If the abortion industry has one goal, it is simple: reach her first.

Before a young woman ever walks through the doors of a Pregnancy Center, she has likely already been bombarded with abortion ads on social media, search engines, streaming platforms, and even her own school campus. The abortion industry spends millions of dollars every year ensuring that vulnerable women know exactly where to find them.

The question is: Does your community know where to find you?

Too many Pregnancy Centers are doing life-saving work every single day while remaining the best kept secret in town. We faithfully serve clients, provide hope, offer practical support, and save lives—but if the women who need us don’t know we exist, our impact is limited before it ever begins.

Visibility is not about self-promotion. Visibility is about mission fulfillment.

Building visibility starts with strong partnerships:

Church Partnerships
Every church in your community should know who you are, what you do, and how to connect women and families to your services. Pastors, youth leaders, women’s ministry directors, and small group leaders should be among your strongest advocates.

School Partnerships
Students are making life-changing decisions every day. When schools invite trusted speakers, educators, and community resources to engage students, Pregnancy Centers have an opportunity to become a known and trusted resource before a crisis occurs.

Recently, I spoke in four high schools in the Texas Panhandle. In every assembly, I mentioned the local Pregnancy Center and encouraged students to know where they could find help. In fact, I do this in every school where I speak because students need to know there are people in their community ready to support them with compassion and hope.

Community Partnerships
Your local Pregnancy Center should be visible at community events, festivals, health fairs, business gatherings, civic organizations, and neighborhood celebrations. Relationships build trust, and trust opens doors when women need help most.

As you plan your fall banquet, gala, fundraising event, or community outreach, ask yourself a simple question:

What are we doing to ensure our community knows who we are and what we do?

A successful event isn’t just about raising funds. It’s about raising awareness.

How many new churches will hear about your ministry?

How many teachers, coaches, healthcare providers, business leaders, and community influencers will learn about your services?

How many people will leave your event prepared to become ambassadors for life in your community?

Lives are changed when women know where to turn before they make a decision they can never take back.

The abortion industry is working every day to reach her first.

Let’s make sure she knows there is another voice, another option, and another place to find hope.

Let’s make sure our Pregnancy Centers are never the best kept secret in town.

For info on bringing Pam to your community visit www.pamstenzel.net

A recent article from Live Action highlighted a troubling contradiction within the abortion industry. On one hand, abortion advocates insist women are incapable of understanding basic pregnancy facts. On the other hand, they expect those same women to diagnose their own pregnancies, determine gestational age, rule out life-threatening complications, and manage a chemical abortion alone at home.

Think about that for a moment.

The abortion industry frequently argues that women need abortion because they are vulnerable, confused, and unable to navigate the challenges of pregnancy. Yet when it comes to the abortion pill, women are suddenly expected to become their own physician, ultrasound technician, emergency room triage nurse, and pathologist—all without an in-person medical evaluation.

That is not healthcare.

No responsible physician would prescribe powerful medications capable of ending a human life and causing significant bleeding without first confirming the location and age of the pregnancy. An ultrasound can detect ectopic pregnancies, establish gestational age, identify multiples, and reveal other conditions that could place a woman’s life at risk. Skipping that step is not compassionate care; it is substandard care.

Women deserve informed consent.

They deserve to know the risks, the alternatives, the warning signs of complications, and the reality of what will happen to both their bodies and their babies. Instead, many are being handed abortion drugs through telehealth appointments or mail-order services with little or no physical examination. As the abortion industry continues to promote “no-test” abortions, it is asking women to assume risks that would never be tolerated in almost any other area of medicine.

Imagine if a doctor prescribed chemotherapy without diagnostic testing. Imagine receiving heart medication without an exam, lab work, or imaging. We would call that malpractice. Yet somehow, when it comes to chemical abortion, basic medical safeguards are dismissed as unnecessary.

Why?

Because the goal is not comprehensive healthcare for women.

The abortion pill business model is built on convenience, volume, and profit. The fewer medical professionals involved, the fewer appointments required, and the less follow-up provided, the greater the financial return. Women bear the risks while corporations collect the revenue.

And we cannot ignore the most important reality of all.

The purpose of chemical abortion is not healthcare. Its intended outcome is the death of a developing human being. Every abortion pill regimen is designed to end the life of a baby before expelling that child’s remains from the mother’s body.

Women deserve better than being told they are strong enough to handle a medical event alone in their bathroom but too uninformed to understand the humanity of the child growing inside them.

Women deserve physicians who put their safety first.

Women deserve full information before making life-altering decisions.

Women deserve ultrasounds, medical oversight, and genuine healthcare.

And every child deserves the chance to live.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/big-abortion-mixed-messages-womens-pregnancy-knowledge

When a woman faces an unexpected pregnancy, she will often encounter pressure.

Parents may have opinions. Friends may offer advice. A boyfriend may make his wishes known. Financial concerns, educational goals, and relationship challenges can all weigh heavily on her decision.

Pressure is real.

But pressure is not the same thing as coercion.

That distinction matters.

In our culture, these terms are often used interchangeably, but they are very different. A woman may feel pressure from circumstances or from the opinions of others. Coercion, however, occurs when someone uses threats, force, intimidation, or abuse to compel a woman to make an abortion decision against her will.

A boyfriend who says, “I don’t think we should have this baby,” is expressing an opinion.

A boyfriend who says, “Have an abortion or I’ll hurt you,” is committing coercion.

A parent who expresses concern about the future is not coercing.

A parent who threatens to throw a daughter out of the house unless she aborts may be engaging in coercive behavior.

And someone who secretly administers abortion drugs to a pregnant woman without her knowledge or consent is not merely coercing—he is committing a criminal act.

This distinction is critical because every woman has the right to make pregnancy decisions free from threats, intimidation, violence, or deception.

Coercion Is Illegal

No one has the legal right to force a woman into an abortion decision.

Threats, intimidation, violence, and other forms of coercion are not protected expressions of opinion. They cross the line into abuse and, in many circumstances, criminal conduct.

Women who are experiencing coercion should know:

• You have the right to continue your pregnancy.

• You have the right to refuse an abortion.

• You have the right to seek protection from threats and abuse.

• You have the right to report coercive conduct to law enforcement.

• No boyfriend, spouse, parent, employer, trafficker, or family member has the legal right to force your decision.

The Justice Foundation provides information and resources regarding coercive abortion and legal protections for women facing threats or intimidation:
CAFA - The Justice Foundation

A Growing Concern: Abortion Pill Poisoning

The Abortion Pill Rescue Network has recently reported an increasing number of contacts involving women who believe they may have been given abortion-inducing drugs without their knowledge or consent.

This is not simply pressure.

This is not persuasion.

This is not a disagreement about pregnancy options.

It is an allegation of poisoning and assault against a pregnant woman and her unborn child.

Because of these growing reports, Heartbeat International has launched resources specifically for women who suspect they may have been exposed to abortion drugs without their knowledge or who are facing coercion related to abortion decisions.

Women who believe they have been poisoned or are being threatened into an abortion should seek immediate help.

Immediate Resources

Suspected Abortion Pill Poisoning
https://abortionpillreversal.com/suspect-poisoning

Abortion Pill Reversal and Emergency Help
24-Hour Helpline: 877-558-0333

https://abortionpillreversal.com/

Additional Resources for Women Facing Coercion or Threats
https://abortionpillreversal.com/additional-resources

Legal Resources Regarding Coercive Abortion
https://thejusticefoundation.org/cafa/

Every woman deserves to know that she is loved, valued, and not alone.

An unexpected pregnancy may bring fear, uncertainty, and difficult challenges, but those challenges should be met with compassion and support—not threats, intimidation, abandonment, or violence.

The women we serve do not need coercion. They need hope. They need practical help. They need people willing to walk alongside them and remind them that both they and their children have value and worth.

When pressure becomes coercion, we must protect women from abuse. When women face unintended pregnancies, we must surround them with the compassion, resources, and support they deserve.

The Victimhood Narrative Will Never End Abortion

One of the most frustrating realities in the abortion debate is the insistence that women must be viewed exclusively as victims.

According to this narrative, women are never moral actors. They are always acted upon.

If a woman has an abortion, she was pressured.

If she regrets it, she was traumatized.

If she doesn’t regret it, she was deceived.

If she chose it willingly, someone else must have manipulated her.

And because she is presumed to be a victim in every circumstance, she must bear no moral responsibility for the decision.

As a woman, I find this deeply offensive.

Why is it that when the conversation turns to abortion, women suddenly lose the moral agency that we are expected to exercise in every other area of life?

Are women incapable of resisting pressure from a boyfriend?

Are women incapable of standing up to a husband?

Are women incapable of saying no to parents, employers, or friends?

If a woman can choose a career, raise children, vote in elections, sign contracts, run a business, serve in the military, and hold public office, why is she suddenly incapable of making a moral choice when it comes to abortion?

The answer is simple: because our culture has embraced a worldview that elevates victimhood above responsibility.

Today, personal trauma has become a form of social currency. Entire generations have been taught that the highest virtue is not courage, accountability, or repentance—it is victim status.

To be clear, suffering is real.

Coercion is real.

Abuse is real.

Trafficking is real.

Many women are pressured toward abortion by boyfriends, husbands, parents, employers, and even medical professionals.

I have spent more than three decades working with women facing crisis pregnancies. I have sat across from women who were terrified. I have listened to heartbreaking stories of manipulation and abandonment.

But acknowledging that coercion exists is not the same thing as claiming that most women who have abortions are coerced.

I repeatedly hear claims that “60% of women are coerced into abortion.”

Where is the evidence?

I’ve asked for it many times and have yet to see credible data supporting such a sweeping assertion.

What I do see is a talking point being used to support a larger claim: that women should be viewed as victims first and moral actors second.

The problem is that this narrative doesn’t reduce abortion.

It increases it.

When society tells women they are victims rather than moral agents, it removes responsibility from the decision.

And when responsibility disappears, so does accountability.

For more than fifty years, the mainstream pro-life movement has often advanced the message that women are victims of abortion while abortionists are the true perpetrators.

The intention was compassionate.

The result has been disastrous.

By insisting that women are always victims, we unintentionally reinforced the idea that abortion is somehow different from every other act of intentional violence.

We created a category of homicide in which the person who authorizes or causes the death bears no responsibility whatsoever.

That message has not ended abortion.

It has normalized it.

If abortion is merely something that happens to women, then women do not need to reject it.

They simply need better circumstances.

They need more resources.

They need more support.

They need more education.

While all of those things are valuable, none of them address the central issue.

Abortion is not ultimately a resource problem.

It is a moral problem.

And moral problems require moral solutions.

The irony is that the victimhood narrative also undermines the very healing it claims to provide.

True healing never comes from denying responsibility.

True healing comes from acknowledging truth.

Every ministry leader who has worked with post-abortive women knows this.

The women who experience genuine freedom are not the women who spend decades insisting they did nothing wrong.

The women who find peace are the women who eventually confront the reality of what happened, grieve it honestly, repent where repentance is needed, receive forgiveness, and discover that God’s grace is bigger than their sin.

The Gospel has never worked any other way.

Grace is not the denial of guilt.

Grace is the answer to guilt.

If there is no sin, there is no need for a Savior.

If there is no responsibility, there is no repentance.

And if there is no repentance, there can be no genuine healing.

This is why the victimhood narrative is ultimately cruel.

It offers comfort without truth.

It promises healing without repentance.

It tells women they are powerless while pretending to empower them.

Women deserve better than that.

Women are not children.

Women are not perpetual victims.

Women are moral beings created in the image of God.

We possess the ability to make choices, for good or for evil.

We possess the ability to resist pressure.

We possess the ability to act courageously even when doing so is costly.

And because we possess moral agency, we are also capable of repentance, forgiveness, redemption, and transformation.

A culture that denies moral agency will never end abortion.

A movement that denies moral agency will never end abortion.

If we truly believe women are strong, intelligent, and capable, then we must stop pretending they have no responsibility in the most consequential decision they will ever make.

The path to ending abortion is not found in expanding victimhood.

It is found in restoring truth, responsibility, accountability, and grace.

Because only people with moral agency can choose life.

For many in the pro-life movement, the decision felt painfully familiar.

Another lawsuit.
Another emergency appeal.
Another temporary stay.
Another “wait and see.”

And meanwhile, abortion pills continue crossing state lines by the thousands every single day.

This moment should force the pro-life movement to confront an uncomfortable truth: if our strategy depends primarily on courts, regulations, and political compromise, then we are building on shifting sand.

The legal fight matters. Laws matter. Elections matter. But if the last several years have taught us anything, it is this: a movement built only on regulating abortion will eventually lose to a culture that still refuses to recognize the humanity of the child.

Dobbs Did Not End Abortion

When Roe v. Wade was overturned, many believed the nation had reached a turning point. Yet abortion did not disappear. In many places, it expanded.

Today, abortion is increasingly detached from clinics altogether. Chemical abortion now accounts for the majority of abortions in America, and mail-order distribution has become the new frontier.

A teenage girl can order pills online in secrecy.
A trafficked woman can be coerced into taking them.
A frightened college student can terminate her pregnancy alone in a dorm bathroom.
A woman can hemorrhage at home with no medical supervision.

And because abortion is now being reframed as merely “healthcare” or “medication management,” the humanity of the child disappears even further from public consciousness.

This is the unavoidable consequence of a movement that spent decades arguing over privacy rights, state authority, viability standards, and regulatory frameworks while often failing to insist on the most foundational truth:

The unborn child is a human person deserving of equal protection under the law.

If They Are Persons, Everything Changes

Every major victory for abortion advocates depends on one underlying assumption: that the unborn child is not legally recognized as a person.

Without personhood, abortion becomes negotiable.
Without personhood, courts balance “rights.”
Without personhood, legislatures regulate killing instead of prohibiting it.
Without personhood, judges ask procedural questions instead of moral ones.

The pro-life movement has often accepted this framework without realizing it.

We fought for parental consent laws.
Waiting periods.
Ultrasound requirements.
Clinic regulations.
Gestational limits.

Some of those laws saved lives, and many were pursued with sincere compassion and courage. But none addressed the central injustice: the denial of personhood to the child.

No other class of human beings would be treated this way.

We would never argue that toddlers deserve “some protections after 15 weeks.”
We would never say a teenager may be intentionally killed if proper consent forms are signed.
We would never accept laws merely regulating the circumstances under which violence against born children occurs.

Yet for decades, much of the movement settled for incrementalism because personhood seemed politically impossible.

Now we are watching the consequences unfold in real time.

The Courts Will Continue to Fail

The current mifepristone litigation proves how fragile a court-centered strategy really is.

One federal court restricts mail-order abortion drugs.
Another court pauses the restriction.
The Supreme Court temporarily restores access.
The case goes back down again.
Then likely back up again.

Meanwhile, abortions continue uninterrupted.

Even if pro-life litigators eventually win portions of these cases, abortion advocates have already decentralized the industry. Pills are stockpiled. International suppliers exist. Shield laws protect abortion providers across state lines. Telehealth networks are deeply embedded.

You cannot regulate your way out of a civilization that no longer believes unborn children are persons.

And courts—by design—reflect the moral assumptions of the culture around them.

Yet We Must Serve in the Reality We Have

Recognizing this failure does not mean retreating from the battlefield.

Quite the opposite.

Those of us serving women every day in pregnancy centers, maternity homes, churches, sidewalk ministries, and post-abortion recovery programs must deal honestly with the world as it actually exists right now.

Mail-order abortion drugs are here.
Women are taking them alone.
Complications are real.
Fear is real.
Isolation is real.

And while courts deliberate, women bleed.

That means the mission before us is urgent.

We must expand compassionate intervention.
We must educate women on the physical dangers and emotional trauma associated with chemical abortion.
We must offer Abortion Pill Reversal to women who regret taking the first drug and desperately want another chance.
We must prepare churches and pregnancy centers to respond compassionately to chemical abortion trauma and miscarriage management.
We must provide practical care, grief support, medical referrals, housing assistance, father engagement, and long-term discipleship.

This is not theoretical anymore.

The abortion industry has moved into women’s homes.
So the rescue movement must move there too.

Compassion and Conviction Must Stay Together

Some activists fear that emphasizing personhood sounds too “extreme.”
Others fear compassionate outreach sounds too “soft.”

Both are wrong.

Truth without compassion becomes political rhetoric.
Compassion without truth becomes surrender.

The child in the womb is a person.
The frightened mother is also a person.

A truly pro-life movement refuses to abandon either one.

That means we reject the lie that women are enemies.
Most women seeking abortion are afraid, abandoned, pressured, misled, or desperate. The abortion industry profits from that fear while offering isolation as empowerment.

The answer is not condemnation.
The answer is courageous love anchored in truth.

The Future of the Pro-Life Movement

The pro-life movement now stands at a crossroads.

One path continues the cycle of lawsuits, temporary injunctions, narrow regulations, and political bargaining while abortion technology advances faster than legislation can keep up.

The other path insists clearly and unapologetically that every unborn child is a human person entitled to equal protection under the law.

That path will cost more.
It will sound more radical.
It will invite criticism from both political parties.
But it is the only intellectually honest foundation for lasting justice.

And while we labor toward that goal, we must simultaneously serve women living in the painful reality of unrestricted abortion pill access today.

The courtroom matters.
The legislature matters.
But neither can secure justice while the law itself refuses to answer the most important question: Who is the child?

If the unborn child is merely “potential life,” then every protection will always be temporary, negotiable, and vulnerable to the next court ruling, election cycle, or pharmaceutical workaround. But if the child in the womb is a human being from the moment of fertilization—whole, living, genetically distinct, and created in the image of God—then justice demands more than regulation. Justice demands recognition.

Human rights do not begin at viability.
They do not begin at birth.
They do not begin when a mother feels ready.

They begin when a human life begins.

And science has already answered that question.

From fertilization, there exists a new and unique human being—not part of the mother’s body, not a “potential” child, but a child with his or her own DNA, sex, blood type, and developmental trajectory. Every argument for abortion rights ultimately depends upon denying the personhood of that child.

That is why the battle before us is not ultimately about pills, politics, or court procedures. It is about whether our nation will continue to deny legal protection to an entire class of human beings because they are small, dependent, and unseen.

No civilization can remain just while declaring that some human lives are persons and others are not.

And so we continue the work before us:
to rescue,
to serve,
to love,
to intervene,
to offer hope to frightened mothers,
and to proclaim without apology that every child—born and unborn—is fully human and fully deserving of protection under the law.

Until America recognizes the personhood of the unborn from the moment of fertilization, every legal victory will remain fragile, and every generation of children will remain at risk.

A child in the womb is a human being.

Not potentially human.
Not becoming human.
Not valuable only if wanted.
A human being — created in the image of God — from the moment of conception.

If that is true, then another truth must follow:

Human rights do not come from government.
They come from God.

The right to life is not granted by legislatures, courts, or voters. It is a God-given right recognized in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Constitution itself through the guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.

And yet today, in the aftermath of Dobbs, the greatest conflict inside the pro-life movement is not between pro-life and pro-abortion advocates.

It is between those who are willing to fully apply what we say we believe — and those who are afraid to.

The Twelve Spies

In Numbers 13, God had already promised Israel the land of Canaan. The victory was not hypothetical. It was not uncertain. God Himself had declared:

“Send some men to explore the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites.”

Notice that carefully.

God did not say if He would give them the land.
He said He was giving it to them.

The spies entered the land and all twelve saw the same thing. They saw abundance, blessing, and evidence of God’s promise:

“We went into the land to which you sent us, and it does flow with milk and honey! Here is its fruit.”

But ten of the spies became consumed with fear. They saw giants. Fortified cities. Political obstacles. Powerful enemies.

And because they looked at the obstacles more than they looked at God, they concluded obedience was too dangerous.

Only Joshua and Caleb responded differently:

“We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it.”

Later they pleaded with Israel:

“Only do not rebel against the Lord. And do not be afraid of the people of the land… the Lord is with us. Do not be afraid of them.”

The issue was never whether giants existed.

The issue was whether God’s people would trust God enough to obey Him anyway.

The Giants in Today’s Pro-Life Movement

Today, the pro-life movement stands at its own Joshua and Caleb moment.

For decades, the establishment prolife organizations have fought abortion primarily through incremental restrictions:

• gestational age bans

• parental notification laws

• clinic regulations

• heartbeat bills

• exceptions for rape and incest

• trafficking exceptions

• waiting periods

Many of these laws saved lives. Many people involved were sincere. Many sacrificed greatly in a hostile culture when defending life was deeply unpopular.

That history should be honored honestly.

But now we face the defining question:

Do we actually believe unborn children are persons entitled to equal protection under the law?

Because if they are persons, then abortion is not merely a medical procedure to regulate.
It is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.

And governments have no moral authority to authorize the intentional killing of innocent persons.

That is why growing numbers within the movement are calling for what should have been demanded from the beginning:

• recognition of personhood from conception

• equal protection under the law

• constitutional recognition of the unborn child’s right to life

• abolition of abortion, not merely its restriction

And yet many of the largest and wealthiest pro-life organizations are actively opposing these efforts.

Not because they deny the humanity of the unborn.
But because they fear the giants.

“We Don’t Have the Votes”

Listen carefully to the modern language of the ten spies.

“We don’t have the votes.”
“Republicans won’t support it.”
“It’s too politically risky.”
“It’s not the right time.”
“The courts won’t accept it.”
“We need to be pragmatic.”
“We can only pass what is politically possible.”

Establishment ProLife organizations have repeatedly opposed Equal Protection bills, often arguing that women should never face criminal penalties for abortion and that such legislation would politically damage the movement.

Their concerns are not imaginary. The political opposition is real. The media hostility is real. The cultural backlash is real.

The giants are real.

But the ten spies also acknowledged reality. They saw fortified cities and powerful enemies. Their failure was not recognizing the giants. Their failure was allowing fear to become greater than obedience.

Joshua and Caleb were not denying reality.
They were refusing to let fear define reality.

A Family Fight Becoming Increasingly Bitter

One of the saddest realities of this current conflict is that both sides are increasingly caricaturing each other instead of listening carefully.

Some opponents of Equal Protection legislation portray abolitionists as people who:

• hate women

• want women executed

• want retroactive punishment

• care more about punishment than compassion

Those accusations are often exaggerated and unfair.

Most Equal Protection advocates are not driven by hatred for women. Many are motivated by a sincere conviction that equal justice under law should apply to every human being, including unborn children. Many also believe legal accountability should be handled with the same due process, standards of evidence, mitigating circumstances, and prosecutorial discretion that apply in every other area of law.

At the same time, some abolitionists and Equal Protection advocates have unfairly portrayed incremental pro-lifers as people who:

• do not really believe abortion is murder

• secretly support abortion

• only want abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare”

• care more about politics than babies

Those accusations are also often unfair.

Many incremental pro-life leaders have spent decades fighting abortion, sacrificing reputations, careers, finances, and political capital to save children and support mothers. Many genuinely believe gradual legal progress saves lives and is the wisest path forward.

This matters because truth is rarely served by demonizing sincere people.

But sincerity alone cannot settle the question.

The real issue is not whether either side cares about babies.
The real issue is whether the movement will ultimately live consistently with its own stated beliefs.

Equal Protection Is the Logical Conclusion of Pro-Life Belief

If an unborn child is a person, then equal protection is not radical.

It is required.

The Fourteenth Amendment declares:

“No State shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The central question is not whether unborn children are valuable.
Most pro-life organizations already affirm that.

The real question is whether unborn children are persons.

And if they are persons, then refusing to protect them equally under the law creates a contradiction at the heart of the movement itself.

We cannot simultaneously say:

“This is a child.”

while also saying:

“But we cannot legally protect this child like every other child.”

That inconsistency is precisely why the abolitionist and equal protection movements continue growing.

Not because they are extreme.
But because they are logically consistent.

Fear Masquerading as Wisdom

Numbers 14 reveals something sobering.

Fear eventually disguises itself as wisdom.

Israel began to call retreat “prudence.”
Disobedience became “strategy.”
Returning to Egypt became “safety.”

The people literally preferred captivity to trusting God for victory:

“Wouldn’t it be better for us to go back to Egypt?”

That is the danger facing the pro-life movement now.

When political caution becomes more important than moral clarity, fear begins masquerading as wisdom.

When we say abortion intentionally kills a human child but oppose equal protection for that child, we create a contradiction the culture can see plainly.

And every year we delay full recognition of personhood, children continue to die.

Joshua and Caleb Were the Minority

Joshua and Caleb were not the majority.
They were not politically popular.
They were nearly stoned for speaking the truth:

“But the whole assembly talked about stoning them.”

But God vindicated them because they followed Him fully.

Scripture says of Caleb:

“Because my servant Caleb has a different spirit and follows me wholeheartedly, I will bring him into the land…”

History often turns because a faithful minority refuses to surrender truth to fear.

The abolition of slavery did not begin as the politically safe position.
Neither did civil rights.

And the full recognition of unborn personhood may not begin as the majority position either.

But moral truth does not wait for polling numbers.

The Time Is Now

There will always be giants.
Always reasons to wait.
Always strategists explaining why obedience is impractical.

But eventually every movement must decide whether it truly believes its own message.

If unborn children are persons, then equal protection is not optional.
If the right to life comes from God, then government cannot morally deny that right to an entire class of human beings.
And if God is just, then His people cannot permanently settle for half-measures when innocent lives are being destroyed.

The pro-life movement is standing at Kadesh Barnea.

One path says:
“The giants are too large.”

The other says:
“God has already spoken.”

Joshua and Caleb understood something the others forgot:

Faith is not denying the existence of giants.
Faith is believing that God is greater than them.

At the center of that conversation is a simple question: If we truly believe that life begins at fertilization, are we willing to support equal protection for that life under the law?

A recent resource addresses common concerns from pregnancy help leaders about equal protection legislation. It’s thorough, thoughtful, and—whether you agree with every point or not—forces us to wrestle with the implications of what we say we believe.

And as someone who has spent decades in pregnancy centers, sitting face-to-face with women in crisis, I want to speak into this conversation from that front-line perspective.

https://faa.app.box.com/v/pregnancy-help-faq

What the Document Gets Right

One of the strongest points made is this: pregnancy centers, as powerful and life-saving as they are, cannot reach everyone.

In fact, the data shows that the vast majority of abortion-minded women will never walk through our doors.

That’s not a failure of pregnancy centers—it’s a limitation of any ministry that relies on voluntary engagement.

The argument for equal protection is that the law reaches where we cannot. It shapes behavior before a woman ever finds herself in our waiting room. And historically, laws do teach. They restrain evil, clarify right and wrong, and influence culture.

That matters.

Because every pregnancy center worker knows the heartbreak of the woman who never came in… the one we never had the chance to help.

But Here’s Where the Tension Lives

From a pregnancy center perspective, this conversation is not just theoretical—it’s deeply personal.

We are the ones sitting with the 15-year-old girl who is terrified.

We are the ones hearing, “I don’t have a choice.”

We are the ones walking with women who have been coerced, abandoned, misinformed, or completely overwhelmed.

And we know something that policy conversations often miss:

Women don’t experience abortion as a legal category.
They experience it as a crisis.

That’s why pregnancy centers exist—not just to stop abortion, but to serve women with compassion, truth, and tangible support.

Justice and Mercy Are Not Opposites

One of the central claims in the document is that justice and mercy are not in conflict—and biblically, that’s true.

Government has a role in establishing justice.
The Church has a role in offering mercy.

Pregnancy centers live at that intersection.

We are not the state.
We are not the justice system.
We are the hands and feet of Christ to women in their most vulnerable moments.

So the real question isn’t whether justice matters.

The question is: How do we pursue justice without losing the trust of the very women we are called to serve?

What I’ve Learned From the Front Lines

After years of doing this work, here’s what I know:

• Fear drives bad decisions

• Isolation fuels desperation

• And lies convince women they have no other choice

That’s why our role is irreplaceable.

Even if laws change, women will still need:

• Someone to answer the phone at 2 a.m.

• Someone to say, “You are stronger than you think”

• Someone to walk with them long after the decision is made

The document suggests that equal protection could actually increase the number of women seeking help—and that may be true.

But if that happens, pregnancy centers must be ready.

Not just with conviction—but with compassion.

Not just with truth—but with relationship.

Moving Forward With Clarity and Courage

This is not an easy conversation. It exposes real disagreements within the pro-life movement—about strategy, about messaging, and about how we understand women in the abortion decision.

But avoiding the conversation won’t resolve it.

If we believe:

• Life begins at fertilization

• Every child is made in the image of God

• And every human being deserves protection

Then we have to be willing to wrestle with what consistency looks like.

At the same time, we must never lose sight of this:

The woman in front of us is not our enemy.
She is not a political talking point.
She is not a case study.

She is someone in need of help, hope, and truth.

A Pregnancy Center Perspective on Equal Protection

From where I stand, this is not an either/or issue.

We need both:

• A culture that tells the truth about abortion

• Laws that reflect the value of every human life

• And pregnancy centers that meet women with radical compassion

Because no law will ever replace what happens in that counseling room.

No policy can substitute for love.

And no movement will succeed if it forgets the people it was created to serve.

If we are going to move forward, we must do it with both conviction and compassion—holding tightly to truth, while never letting go of the women who need us most.

That’s what it means to practice justice and mercy.

In abortion recovery work, we often hear the phrase, “We just want women to know they are loved.” That is true—but love that avoids truth cannot lead to healing.

In an effort to be compassionate, many have adopted a narrative that removes all responsibility from the woman. She is described only as a victim—powerless, without choice. While it is true that many women experience pressure, fear, and abandonment, it is not true that there was no participation at all. When we refuse to acknowledge that, we do not protect women. We leave them without a path to healing.

Healing requires honesty. Not harshness, not condemnation, but truth. A woman who is told, “You did nothing wrong,” when she knows something significant has happened, is left in conflict. Her internal reality does not align with what she is being told, and that disconnect delays healing.

We cannot offer forgiveness if there is nothing to be forgiven. We cannot offer restoration if nothing has been acknowledged as lost. Grace only makes sense in the presence of truth. When we remove truth to reduce discomfort, we remove the foundation that healing depends on.

At the same time, we must reject the opposite error. There are those who speak truth without compassion, emphasizing guilt without offering a path forward. This does not restore—it wounds. Truth without compassion hardens hearts; compassion without truth confuses them. Neither leads to healing.

We must hold both.

We must be able to say that abortion ends the life of an innocent human being, while also saying that the woman who chose it is not beyond hope. That choices have consequences, and that forgiveness and restoration are real. These are not competing messages. They are a complete one.

Again, my own life reflects this reality. I was conceived in rape. I can affirm the value of my life without justifying the act that led to my conception. Rape is wrong and should be punished. My life still has dignity and purpose. These truths do not conflict; they clarify one another.

In the same way, we must speak honestly about abortion without abandoning women to shame or despair.

Real healing is not found in minimizing or avoiding what happened. It is found in acknowledging it fully, understanding its impact, taking responsibility where appropriate, and receiving grace that allows a person to move forward restored.

Anything less may offer temporary relief, but it does not lead to lasting healing.

Women are not only seeking help years later. Many are reaching out immediately—in confusion, in pain, in crisis. They do not need delay or softened language. They need someone who will respond, tell the truth, and stay.

Healing is possible—not because we ignore reality, but because we face it honestly and walk forward with both truth and grace.

In the end, we do not serve women well by separating these two. Truth is what makes healing possible. Compassion is what makes it reachable.

A 3-part series on rebuilding a consistent, compassionate response to abortion in America.

Abortion has moved out of the clinic and into the home. It is happening in bathrooms, bedrooms, and dorm rooms, often in complete isolation. Through the mail, women are being sent powerful drugs with little medical oversight and minimal explanation of what they will actually experience. They are told it will be “like a heavy period,” only to find themselves in pain, bleeding heavily, and sometimes encountering the body of their baby.

This is no longer rare. It is increasingly the norm.

As a result, women are not waiting years to process what has happened. They are reaching out in the middle of it—during the abortion, immediately after, in shock and fear, asking if what they are experiencing is normal and what they should do next.

If our response is delayed or dependent on readiness, we will miss them. The traditional model assumed time, distance, and stability. Those assumptions no longer hold. What we are doing now is not simply post-abortion healing. It is real-time crisis response.

This is where the Women’s C.A.R.E. Kit (Chemical Abortion Recovery & Evaluation) must be clearly understood.

Some have claimed that offering care in the middle of a chemical abortion somehow supports or enables the abortion itself. But caring for a woman in the middle of a medical and emotional crisis is not the same as endorsing the decision that led her there. It is responding to reality.

Abortion is legal in most places. Pills are being distributed without proper oversight. Women are accessing them without informed consent, and both their health and their child’s life are at risk.

To refuse to engage her in that moment is not moral clarity. It is abandonment.

We understand this in every other area of life. We do not withhold care from someone in crisis because wrongdoing is involved, nor do we redefine harmful actions to avoid discomfort. We are capable of holding truth and compassion together.

My own life reflects this. I was conceived in rape. I do not need to justify rape to affirm the value of my life. Rape is wrong and should be punished. That truth does not diminish my dignity. It clarifies it.

In the same way, we must be able to say that abortion is wrong while still meeting women with compassion, care, and a path forward.

There is, however, another error we must confront. In an effort to be compassionate, some refuse to acknowledge any responsibility on the part of the woman. She is spoken of only as a victim, never as someone who participated in a decision. While many women experience pressure and fear, removing all responsibility does not lead to healing. It prevents it.

A woman cannot fully heal from something she is never allowed to fully face.

What is required now is a response that is immediate, accessible, present, and honest. This is why tools like the Women’s C.A.R.E. Kit matter. It allows us to step into the moment of crisis, provide physical and emotional support, and begin the process of healing without delay.

Silence in these moments is not neutral. When a woman is alone, afraid, and searching for help, choosing not to engage because of how it might be perceived does not preserve integrity. It forfeits influence.

The front lines have changed. Our response must change with them—not in conviction, but in presence. Because if we are not there when she reaches out, someone else will be.

A 3-part series on rebuilding a consistent, compassionate response to abortion in America.

For more information visit: Women's C.A.R.E. Kit

There is a growing divide in the pro-life movement—and it is built on a false premise.

We are told that if we pursue personhood and equal protection under the law, we are somehow targeting women. That to say abortion is the intentional taking of an innocent human life is to invite punishment, not compassion.

Let’s be clear:

Advocating for personhood is not the same as advocating for the prosecution of women.

That misunderstanding is not just inaccurate—it is damaging. Because it forces a choice we were never meant to make.

Every law teaches what we believe. If we say the unborn child is a human being with inherent dignity, then the law must reflect that reality. Anything less creates a contradiction we cannot sustain. Personhood is not about hostility toward women. It is about moral consistency.

In response, some argue we must soften abortion to protect women from shame or trauma. But denying reality has never led to healing. We would never redefine harm in other areas to make it easier to process. Why would we do that here?

Truth is not the enemy of compassion—it is the foundation of it.

At the same time, policy conversations often lose credibility when they ignore the lived reality of women. Women today are navigating fear, pressure, misinformation, and increasing isolation—especially with the rise of chemical abortion. Many are making decisions alone and experiencing the consequences without support. Most still don’t know where to turn for help afterward.

That is not just a policy gap. It is a failure of response.

We must reject two false choices: that supporting women means abandoning personhood, or that pursuing personhood means abandoning compassion. Both are false. A consistent ethic requires both, because law without support creates fear, and support without truth creates confusion.

If we are serious about both truth and compassion, we must build systems that meet women immediately.

HopeSync, the platform powering Infinite Worth Nurses, was created for this moment. It ensures that when a woman reaches out, she is not met with silence, delay, or confusion. Every call, text, or message can be responded to instantly—by trained teams, secure virtual support, or nurses providing real-time medical and emotional care.

This is what it looks like to meet women before, during, and after abortion—offering truth with compassion in the moment it is needed most and connecting them to ongoing, local support.

This is not theory. It is necessary infrastructure for a post-Roe world.

We do not need to choose between defending the child and caring for the woman. We must do both. Because truth without compassion is harsh, and compassion without truth is hollow. Together, they are powerful enough to change everything.

A 3-part series on rebuilding a consistent, compassionate response to abortion in America.

For more info:

Meaningful Connections for Your Center —Simplified | HopeSync

HOME | Infinite Worth

We are being told we must choose:

• Truth or compassion

• Personhood or care for women

• Accountability or healing

But these are false choices.

Women deserve better than a movement that splits itself in two.

On the front lines, everything has changed. Abortion is no longer just happening in clinics—it is happening at home, in isolation, often without medical oversight. Women are reaching out in the middle of the process, not decades later.

And yet, our response has not kept up.

At the same time, our policy conversations are increasingly misunderstood—especially when it comes to personhood and equal protection.

This series is an attempt to bring these conversations back together.

To say, clearly and without compromise:

• Every human life has value

• Abortion is the intentional taking of that life

• Women deserve immediate care, compassion, and real healing

These are not competing truths.

They are inseparable.

Over the next three posts, we will address:

• Why personhood is not the enemy of compassion

• Why the front lines of abortion have radically changed

• And why real healing is impossible without truth

Because if we get this wrong, we will continue to lose women—either to silence, to confusion, or to systems that fail to meet them when they need us most.

But if we get this right?

We don’t just change the conversation.

We change outcomes.

A 3-part series on rebuilding a consistent, compassionate response to abortion in America.

Like Steve, I have had real reservations about this war from the beginning. Questions about what “victory” even looks like, whether any negotiated outcome can be trusted, and what might follow if a regime collapses without a stable alternative—these are not small concerns. They are serious, morally weighty considerations.

And here at home, we cannot ignore the reality that our nation is deeply fractured. We are struggling to find unity even on the most basic issues affecting our own communities and families. That lack of cohesion makes any foreign engagement more complicated and, frankly, more difficult for people to trust.

So yes—there is room for thoughtful skepticism. There is room for asking hard questions.

But what I am seeing right now goes far beyond healthy skepticism.

As Steve Deace rightly pointed out, we are witnessing something much darker: a rapid rise in scapegoating—particularly against the Jewish people—that seems to have appeared almost overnight. And that should alarm anyone with even a basic understanding of history or spiritual discernment.

We cannot pretend this is just “organic” political disagreement. It is not.

Matthew Manfore’s research and commentary help add another layer of understanding here. He points to documented patterns of Soviet-era and modern CCP-style disinformation campaigns—strategies designed to demoralize nations, fracture alliances, and redirect frustration toward scapegoats. When you study that history, it becomes much harder to dismiss what we are seeing today as coincidence.

The pattern is familiar:

• Undermine trust in institutions

• Stoke internal division

• Redirect legitimate frustration toward a targeted group

• Package it in a way that feels rebellious or “truth-telling,” especially to young people

And tragically, many are being drawn in—not because they are malicious, but because they are frustrated, searching for clarity, and being offered simple answers to complex problems.

But scapegoating—especially of the Jewish people—has never led anywhere good. Not historically. Not morally. Not spiritually.

As believers, discernment means more than just rejecting what is obviously wrong. As Spurgeon said, it means recognizing the difference between what is right and what is almost right.

That’s where we are right now.

I still believe we need honest, nuanced conversations about foreign policy, war, and America’s role in the world. Those conversations matter. But they must be grounded in truth, not driven by manipulation, half-truths, or ancient lies repackaged for a new generation.

So while I may share some of the initial concerns that voices like Steve Deace have raised, I stand firmly against the wave of deception, division, and scapegoating that is rising alongside this issue.

We cannot allow frustration to make us vulnerable to false narratives.

And we cannot sacrifice truth in the name of sounding bold or contrarian.

Discernment matters now more than ever.

That’s the standard. That’s the law. That’s the line.

So here’s the obvious question:

Why is the state reporting abortion data in a way that makes it impossible to know whether that law is being followed?

According to the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), 7,934 abortions have already been reported in 2026 year-to-date.

Sounds straightforward.

Until you look at how they’re reported.

The Shell Game: 6 Weeks vs. 13 Weeks

AHCA breaks down abortion data by trimester.

That means:

• “First trimester”

• “Second trimester”

• “Third trimester”

And here’s the problem:

The first trimester goes up to 13 weeks.

Florida law is based on 6 weeks.

So when AHCA tells us that 7,868 abortions occurred in the first trimester, what are we actually being told?

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

Because that number includes abortions at:

• 5 weeks

• 7 weeks

• 9 weeks

• 12 weeks

All lumped together.

That’s not transparency. That’s a data smokescreen.

If You Can’t Measure It, You Can’t Enforce It

Let’s be clear:

If Florida is serious about a 6-week law, then the only numbers that matter are:

• How many abortions happen before 6 weeks

• How many happen after 6 weeks

Anything else is irrelevant.

Yet the public is given a reporting system that completely obscures that distinction.

So the next question is unavoidable:

Is the state incapable of reporting this data—or unwilling?

Because AHCA already collects gestational age information.

They have the data.

They’re just not showing it.

The Numbers We Do See Raise More Questions

Even within this flawed reporting structure, some patterns are clear.

• 5,314 abortions are listed as elective

• 2,161 are for social or economic reasons

• Exceptions like rape and incest remain statistically rare

Abortions are heavily concentrated in a handful of counties:

• Miami-Dade

• Broward

• Hillsborough

• Palm Beach

• Orange

And Florida continues to serve as a destination state, with 229 abortions involving out-of-state residents.

But none of that answers the core question:

Are abortions happening after 6 weeks in violation of the law?

The Silence Is the Story

Florida didn’t pass a “first trimester” law.

It passed a 6-week law.

And yet, the state’s own reporting structure avoids the only metric that matters.

Why?

Because once you report the data clearly, you have to deal with what it shows.

And that leads to the final—and most uncomfortable—question:

Where Is the Enforcement?

There are laws.
There are reporting requirements.
There are penalties written into statute.

And yet:

• No prosecutions

• No regulatory discipline

• No public enforcement actions

Not one.

Not a single example the public can point to.

This Isn’t About Politics. It’s About Accountability.

If the law is being followed, prove it.

If it’s not, enforce it.

But don’t tell the public there’s a 6-week standard while reporting data that stretches to 13 weeks and calling it sufficient.

That’s not oversight.

That’s avoidance.

Bottom Line

Florida has a 6-week abortion ban.

But the state is reporting abortion data in 13-week categories.

That’s not a minor technical issue.

That’s the difference between accountability and opacity.

And when it comes to enforcement?

**NO NEW ENFORCEMENT
NO REGULATORY ACTIONS
NO PROSECUTIONS

NONE.
NADDA.**

Frequently Requested Data | Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

Using Florida’s own reported data, the numbers look compelling at first glance:

• 2023: ~84,000 abortions

• 2024: ~60,000 abortions

• 2025 (AHCA reporting): ~48,000 abortions

That’s where the headline comes from: roughly 40,000 fewer abortions.

But there is a critical question that must be asked:

Where are the 40,000 babies?

Because if those abortions truly did not happen, we should see the impact somewhere.

We should see it in birth records.
We should see it in hospitals.
We should see it in the number of women being served by pregnancy resource centers.

But we don’t.

Florida’s birth rate has remained relatively flat—rising only slightly from around 221,000 births in 2023 to approximately 224,000–225,000 in 2024–2025.

That is not even close to a 40,000 increase.

So again, the question remains:

Where are they?

The answer is not complicated—but it is uncomfortable.

Abortion has not disappeared.

It has shifted.

Across the country, abortion is increasingly happening through:

• telehealth services

• mail-order abortion pills

• out-of-state travel

• and private, untracked decisions

In fact, many women are now obtaining abortion pills without ever stepping into a clinic. These abortions often fall outside traditional state reporting systems.

So while Florida may report fewer in-state procedures, that does not necessarily mean fewer abortions are happening.

It means fewer are being counted.

This is why we must be careful not to confuse reduced reporting with reduced reality.

At the same time, this raises another important question:

Florida has roughly 180 pregnancy resource centers, offering free medical care, emotional support, and material assistance to women in crisis.

If tens of thousands of abortions were truly prevented, are those women showing up there?

Are pregnancy centers seeing a surge of 30,000–40,000 additional clients?

There is little evidence to suggest that they are.

Which means many women are not choosing life through support systems either.

They are choosing abortion—just in different ways.

This brings us to a critical point for the pro-life movement:

We cannot afford to rely on incomplete metrics.

And we cannot afford to divide into extremes.

This is not a question of choosing between law and compassion.

We need both.

We need laws that clearly recognize the unborn child as a human person—because without that clarity, we cannot even begin to address the injustice of abortion.

But we also need to meet women where they are—with real help, real support, and real alternatives.

Because the reality is this:

Even now, with services available, many women are not seeking help.
And even now, with restrictions in place, abortion is still happening.

So the answer is not either/or.

It is both.

Truth in law and compassion in practice.

Until we address both sides of that equation, we will continue to see the same outcome:

Abortion will not end.

It will simply move.

And if 40,000 lives were truly saved, we would see them.

But we don’t.

Which means the work is not done.

Not even close.

For as long as I have been serving women in crisis pregnancies, I have also been a strong advocate for Personhood—the belief that every human life, from the moment of biological beginning, is created in the image of God and deserves legal protection.

And I want to be clear from the start:

The pursuit of Personhood has never been about condemning women.

It has always been about telling the truth—about the value and dignity of the unborn child—while at the same time surrounding women with compassion, support, and real options so they are never alone in crisis.

Those are not competing values.
They never have been.

Where I Agree

There is truth in the concern that we cannot ignore the realities women face.

We have spent decades telling women:

• “it’s just tissue,”

• “it’s not a baby,”

• “abortion is healthcare.”

You cannot build a culture of deception and then pretend every woman is acting with full knowledge and intent.

And yes—if women believe they will be treated as criminals, that will impact whether they seek help.

That concern deserves to be taken seriously.

But Here Is What Cannot Be Ignored

In responding to that concern, we cannot abandon clarity in law.

Because without legal recognition of Personhood, we lose the foundation for everything we claim to believe.

If the unborn child is not recognized as a person under the law:

• abortion remains a “choice,” not an injustice

• providers operate with moral and legal cover

• and culture stays confused about the value of human life

We cannot defend what we are unwilling to define.

The Law Matters—Because It Shapes Behavior

History makes this clear.

Before Roe v. Wade, when abortion was illegal in many states, abortions still happened—but far fewer.

Not zero.
But significantly fewer.

Why?

Because law is not just punitive—it is formative.

It teaches:

• what is acceptable

• what is dangerous

• and what a society is willing to tolerate

There is a reason abortion numbers exploded after legalization.

And there is a reason many women today would never have considered abortion if it had not been normalized, legalized, and made easily accessible.

We should not ignore that reality.

But We Must Also Face Today’s Reality

At the same time, we must be honest about what is happening right now.

Even with:

• thousands of pregnancy centers

• free medical care

• emotional support

• material assistance

• and people walking alongside women every day

over one million abortions are still happening annually in the United States.

And that number does not even fully account for chemical abortions being mailed across state lines.

Let that sink in.

Women are not universally seeking help now.

Many are:

• avoiding pregnancy centers

• choosing abortion quickly and privately

• and in many cases, doing so with full awareness of what they are choosing

So we have to ask an honest question:

If women are already not coming to us now—without criminal penalties—what is the actual solution being offered by those who say we must avoid any legal clarity because it might drive women away?

Because the reality is:

Many women are already staying away.

Many women are not reaching out for help—not because they fear prosecution, but because they:

• do not want to be talked out of their decision,

• want privacy and immediacy,

• or have already decided abortion is their best option

So we have to be honest:

The absence of legal consequences has not resulted in women consistently seeking help.

Which means the argument cannot simply be:

“We must avoid legal clarity because women might not come to us.”

Because many are already not coming.

So the real question becomes:

If access to support alone is not reducing abortion at the level we had hoped, what else must be addressed?

Because support is essential—but by itself, it is not changing the reality we are facing.

A Better Way Forward

We do not have to choose between law and compassion.

We need both.

That means:

1. Establishing Personhood in Law
Clearly defining the unborn child as a human person with equal dignity.

2. Holding Accountable Those Who Profit
Focusing legal accountability on:

• abortion providers

• pill distributors

• and those who knowingly facilitate the act

3. Responding to Women with Truth and Compassion
Recognizing that a woman in crisis:

• may be deceived

• may be pressured

• may be afraid

And meeting her accordingly—not as the primary offender, but as someone in need of support, truth, and care.

We Cannot Afford False Choices

This is not:

• justice or compassion

• law or outreach

It must be both.

Because:

• Law without compassion drives people into hiding

• But compassion without truth leaves people in harm

The Real Goal

The goal is not simply fewer abortions.

The goal is:

• ending abortion

• more women reached

• more lives saved

• and a culture that recognizes the value of every human life

That requires:
truth in law and compassion in practice.

Final Thought

If we are going to move forward well, we must refuse the false choices that divide us.

We can defend the unborn child as a person.
We can create laws that reflect that truth.
And we can remain a place of safety, compassion, and hope for women in crisis.

We must do all three.

Because behind every statistic is a person:

• a child whose life matters

• a woman who is hurting or afraid

• a family in need of support

And beyond all of that is a deeper reality:

There is no sin that places someone beyond the reach of God’s grace.

The message we carry is not just about life in the womb—it is about life in Christ.

Forgiveness is real.
Healing is possible.
And redemption is available to all who seek it.

So let us be a people who:

• tell the truth clearly

• love deeply

• act courageously

• and point relentlessly to the hope of the Gospel

Because that is where true life is found.

For more info on Personhood Alliance visit www.personhood.org

I am speaking as someone who was adopted.

My story begins in a place most people would never choose. I was conceived in rape. My birth mother was 15 years old—a child herself—facing fear, trauma, and uncertainty. And yet, in the middle of all of that, she made a decision that changed everything.

She chose life.

She is my hero.

Not because her story is simple or easy, but because her courage is breathtaking. She chose to give me something I could never have given myself—the chance to live. And then, in an act of profound love, she placed me into a family who would raise me, love me, and shape the person I would become.

I am the oldest of eight children. Seven of us were adopted.

We were not second choices. We were chosen.

My parents were incredible. They didn’t just provide a home—they created one. A place filled with love, stability, and purpose. They raised us to love God and to love others. They showed up, day after day, in the ordinary and the hard moments, and gave us a foundation that shaped our lives.

Adoption, for me, was never the absence of love.

It was the presence of it—from both my birth mother and my adoptive parents.

That is why it is difficult for me to hear adoption discussed as if it is only loss, only trauma, or only brokenness. I understand that adoption can be complex. I understand that not every story looks like mine. But I also know that reducing every adoption to a single narrative erases people like me.

My life is not defined by a wound.

It is defined by love, sacrifice, and opportunity.

Because I was given the chance to live, I was given the chance to become. To grow. To build relationships. To serve others. To have a voice. To live a life with purpose.

That is not a small thing.

And it is why I have spent my life walking alongside young women facing unintended pregnancies. I have sat with them in fear, in confusion, in moments where everything feels uncertain. And too often, I hear the same words:

“I don’t have a choice.”

But they do.

And I know they do, because I am one of those choices.

I am the life that was given a chance.

I am the story that continued.

Women are stronger than we often tell them they are. Strong enough to choose life. Strong enough to make decisions that lead to wholeness, not death, not regret, not lifelong brokenness. But they need to be told the truth. They need to know all of their options.

Adoption is not easy. Neither is single motherhood.

But both are life-affirming.

Both require courage.

And both deserve to be spoken about honestly and compassionately.

My birth mother did not erase me.

She gave me everything.

She gave me life. She gave me a future. She gave me a family who loved me well and pointed me to something greater than myself.

And I carry that with me every single day.

This is why I speak.

This is why I show up for women in their hardest moments.

Because I want them to know what is possible on the other side of their decision.

Because I want to honor the courage of a 15-year-old girl who chose life for me.

Because I want to make her proud.

Adoption is not the end of a story.

It is the beginning of one.

And I am living proof of what can happen when someone is given the chance to live.

For more information on supporting the adoption option and birth parents in your community, state and the nation visit: thethirdoption.org

Under current law, it is true that women are generally not prosecuted for abortion itself. The pro-life movement has long emphasized compassion for women in crisis and has focused accountability on those who profit from and promote abortion.

But we also have to acknowledge something many women themselves have said for decades: if abortion had not been available, they would have made a different choice.

The law is not just a reflection of culture—it is a teacher.

My own life is a testimony to that reality. I was conceived in rape. My birth mother was just 15 years old and in foster care in 1965. Abortion was not legal—even in cases like hers. Because that option was not available to her, I am alive today.

That matters.

And it raises a question we can no longer avoid.

For more than fifty years, we have lived in a culture shaped by Roe v. Wade—a culture that told women abortion was not only legal, but necessary, empowering, even compassionate. And now, even after Roe has been overturned, we are still living in its shadow. Abortion is easier to access than ever before. It arrives by mail. It bypasses doctors. It is taken alone, often in fear, often without full understanding of what it will do.

We are told this is progress.

But cases like this expose the truth: when powerful drugs that induce labor are used without oversight, without accurate knowledge of gestational age, without medical care, the result is not “simple” or “safe.” It is unpredictable, dangerous, and sometimes devastating—for both mother and child.

And yet, when tragedy happens, we are left asking the wrong questions.

We ask what the woman did.

But we fail to ask who told her this was safe.
Who sold her the drugs.
Who removed the safeguards.
Who profited from her desperation.

At the same time, we must be honest about something else—something harder.

If abortion is the intentional taking of an innocent human life, then our laws should reflect that truth.

Equal protection under the law is not a radical idea. It is the foundation of justice. If every human being has value, then every human being deserves protection—born and preborn alike.

That does not mean abandoning compassion. It means redefining it.

Real compassion does not say, “You have no responsibility.”
Real compassion says, “You are not alone—and there is a better way.”

Because there is.

Every woman facing an unexpected or difficult pregnancy has options that do not end in the death of her child. She can parent. She can make an adoption plan. She can safely and legally surrender her infant under Safe Haven laws. She can receive care, support, and guidance from pregnancy centers that exist precisely for this purpose—often at no cost to her.

The tragedy is not only that lives are lost.
It is that women are being led to believe those are their only choices.

We must do better.

We must build a culture where women are supported long before they reach a moment of crisis. Where help is visible, accessible, and immediate. Where no woman feels alone.

But we must also be honest: culture does not change without law.

The law teaches. It shapes what we believe is acceptable. It influences the choices we consider.

If we are unwilling to say in law that every human life deserves protection, then we should not be surprised when that protection is absent in practice.

So yes, we must continue to extend compassion, support, and real help to every woman in crisis.

And yes, we must also work toward laws that recognize the equal value of every human life—including the child in the womb.

Because justice and mercy are not opposites.

They are meant to work together.

And until they do, we will continue to see cases like this—where both a child and a mother are left without the protection they deserved.

Georgia woman charged with murder after allegedly taking abortion pills - The Washington Post

We are no longer operating in a system where most women walk into a clinic, meet with a physician, receive an ultrasound, and undergo a medically supervised procedure. Today, a growing number of women are obtaining abortion pills online—through websites and distributors—often with little to no medical oversight.

No exam.
No confirmed gestational age.
No meaningful screening for risk factors.
No in-person follow-up care.

For many women, the abortion experience has been reduced to a transaction: a few clicks, a package in the mail, and instructions on a screen.

And then, she is alone.

This is the reality that pregnancy help organizations must grapple with—not the system as it once was, but the one that exists today.

It is within this context that the Women’s C.A.R.E. Kit (Chemical Abortion Recovery & Evaluation Kit) was developed.

At its core, the C.A.R.E. Kit is a compassionate, practical resource designed for women who are considering—or already moving forward with—a chemical abortion. It provides clear, honest information about what to expect physically, guidance on managing symptoms, and crucially, direction on when to seek emergency care. It also creates space for conversations about Abortion Pill Reversal (APR), ongoing medical support, and emotional care before, during, and after the process.

But perhaps its most important function is this:

It creates a reason for her to come in.

In an environment where women are being told they do not need an ultrasound, do not need an exam, and do not need to see anyone at all, pregnancy centers are increasingly losing their primary point of contact. The ultrasound—once the cornerstone of in-person engagement—no longer carries the same weight for a woman who has already been assured that everything can be handled from home.

So we must ask an honest question:
If all we offer is information, why would she come?

The C.A.R.E. Kit answers that question by providing something tangible, immediate, and relevant to her current situation. It opens the door for an in-person interaction that might not otherwise happen. And in that moment—when she walks through the door—everything changes.

She is no longer alone.

There are real concerns raised about whether providing a resource like this could be perceived as “assisting” abortion. That concern deserves to be taken seriously. Pregnancy help organizations must always operate with integrity, clarity of mission, and a commitment to life-affirming care.

But we must also be honest about the alternative.

The current system already normalizes and promotes at-home abortion as simple, safe, and easily managed—often without fully informing women of the physical realities they may encounter. Ignoring that reality does not counter it. Silence does not correct misinformation. And withholding practical support does not make the process safer.

Providing a woman with accurate information, clear safety guidance, and an opportunity for real human connection is not participation in abortion—it is an intervention into isolation.

It is also an opportunity.

When a woman comes to receive a C.A.R.E. Kit, pregnancy center staff have the ability to:

• Assess her medical situation more accurately

• Clarify what she has been told—and what she may not have been told

• Offer APR if she has taken the first pill and is unsure

• Slow down a process that is often rushed and pressured

• Build trust that allows for continued follow-up and care

None of that happens if she never walks through the door.

This is where the conversation must shift—from theoretical concerns to measurable impact.

Are we reaching abortion-determined women?
Are they coming into our centers at all?
At what point, if any, are we seeing changes in decision-making?

It is easy to say that education alone is sufficient. It is much harder to demonstrate that it is effective—especially in a culture where information is already abundant, but trust and relationship are scarce.

The reality is this: many abortion-determined women are bypassing traditional points of contact entirely. If we are not adapting to that shift, we are not reaching them.

The Women’s C.A.R.E. Kit is not a departure from a life-affirming mission. It is a response to a changing mission field.

It acknowledges that women are making these decisions in isolation—and chooses to meet them there, not with judgment or distance, but with truth, compassion, and practical care.

We can continue to operate as if the old model is sufficient.

Or we can recognize that the ground has shifted—and step into the gap.

Because right now, that gap is where she is.

This may not be for every center, and certainly not for every client — and that is okay. But for the centers that feel the weight of the 11th-hour moment and are asking, “Can we do more?” — this is our answer.

Women’s C.A.R.E. Kit

A compassionate lifeline designed to empower women facing the heartbreaking choice of the abortion pill, offering them opportunities to take a different course, information on why they may want to choose differently, connections with nurses and the Abortion Pill Reversal hotline, and, if they still choose to continue the abortion, tools to protect them and preserve their baby’s precious remains with dignity.

Women’s C.A.R.E. Kit

Today, new questions about the state’s abortion reporting data suggest that Florida lawmakers may need to take a closer look at whether the law is being implemented as intended.

Recent analyses of abortion statistics reported by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) highlight a discrepancy that deserves public scrutiny. According to detailed data obtained from the agency, at least 1,065 abortions appear to have been performed beyond the six-week threshold between May and December 2024, the first eight months after the law took effect.

However, AHCA’s publicly released summary tables report only 468 abortions qualifying under the statutory exceptions for that period.

That leaves at least 597 cases unaccounted for—a gap that raises important questions about how the data is being categorized, reported, and reviewed.

The issue does not necessarily mean the law was violated. There may be explanations rooted in reporting methods or classification differences. But the discrepancy is large enough to warrant further investigation, especially since AHCA already collects detailed gestational-age data from abortion providers.

Another data trend also deserves attention. While total abortions in Florida declined from 84,052 in 2023 to 64,854 in 2024, the share of abortions reported at six weeks or earlier rose dramatically—from about 40% to roughly 67% of all procedures.

Some shift earlier in pregnancy was expected after the law took effect. But the magnitude of this change has prompted questions about how gestational age is being determined and reported across abortion facilities.

Florida law requires that gestational age be measured using the first day of the last menstrual period (LMP) and verified through ultrasound. If those standards are not applied consistently, it could affect how compliance with the six-week law is assessed.

None of these concerns can be resolved through speculation. They require transparency and oversight.

That is why several advocacy groups have urged the Florida Legislature to hold public hearings to examine the data and question regulatory officials about how abortion reporting and compliance are being monitored.

Public hearings would not presume wrongdoing. Instead, they would provide a forum to clarify the numbers, review enforcement procedures, and determine whether additional oversight is needed.

In a state where abortion policy remains one of the most debated issues in public life, confidence in the integrity of the data is essential. Laws passed by elected officials must be accompanied by clear reporting and transparent enforcement if the public is to trust the system.

Florida’s six-week law was the result of years of political debate and legislative effort. Ensuring that it is implemented accurately and transparently should now be the next step.

A public review of the data would not only answer outstanding questions—it would strengthen accountability in a policy area where clarity matters most.

Information received from:

Trudy Perez-Poveda, Director Family for LIFE

Andrew Shirvell, J.D., Founder and Executive Director of Florida Voice for the Unborn

Where have all the babies gone?

The answer is complex, but several patterns are clear. Marriage rates have declined dramatically. Young adults are delaying family formation into their thirties and forties—or opting out entirely. Cultural messaging over the past half-century has emphasized pregnancy prevention as a social good, often framing children as obstacles to education, career advancement, and personal freedom. The Sexual Revolution of the 1960s untethered sex from marriage and procreation, normalizing contraception as the default expectation and redefining fertility as a problem to manage rather than a gift to steward.

Yet while pregnancy prevention has dominated public health campaigns and classroom instruction for decades, birthrates continue to fall—and unintended pregnancies have not disappeared. At the same time, infertility rates have risen, and more couples struggle to conceive when they finally decide they are ready for children. Sexually transmitted infections remain at record highs in many regions, and long-term hormonal contraceptive use is increasingly scrutinized for its potential impact on women’s physical and mental health. Delayed childbearing also carries measurable risks, including higher rates of miscarriage, pregnancy complications, and reliance on costly fertility treatments.

In this context, it may be time to shift the conversation from pregnancy prevention alone to pregnancy promotion—an approach that affirms the value of marriage, family formation, and the life-giving capacity of human relationships.

Pregnancy promotion does not mean encouraging teen pregnancy or abandoning prudence. Rather, it means promoting the conditions under which pregnancy is most likely to lead to flourishing: stable marriages, emotional maturity, financial preparedness, and lifelong commitment. This is where the Success Sequence offers a practical and research-supported roadmap.

The Success Sequence teaches young people to follow three foundational steps: graduate from high school (and ideally pursue further education), secure stable employment, then marry before having children. When childbearing is reserved for the context of marriage, outcomes improve dramatically for both adults and children. Research consistently shows that individuals who follow this sequence are far less likely to experience poverty. Married couples report higher levels of relationship stability and life satisfaction. Children raised by their married mother and father, on average, experience better educational, emotional, and economic outcomes.

Importantly, the Success Sequence does not merely reduce unintended pregnancy—it helps prevent it. When young people understand that sex is intrinsically connected to both bonding and baby-making, they are more likely to approach relationships with intentionality and self-control. Reserving sex for marriage naturally eliminates the risk of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and reduces exposure to sexually transmitted infections that can later impair fertility. It also minimizes the long-term contraceptive dependency that can mask underlying reproductive health issues or contribute to delayed family formation.

A culture focused solely on prevention can unintentionally cultivate fear of fertility. Young women may internalize the message that pregnancy is primarily a threat to autonomy. Young men may be taught that fatherhood is a burden rather than a calling. Over time, this mindset reshapes societal expectations. If children are seen as liabilities rather than blessings, it is no surprise that fewer couples choose to have them—or to have them at all.

By contrast, pregnancy promotion reframes the narrative. It recognizes that marriage and parenthood are not merely private lifestyle choices but social goods with far-reaching consequences. Strong families stabilize communities. Children ensure economic continuity. Intergenerational bonds preserve cultural wisdom and provide care for the elderly. Nations that fail to replace their populations face difficult trade-offs: increased taxation, reduced economic growth, and mounting pressure on younger generations.

None of this diminishes the importance of compassion for those facing crisis pregnancies or infertility. Rather, it underscores the urgency of forming young people with a vision for lifelong love, stable marriage, and the joy of welcoming children at the right time and in the right context.

If we continue to treat fertility as a problem to be solved instead of a gift to be celebrated, the demographic winter will only deepen. But if we promote the Success Sequence—education, employment, marriage, then children—we create the conditions for healthier individuals, stronger marriages, and a more hopeful future.

The question is not only “Where have all the babies gone?” It is also, “What kind of culture will invite them back?”

The Success Sequence