Persecution from Within

"Stand on the line if you’ve lost a friend to gang violence. ... Stay on the line if you’ve lost more than one friend. ... Three. ... Four or more."

Those were the instructions from a teacher being taught, from a woman getting a glimpse into the life of students considered "unteachables." Her name is Erin Gruwell, and her true story is dramatized in the inspiring film Freedom Writers that I watched a few weeks ago.

As a first-year teacher at an inner city school in Long Beach, California, Gruwell inspired a group of students—many of whom were involved with gangs, drugs, and other criminal activity—to abandon racism, to respect their fellow human beings, and to embrace education; in short, to transform their lives for the better.

It is a remarkable film and while many aspects struck me, one in particular stood out as it relates to recent CCBR experiences: Gruwell was having a positive impact on her students’ lives, yet received resistance from some fellow educators who had never given the troubled students the attention they deserved.

Gruwell took the time to understand the plight of these students: where they were coming from, what they had experienced. She got to know them. The educators critical of Gruwell, on the contrary, did no such thing. They did not understand the students’ experiences and thus failed to address the students’ needs; beyond that, they even worked against Gruwell’s laudable—and effective—efforts.

CCBR also encounters opposition, in our case from some pro-life and religious leaders. Recently, individuals have not only been critical of our well-researched strategy, particularly our use of graphic visuals, but at least one has gone so far as to make and spread the erroneous claim that what we are doing is wrong.

As I reflect on the persecution we’re experiencing from those who should be supportive, I realize that none of this is new. It is a cross that must be borne by all who would fight the good fight against injustice. The most obvious example is that of Jesus Christ who was opposed by the religious leaders of His day, by scribes and Pharisees who should have recognized the truth of His teachings. Instead, the Pharisees plotted how they might kill Jesus when He cured a man’s withered hand on the Sabbath (Mark 3:6). They even considered Him guilty of blasphemy (Luke 5:21), a charge reiterated by the high priest Caiaphas at the trial prior to Christ’s crucifixion (Matthew 26:65).

Jesus made it clear that those who choose to follow Him will also face persecution: "‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you" (John 15:18, 20).

And indeed they do. In April 1963, a group of clergymen, including Catholic and Methodist bishops, criticized Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s peaceful civil rights demonstrations as being not only "unwise and untimely" but even "extreme." Although today Dr. King is credited as playing a significant role in transforming the culture for the better, these religious leaders of the time argued that the local black community should not support his demonstrations nor press their cause in the streets.

Not only did Dr. King eloquently defend his tactics in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" (www.kingpapers.org), he also expressed his heartfelt disappointments:

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; ...Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

***

"...I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church, who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.

"When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.

"In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

***

"...In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities...

"I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi, and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: ‘What kind of people worship here? Who is their God?’...

"...In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church..."

We at CCBR share Dr. King’s concerns about the indifference and even persecution from within. That is not to say a religious belief should be abandoned because of some of its leadership. Nor is it to say that if a strategy is being criticized that the criticizers are always wrong; there are certainly inappropriate methods and approaches just as there are appropriate ones. The point is this: when individuals endorse or oppose a strategy, people must carefully examine the reasons behind that position and then test its merits by examining the other side of the argument. This is the due diligence which CCBR takes in adopting the use of graphic images.

We know that what we are doing is effective; furthermore, we have well-reasoned responses to our detractors’ claims. We find it bewildering, then, that our critics continue to object to CCBR’s use of graphic visuals.

But, once more, Dr. King’s response to the clergymen who opposed him provides insight we can apply to our present-day struggle:

"Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, ‘Wait.’ But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; ...when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: ‘Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?’; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; ...when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next...—then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.

***

"...I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action."

As I grieved over the opposition we have faced from within, I realized that perhaps there is another reason for grieving: could it be that our detractors don’t really understand abortion, don’t really comprehend the oppression of the unborn? Just as it is possible for someone to hear but not listen, it is possible for someone to know yet not understand.

"Perhaps it is easy for those who have never been aborted to say graphic abortion photos should not be shown. Perhaps it is easy when you are not the one being dismissed as a "blob of tissue" and disdainfully viewed as a "clump of cells"; it is easy when you are not subjected to dismemberment, disembowelment, and decapitation; it is easy when you aren’t the one to endure poisoning by saline that will burn your skin; it is easy when potassium chloride isn't injected into your heart to induce cardiac arrest.

But when you imagine that baby being attacked but unable to escape; when you comprehend a baby being in a safe place only to have it invaded by a stranger who will kill her; when that baby cannot defend herself; when you catch a glimpse of her body parts being ripped off piece by piece; when you realize that what you know about this baby’s plight, most people do not—then you will understand why we use pictures.

This is the story of the aborted unborn. This is the story that must be told. Their cries cannot be heard—their screams are silent. But their victimization can be seen. It is the images of their terrible suffering that give voice to their cries and pierce the heart of anyone with a functioning conscience.

The story of the unborn, while unique in many respects, is a story that bears far deeper similarities to that of any group that has suffered brutality and mistreatment:

"[t]he real story is the universal one of men who destroy the souls and bodies of other men... It is the story of the persecuted, the defrauded, the feared and detested."

These words were penned in 1960 by John Howard Griffin not regarding abortion but describing the evil of segregation in the United States. But, for those with eyes to see, his words readily apply to the story of the unborn.

Recognizing that it is now the unborn who are the persecuted and defrauded, we at CCBR carefully study historical injustices and learn from the brave men and women who responded to them.

The aforementioned writer, Griffin, authored a compelling book, Black Like Me, which recounts first-hand how he underwent treatments in 1959 to darken his white skin and experience "what it is like to be a Negro in a land where we keep the Negro down". Through his subsequent experience, he gained critical insight into the universality of persecution and oppression: "The Negro. The South. These are details. ... I could have been a Jew in Germany, a Mexican in a number of states, or a member of any ‘inferior’ group. Only the details would have differed. The story would be the same."

We are moved by The White Rose, a book about university students who were killed for resisting the Nazis and for encouraging others to do the same. One of the students perceptively asked the following:

"...Isn’t it preposterous that we sit in our rooms and study how to heal mankind when on the outside the state every day sends countless young people to their death? What in the world are we waiting for? Until one day the war is over and all nations point to us and say that we accepted this government without resisting?"

The book also reports about the cover-up of injustice by German newspapers:

"They made no mention of the fact that day after day not one but dozens of executions took place. God knows the newsreel cameras never got inside the prisons which were crowded to bursting, though the inmates resembled ghosts and skeletons rather than human bodies. They did not film the pale, drawn faces behind the bars..."

One of the students, Christl, had conviction and insight that all people of good will should heed:

"Then it is our duty by our behavior and by our dedication to demonstrate that man’s freedom still exists. Sooner or later the cause of humanity must be upheld, and then one day it will again prevail. We must gamble our ‘No’ against this power which has arrogantly placed itself above the essential human values and which is determined to root out all protest. We must do it for the sake of life itself—no one can absolve us of this responsibility."

We are inspired by the film Hotel Rwanda, which tells the story of one man who risked his life many times to save over a thousand refugees from the Rwandan genocide. We are emboldened by the efforts of Oskar Schindler, who saved more than twelve hundred Jews from the Holocaust, and by the example of Mahatma Gandhi, leader of the Indian Independence movement who confronted British colonialists regarding their mistreatment of Indians. We draw strength from the determination of those who fought to free the slaves of the British Empire and from the courageousness of Lewis Hine, who photographically exposed the plight of child labourers in the beginning of the twentieth century.

Our studies have taught us unmistakably clear lessons: victims always want their sufferings to be known. And the people who respond to their plight do so because they have become intimately aware of the injustice. They know about good and they know about evil. Their knowledge of evil convicts them; their knowledge of good motivates them. Having seen both life and death (Deuteronomy 30:19), they fight for the lives of the oppressed. It is through the exposure of injustice that they and others are convicted to respond. Dr. King expressed this very point as well:

"...we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."

Today there is no debate about the use of graphic imagery to convey injustices from the past; it is a "no-brainer." People pore through history textbooks that contain graphic images; they flock to museums that show images of yesterday’s injustices; they line up to watch movies that convey the mistreatment of peoples by previous generations.

Why, then, is there a debate today about the use of abortion imagery? For the simple reason that such imagery shows a present atrocity not a past one. The guilt of historical crimes lies with our ancestors, not us. The guilt of present-day crimes lies with no one but ourselves. It is easy to say, "Shame on them." It is difficult to admit, "Shame on us."

It has been eleven years since I was in grade 10, yet I remember a poignant story one of my teachers told: when he himself was in high school, an outcast student was grabbed by a group of bullies. They stripped him naked, put him in a net, and hoisted him up the school’s flag pole. Another student, outraged at the injustice, stood up in defense of the frightened, victimized teen, only to have the same degradation inflicted upon him. A crowd of other students watched this evil play out; my teacher was one of them.

As he told us this story, he asked, "Looking back, if I could have taken the place of anyone there, who do you think I wish I would have been?" He answered himself, "The student who was mistreated for standing in defense of the victimized boy."

Whenever an injustice occurs, we have one of four roles to play: the victim, the persecutor, the bystander, or the defender. We may not have a choice about the first role, but we certainly do about the latter three. We can be guaranteed that if we follow our consciences and become defenders of the weak and vulnerable, we too will face mistreatment, not only from persecutors but even from bystanders who are being put to shame. Enduring this we must contemplate, "Am I now seeking the favour of men, or of God?" (Galatians 1:10).

Should Angry Responses Change How We Proclaim Truth

In January 2007, CCBR received an e-mail from a Catholic pro-life leader who opted not to support CCBR because she had received angry phone calls from two women. These women were upset about the possibility of graphic abortion images being displayed not only generally, but particularly in upcoming CCBR talks at their Catholic churches. Because the concerns this leader expresses may also be raised by others, CCBR’s response is provided below as a teaching tool. Names have been changed and personal references have been removed to maintain confidentiality.

Dear Sandra,

You wrote, "In the last three days two women, who don’t know each other have called me, both very upset about the possibility of these images being displayed and of your upcoming talks in their parish. Their calls have reminded me of the harm the photos can cause and while you at CCBR see positive outcomes through the use of these images it is not consistent with the work we do through [names of post-abortion ministry and pro-life organization]."

It is surprising that just because someone is angry at the images, you would conclude the photos do harm. After all, many people were angry at Bishop Fred Henry, of the Calgary diocese, for speaking against gay "marriage." Should he not have done so? Countless people were angry at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, the early Church martyrs, and Jesus Christ. Take Saint Paul as an example. Prior to his conversion he was irate over what Christ’s followers were saying and doing. Yet God made the scales fall from his eyes. Perhaps if Saint Paul had never been angered, he would never have converted to Christ.

Sometimes people get angry when they are convicted of truth and yet are resisting that truth. That inner struggle takes on an outer appearance of frustration. Through that frustration, through wounds, we can be motivated to look for answers and for healing. This concept became clear to me as I watched a presentation by Christopher West as he taught John Paul II’s "Theology of the Body." He pointed out that it was through experiencing the wounds and pain from his immoral sexual choices that he started asking himself questions and looking for answers. That turmoil was a part of his conversion process.

As Christians we are called to follow Christ. He didn’t say, "Don’t make people angry." Christ said, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). He also said, "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you" (John 15:18). Time and again the scriptures show Jesus having more concern with truth than with feelings. And He realized that in stating truth, some people would get angry; in fact, the Gospel reading a week ago highlights this: "When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath" (Luke 4:28).

Any expression of opposition to abortion will anger someone: Memorials to the unborn, involving displays of crosses, have been destroyed. "Feminists for Life" poster-campaigns, which focus more on women and are non-graphic, have been ripped down on Canadian university campuses. Participants of LifeChain are often met with angry shouts and middle-fingers to their word-based messages. Non-violent pro-lifers have been arrested outside abortion clinics for trying to talk to women in crisis pregnancy or for standing with word-based messages that state facts about the law. Pregnancy Care Centres have been smeared for offering alternatives to abortion. Post-abortion ministries have been criticized by abortion advocates as having a "guilt-ridden approach" that "can often exacerbate and prolong a woman’s anxiety about her abortion" (www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/prochoicepress/98spring.shtml). Billboards offering toll-free help lines to women have been defaced with graffiti.

These approaches are non-graphic and likely your centre has participated in some or all of them. If angry responses cause you to avoid participation in pro-life activities, you won’t be participating in any pro-life activities. If people get angry whenever someone claims that abortion is wrong, and you don’t want people to be angry, you won’t be claiming abortion is wrong.

Clearly, anger in and of itself is not a reason to stop doing what you are doing. We need to get to the reasons behind the anger. Are people angry because one is being unkind? Or, are people angry because they are being convicted of sin in which they are somehow complicit?

This matter of angry responses to us is a point we address here under the GAP FAQ.

Therefore, I do not see how our approach is inconsistent with [your post-abortion ministry]. For any of your clients to find healing they need to come to terms with their involvement in their children’s death. To use a comparison, people with alcohol addictions who want healing must admit they have a problem. In fact, many members of support groups introduce themselves as, "Hi, I’m Tracey and I’m an alcoholic." As you know from working with post-abortive women, taking ownership of guilt is not an easy thing to do. But often what is right is not easy.

I am concerned about [your post-abortion ministry’s] ability to help women find healing if your ministry considers graphic visuals to be negative. These women need to be healed and we rob them of true peace when we water down sin in the healing process. Anyone who cares about a post-abortive woman will want to know why the images make her angry, not simply that the images make her angry. Perhaps she has never come to terms with her abortion and not sought forgiveness; if so, her anger is an opportunity to minister to her. Perhaps she has been forgiven but is not yet healed. Again, this is another ministering opportunity. Healing takes time. And there are many wounded women who are forgiven but not healed. As mentioned above, anger can be an external expression of an internal issue that needs to be addressed. To love that woman is to address that issue, not to feed into it or mask it.

Furthermore, part of healing involves moving beyond our own hurt and having concern for others. A post-abortive woman who regrets her abortion should most desperately want to save other children from death and other women from the pain that follows abortion. Far from graphic imagery damaging these women, it gives them hope that the lie they fell for will be exposed and therefore both unborn and born human beings will be spared similar suffering. Therefore, the woman who is upset at graphic imagery can be challenged to shift her grief. Yes, any counsellor or friend must certainly be sensitive to the woman’s suffering and grieve with her. But then that woman can be challenged, "Offer up your suffering in the interest of saving babies. I can see how much you are overcome with grief that you killed your child. But I want you to know that you can be overcome with hope that you can save other people’s children. God can bring good out of a bad situation. And this is one way to do that; know that through the darkness of your choice—and we all make dark, sinful choices—you can be an instrument of light by saving lives."

When explained from this perspective, graphic pictures are redemptive pictures; they are healing pictures. She needs to be shown how to think about the babies who will live or die based on their mothers’ seeing the truth about abortion. My e-mail to a post-abortive woman who was angry about CCBR’s graphic visuals provides evidence of babies being killed because their mothers never saw the truth about abortion as well as evidence of babies being saved precisely because their mothers did.

I would like to also address the point sometimes expressed in pro-life circles that the graphic nature of abortion should be covered up because to do so is "loving" or "compassionate." That is a frightening sentiment of perverted compassion and perverted love. Christopher West points out in his teachings on "Theology of the Body" that Satan takes what is good and twists it. Compassion and love are good. But when these virtues are divorced from truth and used to justify covering up the truth, they become dangerous sentiments. When these virtues are used to rationalize tip-toeing around born people’s feelings at the expense of unborn people’s lives, the very nature of those virtues gets lost.

To love means to want the other’s good. A parent who says she loves her child and as a result does not discipline him to avoid getting him angry has a perverted sense of love. A parent who has true love for her child will discipline him. Like medicine, sometimes what is good for us doesn’t seem that pleasant.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Gray

Executive Director

Letter to a Post-Abortive Woman

In January 2007, CCBR’s executive director, Stephanie Gray, received an e-mail from a post-abortive woman who strongly disagreed with CCBR’s use of graphic visuals and who CC-ed her message to several pro-life and religious leaders.

Because the concerns the writer brings up may be raised by others, Stephanie’s response is provided below as a teaching tool. The writer is addressed by the pseudonym "Kate" and personal references have been removed to maintain confidentiality.

For complete context, read the original e-mail that prompted this letter.

Dear Kate,

I write you as a sister in Christ. Thank you for sharing your experience of redemption. I found it particularly beautiful that your daughter was the impetus for your conversion to the Catholic faith. God is indeed abounding in wisdom and mercy.

Before I address your concerns, I’d like to provide some background:

Post-abortion grief is something I encounter everywhere. In my ministry of working full-time for the pro-life cause, I frequently travel across North America speaking to people of all ages and backgrounds. I have met many, many post-abortive women on university campuses, public streets, and churches, to name a few. I have worked with post-abortive women. I have been billeted in the homes of post-abortive women. I have spoken with them, listened to them, hugged them, and both offered and received messages of hope.

Some post-abortive women have approached me after hearing my presentations to share their stories. In fact, just last week I was in Alaska and a woman approached me after a presentation in which I showed graphic visuals. She shared the stories of her abortions, of how she has had post-abortion healing, and how she wants to help and get involved. Others have confided their experience over private discussions. Some have greeted me with anger and hostility. Others have welcomed my message and shared their regret. Each woman’s experience is unique yet they all have one thing in common: pain.

I have observed that some are in pain because their abortion is a sin they have not yet repented of; they are in denial. Others are in pain because they are experiencing conviction of sin. Still others are in pain because, while forgiven, they are not yet healed. Women who are graced with both forgiveness and healing no longer experience such a sharp pain although the memory will always remain.

As for crisis pregnancies, I certainly acknowledge that the burdens and complications can be many. As a young child I frequented pregnancy care centres (PCCs) because my mom was a volunteer counsellor. Furthermore, I worked in a PCC and saw first-hand women’s difficulties. Finally, I am routinely consulted about women in crisis pregnancy—requests for both prayers for conversion and for advice when interacting with such women.

I want you to know, therefore, that my comments below come from a deep awareness of and love for "the walking wounded." And while I don’t pretend to know exactly what it’s like, I do share in their grief as a sister and as a fellow sinner. Furthermore, I don’t need to know exactly what it’s like, in the same way a drug counsellor does not need to have been addicted to drugs to form positions on drug use and to help drug addicts.

It is my love for both the unborn and for the born that compels me to expose the injustice of abortion visually. "What kind of love compels someone to show graphic pictures that make people feel bad?" some may ask. Genuine love, for you cannot have love without truth.

If you were about to drink a glass of water with poison in it, to love you would be to inform you of that. It doesn’t matter how parched you are; I need to tell you. With that knowledge you’ll act differently. Alternatively, if you have already drunk a glass of water that I know has poison in it, again—to love you would be to tell you. For with that knowledge you would know to go to poison control.

There are many, many women who choose abortion because they are not more horrified of the abortion than they are terrified of the burdens of the crisis pregnancy. No matter how much help is offered, they believe abortion is the lesser of two "evils." We cannot convey that abortion is the greatest evil by covering up the best evidence we have to prove that.

We cannot convey the evil of abortion by showing "pretty" pictures of unborn babies just as we cannot convey the evil of the Holocaust by showing "happy" pictures of Jewish boys at their Bar Mitzvahs. Can we convey the beauty of the life lost through such injustices? Certainly, and there is a place for that. But such images do not capture the other half of the message—the nature of the injustice itself, the very problem people’s consciences need to be pricked about in order to be inspired to solve.

Contrary to your reference to images of victims car accidents not being appropriate, I encourage you to read the story of Jacqueline Saburido (http://facesofdrunkdriving.com/). She survived a brutal car accident that was inflicted upon her by a drunk driver. She is now the "poster child" for an anti-drinking-and-driving campaign in Texas. The image of her beautiful face pre-accident is contrasted with her burned, distorted, and deformed face post-accident. Jacqui’s story resonates with young people precisely because they see what one person’s "choice" did to another person’s life.

Does the young man who ruined Jacqueline’s life regret his decision? Does he feel badly each time he sees her poster or another campaign against drunk driving? Quite possibly. But bad feelings do not excuse, nor should they cover up, bad behaviour. In fact, bad feelings follow from bad behaviour for those with functioning consciences—and that’s a healthy response.

In order for the young man to be healed of his sin, he needs to be forgiven. In order for him to be forgiven, he needs to repent. In order for him to repent he needs to be convicted that there is a need to repent. Conviction follows recognition of wrongdoing.

You think conviction will follow from pictures of children "missing" from a playground or "missing" from a family photograph. Perhaps in some cases. But the bulk of the history and the present of the pro-life movement involves vague, innocuous approaches like that and abortion is still going strong.

People need to feel bad in order to change and currently they don’t feel bad enough—and that’s why the pro-life movement is losing. The interesting thing is that people feel bad about abortion to a degree, so that they don’t want to see it; and yet, they don’t feel bad enough about it to not commit it, to not permit it, to, in large numbers, seek forgiveness and healing regarding it.

The history of social reform movements (a point I discuss in my presentations) shows the important role that graphic pictures play in making people respond differently to injustice, including making them feel bad. Don’t get me wrong—I’m not arguing for replacing rational arguments with a sole appeal to feelings (after all, abortion advocates base their arguments on feelings). I’m arguing that the imagery is the evidence that supports verbal argumentation for the moral wrongness of abortion. It just so happens that the imagery also has an effect on feelings which helps people come to the correct conclusion about abortion, namely, that it is morally wrong.

Furthermore, the experience of our organization shows the important role of graphic imagery. Every time we speak to high school students the audience members fill out surveys, explaining their position on abortion before and after the presentation. Time and again, people change their minds on abortion and often credit the role images played in that conversion. Here is a powerful example from a teenager who attended a CCBR presentation to a Catholic youth group:

Actually, I thought that I might be pregnant and I was going to get an abortion. After the video, it showed me what I would have done to my child.

More testimonies can be read here: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/newsletters

Our American affiliate receives over 50,000 unique hits to its website, www.abortionNO.org, each month (a site which shows abortions). They receive a constant stream of e-mails from women all over the world who say they decided not to abort their babies because they saw graphic imagery. Here is a testimony from a 17-year-old in West Virginia:

Well, things have been very depressing lately and my mind and body seemed like they were telling me to get an abortion, but after seeing this my heart lead my mind and body in the right direction!!! I AM TWO MONTHS PREGNANT AND I AM KEEPING MY BABY!

An 18-year-old in New York wrote this:

I was 16 when I found out I was pregnant and I considered having an abortion [until] I saw pictures of how wrong it is. Now I have a beautiful baby girl and I wonder how people can murder an innocent child.

Read more testimonies here: www.abortionno.org/AbortionNO/web_response.html

Conversely, we have also received heartbreaking e-mails from women who wish they had known several years ago what they encountered now (graphic images). Had they seen the brutality of abortion, they would not have killed their babies. A 51-year-old woman wrote the following:

Unfortunately these pictures are 30 years too late for me, and I’ll never know what it’s like to have a child. I wish you were present with these pictures in 1976.

Read more testimonies like that here: http://www.abortionno.org/index.php/site/feedback/C9/

So the question we are left with is this: "If we don’t like abortion and we don’t want people to experience abortion, why not use an approach that we know will convince people not to abort?"

If we avoid saving lives in order to save feelings, that calls into question our very determination to save lives.

Beyond that, I would argue that avoiding graphic imagery to "save feelings" doesn’t save feelings at all. It often leaves women in a state of denial, where they aren’t given strong enough motivation to seek the healing that’s available for them. And beyond that, many women who abort have subsequent abortions. So we spare women the pain from multiple abortions when they "hurt" from realizing what the first (and after conviction, only) abortion did.

One post-abortive woman told me that when she had her abortion she immediately felt bad. "But," she said, "The world told me I had no reason to feel bad. So I felt worse." She explained that she had an inner struggle going on: "I feel bad, but I shouldn’t feel bad. I feel bad, but I shouldn’t feel bad." She said that it wasn’t until she acknowledged those bad feelings as legitimate that she was able to move through the healing process.

Graphic pictures help many women move out of denial. Will that process hurt? Absolutely. But not because of the images; instead, it hurts because of the recognition of the injustice of abortion. Denial of sin is short-term gain at the cost of long-term pain. Acknowledgement of sin is short-term pain endured for long-term gain:

When I declared not my sin, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. [Then] I acknowledged my sin to thee, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord’; then thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin (Psalm 32:3–5).

It is not a sin to show pictures of injustice. Quite the contrary, we are commanded to expose injustice by St. Paul who said, "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them" (Ephesians 5:11). Graphic images save lives. Graphic images move people to repent of their sin.

Exposing wrongdoing to move people to repentance is biblical. In fact, in Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians he wrote this:

For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it (though I did regret it), for I see that that letter grieved you, though only for a while. As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting; for you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret... (2 Corinthians 7:8–10).

Post-abortive women, like everyone in society, need to understand the full measure of abortion’s evilness, so that they can accept the full measure of their guilt, and thereby receive the full measure of God’s forgiveness and mercy that He greatly desires to pour out.

Showing images of aborted babies shows no disrespect in the same way that showing images of starving children in Africa shows no disrespect, or showing Jesus Christ on the crucifix shows no disrespect, or showing images of the brutalization of Blacks from the civil rights movement shows no disrespect. What is disrespectful are the acts themselves: killing the unborn, starving the born, crucifying an innocent man, or beating up peaceful people simply because they’re black.

Disrespect for human life continues when it is kept secret. As my colleague Gregg Cunningham has pointed out, "Injustice that is invisible inevitably becomes tolerable." But as people of good will, we are called to be a light in the darkness. Light exposes things for all to see.

Would I want to be remembered as a dismembered aborted fetus, you ask? If I was killed at a time where my peers were also being killed, I certainly would want the evidence of the crime, through my dismembered body, shown. My concern would not be, "I don’t want dismembered pictures." My concern would be, "I don’t want dismemberment."

Anyone who is a victim of injustice desires that the evidence of the crime be made public, if not for themselves (it may be too late) but for other people and generations. I regularly spend time studying history and social movements and it is very evident that those who inflict injustice are desperate to cover it up; conversely, people who face injustice are desperate to expose it. Even forgiven and healed post-abortive women recognize the need to expose—not cover up—injustice by sharing their testimonies, the facts of their stories, so that others will not do the same (e.g., the movement of post-abortive women called "Silent No More" does this).

In the same way, the born must share the testimonies of the aborted unborn (since they themselves cannot). Graphic pictures are a powerful tool for this.

The pro-abortion movement has succeeded by trumpeting feelings over lives. In other words, the feelings, concerns, and burdens that may come with the crisis pregnancy are given more importance than the unborn child’s life. And so, unborn babies are killed as a result. The last thing the pro-life movement needs to do is to follow the same pattern of putting feelings over lives, of hiding the horror of abortion because exposing it makes us feel bad. All the while, babies get killed precisely because the horror of abortion is not known. In understanding God’s grace and finding true healing, we should realize that the pain of one’s own loss should not prevent others from being saved.

In 1955, a 14-year-old black boy, Emmett Till, was brutally beaten and killed by white racists in Mississippi. When his mutilated body was recovered, his mother held an open casket funeral saying, "Let the people see what I’ve seen" ("The Murder of Emmett Till," PBS documentary, 2003). Through this story and image, Emmett is credited as being the catalyst for the civil rights movement (see research by Dr. Clenora Hudson-Weems who wrote the book, "Emmett Till: The Sacrificial Lamb of the Civil Rights Movement"). Was Emmett’s mother, Mamie, heartbroken? Most certainly. But not because of the image of his dead body. But instead because he was dead, because he was killed. She didn’t want any more children to suffer the same fate as her own child.

With regards to the civil rights movement, Dr. Alveda King is a post-abortive woman who is the niece of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She is a pastoral associate with Priests for Life in New York. In her essay "Visual Learning and the Culture of Life" she writes the following:

For many years, I have been an outspoken advocate for the unborn child, because in a culture of abortion, the child is like a slave. The new civil rights movement of our time is the pro-life movement, and as I seek to preserve the dream of my uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and of my father, Rev. A.D. King (Martin’s brother), I ask the question, ‘How can the dream survive if we murder the children?’ I grew up seeing these two great men fight for the equal rights of their people.

But equality is not something you can see. What you can see are people. My uncle knew that the ugly reality of segregation had to be seen visually by the American public. He therefore organized events at which the eyes of the media could broadcast the way our people were treated when water hoses and dogs were unleashed on their peaceful marches. People responded to those images, not simply to abstract concepts of ‘segregation’ and ‘equality.’

Likewise, people—and especially African Americans—respond to the disturbing images of aborted children. Sure, some people get angry when we show them. But everyone who fights injustice has to be ready to pay a price. My uncle did, and so did my Dad. So does everyone who has the courage to show the ugly reality of abortion. Don’t be afraid to do so. Many people are grateful. As a woman who has had two abortions, I am grateful that the truth is being shown, so that others can avoid this pain in the first place (www.priestsforlife.org/articles/visuallearning.htm).

I sincerely pray my message is received well by you, Kate. I mean only good will. I pray that you will be able to offer up your suffering of being reminded of your abortions in the interest of saving babies. While it is too late for [your two children], it is not too late for others.

I certainly recognize that there are many things to be done to rid the Culture of Death and to build a Culture of Life. I applaud the essential work of post-abortion ministries. In fact, it is my plan for CCBR to meet with such ministries in the Calgary area. I know [name of pro-life leader who was CC-ed on both the original e-mail and this response] and this plan will involve us meeting with her and [said pro-life leader's post-abortion ministry]. So while I thank you for the invitation to attend [said post-abortion ministry] with you, we will begin such networking via [said pro-life leader].

Far from CCBR’s approach counteracting other pro-life activities, such as post-abortion ministries, it is a fundamental base. Like the story of Emmett Till, graphic abortion images act as a catalyst for change and healing. To understand our role in the broader pro-life movement requires much more writing or a whole presentation. Thankfully, I am doing the latter at your parish. I pray you will attend.

Most sincerely and with prayers,

Stephanie Gray

Executive Director

P.S., As for your offer of coffee, yes, I would be happy to meet with you and hear about your journey of reconciliation. Please provide some dates and times that work for you.

For complete context, read the original e-mail that prompted this letter.

What About Children Seeing the Images?

CCBR does not directly target children with our campaigns—they aren’t the ones perpetrating this injustice nor the ones complicit in it. The reality, however, is that it is impossible to reach teenagers and adults in society where no children will ever be present.

If parents with young children see the images, they can practice parental discretion and distract their children as they would if there were a dead deer on the side of the road. Or, they can seize it as a teaching opportunity.

They can gently explain to their children that babies were hurt but that the people with the signs are trying to stop that from continuing. Furthermore, parents can reassure their children that they will never be hurt like the babies have been hurt because "Mommy and Daddy love you and will keep you safe."

Sadly, parents sometimes use their children as an excuse for why the images shouldn’t be shown. Often, the reality is that they don’t want to see the images. They may have guilt from past abortions and they don’t want to come to terms with their mistake.

After all, children have consciences and they love babies. When children see the images they see a hurt baby and they want to know, "Who hurt the baby?"

It’s worth observing that the parent’s reaction will often determine the child’s reaction. An irate and swearing parent will have a frustrated and confused child. But a calm, rational parent will have a calm child.

Such was the case with a 5-year-old who saw graphic abortion images. Her teenage sister gently explained the situation and although the little girl cried, she was moved to pray during family prayer time "...that the doctors will stop killing babies."

Another child, a 9-year-old, who saw a graphic abortion photo went directly to his mother and said, "Mom, I want to stop abortion."

This is true for other issues too. In 2006, the Calgary Herald newspaper wrote about a 10-year-old homeless advocate who was inspired—at an even younger age—to form a charity to help the homeless. The paper reported that it was her seeing injustice that convicted her to act:

When Hannah Taylor was five years old, she was struck by the unfairness of something she saw that makes most others turn their heads.

As she watched a homeless man dig for food in a trash can in Winnipeg, she decided no person should ever have to go without food or a home.

Notice that people are not complaining that young Hannah was victimized by seeing such an injustice. On the contrary, people are inspired by her willingness to do what she can to help the less fortunate. But where is that same attitude towards children seeing the injustice inflicted upon the unborn?

Children have functioning consciences. The question is: do we? If we think we care so much about children, shouldn’t we care about the fact that we contribute, through our taxes, to the deaths of 100,000 Canadian children every year? In other words, shouldn’t we care more about the injustice happening rather than the fact that we see the injustice happening?

After all, if you were walking down the street with a 2-year-old and saw a 5-year-old being killed in front of you, would you complain about your 2-year-old merely seeing the injustice, or would you intervene to stop the injustice itself?

External Link: Show the Truth and the Effects that Graphic Pictures have on Children [PDF]

This is an article by Rosemary Connell of Show the Truth. She explains her study of children’s reactions to the display of graphic abortion imagery. In particular, she discusses the observations she’s made about how children in certain age groups respond.