We can stand strong, immovable in our convictions and not minimizing the evil of abortion, while ministering with grace to those on the other side (in particular, to those who are hurting and conflicted). We should also solicit input from pro-life women who had abortions in the past, hearing their stories and learning from their experiences...

Should We Humanize the Abortion Debate? | Articles | AskDrBrown

During an interview on Fox News, presidential candidate Nikki Haley said 

“while I’m unapologetically pro-life, I don’t judge anyone for being pro-choice. I think that we have to humanize this issue. We’ve got to stop demonizing this issue.” 

Was she right? Or would this be like humanizing the issue of slavery or human trafficking or genocide? 

When I asked this question on Facebook, the responses were extremely varied.

Some said absolutely not, explaining: “To compromise with evil is evil!” And, “It seems a like a bit of an oxymoron to humanize something so inhumane.” And, “I can respect no one who thinks it’s ok to kill the unborn.” (Comments like these were in the majority.)

“We should respect them and understand why they might believe in or choose abortion. We can have no effect on people until we truly understand their side.” And, “We should see them as God's creation without the benefit of the Holy Spirit in their lives. If we don't humanize the debate we will continue to lose the debate. There are two lives (at least) impacted by abortion; the baby and the mother and we must love both in our stance for life.”

Haley, for her part, had been asked by host Ainsley Earhardt to “be realistic with the numbers,” meaning the number of pro-life votes available in Congress.

“I mean, Ainsley, that’s the answer from my heart. You know, I am surrounded by blessings, and God has blessed me with an amazing husband and two wonderful children. But having said that, I think it’s really important that all of us remember everybody has a personal story. So while I’m unapologetically pro-life, I don’t judge anyone for being pro-choice. I think that we have to humanize this issue. We’ve got to stop demonizing this issue.”

“I think the division in this country has gone too far. We have to start looking at the vision going forward. My vision is how do we save as many babies as possible and support as many moms as possible. If that’s the case, be honest with the American people. Tell them what is possible and what’s not possible, and let’s bring people together based on humanity, not based on making people hate each other. And I think it’s happened too long, and I’m just not going to be a part of that. I refuse to be a part of that.”

Was she on to something here, or is this political compromise in its worst form?

First, we should distinguish between humanizing the issue of abortion and humanizing the people involved in the issue. Abortion itself is evil. It involves the shedding of innocent blood in the womb. It is culture-destroying in many ways, and it deserves the judgment of God. We can never move from that reality.

Second, when it comes to the question of “humanizing,” let us focus more than anything on the humanity of the baby in the womb. This is how we change hearts and, ultimately, change laws. And this is why 4-D ultrasounds have been so effective in preventing abortions. That’s not a mass of tissues or a clump of cells. That’s your child.

Third, there is a place for humanizing those on the “pro-choice” side of the aisle. That’s because many, if not most, women who have abortions are not radical feminists marching down the streets and shouting their abortions. Many agonize over their decisions, often regretting their choices for years to come. My friends who have ministered the gospel outside of abortion clinics have shared many a heartrending story with me.

Other women who had abortions would make clear that they are not pro-abortion, even though they made that choice themselves.

They should not be compared to an abortion doctor getting rich off of his despicable work. 

They are not in the same class as a Planned Parenthood executive pushing for higher quotas of baby killing. 

Many women, to be sure, view abortion as another method of birth control, allowing them to sleep around without lasting consequence. But even in their cases, some have been deeply conditioned to think of the “fetus” as a “something” rather than a “someone.” 

They are responsible for their actions, but they are also the byproduct of decades of cultural programming.

Here, too, we need hearts of compassion and backbones of steel – and not just compassion for the babies in the womb.

We can stand strong, immovable in our convictions and not minimizing the evil of abortion, while ministering with grace to those on the other side (in particular, to those who are hurting and conflicted).

We should also solicit input from pro-life women who had abortions in the past, hearing their stories and learning from their experiences.

By God’s grace, may we turn the tide of the nation, one baby and one heart at a time. 

Christians STILL Lead the Way in Acts of Compassionate Service

As followers of Jesus with strong moral convictions, we are often accused of being narrow-minded religious hypocrites, focusing on a select few social issues while ignoring the larger issues of human suffering. While this might be true for a minority among us, a substantial percentage of Christian conservatives continue to lead the world in acts of compassionate service. For us, standing against transgender activism and fighting for the life of the unborn go hand in hand with feeding the poor and caring for the orphan. All are important to us...

Christians Still Lead the Way in Acts of Compassionate Service | Articles | AskDrBrown

As followers of Jesus with strong moral convictions, we are often accused of being narrow-minded religious hypocrites, focusing on a select few social issues while ignoring the larger issues of human suffering. While this might be true for a minority among us, a substantial percentage of Christian conservatives continue to lead the world in acts of compassionate service. 

For us, standing against transgender activism and fighting for the life of the unborn go hand in hand with feeding the poor and caring for the orphan. All are important to us.

I work closely with a church named Mercy Culture in Fort Worth, Texas.

They are known for taking strong stands on social issues, with some of their members even running for political office. For this, they have been vilified by the local and national press.

At the same time, they distributed more than 100 million meals during the COVID crisis, filling cars with three meals a day for one month, without asking any questions. They are also active in rescuing women from human trafficking. And they are multi-racial in leadership, working together to stand against injustice.

Another example would be the Love Life movement, which stands strongly against abortion. Some of my good friends have been involved in this ministry for years now, beginning in North Carolina before spreading to others states and nations.

But this is not simply an anti-abortion movement. It is pro-life in the fullest sense of the word.

So, for example, when you click on the menu option of, “Pregnant? Need help?” you are directed to www.real-choices.com, emblazoned with the words, “HOPE IS HERE.”

There, under the heading, “HELP IS HERE FOR YOU,” you find this:

We will provide you with a trained and confidential support person to understand your situation & connect you with resources...

​• Pregnancy Care Resource Centers nationwide to provide help and resources

• Church support network with loving mentors to walk with you

• Baby shower given for you; often providing for your child’s needs up to 2 years

• Help in finding assistance for housing, food, clothing and employment, etc.

• Loving Families ready to adopt right away. 

This is what it means to be pro-life. This is what Christians do.

Ironically, evangelical Christians who responded in large numbers to calls to adopt needy children have since been criticized for their actions, for various reasons. (So, we’re criticized if we don’t adopt enough needy children and then criticized when we adopt too many needy children.)

A critical article written in 2016 acknowledged that, 

“when Haiti was rocked by a devastating 7.0-level earthquake, the Christian adoption movement became a full-blown cause. The movement threw its weight behind efforts to expedite U.S. visas for unaccompanied Haitian children, so they could leave their country and enter waiting U.S. homes. So many prospective adoptive families inquired about Haitian ‘earthquake orphans’ that Bethany Christian Services began diverting applicants to other countries like Ethiopia, which were then undergoing ‘adoption booms,’ thanks to a combination of poverty and lax laws.”

A 2022 article, written from a less a critical angle, noted that because of the large response to calls to adopt needy babies and children, there is now “an annual Christian conference devoted to burned-out parents, and a new documentary has been released on desperate families who have extremely ill children.”

While the article raises legitimate concerns and highlights real needs, these concerns and needs are the result of compassionate Christians responding in large numbers to a call to do tangible good, even at great personal cost.

This is what Christians do. This is compassion in action. (Catholics, of course, have been active in adoption for many years, along with other, non-evangelical Christians.)

That’s why so many of the world’s largest relief organizations, including World Vision and Compassion International and Samaritan’s Purse are Christian-based. (Note that the same Franklin Graham who speaks out against homosexual practice and abortion is the same man whose primary efforts are devoted to Samaritan’s Purse.)

That’s why so many Christians have been involved with healthcare, to this very day. As one website notes, 

“Over two millennia, Christian doctors and nurses, inspired by the example and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, have been at the forefront of efforts to alleviate human suffering, cure disease, and advance knowledge and understanding.”

To be sure, many non-Christians, including people without religious faith, are actively involved in caring for the poor and needy. But, to repeat, worldwide, Christians continue to lead the way, including many of graduates from our ministry school, who now serve the abandoned and poor and hurting in nations around the world. 

That’s why I had no trouble responding to a critic who responded to one of my tweets which simply quoted the words of Jesus. (The tweet in question read: “These words of Jesus are both sobering and encouraging: ‘For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.’ [Luke 8:17]”)

For some reason, “Ape with Anxiety” responded to this tweet by asking, “He also said feed the poor, heal the sick and welcome strangers. How's that part going?”

I responded immediately, “With my friends and colleagues it's going wonderfully well, especially among the really poor and hurting. Thanks for asking! Would you [like] to contribute to our works of service and compassion?”

Indeed, many of my friends and colleagues, from inner-city pastors to missionaries in foreign countries, are on the front lines of showing their faith by their compassionate deeds.

This is what Christians do. We also stand against inequity and injustice today, just as the Christians abolitionists did in the 19th century. 

It is part and parcel of following Jesus, who called for both personal holiness and for compassionate service and who commissioned us to be both salt (a moral conscience) and light (doers of good works; see Matthew 5:13-16). 

Let us live our faith holistically. That’s what Christians do.

When Pro-Abortion Doublespeak Puts Orwell to Shame

For a number of reasons, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is genuinely needed, and it is unconscionable that anyone would vote against it, especially someone claiming to care for the wellbeing of the infant. Even more ironic, tragically so, is the fact that Reps. Nadler and Schakowsky and their Democratic colleagues have argued passionately for a mother’s right to kill that same baby in the womb, even if it was at a viable age for birth.

When Pro-Abortion Doublespeak Puts Orwell to Shame | Articles | AskDrBrown

In the latest example of pro-abortion doublespeak, Rep. Jerrold Nadler stated that a proposed bill requiring hospital care for babies who survive abortion is “dangerous.” 

Seriously?! Mandating hospital care could be dangerous for the baby? 

And should we be skeptical of Rep. Nadler’s genuine concern for this baby, since he would have fully supported the mother’s attempt to abort this same child?

“The problem with this bill is that it endangers some infants by stating that that infant must immediately be brought to the hospital.” He added, “It directs and mandates certain medical care, which may not be appropriate, which maybe [sic] endanger the life of an infant in certain circumstances.”

Rep. Nadler was referring to the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 26) proposed by Rep. Ann Wagner on January 9. As posted on the Congress.gov website, “This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.”

So, in the event that the baby, targeted for termination in the womb, somehow survives the abortion procedure, the health care provider who is present must give that baby the exact same care that would be given “to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” 

And, assuming that the abortion took place in an abortion clinic rather than a hospital, that health care practitioner must “ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital.”

That is the very least that should be done for this little survivor, and one would think that every adult with a beating heart would agree that this bill should become law.

As for how many babies actually survive abortion attempts, according to the Abortion Survivors website, “17,855 babies have survived abortion since 1973.” (Assuming that this number relies on actual reports, this might be a very low number.)

Yet not only did Rep. Nadler, together with all but two of his Democratic colleagues, vote against this bill, he actually branded it “dangerous.” Yes, said Nadler, it is not that this bill adds any protections to this infant (which Nadler has claimed have long been in place). Rather, it is that the bill “endangers” the baby by mandating that the child be brought to a hospital, since this may not be the best medical option.

Seconding this opinion was Rep. Jan Schakowsky who opined that the bill “could create more harm” for the baby since it “requires immediately taking a struggling baby to a hospital." That hospital, she explained, “could be hours away and could be detrimental to the life of that baby. This is nothing more than part of the effort to make abortion illegal nationally in this country. I object, and I urge a no vote.”

As for Nadler, he raised the same argument back in 2018 when a similar bill was proposed, claiming that, 

“Despite what its supporters would have us believe, this legislation would do nothing to enhance protections, or the quality of health care, if an infant is born after an attempted abortion. What it would do, however, is directly interfere with a doctor’s medical judgement and dictate a medical standard of care that may not be appropriate in all circumstances, which could, in fact, put infants’ lives at greater risk.”

So, Nadler’s big concern as a strong pro-abortion advocate is protecting the well-being of the baby. Really?

“It has always been the law that health care providers cannot deliberately harm newborn infants, and that they must exercise reasonable care in their treatment of such infants. . . .

“In opposing this bill, I do not oppose, in any way, proper medical treatment for newborn infants, whatever the circumstances of their birth. But determining the proper treatment is for medical professionals to decide, not politicians in Congress.”

“When I supported the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002, my reasoning, and the reasoning of my pro-choice colleagues, was simple: killing an infant who was born alive, either by an act of omission or commission, is infanticide. It was, is, and always should be, against the law, and we saw no harm in reaffirming that fact. That law passed Congress with bipartisan support precisely because it was harmless – even if it was also useless since it did not change the pre-existing law in any way. The bill specifically just reiterated existing law in florid language and did nothing to interfere with doctors’ medical judgment or cause needless harm.” 

But it is not that simple. Sen. Ben Sasse stated in 2021 that, “Current federal law does not adequately protect a born child who survives an abortion. In the 116th Congress, the legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 248 to 177.” 

And, in a private communication, pro-life leader Rev. Patrick Mahoney noted that “there is something called the abortion survivors network in which many children were born alive from late term abortions and doctors didn’t attempt to save their lives.”

He added that the reason the proposed bill requires that the baby be brought to the hospital is that “doctors would leave the children without any emergency medical care and they would die a ‘natural death.’” 

Under the current bill, doctors would be required to provide whatever medical care was necessary to try to save the infant’s life.

As for the real possibility of infanticide being practiced, let’s remember that in 2019 Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam infamously said that in certain cases, 

“If a mother is in labor...the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother.”

So, keep that infant comfortable while the family discusses whether to let it live or not. 

Even the left-leaning Snopes.com could only find the claim that Northam said he would “execute a baby after birth” to be “Mostly False.” That is saying a lot.

Not only so, but recent bills would allow for infanticide, such as Maryland’s Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act (House Bill 626/Senate Bill 669), which was defeated. In California, the ACLJ reported that, “On September 27, 2022, Governor Newsom signed what amounts to a perinatal infanticide bill, AB 2223 (along with 12 other pro-abortion bills).”

So, for a number of reasons, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is genuinely needed, and it is unconscionable that anyone would vote against it, especially someone claiming to care for the wellbeing of the infant.

Even more ironic, tragically so, is the fact that Reps. Nadler and Schakowsky and their Democratic colleagues have argued passionately for a mother’s right to kill that same baby in the womb, even if it was at a viable age for birth. 

It would be better if they simply stated what we all know (and what others have often stated elsewhere). Those who oppose bills like the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act do so because they believe the bill is designed to undercut a woman’s “right” to abortion, and they will protect that “right” at almost all costs.

Their expressed concern for the wellbeing of the baby who survives an abortion is beyond cynical. 

It is doublespeak in the extreme, putting pro-abortion phrases like “reproductive rights” to shame. 

At first, it seemed too absurd to believe. Surely, there must be more to the story than meets the eye. But it turns out that what was reported was quite accurate: a Christian pro-life leader in England was arrested not simply for standing in front an abortion clinic. She was also arrested for the crime of praying while standing there, even though she was simply praying in her own head. Talk about being prosecuted for a “thought crime.” This really and truly happened.

When Thinking a Prayer Became a Crime | Articles | AskDrBrown

At first, it seemed too absurd to believe. 

Surely, there must be more to the story than meets the eye. 

It turns out that what was reported was quite accurate: a Christian pro-life leader in England was arrested not simply for standing in front an abortion clinic. She was also arrested for the crime of praying while standing there, even though she was simply praying in her own head. 

Talk about being prosecuted for a “thought crime.” 

In the words of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, leader of the UK March for Life, 

“It’s abhorrently wrong that I was searched, arrested, interrogated by police and charged simply for praying in the privacy of my own mind. Nobody should be criminalized for thinking and for praying, in a public space in the UK.”

A pastoral colleague had sent me the report which stated, 

“In yet another assault on Christianity in Britain, a pro-life activist was arrested for silently praying outside an abortion clinic in Birmingham, England.”

Embedded in the article was a link to the Twitter account of Mary Margaret Olohan, which contained a video of the arrest.

In the video, the police officer asks Vaughan-Spruce politely, “Are you praying?” She responds, “I might be praying in my head.” (Do I need to add my standard caveat, “I’m not making this up!”?)

At present, however, there is an additional note added by Twitter which states, 

“The woman in the video, Isabel Vaughan Spruce, was not arrested for silently praying. She was arrested for breaking a temporary Public Space Protection Order on four separate occasions which was used to ban protests outside of an abortion clinic due to safety concerns.” (The note is linked to this story).

That’s what I had been wondering about when I read the initial piece and watched the video. Perhaps she was not allowed to be standing in front of the clinic at all? Perhaps that was her crime?

Despite the outrageousness of such a regulation, since it appears clear that she was not harassing anyone nor was her presence a threat to anyone, what if her presence was the issue, not her praying? Wouldn’t that mean that the attention-getting headlines were not accurate? Wouldn’t that mean that the very headline to this article was misleading?

It turns out that there are, in fact, Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) zones which protect abortion clinics and other places. But there was no personal order against Vaughan Spruce standing in front of this particular clinic, nor is it illegal simply to stand in or be present on the street, even with the PSPO.

As noted in the official press release from the Alliance Defending Freedom U.K. 

“The censorship zone measure introduced by Birmingham authorities criminalises individuals perceived to be ‘engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval’ in relation to abortion, including through ‘verbal or written means, prayer or counselling…’.”

“Whilst in the police station, Vaughan-Spruce was shown pictures of herself outside the abortion facility. She said she could not recall from the pictures whether she was praying at these specific moments, or whether these had been taken at times that she was distracted and thought about other things, such as her lunch. She maintains that all her thoughts were equally peaceful and imperceptible and that none should be criminalised.”

Yes, she was questioned as to whether she had been praying in her own mind. 

This is not the figment of Christian paranoia. 

In response to this outrageous arrest and interrogation, Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK The ADF, stated that, 

“Isabel’s experience should be deeply concerning to all those who believe that our hard-fought fundamental rights are worth protecting. It is truly astonishing that the law has granted local authorities such wide and unaccountable discretion, that now even thoughts deemed ‘wrong’ can lead to a humiliating arrest and a criminal charge.”

In fact, the police actually “imposed restrictions, as part of her bail, on Vaughan-Spruce engaging in public prayer beyond the PSPO area, stating that this was necessary to prevent further offenses.”

To paraphrase, “Thou shalt not pray, even in the privacy of your mind, anywhere near this abortion clinic!”

One month prior, on November 24, in Bournemouth, UK, 

“Local woman Livia Tossici-Bolt was praying quietly with a friend in a public space when she was warned by local authorities that their prayer could cause ‘intimidation, harassment or distress’, and was asked to move away.”

To be clear, I have not been quoting from Orwell’s 1984.

To the contrary, not even Big Brother could read our thoughts. Not even The Chinese Community Party of China can read its people’s minds. Not even Kim Jong-Un of North Korea imprisons alleged dissenters for daring to think a thought. Only God Almighty knows the thoughts of people’s hearts.

Of course, the British police didn’t know what Vaughan-Spruce was thinking either, because of which they had to ask, “Are you praying?” 

“Yes, Officer, I confess! I am guilty, so guilty! I might have been praying in my mind!”

To repeat: This was not Orwell’s 1984. 

In the days ahead, I would encourage every freedom-loving citizen of the UK to stand peacefully (and without obstructing others) in front of every abortion clinic nearby, engaging in silent prayer.

Numerous street preachers have been arrested in recent years simply for giving an honest answer to a Bible question or preaching out of certain biblical texts (most recently, see here). Now, Christian pro-lifers are being arrested for the crime of praying, either out loud or silently. Who can imagine what’s coming next?

With confidence I can say this: If the Christians (and other freedom lovers) in the UK do not push back now, with grace, humility, kindness, and courage, there most certainly will be a “next.”

The time to speak and act (and pray!) is now.

From a Pragmatic Pro-Life Perspective, was the Overturning of Roe a Good Thing?

It could be argued that a more incremental approach to the overturning of Roe might have been better than its dramatic overturning in June. Here are 5 reasons why that line of thinking is deeply flawed...

From a Pragmatic Pro-Life Perspective, was the Overturning of Roe a Good Thing? | Article | AskDrBrown

It could be argued that a more incremental approach to the overturning of Roe might have been better than its dramatic overturning in June. 

After all, some might say, the Court could have made a series of incremental decisions, beginning with letting the Dobbs case stand, thereby triggering a less extreme reaction from the pro-abortion side. 

As it is, the pro-abortion pushback has been intense and costly.

More states have passed radical, pro-abortion bills, and strong pro-abortion sentiments may have helped the Democrats (and hurt the Republicans) during the midterms. Perhaps the Court acted too quickly?

Here are 5 reasons why that line of thinking is deeply flawed.

First, Roe was bad law from the start, made even worse by the reaffirmation and expansion of Casey in 1992. Both of these cases were decidedly poorly – no, outrageously – and the sooner an egregious law can be overturned, the better. All the more is this the case when that law has given the appearance of legality to the shedding of oceans of innocent blood.


Second, we have no way of knowing how long the Court will have the same pro-life sentiments. What if this group of justices ruled to uphold Dobbs (which, in itself, would have been positive), but by the time the next case made it to the Court, sentiments (or justices) will have changed? What then? The best opportunity we had would have been squandered. 

It’s also fair to ask if the justices should allow potential public reaction to their decision to overrule the setting aside of a bad law. The answer is no, they should not.


Third, pro-lifers have been laboring tirelessly and praying unceasingly for the overturning of Roe, not simply for positive, incremental decisions. What the Court did was an answer to prayer, and infusing life and strength and courage and hope in the pro-life movement. With Roe overturned, more and more states can now put pro-life legislation into effect. 


Fourth, radical, pro-abortion laws were being passed before Roe was overturned. For example, on January 24, 2019, Breitbart reported, “The New York State legislature has put in place one of the most radical abortion laws in the United States following a vote in both chambers on Tuesday.”

New York did not need the overturning of Roe to pass this draconian bill. Nor did Virginia.

As the Daily Citizen reported on March 2, 2020, “A year after Virginia Governor Ralph Northam espoused the practice of infanticide, the Virginian legislature officially removed abortion regulations that were protecting women and preborn babies. It’s a demonstration of what happens when a Red state turns Blue.”

That’s why, in 2021, before Roe was overturned, I could write, 

Was there a time in living memory when America was more divided? I’m 66, and I certainly can’t remember any time like today.

Can you?

It seems as if the right and the left are becoming more and more polarized, with less and less people in the center. From woke ideology to race issues to political divides to LGBTQ activism to religious conflicts to cancel culture to immigration, the divisions are deep and broad.

But the ultimate dividing line is abortion.

On no other issue are the passions so intense. And no other issue has such massive court cases attached to it.

The ideological civil war over abortion has been inevitable for years. The overturning of Roe just pushed the inevitable forward.


Fifth, babies are being saved because of the Court decision. Already in November 2021, Life News noted that, “Overturning Roe v. Wade will stop abortions and save babies’ lives, and even abortion activists openly admit it.

“In an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, a group of 154 prominent economists and researchers estimated that abortion numbers would drop by about 120,000 in the first year and potentially even more in subsequent years if the high court overturns Roe and allows states to ban abortions again, the AP reports.”

How accurate was this estimate? It will take some time to get data from across the country, but Catholic News reported this on November 3: “More than 10,000 unborn babies are alive today because of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a new report by a pro-abortion group suggests.

Society of Family Planning’s #WeCount initiative reported on Friday that there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August after the court’s June 24 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation, which overturned Roe and freed individual states to decide abortion policy.

As the New York Times pointed out in an article on the #WeCount study, abortions declined almost to zero in states with bans, but they increased in many states where abortion remained legal.

In August, fewer than 10 abortions were performed in each of the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wisconsin.”

To focus in on one state, Life News noted that, “State abortion statistics for July 2022, the first full month after Texas’ total protections for preborn children regained effect, reported 68 abortions. The same time period a year prior saw 4,879 abortions, an average of 150 per day. That means there were over twice as many lives taken each day of July 2021 than in the entire month of July 2022. From September 2021 to June 2022, the Texas Heartbeat Act decreased the number of abortions to 2,500 per month on average.”

Turn these numbers into people – human beings who would not have been alive but are alive now – and we have our answer loud and clear.

Yes, yes, yes, it was good that the Supreme Court overturned Roe. 

Let us continue to build on that momentum. 

Or would you rather come to the end of 2022 still wondering if Roe would ever be overturned? I think not.

As the Church comes alive to the horrors of abortion and the sanctity of life and as God’s people win the lost and make disciples by the millions, the tide will turn towards life. We must continue the battle of changing hearts and minds, exposing the realities of these draconian pro-abortion bills and continuing to display the personhood of the baby in the womb.

The Only Way to Make America Pro-Life | Articles | AskDrBrown

Two generations of women who grew up with Roe v Wade as the law of the land have raised their voices in protest at the voting booth, pushing back against the Supreme Court’s historic overturning of Roe in June. 

As a result, all 5 abortion-related bills voted on in the midterms said “No” to pro-life, even in Kentucky.

As noted on the FiveThirtyEight website, 

“In June, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and the court’s ultra-conservative majority wrote that they were sending the issue of abortion back to the voters. The voters are displeased.

“The midterm election results look like a striking rebuke of the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the wave of near-total abortion bans that followed it.”

As for the fact that is women who helped drive these votes, the Daily Wire pointed out that, “Compared to married individuals favoring GOP candidates this year, a CNN exit poll of 18,571 total respondents found 68% of single women marked their ballots for Democratic politicians — a 37-point margin over the Republican Party.”

And as the ages get younger, the disparity becomes even greater: “Other notable figures from CNN’s exit poll data show that 72% of women between 18 and 29 voted Democrat.” 

What a dramatic difference in voting patterns, but one that is consistent with the mindset of many unmarried women, especially younger women. (See also here for more on younger voters.)

“Studies suggest single women vote Democrat more often than married women because they depend on a single income, have feminist attitudes towards social issues like abortion and pre-marital sexual behavior, and agree with ideologies that redefine gender roles and family responsibilities.

“‘The Democrats’ radical abortion and LGBTQ agenda coupled with their negligent governance of our cities makes perfect sense when you realize the destruction of the nuclear family and dependence on government welfare keeps the Democratic Party in power,’ Jayme Chandler Franklin said on Twitter.”

Breaking down the data further, Breitbart noted that, 

“Thirty-three percent of women said that abortion was their most important issue, with 77 percent of those respondents supporting Democrat candidates compared to 22 percent supporting Republican candidates. The next most important issue for women was inflation at 28 percent, followed by crime, gun policy, and immigration, which were all equal at ten percent.

“A majority of women (67 percent) also said they were either angry or dissatisfied with Roe v. Wade being overturned, with 72 percent of women who supported Democrat candidates agreeing, compared to 27 percent who supported Republicans. On the other hand, 30 percent of women were either enthusiastic or satisfied with Roe being overturned, with a majority supporting Republicans (84 percent) compared to Democrats (15 percent).”

This certainly breaks with historic voting patterns, in which the economy, much more than social issues, dominated voting decisions.

To be sure, pro-lifers also came out in strong numbers. 

As pointed out by Catherine Glenn Foster on the American Conservative, 

“Abortion activists did . . . poorly at the state level. Democrats didn’t crack state governor, state attorney general, or state house seats in red states that have enforced abortion limits since June. Abortion activists couldn’t defeat public officials in those states or win the U.S. House or Senate to block those state laws.”

Foster also noted that a good number of states with pro-life laws on the books elected Republican governors (including Arkansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, Tennessee, and South Carolina, in most cases by large margins).

That being said, there was a strong push back against the reversal of Roe, and the pro-abortion rights activists fueled the fires of fear with a relentless, exaggerated PR campaign, as if the overturning of Roe meant that abortion would now be banned nationwide (rather than simply returned to the states).

This drive was also very well-funded and used clever messaging that pointed away from the realities of abortion. And previous statements from at least one Republican candidate, saying that he would prosecute women who had abortions as murderers, further fanned the flames of fear, if not outright terror. 

Yet statements such as these, which were complete outliers, were portrayed as mainstream with the goal of guaranteeing deeper voter outrage, especially among women.

Writing for The Federalist, Robert G. Marshall identified these 5 lies in the aftermath of Roe: 1) Reversing Roe Will Put Women in Jail for Abortions; 2) Women Will be Prosecuted for Self-Abortion if Roe Is Reversed; 3) Women Will be Prosecuted for Miscarriage; 4) Reversing Roe Will Criminalize Pill and IUD Use; 5) ‘The Unborn Have Never Been Recognized in the Law as Persons.’”

Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, lies like this have already taken root in millions of hearts and minds, and the pro-abortion rights side is energized like never before. 

On the flip side, it is understandable if the pro-life side, filled with euphoria and encouragement with the historic overturning of Roe, has not yet gotten its second wind in full. 

How then, can battles be won state by state? How can absolutely horrific abortion laws that have been passed in Michigan and California and Montana be overturned? 

A November 9 email from the California Family Council announced that, “CA Voters Approve one of the ‘Most Extreme Abortion Laws in the Entire World.’”

In Montana, “voters rejected a ballot initiative during the midterm elections that would have mandated that infants who are born alive, including those who survive botched abortions, are legal persons entitled to life-saving medical care.”

What can be done to turn this gruesome tide?

There are only two ways we can see this can happen.

First and foremost, there must be massive revival in the Church leading to multitudes of conversions in the society leading to glorious national awakening. It is only when tens of millions of Americans get God’s heart for the unborn that the tide will turn more decisively in the direction of life.

As stated in a quote attributed to Francis Schaeffer, “Every abortion clinic should have a sign in front of it saying, ‘Open by the permission of the church.’”

As the Church comes alive to the horrors of abortion and the sanctity of life and as God’s people win the lost and make disciples by the millions, the tide will turn towards life.

Second, we must continue the battle of changing hearts and minds, exposing the realities of these draconian pro-abortion bills and continuing to display the personhood of the baby in the womb.

I expect and hope that just as many Americans are waking up to the insanity of extreme transgender activism, in particular the chemical castration and genital mutilation of children, they will also awaken to the reality of abortion.

The good news is that Roe has been overturned, something that seemed completely impossible to many for decades. It is also to be expected that the pro-abortion side has been freshly energized for the fight.

But the same perseverance that battled for 5 decades to see Roe abolished is the same perseverance that can see the tide turn to life state by state.

Still, without a sweeping national revival, none of this will happen. With it, today’s radical pro-abortion laws can end up in the dustbin of history.

(For great resources at your fingertips, including direct access to our daily Line of Fire broadcast, download the AskDrBrown Ministries app on Apple and Android.)

Woe to Those Who Call Evil 'Good' and Good 'Evil'

It is one thing to do evil and recognize it as evil. It is another thing to do evil and call it good. As the prophet Isaiah declared more than 2,500 years ago, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20) This has happened many times over the centuries, and it is happening again in our day...

Woe to Those Who Call Evil 'Good' and Good 'Evil' | Articles | AskDrBrown

It is one thing to do evil and recognize it as evil. It is another thing to do evil and call it good. 

As the prophet Isaiah declared more than 2,500 years ago, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20) 

This has happened many times over the centuries, and it is happening again in our day.

Going back two decades, consider Dr. George Tiller, infamous for his late-term abortion practice but hailed as a hero by the pro-abortion movement. In their eyes, he was performing a compassionate service for hurting families, relieving them of the pain of bringing an unwanted child into the world.

There are articles about Tiller with titles like, “A Gentle, Compassionate Man: Remembering Dr. George Tiller,” and, “The Compassion of Dr. Tiller.” The latter article states that, “George Tiller is frequently described as ‘controversial.’ But in the tight-knit world of abortion providers and among the women under his care, he was often called a saint.”

This puts quite a spin on the word saint!

The fact that Tiller was inexcusably murdered in 2009 by a “pro-life” extremist cannot detract from his evil deeds, which included offering his clients package deals for the late-term abortion plus finger printing, baptism, and burial or cremation. 

Yes, Tiller had baptismal ceremonies performed for the babies whose lives he just ended. (This was not only widely known, but I also saw pictures of these baptisms and burials.) 

Tragically, as reported on Live Action, “A former staff member of a late-term abortion facility [meaning, Dr. Tiller’s] has admitted there was nothing wrong with over 98 percent of the babies aborted at her facility.”

In the words of a passionate pro-life leader, “Although he specialized in killing handicapped children, most of his tiny victims were late term, fully-formed, healthy, and viable outside the womb. He performed an average of roughly seven post-viable abortions per week and has admitted on tape to aborting babies a day before the mother’s due date.”

Pro-Life / Abortion

Should We Humanize the Abortion Debate?

Christians STILL Lead the Way in Acts of Compassionate Service

When Pro-Abortion Doublespeak Puts Orwell to Shame

When THINKING a Prayer Became a Crime

From a Pragmatic Pro-Life Perspective, was the Overturning of Roe a Good Thing?

The Only Way to Make America Pro-Life

Woe to Those Who Call Evil 'Good' and Good 'Evil'

According to Gov Newsom the Baby in the Womb is Not 'Our Neighbor'

If You’re a Christian Leader, You Should Have a Target on Your Back

Is the Bible Pro-Choice?

Why is Senator Elizabeth Warren Declaring War on Pregnancy Crisis Centers?

What the Church Must Do Post Roe

As Law, Roe was a Bad Ruling that Always Had to Go

Will God Send Rain on Pro-Life States and Withhold It from Pro-Abortion States?

5 Reasons to Rejoice for the Overturning of Roe

Responding to “Pro-Choice” Misinformation and Disinformation

The Significance of the Overturning of Roe

It’s Going to Get Very Ugly in the Aftermath of Roe

The European Parliament Condemns itself by Condemning the Supreme Court’s Expecting Overturning of Roe

What the Early Church Said About Abortion

Yes, Your Vote Can Help Save a Baby’s Life (or Take a Baby’s Life)

Beyond the Abortion Debate, There Are Hurting Men and Women. We Must Not Forget Them

When Bill Maher and Joe Rogan Make the Pro-Life Case

When It Comes to Abortion, Don’t Let the Race Baiters Influence You

Is Roe v. Wade About to Be Overturned? And If So, What Are the Implications?

The All-Out Assault on Our Children

The Overturning of Roe v. Wade and the Call to ‘Beat the Arrows’ in Prayer

Please Don’t Clown Around when it Comes to Abortion

Never Underestimate the Power of Greed

The Ideological Civil War Over Abortion

When 350 Faith Leaders Endorsed Candidate Joe Biden to ‘Restore the Soul’ of the Nation

Did You Hear About the Latest Moral Outrage from California?

Now that the Left has Rewritten Ruth Bader Ginsburg, What’s Next?

No, the Pro-Life Movement is Not about Controlling Women

Once Again, a Word to Pro-Life Evangelicals Who Voted for Biden

An Open Letter to Women Say ‘My Body, My Choice’

Once Again the Left is Comparing Christians to the Taliban

The Supreme Court Case that Could Upend Roe v. Wade

Not Enough Fingers to Plug Up All the Holes in the Dike

Claiming to Be a Pro-Choice Pastor Is Like Claiming to Be a Moloch-Worshiping Christian