Brice Griffin

A post-abortive mother’s response to the ‘I had an abortion’ t-shirt

Brice Griffin
By Brice Griffin
Image

January 16, 2013 (StandTrue.com) - Today I came across a pro-abortion image that made my skin crawl. There was no blood, no little aborted baby parts, no image of death. Instead it was a photo of Gloria Steinem, smiling, arms raised in a celebratory pose, wearing a t-shirt that read, “I had an abortion.” Beneath her it asked, “Do you really need to inconvenience yourself for the next 18 years?”

Where to begin?

As a post-abortive mother of four, this infuriated and disgusted me on many different levels.

Firstly, it rekindles my anger toward the “Women’s Liberation” movement that has so emasculated our men and destroyed our society with things like birth control and abortion on demand until a child’s day of birth. Why is it that men are afraid to speak up for their children as they drive their child’s mother to the abortion mill? Because society has spent the last 40 years telling them that the ultimate display of respect and equality to their female counterparts is the freedom and constitutional right that is killing her child at her simplest whim, as if she were having a tooth or a wart removed. Shut up and let me do what I want.

And going one step further, consider the utter selfishness of the question posed in this graphic. Why inconvenience yourself with a child? Kill it so you can continue your promiscuous lifestyle with no regrets. Tell me, please, the last time you heard a mother say she regretted keeping her child. Women do not regret the children they have; they regret the children they didn’t have.

And on top of that, mothers, did you know that you’re free of your parental responsibility once your child turns 18? WOW! It’s such a relief to know that when my youngest is 18 I will no longer be burdened and tormented by the absolute love and constant worry that envelops my heart for him. Upon their 18th birthday, I can end my relationship with each of my children and resume my wonderful and joyous life that I had without them. They’re on their own for college, so my husband and I can retire early. Really? I can’t imagine a day without them. I miss them when they’re at school, for crying out loud!

In my recent years of pro-life activism, I have been approached by dozens of post-abortive women. Some are ready to begin their healing process. Some don’t want to discuss their experience, but just want to say, “I’ve been there, too, and I appreciate your story.” Some want to know if their destructive behavior is normal. Some want to know if they’ll ever be forgiven. I have never, ever, ever been approached by a woman who said, “Having an abortion was the best decision of my life.” Or even, “My abortion was the right thing to do and I’m ok with it.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The only time I ever met a woman wearing a shirt similar to that of Ms. Steinem was at the DNC, when we were joined at a pro-life prayer vigil by some very loud, dirty, profane women, whose mission was obviously to mock us and our beliefs. When we presented 3,300 flowers to demonstrate the growing number of children killed by abortion in America every day, one of our visitors asked, “CAN I HAVE TWO FLOWERS? ONE FOR EACH OF MY ABORTIONS?” I told her of course and handed her the flowers and she dramatically placed one behind each ear.

My reaction wasn’t enough, I suppose, because as we prayed, she began to yell as loudly as she could that each of these flowers represents a woman who could continue to fulfill her goals, whose life would not be “foreclosed upon,” whose dreams would not be dashed by the burden of a child. If we lunatic pro-lifers had our way, 3,300 women a day would have their futures diminished by being forced to have a child against her will. Her will. Not God’s will, but hers. It’s not about you, or religion, or doing what’s right. It’s about me. I will do what makes me feel good and if I believe I’m a good person then I don’t have to worry about a thing because that God of yours is a forgiving God, isn’t he? I will have sex with whomever I choose, because your God made us sexual beings, didn’t he? Sex feels good for a reason, right? And if that God should make a mistake and create a life in my womb when it’s not convenient for me, then I’ll just take care of it. I’ll kill the child (or remove my uterine contents, as the procedure is described by abortionists) and continue to live my life however I want,  because after all, it was your God who accidentally decided I should be pregnant in the first place. Silly God. Really? Do you really think that God makes mistakes?

I digress. The t-shirt. Would I wear one like it? I had an abortion. That’s not a slogan on a shirt, that’s my reality. There was a time in my early 20s when all I wanted was to get pregnant and have a child. Desperately. I would practically dare my boyfriend, and alternately beg him to begin our little family. Why then, when I finally conceived my first child, was I so easily convinced to “take care of it”? I don’t have an answer. I can say with certainty that if he had reacted with “That’s great news! We’re going to have a family!” that I would have kept the child. Never did I feel like this was my body and my decision. It was us and our decision and he decided that abortion was the answer and I didn’t argue.

The night of the procedure I drank all of the whiskey I could find and I did that for most of the nights following for several months. I wanted to leave the country. I wanted therapy. I wanted to die. I wanted, more than anything in the world, to be INCONVENIENCED FOR THE NEXT 18 YEARS. But I chose not to be inconvenienced, to have my uterine contents removed, to spend the next several years suffering from my decision. Now as I stand on the sidewalk in front of Charlotte’s abortion mills, I am joined by friends who are unable to conceive. How must they feel, longing for a child, watching a woman who chooses convenience over a lifetime of love?

And finally, I thought that Planned Parenthood’s intention was to keep abortion safe, legal and rare. Safe, legal and rare. It’s everyone’s argument now: safe, legal and rare. We don’t want any women dying in back-alley abortion clinics, or resorting to the old coat hanger method, do we? Tonya Reaves. Marla Cardamone. Diana Lopez. Carole Wingo. Nichole Williams. Tanya Williamson. These women weren’t killed in a dark alley. Several of them died immediately after leaving Planned Parenthood.

Safe? For whom? In nearly 100% of abortions, a child is killed. And these and many more women died as a result of a botched abortion. Legal, you betcha. Rare? Planned Parenthood recently released a report that boasted 333,964 children were killed in their facilities during fiscal year 2011-2012. One child was aborted, and one mother diminished, every 90 seconds. Safe, legal and rare. That’s why we need Planned Parenthood; we need to keep abortion safe, legal and rare.

Closing, I wonder, does the question “Do you really need to inconvenience yourself for the next 18 years” sound like it comes from an organization that doesn't want you to have an abortion? Or from an organization that sees you and your uterine contents as nothing more than a dollar sign…?

God, I thank you for blessing me with these four inconveniences. Please tell my baby who sits with you that I love him, I’m sorry, and his sisters and brother will beam when they meet him.

Reprinted with permission from StandTrue.com.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
A Planned Parenthood facility in Denver, Colorado
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

,

Colorado judge tosses suit alleging Planned Parenthood used state funds to pay for abortions

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

Alliance Defending Freedom "will likely appeal" a Monday court decision dismissing their suit alleging Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains illegally used state funds to pay for abortions, an ADF lawyer told LifeSiteNews.

The ADF lawsuit claims that $1.4 million went from state government agencies to a Planned Parenthood abortion affiliate through Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.

Denver County District Court Judge Andrew McCallin dismissed the case on the basis that ADF could not prove the funds paid for abortions. But ADF maintains that funding an abortion facility is indirectly paying for abortions, which violates state law.

ADF senior counsel Michael Norton -- whose wife, former Colorado Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton, filed the lawsuit – told LifeSiteNews that "no one is above the law, including Colorado politicians who are violating our state’s constitution by continuing to fund Planned Parenthood’s abortion business with state taxpayer dollars."

"The State of Colorado even acknowledges that about $1.4 million of state taxpayer dollars flowed from Colorado government agencies through Planned Parenthood to its abortion affiliate. The Denver court seems to have agreed with that fact and yet granted motions to dismiss based on a technicality," said Norton.

According to Colorado law, "no public funds shall be used by the State of Colorado, its agencies or political subdivisions to pay or otherwise reimburse, either directly or indirectly, any person, agency or facility for the performance of any induced abortion." There is a stipulation that allows for "the General Assembly, by specific bill, [to] authorize and appropriate funds to be used for those medical services necessary to prevent the death of either a pregnant woman or her unborn child under circumstances where every reasonable effort is made to preserve the life of each."

According to court documents, the Colorado law was affirmed by state voters in 1984, with an appeal attempt rejected two years later. In 2001, an outside legal firm hired by Jane Norton -- who was lieutenant governor at the time -- found that Planned Parenthood was "subsidizing rent" and otherwise providing financial assistance to Planned Parenthood Services Corporation, an abortion affiliate. After the report came out, and Planned Parenthood refused to disassociate itself from the abortion affiliate, the state government stopped funding Planned Parenthood.

Since 2009, however, that has changed, which is why the lawsuit is filed against Planned Parenthood, and multiple government officials, including Democratic Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.

According to ADF legal counsel Natalie Decker, the fact that Planned Parenthood sent funds to the abortion affiliate should have convinced McCallin of the merits of the case. "The State of Colorado and the Denver court acknowledged that about $1.4 million of state taxpayer dollars, in addition to millions of 'federal' tax dollars, flowed from Colorado government agencies through Planned Parenthood to its abortion affiliate," said Decker.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

"Without even having the facts of the case developed, the Denver court seems to have granted motions to dismiss filed by the State of Colorado and Planned Parenthood on grounds the term 'indirectly' could not mean what Ms. Norton and Governor Owens said it meant in 2002 when they defunded Planned Parenthood."

"That, of course, is the plain meaning of Colo. Const., Art. V, § 50 which was implemented by the citizens of Colorado, and the reason for Ms. Norton’s lawsuit."

Decker told LifeSiteNews that "Colorado law is very clear," and that the state law "prohibits Colorado tax dollars from being used to directly or indirectly pay for induced abortions."

She says her client "has been denied the opportunity to fully develop the facts of the case and demonstrate exactly what the Colorado tax dollars have been used for." Similarly, says Decker, it is not known "exactly what those funds were used for. At this time, there is simply no way to conclude that tax dollars have not been used to directly pay for abortions or abortion inducing drugs and devices."

"What we do know is that millions of Colorado tax dollars have flowed through Planned Parenthood to its abortion affiliate, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that those tax dollars are being used to indirectly pay for abortions."

A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains did not return multiple requests for comment about the lawsuit.

The dismissal comes as Planned Parenthood fights an investigation by the state's Republican attorney general over a video by Live Action, as well as a lawsuit by a mother whose 13-year old daughter had an abortion in 2012 that she alleges was covered up by Planned Parenthood. The girl, who was being abused by her stepfather, was abused for months after the abortion.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Courtesy of Online for Life
Steve Weatherbe

,

Fledgling high-tech pro-life group marks 2,000 babies saved: 2-3 saved per day

Steve Weatherbe
By
Image

Online for Life, the Dallas-based pro-life marketing agency, saved its two-thousandth unborn baby earlier this year and is well on its way to saving its three thousandth by 2015.

“We are getting better all the time at what we do,” says founder Brian Fisher. “It used to be one baby saved every four to six weeks and now its two or three a day.”

But the most significant save? “It was the very first one,” he says, recalling the phone call from a crisis centre a month after OFL’s 2012 startup.  “And for me personally it was just a massive turning point … because [of] all the work and the money and testing and the volunteers and everything that led up to that moment. All the frustration of that was washed away in an instant because a child had been rescued that was about to be killed.”

Though increasing market savvy has led Online for Life to expand offline, the core of the non-profit, donor-financed operation remains SEO -- search engine optimization -- targeting young women who have just discovered they are pregnant and gone onto the Web to find the nearest abortion clinic.

Instead, they find the nearest crisis pregnancy center at the top of their results page. Since OFL went online it has linked with a network of 41 such centers, including two of its own it started this year, in a positive feedback loop that reinforces effective messaging first at the level of the Web, then at the first telephone call between the clinic and the pregnant woman, and finally at the first face-to-face meeting.

“Testing is crucial,” says Fisher. “We test everything we do.” Early on, Online for Life insisted the clinics it served have an ultrasound machine, because the prevailing wisdom in the prolife movement was that “once they saw their baby on ultrasound, they would drop the idea of having an abortion.” While the organization still insists on the ultrasound, its own testing and feedback from the CPCs indicates that three quarters of the women they see already have children. “They’ve already seen their own children on ultrasound and are still planning to abort.” So ultrasound images have lost their punch.

OFL has had to move offline to reach a significant minority who have neither computers, tablets, or cell phones.  Traditional electronic media spots as well as bus ads and billboards carry the message to them.

As well, says Fisher, “unwanted pregnancy used to be a high-school age problem; now that’s gone down in numbers and the average age of women seeking abortion has gone up to 24.” By that age, he says, they are “thoroughly conditioned by the abortion culture. Even before they got pregnant, they have already decided they would have an abortion if they did get pregnant.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

What they need—and fast, in the first two minutes of the first phone call—is sympathy, support, and a complete absence of judgement. Online for Life is always gathering information from its network on what responses are most effective—and this can vary city to city. The organization offers training to clinic volunteers and staff that stresses a thorough knowledge of the services on tap. “Any major city has all sorts of services—housing, education, health—available,” says Fisher.

The problem that OFL was designed to address was the crisis pregnancy centers’ market penetration. Three percent of women with unwanted pregnancies were reaching out to the CPCs, and seven per cent of those who did reach out were having their babies. “So about 2.1 children were being saved for every 1,000 unwanted pregnancies,” says Fisher. “That’s not nearly enough.”

So Fisher and two fellow volunteers dreamed of applying online marketing techniques to the problem in 2009. Three years later Fisher was ready to leave his executive position at an online marketing agency to go full-time with the life-saving agency. Now they have 63 employees, most of them devoted to optimizing the penetration in each of the markets served by their participating crisis centers.

The results speak for themselves. Where OFL has applied its techniques, especially with its own clinics, as many as 15-18 percent of the targeted population of women seeking abortions get directed to nearby crisis pregnancy centers. “It depends on the centres’ budgets and on how many volunteers they have to be on the phones through the day and night,” he says. “But we are going to push it higher. We hope to save our 2,500th child by the end of the year.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Shock: UK mom abandons disabled daughter, keeps healthy son after twin surrogacy

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

A UK woman who is the biological mother of twins born from a surrogate mom, has allegedly abandoned one of the children because she was born with a severe muscular condition, while taking the girl's healthy sibling home with her.

The surrogate mother, also from the UK — referred to as "Jenny" to protect her identity — revealed to The Sun the phone conversation that took place between herself and the biological mother over the fate of the disabled girl.

“I remember her saying to me, “She’d be a f****** dribbling cabbage! Who would want to adopt her? No one would want to adopt a disabled child,’” she said.

Jenny, who has children of her own, said she decided to become a surrogate to “help a mother who couldn’t have children.” She agreed to have two embryos implanted in her womb and to give birth for £12,000 ($20,000 USD).

With just six weeks to the due date, doctors told Jenny she needed an emergency caesarean to save the babies. It was not until a few weeks after the premature births that the twin girl was diagnosed with congenital myotonic dystrophy.

When Jenny phoned the biological mother to tell her of the girl’s condition, the mother rejected the girl.

Jenny has decided along with her partner to raise the girl. They have called her Amy.

“I was stunned when I heard her reject Amy,” Jenny said. “She had basically told me that she didn’t want a disabled child.”

Jenny said she felt “very angry” towards the girl’s biological parents. "I hate them for what they did.”

The twins are now legally separated. A Children and Family Court has awarded the healthy boy to the biological mother and the disabled girl to her surrogate.

The story comes about two weeks after an Australian couple allegedly abandoned their surrogate son in Thailand after he was born with Down syndrome, while taking the healthy twin girl back with them to Australia.

Rickard Newman, director of Family Life, Pro-Life & Child and Youth Protection in the Diocese of Lake Charles, called the Australian story a “tragedy” that “results from a marketplace that buys and sells children.”

“Third-party reproduction is a prism for violations against humanity. IVF and the sperm trade launched a wicked industry that now includes abortion, eugenics, human trafficking, and deliberate family fragmentation,” he said. 

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook