Help us spread the word!

add us on myspace and subscribe on youtube

Mailing List

Subscribe to the mailing list to be notified when our pro-life book's published! NO spam, easy to unscubscribe to. We don't sell or even share your information.


Special Reports

Pro-aborts consider free speech pornography which dehumanizes women, all the while laying claim to the feminist label. But when it comes to actual spoken words and typed text, well, that is a different matter. Consider the handful of teachers and principals that punished kids for wearing pro-life t-shirts to school--even though the shirts had no pictures of abortion, just text. Consider that most news networks would probably refuse to air what an abortion actually looks like, except a network in England which recently ran a documentary on abortion in April, 2004.

Many pro-abortion organizations file suit against the right to have a pro-life license plate, even though there are many other worthy causes such as environmental protection, which have no problem with obtaining a license tag.

Consider that the bigotry of pro-abortion propaganda is so hateful they use violence to attack pro-lifers and show their hate through their words and actions.

Obviously, freedom of speech is not absolute. Exceptions include considerations of copyright, libel and slander, defamation, and obsenity. But the pro-abortion organizations that have attempted to curtail freedom of speech have not relied on these exceptions but instead have tried to restrict freedom of political speech--one of the kinds of speech that should be defended foremost.

Village Voice writer and civil libertarian Nat Hentoff has described an atmosphere of hostility to anyone right of center regarding certain issues such as abortion (1). Tammy Bruce, a self-described “pro-choice lesbian” and former president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW, described in The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds how the Left has betrayed its roots of free speech and free expression and has turned to political correctness, political censorship and groupthink.

One section described how pro-abortion women often do not even let pro-life women speak their view without throwing a fit. She described one pro-life woman, “Betty,” that worked for an animal shelter for years. When a woman that donates to the shelter visited the facility, the woman made the remark that it was too bad cats and dogs didn’t “have access to abortion,” since there were so many stray puppies and kittens. Betty simply replied, “that the real tragedy was that women did.” The donor was shocked and asked, “You’re not one of those anti-abortion nuts, are you?” to which Betty defensively replied, “Well, no, . . . but I do work to help women and girls think of adoption as an alternative to abortion.” The woman stormed off and took her check with her. Two other women called after being contacted by the woman to withdraw their support as well. Tammy Bruce accurately termed these women “bullies” (2). They were furious that someone disagreed with their Culture of Death.

University Thought Police
The Leftist majority at major universities doesn’t often tolerate freedom of expression from pro-life students and groups. For example, the Student Bar Association at Washington University in St. Louis took away the rights of Law Students Pro-Life. The group wanted to exist as a club on campus, much like other special issue clubs at the university. But the chancellor barred it simply for their beliefs; he therefore condoned “restrictions on freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and freedom of speech” as Alan Charles Kors of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education rightly argued. The SBA rejected the constitution proposal by Law Students Pro-Life, denying funding, tax-exempt status and office space. The club would also not be featured in the admission brochure unlike many other more politically correct clubs (3). Because the club did not concede to the lock-step liberal viewpoint, it was prejudiced against at this public university.

Vandalism of Pro-Life Displays and Attacks on Free Speech
“Students for Choice,” a pro-abortion group, has encouraged its members to vandalize pro-life displays that are often found on university campuses. The group’s web site instructed pro-abortion activists to use spray paint and scissors to destroy or vandalize pro-life displays. After the police were called, the language of “vandalism” was removed from the organization’s web site, but still subtly instructed vandalism. One part instructed how to destroy pro-life displays: “Or you could take it down. It you choose this option, DO NOT DO IT ALONE OR IN A SMALL GROUP. Make it a mass action or do not do it at all. In a group of fifty or more, calmly approach the display, and one by one take a piece of it down” (4).

In November of 2001, during the violent G-20 protests that took place in Ottawa, a rent-a-mob comprised of masked protesters and vandals tore down the only pro-life public display in Ottawa. The coverage of that vandalism was restricted to outside of Canada—newspapers from Africa to Australia covered it. Canadian newspapers largely ignored the incident, except for the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, which included a paragraph on the vandalism of the sign (5).

Pro-Abortion Bias
The Corporate Media Cartel has been a willing accomplice in squelching free speech in the name of murderous choice. Some television stations have refused to air pro-life campaign advertisements, such as the local affiliates of ABC, CBS and NBC in the Santa Barbara, California district. Two Republicans ran for a congressional seat in that area, one being Tom Bordonaro, a rancher whose funds did not get that close to those of his opponent, Brooks Firestone, a rich winegrower and liberal. Bordonaro opposed partial birth abortion, but Firestone was against banning this gruesome procedure. The pro-life ads that were refused broadcast time did not contain any pictures of dead babies’ bodies or fetal parts, though this truly expose what this “procedure” is about. George Will pointed out that the ads simply described partial birth abortion much like the same way ABC News World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News described it.

Peaceful Protesting a Crime
In 1994, the U.S. Congress outlawed freedom of speech, freedom to protest and the right to assemble for pro-lifers. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act made peaceful picketing of an abortion clinic a federal crime with punishment of 10 years in prison. That’s right—10 years of incarceration for peaceful picketing. As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the London Telegraph pointed out, “This means 10 years for praying, in effect.”

Evans-Pritchard also pointed out how “The same methods of protest outside the White House would only draw a charge of misdemeanour.” But protesting against such an admittedly horrible deed of murder was offensive to the Clinton administration and the pro-abortion controlled Senate at the time. Where else would the “researchers” at the fetal experimentation labs get their “materials” from that Clinton had allowed funding for years earlier?

Indeed, pro-lifers are accustomed to persecution for their beliefs and peaceful methods of protest. According to Evans-Pritchard, “Pro-life activists have spent more time in prison for their convictions than the civil rights activists of the Sixties. There have been 72,000 arrests for picketing abortion clinics since 1987. Some campaigners have been jailed for up to two and a half years for non-violent protest that mostly involves quiet chanting and prayer. In terms of grass roots protest, day in, day out, they are the biggest movement of civil disobedience in America this century” (7).

Arrested for Peacefully Protesting
Two pastors were arrested for peacefully protesting outside of the abortion clinic of Dr. George Tiller, who “does late-term abortions” as the euphemism goes. Daniel Thompson, 39, and Kevin Stanfield, 44, were both charged by the police with “obstructing legal process.” According to protest leader Rev. Pat Mahoney, “a lot more people wanted to join them, but we felt two pastors from Wichita would send a more powerful message” (8).

In Ontario, Canada, free speech is not as important as it is in most of the United States. An injunction there prevents pro-life protestors from protesting outside of Ontario abortion clinics. Although the injunction does not apply to journalists, both journalists and writers were arrested for simply covering the story of the abortion protests. Toronto journalist Sue Careless as well as writers Steve Jalsevac and Gord Truscott were all arrested outside the Scott abortion clinic on October 15, 1999. Careless then was not able to work as much while dealing with the courts for nine months. Charges were eventually dropped after the long ordeal (9).

Physical Threats Against Free Speech
On a Friday morning, abortionist Matthew J. Kachinas arrived at the Sarasota Women’s “Health Center,” where Linda McGlade attempted to witness to him in a completely peaceful manner. Kachinas, cursing and clearly enraged, walked up to McGlade and stopped “within centimeters of her face, [and] he clearly and pointedly whispered several times the words, ‘I'm going to kill you!’ Then, with half a dozen witnesses and a video camera observing his actions, Kachinas drew his head back . . . then delivered a head butt to [McGlade’s] forehead! She drew back stunned from both the impact as well as the surprise of the attack” (10).

Keith McGlade, Linda McGlade’s son, stepped up in front of Mrs. McGlade in order to protect her. Kachinas responded by taunting Mr. McGlade, stating “what are you going to do about it?” He then kept cursing and taunting Mr. McGlade, and then flipped McGlade’s hat off of his head, and began to stomp on it. Mr. McGlade kept his cool and replied: “Sir, you are a monster . . .”

The police were called, and a couple of officers showed up when the report came in that a woman had been attacked. The officer took eyewitness accounts of this violent and sickening act, but when the sergeant arrived, the protesters were told that the abortionist that attacked the woman would not be arrested until he was done with his “work” for that day. He was told to turn himself in later in the day. But when Kachinas did turn himself in, he was told he would not be arrested, even after violently attacking a woman! The high ranking officers in the police department decided instead to refer the issue to the state attorney’s office. Kachinas was cited for two counts of battery with additional charges pending.

Common Sense Journal has has news of another violent attack on a peaceful pro-life protester who was merely expressing a political opinion. See the video and news.

Protesters as “Terrorists”
In November of 2003, the liberal Village Voice ran an article (11) on how activists and organizations within the environmental and animal rights movements may be considered “terrorists” by the New York State Legislature when bill A4884 was introduced by Assemblyman Member Richard Smith, a Democrat from Blasdell. According to the bill, “terrorist” organizations would be defined as “any association, organization, entity, coalition, or combination of two or more persons with the primary or incidental purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity through intimidation, coercion, fear, or other means.” Activists feared peaceful protesting, letter writing, and just plain speech would be considered a “terrorist” act under this definition. Many other states were considering such legislation, such as Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Pennsylvania.

Now animal rights groups and environmentalist know how it feels to be a pro-lifer. For years pro-lifers have been physically and verbally intimidated to suppress their speech and protests. Did the Village Voice run an article about this? Unless pro-life and logically consistent Village Voice writer Nat Hentoff wrote it, I doubt it (12).

The pro-abortion organization Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice ran advertisements in the Washington, D.C. newspapers The Hill (Nov. 14, 2001) and Roll Call (Nov. 15, 2001) that called pro-life advocates “domestic religious terrorists.” The ridiculous ads, ran two months after September 11, 2001, also compared pro-life people to Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban.

The ad described attacks on abortion clinics but failed to mention attacks on pro-life people, organizations and signs. They also missed the obvious point that violent protesters are but a microscopic constituent of the millions within the pro-life community. The ad also failed to quote any of the thousands of pro-life figures or organizations that condemn violence (13). They also forget of the terrorism of violence that is an abortion. The mainstream media, as usual, failed to cover these ironic and hypocritical advertisements.

VAAPCON and Big Brother’s New Agenda
One conspiracy theory may not be so insane after all. In July of 2000, Washington Times-owned magazine Insight investigated the possibility that the federal government under the Clinton administration was “assembling an extensive database on pro-life organizations under the auspices of tracking potential criminals involved in ‘domestic terrorism’” under a new task force entitled VAAPCON, short for Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy (14). Although the Justice Department admitted that the task force to track “potential criminals” related to the pro-life cause existed, it denied that it tracked any individuals or groups. This was later proven to be a lie.

Insight magazine obtained internal Justice Department documents that detailed plans for “intrusive investigative activity” on groups as varied as the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Women’s Coalition for Life by the U.S. Postal Inspection, U.S. Marshals services, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Other groups that were monitored included Americans United for Life, Concerned Women for America, Feminists for Life, American Life League and the Christian Coalition. Much of the information from the secret files sounded a bit like domestic intelligence agency would have on a group. They seemed to be aimed at squelching dissent against President Clinton’s abortion-on-demand policies.

One typical entry of the Big Brother-style task force detailed information on Women’s Coalition for Life: They “describe themselves as both pro-feminist and pro-life. It’s an umbrella organization of approximately 1.8 million members, linking 15 existing grass-roots groups led by women opposed to abortion. Founded in April 1992, the coalition counsels women in crisis pregnancies and lobbies for antiabortion legislation. They have formed a ‘Susan B. Anthony List’ to rival Emily’s List and provide financial support to pro-life women candidates in 1994.”

One FBI agent objected on legal and ethical grounds to the monitoring of these groups that had no links to terrorism or violent protests. According to Insight, he was “overruled by upper levels at Justice.” The VAAPCON task force is under the “auspices of the Criminal Division and . . . virtually all entries are part of what’s called an ‘FI’ tag--that is, a ‘full-investigation’ label,” even though these groups have no known ties to terrorists, condemn violent attacks on abortion clinics, and preach non-violent protest. One FBI agent told Insight that “This is wrong and it ought to be exposed for what it is, a political witch-hunt.”

Later in 2000 when Insight asked two FBI officials if the information on these peaceful groups if still collected, they both answered yes and that information was being added continually, although one admitted that the information on them probably should not be in there (15).

Judges Find that, Amazingly, Words Are Protected by the First Amendment
The Nuremberg Files web site is one example of the attack on free speech by the pro-abortion status quo dogma machine. The web site listed names of abortionists in anticipation of “the day when these people will be charged in PERFECTLY LEGAL COURTS once the tide of this nation’s opinion turns against the wanton slaughter of God’s children (as it surely will).” Ann Coulter pointed out that although the web site calls for trials of the murderers and not assassinations, the founders were sued by Planned Parenthood and four abortionists. They were ordered to pay the merchants of death $109 million in damages since they felt threatened. The case was eventually overturned on appeal, when a court amazingly found that “words are protected by the First Amendment.” The New York Times later editorialized that this should lead the Bush administration to “crack down” on the pro-life movement and called for the investigation of pro-lifers, since their speech cannot be curtailed in this instance (16).

The murder of abortionists is not acceptable, since it is the taking of human life, although they are mass murderers themselves. And if this web site had been putting pictures up of abortionists and then calling for their assassination, along with their private residence information, then I could understand blocking access to this information. But it is not just enough for liberals to spread death of the young. They need to squelch any speech and protest that exposes the truth.

The ACLU’s Attempts to Squelch Dissent and Restrict Free Speech and Protest
The ACLU stands up for a few good causes: the right to protest, the right to assemble, and the right to privacy. They also speak out against troublesome concepts like a national ID card, which would erode privacy and help the government track law-abiding citizens, while not stopping terrorism.

On the other hand, there are many causes that the ACLU is nefarious for, such as fighting the right of pro-life people to protest and the right to life of unborn children. Also, it has defended pedophile criminal organizations but not pro-life organizations. George Grant points out that the ACLU not only supports abortion past the “point of viability” but advocates outright infanticide as well (17). Ironically, the ACLU claims that it abhors any “lack of respect for human life,” (18) and that teaching “the permissibility of killing people to solve social problems is the worst possible example to set for any society” (19). Grant also points out how the ACLU has claimed that it despises anything that “might give society the unmistakable message that life ceases to be sacred when it is thought useful to take it and that violence is legitimate when it is thought justified by pragmatic concerns that appeal to those having the legal power to kill” (20) and that “A civilized and human society does not deliberately kill human beings” (21). These are all great points, but the ACLU needs to discover its ignorance and change its methods of selling out ideals.

The ACLU not only contradicts itself with its support for infanticide as birth control, but they also are hypocritical when it comes to protest; they selectively support the right of people and organizations to protest. Although the ACLU also claims to be champions of dissent and protest, its own record of attempting to squash dissent when it does not align with their ultra-left ideology shows that they are not serious about allowing peaceful protest. Grant points out that even though the words of the ACLU Policy Guide reads, “The ACLU supports the right to picket in any circumstances, by any method, and in any numbers,” (22) the ACLU “has often fought to limit the circumstances, methods, and numbers for peaceful pro-life protests” (23). Grant also points out that even though the ACLU’s official policy is against espionage tactics on protesters, it has been directly or indirectly involved in “social surveillance measures, compiling dossiers on individuals and photographing ‘potential’ opponents for later litigation” (24). The same hypocrisy is evident in their official position against trespassing violations against protesters. Although their policy states that, “Orderly, non-violent protests such as sit-ins are not a trespass on private property but rather a constitutional right to express opinion,” the ACLU has often advised to trespass pro-life protesters (25). And even though the ACLU has encouraged anti-nuclear, anti-war and environmentalist protesters to “incite riots” when they have crossed state lines, it has encouraged using the Federal racketeering laws—RICO laws—against peaceful pro-life protesters (26).

What can one expect from an organization that persecutes pro-life protesters but defends pedophile killers? Infamous for their hateful propaganda and nonsensical logic, the ACLU helped defend a pedophile organization in the name of free speech. Two homosexual pedophiles, Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari, were convicted in the murder and rape of a 10-year-old boy, Jeffrey Curley on Oct. 1, 1997. “According to the Curley’s suit, Jaynes was a member of NAMBLA under an alias at the time of the slaying. Jaynes, the plaintiffs say, had viewed the NAMBLA Web site shortly before the murder. NAMBLA literature showing members how to gain children’s trust, gain access to children nationwide, and avoid police investigating pedophilia cases were also found in Jaynes’ car and apartment, the lawsuit alleges” (27). &#x201CAccording to the FBI Behavioral Sciences Unit, NAMBLA is the largest and most dangerous organization of pedophiles in the U.S.” (28).

According to the ACLU, people should be silenced that acknowledge that unborn children are human lives. But they defend criminal pedophile murderous organizations that aid pedophiles in finding children.

T-Shirt McCarthyism
Each year, thousands of middle school and high school students participate in the National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day, organized by Rock for Life. The students consider this a way to peacefully support the pro-life cause. Some of the t-shirts have simple messages such as “Abortion is Homicide” in big letters or “Face It, Abortion Kills!” or just simply the “Rock for Life” text logo. Other shirts have the message, “Abortion is Mean” or “I Survived” on the front and “Over 1/3 of our generation has been wiped out. Pray to End Abortion” on the back. Another shirt has “Equal Rights for Preborn People.” None of these t-shirts have a picture of abortion on them. All of them just solely have text with these messages on them. The Rock for Life text logo t-shirts has an illustration of a fetus playing a guitar.

After the first annual t-shirt day was held, dozens of parents called Rock for Life with stories of how their son or daughter was being threatened with detention or even suspension for wearing the shirts. The Thomas More Center for Law and Justice agreed to defend the students’ constitutional rights pro bono.

In one example of discriminatory harassment, an eight-year-old second grader was told to remove his pro-life t-shirt, which he had worn with his parent’s permission. The principal apparently had objected to his shirt, which read, “stop killing our generation.” In Maryland, five students that wore the pro-life t-shirts were “threatened with suspension if they distribute if they wear or distribute anything with a pro-life message in the future.” Said Sara McKalips of Rock for Life: “It’s amazing how quickly those who preach ‘tolerance’ become the most vehemently intolerant when the topic is abortion” (29).

Suppression of Speech of Pro-Life Politicians and Protesters
Sometimes people have to sell out if they want to run for the Democratic nomination. Jesse Jackson was adamantly pro-life, and he compared the dehumanization of the unborn to slavery and dehumanization of blacks. But all that changed in 1984, when he ran for presidency. Knowing that in order to get political support from the lockstep Left, Jackson abandoned his pro-life beliefs, or at least quieted them down a bit. As Nat Hentoff pointed out, “The lockstep liberal orthodoxy on abortion is pro-choice . . . Dissenters are not tolerated.”

When Hentoff, a self-described “Jewish, atheist, civil libertarian, left-wing pro-lifer,” declared himself pro-life, three female editors at his the liberal newspaper Village Voice where he writes, stopped talking to him. But the reaction was not all negative. People of all ages from all over, both men and women, wrote to him to express their support. They, too, were pro-life and also left-wing, and were surprised to find someone else that was “against capital punishment . . . and dismayed at the annual killing of 1.6 million developing human beings” (30).

Nazareth College, in Rochester, even cancelled Hentoff’s public speaking engagement there because two women on the lecture committee had stated that “there was a limit to the kind of speech the students could safely hear, and [Hentoff] was outside that limit.” Ironically, the two women intended for him to come back the next year to speak on his area of expertise, censorship in America. Hentoff “went and was delighted to talk about censorship at Nazareth.” After Hentoff’s moral epiphany the ACLU stopped inviting him to speak at fund-raising dinners across the United States. I guess there is a limit to what kind of speech the ACLU will tolerate as well.

BBC’s Censorship Overruled
The Court of Appeal in England ruled in March of 2002 that BBC “illegally censored a graphic political program by an anti-abortion party.” The BBC had refused to air the ad, which featured aborted fetuses. Lord Justice Simon Brown found that “Disturbing, perhaps shocking, though the images on this video undoubtedly are, they represent the reality, the actuality, of what is involved in the abortion process.” Brown went on to state that “To campaign for the prohibition of abortion is a legitimate political program. The pictures are in a real sense the message. Words alone cannot convey the essentially human character of the fetus and the nature of its destruction by abortion.”

Anne Sloman, BBC’s chief political adviser, stated that the BBC has an “obligation not to broadcast material that offends against good taste and decency or is likely to be offensive to public feeling . . . This [ruling] means that viewers may be subjected to material that will cause widespread and gross offense” (31).

While the images are indeed disturbing, the point was to point out the obvious grotesquerie of abortion. If these ads are disturbing, then it is what is happening in them that is disturbing as well, not just the images.

Pro-Abortion Group Threatens Litigation against Pro-Life Group
The pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights threatened legal action against after the site carried a story about the group’s effort to spread pro-abortion laws throughout the world. The Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (CFAM) had received a 60-page internal report from an anonymous source that detailed CRR’s international pro-abortion strategy. CRR president Nancy Northrup sent a letter to desist and complained that the coverage would cause CRR “irreparable harm.” CRR also requested the e-mail addresses of everyone on the mailing list, to which refused. As Steve Ertelt of put it, “It’s not our problem if abortion advocates are embarrassed by their words or actions” (32).

License Tags for Liberals but not Pro-Lifers
Many pro-life groups have gotten license plates passed in various states with pro-life themes. While some have objected to this because it is a “political viewpoint,” environmental groups have license plates, which are political viewpoints as well. The funds go to crisis pregnancy centers and organizations that aid in promoting adoption. In California and Arizona, Choose Life, Inc., was forced to bring suit against those states to attain the same right that other non-profit groups have had (33). In New York, State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer campaigned against the pro-life license plates. Children First Foundation Inc. filed suit in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to be able to have pro-life license plates. New York Assistant Solicitor General Jennifer Grace Miller said that the plates might lead to “road rage.” During the opening arguments, Judge Dennis Jacobs incredulously said, “If you win, then white supremacist organizations and the Klu Klux Klan can have license plates. There'd be a lot of road rage following that” (34). New York State already has over 50 license plates styles, including styles for the Blue Knights, Conserve Habitat, the Porsche Club of America and three different styles for unions. One blogger points out the ridiculousness of it.

Censoring Chaplains
Speaking out against abortion can be very dangerous, even partial birth abortion. The very first time the United States government tried to censor a military chaplain’s words involved the debate over the partial birth abortion ban. The military tried to forbid chaplain Vincent Rigdon from advocating an override of President Clinton’s veto of the bill intended to ban partial birth abortion. U.S. District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin of Washington, D.C. rightly ruled that this was a violation of First Amendment rights (35).

The Liberal Media’s Pro-Abortion Bias
The bias within the liberal pro-abortion media is evident in not only their coverage of abortion but also occasionally from comments made by reporters of editors themselves. Todd Eastham, a news editor for Reuters, sent an angry e-mail to the National Right to Life committee to criticize the group’s pro-life stance as well as it’s support for President Bush. The NRLC sent out a press release to hundreds of news organizations criticizing the striking down of the popular partial birth abortion ban by activist judges. Eastham asked, “What’s your plan for parenting & educating all the unwanted children you people want to bring into the world? Who will pay for policing our streets & maintaining the prisons needed to contain them when you, their parents & the system fail them? Oh, sorry. All that money has been earmarked to pay off the Bush deficit. Give me a friggin break, will you?”

NRLC director Douglas Johnson said it was sad but revealing: “Apparently, Mr. Eastham feels strongly that abortion is necessary to prevent the birth of children who will otherwise snatch some bread from his mouth. We can only wonder at how such vehement opinions may color Mr. Eastham’s reporting or editing on subjects such as abortion” (36). Ironically, on the Reuters web site the editorial policy states that “Reuters journalists do not offer their own opinions or views.”

Joseph J. Sabia of Front Page Magazine points out how NARAL’s pro-abortion press releases are often eerily reflected in the liberal media’s news coverage of bills intended to curb extremely late abortions or to protect wanted unborn children:

Each of these “news” reports has had an eerily identical tone, indicating an obvious parroting of NARAL talking points. A January 2002 ABC News story declared “Abortion Foes Also Have Election Plans.” On May 30, an Associated Press piece proclaimed “Abortion Foes Reveal Deceptive Tactic.” A Novemeber 7 Pioneer Press headline blared “Abortion foes gain legislative majorities.” On January 2, 2003, the New York Times warned that “Foes of Abortion Push for Major Bills in Congress.” Not to be outdone, a Washington Post story on January 5 declared “Abortion foes plan to push for tighter restrictions.” Cable news programs have also gotten into the act this week, with MSNBC’s Hardball and Donahue dedicating entire programs to the legislative agenda of “abortion foes” (37)

This hysteria for the precious right to kill is quite troublesome, especially since the bills in congress were meant to curb abortion, the killing of an innocent human being. And partial birth abortion and other late-term abortions are especially gruesome, although all abortion as a form of birth control is unethical. Sabia explains the four purposes of the bills:

1. Banning partial birth abortion

2. Making it a federal crime for someone other than a minor’s parent or guardian to evade parental consent laws by transporting a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion.

3. Making it a separate crime if an attacker harms a pregnant woman’s unborn child.

4. Allow hospitals the right to choose to not provide abortion services without fear of losing federal money (38).

A majority of the American people support these bills, as well.

1. See Nat Hentoff, Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (New York: HarperPerennial, 1992).

2. Tammy Bruce, The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds (Roseville, California: Prima Publishing, 2001), 24-25.

3. Carl Limbacher, “Washington University Muzzles Pro-lifers,”, October 9, 2002.

4. “Pro-Abortion Students Told to Infiltrate Pro-Life Campus Groups,” Life Site News, February 20, 2002:

5. “G-20 Protesters Trash Famous Ottawa Pro-Life Sign,” Life Site News, November 19, 2001:

6. George F. Will, “Protecting Viewers from Something ‘A Little Too Vivid,” With a Happy Eye But . . . America and the World 1997-2002 (New York: The Free Press, 2002), 146-148.

7. see Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, “Death winning the pro-life war,” Electronic Telegraph, January 19, 1997. This article details the violent versus the peaceful protesters of the pro-life movement. This author does not advocate violent protest, but peaceful protest. Peaceful pro-life activists are the mainstream, and it is my belief that life-affirming protest can win the pro-life war.

8. Roxana Hegeman, “Summer of Mercy observes relatively quiet conclusion,” The Morning Sun, July 22, 2001:

9. Mike Mastromatteo, “Charges against Carless Dropped,” The Interim, August 2000,

10. “Violence Erupts at Abortion Mill,” Operation Save America, December 30, 2002:

11. Ginger Adams Otis, “Terrorist Tactics,” Village Voice, November 12-18, 2003.

12. Some great articles against the starving of Terri Schiavo, whom liberals and the ACLU fought to starve because she was disabled, see Nat Hentoff, “A Woman’s Life Versus an Inept Press,” Village Voice, November 6, 2003; Nat Hentoff, “The Culture of Death,” Village Voice, December 1, 2003; Nat Hentoff, “It’s Not Only About Terri Schiavo,” Village Voice, November 21, 2003.

13. “Advertisement Compares Pro-Life Advocates to Terrorists,” Pro-Life Infonet, November 14, 2001.

14. Paul M. Rodriquez, “FBI database monitors Catholic bishops, pro-life groups,” Insight on the News, Washington, July 17, 2000,

15. Paul M. Rodriquez, “FBI Documents on Pro-Life Groups Raise Questions vs. Answers,” Insight Online, June 6, 2000,

16. Ann Coulter, “The abortion exception to the Flynt amendment,”, April 19, 2001,

17. ACLU Policy Guide, 345-348, quoted in George Grant, Trial and Error: The American Civial Liberties Union and Its Impact of Your Family (Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989), 80.

18. Hugo Adam Bedau, The Case against the Death Penalty, (New York: ACLU, 1984), 2, quoted in George Grant, Trial and Error: The American Civil Liberties Union and Its Impact of Your Family (Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989), 80.

19. Ibid, 4.

20. Ibid, 3.

21. Ibid, 3-4.

22. Benshoof, 5, 18-22; and, ACLU Policy Guide, 87, in George Grant, Trial and Error: The American Civil Liberties Union and Its Impact of Your Family (Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989), 82.

23. George Grant, Trial and Error: The American Civil Liberties Union and Its Impact of Your Family (Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989), 80.

24. Benshoof, 11, 13, 16-17; and, ACLU Policy Guide, 87, in George Grant, Trial and Error: The American Civil Liberties Union and Its Impact of Your Family (Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989), 82-83.

25. Benshoof, 13-14; ACLU Policy Guide, 87, in George Grant, Trial and Error: The American Civil Liberties Union and Its Impact of Your Family (Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989), 83.

26. Butler Eagle, September 28, 1970; and Operation Rescue News Briefs, March, 1989, in George Grant, Trial and Error: The American Civil Liberties Union and Its Impact of Your Family (Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989), 83.

27. Robinson, Bryan. “Man-Boy Love Group Sued.” ABC News. August 31, 2000. Online:

28. Kenny, Matt. &#x201CACLU Defends Advocates of Man-Boy Sex.” Discerning the Times. Online:

29. “Pro-Life T-Shirt Day a Huge Success Despite Some Spoilsport Principals,” LifeSite, April 30, 2003, Washington, D.C.,

30. Nat Hentoff, The New Republic, (Washington, Nov. 30, 1992, Vol. 207, Issue 23) 21.

31. Robert Barr, “Broadcasters Illegally Censored Anti-Abortion Broadcast, Appeal Court Rules,” Associated Press, March 14, 2002.

32. Paul Novak, “Pro-Abortion Law Firm Threatens Over Secret Memo Story,”, December 12, 2003,

33. Paul Novak, “New Jersey Turns Down Request for Choose Life License Plates,”, November 27, 2003,

34. “State: ‘Choose Life’ Plate Would Lead to Road Rage,” North Country Gazette, December 20, 2005,

35. “Military Chaplains Win Speech Case,” Christianity Today, June 16, 1997: 67.

36. “Reuters Editor’s Email ‘Sad But Revealing,’ Pro-Life Group Says,”

37. Joseph J. Sabia, “Partisan Media Distorts Abortion Reform,” Front Page Magazine, January 10, 2003.

38. Ibid.