Pro-Life Page

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

by Kristi Burton Brown | Washington, DC | | 9/1/14 6:49 PM

(LiveActionNews) — Like many young couples, Richard and Linda Bannon wanted to have a family of their own. But Linda, the oldest of five children, was born with Holt-Oram syndrome. Holt-Oram syndrome is “characterized by skeletal abnormalities of the hands and arms (upper limbs) and heart problems.” For Linda, it meant that she was born without arms.

Holt-Oram syndrome can be passed down to a child, even if just one parent has it. Through ultrasound images, the Bannons learned that their son also had Holt-Oram syndrome. Little Timmy, too, would be born without arms.

Despite her disability, Linda says that her lack of arms has hardly affected her life at all. She was blessed to grow up with parents who treated her the same as they treated her siblings, and she also met and married her husband, Richard – a man who genuinely loves and cares for her – in her early twenties.

Linda shares that abortion was suggested to her and Richard as an option for Timmy, but she says:

[I]t was never even a consideration of ours. We want a family. We want to have a baby.

Perhaps it was strange for Linda to hear a doctor suggest that she might want to kill her baby boy who was just like her. Linda leads a happy and fulfilled life, and she personally knows that a lack of arms does not stop a person from being a very loved individual with a wonderful life.

Sometimes, those with disabilities see more clearly than the rest of society. This is true in Linda Bannon’s case. She (and her husband) saw the value of little Timmy long before his birth. They saw past his lack of arms to the valuable little person he already was and always will be.

The Bannons wanted “a baby.” They did not expect “a perfect baby” who was required to be 100% perfect in the eyes of the world. Instead, they expected that their baby, no matter his disabilities, would be loved.

And Linda and Richard continued saying “yes” to life, no matter the difficulties that arose.

Little Timmy had heart surgery at eight days old, and stayed in the hospital for two months. 

[D}espite his difficult start in life, like his mother, Timmy would not allow his disability to get in the way.

Timmy says:

I’m just like the other kids. Just like ‘em. And I’ll be like just like them every time of my life.

While it is clear that Timmy will experience hard circumstances and trying times throughout his life, what matters is that he is alive. His mother worries if he will find companionship one day, but many, many parents have the same worries for their “normal” children. Many elderly people need someone to care for them – disabled or not. Timmy is really not that different at all.

And, thanks to his parents’ choice for life, Timmy Bannon is here to experience the good and the bad of life. He is here to swim, to go to school, and – even if he couldn’t do a single “normal” thing – he is here to know the love of two parents who chose life for him despite the odds or any doctor’s opinion.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | | 8/25/14 4:37 PM

Looking for something to do on Labor Day? The taxpayer-funded PBS has an answer for you:  a move that “humanizes” late-term abortionists who kill unborn children in the third-trimester.

After Tiller” profiles Warren Hern, Shelley Sella, LeRoy Carhart, and Susan Robinson, some of the last third-trimester abortionists left in the United States.

On September 1, PBS will be showing the pro-abortion propaganda film “After Tiller” that seeks to sanitize the practice of killing unborn children after viability in late-term abortions. The station also provides resources for people to host an at-home viewing party.

That may sound sick to you, but the taxpayer-funded television station prefers to describe the movie this way:

Martha Shane and Lana Wilson’s After Tiller is a deeply humanizing and probing portrait of the only four doctors in the United States still openly performing third-trimester abortions in the wake of the 2009 assassination of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas—and in the face of intense protest from abortion opponents.

It is also an examination of the desperate reasons women seek late abortions. Rather than offering solutions, After Tiller presents the complexities of these women’s difficult decisions and the compassion and ethical dilemmas of the doctors and staff who fear for their own lives as they treat their patients.

The PBS web site even includes a quote from the liberal Washington Post extolling the virtues of the movie.

“After Tiller does viewers the great service of providing light where there’s usually only heat, giving a human face and heart to what previously might have been an abstract issue or quickly scanned news item.”

Promoting abortions after viability as a great service? Your taxpayer dollars at work…

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

by Kristina Hernandez | Mobile, AL | | 8/26/14 11:42 AM

Students for Life University of South Alabama, along with Alliance Defending Freedom, filed anamended complaint last Friday in a continuing lawsuit against the University of South Alabama regarding free speech.

The university relegated the group’s pro-life display to a small speech zone on campus because it deemed the nature of the event “controversial.” Under the university’s policies, students must also obtain a permit 72 hours in advance in order to use the speech zone. Earlier this month the university adopted new free speech rules but they are still prohibitive to the pro-life view and still restrict free speech for a very limited portion of campus, alleges the amended complaint.

“Students for Life USA were discriminated against specifically for being pro-life and wanting to protect the lives of the preborn,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, the national parent group of Students for Life USA. “Universities are supposed to be the marketplace of ideas and for university administration officials to single out a viewpoint that they don’t agree with and force them to do things that they didn’t make other groups do, is not only a violation of the First Amendment but against the free exchange of ideas on campus. It is our hope that Students for Life USA will be able to freely showcase the pro-life viewpoint on campus without discrimination or harassment.”

Last October, Students for Life USA requested permission to a hold a “Cemetery of the Innocents” event, which consists of students placing small crosses in the ground to represent the innocent lives lost to abortion. University officials denied the request and said it would need to be held in the campus’s speech zone, even though other groups have exercised free speech on other portions of the campus. At the time, the speech zone was restricted to the Student Center, which was less than one percent of the college’s main campus. Although the university has since expanded its speech zone, it still restricts speech throughout the campus.

The lawsuit, Students for Life USA v. Waldrop, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, explains that the university’s speech policy violates the First Amendment and gives university officials “unbridled discretionary power to limit student speech in advance of such expression on campus and to do so based on the content and viewpoint of the speech.”

“Free, spontaneous discourse on college campuses is supposed to be a hallmark of higher education rather than the exception to the rule,” added ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “We hope that the University of South Alabama will revise its policy so that its students can exercise their constitutionally protected freedoms.”

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

by Chandler Klebs | Washington, DC | | 8/26/14 10:09 AM

Consider this situation: A man chooses to have sex with a woman who he knows will go for an abortion if she gets pregnant. She does get pregnant. She goes to an abortionist, who performs the abortion. Which of the three people killed the baby? The father, mother, or abortionist?

It should be obvious that all three people played a part in the abortion. So no matter what your answer, you are partially correct. The father chose to do the one thing that could result in a pregnancy the mother did not want. The mother chose to abort rather than seeking out alternatives. The abortionist was the final step in causing the death of the baby.

Keeping all of that in mind, if you could go back and talk to one of the people—the father, mother, or abortionist—and convince them to become pro-life, which one would you choose?

Again, there’s no one right answer, but I would pick the father. Talking to the abortionist could have a major impact if he’s the only abortionist in town and has no one to replace him, but otherwise, the mother will just go elsewhere for the abortion. Of course talking to the mother is good because if her mind changes, the child will live. But will she have the support of the father? He had expected the mother to have an abortion even before they had sex, which implies that he has no interest in taking care of the child.

Talking to the father makes sense because he has the power to change his ways and stop creating children who will be killed. He also has the ability to support the mother in taking care of the children he is responsible for, making the mother less likely to want to abort. Many women abort due to fear of being a single mother.

Outreach to women in crisis pregnancy situations is great, but we need to make sure we’re reaching the men too, rather than placing all of the weight on the women. The idea that men are irrelevant to the abortion debate is incredibly misguided.

Monday, August 25, 2014

by Brad Mattes | Washington, DC | | 8/22/14 6:34 PM

Any time there’s a pro-life law, you can be sure pro-abortion activists will be on-hand to protest with vile and obnoxious signs; dramatic chanting of “abortion-on-demand without apology;” and their go-to symbol, a bloody clothes hanger. I witnessed this behavior firsthand when debates raged over pro-life legislation in Texas last summer.

It’s all a deplorable display. They’re willing to brazenly fight common-sense protections that ensure women’s health and safety. And they fiercely oppose any attempt to give women informed consent and true choice. Make no mistake; these individuals want absolutely nothing to stand in the way of abortion. And pro-life laws are proving to be their number one adversary.

How effective are pro-life laws at lowering the incidence of abortion? A study by Michael New, assistant professor at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, provides a meta-analysis of 20 years of abortion data compiled by the Guttmacher Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. His research reveals that pro-life laws are reducing abortion rates. Here’s how:

  • Public Funding Restrictions – Some states provide public funding for abortions. In 15 out of 18 cases, abortion rates fell after Medicaid funding was reduced. Specifically in the state of North Carolina, there was not only a decrease in the abortion rate, but an increase in the birthrate was observed months later. The findings concluded that 37% of the women who would have otherwise had an abortion carried their child to term when funding was not available.
  • Parental Involvement Laws – Pro-abortion activists have denounced laws involving parents, saying you can’t legislate good family communication. Yet in 16 peer-reviewed studies there was a statistical decline in the number of abortions of minors in states where these laws were enacted. The difference ranged from 13% to as high as 42%.
  • Informed Consent Laws – There are variations in how these laws are enacted. Some require a counseling visit prior to an abortion; others specify how information about development in the womb is communicated. It’s estimated that viewing color photos of the unborn baby’s development results in a 3% to 7% reduction in the abortion rate. In-person counseling can reduce rates by as much as 12%.

The full article published by State Politics & Policy Quarterly is available at this link.

Pro-life laws are proving that abortion-on-demand is NOT the solution women want or need. By offering women life-affirming alternatives, more mothers are realizing that they can choose life for their babies. And the exciting part is we’re at the cusp of seeing more fruit from our efforts. Over 220 pro-life laws have been passed at the state level since 2011. Imagine the lives we’ll see saved in the next 5 to 10 years.

This celebration comes with a caution however. The pro-aborts fight us tooth and nail every step of the way. One recent example is US Senate bill 1696 with the misleading name, “Women’s Health Protection Act.” This is radical pro-abortion legislation that’ll wipe out all pro-life laws ever passed by both the federal and state levels of government. This will leave women completely vulnerable to the abortion industry, without any protections or regulations. They’re determined to make abortion-on-demand the law of the land. Obviously, it’s our responsibility to make sure that doesn’t happen. Take a stand by contacting your senators today and ask them to oppose Senate bill 1696. Let them know that pro-life laws are making a difference and saving lives.

Friday, August 22, 2014

by Sarah Zagorski | Indianapolis, IN | | 8/20/14 6:08 PM

In 2010, Marianne Anderson worked at a Planned Parenthood facility in Indianapolis, Indiana. She started working there because the job was very close to her house, and she was hired to start up their conscious sedation program, which allowed clients to purchase mild to moderate sedatives to be given intravenously before an abortion.

Anderson, who is a mother of two and a grandmother of one, said when she started at the facility she was on the fence about abortion. This was because when she was on staff at Wishard Hospital in Indianapolis she had seen girls that had attempted abortions on themselves and ended up with hysterectomies, or boyfriends beating them because they were pregnant. She said: “My thought was, ‘Well, you need a safe place for an abortion. People shouldn’t be doing it on their own. And people are going to be doing it anyway, so why not provide them a safe place to do it?’ ”

Now, Anderson has a very different opinion about Planned Parenthood. She said the following in an interview with The Criterion:

“It was a money-grubbing, evil, very sad, sad place to work. We would get yelled at if we didn’t answer the phone by the third ring. They would tell us we’d be fired [if we didn’t] because they needed the money.

They would remind us in our weekly staff meeting that we need to tell everyone who called to schedule an appointment to avoid ‘those people’ [the sidewalk counselors] because we need the money. We were to tell them, ‘Don’t make eye contact with them, and don’t stop in the driveway. If you make eye contact with them or if you stop and roll down your window, they’re going to try their darnedest to talk you out of it.’

You have to have so many abortions a month to stay open. In our meetings they’d tell us, ‘If abortions are down, you could get sent home early and not get as many hours.’

They would allow girls to have ultrasounds that were obviously way too far along [the legal limit for having an abortion in Indiana is 13 weeks and six days. They said, ‘If they want to be seen, you just put them through, no problem,’ just taking advantage to make money.”

AdditionallyAnderson reported on some of the other horrible incidents that took place at Planned Parenthood. Six months after she started, employees from the national office came to train her, and would chant, “Abortion all the time!” They believed abortion was a rite of passage and should be free to anyone who wants it.

Anderson also observed girls being pressured to have abortions against their will. A 16-year old girl was forced to have an abortion by her mother and another incident involved sex trafficking. Anderson explained, “This guy brought in a Korean girl. I had no doubt in my mind this girl was a sex slave. This guy would not leave her side. They could barely communicate. He wanted to make all the arrangements.

During the ultrasound, she told one of the nurses that there were lots of girls in the house, and that the man hits them. She never came back for the abortion. I always wondered what happened to her. One of my co-workers said, ‘You’re better off to just let it go’.”

The abortionist that Anderson worked for, Dr. Michael King, would complain when girls would start crying on the table. He would say, “Now you chose to be here. Sit still. I don’t have time for this.” But what was even more sickening to Anderson was the doctor who would talk to the aborted baby while collecting all the body parts. He would say, “Come on, little arm, I know you’re here! Now you stop hiding from me!”

The Georgetown Planned Parenthood performed approximately 20-30 abortions twice a week, and several times there were complications and a local hospital would come pick the women up. Anderson said, “One girl almost bled out. She was passing clots, her blood pressure was dropping. When we had to call 911 for an ambulance, we were told never to say the word ‘abortion’ because they don’t want that broadcast. They knew that the calls were recorded, and could be made public.”

These incidents only confirm what we already know about the largest abortion business in America. Planned Parenthood will do anything to pull in their annual abortion income.   Thankfully, in 2012, Anderson reached out to Abby Johnson who connected her with Eileen, a sidewalk counselor in Indianapolis. Eileen helped her search for a new job and didn’t judge her in the process. Now, Anderson works at Community North Hospital and shares her story publically.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | | 8/20/14 12:52 PM

Once again proving you don’t need an abortion ban to stop abortions, a pro-life law in Ohio has successfully stopped surgical abortions at a late-term abortion clinic that couldn’t comply with the health and safety measure to protect women and unborn children.

Today, the Lebanon Road Surgery Center announced an end to its court battle to continue surgical abortions. The abortion center in question is owned and operated by Martin Haskell, the late-term abortion practitioner who popularized the partial-birth abortion method that Congress eventually banned.

Last week, Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jerry Metz, a Democrat, upheld two previous orders to close the late-term abortion facility. The center, ran by late-term abortionist Martin Haskell, stated it will not appeal the decision but will now act as only a referral site for his second abortion facility in the Dayton area.

“This appears to be the end of a long battle to protect life in Greater Cincinnati,” said Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life. “Ohio Right to Life just achieved a victory it has been seeking for the last 30 years. The closing of an illegally operating abortion facility is good public policy for Ohio.”

“Today is a life-saving day for the women and children of Southwest Ohio,” said Gonidakis. “If a facility fails to ensure that they are operating at the legally required health and safety standards to protect women then certainly they should close. Ohio law affords no loopholes for abortion facilities. We thank Democrat Judge Metz for affirming the order from the Ohio Department of Health.”

Although initial indications were that the abortion facility may close, Haskell has told the media that he will not close down but may perform the first steps of late term abortions (it is a two-day procedure) and then send women to his other abortion facility in Dayton to complete it. Haskell is also reportedly considering doing abortions with the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug that has killed at least a dozen women and injured thousands more.

Previously, Ohio passed a law requiring that all ambulatory surgical centers must be licensed by the state and, in 1999, it came to the attention of the Ohio Health Department that abortion clinics were not in compliance with the law, having never applied for licensing. The OHD began the process of insuring that all abortion clinics came into compliance.

Haskell (pictured right), a nationally-known late-term abortionist who helped develop the now outlawed Partial-Birth Abortion procedure, has fought with the state for years and he sued the Ohio Department of Health this month for ordering his Sharonville abortion facility to close because it does not meet the minimum medical safety standards in Ohio law.

In July, Magistrate Michael Bachman ruled that the ODH had the authority to close abortion businesses andordered Haskell to shut down his Sharonville abortion business by July 10. Judge Jerome Metz intervened and issued a stay on Bachman’s order until he had time to consider the issues involved in the case.

Judge Metz concurred with Magistrate Michael Bachman and upheld the Ohio Department of Health’s January 2014 order to close the Sharonville, Ohio Lebanon Road Surgery Center (aka Women’s Med Center), for failing to have a written transfer agreement with a local hospital or a variance, i.e., exception, to cover patient emergencies.

In January, the Ohio Department of Health affirmed its order to shut down the facility for failure to have a written transfer agreement with a local hospital or a proper variance. At the end of June, Magistrate Michael Bachman upheld this decision. Last Friday, Judge Metz indicated that the Lebanon Road Surgery Center had five days to appeal the stay.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | | 8/19/14 12:34 PM

A judge has upheld a pro-life Iowa law that banned the dangerous practice of telemed abortions. A telemedicine abortion is when a woman is prescribed medication that induces an abortion without seeing a doctor in person.

The bill would require that women seeking an abortion be in the presence of a physician when receiving the pills. It also outlines disciplinary procedures to be taken should a physician violate the terms of the bill, which can include the revocation of a doctor’s license.

The legislation was necessary because the Planned Parenthood abortion business was putting women’s lives and health at risk by denying them an opportunity to visit with a physician in-person, as recommended by the FDA. The abortion drug has killed over a dozen women world wide and inured thousands more.

Polk County District Judge Jeffrey Farrell ruled today that the Iowa Board of Medicine was acting within its proper authority when it banned the use of Planned Parenthood’s experimental “Webcam” abortion pill distribution process. This ruling will allow the implementation and enforcement of the webcam abortion ban in 30 days.

Planned Parenthood has said it will appeal today’s ruling but pro-life groups hailed the ruling.

“Over the last six years, we have worked tirelessly to educate Iowans about this dangerous practice that risks the health of women all over Iowa.  We welcome today’s ruling by Judge Farrell in which he rules in favor of the Iowa Board of Medicine’s decision to ban the dangerous practice of webcam abortion in the State of Iowa,” stated Jenifer Bowen, Executive Director of Iowa Right to Life. “While the plaintiffs have vowed to appeal this common-sense decision, we know having reviewed the Iowa Board of Medicine’s rationale behind the rule at question in the case and after hearing from women who have suffered complications and negative effects of the procedure, a ban on the practice was the only logical outcome in this case.”

“A special thank you to the Iowa Board of Medicine who voted a year ago to end this practice and to each of the 30,0000+ Iowans that signed our petition to END webcam abortions in Iowa,” concluded Bowen.

“Operation Rescue has worked with other state and national pro-life groups since 2010 to bring an end to this dangerous abortion pill distribution racket that puts Planned Parenthood profits above the lives and health of women,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “Today represents a long awaited victory for women and their babies.”

“In recent months, Planned Parenthood has voluntarily shut down webcam abortions in ten facilities. Nine offices still employ the now-banned pill distribution process,” he said. “Since Planned Parenthood’s plans became public, 14 states have passed restrictions that require a licensed physician be present when abortion pills are dispensed, effectively banning the process of webcam abortion process. The planned national expansion of the webcam system has since been scuttled in the wake of the new state laws.”

Newman told that webcam abortions enable an abortionist to remotely dispense abortion pills to patients in other cities without leaving a central office. The abortionist visits briefly for a short time with a patient via an internet video conferencing system then clicks a button on his computer that remotely opens a drawer in front of the patient containing the abortion pills.

The Board found that the lack of a physical examination by the dispensing abortionist fell well below patient care standards.

On August 30, the Iowa Board of Medicine voted 8-2 in favor of new rules requiring that abortionists prescribing the abortion pill conduct a physical examination of the woman, be physically present when the drug is provided, and schedule a follow up to confirm completion of the abortion and evaluate the woman’s medical condition.

Polls found 66 percent of Iowa residents supported the ban.

Rep. Matt Windschitl, R-Missouri Valley, who sponsored the bill, said if women don’t have immediate access to an abortion-inducing drug, he hopes more might consider carrying a pregnancy to term.

“If that mother is now unable to go and get a webcam abortion, maybe it’ll give her a little bit more time to think about it,” Windschitl said. “That would be my hope.”

Polls indicate that the number of Iowans supporting increased restrictions on abortions is rising. Furthermore a 2011 straw poll indicated that voters in Iowa care about the pro-life stance of candidates. The source for June’s polls was not cited. At the time of publication, the writer could not locate a poll with results mentioned by June.

In Iowa, medically induced abortions were almost as numerous as surgically induced abortions in 2012, according to Iowa Department of Public Health statistics.

In 2012, 2,314 medically induced abortions were performed and 2,324 surgically induced abortions were performed in the same year. The previous year saw 2,522 medically induced abortions in Iowa and 2,871 surgical.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

by Steven Ertelt | Seoul, South Korea | | 8/18/14 10:08 AM

Over the weekend, Pope Francis visited a memorial in South Korea dedicated to remembering babies who have been victimized by abortions.

The leader of the Catholic Church is inspired by something done in and around The Vatican shortly after the death of Jesus Christ.

Dug into the walls of the ancient Christian catacombs in the outskirts of Rome are countless small tombs, only a foot or two across. These are the burial places of infants cast out of their pagan homes and left to die of starvation and exposure—a common practice of that time. Members of the Early Church, charged by Christ to love all their neighbors, offered these tiny victims of Roman cruelty the only act of love they could: to bury their little bodies and mourn for them in prayer.

The abortion memorial, located at the Kkottongnae home for the sick about 120 miles from Seoul, is a field dotted with white crosses and statues of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus as a child. Francis paused briefly at the site, bowed his head and folded his hand in prayer, the Boston Globe reports.

Jung Kwang-ryul of the Kkottongnae community, described the site as a “one-of-a-kind memorial,” saying the Pope’s stop is “a clear testimony of his defense of life.”

“It is necessary to reiterate the strongest opposition to any direct attack on life, especially innocent and defenseless, and her unborn child in the womb is the innocent par excellence,” the pope said in April.

The Kkttongnae Home, located in the Diocese of Cheongju, was created in 1976 by Father John Oh, the founder of the Kkottongnae Brothers and Sisters of Jesus. The priest was inspired by a beggar named Choi Gwi Dong to feed 18 other sick beggars despite his own physical handicaps.

It offers assistance to the homeless, disabled individuals and alcohol addicts. Currently it can serve around 5,000 people.

The Cemetery for Aborted Children is located behind the home and includes a statue of the Holy Family surrounded by cross representing the unborn.

During the National Day of Remembrance for Aborted Children next month in the United States, mourners across the country will visit the gravesites of aborted children, whose broken bodies were recovered from trash dumpsters and pathology labs and solemnly buried over the four decades of legal abortion in the United States.

Monday, August 18, 2014

by Brad Mattes | Washington, DC | | 8/15/14 6:02 PM

We used to call my dear friend, mentor and colleague, Dr. Jack Willke, the father of the pro-life movement. These days, as he nears 90 years old, we call him the grandfather of the pro-life movement. I’ve had the distinct honor and privilege to learn much from Jack over the years.

For decades, he’s been saying we’ll end abortion if not for the simple reason that pro-lifers are the ones having babies and the pro-abortion people aren’t. Eventually, we’ll outnumber them. Although that seemed a compelling theory, I wondered if we’d ever have tangible evidence to support it. Now, we do. A study from the Social Science Research Network proves he’s right.

Historically, public support of abortion rights increased following Roe v. Wade in large part due to the mistaken notion that just because it’s legal it’s okay. Since that time, public support for abortion has remained relatively flat and recent years are showing a reversal toward greater support for the pro-life position. This is significant because the percentage of opposition to abortion among young adults is particularly strong. And this trend is occurring while society is growing more liberal on other issues, such as homosexual marriage. Why is the abortion issue different?

Researchers J. Alex Kevern and Jeremy Freese of the Department of Sociology at Northwestern University assert that there’s a connection between fertility and abortion attitudes. The basis of their research is 34 years of data compiled in the General Social Survey by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago between the years of 1977-2010. In-person surveys were conducted with over 55,000 respondents to collect both demographic information and opinions on issues varying from political to religious and social concerns.

The premise is that opinion on the abortion issue is largely determined from parent to child. When factoring in the issue of fertility, those who have more children are therefore more likely to shape the cultural opinions of future generations. It should come as no surprise thatpro-lifers have had, on average, 27% more children than those who are pro-abortion. Estimates show pro-lifers have roughly 3 children (2.82) for every 2 children of those who support abortion. As those children come of age and have children of their own, the gap between pro-abortion and pro-life is widening in our favor.

The difference is seen generationally. When surveyed at ages 23-34, those born in 1950-1955, were 44.7% in favor of abortion. One generation removed, those born in 1975-1980 were surveyed at the same age and found that only 38.8% were “pro-choice.” It’s reasonable to expect that the next generation’s results will be even lower.

How can we help to ensure that this downward trend continues? We must invest in this nation’s most precious, renewable resource—our children. Start young, even as young as toddlers, help them to understand that babies grow inside their mother’s tummies. As they get older, use educational tools, such as books and the media to reinforce pro-life beliefs. Continue to affirm your values with teens, empowering them to be proactive and take a stand for life. You have the power to plant seeds of life that will grow for generations to come.

Furthermore, I found it interesting that their analysis revealed if there were no difference in the number of children between pro-life and pro-abortion individuals, the population would be about five percentage points more pro-abortion. Our families are making a difference. This shows that as parents, when we invest in our children and share our pro-life beliefs,we’re not just shaping our sons and daughters; we’re shaping the future of the world.

We’re winning the battle on many fronts. And I think it’s fitting that by actually giving life, we’re strengthening the pro-life cause even more. I’m going to forward this email to my married son.