaging procedure of clients for the purposes of pregnancy dating, identification of the presence or absence of cardiac activity, and fetal number. The ability to recognize when findings require evaluation by an APN or a physician. Since in this entire application there is no explicit requirement that the person doing this job be registered through the ARDMS or ARRT, there are several concerns about these job requirements. Unless you are trained in anatomy and physiology, ultrasound, and the unique conditions that can sometimes occur surrounding pregnancy, how can you properly date a pregnancy? Anyone can place measurement calipers on to a fetal pole to estimate how far along the pregnancy is, but can they do that accurately? It can sometimes be hard to do. Bowel gas can make the ultrasound image less clear. If a woman is very overweight, the ultrasound beam cannot penetrate the tissue very well to see in to the uterus, and that can make the image unclear. Knowing ways to work around these limitations is WHY having standards of training is so important. Also there is a condition called heterotopic pregnancy that can happen. It is rare, but again without training, you wouldn’t know to look for this condition. In a heterotopic pregnancy, there is a fetus in the uterus and a fetus in an ectopic location (somewhere outside of the uterus, like on an ovary). Unless you are trained, you might not know where to look to visualize the ovary, or you might THINK you visualized an ovary, but in actuality did not. So how would you know to look for this condition or notify the nurse or physician about a suspected ectopic if you’ve not been trained? And just because a nurse or doctor comes in to look at the screen doesn’t mean they’ve been trained to interpret ultrasound scans unless they have received additional training for interpreting those images. Usually a radiologist specializes in reading all types of medical imaging studies and knows the subtle things to look for that can indicate a more serious problem. The room for error in not using a registered sonographer is much greater, and you’ll notice in this entire job listing that there is no requirement to be registered to work at this abortion facility.
Pregnancy centers use trained nurses or sonographers when doing limited OB scans. The goal of pregnancy centers is to support women and help them feel like they can keep their pregnancies. Pregnancy centers get no money for any decision a woman makes. Planned Parenthood uses anyone with a Bachelors degree in the medical field or a minimum of 4 years of related work experience will be considered in lieu of degree. The goal of Planned Parenthood is to support women and help them feel like they don’t need to keep their pregnancies. Planned Parenthood get money from women who decide to get abortions.
When you look at the two clinics objectively, it is clear that one of them is motivated by profit and when given the choice will choose the less credentialed person in favor of making more profit. Of course, the registered sonographer will want more money, the process of school and getting registered is not cheap. If there’s no law saying you need to be registered, then they won’t explicitly ask for the highest level of training, and this put patients at risk. Registered sonographers have a minimum of training and are tested to know about the intricacies of doing ultrasound. Anyone else scanning you as a patient is a risk, but how would you know to ask?
[Today's guest post by Sarah Anne is part of our paid blogging program.]
About a year ago, Destiny of New Wave Feminists attended The Women's Convention in Detroit. Recently she created a video (FB, Youtube) talking about attending the "Abortion Stories" breakout session. We've transcribed the video below. Phrases in italics signify thoughts not spoken out loud.
*****
Okay so I don’t have a ton of time but I want to tell you guys real
quick about something that happened last year at the women’s conference in
Detroit. This was a conference that was put on by Planned Parenthood—that was
one of the big sponsors—and the Women’s March. So the people who had removed us from the Women’s March. They had a conference and I registered with my full
name and everything and they accepted it. And so I was able to go, and it was a
fascinating experience.
Obviously I was surrounded by a lot of very pro-choice women. I did not
go there in any way to protest them or start trouble. I really kind of just
wanted to be in dialogue with them, and to talk to these people who I think so
many of us in the pro-life community maybe even without realizing we’re doing
it, we have dehumanized them. You know, we made them the enemy. So I thought it
would be a great opportunity to just go and sit and hear them. And listen to
them, listen to why it is that they think abortion is such a necessary
quintessential part of feminism.
Abby Johnson also went with a couple people from her organization. So I
was not planning going to this one particular panel, but at the last minute I
decided to go. And it was called “Abortion Stories.” And I walk in, and Abby
was there with her people, and of course Abby’s very recognizable. So she’s
sitting a little bit away from me. I saw people kind of pointing at her. They
knew who she was. So at the beginning of this session, somebody went to the
front and said “We know that we have some people in here who disagree with
this. And we want to make it very clear that if anyone disrupts, you will be
removed immediately.” And Abby was like What?
Me? Nooo. It was really funny because we really weren’t there to disrupt!
We just kind of wanted to listen. Luckily I was sitting far enough away I don’t
think anyone realized that I was also like a “pro-life spy” or whatever.
[Laughs] Is that what they thought was going on?
So I listened to this panel. It was 4 or 5 women. A couple of them had
had multiple abortions. One of the more outgoing women on it, she was
hilarious, but she kept talking about how she had had this Etsy shop where she
posted abortion related stuff. So she had this flask that she takes with her to
all her speaking engagements and it says “I love my abobo.” And she says “I’m
going to sell these on my thing.” As someone in recovery myself, I kept
thinking Why do you take a flask to all
your speaking engagements? That—I don’t know—that’s a signal to me that
maybe something isn’t resolved with you about your abortion.
So anyway I listened to them tell their stories and answer all the
questions. They started doing a Q&A. And there was a young woman who stood
up. She said her name was Coco and she was with a Planned Parenthood actually
here in Texas. “How come Planned Parenthood is constantly saying ‘It’s only 3%,
it’s only 3%’?” Because a big part of what they had talked about during their
presentation was how we stigmatize abortion and how there’s a stigma around it.
So she said “Aren’t they in turn actually adding stigma to abortion by saying
‘It’s only 3%’?” And everyone in the room agreed. The outspoken woman on the
panel said “That’s why I say go work for a small, independent abortion
provider.” And everyone starts cheering, like they were kind of anti-Planned
Parenthood. And all of a sudden I’m like Am
I in on some weird pro-choice secret? Like people don’t actually love Planned
Parenthood as much as Planned Parenthood would like us to think they do?
And so the woman was like “Okay, okay” and she sits down.
So at this point there was a reporter who had said she wanted to come
with me if I was going to ask any questions or anything. And she said “If I
can’t be at the session with you, if you could just record it.” So I had
literally just turned my phone on to record and caught the Coco thing. Because
I thought I don’t know if I’m going to
ask a question. Again, I didn’t go to this to start trouble. But before Coco’s
question they had said “Does anybody have any questions?” And it was just kind
of a long silence, nobody in the room did, and so I almost asked at that point.
And then Coco got up. And so then it was my turn because now the same thing
happened: they were like “Do we have any questions? Any questions?” And it’s
kind of silence. And I thought You know
what? I might as well. So I raised my hand. All the stories we were hearing
were very positive abortion stories. And I said, “What if a woman’s abortion story
is not positive? What if she was coerced into an abortion? One that she didn’t
want. Is she allowed to be a part of your campaign as well? Or would that be
considered stigmatizing abortion?”
And I remember the outspoken woman who had called on me looks at me,
straight in the face, and she says “Do we have any other questions?” And starts
looking around the room. And the coolest thing happened at that moment. A woman
right in the front row—her hand shoots up—and she says “No. That’s a good
question. Answer it.” And so I’m assuming this woman in the front row is
probably post-abortive and definitely pro-choice, and here she was advocating
for my voice to be heard, which I thought was just kind of beautiful.
So the woman looks at her and she goes, “Well I guess I really just
didn’t understand the question.” And the woman behind that lady says my
question! Explains it. Which was also really cool. Here these women were saying
“No, we want an answer to this.” So she says, “She’s asking if a woman had a bad
experience and was coerced into an abortion, can she tell her story as part of
your campaign?” And the lady goes, “Well, first of all, if a woman comes to us
and she wants to have her baby, we send her on her way with a pack of prenatal
vitamins and a picture of her sonogram and we say ‘Go be a mom.’ This does not
happen. There are not coerced abortions.” And of course she thinks she’s
putting it to rest with that.
Another hand shoots up from a third
woman in this room who says “No. She’s saying if a woman was coerced, can she tell her story?” And at this point, somebody
else on the panel who’s a little better at PR jumped in and says “Well we
wouldn’t want to be hurting a woman. We wouldn’t want her—if she has unresolved
issues with her abortion—we wouldn’t want to be re-wounding her by having her
share that story. We would want to get her into a healthy place before she
shared her story.” And I was like, That’s
kind of a cop out, but that was a much better answer.
So then this session wraps up and nobody was escorted out. None of us
started any trouble, right? And the next day I’m meeting with that reporter. So
we’re down at the little hotel coffee shop and she had her recorder on because
she was interviewing me. And all of a sudden Coco walks up. And she says, “Hey,
I hate to interrupt you guys. I’m so sorry. But I just wanted to say thank you
so much for asking your question yesterday. I get that question all the time
and I never know how to answer it. Thank you for doing that.” And I’m just
like, “Of course!” Clearly she has no idea who I am or she would not be
thanking me for doing this.
And I said, “You know, at the end of the day, I am a feminist. And I
hate women’s voices being used as propaganda. And I think there’s a much larger
conversation we need to be having about the nuance within abortion and the fact
that there are women who are pro-choice out there who feel like it was the
right decision for them to make. But they still have these wounds. And I know
this because they’re my friends. I have many pro-choice friends who don’t
necessarily regret their abortions, but they still know exactly how old their
child would be today. They still think about it. They still wonder what their
life would have been like if they would have had that child.”
“And when we don’t allow women the ability to express that because we
label them as ‘stigmatizing abortion,’ I think that’s incredibly cruel. And I
think, especially as a feminist, I don’t believe we should be in any type of
bondage. I don’t think we should be chained barefoot and pregnant to a stove,
but I also don’t think that we should be in emotional bondage from an abortion
that we’re not allowed to talk about unless we put a smile on and say it was
the best thing we ever did. Because for so many women, it’s a very complex
multifaceted issue, and we have to let them talk about it. We have to hear
their stories.”
So with that, I’m really excited to see these new groups cropping up
that do after-care, you know, abortion healing, that’s not religious, and is
more wide-ranging. I spoke to a woman on the phone today that I’m just really
encouraged by, because she was saying she has pro-choice friends who are
post-abortive, and they want to be able to talk about their abortions. And
she’s pro-life but she wants to be able to offer them a safe space to do that
as well. And I think that is just one of these ways that we can really break
down this divide between the pro-life and the pro-choice side, where it’s
constantly dehumanizing the other side and not looking at them fully, but then
expecting them to understand the humanity of the unborn person when so often we
disregard their humanity.
Those in favor of abortion, including the abortion giant Planned Parenthood, will sometimes say they are “pro-choice, not pro-abortion.” This rhetoric is meant to give the impression they value both choices a pregnant mother may make with her pregnancy, those being birth and abortion. However, when we investigate Planned Parenthood more closely, we find the “pro-abortion” title is what they truly deserve.
If Planned Parenthood was truly “pro-choice,” they would provide support and services for all pregnant mothers, regardless of which choice they made. However, this is not the case. Last year, Live Action called 97 Planned Parenthood facilities all across America, and only five of them offered prenatal care. This lack of prenatal care is also reflected in Planned Parenthood’s annual report.
Planned Parenthood has repeatedly claimed abortion is only 3% of what they do. Interestingly, by that same metric, prenatal care accounts for only 0.08% of what they do. One of the services Planned Parenthood offers even fewer of is adoption referrals, which account for a mere 0.04% of their services. Planned Parenthood calls themselves “pro-choice,” but only 0.12% of their services support pregnant mothers who want to choose life for their child.
Additionally, Planned Parenthood offers nothing to help women who have recently given birth to a child. Planned Parenthood does not help pregnant women deliver healthy babies. They also do not offer any kind of parenting prep classes, and they do not offer any resources for babies such as diapers, car seats, baby food, or anything else.
If you look at the “Our Services” page on Planned Parenthood’s website, the words “baby,” “parent,” and “child” are nowhere to be found. The word “birth” can only be found when preceding the word “control.” Planned Parenthood claims to be “pro-choice,” but they clearly offer nothing for mothers who want to choose life for their babies. Planned Parenthood claims to be a champion of women’s health care, yet they do essentially nothing to help women with childbirth, which is the single most distinguishing feature of women’s health care.
Furthermore, Planned Parenthood does not offer abortion pill reversal treatment, which can reverse the effects of first-trimester medication abortions and save the preborn child. In fact, Planned Parenthood is so pro-abortion they refuse to offer abortion pill reversal treatment even though they could make more money if they did. Planned Parenthood is so committed to abortion that even the almighty dollar cannot persuade them to provide other options for pregnant mothers.
After reviewing their records, it is clear Planned Parenthood is not simply “pro-choice.” They are pro-abortion. Planned Parenthood refuses to offer comprehensive women’s healthcare. Additionally, Planned Parenthood fails to offer any services for women who want to choose life for their child. Planned Parenthood pushes the idea that women must reject their fertility to be empowered, and that women must give their money to Planned Parenthood in order to grasp this empowerment. Even pro-choice advocates should acknowledge that Planned Parenthood is a failure when it comes to providing basic women’s health care.
The Let There Be Life Conference co-hosted by Berkeley Students for Life and Pro-Life San Francisco was a smashing success. Not only did each speaker cover very different content, but the style of each speech was entirely different. There were speeches in the style of spoken word poetry, rigorous academic discussion, sermon*, humorous dialogue, rousing call to action, and many others. It was engaging and inspiring to see so many different types of people uniting to educate and empower one another to work against abortion.
But let me back up. Fellow SPL co-leader Ellen and I arrived at UC Berkeley around 7:30 am and set up the Secular Pro-Life table. I was impressed at how many pro-life groups tabled for this event. We were right next to the table for Abide Women’s Health and across from our buds Rehumanize International and of course Josh Brahm’s Equal Rights Institute, but there were many great groups all around. People came up to chat with us about SPL and grab a brochure, and we got to say hi to many pro-life friends from around the state and country who I rarely get to see in person. That’s always one of the best parts of making it to a pro-life conference.
After about an hour of breakfast and chatting, Terrisa used her iconic bullhorn to get the conference underway. Pro-Life San Francisco very thoughtfully had staff to keep an eye on the tables so the tabling people could go inside and watch all the talks. The morning speeches went like this:
Elijah started off the conference with a talk about “blooming where you’re planted” i.e. focusing on your strengths and your natural circles of influence.
Terrisa & Karen outlined a strategy for persuading more pro-choice Californians to consider the pro-life position. They especially emphasized unifying the diverse pro-life groups around our similarities and de-emphasizing our (many) differences.
Josh, in usual comedic style, illustrated how to engage pro-choice people in a non-threatening, convincing way through open-mindedness, clarifying questions, and respectful dialogue. He finished his talk by outlining the Equal Rights Argument, which his team has found very effective at helping people see the pro-life view.
Speaking probably a bit too quickly, I gave an overview of the data surrounding three commonly perpetrated pro-choice myths: (1) we don’t know when human life begins, (2) most late-term abortions are for medical reasons, and (3) pro-life laws don’t decrease abortions. (You can see the sources for the presentation here.)
Herb gave a passionate, honest talk about the language society has historically used (and continues to use) to dehumanize and marginalize vulnerable groups before oppressing and often killing people in those groups. Sadly, even pro-lifers sometimes use dehumanizing language regarding certain topics, which can undermine our credibility when we say all humans have equal value. "Whether it’s the violence of war, torture, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, human trafficking -- all of these acts are perpetuated by dehumanizing language that makes the victim seem somehow 'subhuman.'" Check out this excellent graphic Rehumanize International created to illustrate the point.
In a talk almost like a sermon*, Walter cut deep to the truth with facts about the rapidly declining fertility rate of black Americans which threatens to eliminate black culture. He specifically addressed the staggering abortion rates among the black population, and the targeting of black people by the abortion industry.
*The content here was not that of a sermon; it was not about religion at all. But the style very much reminded me of a sermon with the speaker’s variable pace and the way he engaged the attendees.
After Walter's talk the conference stopped for lunch. Everyone stretched their legs and walked out to a beautiful warm day. We grabbed our sunglasses and sandwiches, chips, and cookies (included with the conference tickets) and Ellen and I continued tabling for Secular Pro-Life. Many attendees came up to congratulate us on SPL's talk, which they enjoyed very much, and to get copies of our 5 page source list. Several of the attendees said they appreciated the analytical approach, and shared that they too had backgrounds in STEM and so were partial to a more data-centered discussion. I'm always pretty happy to meet other STEM pro-lifers. It may be the first conference Ellen or I have attended where we talked a lot more about the research and not as much about religious diversity, although there were several of those discussions too. Either way everyone was friendly and encouraging, and we ended up giving away all but one of our copies of the source list. There was a lot of interest, which was pretty great.
In what seemed like no time, lunch was over and we were ready for the second half, which included the following talks:
Pro-Life When It Counts
Marie Stettler
Marie shared her story about her unexpected pregnancy, in which she made a hesitant decision to abort, tried to use abortion pill reversal to undo it, but ultimately lost her child. She has since become a nurse with Culture of Life Family Services, the same organization that had tried to help with the reversal. You can read more about her journey here.
Amy shared her own experiences with an unplanned teen pregnancy and emphasized the importance of the church being a safe place for pregnant women and girls.
Cessilye opened by darkening the room and showing Billie Holiday singing Strange Fruit. Cessilye then spoke softly but poetically and movingly about the disproportionate struggles black women face with pregnancy and childbearing, all while a silent array of powerful photos of black women faded in and out to a darkened room.
David gave a rousing speech about how even one person can make a huge difference in creating a culture of life and called on all of us to work together and coordinate our efforts.
Catherine discussed the importance of voter education in California. She also talked about the need for unity amidst diversity in the movement (a recurring and excellent theme for the conference).
Destiny talked about building bridges with pro-choice feminists, explaining how treating people respectfully and being approachable makes it easier to work together, whereas being more aggressive and assertive has the opposite effect.
David showed us (1) the CMP video he took of Dr. Deborah Nucatola detailing how she surgically obtains and sells fetal organs for money, (2) documents explicitly listing prices for fetal organ costs separate from the already-listed cost reimbursements, and (3) advertisements from procurement companies explicitly highlighting the financial gains abortion clinics may realize if they sell late-term fetal organs and other tissues.
Despite David's dispassionate and informative demeanor, the presentation was horrifying and infuriating. It was interesting that the conference organizers chose to end on this note, as I think it left attendees feeling a strong sense of urgency to continue and expand their pro-life efforts.
Overall it was a phenomenal conference. It seemed like there were speakers to represent such a wide variety of pro-life people and I think a lot of people left feeling we are united, so I guess the conference organizers really hit the target theme. If you are able to go to a Pro-Life San Francisco event in the future, we recommend it. You can see more pics from this year's conference here.
