Thursday, November 17, 2011


Marie is a freshman at the University of Rhode Island where we set up the Genocide Awareness Project on November 7 & 8. Her shirt says "Rape Victim Pro-Life."
I also was on the GAP team at the James Madison University in Virgina during the previous week.

Friday, September 16, 2011

The Last Three Weeks

During the last three weeks I've been with the Genocide Awareness Project at Liberty University, Radford University, the U of TN in Chattanooga, and the U of TN in Knoxville. The photo is from Radford. The girls left and middle are sisters from Haiti. At Liberty, GAP was modified, as we were not actually on campus but on the perimeter. Debbie, on the right, is a volunteer for the Center for Bioethical Reform that puts on GAP.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Hunt's Press Statements Reacting to the Helpful Newly Enacted 'Woman's Right to Know Act'

Primary Statement
Abortion destroys an unborn child, a unique, individual human life, and this is what makes abortion difficult for women. Many pregnant women feel pressure into aborting a child by their circumstances, by parents, by the father of the baby, or by their own needs and goals They are nudged along by deceptive and incomplete counseling at the abortion centers, which stand to profit though abortion. The new law gives women every opportunity to know all the facts about abortion and how they can let their babies live. It will inform them about how they can find a better solution to their situations, even if they already have made a decision—because even after a woman walks into the clinic door, it’s not too late for her to change her mind.

Most arguments against the Act are arguments for abortion, especially in the hard cases. If you believe abortion only eliminates a ball of cells or if the “fetus” is not fully human or not a person, you would think it bad to add “burdens” to a “simple, safe medical procedure.” But really, the bill is pro-choice. Why do “pro-choice” people oppose the bill? Maybe they’re not being honest—pro-choice may only be a useful slogan that they do not mean sincerely. Maybe the political pro-choice viewpoint really is pro-abortion. The Act occupies a morally absurd place where the State of North Carolina will make it easier for a pregnant woman to know that abortion destroys an unborn child at same time she retains the choice to destroy her unborn child, legally.

Overall Social Effect
The WRTK Act represents a transition from “abortion on demand” to “abortion under advisement” which is what some countries in Europe now have. Germany, for example, requires a three day waiting period after government specified counseling—far more intensive than the WRTK Act. Because of its past record on human rights, Germany understands the interest and role of government in protecting human life.

Arguments and Counter Arguments

There is the factor that the free standing abortion clinics in North Carolina do not provide an ordinary long-term relationship with a doctor. In Asheville, for example, at the abortion place on Orange Street, a woman does not get her own appointment. She arrives at the same time as a half dozen other women, and people are escorted inside the waiting room only after a security check. She stays four hours and leaves, maybe coming back for a checkup at a later time. Many people drive from out of town, even from out of state. An abortionist is not usually a woman’s personal doctor.

Planned Parenthood has four abortion centers in NC and all the other PP centers in NC do abortion referral. The other day, I looked at the website of PP of Central NC and when I checked to see what information it offered on abortion, it had a link to the PP Federation of America. I was amazed to see how much PPFA fudged the truth about the risks of abortion and the facts about pre-natal human development.

For example: PP says on its website, “The ball of cells develops into an embryo at the start of the sixth week.” That’s entirely misleading because the embryonic stage begins at fertilization, and a human embryo at six weeks is far more developed than a ball of cells.

Planned Parenthood’s assertions about the medical and emotional risks of abortion range from oversimplified to untrue.

This is why we need the Woman’s Right to Know Act: to protect women from the unethical, deceptive practices of Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses in North Carolina.

A Planned Parenthood advertisement that said it aborts children up through the 20th week in three of its North Carolina clinics. The 20th week! It's murder.

One abortion place in Asheville that closed in 1998 was at the outskirts of Biltmore Village. This place was the pits. It was surrounded by RR tracks. The waiting room was a bridge over a dirty creek. It had peeling roofing material for siding. Had bars and broken windows in the back. The abortionists drove up from Tennessee or South Carolina. I remember catching Dr. James Oliver sneaking down the RR tracks to let himself in by the back gate. He was wearing a U.S. Customs hat and pretended to be RR security. He worked at a Catholic hospital in South Carolina where he had pledged to give up abortion. They had no admitting privileges in a local hospital. The local abortion doctors at “Femcare” tried to close this place down because they were seeing women in the emergency room who had been hurt there. Some of the abortion places in NC are of the same sleazy type.

It’s true that certain basic information is required to be offered, but that in no way prohibits a doctor from presenting it in ways that are appropriate to the hearer, and addressing the woman about her own personal situation.

The Woman’s Right to Know Act requires the use of all of appropriate medically accurate information and likely will reduce the “need” for abortion as women better understand their unborn children and all the resources available to them.

For (pro-abortion-choice) information on the requirements of other states, see:

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Americans United for Life's Investigative Report on Planned Parenthood

Go to:

One item from the report's Executive Summary:
"Willingness to provide women with inaccurate and misleading information. Some Planned Parenthood affiliates continually demonstrate a disregard for women’s health and safety through their willingness to provide inaccurate and misleading information regarding fetal development and about abortion’s inherent health risks."

To a Student at Shanghai American School on "Abortion as Genocide."

This letter is a continuation of our correspondence. The student is writing as part of an AP Language class. It began with an essay of hers in response to one of mine and one of Cathleen Kaveny, professor of law and theology at Notre Dame.

Dear Emily,

I appreciate the tone of your discussion. You might be interested to know that one of my sons, who was 18 at the time, spent last spring semester at the City University of Hong Kong and also traveled some on the mainland of China while he was there.

The original context of the [my] essay that appeared in the Opposing Viewpoints Series was a university student newspaper where I was answering specific criticisms, which limited the scope of the points I made.

A fundamental issue surrounding abortion is personhood. One similarity between abortion and more recognized atrocities such as genocide is the denial of personhood status to human beings. I think that you will find it almost universally accepted in the scientific/medical world that an individual human life begins at fertilization. The controversy centers on the philosophical/political question of when a human being becomes a person. “Pro-life” people say that a human being at whatever stage of development is a person, while “pro-choice” people make a variety of claims but generally say that a human being does not become a full person with a legal right to life until “viabilty” or birth.

Citing possible positive outcomes does not solve the ethical issues of personhood because one could also find such outcomes for the Holocaust, as an example. The creation of the State of Israel as a sanctuary for Jewish survivors was one positive result, and as morally absurd as it sounds, the Holocaust reduced the overall instance of crime among the Jewish populations, which had a net effect on crime.

(In any case, the positive outcomes you referenced, and the research are certainly contested. See, for example, . )

I would like to address the other specifics that you mentioned, but time is limited, so I offer a referral to two books that represent the best pro-life apologetics I know, both by Francis J. Beckwith, a professor of philosophy and church-state studies at Baylor University. The books are: Politically Correct Death: Answering Arguments for Abortion Rights and Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice.

Both books, and editorial summaries and reviews, can be found at . One item Beckwith raises is a difference between artifactual and biological development. An artifact, like a clock or a rocket, is put together piece by piece and is not functional as such until it is complete. A living being, however, begins all at once and in time its self-directed development shows us what it has been all along.

A final comment: I don’t think any word is adequate now to describe all that abortion is. “Foeticide” has as weakness the common use of the word “fetus” to dehumanize pre-natal human life. Fetus does not specifically apply to human beings, but to any mammalian species. Maybe we will just have to wait for someone like Raphel Lemkin, someone with a passionate intellectual interest in the law and in words combined with an overwhelming personal interest in the terribleness of the Holocaust, since most of his relatives were murdered. And perhaps we will have to wait for more of a consensus against abortion, since it’s not the words themselves that have power, but the weight we give to them.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

WRTK Summary

The NC General Assembly may soon attempt to override Governor Perdue's veto of the Woman's Right to Know Act (WRTK), HB 854. The GA needs only one additional vote in both the House and Senate. Basically, WRTK requires a 24 hour waiting period and the informed consent of a woman before “an abortion can be performed.”

Except in a medical emergency, the information that must be made available by phone or in person 24 hours in advance are:

-The name of the physician.
-Medical risks of abortion.
-Gestational age of the unborn child.
-Medical risks of carrying the child to term.
-Ultrasound images or sound of the heartbeat are available.
-If the physician has malpractice insurance.
-The location of the hospital within 30 miles that offers OB/GYN care and at which the physician has clinical privileges. If he does not, that must be made known.
-Medical assistance benefits for pre-natal care, childbirth, and neonatal care
-Public assistance benefits
-The father is liable for child support payments even if he offered to pay for abortion
-The woman has alternatives to abortion available, including adoption and keeping the baby.
-The woman has a right to view printed materials or information online that describe the unborn child and list agencies that provide alternatives to abortion.
-The woman has the right to withdraw her consent at any time before or during the abortion without the losing the right of future care and state or federal benefits.

The other significant requirement is that an ultrasound scan of the baby must be made at least four hours prior to abortion and the woman can look at the images and listen to the fetal heart tone as well as listen to a simultaneous description of the baby, if she wishes.

This is a link to the text of the ratified bill (HB 854):

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Saturday, July 2, 2011 on Orange Street. 8:00 AM. The abortion site was closed for the 4th holiday. These flowers are next door at Catholic Social Services.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Harry Blackmun

The back side of Harry Blackmun's gravestone says,
"Humility Integrity Compassion Courage." Photo taken May 2, 2011 at Arlington National Cemetary.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Cecil Bothwell

Bothwell is an escort at the abortion site Femcare in Asheville. We say,
"deathscort" and "femkill." He posed for this photograph, taken in April, 2011.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

GAP at Kennesaw State, November 8 & 9, 2010

Some of the foot and pedal traffic.

The girl in the green jacket.

Some kind of officers.

One half of a conversation.

GAP at UTK, November 16 & 17, 2010

One moment in the busy foot traffic passing the display.

Friday, April 22, 2011

Representative Susan Fisher: "Overkill"

Interview with NC Representative Susan Fisher of Buncombe County

On The Morning Report with Jerri Jamison of WWNC, April 22, 2011

The relative section on HB 215, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, begins at about 6 minutes and 07 seconds.

Jamison: "The unborn violence act has been through both chambers, it’s now waiting for the governor’s signature. Any thought on whether or not she’s gunna sign it. Do you know?"

Fisher: “I really don’t know. Ah, but, ah . . . I just want to say that, ah, I think that is a case where we are looking at, ah, a bit of, if you will, overkill. Ah, we know that if someone is murdered by another person and you can prove that, that they’re going to be punished, and, ah, they’re gunna likely to have a very, ah, a very, stiff sentence . . . death, possibly. And this, just sort of compounds that and I think it also opens the door to looking at questions of, ah, women’s choice. I think we have to look at that in light of this legislation.”

Representative Fisher, who voted against the measure,* demonstrates how extreme the classic “pro-choice” position is. If a pregnant woman is against abortion, if she believes that what is in her womb is a person, a child, and if she is attacked either with intent to destroy the child or not, that child, from the “pro-choice” perspective, should not have a right to life, should not have a right to protection under the law. In the “pro-choice” universe, that wanted and loved child—that possibly named child, that pre-born child who can inherit property under North Carolina law—should have no legal protection whatsoever.

Fisher says that if a woman is murdered, there will be a stiff sentence, but what if the woman is only punched hard and the baby dies?

Overkill? She said overkill? Abortion is overkill. “Pro-choice” is overkill.

For the text of the ratified bill, HB 215, go to:

*Final passage in the NC House came at a vote of 77-40. In the NC Senate it was 45-4 with our own Martin Nesbitt voting “nay” with the other three. Patsy Keever of Buncombe County also voted against the measure as did Phillip Haire of Jackson, Macon, Swain, and Haywood counties. (Do the people in those counties know this about Haire?)

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

The Genocide Awareness Project, University of Kentucky, April 6 & 7, 2011

Notice how the students are looking, and they are probably thinking also.

Class change. Note how all heads are turned in the distant group of students on the left. (Click on any photo if you want to see a larger image.)

My role at GAP is Onsite Manager. Also, when the opportunity arises, I enjoy philosphical discussions as well as talking about the relationships between abortion and genocide. Taking photographs . . . I do that as well.

I'm not sure if this medical student understands the full message of the visuals, her with the images behind.

Another photo of traffic in this location during class changes. The images are an ongoing argument that people will remember. We are criticized, sometimes with exuberant emotion, for using "pathos" rather than reason. As those critics illustrate, emotion is important--really it is essential--for decision making. I myself first opposed abortion only after seeing gruesome images at the Clark County fair (WA State) in 1972. Later I developed a rational framework for the position and only much later I became active. The purpose of GAP is to move people a step toward being more pro-life, wherever they may be on the spectrum. Be sure to see the next two blog postings for more photos of GAP at UK.

Conversations at UK GAP

Two observers who . . .

. . . came closer to talk.

This fellow walked around the display several times one afternoon. His sign said, "Quit using abortion as an insurance policy for your irresponsibility." He was not connected with the Genocide Awareness Project.

Fletcher Armstrong, SE Director of the Center for Bioethical Reform is speaking to a class.

Below: Sean, President of UK Students for Life.


Planned Parenthood had a table both days not far from the GAP display.

Also, PP and the Gay/Straight Alliance held a rally outside of the Student Center on the second day. Their crowd wasn't this large the whole time. One of their participants was a large fellow who had bellowed and cackled madly at us at the GAP display. He also bellowed and roared at the open air preacher. I suggested to the GSA girl that they try to talk him down.

Here is the open air preacher right next to the PP rally. He and the rally people often dueled with their loudspeakers. The girl with the GSA sign told us three times that she appreciated the quiet respectful tone of GAP. I pretty much agreed with everything the preacher said, but I felt that he was not communicating with his audience. On a college campus I think it is better to explain rather than proclaim.

Traffic passing the PP rally AND one of our 3x4 handheld "Choice" signs.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

A Blast from the Past, As They Say

Just as stories like this about the failed bomb in Asheville will never have not existed, the children who have been killed at "Femcare" over the many years will always have existed.

Monday, April 18, 2011

"Let's Call a Truce" (That is, You lose.)

In response to a 4/14/11 editorial "Abortion debate is a stalemate" in the Eastern Progress, the newspaper of Eastern Kentucky University, I posted the following comment: nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn 'Neutrality between neutrality and non-neutrality is impossible. This editorial is a work of art. It begins with an appearance of neutrality, of impartially, of reasonableness, and then step by little step ends in the classic pro-abortion choice position! It's a work of art, but as a work of philosophy and rational thought, it's . . . well, it's not elegant at all. If abortion is a moral grey area; if the discussion/debate can never be settled; if we never can know when an individual human being begins, and if we as a society are not willing to live with knowingly allowing women to abort children who they consider to be unwelcome occupants of their womb, then wouldn't it be morally required to error on the side of humanity and prohibit abortion? Is it morally acceptable for a contractor to level a building if there is any chance a child is in that building? Is it enough for a workman to say, "Well, its grey . . . dark inside and I looked around, but I couldn't see too good. Some of us say there's a child inside and some say not. Let's stop bickering and bring her down. After all, the owner is the only one who can make that decision and he wants it done. The company ought to make a contribution to some historical preservation society so we don't have to blow up so many buildings." No. That would not be morally (or legally) acceptable. The demolition company must have absolute certainty that there are no children, or any people, in the building. So, if abortion indeed is grey and uncertain, shouldn't we prohibit it and take care of women another way until we know better? Because if the anti-legal-abortion people are right, if we are not just crazy, extreme kooks with a need to control women, if an individual human being (a person) begins at fertilization, then we as a society have already blown up millions upon millions of children.' nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
We were at EKU with the Genocide Awareness Project on April 4 & 5. To see the editorial, go to:

Monday, March 28, 2011

"You Are the Definition of a Sadist"

An anonymous person online wrote the following about me recently: "You are a delightful example of the doublethink/doublespeak. Do you want smaller government, less oversight, more personal responsibility or do you want more legislation, more laws, larger government to enforce your personal beliefs? Which is it? What you want is an America shaped in your image and yours alone. You do not care how contradictory it is, you do not care what the population wants, you do not care what science has proven. Just admit it and recognize that your vision of America is not the only one. Roe v. Wade is the law. If you do not like abortion, I suggest you avoid it. But, claiming you want smaller government and at the same time want to make sure every pregnancy comes to term is ridiculous. It will require a hugely increased government and budget to educate, hose, feed, provide medical and help these unwanted children, not to mention the pain, suffering, sadness, hunger, abuse and desperation they will experience because of your naivety. You are the definition of a sadist, deriving personal pleasure from cruelty imposed upon others."

Friday, March 25, 2011

Submitted Today as a Letter to the Editor to the Asheville Citizen-Times

French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently said:

"With our partners, especially our Arab partners, we will move to protect the civilian population from the murderous folly of a regime that, by killing its own people, has lost all legitimacy. We are intervening to allow the Libyan people to themselves choose their destiny. They cannot be deprived of their rights through violence and terror."

Our own nation is killing its own people by abortion, violence that kills pre-born children. Our government—local, state, and federal—protects the killing through police force, issues permits to kill as medical licensure, recognizes the killing to be a “constitutional right,” and supplements the funding of the largest killer in the nation, Planned Parenthood.

If Sarkozy’s moral reasoning is correct, has not our regime lost all legitimacy?

Monday, February 14, 2011

Focus on the Family & Common Ground?

Submitted to the Focus FB page: Thanks for this (2/11/11) broadcast that I heard online today. However, I was disturbed by the idea of “sitting down” with pro-legal-abortion people to save what children we can this year. This is a very murky notion ethically/spiritually and should not be undertaken without careful counsel. I myself have been at the outside edge of such conversation with abortion practitioners, one that was featured in a 2007 Time magazine cover story (See,9171,1590444,00.html) From my perspective, there was some good that resulted from seeking “common ground,” but at terrible costs in the long run, one effect being, essentially, an abandonment by the pro-life participants of their efforts to eliminate legal abortion altogether. And they (some of them) stopped their support of those of us engaged in sidewalk counseling and prayer presence at abortion places. Our best course rather is to save those children we can, and let the abortionists and abortion supporters join us if they will.