Motivational speaker George Guzzardo tells this story:
A billionaire walks into a lounge and steps up to the bar for a drink. While waiting, he notices a beautiful lady sipping at a whisky. He takes a seat beside her as the barkeep slides a bourbon his way.
The billionaire leans over to the lady and says, “Madam, would you sleep with me for a million dollars?” She looks at him in in shock, then, blushing, coyly mutters, “I suppose.” He leans closer. “Madam, would you sleep with me for a dollar?” Her face flashes scarlet. She turns, slaps him and growls, “Sir, whose sort of woman do you think I am!?!” “Madam,” he cooly replies, “we have established that. Now we are merely negotiating the price.”
Since January 22, 1973, Pro-Life Americans have fought an up-hill battle to end what they see as the greatest evil of our time — abortion. And on June 24, 2022, after a war of nearly 50 years, Roe v. Wade was overturned. Many Pro-Life advocates hoped that moment would be the end of abortion in America. Instead, it became the Wild West. In the wake of the decision, numerous states — even those that are solidly anti-abortion — have passed laws that legalized abortion up to birth or even constitutional amendments that made abortion a protected human right.
Major Pro-Life organizations have told the nation that incremental changes and reasonable exceptions are the only way to win the abortion battle. And yet, the public leans more pro-abortion than ever.
Why?
It is because, over the last five decades, major Pro-Life lobby organizations have sold the farm. You see, just like Guzzardo’s story, these folks have signaled they’re willing to “go to bed.” The only question left — is the price.
Now, at this point, a bunch of Pro-Life folks are mad, but please stay with me. The truth may make us furious, but unless we are willing to face it, we can’t fix it.
So, here’s how many Pro-Life activists have sold out the farm …
Many Pro-Life people state that they are against abortion — but with with exceptions. It seems to be a reasonable position and many conservative politicians take this view in their campaigns. It sells. Of course, there are many Pro-Life activists who do not agree with the exceptions. Unfortunately, these folks are the minority and they are often marginalized by the major Pro-Life lobbies. They are told their position “can’t win” with the public.
Now, I know that at this moment folks on both sides of the table are reaching for their un-friend buttons — but before you do, let’s get a close look at the insanity with which I lost my head … ie. the reasons.
There are typically three exceptions mentioned: rape, incest, and when the mothers life is in danger.
This sounds reasonable. Balanced. Equitable. Right? I mean — any fair-minded person would agree to this, wouldn’t they?
With rape and incest (sometimes both together), the argument goes, “We don’t want to force a woman who was traumatized to be reminded of her horror by delivering the baby.” This seems very kind-hearted. But it’s built on the assumption that abortion isn’t traumatizing in and of itself.
But it’s worse than that…
Imagine for a moment that I robbed a bank, the police came — but rather than arrest me, they went to my house, arrested my four-year-old daughter and shipped her off to jail. Its that fair? Is that reasonable? Of course not! But this is exactly what we’re saying when we expect the child — who’s only “crime” is her existence — to take the brunt of her father’s poor choices. She is a victim, along with her mother, not the perpetrator. So, is it reasonable to make her pay for his crime? Arguably, most Pro-Life activists and officials would say “Yes.” Abortion proponents agree.
And this is the first plot of farm land the Pro-Life lobby sold. The barn: gone!
The next plot is a bit more difficult to illustrate. It’s because in this case, intentional confusion has been introduced to cloud the matter.
In the words of Fluffy Iglesias, “Led me ’slain.”
According to Merriam-Webster (fellows we don’t tend to talk with these days), abortion is “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” This definition is both correct and broad. It simply refers to any of a suite of events that end a pregnancy before delivery. This may be medically induced, spontaneous (such as a miscarriage), or contagious (such as with infection). While these lead to the early end of a pregnancy, each has a very distinct cause.
With miscarriage, while the causes are usually unknown, is always outside of human direction. This is not an intentional termination. With contagious abortion, the mother or child becomes infected and the infant passes away. Again — unintentional. There are also occasions when a mother needs medical treatment that inadvertently leads to the loss of the child. This may be things like ectopic pregnancies, hysterectomies, emergency trauma surgeries, or treatment for conditions like cancer. In these cases, while the mother’s life is at risk, medical professionals do their best to save the baby’s life.
But with medical (or “induced” abortion), a procedure is performed to intentionally end the life of the child.
Those that make the “life of the mother” exception basically lean on the medical ignorance of the general public, conflating the different types of abortion with each other. While health issues do lead to the unintentional death of the unborn child, these issues are in no way the same as performing a procedure with the full and sole intent of ending the child’s life.
While it is no surprise that pro-abortion advocates like to build support for their cause by leveraging this confusion, it is remarkable to see so many Pro-Life supporters accept the argument without question. They simply echo the words and believe that it is reasonable.
The second plot sold. The farmhouse: gone!.
As a result, rather than winning ground, Pro-Life advocates run around in the grass, trying desperately to hold onto ever shrinking territory.
We don’t have to do that. We CAN win! We possess the truth — and that holds a power no lie could ever dream of.
But first, how could this happen? How could the Pro-Life community lose so much territory.
The answer lies in couple of books that you’d never think would have something in common: Rules for Radicals and The Holy Bible.
Published in 1971 — barely two years before the Roe v. Wade ruling — Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, laid out how to revolutionize a society. Alinsky was a community organizer from the post-war era, using civil rights as a way to build a solid footing in the culture for Communist ideology. Alinsky didn’t invent the methods. He just outlined them so any activist could achieve the change they wanted. Many used the techniques — not just Communists — to achieve dramatic success. The program had a simple two-pronged approach: agitate and infiltrate. Agitate was their method of standing on an issue until the people screamed. This relied on the “divide and conquer” strategum. They would find an issue that was hot and divisive, get people shouting and build a strong coalition around the affirmative of the issue. They would push for action, no matter how unreasonable it seemed, then once they achieved the goal, they “moved the goalpost.” No one was ever to be satisfied. The organizer was to keep the anger and frustration going so they could push institutions to the breaking-point. Of course, the more ridiculous the demands, the louder and more virulent the opponents got. Infiltrate was their method of defanging the established institutions, making them incompetent and ineffective. Their purpose was to cause the public to lose faith in the existing institutions with the idea that, once the Agitators were able to bring society to the breaking point, the general public would be unwilling to fight back. Because the public no longer trusted the existing institutions, Alinsky asserted, they would stand back and let the revolution carry forward This program has been very effective at fomenting revolution in countless countries over the history of mankind.
So — what has that to do with the Bible?
Infiltration. In Matthew 13, Jesus told of a farmer that planted good seed in his field, but as he slept, his enemy planted tares. Now some translations use the word “weeds,” but tares are something specific. Tares are plants that look like wheat while they grow, but the berries are poisonous. You can’t tell the difference until they ripen. Jesus told this story to illustrate how fake believers get into the Christian Church. They look, walk and sound like ducks (Christians) — until they lay their eggs.
This is what happened to the major Pro-Life advocacy groups. Early in, during their formative years, a handful of people (I don’t know who they were, just the damage they did) infiltrated the organizations and convinced both the groups and the public to accept these exceptions. Most people who hold this view are sincere and well-meaning, but this small handful of influencers did know what they were doing — and in their philosophy, the ends justify all means. So, they pretended. Today, the most effective groups do not buy into the exceptions, and they alone have been making headway on the cultural battleground. That said, they face resistance not only from pro-abortion groups, but these “middle-ground” Pro-Life groups as well. And this division between Pro-Life groups (remember the agitate prong?) has enabled pro-abortion groups to gain nearly unrecoverable ground in even the most ardent Pro-Life states.
Nearly unrecoverable. Because with unlimited authority on God’s part and some truthful reflection on our part, we can get there.
But how?
First, we must get real about the exceptions. Many Pro-Life supporters already reject the exceptions for the reasons I explained. They know that, if we concede that it is morally OK to execute an unborn person without due process for some reason , there is no moral argument against executing an unborn person for any reason. They see that there really is no compromise ground. To give in is to concede the whole fight — slowly. Let’s use slavery as an example. Compromise is something like trying to appease both sides by only enslaving people from noon to midnight on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. But any slavery is still slavery. Slave owners wouldn’t be happy, but slavery would still in full force. To win folks over, we’ve got to stop conceding the key ground.
And that leads to the next point. Right now, the public views the exceptions as reasonable. They’re hard to argue against — until you really get at what they’re saying. So, we must take the public down that road. We must show them clearly what they are buying when they bag those ideas. And that takes stories. Remember the story about being arrested and having the police haul my daughter off to jail? I could have just thrown out some arguments, as many do — but that one simple story highlights what’s wrong in an unforgettable way. Now, you can visualize the absurdity of it.
Hollywood is practically the marketing wing of the pro-abortion forces, and they have spent decades pouring stories into the community psyche to promote that fatal choice. Typically, one must fight fire with fire. And our opportunity is to counter their lies with compelling tales of life and hope.
Too often, we expect that, because we have the truth, we don’t have to present it in a compelling way. I’m reminded of Mary Bailey of It’s a Wonderful Life. Donna Reed was beautiful, and as the beloved housewife of George Bailey, she glowed with life and energy. Then, in the scenes where George had never been born, she was magically a homely, unappealing “old maid” librarian. It was the same beautiful woman, but everyone’s response to her was different. Because they saw her as homely, she didn’t rate. The truth brings life — but if we want the public to dance, we’ve got to pick a pretty dress and break out the makeup. That is the value of telling compelling Pro-Life stories. There are a few, but we need a flood if we want to overcome the tidal wave of lies the opposition sails our way.
So, what’s your tale? What narrative can you relate that will bring Life into your community and invite your friends, family and neighbors to the dance?
Embrace the truth. Believe we can win. Trust God — — and tell your story…
Stacey Schaller is a business owner, publisher and author of the bestselling new release, An Angel’s Blood, a Pro-Life story filled with truth, grace and hope. You can find it on Amazon, Barnes&Noble and select bookstores. Learn more at https://AngelsBlood.sbs.
L'Dodi Press