Hat tip to Brotherhank at Lawn Gospel.
Get the story from KBTX.com.
Many pro-life groups have, over the years, called for laws in various states that would require that women considering abortions be shown certain information, told certain things, presented with ultrasounds, accurate scientific information about fetal development, etc..
Whenever this comes up, we’re accused of calling women stupid, of saying that they’re not intelligent enough to inform themselves, and whatever else. It’s patently untrue, of course.
Here’s one of those stories that puts the lie to that counter-argument:
Planned Parenthood Director Leaves, Has Change of Heart
Planned Parenthood has been a part of Abby Johnson’s life for the past eight years; that is until last month, when Abby resigned. Johnson said she realized she wanted to leave, after watching an ultrasound of an abortion procedure.
After she … what?
After she actually watched what she was supporting? After she learned the truth, by being exposed to accurate scientific information?
Abby Johnson is now with the Coalition For Life, which is quite a reversal. This, after seeing an ultrasound of an abortion procedure. After being shown actual, accurate, and honest information, she decided to leave her job, repent of her involvement in the abortion industry, and switch sides so completely that she’s now working with the Coalition For Life. If there’s an opposite of Planned Parenthood, it would be the Coalition For Life.
There’s also a bit of honesty here that Ms. Johnson is exposing. The dirty little secret behind “safe, legal, and rare” and any other malarkey that PP and other pro-choice organizations likes to toss around:
According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it’s business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.
“It seemed like maybe that’s not what a lot of people were believing any more because that’s not where the money was. The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,” said Johnson.
There’s more money in abortion than in pregnancy prevention. This makes sense, if you consider the fee-for-service model. That doesn’t make it right.
Norma McCorvey, the pro-life activist once known as Jane Roe (of Roe v. Wade), has a similar story in her life: once she was made aware of what abortion really did, past the euphemisms and slogans, she couldn’t back it any longer.
Let’s be honest about it: the abortion industry wants to prevent ultrasound and informed consent, certainly parental consent, laws for the same reason that tobacco companies wanted to prevent warning labels, oil companies don’t want to discuss pollution, and clothing retailers don’t want to discuss China’s human rights situations. They’re making money by the lies.
November 4, 2009 at 12:24 pm
From the novel Deadline (Randy Alcorn), I became aware of another side of the abortion “issue”. Granted that the book is a piece of fiction, Alcorn however, introduces the notion that there’s another party that can be equally affected by abortion, that party being men.
I know my thought process in the past was that in most cases, if the men knew about an abortion it was because were for it themselves, and somehow that made them immune from the consequences of perhaps one day facing the reality that no matter how you rationalize the act it’s still killing a child.
Alcorn’s premise through the interactions of the characters in the novel essentially says that men will also experience, guilt, anger, despair and Lord only knows what other hellish emotions that are connected with abortion.
Just thought I’d share this thought since I’m surely not the only one that missed this . :)
Grace and peace be with you.
November 4, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Great article, Wickle. It is sad to think that profits are put ahead of taking care of our most precious asset. Maybe if they publicized how abortions are really conducted, more women would give thought to something other than abortion.
November 5, 2009 at 1:45 am
[...] These type of strong-arm ignorant tactics never work to change anyone’s mind about anything. If you’d like to read of a situation in which information and education work’s much better, see Wickle’s post, Information v. Abortion [...]
November 6, 2009 at 6:57 am
Christopher, I really haven’t given the man that much thought. You’re right. At most, there was some discussion of paternal rights in making decisions, but that was about it. Very little thought about the feelings later. That’s a great point, thanks for sharing it!
I agree, Larry. Generally, when someone wants to get clients by controlling and limiting what information they get to have, it speaks volumes as to the group’s real priorities.
November 10, 2009 at 12:16 pm
You make a great point. Makes me wonder why so many churches (mine included) are scared to discuss the information and want to softball this issue.
November 10, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Frances, I think it’s very charged. Societally, there is a perception that most people are pro-choice. (Different surveys come out with different results, but certainly most of the discussions lean that direction.)
It might be a question of choosing battles that they think they can win, I guess. Or maybe something else.
November 15, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I know of only one bird – the parrot – that talks; and it can’t fly very high.
November 16, 2009 at 12:05 am
Ummmm … thanks for sharing.