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.”

This is the man hailed by some as a saint. 

A pro-life colleague in Charlotte, North Carolina told me about an abortion doctor in the city who tithed on her earnings to her church. 

In her mind, she was doing God’s work. 

The flip side of this is that pro-life leaders who are doing God’s work by standing for the life of the unborn are branded as dangerous lawbreakers. 

What else are we to make of the FBI’s recent arrests of pro-life workers? As reported by The Federalist on October 6, “The FBI raided the home of yet another pro-life activist on Wednesday, as the federal agency ramps up its attacks on political opponents of the Biden regime. With guns drawn, agents swarmed and entered Chester (Chet) Gallagher’s Tennessee home for his role in a peaceful pro-life event that took place over a year ago outside a Mt. Juliet, Tennessee abortion facility.”

Talk about turning our justice system upside down. 

Talk about calling right wrong and wrong right.

The same thing is now happening with medical leaders who speak out against the transitioning of children (in other words, against the chemical castration and/or genital mutilation of minors). They are being threatened with prosecution by the office of the Attorney General for allegedly spreading misinformation that could lead to violence.

As explained in a letter to A. G. Merrick Garland written by Tennessee A. G. Jonathan Sermetti, and signed by 12 other Attorneys General, 

“We, the undersigned State Attorneys General, write to express our deep concern with the recent letter you received from the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and the Children’s Hospital Association asking you to investigate and prosecute people who question the medical establishment’s current treatment of children struggling with gender dysphoria. You cannot and should not undertake such investigations or prosecutions.”

So, those raising grave concerns about the terribly misguided practice of transitioning children, which has rightly been branded medical malpractice and a massive human rights violation, could be prosecuted as criminals. As for those advocating such practices and performing them, they are the heroes who should be celebrated. Is this not what Isaiah described?

In this same spirit, California governor Gavin Newsom has become the darling of the left as he becomes more and more radical by the day.

As Mayor San Francisco, he rose to national fame by illegally issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

More recently, he sparked a storm of controversy by quoting the words of Jesus (that we should love our neighbor as ourselves) on billboards posted in pro-life states, inviting pregnant women to come to his state for their abortions. 

(See here for my response, where I picture a baby asking Gov. Newsom, “Am I not your neighbor?”) 

As if this was not enough, Newsom also signed a bill that would make California a sanctuary state for minors seeking sex-change surgery and treatments, even against their parents’ will. As reported on the Daily Wire, 

“The bill also bans police from arresting or extraditing someone based on another state’s restrictions for providing gender health services to a child. The law also prohibits California officials from enforcing another state’s order that a child be removed from parents who allow the child to receive gender health services.”

There are now lawmakers who want to have parents criminally prosecuted if they fail to affirm the perceived gender identity of their child (see here and here for examples).

So, the caring parents, who want what is best for their child and recognize that medical intervention is not the best course of action for their confused and hurting minor, are the evil ones, to be prosecuted and even jailed by the government.

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

Governor Gavin Newsom is not simply pro-choice. He is pro-abortion, to the point that he tweeted last month, “Just launched billboards in 7 of the most restrictive anti-abortion states... [to reach] any woman seeking an abortion in these anti-freedom states... Abortion is legal in California. It will remain that way..."

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

Governor Gavin Newsom is not simply pro-choice. He is pro-abortion, to the point that he tweeted last month, “Just launched billboards in 7 of the most restrictive anti-abortion states that explain how women can access care–no matter where they live. To any woman seeking an abortion in these anti-freedom states: CA will defend your right to make decisions about your own health.” 

Newsom, in fact, is a pro-abortion radical, as evidenced by the pinned tweet on his account. It states, “Abortion is legal in California. It will remain that way. I just signed a bill that makes our state a safe haven for women across the nation. We will not cooperate with any states that attempt to prosecute women or doctors for receiving or providing reproductive care.”

Tragically, it appears that his views are quite popular. The tweet currently has one million likes.

Worse still, on at least one of the billboards paid for by Gov. Newsom’s election campaign, the words of Jesus were quoted in support of abortion, specifically Mark 12:31: “Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no greater commandment than these.” (The reason the verse speaks of “these” commandments is because Jesus first said that the greatest commandment was to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. The second commandment was to love our neighbor as ourselves.)

Where was this billboard posted? Oklahoma, sometimes referred to as the buckle of the Bible belt. So, this demented logic would say, “If you’re dealing with lots of Christians, you need to quote the Scriptures.”

Talk about a misuse of the Word of God. 
Talk about butchering the Bible.

As pro-life leader Marjorie Dannenfelser exclaimed, “This makes me sick. Gavin Newsom quoting Scripture (‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ - Mark 12:31) in his billboard going up in Oklahoma today advertising California as an abortion tourism destination. Simply no words for how twisted this is.”

Newsom has now drawn the ire of Pastor John MacArthur who sent an open letter of rebuke to the governor, calling for his repentance. 

It begins with these words: “Almighty God says in His Word, Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people (Proverbs 14:34). Scripture also teaches that it is the chief duty of any civic leader to reward those who do well and to punish evildoers (Romans 13:1–7). You have not only failed in that responsibility; you routinely turn it on its head, rewarding evildoers and punishing the righteous.”

The letter continues, “In mid-September, you revealed to the entire nation how thoroughly rebellious against God you are when you sponsored billboards across America promoting the slaughter of children, whom He creates in the womb (Psalm 139:13–16; Isaiah 45:9–12). You further compounded the wickedness of that murderous campaign with a reprehensible act of gross blasphemy, quoting the very words of Jesus from Mark 12:31 as if you could somehow twist His meaning and arrogate His name in favor of butchering unborn infants. You used the name and the words of Christ to promote the credo of Molech (Leviticus 20:1–5). It would be hard to imagine a greater sacrilege.”

And, speaking personally and directly, Pastor MacArthur writes, “My concern, Governor Newsom, is that your own soul lies in grave, eternal peril,” urging him to repent and find salvation in Jesus. And, he notes, “Our church, and countless Christians nationwide, are praying for your full repentance. Please respond to the gospel, forsake the path of wickedness you have pursued all your life, turn to Christ, ask for forgiveness, and use your office to advance the cause of righteousness (as is your duty) instead of undermining it (as has been your pattern).”

This is what you call gospel rebuke, providing an excellent example of a leading pastor interfacing with politics. 

It is not about Republicans vs. Democrats. It is a matter of an elected official defiantly sinning in the face of God, using the Bible to back his cause. And this is the same Gavin Newsom who, when mayor of San Francisco, illegally issued marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

As for those blasphemous billboards, an effective counter campaign could depict a baby inside the mother’s womb, plaintively asking Gov. Newsom, “Am I not your neighbor?” That would say it all.

Right now, in the name of loving your neighbor, Newsom is bringing the blood of the innocent on California.

May God grant him repentance, forgiveness, and a transformed new life where his fearless zeal can be used for good rather than for evil. 

And may Christians throughout the state awaken to righteousness and declare, “Not on our watch!”

By a miracle of divine intervention, California may one day become a sanctuary for life.

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

A few years ago, I offered to help an organization I had worked with in the past. They were excited by my offer, but nothing came of it. It turns out there was more to the story... they didn’t want a target on their backs.

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

A few years ago, I offered to help an organization I had worked with in the past. They were excited by my offer, since they had followed my work for years and agreed wholeheartedly with the positions I had taken. I had also made clear that I was not concerned about compensation. My goal was to help. 

But nothing came of it, so I simply assumed it wasn’t God’s timing or plan.

It turns out there was more to the story.

As a colleague within the organization explained to me, a key decision maker told him that if they became publicly associated with me, then LGBTQ+ activists might target them for criticism and attack. And so, although they respected me and agreed with my position on these issues, appreciating the way I had handled the culture wars, they didn’t want a target on their backs.

When my colleague informed me about this, I replied, “If they don’t have a target on their backs, they’re doing something wrong.”

Really now, how can we affirm what God’s Word plainly says about homosexual practice, same-sex “marriage,” and transgender identity without being branded homophobes and haters and bigots and transphobes? How can we not have a target on our backs?

To be clear, we are called to be peacemakers, not troublemakers. And we should be known for our love, our compassion, our kindness, our longsuffering, our good works. Absolutely.

But you can be assured that if the world hated Jesus, it will hate us too. 

The Lord said so Himself, quite clearly and emphatically: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.” (John 15:18–21)

The darkness will always hate the light and the world will always reject God’s Word.

That means that, as we let our line shine and preach the truth in love, we will be hated and reviled by many. Or do we somehow think we can be more Christlike than Christ? That we can be wiser than Jesus was? More loving than the Savior? Not quite!

And what is one reason that Jesus said we would be persecuted? He said, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:10, my emphasis)

When we live righteously and when we stand for righteousness, we will be opposed and vilified. Count on it.

Of course, we can bring unnecessary trouble on ourselves and bring reproach to the name of the Lord by our foul conduct – our hypocrisy or obnoxiousness or self-righteousness or immaturity or carnality or harshness. 

When we suffer for our folly, that’s on us. It has nothing to do with the cause of Christ.

But, in today’s hyper-aggressive, LGBTQ+ activist society, you can be assured that for simply holding our ground as Bible-honoring, Jesus-loving believers, we will be attacked and criticized and slandered and maligned.

Consequently, if you are a leader in the Body, someone called to live out and proclaim divine truths about life and salvation and morality and family, you most certainly will have a target on your back.

Pro-Life / Abortion

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

Are There Really Verses in the Bible that Support Abortion?