Cheryl Sullenger

Gosnell still facing 380 criminal charges, including five murder charges

Cheryl Sullenger
By Cheryl Sullenger

Philadelphia, PA, April 24, 2013 ( – In a surprise move, the defense in the Kermit Gosnell murder trial has rested without calling a single witness. The news comes on the heals of a clarification by Judge Jeffery P. Minehart about a mix-up in the dismissal of one of the murder charges yesterday.

Closing arguments are set for Monday.

Yesterday’s dismissal of nine criminal charges against accused murderer Kermit Gosnell stunned many who have followed this macabre case involving babies born alive during illegal late-term abortions then intentionally killed amid squalid conditions at Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” abortion clinic.

Today, Judge Jeffery P. Minehart clarified that he did not intend to drop the First Degree Murder charges for Baby C, a baby witnesses said was breathing for 20 minutes before it was stabbed in the neck by Lynda Williams in Gosnell’s presence.

Instead, murder charges should have been dismissed in the death of Baby F for which there was less compelling evidence.

Nevertheless, the dismissals are expected to have little effect on the trial’s outcome. Court records show that Gosnell still faces over 380 criminal counts, including five murder charges. A conviction on any of the First Degree murder counts would mean he could still receive the death penalty or life in prison without parole.

After heated arguments by Defense Attorney Jack McMahon and Assistant District Attorney Ed Cameron, Judge Minehart dismissed the following charges without explanation:

• Three counts of First Degree Murder in the deaths of Babies Boy B, Baby G, and Baby F (after correction by the judge).
• Five counts of Abuse of Corpse related to the discovery of five jars containing the severed feet of large aborted babies.
• One count of Infanticide in the case of Baby Boy B

However, according to court records, Conspiracy and Solicitation to Commit Murder charges for Baby G remain active and were not dismissed with the murder charges.

Also dismissed were were six counts of “Theft by Deception” against former Gosnell employee Eileen O’Neill, sho is standing trail with Gosnell. She is accused of billing for medical services provided as she was masquerading as a license physician. Three remaining counts will go to the jury.

Victims’ Cases Won’t Go to the Jury

Baby Boy B was discovered during the original 2010 law enforcement raid of Gosnell’s abortion clinic frozen in a red biohazard bag along with the remains of 46 other aborted babies. The medical examiner told the grand jury that he estimated gestational age of Baby Boy B to be 28 weeks. This baby was intact and bore the now-familiar neck wound that indicated his spinal cord had been severed. However, there was no testimony presented during the trial that this baby ever moved or breathed. Gosnell had been charged with infanticide related to the death of Baby Boy B.

Baby G was of an unknown gestational age. An unlicensed abortionist who worked with Gosnell testified before the Grand Jury that he helped Gosnell deliver Baby G and observed a “respiratory excursion,” or a breath. He said Gosnell then turned the baby over and severed his spinal cord with scissors.

Baby F was estimated to be 25-27 weeks gestation when Steven Massof, an unlicensed abortionist employed by Gosnell, assisted his boss in the abortion and delivery of the intact baby. Massof testified that he saw a leg “jerk and move” after which he saw Gosnell sever its spine.

Other Charges Also Dropped

The five abuse of corpse charges dismissed by Judge Minehart related to five jars of severed feet seized from Gosnell’s clinic. McMahon argued that they were kept for possible DNA sampling and as proof of gestational age, but medical professionals who testified all said that there was no known medical reason or precedent for such behavior.

While those charges have been dropped, it is estimated that over 380 other criminal charges remain, including four counts of first degree murder for the deaths of Baby Boy A, Baby D, Baby E, Baby F and one count of Third Degree Murder for the death of patient Karnamaya Mongar.

Four Remaining First Degree Murder Counts

Baby Boy A was the biggest baby that Kareema Cross had ever seen delivered at Gosnell’s abortion “House of Horrors” clinic in the four years she worked there. He was delivered to 17-year-old Shaquana Abrams at 29.4 weeks gestation, according to an ultrasound record. Baby Boy A was so large, he did not fit into the plastic shoe box that Gosnell tossed him in. Cross said she saw the baby pull in his arms and legs while Gosnell explained the movements as “reflexes” telling her the baby really didn’t move prior to cutting the baby’s neck. Baby Boy A was so large, Gosnell joked that “this baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.” Cross and fellow employees Adrienne Moton and 15-year old Ashley Baldwin were all so “startled” by the size of the baby that they all took photos of the baby with their cell phones.

Baby C was an intact baby of over 25-weeks gestation. Kareema Cross testified that she saw Baby C breathing and described the up and down chest movements she observed for 20 minutes. She told the court she saw Lynda Williams lift the baby’s arm and watched as the newborn drew it back on its own power. Afterwards, Williams inserted surgical scissors into the baby’s neck and “snipped” the spinal cord. Gosnell was said to be in the room at the time. This baby’s murder charges were unintentionally dismissed in the place of Baby F, but were reinstated after Judge Minehart discovered his error.

Baby D was described by witnesses as 12-15 inches long with the head the size of a “big pancake” when he was delivered into a toilet. Kareema Cross testified that she saw the baby struggling, using swimming motions in an attempt to get out of the toilet bowl. Adrienne Moton pulled the baby out and “snipped” the neck, as Gosnell had taught her to do, while the mother watched. Gosnell has also been charged with Criminal Solicitation of Moton to commit murder of Baby D.

Baby E was estimated to be at least 23 weeks gestation and maybe more. After Baby E was delivered, teen Ashley Baldwin heard the baby cry and called Kareema Cross for help. Cross described the baby’s cry as a “whine.” Baldwin said that Gosnell when into the room then came out with the baby — which now had an incision in its neck — and tossed it into the waste bin.

Mongar Murder Count Still Active

Gosnell also still faces one Third Degree Murder charge in the drug overdose death of second-trimester abortion patient Karnamaya Mongar. Witnesses testified that Mongar was not breathing right but Gosnell completed the abortion before attempting to revive Mongar. A defibrillator present in the room at the time was broken and unusable. Gosnell also faces several other charges related to the death of Mongar, including Murder by Drug Delivery Resulting in Death.

Other Active Criminal Charges

Gosnell faces a massive amount of other charges related to his corrupt abortion organization, including several violations of the Controlled Substances act for sloppy or improper drug handling and administration by unqualified employees. He also faces numerous Conspiracy and Solicitation charges related to the murder of newborns and illegal distribution of drugs. Gosnell faces a whopping 310 counts of violating Informed Consent laws, 33 counts of abortion at more than 24 weeks, and 10 counts of Theft by Deception, and three counts of Corruption of a Minor. He is also facing charges of running a Corrupt Organization and Racketeering.

Below is a full listing of his active charges, all of which will go to the jury:

• Murder (Karnamaya Mongar), 3rd degree, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c)
• Murder, drug delivery resulting in death (K. Mongar), 18 Pa.C.S. § 2506
• Controlled Substances Act, 35 P.S. 780-§113(f)(30), F-1
• Controlled Substances Act, 35 P.S. 780-§113(f)(14), F-1
• Conspiracy (Controlled Substances Act), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-1
• Solicitation (Controlled Substances Act), 18 Pa.C.S. § 902, 2 counts, F-1
• Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5105(a), F-3
• Obstructing Administration of Law, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5101, M-2
• Murder (Baby Boy A), 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502
• Conspiracy (Murder of Baby C), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-1
• Solicitation (Murder, Baby C), 18 Pa.C.S. § 902, F-1
• Murder (Baby D), 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502
• Conspiracy (Murder of Baby D), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-1
• Solicitation (Murder, Baby D), 18 Pa.C.S. § 902, F-1
• Murder (Baby E) 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502
• Murder (Baby F), 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502
• Conspiracy (Murder of Baby F), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-1
• Conspiracy (Murder of Baby G), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-1
• Solicitation (Murder of Baby G), 18 Pa.C.S. § 902, F-1
• Conspiracy (murder, generally), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-1
• Infanticide (Baby Girl A), 18 Pa.C.S. § 3212, F-3
• Abortion at 24 or more weeks (33 counts), 18 Pa.C.S. § 3211, F-3
• Conspiracy (Abortion, 24 or more weeks), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-3
• Informed consent violations (310 counts), 18 Pa.C.S. § 3205, M-3
• Theft by deception (10 counts), 18 Pa.C.S. § 3922, M-1
• Conspiracy (Theft by deception), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, M-1
• Controlled Substances Act (Massof), 35 P.S. 780-(§113(f)(30), F-1
• Controlled Substances Act (Massof), 35 P.S. 780-(§113(f)(14), F-1
• Conspiracy (Controlled Substances Act), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, F-1
• Corrupt Organizations, Racketeering, 18 Pa.C.S. § 911(b), F-1
• Corrupt Organization, Conspiracy,18 Pa.C.S. § 911(b)(4), F-1
• Corruption of Minors (3 counts), 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301, M-1
• Obstructing Administration of Law, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5101, M-2
• Tampering with or Fabricating Evidence, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4910, M-2

Gosnell also faces numerous Federal drug charges for the illegal distribution of narcotics that ended up on the streets of Philadelphia. He is expected to be tried in that case sometime later in Federal Court.

“The prospect of Gosnell being completely exonerated seems highly unlikely, but when a jury is involved, anything can happen,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “While the spotlight shines on this horrific case, we remain acutely aware that abortion clinics across America are operating in Gosnell-like conditions committing violations that Gosnell also committed. We continue to pray for justice in the Gosnell case and that all abortionists of his ilk will soon be brought to justice. May the Gosnell case speed the day when abortion is abolished in this country for good.”

Operation Rescue plans to be in the courtroom for closing arguments.

Share this article

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
Susan Montgomery /
Cheryl Sullenger

Columbia Planned Parenthood halts abortions: poised to lose abortion license

Cheryl Sullenger
By Cheryl Sullenger

Columbia, MO, November 25, 2015 (OperationRescue) — It’s the kind of news the Abortion Cartel cringes over. The Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Columbia, Missouri, has once again halted abortions and will lose their license to do them because their abortionist, Colleen McNicholas, cannot qualify for legitimate hospital privileges, as required by law.

McNicholas started prescribing abortion pills in Columbia after a shady deal was struck with Missouri University to provide her with bogus “refer and follow” privileges that were then used by Planned Parenthood to surreptitiously convince the Health Department to issue the facility a license to do abortions.

Once the scheme was uncovered by a state interim legislative committee, with the help of local activists, the University revoked McNicholas’ agreement that only allowed her to suggest that women seek treatment at University Hospital. The agreement also allowed her to receive information about the medical condition of women she referred there.

The last day for abortions at the Planned Parenthood in Columbia was Monday, November 23. McNicholas’ dubious “privileges” expire on December 1.

“We give all the honor and glory and victory to God,” said Kathy Forck, who heads up 40 Days for Life campaigns in Columbia. “This is God’s victory.”

This leaves Columbia once again abortion free, and the state of Missouri with one remaining abortion facility, a high-volume Planned Parenthood mill in St. Louis – where McNicholas also works as an abortionist — that has caused perhaps the highest known number of medical emergencies resulting in hospitalization of any abortion facility in the U.S.

However, Missouri is accustomed to having just one abortion clinic. The Columbia Planned Parenthood has had chronic difficulty keeping an abortionist on staff. It was forced to end abortions in September, 2011, after its abortionist left town. It later resumed abortions only to stop them once again after another abortionist quit.

Next year, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of a Texas abortion law that contains similar hospital privilege requirements. That case, Whole Women’s Health v. Cole, is a critically important one, according to Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, whose work exposing abortion abuses in Texas and across the nation led to the passage of hospital privilege requirements in over a dozen states.

“We have seen too many suffering women dumped by abortionists on hospitals, whose staff then must take the time to piece together what happened to women as their lives ebb away. In fact, some have died, and that is why the local hospital privilege requirement is so critical,” said Newman. “The U.S. Supreme Court will now decide whether the profits of abortionist who are unqualified for hospital privileges will trump the lives and health of women. There is a lot riding on this case, not just for Columbia, but for communities across America.”

But despite the difficulties in finding anyone that can legitimately qualify for hospital privileges, Planned Parenthood isn’t giving up easily.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Since campus unrest forced the resignation of top leadership at Missouri University, Planned Parenthood sees an opportunity to reverse their fortunes. Laura McQuade, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, which operates the Columbia center, has vowed to pressure interim Chancellor Hank Foley to restore privileges to McNicholas.

In fact, the Planned Parenthood organization that McQuade now leads is the same one that faced 107 criminal charges in Kansas for illegal late-term abortions and manufacturing evidence to cover up for their crimes. That case was dropped after an unknown corrupt official in the Kansas Attorney General’s office illegally shredded the evidence against them during the administration of former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who later served the Obama Administration as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

“I wouldn’t trust this double-dealing Planned Parenthood for anything. They’re on a first-name basis with the bottom of the deck,” said Newman.

So in the tank for Planned Parenthood is Sebelius that she is scheduled as keynote speaker at a conference Planned Parenthood is holding in Kansas City, Missouri on December 14, 2015. (Details here.)

“This isn’t over. There is no doubt that Planned Parenthood and their cronies will bring powerful political coercion to bear on Missouri University to once again partner with them in the abortion business,” said Newman. “We cannot allow the University to once again participate in the shedding of innocent blood by capitulating to Planned Parenthood’s back-room bullying.”

Take Action:

Operation Rescue encourages the public to continue to contact Interim Chancellor Hank Foley and ask him to stand strong on keeping Missouri University out of the abortion business.

E-Mail: [email protected]

Reprinted with permission from Operation Rescue

Share this article

Featured Image
Paul Stark

A pro-life conversation guide for the holidays

Paul Stark
By Paul Stark

November 25, 2015 (NationalRighttoLifeNews) -- The holiday dinner table offers a natural forum for congenial (hopefully!) conversation about current events and issues. Defenders of unborn human life should be prepared to take advantage of opportunities when they arise. Here are some suggestions to help you effectively discuss abortion with family members and friends who may not share the pro-life view.

(1) Know how to clarify the issue

When faced with an argument or reason for abortion, ask yourself whether it works to justify killing obvious examples of rights-bearing human beings, such as newborn babies, toddlers, teenagers and adults. If not, it assumes that the being killed by abortion, the unborn (i.e., the human embryo or “fetus”), is not an intrinsically valuable human being, like toddlers and teenagers—that is, it simply assumes the very conclusion it must defend.

For example, a woman should not have a “right to choose” to drown her toddler in the bathtub. The question at hand is whether the unborn, like a toddler, deserves full moral respect and ought not be killed for the convenience or benefit of others. If so, killing the unborn by abortion, like killing a toddler for the same reasons, is a serious moral wrong.

(2) Know how to articulate the pro-life argument

The pro-life position is that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being. This position is supported by modern science (showing that what abortion kills is a human being, a member of our species) together with a foundational moral principle (the equal fundamental dignity and right to life of every member of the human family).

The science of embryology tells us that the unborn from conception is a distinct, living and whole human organism—a member of the species Homo sapiens, the same kind of being as each of us, only at a much earlier stage of development. This fact is uniformly affirmed by embryology textbooks and leading experts.

Morally, no relevant difference exists between human beings before and after birth. Unborn humans differ from older humans, such as newborns, in their size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency—remember the helpful acronym SLED—but none of those differences are significant in a way that would justify killing the former. For example, a five-year-old child lacks the physical and mental abilities of a 10-year-old, but she is no less valuable and deserving of respect and protection.

Each of us has a right to life by virtue of what (i.e., the kind of being) we are, rather than because of acquired characteristics or abilities that only some human beings have and others do not. So all human beings, including the unborn, are equal in having basic dignity and a right not to be killed without just cause.

(3) Know how to respond to common objections

Claims by abortion advocates about the number of women who died from illegal abortions are wildly overstated, as NARAL co-founder Dr. Bernard Nathanson frankly admitted. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 39 women died from illegal abortion in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, while 24 died from legal abortion (abortion had been legalized in some circumstances in some states). Maternal mortality improved in the decades preceding Roe as a result of advances in modern medicine having nothing to do with legal abortion.

If you cannot answer a challenge, don’t let it fluster you. Be honest and say you will get back to the challenger after thinking and reading more about the issue.

(4) Know facts about fetal development

In addition to knowing that the life of a human organism, a human being, begins at conception (see above), it is useful to know some details about the development of human beings in the womb. These facts bring home for many people the humanity of the unborn child. For example, the heart begins to beat about three weeks after conception, before many women even know they are pregnant. At about six weeks, brain waves can be detected. By 20 weeks, a wealth of evidence indicates that unborn children can experience excruciating pain.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The stunning complexity of prenatal human development is “beyond any comprehension of any existing mathematics today,” says renowned medical imaging expert and mathematician Alexander Tsiaras.

(5) Know how abortion can hurt women

The health risks of abortion, both physical and psychological, are very well documented. Familiarize yourself with a few facts.

For example, many studies suggest that abortion can increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer. Moreover, while no one ultimately regrets not having an abortion, many, many (though of course not all) women now deeply regret their decision in favor of abortion. A 2011 meta-analysis published in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry—"the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion available in the world literature”—found an 81 percent increased risk of mental health problems among women who have had abortions.

(6) Know about alternatives to abortion and compassionate support for women

Both motherhood and adoption are ethical, life-affirming options. Some 3,000 pro-life pregnancy care centers across the United States stand ready to help pregnant women in need. Many programs are available to help women and others deal with the aftermath of abortion.

(7) Be winsome

Pro-lifers must be kind, respectful, fair-minded and willing to listen and respond thoughtfully to those who disagree. Don’t call someone “pro-abortion” in conversation, since it is usually inconsistent with how he sees his position and can turn him off to productive dialogue. Show compassion toward pregnant women facing difficult circumstances and women who have undergone abortions.

(8) Ask questions

Instead of relying just on blunt assertions—and putting the burden of proof on yourself—ask strategic questions to poke holes in someone’s position and get him thinking. Make him defend his claims. For example, if he says a baby becomes a person after birth, ask how a mere trip through the birth canal, a shift in location, can change who/what someone is or whether or not she has a right to life. If a pro-choice advocate says he is personally opposed to abortion but thinks it should remain legal, ask why he is opposed; note that the reason for personal opposition (abortion kills a human being) is precisely the reason abortion should not be permitted under law. (I recommend the “tactical approach” developed by Greg Koukl and used in Ch. 9 of Scott Klusendorf’s The Case for Life.)

You probably won’t change someone’s mind on the spot. But you can have a friendly conversation and give him or her something to think about. That should be your goal.

Reprinted with permission from National Right to Life News

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook