Brice Griffin

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

Brice Griffin
By Brice Griffin

January 16, 2013 ( - 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

Share this article

Featured Image
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, ,

Clinton: US needs to help refugee rape victims… by funding their abortions

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

CLINTON, Iowa, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that U.S. taxpayers should be on the hook for abortions for refugees impregnated through rape.

"I do think we have to take a look at this for conflict zones," Clinton said at an Iowa town hall, according to CNN. "And if the United States government, because of very strong feelings against it, maintains our prohibition, then we are going to have to work through non-profit groups and work with other counties to ... provide the support and medical care that a lot of these women need."

Clinton also said that "systematic use of rape as a tool of war and subjection is one that has been around from the beginning of history" but that it has become "even more used by a lot of the most vicious militias and insurgent groups and terrorist groups."

The prohibition referenced by Clinton – and named by the woman who asked Clinton about pregnant refugees – is known as the Helms Amendment. Made into law in 1973, it prevents U.S. foreign aid funds from being used for abortion.

Abortion supporters have urged the Obama administration to unilaterally change its interpretation of the amendment to allow exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, and if the mother's life is in danger. They argue that because the law specifically states that "[n]o foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning," women who are raped should be excepted.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In August, 81 Democrats signed a letter to President Obama that urged this course of action. CNN reported that while Clinton didn't call for the Helms Amendment to be changed or re-interpreted, she did support other actions to increase women's access to abortion facilities.

If the United States "can't help them [to get an abortion], then we have to help them in every other way and to get other people to at least provide the options" to women raped in conflict, she said.

"They will be total outcasts if they have the child of a terrorist or the child of a militia member," according to Clinton. "Their families won't take them, their communities won't take them."

A study of women who bore their rape-conceived children during the Rwanda genocide found that "motherhood played a positive role for many women, often providing a reason to live again after the genocide."

Featured Image
Cardinal George Pell Patrick Craine / LifeSiteNews
Andrew Guernsey

, ,

Cardinal Pell bets against the odds: insists Pope Francis will strongly reaffirm Catholic tradition

Andrew Guernsey
By Andrew Guernsey


ROME, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Contradicting the statements of some of the pope’s closest advisors, the Vatican’s financial chief Cardinal George Pell has declared that Pope Francis will re-assert and “clarify” longstanding Church teaching and discipline that prohibits Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried in public adultery without sacramental confession and amendment of life.

In a homily on Monday, Pell stressed the importance of fidelity to the pope, especially today as “we continue to look also to the successor of St. Peter as that guarantee of unity in doctrine and practice.”

Pell was offering Mass at the Basilica of San Clemente in Rome on the feast of Pope St. Clement I, notable in history for being one of the first popes to exert Roman papal primacy to correct the errors in the doctrine and abuses in discipline which other bishops were allowing.

Turning to address the issues at the Synod on the Family, Pell rebuked those who “wanted to say of the recent Synod, that the Church is confused and confusing in her teaching on the question of marriage,” and he insisted that the Church will always remain faithful to “Jesus’ own teaching about adultery and divorce” and “St. Paul’s teaching on the proper dispositions to receive communion.” Pell argues that the possibility of Communion for those in adultery is “not even mentioned in the Synod document.”

Pell asserted that Pope Francis is preparing “to clarify for the faithful what it means to follow the Lord…in His Church in our World.” He said, “We now await the Holy Father’s apostolic exhortation, which will express again the Church’s essential tradition and emphasize that the appeal to discernment and the internal forum can only be used to understand better God’s will as taught in the scriptures and by the magisterium and can never be used to disregard, distort or refute established Church teaching.”

STORY: Vatican Chief of Sacraments: No pope can change divine law on Communion

The final document of the synod talks about the “internal forum” in paragraphs 84-86, refers to private discussions between a parish priest and a member of the faithful, to educate and form their consciences and to determine the “possibility of fuller participation in the life of the Church,” based on their individual circumstances and Church teaching. The selective quoting of John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio that omitted his statement ruling out the possibility of Communion for those in public adultery has given liberals hope that this “fuller participation” could include reception of Communion.

Pell’s prediction that the pope will side with the orthodox side of this controversy lends two explanations. On one reading, Pell is uncertain what the pope will do in his post-synodal exhortation, but he is using such firm language as a way of warning the pope that he must clearly uphold Church teaching and practice, or else he would risk falling into heresy at worst or grave negligence at best in upholding the unity of the Church.

On another reading, Pell may have inside information, even perhaps from the pope himself, that he will uphold Church teaching and practice on Communion for those in public adultery, that the pope’s regular confidants apparently do not have.

This hypothesis, however, is problematic in that just last week, Pope Francis suggested that Lutherans may “go forward” to receive Holy Communion, contrary to canon law, if they come to a decision on their own, which suggests agreement with the reformers’ line of argument about “conscience.” And earlier last month, the pope granted an interview to his friend Eugenio Scalfari, who quoted the pope as promising to allow those in adultery back to Communion without amendment of life, even though the Vatican refused to confirm the authenticity of the quote since Scalfari does not use notes.

If Pell actually knew for certain what the pope would do, it would also seem to put Pell’s knowledge above that of Cardinal Robert Sarah, who in what could be a warning to Pope Francis, declared last week in no uncertain terms that “Not even a pope can dispense from such a divine law” as the prohibition of public adulterers from Holy Communion.

STORY: Papal confidant signals Pope Francis will allow Communion for the ‘remarried’

Several members of the pope’s inner circle have said publicly that the controversial paragraphs 84-86 of the Synod final document have opened the door for the Holy Father to allow Communion in these cases if he so decides. Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ, a close friend of Pope Francis and the editor of La Civita Catholica, a prominent Jesuit journal in Rome reviewed by the Vatican Secretariat of State, wrote this week that the internal forum solution for the divorced in adultery is a viable one:

The Ordinary Synod has thus laid the bases for access to the sacraments [for the divorced and civilly remarried], opening a door that had remained closed in the preceding Synod. It was not even possible, one year ago, to find a clear majority with reference to the debate on this topic, but that is what happened in 2015. We are therefore entitled to speak of a new step.

Spadaro’s predictions and interpretation of the Synod are consistent with the public statements of liberal prelates, some of whom are close confidantes to Pope Francis, including Cardinal Schönborn, Cardinal Wuerl, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Nichols, and the head of the Jesuit order, Fr. Nicolás. Fr. Nicolás, in particular, first confirmed that there would be an apostolic exhortation of the pope, and said of Communion for those in public adultery:

The Pope’s recommendation is not to make theories, such as not lumping the divorced and remarried together, because priests have to make a judgment on a case by case and see the situation, the circumstances, what happens, and depending on this decision one thing or the other. There are no general theories which translate into an iron discipline required at all. The fruit of discernment means that you study each case and try to find merciful ways out.

Although in the best analysis, Pell’s prediction about what Pope Francis may do in his post-synodal apostolic exhortation remains just that-- a prediction—he is drawing a line in the sand that if the pope chooses to cross, would bring the barque of Peter into uncharted waters, where the danger of shipwreck is a very real threat.


Featured Image
Lianne Laurence


Jennifer Lawrence just smeared traditional Christians in the worst way

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – It’s no surprise that yet another Hollywood star is mouthing the usual liberal platitudes, but the fact that this time around it’s Jennifer Lawrence, a mega-star and lead in blockbuster series Hunger Games, brings a particular sting of disappointment.

That’s because the 25-year-old, effervescent and immensely talented star often comes across not only as very likable, but also as someone capable of independent thought.

But apparently not.

Or at least not when it comes to Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk famously thrown in jail for refusing to obey a judge’s order that she sign marriage licenses for homosexual couples.

Davis, Lawrence tells Vogue in its November issue, is that “lady who makes me embarrassed to be from Kentucky.”

“Don’t even say her name in this house,” the actress told Vogue writer Jonathan van Meter in an interview that happened to take place the day after Davis was released from her five-day stint in jail.

Lawrence then went on a “rant” about “all those people holding their crucifixes, which may as well be pitchforks, thinking they’re fighting the good fight.”

RELATED STORY: Wrong, Jennifer Lawrence! Real men don’t need porn, and women don’t need to give it to them

She was brought up Republican, she told van Meter, “but I just can’t imagine supporting a party that doesn’t support women’s basic rights. It’s 2015 and gay people can get married and we think that we’ve come so far, so, yay! But have we? I don’t want to stay quiet about that stuff.”

After conjuring up images of Christians as bug-eyed hillbillies on a witchhunt with her reference to “crucifixes as pitchforks,” Lawrence added darkly: “I grew up in Kentucky. I know how they are.”

Perhaps one should infer that it’s lucky for Lawrence she escaped to Los Angeles and its enlightened culture. That hallowed place where, according to van Meter, Kris Jenner (former spouse of Bruce Jenner, who infamously declared himself a woman) brought Lawrence a cake for her birthday that was shaped like excrement and inscribed: “Happy birthday, you piece of sh*t!”

Lawrence is reportedly now Hollywood’s most highly paid actress. Not only is she the star of the hugely popular and lucrative Hunger Games franchise -- the last installment of which, Mockingjay, Part 2 opened November 20 -- but she won an Oscar for Silver Linings Playbook and starred in several others since her breakout role in the 2010 moving and moody indie film, Winter’s Bone.

Lawrence has every right to express her opinion, although no doubt it will be given more weight than it deserves. It is unfortunate, however, that she’s chosen to wield her fame, shall we say, as a pitchfork against Christian moral truths.



Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook