AbortionNO.org

Category Archive: Violence

Statement regarding conviction of James Pouillon’s murderer

On March 11, 2010, a Michigan jury found Harlan Drake guilty of the murder of CBR volunteer James Pouillon.  Mr. Pouillon was shot and killed because Mr. Drake was angry that he was displaying abortion photo signs to students whose teachers were covering up the horror of abortion.  The Flint Journal newspaper reported March 10, 2010 (“Jury to begin deliberating Harlan Drake trial Thursday morning”) that Mr. Drake testified “he felt no remorse” for Mr. Pouillon’s killing.  According to the prosecutor in the case, “Drake considered himself a hero for the slayings.”

Jesus said to His followers in John 16:2, “… the time is coming when those who kill you will think they are doing a holy service ….”  We thank God for Mr. Pouillon’sfaithful witness against the evil of abortion.  We pray for Mr. Drake’s lost soul.
Lord bless,

Gregg Cunningham

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Invites Randall Terry To Sue Us

In response to Randall Terry’s statement on Scott Roeder’s murder of George Tiller (see Mr. Terry’s remarks at the following link: http://abortionNO.org/pdf/RandallTerryRemarks.pdf), Gregg Cunningham, of the Center For Bio-Ethical Reform, replies as follows:

Mr. Terry,

You chide me for not “picking up the phone” to “check the facts” before condemning your attempt to minimize the murder of George Tiller but what facts would have rebutted published newspaper photos of you displaying signs which argued that Scott Roeder’s motives in killing George Tiller made his crime less than murder?

When you tell The New York Times (January 28, 2010, “Doctor’s Killer Puts Abortion on the Stand”) that you are not “condemning Mr. Roeder’s actions,” you are expressing support for violence against abortionists.

When you tell The Wichita Eagle (January 30, 2010, “Reactions to the Scott Roeder verdict from both sides of abortion debate”) that “If we condemn him [Roeder] too severely it undermines the premise of everything we stand for,” you are expressing support for violence against abortionists.

When you issue a press release (January 25, 2010) in which you say it is “a farce” to “pretend that this trial has nothing to do with child-killing by abortion,” you are suggesting that Mr. Roeder’s murder of George Tiller was justified by George Tiller’s abortion practice and you are expressing support for violence against abortionists.(http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7566412845.html).

When you issue a press release (January 27, 2010) in which you quote scripture which says in reference to George Tiller’s murder, “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning” and that “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous” and that “the Lord our God will bring other destructions upon them” and add “their innocent blood cries to God … for vengeance,” you are expressing support for violence against abortionists.(http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/8209412876.html).

When you hold a press conference (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqGwuOwdZ7U) during which you say testimony by former Attorney General Phil Kline could have “validated” Scott Roeder’s motivation and “brought a level of credibility to Scott’s frame of mind,” you are expressing support for violence against abortionists.

When you argue at a press conference (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqGwuOwdZ7U) that Scott Roeder, who bought a handgun, practiced with it, studied George Tiller’s daily habits and visited his church three times before finding him there and blowing his brains out, should have been charged with “voluntary manslaughter,” you are expressing support for violence against abortionists.

When you argue that Scott Roeder’s motivation for killing George Tiller entitles him to a slap-on-the-wrist sentence of less than five years in prison (the minimum sentence for voluntary manslaughter under Kansas law) you are trivializing premeditated murder and expressing support for violence against abortionists.

Against this background, your press conference claim that “I don’t even agree with what Scott Roeder did” is absurd. It is the sort of self-serving fig leaf which thoughtful listeners will rightly reject. You are either being intentionally deceptive or wildly negligent.

You have every right to bring discredit upon yourself and the organization you represent. But when your self-promotional excesses discredit the entire pro-life movement with reckless theatrics, it would be irresponsible for the rest of us to signal indifference, or worse, agreement, by our collective silence.

When you attempt to rationalize, justify, or minimize violence against abortionists, you don’t speak for those of us who condemn anarchy without equivocation. Be assured that when you jeopardize the fragile progress we have all worked so hard to achieve, we will anathematize and isolate you.

There is much more I could say but to the extent that one believer can properly exempt another from the prohibition against lawsuits found in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, I do so with this rebuttal. Sue me.

I am more than willing to submit for judicial review my conclusions concerning your outrageous remarks. But in the mean time, be assured that many people are praying that you will abandon the erratic, destructive extremes toward which you seem increasingly inclined.

You greatly underestimate the injury caused by ill-considered remarks which encourage further violence on both sides of this volatile issue. You say “the sky is not falling” but it fell indeed on CBR volunteer James Pullion when he was murdered by an abortion rights extremist whose defenders will attempt to make his trial about the public display of abortion photos in the same manner you tried to make Scott Roeder’s trial about abortion. It is clear that you don’t begin to understand the forces you are unleashing here.

CBR Challenges Missionaries To The Preborn Over Violence and Copyright Violations

Dear Mr. Trewhella,

It has come to our attention that your MissionariesToPreborn.com website features a “Multimedia” presentation whose first five abortion photos belong to The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform. Our records indicate that you are using them without proper licensing. Because internet piracy is rampant among some unprincipled anti-abortion activists, we are prepared to assume that you came into possession of these photos through some third-party and were unaware of the fact that they had been stolen. Now that you have received formal notice of this violation of federal copyright law, we expect that you will remove these materials from your website and stop using any other CBR imagery of whose use we may be unaware. Failure to comply with this demand by the close of business Wednesday, February 3, 2010, will result in our attorneys contacting your internet service provider to begin the process of taking down your website.

Once the offending materials have been removed, if you still wish to make licensed use of our imagery, please make a licensing request in writing (email requests may suffice) and certify that you oppose all unlawful abortion-related violence and do not collaborate in pro-life projects in any significant way with any person or organization which refuses to oppose all unlawful abortion-related violence. We routinely make our abortion photos and videos available to activists all over the world and do so without charge but only when they condemn unlawful violence.

To obtain a license to use our materials, in addition to condemning unlawful abortion-related violence in writing, you will have to remove from your website any statements which conflict with our anti-violence policy, including but not necessarily limited to the following statements regarding convicted murder Paul Hill:

Remarks in which you say of Mr. Hill, he “… has rational, biblical reasons for his actions which landed him in prison.”

Remarks in which you say of Mr. Hill, “… I did not want to abandon someone I love just because the current socio-politico-religio climate says that what he did was unthinkable and wrong. Quite frankly, I believe that when abortion is outlawed, as it surely will be, future generations will view Paul Hill as the sanest and bravest man of our age.”

Remarks in which you say of Mr. Hill, “… this idea that the use of force or violence on behalf of the preborn is ‘unthinkable’ or ‘wrong’ is nonsense.”

Remarks in which you say, “… we here at Missionaries to the Preborn remain committed to non-violent action on behalf of the the preborn, but that does not mean that we will disparage those who use force, for to do so is to repudiate the humanity of the preborn.”

To qualify for licensing which authorizes you to use CBR materials, you will also have to repudiate the pro-violence statement below, which you signed along with Paul Hill and convicted abortion clinic bomber Michael Bray and other pro-violence activists:

We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child. We assert that if Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn children. Therefore, he ought to be acquitted of the charges against him.

For the record, Mr. Trewhella, if it is morally justifiable for anti-abortion activists to kill abortionists, that same “right” could just as easily be claimed by extremist consumer advocates who could begin to kill corporate officials who preside over the production of goods and services which they know or should have known will endanger public safety. The same attacks could be launched by radical environmentalists who think “climate change” is homicide; or animal rights activists who think “meat” is murder.

The list of grievances is endless and our pluralistic society would quickly be plunged into interminable chaos. The rule of law is fragile and hard-won and it would be swept away in a wave of perpetual holy wars. We could find ourselves living in the hellish equivalent of Gaza or Mogadishu. Every disgruntled sociopath would get a gun and once the shooting starts, it would be very difficult to stop. People would soon be shooting without any clear recollection of why they are even killing.

Why, then, couldn’t advocates of abortion rights claim the reciprocal right to kill anti-abortion activists? And as CBR has predicted for years, that is exactly what recently happened when a supporter of legal abortion shot and killed CBR volunteer James Pullion for publicly displaying abortion photos.

Respectfully,

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform

Comments

Robert Filos
February 3rd, 2010 at 16:48 | #1

Your arrogance is surpassed only by your ignorance.
Pastor Matt Trewhella
February 2nd, 2010 at 23:45 | #2

Don,

We had someone from out of state make the video for us which you reference in your letter. We did not know we had five of your images nor do we have any interest in infringing upon your rights (too bad the preborn whom we are attempting to speak up for have none in our nation). We will have the images removed from our website by tomorrow as you have requested.

As for “licensing”, we repudiate no statements I or our organization have made regarding the use of force which you reference in your letter.

As for your final, inane, comments at the end of your letter, we at Missionaries to the Preborn hold to and herald a Christian worldview (something which CBR downplays and does not herald). Therefore, we readily see the difference between human beings and meat, and the difference between a man being shot who has killed thousands of innocent people and intends to kill thousands more and a man being shot who has never killed anyone and is simply standing on the street with a sign in his hands. (By the way, the man who shot Jim is verifiably not a “supporter of legal abortion” as your letter states).

We therefore, also, know that the “rule of law” of a nation never trumps the Law of God. All authority that man has is delegated to him from God, whether it be in the realm of self-government, family government, church government or civil government – none have their authority autonomously – rather their authority is delegated to them from God. All therefore must act in accordance with His Law/Word regarding their authority.

Therefore, when the State makes the immoral and unlawful declaration that certain people can be legally murdered, they have acted contrary to their jurisdiction of authority. The “law” they have made is an unjust law. Hence, abortion is still murder regardless of what the State says. Those who act in defense of those who have been made open game to those who kill-for-profit are not creating “chaos” or anarchy as you state in your letter, rather they are restoring order. Chaos and anarchy was created by and commenced by the Supreme Court when they declared that which is unlawful to be legal – namely, the killing of the defenseless preborn.

CHRISTUS VINCIT
CHRISTUS REGNAT
CHRISTUS IMPERAT

Pastor Matt Trewhella

The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform Condemns Randall Terry’s Support For Violence Against Abortion Providers

PRESS RELEASE

THE CENTER-FOR-BIO-ETHICAL REFORM

February 1, 2010

PO Box 219, Lake Forest, CA 92609, www.aboritonNO.org, cbr@cbrinfo.org

949-206-0600

THE CENTER FOR BIO-ETHICAL REFORM CONDEMNS RANDALL TERRY’S SUPPORT FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST ABORTION PROVIDERS

The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) today condemned Randall Terry’s support for violence against abortion providers. CBR also applauded the conviction of Scott Roeder for the murder of abortionist George Tiller and condemned the abortion industry for slaughtering children on a scale which dwarfs every atrocity in all of human history.

The Associated Press reported a story on January 31, 2010 headlined “Conviction angers anti-abortion militants” which quotes Mr. Terry as saying that “… more violence is inevitable” and that “’The blood of these babies slain by Tiller is crying for vengeance’….”

The Los Angeles Times, in a story titled,“Killer of abortion doctor eager to speak, friend says,” January 28, 2010, reports that Randall Terry has now associated himself with the most violent elements of anti-abortion anarchy:

The trial also has drawn a who’s who of antiabortion extremists, including Randall Terry, a founder of Operation Rescue. Many of the abortion foes are connected with the Army of God, a group that urges violence against doctors and clinics. Michael Bray, who was convicted of bombing the Washington offices of the National Abortion Federation and the ACLU in 1984 is here.

Mr. Terry sought to further justify Mr. Roeder’s attack in remarks quoted by NPR.org, in a story called “Jury Convicts Killer of Abortion Provider,” January 29, 2010:

Some anti-abortion activists, who attended the trial, including David Leach from Iowa and Michael Bray from Ohio, signed a petition arguing Roeder should be able to use a justifiable homicide defense. Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, was also in court, and he said he didn’t think that justice was served since the jury didn’t get to consider Roeder’s motive of preventing abortion.

‘And it showed to me that they never got a chance to get inside of Scott Roeder’s head. The babies who died at Tiller’s hand deserved their day in court, and it should have been this trial and it wasn’t,’ Terry said.

CBR categorically condemns Mr. Terry’s suggestion that any motive could have justified Mr. Roeder’s murder of “Dr.” Tiller. That suggestion was repeated visually by Mr. Terry and others who held matching signs which argued the need to “GIVE RODER A FAIR TRIAL” and asserted that a fair trial could only be had by allowing the jury to consider “RODER’S REASON: THE BABIES.”

CBR also condemns the notion that the violence of “vengeance” is an appropriate response to the violence of abortion. If it is morally justifiable for anti-abortion activists to kill abortionists, that same “right” could just as easily be claimed by wild-eyed consumer advocates who could begin to kill corporate officials who preside over the production of goods and services which they know or should have known will endanger public safety. The same attacks could be launched by radical environmentalists who think “climate change” is homicide; or animal rights activists who think “meat” is murder.

The list of grievances is endless and our pluralistic society would quickly be plunged into interminable chaos. The rule of law is fragile and hard-won and it would be swept away in a wave of perpetual holy wars. We could find ourselves living in the hellish equivalent of Gaza or Mogadishu. Every disgruntled sociopath would get a gun and once the shooting starts, it would be very difficult to stop. People would soon be shooting without any clear recollection of why they are even killing.

Why, then, couldn’t advocates of abortion rights claim the reciprocal right to kill anti-abortion activists? And as CBR has predicted for years, that is exactly what recently happened when a supporter of legal abortion shot and killed CBR volunteer James Pullion for publicly displaying abortion photos.

CBR opposes the death penalty so we were encouraged by a story at KAKE.com, headlined “Roeder Charged With Murder In Tiller’s Killing,” June 2, 2009. It said, “… District Attorney Nola Foulston told reporters the case does not qualify as a death penalty case.”

But neither do we want Mr. Roeder to ever again walk free. KansasCity.com, reported a story headlined “Roeder found guilty of murdering abortion doctor,” on January 29, 2010, which revealed “The prosecution said it would pursue a ‘hard 50’ sentence, which means 50 years in prison with no chance of parole.” Mr. Roeder is 51-years-old. We urge people of faith to pray that he repents of the terrible damage he has done the cause of life.

Reader Comments

0 Comments on The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform Condemns Randall Terry’s Support For Violence Against Abortion P

CBR gives thanks for the work of martyred pro-life hero James Pouillon

Martyred pro-life hero James Pouillon (white cap) holds CBR sign at Notre Dame Obama protest.—-May 2009

WHY KILLING ABORTIONISTS IS IMMORAL & STUPID

Gregg Cunningham
http://www.abortionNO.org

WHY KILLING ABORTIONISTS IS IMMORAL AND STUPID

In formulating a policy which forbids the use of our copyrighted materials by those who refuse to condemn abortion-related violence and or refuse to disassociate themselves from those who refuse to condemn abortion-related violence, we have not specified the meaning of the word “violence” for the same reason we have not specified the meaning of the word “word.” Its meaning is obvious. The reason so many pro-life activists so readily sign this agreement is because common sense dictates that words be understood to be used to convey their common meanings unless otherwise indicated. “Violence” means physical assaults against the persons or property of people who perform elective pregnancy terminations. We only make our imagery available (and we do so at no charge) to those who condemn such violence and agree to not associate themselves with others who refuse to condemn violence against abortion providers. To not knowingly “associate” means to not collaborate with such persons on anti-abortion projects, to not knowingly attend meetings or other events related to anti-abortion activity with such persons, to not knowingly co-sign anti-abortion documents with such persons, or engage in any anti-abortion activity with such persons.

We want people who refuse to condemn violence against abortion providers to be anathematized. We want them to be isolated from the pro-life movement they are working so hard to discredit. Allowing them to use our materials suggests approval which gives them credibility they don’t deserve. There is almost NO support among anti-abortion activists for violence but because a small handful of unstable publicity hounds have eagerly made themselves available for the press to make fools of (and the rest of us with them) the public’s perception of pro-life activism is that it is characterized by an undercurrent of sympathy for violence. Add this misconception to the misconception that the pro-life movement is a lost cause and it becomes much harder for legitimate pro-life organizations to recruit competent staff and fund effective projects.

Paul Hill’s murder of an abortionist didn’t even prevent the deaths of the children scheduled to die at the clinic at which his victim worked. Every one of the women who had scheduled an abortion at that clinic was able to reschedule later. Even if none of them had rescheduled their baby’s deaths, the damage done our movement has cost the lives of incalculably more babies than those few who might have been “saved” on that tragic day. Far from driving doctors from the field, these stupid killings have been used by the abortion industry to harden the resolve of a new generation of pro-abortion medical students who refuse to be intimidated by thugs and who say they are actually MORE likely to enter the field to prove that point. And even if most doctors were dissuaded from killing babies by these terrorists, HUGE numbers of much tougher feminist nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants are pushing legislation which would license them to perform first trimester abortions in “underserved” parts of the country.  Legislatures would start passing those bills just as soon as any real shortage of baby killing doctors began to manifest itself. According to Slate.com, there are already 12 states in which abortions can be performed by people who are not licensed physicians.  Would people like Paul Hill have tried to kill them all?  Well, they too would end up on death row and in the process, the pro-life movement really would be turned into a lost cause.

Abortion is legal. Justifiable homicide is cognizable only when acting to stop an UNLAWFUL killing. Even then, no more force may lawfully be employed than is minimally necessary to end the peril to your own life or the life of another. No murderer of any abortionist has used only minimal force.

The solution to the abortion problem is to outlaw abortion. You outlaw abortion by changing public opinion on a broad enough scale to create a political consensus in favor of reform. You change public opinion on that scale by showing the public what abortion actually looks like and turning people’s stomachs until they can’t stand it any more. That is the way social reform has always succeeded. Killing abortionists changes the subject and in the public’s mind, makes THEM the victims and us the villains. It turns public opinion against US, not the abortionists. How dumb is that?

Unlike social activists who have lived under tyrannical regimes, we have the means to change unjust laws by working within a governmental system which is capable of reform from below. If it is morally justifiable for anti-abortion activists to kill abortionists, that same “right” could be claimed by wild-eyed consumer advocates who could begin to kill corporate officials who preside over the production of goods and services which they know or should have known will endanger public safety. The same could happen with radical environmentalists who think “climate change” is homicide; or animal rights activists who think “meat” is murder. The list of grievances is endless and our society could quickly be plunged into chaos. The rule of law is fragile and hard-won and it would be swept away in a wave of simultaneous jihads. We could find ourselves living in the hellish equivalent of Bagdad or Beirut or Gaza or Mogadishu. Every disgruntled sociopath would get a gun and once the shooting starts, it would be very difficult to stop. After a while, people would shoot without any clear recollection of why they are even killing. And by the way, I can’t find any teaching by our Savior which could fairly be used to justify the achievement of social change in democracy through resort to vigilante murder. 1 Peter 2:13, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men; whether to the king, as supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.” Romans 13:1, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” It creates no exception to these passages when some authorities are corrupt or some laws unjust. The same corruption and injustice were just as prevalent in Peter and Paul’s time.

Anarchy is a human teaching. It is product of the Fall. It is not a fruit of the Spirit. It is totally antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Judges 17:6, “In those days Israel had no king; every man did what was right in his own eyes.” Matthew 15:9, “They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.” Ephesians 4:14, “Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.”

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and the jurisprudential tradition concerning civil disobedience in Western democracies has long been to legitimize such misconduct when three criteria were met: The unlawful act must be non-violent; it must be committed in the public interest rather than for personal gain; and the actor must submit himself to the jurisdiction of the state for prosecution. Shooting abortionists fails as legitimate civil disobedience because it violates the first principle.

The civil rights struggle to win equality of opportunity for African Americans was won the moment the black community decided to rally behind the peaceful activism of Martin Luther King. It would just have surely have been lost had they chosen to follow the violent activism of the Black Panthers or Malcolm X.

It annoys me beyond words that there are even a few people in our movement to whom this painfully self-evident truth needs to be explained. I have now wasted far more time on this ridiculous issue than I can possibly defend. People who need this explained to them are probably not people with whom we could ever win an argument. I shall, therefore, say no more on the subject.

Killing George Tiller – Full Essay by Gregg Cunningham

Gregg’s June 2009 letter which discussed the George Tiller murder, was an abridged version of a full essay discussing the topic.  The full version is now available by clicking here.  Please forward this link to your friends and leave comments here on the blog.

The Horror of Abortion Procedures

Dear Pro-Life Friend,

On  November 13, 2008, we received a message from a twenty-nine-year-old woman from Rochester, MN.  She had just seen our abortion pictures and said: “I have always considered myself pro-life but I have never felt the rage of the injustice until seeing this.”  On November 16, a twenty-nine-year-old woman from Warner Robins, GA, told us:  ”…seeing these videos has made me more proactive about speaking out against this heinous act.”

On November 16, a seventeen-year-old boy from Statesville, NC, said: ”I can’t believe this really happens.  It never hit me this hard till I saw this website.  THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE.”  On November 15, a thirty-eight-year-old woman from Northern Virginia said: ”I … have been far too complacent about my personal involvement in the issue.”  Then a twenty-seven-year-old woman from Surprise, AZ, said on November 16: “I didn’t know how to explain to people that they were killing a person because that always seemed to be the argument.  However, after seeing some of these images, all I would have to do is send them to this site to see baby fingers laying on a U.S. quarter.”   On November 17, a forty-one-year-old man from St. Leonard, MD, told us that the pictures ”Made me stronger in my belief that the unborn need my help.”

Simon Heller, abortionist LeRoy Carhart’s attorney before the U.S. Supreme Court in the partial-birth abortion case of Stenberg v. Carhart, told Justice Antonin Scalia that ”Abortion methods are, by their nature, unsightly” (The Supreme Court in the Intimate Lives of Americans, Ball, NYU Press, 2004).  That is why the abortion industry tries to cover up what we are working to expose.

PLEASE HELP US SAVE LIVES BY FORWARDING THIS LETTER TO YOUR PRO-LIFE FRIENDS!

Heritage Clinic for Women, in Grand Rapids, MI, for instance, says on their website, HeritageClinic.com, that after dilating the cervix, ”the physician removes the pregnancy with sterile instruments.”  Bland.

WebMD.com describes D&E abortion procedures as involving passage of ”a grasping instrument (forceps) into the uterus to grasp larger pieces of tissue.”  Still bland.  But when we get an abortionist on the witness stand and force him to testify under oath, under penalty of perjury, the descriptions are anything but bland.

PhysiciansForLife.org reports that Dilatation and Evacuation (D&E) abortions are one of the two most commonly used abortion procedures in second-trimester abortions.  They note that approximately 12% of all abortions (about 156,000 per year) occur after the 13th week of pregnancy.  The site quotes Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist, in sworn testimony he gave in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison, WI, May 27, 1999, Case No. 98-C-0305-S):

‘And typically when the abortion procedure is started we … know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we’re making our initial grasps or if we’re using some ultrasound visualization when we actually see a heartbeat as we’re starting the procedure.  It’s not unusual at the start of D&E procedures that a limb is acquired first and that that limb is brought through the cervix and even out of the vagina prior to disarticulation and prior to anything having been done that would have caused the fetal demise up to that point.’

The site next quotes from the testimony of abortionist LeRoy Carhart, the litigant in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, decided in 2000:  “‘…[W]hen you rupture the membranes, an arm will spontaneously fall out through the vaginal opening ….’”  It gets worse.  ”‘My normal course would be to dismember that appendage and then go back and try to take the fetus out whether foot or skull first, whatever end I can get to first.’”  When asked how he performed this “dismemberment,” he replied: “‘Just pulling and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get hold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the fetus, pulling down on it through the opening, using the internal opening [of the uterus] as your counter-traction and rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be.’”  Then he explains that ”‘Sometimes you will get one leg and you can’t get the other leg out.’”  The attorney next asks: ”‘In that situation, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the fetus still alive?’”  Carhart answers: ”‘Yes.’”  He adds: ”‘I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.’”  Not quite so horrific as a picture but close.

On March 2, 2009, the Los Angeles Times published a front page story titled “Drug war casts its shadow over a spring break mecca.”  The article tells of the Cancun, Mexico police chief who is accused of involvement in the kidnapping, torture and murder of “… a retired army general [Gen. Mauro Enrique Tello] who had been hired to revamp the city’s police force.”  The General and two others “disappeared in downtown Cancun ….”  The story goes on to say “Their bodies, riddled with bullets, were found the next morning beside a highway ….”  The most chilling part of the tale is that ”The general’s arms and legs had been broken, apparently as a result of torture.”  The pain of this experience is unimaginable but that is the point.  “Authorities believe the slaying was the work of the Zetas, much-feared enforcers for drug-smuggling gangs.”

PLEASE REMEMBER PREBORN CHILDREN IN YOUR ESTATE PLANNING BY MAKING CBR A BENEFICIARY OF YOUR WILL OR TRUST.

Can it be any less excruciating when Drs. Haskell and Carhart, and many other killers just as depraved as they, break the arms and legs of late-term babies who are old enough to be in neonatal care units if born alive at the stage of pregnancy at which they are being tortured to death?  No wonder our pictures sicken.

Yet the Congress has refused to enact the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act,” which would have forced abortionists to offer aborting mothers anesthesia for their preborn babies if the child was at least twenty weeks old.

Late-term abortions are no more depraved than killing preborn children in embryonic stem cell research but to the public, they seem much worse.  Perhaps these abortions shock the conscience because they so closely resemble massacres such as the one reported by the Associated Press on January 23, 2009, under the headline “2 Infants, 1 Adult Killed in Stabbing Spree at Belgian Day Care.”  The article begins: ”A young man with a gruesomely painted black-and-white face went on a rampage at a Belgian day care center Friday, stabbing two babies and a female worker to death and seriously wounding twelve others.”  The story continues: ”‘This was a particularly violent attack.  All the kids had multiple stab wounds on their legs, arms, all over their bodies,’ Dr. Ignace Demeyer, head of emergency services at Our Lady Hospital in nearby Aalst, told reporters.”  Infanticide shocks almost everyone but Barack Obama.

Researcher Don Surber is credited by crushliberalism.com (“Obama’s ‘pay grade,”August 19, 2008) with the discovery of a revealing Obama quote on the issue of infanticide when he was a state senator in 2001.  Opposing legislation which would have obligated doctors to provide care to any baby born prematurely or surviving a failed abortion, he said, ”… whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person … what we are really saying … is that they are … entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a 9-month old – child that was delivered to term.  That determination … would forbid abortions to take place.”

This sort of deceit is characteristic of Mr. Obama’s slippery approach to abortion and other difficult issues.  He distorts the traditional definition of the term “viable” so it no longer means the age at which a baby is able to survive outside the womb with proper neonatal care.  His new definition denies viability until a baby has been delivered through full-term birth.  Then, without missing a beat, he expands the definition of the word “abortion” to legitimize the killing of newborn babies who have survived failed abortions.  If the mom doesn’t want the baby, it isn’t “viable,” no matter how old it is.  The abortionist, therefore, has a duty to kill it in the womb but no obligation to save it if it survives the abortion.  This is the man which Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) recently and rightly called the ”abortion president”  (FoxNews.com, March 6, 2009).  He could also have called him the ”infanticide president.”

CLICK HERE TO BECOME A REGULAR MONTHLY DONOR SO WE CAN PLAN THE KINDS OF LONG-TERM PROJECTS WHICH REQUIRE STABLE, PREDICTABLE FUNDING.

Infanticide is not merely a theoretical problem.  A WorldNetDaily.com story on April 25, 2005 titled ”Abortion staff ignores baby boy born alive?” carries a subheadline which reads ”Woman pleads for help with ‘Rowan’ after delivering son in clinic restroom.”  The story opens: ”A woman who was scheduled to have her 22-week-along pregnancy ended at a Florida abortion clinic instead delivered the baby alive in a restroom and says her pleading for help from medical staff went unheeded, even when an employee saw that the tiny boy was moving.”  She had requested a “digoxin” abortion instead of a bone-crushing D&E because she wanted it to be “as humane and painless as possible for my son.”  Apparently no one told her that injecting this poison into her baby’s heart would induce an excruciatingly painful heart attack.

A February 7, 2009 CNN.com story (“Doctor loses license in live birth abortion case”) reports similar terror in another Florida clinic when a twenty-three-week abortion failed to kill the baby.  The abortionist botched the job so the non-physician clinic operator finished the baby off herself.  The mother had paid them $1200 to kill her child while still in her womb but she is now suing the clinic for killing the baby moments after it emerged.  What changed her mind about whether her baby should live or die?  Her attorney, Tom Pennekamp, said: ”She came face to face with a living human being ….  And that changed everything” (Buffalonews.com, February 5, 2009).  This is, of course, why we show people abortion pictures.  We want them to come face to face with the baby because the pictures change everything.  The CNN.com story says:

…[The abortionist] was not present when … [the pregnant woman] ‘felt a large pain’ and delivered a baby girl, according to the suit.  ‘The staff began screaming and pandemonium ensued.  … [The mother] watched in horror and shock as her baby writhed with her chest rising and falling as she breathed.’  A clinic co-owner entered the room and used a pair of shears to cut the baby’s umbilical cord ….  She ‘then scooped up the baby and placed the live baby, placenta and afterbirth in a red plastic biohazard bag, which she sealed, and then threw [the] bag and the baby in a trash can.’

* * *

‘The complainant … observed the baby moving and gasping for air for approximately five minutes ….’

The Associated Press quotes the lawsuit as further alleging that ”Gonzalez [the clinic operator] knocked the baby off the recliner chair where she [the mother] had given birth, onto the floor.  The baby’s umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out.”  This wasn’t just murder, it was also torture.

Did they charge the clinic owner with murder?  Of course not.  The March 4, 2009 SunSentinel.com (“Hialeah abortion clinic denies throwing newborn away after botched abortion”) reports that Melkis Gonzalez was merely charged with ”practicing medicine without a license and tampering with evidence….”

Something of a trend could be developing here.  The January 31, 2009 Los Angeles Times reported a story headlined ”Woman sentenced to 3 years for performing unlicensed abortions.”  It opens: “A Granada Hills office manager who ran six family planning clinics across Southern California was sentenced … for performing abortions on women, some of whom were given no pain medication during the procedures.”  The near-sighted judge in the case attempted to minimize the defendant’s culpability by saying: ”I do not see before me an evil person or a hardened criminal.  What I see before me is a defendant who is a person who attempted to lead an industrious and successful life.”  Yes, by taking the lives of children and risking the lives of their mothers.

This is almost as bad as a January 8, 2009 story at Telegraph.co.uk, with a subheadline which read ”The mother and brother of a 14-year-old Afghan rape victim face charges after they cut her open and removed her foetus without anesthetic, it has been reported.”  The U.N. High Commissioner For Human Rights has issued a “Special Rapporteur on Torture” (www2.ohchr.org, see also ChinaAid.org) which defines forced abortion as torture but this forced abortion was unimaginably torturous.  The article adds that ”The rural family apparently decided to perform an abortion when the girl was five months’ pregnant to protect the family’s honor.”

ABORTION RATES RISE DURING ECONOMIC DOWNTURNS SO THE BABIES NEED OUR HELP MORE THAN EVER.  PLEASE DON’T FLINCH IN THE FACE OF THIS RECESSION. CLICK HERE TO DONATE NOW!

Since some babies have survived outside the womb at five months, five-month abortions amount to infanticide.  But are they any less barbaric than the msnbc.msn.com article on January 4, 2009 headlined ”Cops:  Dad angry over child support kills son”?  The story reports that a two-year-old baby was killed by his father who told police he “‘would kill either his wife or his child before he paid child support’.”  Evil abortionists and evil dead-beat dads and evil presidents may be beyond the reach of reason but the two Florida women who went to kill their babies relented when they saw the terrible truth.  That is why our billboard trucks and campus displays and aerial billboards and website photos are so important.  Please keep helping us show the pictures which prove that baby-killing is equally demonic no matter the age of the child.  We really need your help now more than ever!

Lord bless,

Gregg Cunningham

Executive Director

P.S.  On March 7, 2009, a twenty-one-year-old Pennsylvania woman wrote us to say: ”I am twelve weeks pregnant and I had many family members offer to pay for an abortion.  After I looked at the [CBR] pictures I knew that I made the right decision not to get the abortion.”  With so many family members pressuring her to abort, she could have flipped back in the direction of killing her baby had she not seen our pictures.

Shopping Cart

  • No products in the cart.

Endorsements

"The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform has been a vital source of information to Concerned Women for America. Gregg Cunningham and his group have consistently clarified issues and directed the pro-life movement. I would like to thank Gregg from the bottom of my heart for his contribution to saving the lives of pre-born children."

Dr. Beverly LaHaye

Concerned Women for America

Washington, D.C.

More Endorsements