Last updateFri, 24 Oct 2014 5pm


Abby Johnson - "I am proudly a no-exceptions pro-lifer."

Abby Johnson, a leading defender of the pre-born, is the former director of a Planned Parenthood abortion facility. After witnessing an ultrasound-guided abortion, Abby converted to the pro-life cause. Since leaving Planned Parenthood, Abby has founded a non-profit called And Then There Were None, which specializes in reaching out to and providing men and women in the abortion industry with the spiritual, financial, and logistical help to leave the industry. Abby will be the speaker at GRTL's September 25th REACH banquet.

I am proudly a no-exceptions pro-lifer.   

But I haven’t always been. Admittedly, I used to accept the rape/incest exception. My opinion began to change as I met people who had been conceived in rape and saw that their lives deserved the same protection as mine. I came to understand that how a child was conceived had no bearing on their humanity. I also began to understand and reflect on a strange irony…two of them.  
When a woman is raped, the police can use the fetal tissue for DNA. When I worked for Planned Parenthood, in most rape cases we would be asked to draw two tubes of the mother’s blood and collect the “products of conception” after the abortion. All of this had to be kept in a very strict “chain of custody.”

So, if I was in charge, I would draw the woman’s blood before the abortion, put the tubes in a “chain of custody” bag, fill out the information on the bag, seal it up and put it in the refrigerator. Then, when she went in to the room for the abortion, I would accompany her into the room, stand by the suction machine and wait for the procedure to be completed.

The jar with the “products of conception” would then be handed to me and I would take the jar into the lab. I would then “float” the “products of conception” in a Pyrex dish. (“Floating” means to dump all of the contents into a kitchen strainer and use a sprayer to wash all of the blood and additional tissue away from the “product of conception.” Then to “float” the tissue, you spray a little water into the Pyrex dish and dump the remaining tissue into the dish. The tissue actually floats. Then you will be able to reassemble the fetal parts.)

After all of the parts were reassembled and accounted for, I would gather them up and put them in a sterile cup, careful to make sure everything got into that cup and I didn’t leave anything behind. I would close up the cup, put it in the “chain of custody” bag, fill out the info on the bag, seal it up, and carefully put the bag in the freezer.

Usually, the police department would come and pick up the blood tubes and frozen tissue the next day. They would have us fill out a form to ensure the “chain of custody” had not been broken. We would carefully pack the items in a Styrofoam cooler with an ice pack and send them off with the officer.

First strange irony: We would collect the fetal tissue and send that off for DNA testing. Yet, we didn’t consider that child to be a separate person! As strange as it sounds, that was the truth. We knew that this fetus had its own DNA, yet denied its humanity. 

Second strange irony: These are the rape-conceived children. These are the “exceptions.” These are the ones that many pro-lifers can excuse, right? It seems ironic that so many in the pro-life movement can justify the death of children conceived in rape…but the abortion industry does their best to protect their remains.

Is their humanity somehow different? Can you look at the ultrasound picture of a baby conceived in rape and tell that this baby is somehow different? Could you look in the face of a person conceived in rape and tell them that their life wasn’t as valuable as someone who was conceived in love? 

I encourage anyone who accepts these exceptions to really think about your perspective on this. Are you willing to throw away these children for political gain? Did you know that 87% of pro-life legislation is passed without these exceptions? And did you know that when exceptions are put into bills, it is almost always by organizations and individuals who, while often really pro-life, misguidedly think they have to add the exceptions to get the bill passed.

What if your best friend or relative had been conceived in rape? How would you explain your acceptance of these exceptions to them? Many people try to use the "burning building" argument when defending these exceptions. They ask me, "If a building was on fire and you could only save 9 out of 10 people, would you just let them all burn because you couldn't get to them all?" My answer? I'm out here trying to prevent the fire so that no one has to be left behind. 

As people who believe in the sanctity of human life, let us not be selective with whom we fight to save.

Abby Johnson  
Used by permission
- See more at: http://www.grtl.org/?q=converted-no-exception#sthash.Qg94C8h8.dpuf

Black Children are an Endangered Species

LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga., Feb. 4 /Christian Newswire/ -- Georgia Right to Life and the Radiance Foundation today announced at a press conference the launch of the Endangered Species Project, an initiative to increase awareness of the impact of abortion on Georgia's minority communities and women.

The campaign began with the placement of billboards in Dekalb and Fulton counties where the majority of abortions occur. According to Catherine Davis, Director of Minority Outreach, over 67% of the abortions in Georgia occur in those two counties. Ms Davis maintains that this is by design.

"Planned Parenthood's Negro Project is succeeding", Davis said. "They targeted blacks in order to control their birthrate, limiting the growth of populations they 'don't want too many of’ as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed was the goal behind Roe v. Wade (Women on the Court, New York Times Magazine, July 2009)."

Georgia leads the country in the number of reported abortions performed on black women, 18,901 in 2008 alone. Davis maintains the impact of abortion is so great that black children are an endangered species.

In addition to the billboards a website was also launched this week -- www.TooManyAborted.com --where the motives for abortion in America are discussed. Ryan Bomberger, co-founder of The Radiance Foundation stated, "TooManyAborted.com is the response to the rhetoric of 'reducing abortions'. Regardless of race, religious and civic community leaders and the general public need to understand the destructive nature of the abortion industry and get outraged by the truth."

Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr. commented, "My Uncle Martin once stated, 'The Negro cannot win if he is willing to sell the future of his children for his personal and immediate comfort and safety.' Those words are still true today. After all, how can the dream survive if we let them take our children?"

In closing, Dr. Alveda King noted, "Abortion is the civil rights issue of the 21st century."

Georgia Right to Life (www.grtl.org) promotes respect and effective legal protection for all human life from its earliest biological beginning through natural death. GRTL is one of the numbers of organizations that have adopted Personhood (www.personhood.net) as the most effective pro-life strategy for the 21st century.

Law 1

Law 1:   A person is a living physical/spiritual being created in the image of God, male and female, from their earliest biological beginning until natural death.


In a Judeo-Christian worldview the human being as such is afforded a special status and dignity on account of being created in the image of God:

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them
(Gn 1:27)

To be created imago Dei means being endowed with an immortal spirit, a capacity to know and be known by God, a measure of autonomy and free will in the areas of thought and action and moral responsibility that is unique from the animal kingdom. Each attribute separates us from the rest of creation. Because we bear the image of God, all mankind, and, by extension, each and every human life has a “specialness” and worth that demands respect.

From this foundational worldview flows the concept of human dignity and that the human dignity of every person is inviolable. Each human life, from its earliest stage of development, is a unique Person which bears God’s likeness, and should have the same protection of law that is afforded other “persons” in our society. For this reason, all human life should be respected in law. This respect is due regardless of the manner of conception, whether through the marital act (sexual), fertilized “in vitro” (IVF), or through the “ex utero” process of cloning or Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (asexual).This protection and respect should attach at fertilization and extend to natural death.

Ten Commandments for a Brave New World

1.  A person is a physical/spiritual being; a human being, by design created in the image of God.

 Genesis 1:27 (ESV)
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” 1
2.  All persons have an inalienable right to life.

 Our right to life is granted by our Sovereign . . . God and therefore can not be abridged by human government.

3.  All human beings are persons at every stage of biological development from fertilization (sexual or asexual) to natural death.

 The continuum of a human being is sacrosanct.2 The personhood of the pre-born is established by God and shall be recognized under law from the moment of potentiality. “All action of intervention, biological or medical, is licit only if its direct or indirect goal is to evaluate, to protect or to restore the health of that person.”3 The dying process shall not be prolonged, nor shall death be hastened.

Law 2

Law 2:   A person's right to life is inalienable regardless of age, race, sex, genetic pre-disposition, condition of dependency or biological development.

Genesis 2:7 (ESV)  ". . . then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

The right to life is inalienable because it originates with God. Webster defines inalienable to mean "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred." Our founding fathers acknowledged this inviolable truth when they penned our Declaration of Independence., they wrote, " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Since Life originates from God and not the State, the State is limited in its authority to authorize the taking of life. Romans 13 clearly states that the State is "an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer." The State "bears the sword" for the sole purpose of protecting its citizens from those who would do them harm and for the punishment of "wrongdoers." The State has exceeded its biblical boundaries when it allows the innocent to die.

Our culture today challenges the Personhood of several classes of human life. Historically, our nation has denied full personhood rights to African-Americans. Today those rights are being denied to an increasingly broad category that includes the pre-born person, elderly infirm and those with genetic anomalies. Tomorrow may see the rise of State sponsored Genoism which defines what human traits are acceptably defined as "person."

Personhood's Seamless Knot

Inorder to achieve the necessary legal protections for the sanctity of all innocent human life we MUST elect only the best politicians. Shifting public opinion is the quickest way to influence a candidate or elected official. Educating the general public via law, polical action and direct educational oppurtunites via Personhood is the quickest means to societal change.

Law 3

Law 3:   A person's form, including their genome, embryo, or body can not be subjected to non-therapeutic inheritable alteration or enhancement without informed consent.

During World War II Nazi Germany engaged in human experimentation that resulted in the death and suffering of many innocent human lives. In 1949 the Nuremberg Code was established to provide ethical guidelines for "human therapeutic research."  It was adopted by many governments, including being written into the laws of the state of California. It's first and foremost tenet is that,

"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision."

Wikipedia points out that "The Nuremberg code includes such principles as informed consent and absence of coercion; properly formulated scientific experimentation; and beneficence towards experiment participants." It goes on to require that "No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects."

Today the bio-tech industry and its research franchises in the Universities are routinely violating these important bastions defending human life and dignity. The Australian Stem Cell Research Center acknowledges this fact in their fact-sheet on embryonic stem cell research, "The overwhelming issue for most people opposed to embryonic stem cell research is that obtaining inner mass cells inevitably leads to the destruction of the blastocyst (early stage embryo). For those that view a fertilized egg as a human life this is most distressing." For human experimentation to lead to the "inevitable" destruction of the early human child is a violation of the 1949 Nuremberg Code and well along the slippery slope that will lead to other egregious violations of human dignity.

Princeton Professor Peter Singer has long advocated that a certain class of infant be used as an organ farm and harvested to benefit others. This is now being defended within medical schools as acceptable and moral. Lest we be accused of extreme rhetoric, Nancy S. Jecker, Department of Medical History and Ethics, University of Washington School of Medicine promotes it this way, "This paper investigates the scope and limits of parents' and physicians' obligations to anencephalic newborns. Special attention is paid to the permissibility of harvesting anencephalic organs for transplant. My starting point is to identify the general justification for treating patients in order to benefit third parties." "Treating patients" in this context always leads to the childs immediate death as the beating heart is removed from her chest. "Heart failure" is then listed on the death certificate as the cause of death. Child sacrifice would be nearer the mark.

The Three Laws of Personhood

Law 1:   A person is a living physical/spiritual being; a human being created in the image of God, male and female, from their earliest moment of biological beginning until natural death.


Law 2:   A person's right to life is inalienable regardless of age, race, sex, genetic pre-disposition, condition of dependency or biological development.


Law 3:   A person's form, including their genome, embryo, or body can not be subjected to non-therapeutic inheritable alteration or enhancement without informed consent.

North Dakota's Bishop Commends Personhood as "Suggested Reading"

Bishop David D. Kagan of Bismarch, ND released his "... and so man became a living being" as the title of his October 2013 pastoral letter to his flock. In the "Suggested Reading" section at the end of his pastoral encouragement dealing with the essential doctrine of Imago Dei he recommends Personhood: A Pragmatic Guide to Pro-life Victory by Daniel Becker. 

"I based my letter on two of the greatest papal documents of the last century: Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae . . .

In the conclusion to my pastoral letter and using these two documents and many others I made three statements.

First, each person, from the first moment of conception to the last moment of life by natural death, possesses one, absolute and inviolable human right – the right to life.

Second, no person or group has any individual or inherent right to destroy or to mutilate innocent human life but has the binding duty to protect and defend innocent human life in all of its stages of development.

Third, no individual person, no group of persons or any political and social agency or government may change or re-define the person, the person’s human dignity, and the person’s singular status within creation."

The Most Reverend David D. Kagan

Bishop of Bismarck


  • Law 1:   A person is a living physical/spiritual being created in the image of God, male and female, from their earliest moment of biological beginning until natural death.

    Law 2:   A person's right to life is inalienable regardless of age, race, sex, genetic pre-disposition, condition of dependency or biological development.

    Law 3:   A person's form, including their genome, embryo, or body can not be subjected to non-therapeutic inheritable alteration or enhancement without informed consent.

  • Latest Post

  • Most Read

A.L.L. News and Events

Feed not found