A Letter to PayPal
by Fr. Jim Hewes
This letter is lightly edited. PayPal is one of many companies that have the problematic employee abortion policy, so all the thoughts here would apply to the other companies as well.
Dear PayPal:
My perspective comes from directing Project Rachel, a post abortion healing program, for 18 years. I saw a ton of women who had deep wounds and were absolutely brokenhearted because of their abortion. I would sit quietly with them as the tears flowed out from them, as they shared their overwhelming experience with me. One woman described her abortion, as if her leg wascaught in a bear trap and she gnawed her leg off to get out. Another woman described her abortion as someone crawling through a field of sharp broken glass and trying to get to the other side. I witnessed firsthand that abortion wasn’t good for women.
Another experience that had a profound effect on me was when I received a call one day from a couple that I had married over a year before. They asked me to come to the hospital to baptize their son Jose who had been born prematurely. I met them in the waiting room and then we went into the neo-natal unit. My jaw dropped when I saw Jose because he was born at only 22 weeks gestation. Even though I had been involved with the pro-life movement for many years and had seen all the pictures of the pre-born child at various stages of development, this was the tiniest human being outside the womb I had ever seen. He was so small that I could literally hold him completely in my hand. At the time it made me think of the passage in Isaiah where God said that “God will hold us in the palm of His hand.” The nurse brought me an eye dropper and I baptized this incredible gift of life. After this experience, I went outside and the cool air hit me, it struck me that in another part of this hospital, a pre-born child at THE EXACT SAME GESTATIONAL AGE, life was ended through an abortion and the only difference between the two identical lives was that one was wanted, and the other was unwanted. This experience affirmed for me why pre-born children are the most invisible, voiceless, defenseless, powerless, vulnerable, innocent lives in our society, as well as the most unequal and excluded of any human beings in the world. When we treat human life at its beginning in such a way, because he or she is unwanted with no intrinsic value, it explains why our society is in such deep trouble with all the violence that we are drowning in.
Look up Dr. Anthony Levantino, Dr. Steven Hammond, Dr. John Bruchalski, Dr. Haywood Robinson, Dr. McArthur Hill, Dr. David Brewer, Dr Beverly McMillan. They have all done many abortions but later changed, and now not only no longer do abortions (after they saw what exactly happened in their grisly procedure), but now speak out strongly against abortion, from their first-hand experience. These former abortionists (along with Abby Johnson, former director of a Planned Parenthood center) will show you a clearer picture of what abortion really is, rather than have others, including the media, try to frame abortion as an abstract concept (products of pregnancy, termination of a pregnancy, reproductive freedom, women’s health care, etc.), rather than the brutal reality which happens in any abortion.
In light of all of this, I am wondering if Pay Pal has offered the same amount of money to support your employees wanting to keep their baby, as they will offer for traveling expenses to have an abortion. Why does Pay Pal want to “bribe” your employees NOT to have children, to be childless? Why does Pay Pal offer financial support and give incentives for this?
There is a total blindness with PayPal to the fact that such support or even promotion of abortion are in actuality paying abortionists to eliminate so many of your future customers. In addition Pay Pal doesn’t stop offering money for travel to enable women to have abortions your company could lose the Christian market, including the Catholic market, of 70 million Catholics in the U.S. and over one billion Catholics worldwide.
Is it because Pay Pal knows that there is the cost of maternity leave and finding a person with the same skills, knowledge, and ability to fulfill the employee in their maternity leave, as well as that having a baby increases the health care plan for your employees?
Is it because PayPal knows that employees who have families want a sufficient salary and benefits which may increase wages and lower companies bottom line of greater profits? Is it because Pay Pal knows that employees may not give the same attention to the company before giving birth (especially if they were single) than after birth, when their child contacts them for health or other situations that need their focus? So, having children may become more rewarding for that employee and “compete” with their former total loyalty to the company.
It is not only wrong for Pay Pal to support having abortions from a business ethics standpoint, but it is unwise from an economic viewpoint to risk losing so many of your customers in such a competitive economy, as well as loosing potential future customers who will have had their lives ended by abortion. I am sure Pay Pal spends a significant amount of money for customer acquisition, but it will continue to risk losing customers because of their support for abortion.
There are 107 million of Evangelical Christians in our country, and other Christians as well, whose support Pay Pal could lose, if they continue to support in any way financial expenses for abortions.
Life Decision International whose mission is to decouple companies from Planned Parenthood, the leading supporter of abortion, has moved 343 corporations to stop funding Planned Parenthood whose business you support by paying for travel expenses to have an abortion at one of their facilities.
I know that is why as a former customer, I no longer do business with PayPal.
============================
For a satire from Live Action on this policy for employees, see:
For more of our posts on similar topics, see:
Boycott Strategy: CVS & Walgreens
Prevent a New Nuclear Arms Race: Replace the New START Treaty
by John Whitehead
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) is the last significant nuclear arms control agreement that is still in effect between the United States and Russia. New START will expire in a matter of months, on February 5, 2026. Once New START is gone, the door would be open for the United States and Russia to build unlimited numbers of nuclear weapons, in a dangerous new arms race.
An opportunity exists to avert the threat of a renewed nuclear arms race, though. The United States and Russia can agree to abide by the restrictions of New START even after the treaty formally expires. Such an agreement can then be followed by negotiations for a new arms control treaty to replace the expired New START.
Preserving restraints on US and Russian nuclear arsenals is a vitally important part of reducing the threat from nuclear weapons. Policymakers and activists should seize this chance to check an arms race.
The End of New START
In nuclear technical terminology, “strategic weapons” refers to nuclear weapons with very high levels of destructive power (or “yield”) that can be mounted on missiles or planes capable of traveling great distances. These weapons are named this way because they can inflict such significant devastation on another nation as to supposedly alter the outcome of a war. (In reality, such distinctions are artificial since any nuclear weapon, even a very low-yield, non-strategic one, is massively destructive.)
The first treaty reducing these types of nuclear weapons, the original START, was adopted by the United States and Russia (then the Soviet Union) in 1991. After START expired in 2009, it was replaced with New START, signed in 2010 by US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.
The New START treaty restricts both Russia and the United States to having only 1,550 strategic nuclear weapons each. While it hardly eliminates the nuclear threat, New START at least places a limit on a particular category of nuclear weapons, and this limit could serve as a stepping stone to further weapons reductions in the future.
In 2021, the Biden administration arranged with the Russian government to extend New START under a provision of the treaty that allowed for a one-time, five-year extension. That extension will end next February.
If New START ends and no new arms control agreement replaces it, then the United States and Russia may opt to increase their strategic nuclear weapons beyond the limit previously set by the treaty. Such increases would waste money, make nuclear arms reductions more difficult, and potentially worsen international tensions as each nation tries to get a nuclear “advantage” over the other.
Hope for a New Arms Agreement?
A new nuclear arms race is not inevitable, though. An alternative path is possible. Earlier this year, US President Donald Trump expressed interest in holding nuclear arms control talks with both Russia and China.
Further, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a significant announcement on September 22:
[T]o prevent the emergence of a new strategic arms race and to preserve an acceptable degree of predictability and restraint…Russia is prepared to continue observing the [New START] treaty’s central quantitative restrictions for one year after February 5, 2026.
Following that date, based on a careful assessment of the situation, we will make a definite decision on whether to uphold these voluntary self-limitations. We believe that this measure is only feasible if the United States acts in a similar spirit and refrains from steps that would undermine or disrupt the existing balance of deterrence.
A specific US policy that Putin identified as a concern is the Trump administration’s decision to build an elaborate “Golden Dome” defense system meant to protect the United States from another country’s missile attacks. US missile defense systems have long been a source of anxiety for Russia. In his September 22 remarks, Putin implied that “the practical implementation” of such a system could lead Russia to abandon its commitment to the New START limitations.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov repeated the offer to abide by the New START limitations for another year in a September 27 address to the UN General Assembly. Lavrov emphasized that “the implementation of our proposal will create conditions for avoiding a strategic arms race” but also stressed that the United States must reciprocate and avoid disrupting the power balance between the two nations.
The Trump administration’s response to this Russian offer has been sympathetic but vague. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on September 22 that the Russian proposal sounded “pretty good.” President Trump echoed this sentiment two weeks later, saying the proposal “sounds like a good idea to me.”
These friendly noises have yet to translate into action, though. A September 24 meeting between Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio notably failed to produce any definite agreement on this point.
What You Can Do
American policymakers should accept the Russian offer by also agreeing to abide by New START limits for another year. The unrealistic goal of an ambitious missile defense system should not be allowed to derail such an agreement.
Moreover, agreeing to maintain the New START restrictions need not involve the politically difficult step of abandoning the Golden Dome system altogether. Putin’s word choice of “practical implementation” suggests some flexibility on this point: perhaps planning for the Golden Dome can continue without ever being translated into concrete action.
An agreement to abide by the New START limits for another year is only a stop-gap measure, though. After the United States and Russia reach such an agreement, the two nations must negotiate a new, longer-term nuclear weapons treaty. A new treaty would, at the very minimum, maintain current limits on nuclear weapons and ideally further reduce the number of weapons.
Legislation currently before the US Congress (H.Res 100/S.Res 61) calls for such a new treaty, advocating for “a dialogue with the Russian Federation on a new nuclear arms control framework.” The resolution also calls for “the United States and the Russian Federation to continue to respect the numerical constraints on the strategic deployed nuclear forces established by the New START Treaty until such time as a new nuclear arms control framework is established.”
American citizens can promote current efforts at nuclear arms control by contacting their representatives and senators to urge them to support H.Res 100/S.Res 61. The Arms Control Association provides a convenient guide to communicating with members of Congress on this issue.
Americans can also contact the Trump administration by email or phone (202-456-1111) to urge the president both to reciprocate the Russian offer to follow New START limitations for another year and to pursue further arms control negotiations with Russia.
An uncontrolled nuclear arms race between the United States and Russia would be colossally dangerous. Both countries should take action to prevent such a tragedy.
Another way to advocate against a nuclear arms race is to participate in the Consistent Life Network’s quarterly peace vigil outside the White House in Washington, DC. The next vigil will be on November 2. Please join us!
=======================================
For more of some of John Whitehead’s writings on nuclear weapons, see:
Reasons to Fear, Reasons to Hope: The Nuclear Threat after 80 Years
Persuading People to Act against the Nuclear Threat: Some Findings and Recommendations
The Persisting Threat of Nuclear Weapons: A Brief Primer
Nuclear Disarmament as a Social Justice Issue
A Global Effort to Protect Life: The UN Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons
You can see many more posts on the topic under the “Nuclear Weapons” heading on our page with All Blog Posts.
Orange California Planned Parenthood 911 Calls
by Sarah Terzo
A collection of 911 calls from Planned Parenthood of Orange, California, which took place between 2013 and 2025, shows the organization’s lack of concern about its patients – even those experiencing medical emergencies.
In one 911 recording on February 22, 2013, the Planned Parenthood worker told the operator:
There’s a patient fainting. She was in a wheelchair being transported, and she fell out of the wheelchair, she collapsed, and she’s foaming through [sic] the mouth.
The operator asked if the patient was awake, and the employee replied, “She’s not responsive.”
Then a doctor came on the line and canceled the ambulance. He said he would monitor the patient on his own.
Later that day, staff at Planned Parenthood again called 911, asking them to send an ambulance after all.
The caller told the operator they were “starting oxygen” on the woman. From the recording:
Operator: Is she completely alert?
Planned Parenthood staff: I want to say yes and no; she’s off and on. Again, her blood pressure is dropping.
Operator: Is she breathing normally?
Planned Parenthood staff: Breathing, but again, oxygen is being started.
The rest of the call was redacted.
In a May 9, 2013, call, the Planned Parenthood worker assured the operator that the patient was “awake and breathing normally,” but urged her to send an ambulance “as soon as possible.”
On January 16, 2021, another 911 call was made, due to a “complication of a first-trimester abortion.” In this case, the patient was still sedated when the call was made.
By this time, pro-lifers had accessed several 911 transcripts and were publicizing them. The Planned Parenthood workers became evasive, trying to avoid giving information over the phone.
From a February 13, 2021, call:
Operator: [T]ell me what happened.
Planned Parenthood staff: So, we could give more information as they arrive. To fully brief them when they arrive.
Operator: Okay, I’m sorry, I could barely understand what you’re saying. What’s the medical emergency?
Planned Parenthood staff: For heavy bleeding.
The caller originally wanted to avoid giving information over the phone, but cooperated when the operator asked again.
Another call to 911 on April 5, 2024:
Operator: Okay, tell me what happened.
Planned Parenthood staff: We’re calling because we need to transfer a patient emergently to the hospital for a complication. She is stable. And then we will brief the paramedics once they arrive.
Operator: No, you actually need to tell me, so that I can know what type of equipment to send. What’s the issue with the patient?
Planned Parenthood staff: It’s a pregnancy-related patient.
Again, the worker sought to avoid giving too much information.
The operator asked more questions:
Operator: Is the patient conscious?
Planned Parenthood staff: They mentioned that [the] patient is stable right now.
Operator: Okay. Can you find out if a patient is conscious?
Planned Parenthood staff: Yes, let me check…Yes. Patient is conscious.
Operator: Okay, perfect. What is her age?
Planned Parenthood staff: I don’t have that information right now.
Operator: Is she 10? Is she 20, 30, approximate age?
There is a long pause while the worker tries to find out the injured patient’s age, and then the operator confirms that the emergency is “pregnancy-related” – clearly a euphemism.
In a call on May 31, 2024, the Planned Parenthood worker tried to avoid giving the operator any information:
Planned Parenthood staff: We need to transfer a patient emergently to the hospital for a complication. Right now, she is stable . . .
Operator: And what exactly happened? What’s wrong with her right now?
Planned Parenthood staff: I don’t have the details. The provider is with her, and the doctor will give reports when you guys get here.
Operator: Okay, we need some more information so we know the response to send…Could you check with the doctor and find out the chief complaint, you know, the symptoms that she’s having that she needs to be transported?
Planned Parenthood staff: It’s a pregnancy-related procedure. That’s all the information I have for you.
Operator: Okay, I’ll need some more information, because our response will vary on what’s going on. May I speak to the provider, someone that can give us more information?
On the recording, you can hear the caller asking another person at Planned Parenthood what to say, and that person answering, “Tell her she had a surgical abortion, and she needs to be transferred to the hospital now.”
The worker followed the instructions, and the conversation went on:
Planned Parenthood staff: She had a surgical abortion and needs to be transferred to the hospital now.
Operator: Okay, and does she have any bleeding right now? Do you know if there’s any [inaudible]? Again, it’s our response that’ll change depending on the answer.
Planned Parenthood staff: Yes, we just need paramedics to come now . . .
Operator: I need this information for our paramedics that are responding. I’m happy to get the information from you, or if I can speak to someone else that’ll answer the questions that I have.
The next part of the call was redacted. When the audio starts again, the operator is saying:
Operator: Over a liter right now?
Planned Parenthood staff: About over a liter.
This could be how much the woman is bleeding.
The conversation goes on:
Operator: And how far along was she?
Planned Parenthood staff: I don’t have that information. The doctor will give more detailed reports when the paramedics get here.
Operator: Okay, I do need more information, ma’am, because our response will vary on those answers. So can I speak to the doctor or someone else? … it helps us, on our side, send the appropriate response, because it’s very vague information we’re receiving…
At this point, the original caller gets off the phone and puts on her manager.
Planned Parenthood Manager: Can I help you?
Operator: Hi, this is the Orange Fire Department. We just have to confirm about how far along she was so in our response we know what to send from the paramedics’ end.
Planned Parenthood Manager: You just need to send the paramedics. They’ve come here many times before.
Operator: They’re on their way. First trimester? Second trimester?
Planned Parenthood Manager: First trimester. She’s lost some blood. We would like to transfer her, please.
Operator: I understand. Help is already on the way, but I explained to –
Planned Parenthood Manager: Thank you!
Operator: — the first person, I need some more information. So we are on our way to—
Planned Parenthood Manager: This is not typical for you guys to ask so many questions. That’s why we’re kind of concerned.
Operator: It’s absolutely typical. This is our –
Planned Parenthood Manager: No, it’s not. I’ve had, I’ve done this before.
Operator: Allow me to do my job, okay? We’re on our way. Just have her medication information available, and if anything changes –
Planned Parenthood Manager: We have everything ready.
Operator: – just call me back–
Planned Parenthood Manager: We know what to do.
During this conversation, Planned Parenthood workers showed far more concern about hiding the truth than about their injured patient, who, if she had already lost a liter of blood, was in very serious condition.
We don’t know what happened to this unfortunate woman, but the long delay in summoning an ambulance could have greatly worsened her chances of recovering.
Also notable is the manager’s admission that the paramedics had come “many times before.” Indeed, Planned Parenthood of Orange has a long history of 911 calls and ambulance visits.
In addition to the recordings described here, there have been multiple reported sightings of ambulances at the center and at least one more 911 recording.
A few minutes after the caller hung up from the above 911 call, someone at Planned Parenthood seemed to dial 911 accidentally. The operator came on the line asking questions, but no one responded. However, the call was recorded.
Operator: 911. Emergency. Do you need police, fire, or –
Planned Parenthood Worker: If she did, she said it really softly—
Operator: Hello? 911.
Planned Parenthood Manager: All you have to say is, “Are you refusing to send an ambulance?”
Operator: Hello? Can you hear me?
Planned Parenthood Manager: and she said, “Yes,” and that’s a documented –
Planned Parenthood Manager: I’m sorry, can you hear me? This is 911.
2nd Planned Parenthood Manager: You just need to send –
2nd Operator: Hello. Hello.
Planned Parenthood Worker: Like, if we called and they hung up –
2nd Operator: Hello?
At this point, the call was disconnected.
The managers seemed to be discussing how to avoid giving information to 911 operators in the future.
Many medical complications and 911 calls have been documented at Planned Parenthood centers. This set of calls is especially notable because Planned Parenthood workers seemed more concerned with hiding information from pro-life activists than they were about the well-being of the women they injured. They put their patients at further risk.
=======================================
Documentation:
Problems at Planned Parenthood – a website which follows health violations, malpractice suits, 911 calls, patient deaths, sexual abuse, violating employee rights and patient privacy, racism, and financial ethics for each Planned Parenthood location. It also has hundreds of employee reviews and thousands of patient reviews.
The entire set of videos for Orange California can be found under “Orange”
The page that lists all the 911 calls for the U.S., along with lists for all the other kinds of problems.
For more of our posts on this topic, see:
Grievances against Planned Parenthood: Extensive Documentation
Racism and Planned Parenthood: Documentation
Planned Parenthood Staff Revolt
Medical Dangers, Sex Abuse, Labor Problems, Racism: Documenting Planned Parenthood
Does Planned Parenthood Reduce Abortions by Preventing Pregnancies?
Exposing Injustice Through Graphic Images
by Jim Hewes
Making the Abstract Concrete
We can talk until we are blue in the face, but violence is simply an abstract concept for so many people (in the case of abortion – healthcare, reproductive rights, choice, etc.) Nicholai Berdyaev stated at the beginning of the 20th century:
“The greatest sin of this age is making the concrete abstract.”
Similarly, the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas puts it this way:
“The only thing that really converts people is the face of the other.”
Thus, injustices won’t come to an end if the victims remain hidden and out of sight.
Historical Examples of Graphic Images Driving Social Change
Historically we have evidence of how horrific images at different times throughout the world have impacted societal movements by exposing injustices. Photos can interrupt one’s day and have a certain staying power.
- Photographs of plantation brutality, including graphic photographs of beaten and lynched slaves, helped the anti-slavery movement (like McPherson & Oliver’s photo “The Scourged Back’).
- Images from concentration camps revealed the atrocities of the Holocaust.
- Photographs from Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed the horrific human consequences of atomic warfare.
- The Vietnam War’s haunting image of 9-year-old Phan Thi Kim Phuc fleeing a napalm attack deeply influenced public opinion.
- When a famine breaks out in a country, there begins a campaign against starvation by showing images of malnourished children.
- Photos are shown from DWI or drug fatalities or the ravages of cancer from smoking.
- The brutal murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till in 1955. His open-casket photograph showed his face was beaten beyond recognition, His mother responded: “I want the whole world to see what they did to my boy.”, This stirred civil rights activism; Rosa Parks said the image of Emmett Till gave her the strength to not to move as she had been ordered.
- The photograph of 3-year-old Syrian refugee Alan Kurdi lying lifeless on a Turkish beach with the headline: “If this doesn’t change Europe’s attitude towards refuges, what will?”
Anti-war photographer James Nachtwey, in his 2003 book Inferno, offers powerful photos of people involved in war, as well as famine, and destructive governmental policies or cultures. From the introduction, his comment:
A photograph can enter the mind and reach the power of immediacy. It affects that part of the psyche where meaning is less dependent on words and makes an important more visceral, more elemental, closer to the raw experience.
I want my work to become a part of our visual history, to enter our collective memory and our collective conscience. I hope it will serve to remind us of history’s deepest tragedies concern not the great protagonists who set events in motion but the countless ordinary people who are caught up in those events and torn apart by their remorseless fury.
Graphic Images and the Abortion Debate
Pro-choice feminist Naomi Wolf acknowledges the power of graphic abortion images by stating:
How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted with them, then we are making the judgement that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view is unworthy of feminism. (“Our Body, Our Souls”, New Republic, October 16, 1995).
Photography (including “abortion victim photography”) can be a way to show that someone really matters. It makes concrete that this tragic reality is not just in some distant faraway place, but in our own country and even in our own neighborhood. These pictures draw the viewer into their humanity.
Images such as the April 30,1965 edition of Life magazine, with a photo of a 18-week pre-born child, which Ben Cosgrove (editor of LIFE.com) stated “gained a kind of immortality” along with the June 9, 2003, issue of Newsweek: “Should a Fetus Have Rights? How Science is Changing the Debate.” Such pictures can’t be dismissed as “fake” or “doctored” and move the debate from choice to what is being chosen.
As the Rev. Martin Luther King poignantly stated in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
This point was powerfully demonstrated during the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell when the jury, upon viewing the graphic photo ‘Baby A,’ shifted their perception and impacted the trial’s outcome, according to the understanding of the prosecutor in the case, Christine Weschler (I saw her say so in a presentation on February 27, 2020).
Personal Impact and Testimonies
Former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson experienced a life-changing moment when witnessing an abortion via ultrasound. Horrified by what she saw, she became a committed pro-life advocate, actively helping clinic workers transition to life-affirming careers.
In the DVD Life After Abortion, women revealed how clinic staff often misrepresented ultrasounds, convincing vulnerable pregnant women that their unborn children were mere ‘shells.’ Many women describe how every staff member at all the abortion facilities conveyed to them that there was just a “bunch of cells. If the vulnerable pregnant woman wanted to see the ultrasound, they were persuaded not to view it; if they insisted they showed them a very distorted blurry picture.
Conversely, a Los Angeles pregnancy center that openly shared truthful abortion footage saw 80% of mothers choosing life, affirming the powerful influence of honest visual testimony. They also gave each woman a copy of the video. One year they did a survey of all mothers who chose life, and 80% said that the video was the number one thing that helped them to choose life for their babies. Thus, photos can change “pre-abortion” women if see the truth, instead of hiding the reality of what abortion actually involves
Yet photos might even start a healing path for post-abortive women, especially if it occurs near the anniversary of her abortion or the date when her child would have been born
Some people may feel that you are imposing something on them by showing pictures of pre-born children. But that is reality. There’s a tremendous difference between showing evil and doing evil.
For example, there’s the true story of a girl who yelled and swore during one campus display of pro-life photos. A year later, she revealed that when she found herself pregnant several months later, she couldn’t go through with having an abortion. Even though she hated the pro-life group for showing her the pictures, she couldn’t escape the truth those pictures conveyed. (“Seeing Is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion,” Jonathan Van Maren p. 89)
The Psychological and Moral Power of Visuals
James Clear author of Atomic Habits: An Easy and Proven Way to Build Good Habits and Break Bad Ones highlights the profound impact of vision:
The most powerful of all human sensory abilities, however, is vision. The human body has about eleven million sensory receptors. Approximately ten million of those are dedicated to sight. Some experts estimate that half of the brain’s resources are used on vision . . . visual cues are the greatest catalyst of our behavior . . . for this reason, a small change in what you see can lead to a big shift in what you do. (p. 84)
Research in the Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing further supports the therapeutic and empowering potential of “participatory photography,” confirming visual imagery’s profound influence.
All of this reflects a statement made by famous concentration-camp survivor Elie Wiesel:
“To forget murder victims is to kill them twice.”
As Monica Migliorino Miller affirms that abortion kills real people:
Photos of the aborted pre-born and their public exposure in no way dishonors these children. Abortion kills real people, it assaults the life of a personal someone — a someone whom the very act of abortion meant to keep hidden forever, as if he had never existed. When a graphic image is displayed, it is that child who speaks. The abortion photo is the definitive way that unwanted, discarded unborn children can prove that they lived, that their lives matter, that their all-too-brief existences can impact this world and change it for the better. The photos of abortion victims are the only tangible guarantee they have that their lives, and even their murders, were not in vain. Through their photos the world is stimulated to contemplate the injustice suffered by the aborted unborn — and be aroused to do something about it!
Conclusion: The Necessity of Seeing the Truth
Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life succinctly captures this imperative:
“America will not end abortion until America sees abortion.”
This was true in my own journey in pro-life movement which began 56 years ago after witnessing Dr. Jack Wilkie’s compelling visual presentation of pre-born and aborted children. Thus, today I only deliver pro-life talks that include such visual evidence.
=======================================
For posts on similar themes, see:
Abortion When it Involves a Rape: See the Faces
Seeing War’s Victims: The New York Times Investigation of Civilian Casualties in Iraq and Syria
Seeing the Humanity of “the Enemy”: Movies to Provoke Thought and Discussion
“Choice”: The Word’s Meanings and (Mis)uses
by Ms. Boomer-ang
Society has developed the habit of calling people who support abortion “pro-choice” and people who oppose abortion “anti-choice.” But “pro-choice” is too narrow a term for abortion supporters, and “anti-choice” is too broad a term for me.
”Anti-choice” means a woman has no choice on whether to carry a pregnancy to term, and she must obey orders to abort as strictly as orders to keep the pregnancy. An example of pro-abortion “anti-choice” are supremacist groups that require women to carry to term all healthy babies of purely the “right” race but requires them to abort all “flawed” or “racially impure” babies. By calling me “anti-choice,” they are lumping me with these groups. Some groups might also require all women to abort their first pregnancy, to show they are willing to sacrifice.
Meanwhile, we hear people who call themselves “pro-choice” advocating unrestricted baby-killing but not unrestricted baby-sparing.
If laws and customs were really “pro-choice,” then:
- Any law enshrining the “right” of a pregnant woman to abortion would also enshrine the “right” of a pregnant woman to carry her pregnancy to term.
- Any law specifying the “right” of a dependent to have an abortion against the wishes of her parent or guardian would also unambiguously specify her “right” to carry a pregnancy to term against the wishes of her parent, guardian, or social worker.
- Any law or ruling giving a woman the “right” to abortion against her husband’s will would also unambiguously give her the right to carry a pregnancy to term against her husband’s will.
- Any law or ruling requiring doctors who refuse to abort to give women a list of doctors who will abort her baby would also require doctors who perform abortions or recommend abortion to give women a list of doctors who will support her carrying her pregnancy to term.
- Any law or ruling requiring crisis pregnancy centers to post lists of abortion facilities would also require abortion facilities to post lists of crisis pregnancy centers.
- All measures making things hard for crisis pregnancy centers would make things equivalently hard for abortion providers.
- Any law criminalizing (in some specific circumstances) trying to dissuade a woman from having an abortion would also criminalize (in equivalent circumstances) trying to pressure her to have an abortion.
- Voluntarily carrying to term a pregnancy conceived by an enemy soldier in rape would not be considered treason.
- Treatment to reverse abortion pills would be legal, at least for woman who have been given that pill by fraud.
- Women and girls would not be given abortion pills or morning after pills without their informed consent. Policy Analyst Leslie Corbly observes that “protecting broad open access to abortion pills” protects not choice but coercion.
- Schools, employers, and social service providers would not require women and girls to take morning after or abortion pills. Nor would they allow ridicule of those who refuse them.
- Preference in awards, job promotions, and job hirings would not be given to women who have had abortions and their spouses.
- Any policy providing free abortions would also provide free pre-natal care and free birth for those planning to spare their child’s life.
- Health care providers would not be allowed to electronically sign a woman’s name requesting or agreeing to an abortion without the woman’s knowledge and consent. At least once, when a woman refused to abort a “flawed” baby, an obstetrician called her in for an emergency appointment and presented her with documents agreeing to an abortion, with her signature already added to them, as a fait accompli. (This has implications beyond the abortion issue. Adding signatures electronically without the signer’s knowledge warrants an essay of its own.)
- Women would be able to place babies for adoption, without requiring permission from the biological father. And once finding out about the baby’s birth, the biological father would not be able to get the adoption annulled and make the woman take the baby back.
- Women would not be punished, sued, or criminally prosecuted for carrying pregnancies to term.
- There would be no laws or policies summarily condemning any group of babies to abortion (or infanticide). A September 2025 Google search ran into Artificial Intelligence (AI) claiming “no government or legal system has a policy that forbids a person from carrying a pregnancy to term.” Though this is encouraging, it is not clear if it meant only national central government, regardless of local governments. It is common knowledge that over the past half century, for varying periods of time, some countries had laws and policies against having more than a certain number of biological children or having deformed children. AI claims that (fortunately) maximum family size measures have been rescinded in specific Asian countries, but it acknowledges that some states in India deny or are considering denying government jobs to women who bear more than two children and husbands who stay married to them.
In the US, no state (yet) has a law directly summarily condemning certain babies to abortion, but forced abortions occur on a case by case basis.
In addition, the policies of privately supplied essential programs and services can have feel de facto like laws. Furthermore, identity groups have their own acceptance policies.
Moreover, social pressure is powerful. Legalizing takes away stigma, and taking away stigma increases pressure. In Iceland, pre-natal screening “tests are optional,” but almost 100% of babies found before birth to have Downs Syndrome are aborted. In Denmark, the percent is 98. In the United States, the percent has been reported as only 67% by one source and about 80% by another source, and that might be partially because non-conformity is tolerated more here.
Whose choice do those calling themselves pro-choice want to prevail? The pregnant woman’s always, when she wants to abort, but only sometimes, when she wants to carry the pregnancy to term? Regardless of her financial status, abilities and disabilities, IQ, age, genes, medical needs, family members’ needs, number of already-born live children, and other demographics? Even if she cannot prove long-term devotion to a religious denomination that opposes abortion? Are there cases when they would go along with requiring the woman’s significant others, the biological father, his significant others, social workers, sponsors, and guardians to approve before she can carry a pregnancy to term?
Could the word “choice” be heading to mean the authority to condemn another individual to death? (Even if more than one person has the “right of choice” over the same individual?) The possibility is a reason to use the word cautiously.
Rather than use the word “choice,” one should use more direct descriptions like: “pro-abortion,” “pro-abortion, but only if voluntary,” “pro voluntary and mandatory abortions,” “pro-abortion only when mandated or expected,” “anti-abortion,” and “anti-abortion, while pro giving women support, to help them and raise their children.”
=========================================
See more of our posts reflecting on the meaning of the word “choice”:
When “Choice” Itself Hurts the Quality of Life
No Combat Experience, No Opinion: Parallels in Pro-bombing and Pro-choice Rhetoric
“Trust Landlords”: Pro-Choice Candidate Supports Eviction Rights
Misleading and Distracting Language on Abortion
Is an Embryo More Important than a Woman? /
Grievances against Planned Parenthood: Extensive Documentation
by Rachel MacNair
Years ago, I kept tripping across documents on pro-life sites that indicated a lot of failed health inspections and malpractice suits at Planned Parenthood (PP). We collected a lot of those documents, including ones on women’s deaths, to use on a site called Problems at Planned Parenthood, sponsored by the Problems at Planned Parenthood Committee. We felt a need for a website with a target audience of organizations that refer people to Planned Parenthood. This expanded to donors, journalists, legislators, and researchers – anyone who might be turned off by pro-life rhetoric but would appreciate a facts-only approach. The website organizes the documentation for each individual PP location, since that’s most relevant to referrers.
The problems then expanded, too. Regarding medical issues, we came across a couple of websites that featured dispatch recordings for 911 calls. On non-medical problems, we collected documents and mainstream news stories and book excerpts on: sexual abuse, racism, employee rights, financial ethics, and patient privacy.
Then we also collected thousands of Google, Yelp, and Indeed (employee) reviews, along with some from a medical patient platform called DocASAP. We’re currently working on a new site, Glass Door, which offers employee reviews.
Employee rights was a topic where we got more information from non-prolife sources. Union-busting is the kind of topic that not all pro-lifers might notice, but left-leaning publications certainly do. And those who refer may find that a good reason to stop. As far as I’m concerned, any honest reason to not refer is good enough – and mistreating workers is actually quite a good one.
There have been several times when I thought we were close to being finished with the main body – just needing constant updates as new things happened. But then I’d come across another extensive set of problems.
This happened this summer when I found a law service, Trellis, where I could put “Planned Parenthood” in the search and find a huge number of lawsuits where PP was the defendant. Between the ones where Trellis had the documents and those where they gave case numbers so we could get the documents from court clerks, we’ve added over a hundred new cases. They’re mainly malpractice suits and labor complaints, with a handful on large data breaches and financial improprieties.
Now we went from having some malpractice suits, mainly but not all on abortion, to having 75+ cases. The page of lists now puts them in categories, since there are so many.
And the majority don’t have to do with abortion. We find them failing to diagnose several ectopic pregnancies, then also fibroids, polyps, actual age of pregnancy, and cervical cancer. There are complications from IUDs, implants, a vasectomy, Depo-Provera, and even diagnostic tests. Uterine and bowel perforations were usually but not always due to abortions. There was one case where they left toxins out in the vicinity of a toddler.
Why?
Why are there so many problems that involve callousness and insensitivity? Reasons that come to my mind:
- Participating in the killing of human beings and the deception of their mothers and families that frequently accompanies that lends itself to other forms of not being mindful of morality. This is the kind of explanation that hops to the mind of many pro-life activists.
- It’s a large corporation with an intense interest in making money and influencing public policy for its financial and ideological benefit. We notice similar cold-heartedness in many industries, especially among military contractors, polluting companies, and nuclear weapons manufacturers. This is often the first explanation that comes to mind with labor problems, and is generally put forth by leftist publications that decry the union-busting and the employee mistreatment upon which the desire for a union is based.
- Planned Parenthood attracts the kind of people who want there to be fewer people in the world (in some cases, fewer Brown and Black people) based on the belief that “overpopulation” is a problem. If that’s a major goal, then care in patient outcomes isn’t so important as long as the outcome means no baby.
- People who engage in killing are traumatized by those acts of killing. I’ve done a lot of work in the psychology of Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress. Symptoms include emotional numbing and outbursts of rage, and evidence for both of those are found in these documents.
Why is This Important?
Two big reasons.
One is the original motivation for the website: people who refer or donate to Planned Parenthood are already generally immune to pro-life arguments, but they may pay attention to issues that they also regard as problems. Therefore, a facts-only approach offering documentation coming from official channels is going to be more persuasive. It won’t matter to solid PP supporters, but for those who just thought that PP had a fine reputation and so was one of several places they refer to, and they can easily decide otherwise and take it off the list, it can be effective. People who donate to a list of organizations can decide to prioritize their money elsewhere.
The other reason is to shore up the psychology of the “Great Switch.” When abortion came on as a juggernaut industry and Planned Parenthood was growing, people had a conundrum. This contradicted the idea that we’re a noble and virtuous people. Since people in general aren’t willing to give that up, they conclude that increasing abortion must fit with that, and so they buy the pro-abortion arguments.
But now the switch: abortions are banned in many states, and Planned Parenthood is shrinking. That shrinking, when defined by the number of medical centers they run, has actually been going on since the 1990s. But it’s picked up the pace, and bids fair to do so more as the one-year federal defunding kicks in. At least, they’ve said so. The 200 centers they cite as possibly closing, which would be over a third of their total, I suspect to be an exaggeration to get supporters riled up. But there are still likely to be many.
There’s a running tab of centers closed or closing soon starting in 2020 on CLN’s project website on Grassroots Defunding:
Temporarily & Permanently Closed PP Centers – Finding Alternatives to Planned Parenthood
So first we need to document how PP is shrinking, which that one page does, and then we’ll find people more receptive to hearing the reasons why. After all, the behavior no longer contradicts the idea that we’re a noble and virtuous people. In fact, if worded right, it reinforces that we are.
So the idea that the reason PP is falling apart is a natural consequence of its many problems bolsters the case that PP should fall apart.
That will make the decline happen a little more quickly. And it will make that decline more solid and permanent. In the long run, we want people to be happy to see it go.
==============================================
See also:
The Consistent Life Network project website:
Grassroots Defunding: Finding Alternatives to Planned Parenthood
The home page and the page that’s basically the index of the website above is:
Problems at Planned Parenthood
Explanation of Problems and Lists of Planned Parenthood Centers
The explanations page also includes pdfs of compilations of the patient and employee reviews on the topics of medical dangers, racism, employee rights, and financial ethics.
There is also a book version, which organizes with chapters by type of problem rather than by center. A pdf is available online:
Problems at Planned Parenthood Book (pdf)
This is currently the first edition. The second edition is coming out soon and will be about half again as big as the first.
Some of the states with more material will also have their own pdf books. We have plans for some of those to be printed as books and hand-delivered to state legislators.
Anyone who wants to help with that delivering, or who has other ideas of how to promote the information, or has more information on problems that can be added, can contact Rachel MacNair at info@problemsatplannedparenthood.org. Or comment below.
How Abortion Doesn’t Address Women’s Real Problems
by Jim Hewes
Many abortionists (Dr. Malcom Potts, Dr. Frasier Fellows, Dr. Willie Parker, etc.) claim that the reason for doing abortions is to help women.
For example, Dr. Kathi Aultman stated: “performing an abortion, I was doing something for the wellbeing of women.” (Written Testimony of Kathi A. Aultman, M.D. FACOG, November 1, 2017 House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice H.R. 490, the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017).
She stated that she stopped doing abortions because she saw that abortion was not truly helping women (including the tiny developing women within in the womb).
Real-Life Stories
A woman wrote a letter to the newspaper sharing her experience: “I had an abortion because I had no job, no transportation, and was living in my parents’ basement.” After the abortion, she still had no job, still had no transportation, and was still living in her parents’ basement. The abortion was an attempt for a “quick fix,” which did not address her real underlying needs.
In fact, if she had connected with a crisis pregnancy center (according to a Charlotte Lozier’s Pregnancy Center Report there are more than 2,752 pregnancy centers across the United States), she would have found practical support. The staff would have helped her address her fears and work though them, knowing she was not alone. In addition, they could have helped her find a job or job training, possibly helped her find adequate transportation, find affordable housing, had a baby shower for her, and/or made available “mentoring moms,” who would have supported her in all sorts of ways. With this support, she might have thrived despite her challenging circumstances. What she truly needed was not an abortion, but practical help and a new perspective.
Consider another actual case: a single mother of several children facing an unexpected pregnancy. She lived in a small apartment and was behind on her rent. She was also behind payment on a storage unit which held many valuable possessions. She was on the brink of being evicted, and the owner of the storage unit was going to toss all of her items.
Fortunately, she connected with a crisis pregnancy center which quickly mobilized resources; a donor paid for her overdue rent, including the storage unit. The center connected her with an ob/gyn doctor. She experienced an ultrasound of her baby. A local parish organized a baby shower. She continued to receive ongoing support during this seemingly crushing situation. She then gave birth to her baby and was delighted with this new member of her family. If she had gone through with the abortion, it wouldn’t have addressed any of her seemingly overwhelming problems. She may have remained still feeling alone and very isolated, with the added burden of the abortion.
Another valuable resource is “Walking with Moms in Need”. This involves parish outreach ministries, where many women in unexpected pregnancies have found all sorts of support, including financial aid and caring people to accompany these vulnerable women in so many other ways as they face such difficult circumstances.
Many vulnerable pregnant women face housing insecurity. Abortion doesn’t help them find safe and affordable housing for keeping their child, but there is housing available in the many wonderful maternity homes throughout the United States. Women also have the loving option of adoption, blessing both their child and couples longing to grow their families.
Research Evidence Supporting Life
Research further underscores this reality. A peer-reviewed study in the journal Cureus by David Reardon, Katherine Rafferty and Tessa Longbons found that 60% of post-abortive women surveyed testified that they would have continued their pregnancy if they had had more financial security and/or more emotional support from others.
Conclusion
Abortion provides a temporary illusion of relief without addressing the underlying issues women face. Real solutions—practical, emotional, and financial support—truly empower women, offering them the chance for a fuller, more hopeful life for themselves and their children. With increasing abortion restrictions and the current defunding of Planned Parenthood, whose main focus is abortion, this approach is more needed than ever.
It’s an illusion that killing one’s child will actually help women. There are more life-giving alternatives, which will in the end truly benefit vulnerable pregnant women.
In fact, in many cases an unexpected or untimely pregnancy can actually end up as a catalyst to addressing underlying problems and eventually bring about practical solutions, which can offer the person a chance for a fuller life than before the pregnancy.
====================
For more of some of our posts from Jim Hewes, see:
Death Penalty and other Killing: The Destructive Effect on Us
Consistent Life History: Being Across the Board
Reflections from My Decades of Consistent Life Experience
The Consistent Life Ethic: My Christian Perspective
Abortion and Other Issues of Life: Connecting the Dots
A Personal Reflection on a Just War
Abortion and the Christian Bible: A Consistent-Life Perspective
Abortion When it Involves a Rape: See the Faces
Mourning the Dead and Protecting the Living: Remarks from the August 9th Peace Vigil
Our quarterly peace vigil against nuclear weapons fell on August 9th, the 80th anniversary of the US bombing of Nagasaki. The vigil was an occasion both to mourn all those killed by the nuclear weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and to call for action against the threat posed by nuclear weapons today. Below is a selection of remarks and readings from the vigil.
Marie Dennis
From remarks by Consistent Life Network endorser Marie Dennis, of the Catholic peace organization Pax Christi International:
Marie Dennis
For moral arguments to change the opinion of political decision-makers will require a sustained effort by communities of faith to develop synergy between nonviolent activism (like this [vigil]) and “insider (realpolitik) negotiations for policy change.”
Religious institutions, including the institutional Catholic Church, need to develop collaborative strategies with faith-based peace movements like Pax Christi, plowshares activists, peace fellowships, all of us—to help politicians hear and heed the demands of ordinary people for an end to the nuclear nightmare…
It is time to replace the logic of violence in which we are mired with a new logic of nonviolence, opening the space for creative, life-giving alternatives; training us for active love and healing rather than for fear and killing; providing solid ground for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Pope Francis said, “The consistent practice of nonviolence has broken barriers, bound wounds, healed nations” (letter from Pope Francis to Cardinal Blase Cupich, April 4, 2017). Nowhere is this transformation more desperately needed than in freeing the world from the terrifying threat of nuclear weapons.
Many years ago, Jesuit peacemaker Rev. Richard McSorley, SJ wrote, “The taproot of violence in our society is our intention to use nuclear weapons. Once we have agreed to that, all other evil is minor in comparison” (Rev. Richard McSorley, SJ, “It’s a Sin to Build a Nuclear Weapon,” U.S. Catholic, 1976). Consent to the presence of nuclear weapons in our world not only accepts the risk of a nuclear conflagration in the future, but also undermines the ethical foundations for the common good here and now.
Judy Coode
Judy Coode of Consistent Life Network member group Pax Christi Metro DC-Baltimore read from the Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech of Hiroshima bombing survivor Setsuko Thurlow:
Judy Coode speaking
I was just 13 years old when the United States dropped the first atomic bomb, on my city Hiroshima. I still vividly remember that morning. At 8:15, I saw a blinding bluish-white flash from the window. I remember having the sensation of floating in the air.
As I regained consciousness in the silence and darkness, I found myself pinned by the collapsed building. I began to hear my classmates’ faint cries: “Mother, help me. God, help me.”
Then, suddenly, I felt hands touching my left shoulder, and heard a man saying: “Don’t give up! Keep pushing! I am trying to free you. See the light coming through that opening? Crawl towards it as quickly as you can.” As I crawled out, the ruins were on fire. Most of my classmates in that building were burned to death alive. I saw all around me utter, unimaginable devastation.
Processions of ghostly figures shuffled by. Grotesquely wounded people, they were bleeding, burnt, blackened and swollen. Parts of their bodies were missing. Flesh and skin hung from their bones. Some with their eyeballs hanging in their hands. Some with their bellies burst open, their intestines hanging out. The foul stench of burnt human flesh filled the air.
Thus, with one bomb my beloved city was obliterated. Most of its residents were civilians who were incinerated, vaporized, carbonized – among them, members of my own family and 351 of my schoolmates.
In the weeks, months and years that followed, many thousands more would die, often in random and mysterious ways, from the delayed effects of radiation. Still to this day, radiation is killing survivors . . .
To the officials of nuclear-armed nations – and to their accomplices under the so-called “nuclear umbrella” – I say this: Listen to our testimony. Heed our warning. And know that your actions are consequential. You are each an integral part of a system of violence that is endangering humankind. Let us all be alert to the banality of evil . . .
When I was a 13-year-old girl, trapped in the smoldering rubble, I kept pushing. I kept moving toward the light. And I survived. Our light now is the [Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons]. To all in this hall and all listening around the world, I repeat those words that I heard called to me in the ruins of Hiroshima: “Don’t give up! Keep pushing! See the light? Crawl towards it.”
Lauren Pope
Lauren Pope of member group Rehumanize International read from The Crazy Iris and Other Stories from the Atomic Aftermath, an anthology of stories remembering the bombings of Japan:
Lauren Pope
We hadn’t heard a single bomb drop, we hadn’t seen a trace of an enemy plane. The sky had been perfectly peaceful . . .
Nearly all the people had burned clothing and they walked along in files like ants.
Had they been burned by the flames from the sky? I wondered. I was convinced then that what I had seen in the moment in the factory had indeed been some kind of “fire from heaven.”
Since I knew so little about the geography of the city, I decided to walk in the direction of the green hills I could see in the distance.
The overhead wires that the trolley cars ran on were plastered all over the streets like cobwebs and people with bare feet were stepping over them. Some brown-colored animals – whether dogs or cats I couldn’t tell- lay tumbled by the road.
Everything had been burned! I thought. Everything had a brownish color. Even the asphalt on the street had turned the color of an old frying pan.
- From “Human Ashes” by Katsuzo Oda
Jack McHale
Jack McHale of Pax Christi Metro DC-Baltimore read this poem by the late Daniel Berrigan, SJ, a Consistent Life Network endorser:
Jack McHale
SHADOW ON THE ROCK
by Daniel Berrigan, S.J.
At Hiroshima there’s a museum
and outside that museum there’s a rock,
and on that rock there’s a shadow.
That shadow is all that remains
of the human being who stood there on August 6, 1945
when the nuclear age began.
In the most real sense of the word,
that is the choice before us.
We shall either end war and the nuclear arms race now in this generation,
or we will become Shadows On the Rock.
Our thanks to all the member groups and other organizations who co-sponsored this event: the Dorothy Day Catholic Worker, Pax Christi Metro DC-Baltimore, American Solidarity Party of DC-Maryland, Rehumanize International, Pax Christi USA, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, Little Friends for Peace, the Isaiah Project, the Assisi Community, the Norfolk Catholic Worker, and the Hampton Roads Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
Reasons to Fear, Reasons to Hope: The Nuclear Threat after 80 Years
by John Whitehead
The nuclear threat is now 80 years old. Nuclear weapons became a reality with the first successful test of a nuclear weapon, the Trinity test, in New Mexico on July 16, 1945.
These weapons’ ability to destroy human lives and societies was demonstrated with horrific clarity a few weeks later when two American-made nuclear bombs were used against two Japanese cities: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. How many people were killed by the two bombings remains unclear to this day: one post-war estimate put the number of people killed in the bombings and their near aftermath at roughly 100,000; later estimates put the number at roughly 200,000. By either estimate, though, the bombs were unambiguously devastating.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY
As the United States and other nations built more nuclear weapons, these weapons would go on to destroy lives through their production and testing. Nevertheless, since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have never again, to date, been used in wartime to destroy cities or other targets.
For 80 years now, a war fought with nuclear weapons has been a real possibility. Over these years, humanity has lived with the knowledge that nuclear war, if it ever occurred, could kill unprecedented numbers of people, cause catastrophic genetic and environmental damage to our world, and ultimately destroy humanity. Everything humans have been or have built over hundreds of thousands of years could be wiped out in a matter of hours by nuclear weapons.
This anniversary year, which marks eight decades since the invention of nuclear weapons, is an apt time to reflect on the nuclear threat. What is the status of the threat today, and what does this mean for all of us?
Reasons to Fear
A survey of the world in 2025 gives significant reasons to fear that a nuclear war might occur. The number of nations that possess nuclear weapons has grown from the original one, the United States, to include eight other nations: Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. Many of these nuclear nations are mired in deep conflicts that could escalate to the nuclear level.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has set the United States, Britain, and France against Russia. During the war, in the fall of 2022, when the Russian invaders were losing ground to a Ukrainian counter-attack, American officials reportedly feared Russia might resort to nuclear weapons. Russia did not use nuclear weapons at that time, but as the war continues, the possibility of their future use remains.
US-China relations have been tense for years. Against this backdrop of international tension, China may be building more nuclear weapons, perhaps in an attempt to deter the United States or gain more influence in the world. The ongoing rivalry, aggravated by nuclear competition, could someday flare up into nuclear conflict.
India and Pakistan have been adversaries since their founding and have fought multiple wars. As recently as this past May, hostility between the two nuclear-armed nations broke out into open military conflict before thankfully being stopped by a ceasefire. The next outbreak of hostilities might not end that way, though.
North Korea’s fractious relationship with South Korea and the United States is another potential flashpoint for nuclear conflict. Even conflicts involving states that do not yet possess nuclear weapons raise ominous questions: Will the recent bombing campaign by Israel and the United States against Iran lead Iran to make an all-out effort to build nuclear weapons? If so, what will a Middle East with multiple nuclear weapons-armed states mean for the future?
Amid this array of conflicts and tensions, the network of international treaties meant to limit and regulate nuclear weapons has been unravelling for years. The United States, under President George W. Bush’s administration, decided to leave the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which had limited this potentially destabilizing technology.
More recently, during President Donald Trump’s first term, the United States left the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, which had abolished a particular type of nuclear weapon. The New START Treaty limiting US and Russian nuclear weapons is set to expire in February 2026, and renewal of the treaty is far from likely. The legal barriers to an unrestrained nuclear arms race between the United States and Russia are falling away.
Given all these circumstances, a recent decision by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a group that has sounded the alarm about nuclear weapons almost since their invention, makes sense. The Bulletin has long provided regular assessments of nuclear and other dangers to humanity. These assessments are visually represented by a “Doomsday Clock”: the graver the Bulletin assesses global dangers to be, the closer the clock is set to midnight. This year, the Bulletin set the clock at 89 seconds to midnight.
Reasons to Hope
The current dire conditions make pessimism or even despair tempting. Such responses would be mistaken, though, because the dangers today are only part of the story.
More important than any of the disturbing events or trends above is the central, inescapable fact that we’re still here. Humans still exist, and we still have the power to shape future events.
Further, the time that has passed since nuclear weapons were invented is a sign of hope. For eight decades, we have lived with the power to annihilate ourselves—and we have not done it. In the past, we have been through crises and tense periods as serious as what we are facing today, during which nuclear war was highly probable. Yet we did not fall into the abyss. We did not start a nuclear war.
The history of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union offers a clear example of how nuclear dangers can be averted. In the early 1980s, combined US and Soviet nuclear weapons arsenals numbered almost 70,000. Given the extraordinary hostility between the two nations, the idea of major reductions in nuclear weapons seemed absurd. Nuclear war between the two nations seemed far more likely.
Nevertheless, within a few years after this period of extreme danger, the Cold War effectively ended. The United States and the Soviet Union (and then its successor state Russia) began radically reducing their nuclear weapons down to roughly 8,000 weapons combined.
Granting that current nuclear weapons arsenals still pose a serious threat, we should not overlook the extraordinary accomplishment of these earlier weapons reductions. What had been a ridiculous dream became a reality in less than a decade.
Humans’ 80 years of survival since the invention of nuclear weapons should not be a cause of complacency. We need to work against the nuclear threat today.
However, these years of survival and past accomplishments, such as earlier nuclear weapons reductions, are a crucial reminder that catastrophe is not inevitable. The mere fact that nuclear weapons were invented and used in 1945 does not mean we are doomed to use them again in the future.
Other signs of hope are the efforts made by so many people all over the world to reduce or end the nuclear threat. A global campaign created the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which prohibits the use or even possession of such weapons. Ninety-four nations have signed the treaty, which demonstrates that a huge section of humanity is not prepared simply to accept the ongoing threat from nuclear weapons.
Within the United States, the Back from the Brink Campaign is working to reduce the nuclear threat by advocating for policy changes that will make nuclear war less likely. Many of these policy recommendations have been incorporated into legislation currently before the US Congress: H.Res 317 in the House of Representatives and S.Res.323 in the Senate. American citizens can take action by urging their representatives and senators to support these resolutions.
These initiatives, together with the larger fact of humanity’s survival, should encourage us. The nuclear threat today is grave and requires a response. We should support efforts to respond to the threat.
We should act now to ensure that we can continue, 20, 50, and 100 years from now, to celebrate humanity’s survival. We should act now so that one day we can look back on the nuclear threat as a threat we have overcome.
=========================
The Consistent Life Network will be co-sponsoring a peace vigil outside the White House in Washington, DC, on August 9, the 80th anniversary of the Nagasaki bombing. Please join us as we remember the lives destroyed by nuclear weapons and advocate for peace in our world. If you would like to attend, contact John Whitehead at jwwhiteh@yahoo.com.
=========================
We have an extensive list of posts on nuclear weapons, which you can find under that category All Blog Posts
Raising Lifelong Defenders of Dignity: Teaching the Next Generation the Consistent Life Ethic
by Nathanial John
Editor’s note: Nathaniel is a Christian writer and so writes from that perspective, but many of the comments will also apply to people from other traditions.
You can learn a lot about a society by listening to what it protects.
We live in a world that shouts loudly about rights—but often falls silent when it comes to the dignity of the voiceless. Whether it’s the unborn child, the poor family in a war-torn region, the elderly person with no advocate, or the wrongly incarcerated—we have a growing habit of dividing life into “worthy” and “inconvenient.”
For those of us raising or teaching young people, the question isn’t just what we believe—it’s what we’re passing on. Are we giving the next generation a piecemeal ethic? Or are we handing them a complete vision—a consistent, compassionate conviction that every life matters, from beginning to end?
Welcome to the Consistent Life Ethic (CLE)—not just a theory, but a call to live, parent, and educate with holy integrity. This article isn’t just a roadmap; it’s an invitation to raise youth who don’t just react to headlines but live by a deeper principle: that all human life is sacred, and no one should be discarded.
What Is the Consistent Life Ethic, Really?
The CLE isn’t a political movement. It’s not a slogan. It’s a lens—a way of seeing people.
Coined by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin in the 1980s, the Consistent Life Ethic affirms the sacredness and interconnectedness of all human life. It challenges us to speak with one voice against abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, war, systemic poverty, racism, and every other force that devalues or destroys human beings.
It’s not about picking one issue that stirs our passion and ignoring the rest. It’s about being consistent. If we believe life is valuable, we must protect it—everywhere it’s threatened.
And that’s not easy in today’s world.
Why This Matters More Than Ever
Young people today are growing up in a world full of contradictions. They’re told to “stand for justice,” but justice often gets fragmented by partisanship. They’re told to “believe in equality,” but some lives are treated as expendable.
If we want to raise kids who are more than activists—who are advocates with a moral compass—we need to help them understand life issues not as isolated controversies, but as a deeply connected moral vision.
Making It Real: Teaching the Interconnectedness of Life Issues
This isn’t about dumping all the world’s problems on a child. It’s about helping them see people through God’s eyes. Here’s how:
1. Use Real Stories, Not Just Arguments
Instead of opening with a political debate, open with a name. A face. A story.
- The teenage mother who is wrestling with an unexpected pregnancy.
- The veteran who is struggling with trauma and homelessness.
- The prisoner on death row who met Jesus and changed—but may never be free.
When you teach through human stories, you show that life issues are people issues. And that’s what touches the heart.
2. Connect the Dots with Curiosity
Help kids and teens ask better questions:
- Why are people more likely to choose abortion when they’re poor or unsupported?
- How does racism affect access to healthcare or housing?
- Why do some people feel like death is more dignified than life?
These questions don’t just educate—they form empathy. And empathy is the starting point of every lasting conviction.
3. Use Scripture as a Compass, Not a Weapon
If teaching from a biblical perspective, let the Bible shape the worldview, not just back it up. Verses like:
- Micah 6:8 – “Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly . . .”
- Psalm 139 – “You knit me together in my mother’s womb.”
- Matthew 25 – “Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for Me.”
Show them that God cares not just about the start of life, but the whole of life.
Raising Advocates, Not Just Opinion Holders
Let’s be honest—most teenagers aren’t looking to be theologians or politicians. But they are looking for something real to live for.
Here’s how to inspire them:
1. Give Them a Reason to Care
Talk about justice not as a cause, but as a calling. We’re not raising “pro-lifers” or “social justice warriors.” We’re raising peacemakers. Whole-hearted, courageous defenders of life and dignity.
Let them see how this ethic transforms everything:
- The way they treat the kid at school who’s different.
- How they view addiction, mental illness, or poverty.
- How they think about war, forgiveness, and mercy.
2. Help Them Take Action, Not Just Take a Side
Help youth translate conviction into compassion:
- Start a “Dignity for All” campaign at school or church.
- Volunteer at shelters, soup kitchens, or pro-life clinics.
- Write letters to leaders or make art that speaks truth to culture.
Teach them that change doesn’t always roar. Sometimes it whispers through kindness, consistency, and courage.
Tools for the Journey: Resources for Parents and Educators
You don’t have to figure it out alone. Here are some resources to support you:
🧠 Learning Materials
- Consistently Pro-Life: The Ethics of Bloodshed in Ancient Christianity by Rob Arner – Theological and practical introduction to CLE.
- “Pro-Life Kids!” by Bethany Bomberger – A colorful, age-appropriate picture book.
- Youth Education: CL Kids! , a project of the Consistent Life Network, offers several resources.
📲 Websites
- Consistent Life Network – Articles, advocacy tools, and events.
- Rehumanize International – Especially great for youth-led initiatives.
- Students for Life – Strong on student activism with a pro-life focus.
🎧 Podcasts & Media
- Peace & Life Conversations – from the Consistent Life Network
- Many more can be found through searches on YouTube.
A Better Way Forward
Raising children with a Consistent Life Ethic doesn’t mean giving them all the answers. It means giving them eyes to see—really see—every person as someone with inherent worth, or in theological terms, made in the image of God.
It means teaching them that human dignity doesn’t come from usefulness, popularity, or perfection—but from the God who created us.
In a world full of contradictions, we can raise a generation that’s consistent. Not perfect, but principled. Not loud, but rooted.
And maybe—just maybe—these kids we teach today will be the ones who finally break the cycles of violence, division, and dehumanization.
Because once you truly believe every life matters . . .
You start living like every life matters.
===============================
For more of our posts about educating, see:
Two Practical Dialogue Tips for Changing More Minds about Abortion
Dialog on Life Issues: Avoiding Some Obstacles to Communication