Trump managed to upset everyone on abortion

But it put some important questions into the arena of public debate.

No matter how to whatever degree Donald Trump’s campaign has tried or managed to change the wording and intent of his response to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews about punishing women who have abortion if it were to become illegal, the correction will not catch up with the original statement. Matthews set up a ‘gotcha’ trap and Trump walked right into it. The news cycles ever since have fed on the resulting sound bites, and will continue to for months now that the hot button candidate has stumbled on the hot button issue.

So let’s clarify, and set the record straight, apart from whatever Donald Trump or any other political candidate, politician, or activist might say.

This came up as an abortion activist ploy in 2007, which I wrote about in a now defunct publication, as soon as it came out that pro-lifers were being ambushed with a variation on Matthews’ question. It was a new tactic to silence them, and at first, it seemed to work (and history has seemingly repeated itself in this political moment).

Here’s what I wrote then:

The question is simple and blunt: “If abortion is criminalized, what should the penalty be for a woman who has one?” It’s amazing the abortion movement has taken more than three decades to come up with it, but even more dumbfounding that they see it as the “eureka!” moment, the great trump card that will, they believe, stop pro-lifers in their tracks.

This is their new strategy?


(Nine years ago, I could never have imagined the pun in that line “the great trump card” the abortion movement was playing.)


Now, they have begun to ambush pro-life people outside abortion clinics with a camera, drop the big question about making women criminals, and post the video online.

Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen hardly contained her enthusiasm over this new strategy in her piece titled “How Much Jail Time for Women Who Have Abortions?” (Newsweek, August 6, 2007). It starts with the description of a YouTube “mini-documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic” in Illinois. “The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It’s as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations”.

Quindlen relishes this story. Especially reporting these responses by pro-lifers: “I’ve never really thought about it”. “I don’t have an answer for that”. “I don’t know”. “Just pray for them”.

End of Newsweek snip, at which point I say:

This is unacceptable. Her cynicism? [No.] That’s the level of discourse we get in the media these days. The ambush tactic? [No.] That’s the type of attack we can expect in the abortion battle at this point. But Quindlen’s report on the inability of committed pro-lifers to answer the big questions that still confuse this culture is totally beyond the pale. Because the debate has shifted dramatically in recent years, especially since South Dakota [passed an abortion ban], the pro-life movement owns the argument. There is not one question they should fear, and not one answer the abortion movement can honestly claim as validation for what they do.

But this isn’t about honesty. It’s about talking points and spin control. Now they’re spinning this myth that pro-lifers want to criminalize abortion, and make women criminals for getting one illegally.

Quindlen declared it triumphantly: “A new public-policy group called the National Institute for Reproductive Health wants to take this contradiction and make it the centerpiece of a national conversation, along with a slogan that stops people in their tracks: how much time should she do?” They are celebrating their cleverness.

But consider the big picture…

This much Quindlen gets right: “If the Supreme Court decides abortion is not protected by a constitutional guarantee of privacy, the issue will revert to the states. If it goes to the states, some, perhaps many, will ban abortion”.

But she draws a false conclusion: “If abortion is made a crime, then surely the woman who has one is a criminal”. Wrong. Not one state has written or planned language in abortion ban legislation that would consider — or allow anyone to consider — the woman a criminal for having an abortion. The party guilty of a crime would be the abortionist. Quindlen and her abortion-backing colleagues came up with this false dichotomy. They propose that, by their logic, the woman is a criminal. And they’re pinning that tortured logic on pro-life people.

At least on the ambush video and in print articles like Quindlen’s. That is, until she inadvertently stumbles on the truth: “Lawmakers in a number of states have already passed or are considering statutes designed to outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned”, Quindlen writes. “But almost none hold the woman, the person who set the so-called crime in motion, accountable”.


Get it straight, pro-life people, pro-abortion people, media who write about the issues and ask candidates about them, politicians who are asked those question, and voters confused by the breathless news cycles.

Here’s the truth:

Pro-life legal experts, legislators and advocates know that women are already victims in abortions. Whether the abortionist is a doctor or a back-alley hack, they would be held accountable for breaking the law wherever abortion is banned. This is information all pro-life people need to understand thoroughly.

The South Dakota abortion ban, House Bill 1215, states in Section 4:

“Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.

“The South Dakota legislators who drafted it had already crafted legislation to protect women in the earlier informed consent law, HB 1166. Here is one of its provisions:

“Require that the State create a written disclosure form that requires the abortion doctor to provide the mother, in person, with all of the risks of abortion to the mother and her unborn child. Require that this disclosure take place before the woman pays for the abortion and before she is taken to the procedure room. Require that the mother must also be provided sufficient time for personal review and discernment.”

In other words, a standard informed consent that any medical procedure requires. Planned Parenthood immediately took the law to court and blocked its enforcement. Their argument before the district judge and then the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was that the abortionists’ freedom of speech (i.e., not to tell women about all the risks) trumped the women’s right to know.

Which got virtually no coverage outside the pro-life world and social media.

Quindlen’s article in Newsweek wraps up with this: “The great thing about video is that you can see the mental wheels turning as these people realize that they somehow have overlooked something central while they were slinging certainties.”

Actually, abortion activists have been slinging their own certainties for decades. It’s only a matter of time before a video turns up that captures their wheels turning, while the most committed abortion supporters confront a few questions and see whether there are any true epiphanies.

(That was eight years before the undercover videos of Planned Parenthood employees answering questions about obtaining and making available for sale baby body parts after abortions.)

In 2007 through present times, one could and can ask…

Questions like: “If the abortion movement is really all about ‘choice’, why are you so opposed to actually giving women one, by following the standard medical procedure requirement of obtaining ‘informed consent’?” “When informed consent laws in different states actually make it close to passage, why do you fight them so vigorously?” “If you really are ‘pro-choice’, what do you have against giving women a two- or three-day consideration period … or even 24 hours … after allowing her to know all her options?”

(These aren’t actually answered, or even confronted.)

The Newsweek column concludes that “there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can’t countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can’t have it both ways.” But that is wrongheaded and illogical. This is the abortion movement contriving an untenable calculation.

Americans United for Life Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe published this clarification in April 2010 about states not prosecuting women even before Roe v. Wade. It’s very thorough and should be read now.

The political claim—that women were or will be prosecuted or jailed under abortion laws—has been made so frequently by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW over the past 40 years that it has become an urban legend. It shows the astonishing power of contemporary media to make a complete falsehood into a truism.

For 30 years, abortion advocates have claimed—without any evidence and contrary to the well-documented practice of ALL 50 states—that women were jailed before Roe and would be jailed if Roe falls (or if state abortion prohibitions are reinstated).

This claim rests on not one but two falsehoods:

First, the almost uniform state policy before Roe was that abortion laws targeted abortionists, not women…

Second, the myth that women will be jailed relies, however, on the myth that “overturning” Roe will result in the immediate re-criminalization of abortion. If Roe was overturned today, abortion would be legal in at least 42-43 states tomorrow, and likely all 50 states, for the simple reason that nearly all of the state abortion prohibitions have been either repealed or are blocked by state versions of Roe adopted by state courts. The issue is entirely academic. The legislatures of the states would have to enact new abortion laws—and these would almost certainly continue the uniform state policy before Roe that abortion laws targeted abortionists and treated women as the second victim of abortion. There will be no prosecutions of abortionists unless the states pass new laws after Roe is overturned.

This political claim is not an abstract question that is left to speculation—there is a long record of states treating women as the second victim of abortion in the law that can be found and read. (emphasis added)

So media have the task, embedded in their profession, to find and read it.

Meanwhile, more from my article in 2007.

The week the Quindlen column came out in Newsweek, two post-abortive women, Georgette Forney and Janet Morana, co-directors of the ‘Silent No More Awareness Campaign’, reacted to the continuing deceit of the abortion movement in public statements. “To Anna Quindlen and anyone else I would say that women are already serving time for abortion right now in our own prisons”, Forney said. “No condescending dismissal of women’s torment by abortion ideologues can diminish the daily punishment of guilt, shame, and remorse post-abortive women experience.”

Morana made it clear what the overwhelming majority of pro-life people believe: women who have abortions are frequently victims as well because of the way abortion businesses sell abortions to them with misinformation….”The abortion profiteers and their shills in the press have been telling society for years that whatever it is that abortion terminates, it’s not a baby,” she said.

“This propaganda onslaught has taken its toll on women who believed that lie and who emphatically state today that had they known that their child was not just a “clump of tissue,” as abortionists told them, they would have never aborted,’ Morana added.”

This is going to remain a big issue in Election 2016. Good.

Abortion activists want to put the big questions out there. Let them be prepared to answer them, to carry the argument through to its logical conclusion. Why does an abortionist have more of a right to remain silent about abortion risks than the woman patient does to receive it, when her health is at stake?

(Re: informed consent law claims by Planned Parenthood and NARAL)

Why did NY Salon’s abortion forum, titled ‘What’s So Bad About Abortion?’ refuse any participation to the women from ‘Silent No More’, who could actually answer that question? Why does NY Salon’s website claim the group “believes passionately in free speech and discussing ideas robustly” but they would not allow Forney to discuss the idea that abortion is bad for women? After all, they already stacked the forum with four abortion advocates, from NARAL, the National Abortion Federation and a British abortion business. But the forum did not include any women who have had abortions and regret that decision. So, did they really want to know what’s so bad about abortion, after all?

Furthermore.…Why has the abortion movement turned its back for so long on Norma McCorvey after she was useful as “Jane Roe”, after she turned pro-life and Catholic and began to work so hard to inform the public about the impact of abortion? Do abortion activists realize that “reproductive rights” is a euphemism to fool the public into blanket acceptance of all contraception and abortion, or are they deluded as well? Although, if they’re deluded, they can’t answer that.

There’s a principle in law and logic that applies here. Never ask a question you can’t answer.

The Akin fault line

Sometimes, it takes a bad blunder by one individual to trigger a long-simmering tension into a full-blow eruption.

Missouri Congressman Todd Akin was that individual. And his blunder became a flashpoint.

Todd Akin’s inconsiderate and indefensible comments on “legitimate rape,” pregnancy, and abortion raise a whole host of questions: Should abortion be allowed in instances of rape? How can we talk about the issue of abortion in a more humane and compassionate way? In a political context, what questions are relevant to helping the lives of women and children and men?

Now we’re talking. And that’s the upshot of Akin’s bizarre remark that’s otherwise incoherent in itself. We’re talking directly about abortion now, when and whether it should be considered acceptable and so on.

Representative Todd Akin’s remarks prompted a CNN headline that abortion is now at the “center” of the 2012 campaign.

And so it is. Now let’s have the discussion.

All people are equal. All choices are not.

People used to value a woman based on who her father or husband was. It is similarly medieval to value a child by the actions of her father. That way of thinking is patriarchal and antifeminist, and it should have passed away with the Dark Ages.

Abortion after rape is misdirected anger. It doesn’t punish the perpetrator of the crime or prevent further assaults against other women.

Feminists for Life’s priority is keeping women safe…

We need to listen to those who have had children conceived through sexual assault and work for short- and long-term solutions that benefit both children and mothers.

Feminists for Life is a proud supporter of the Violence Against Women Act. In fact, we were the only pro-life group active in the National Task Force on Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence.

So maybe now more people will listen to Serrin Foster.

And Matt Franck:

What he said about “legitimate rape” and the chances of a rape victim becoming pregnant was wrong and offensive, and he has apologized. He evidently spoke out of ignorance, and he has learned better. What he said about the injustice of abortion even in the case of rape, however, was absolutely right, and this spoke well of his moral sense. It is a hard saying, but it must be said: The abortion of a child conceived because of a rape is as wrong as any other abortion. Women and their babies, in every kind of crisis pregnancy, need our love, compassion, and support. But abortion is never what anyone needs to heal a wound; it only opens a new one.

It is by now a familiar question from liberal journalists when interviewing pro-life candidates: “You’re against all abortions — what about in cases of rape and incest?” Pro-lifers need to learn how to answer this question, because they can always expect it. The question tugs at heartstrings and aims at exposing a weakness. The appeal to compassion for rape and incest victims must be answered with real compassion for both parties in any pregnancy — mother and child. As for the politics of it, a pro-lifer can always say, “I am for any legislation that reduces the number of abortions and legally restricts a grave injustice. If that means a bill that eliminates most abortions that are legal now but makes an exception for rape and incest, I’m for it. But that doesn’t mean I’m for the exception. Every abortion is a tragic wrong, and we must work to restore respect for the sanctity of every life, from conception to natural death, no matter what the circumstances.”

And Michaelene Fredenburg:

When I speak or write about the grief and loss due to abortion, I remind myself that at least half of all Americans have been personally affected by abortion — either through their own abortion or by the abortion of someone close to them. I consider how my word choices, tone of voice, and body language may be understood by men and women who feel isolated and alone in their pain and grief. Any communication about abortion and other reproductive outcomes may elicit painful memories and emotions, so I am careful to demonstrate compassion and support.

And David French, all of what he said:

Several years ago during a morning drive, I was listening to a rather animated discussion about abortion on — of all things — a local classic-rock radio station. The morning DJs were mocking Christian conservatives in the way Rolling Stone liberals do, by presuming that all intelligent people agree, the issues are settled, and the backward and bigoted carry on only through ignorance and fear.

Then a call came in that silenced them — at least for a moment.

“Hi, I’ve been listening to y’all discuss abortion,” said a quiet female voice on the other end of the line, “and I’ve got my own story to tell.”

“My mother was attacked and raped, but she decided my father’s assault shouldn’t mean that I should die. So she carried me, gave birth to me, and raised me. I’m glad she didn’t kill me for my father’s crime.”

That is how we should talk about abortion in these most painful of circumstances — as a matter of innocence. Under what circumstances can we take a wholly innocent human life? Does the rapist’s dreadful crime justify dismembering a child?

But we can’t talk about legalities alone. It is in these most difficult of circumstances that the church must step up to support and sustain the mother through the most terrifying and trying time of her life. Along with a sacred duty to defend innocent life comes a sacred duty to support and care for mother and child.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America:

Pope John Paul II wrote: “Social justice cannot be attained by violence. Violence kills what it intends to create. Violence and war can never resolve the problems of men.” It is insensitive to say to a woman who has been raped that the horrific violence of rape can be eased or erased by simply aborting the child conceived during the rape. One act of violence cannot erase another.

Because of the 15-second media culture we live in, pro-life politicians today feel they must say abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest. Talking about the horrific violence of rape and the personhood of all human beings in a way that is compassionate and sensitive is not possible in a 15-second sound bite. The pro-life movement must do more to educate Americans about the personhood of all human beings. Only then will pro-life politics follow.

Kathryn Jean Lopez:

Questions asked about rape on the campaign trail in reference to abortion remind me of when, a presidential-primary cycle ago, a reporter asked Mitt Romney if he would support a Human Life Amendment. He seemed amazed such a question would be asked, for we would be living in a changed country if the Supreme Court overruled Roe and Congress passed, and the states ratified, such an amendment; we’re not there yet, so let’s talk about what we can do to make abortions seem unthinkable in the lives of women who find themselves pregnant. Only the hardened ideologue doesn’t want to help mothers be mothers. We ought to focus on this in our politics and in our civic communities. This is a legitimate conversation, and a compassionate one.

That’s a chunk of the NRO symposium. There’s more, and it’s well-considered and timely.

And then there’s this gem I came across on the LA Times, by Meghan Daum. No matter what you believe about the issue, this challenges it.

Like any sentient person, I was appalled by Missouri Republican Congressman Todd Akin’s comments about “legitimate rape.”…

But unlike the many people proclaiming their outrage on Facebook and Twitter, I’m actually grateful to Akin…because he has forced those who feel strongly about abortion to face the truth: When it comes to abortion, you’re either in or you’re out. For all the talk about exceptions for rape and incest, for all the hand-wringing about what constitutes “legitimate” sexual violence and whether pregnancy can result from rape, the real issue has nothing to do with rape. The real issue is whether abortion should be legal or illegal.

Period. Full stop. That’s it.

And this will certainly be continued.

At-risk pregnancy continues by choice, in faith

We tend to forget that carrying a crisis or difficult prenancy to term is the other choice.

This Chicago area woman has a remarkable story, by virtue of doing what she deeply held to be what’s right and natural to a mother’s instincts.

Facing adversity, criticism and an uncertain future for her conjoined twins, Amanda Schulten says she chose life.

Despite the devastatingly low probability of survival, the single Marengo mother-to-be said that, for her, there was just no other option.

Joined at the heart, her daughters — whom she’s already named Hope and Faith — should be given a chance to live, Amanda said, no matter how long those lives may be.

Strong in her Catholic religious beliefs, Amanda said she loves her children unconditionally and cannot interfere with God’s will.

“He has a plan for me, and for them,” she said. “We never know when our last day will be. We have to enjoy it, and appreciate health while we have it.”

Amanda has created a blog about her experiences at, which tells the story of her journey throughout the pregnancy. On the main page is the poignant poem she penned, “I Love You.”

“No matter what happens, my soul will never leave you; If difficulties come here, I will never disappear,” the poem begins.

“I’m sure you would be proud to call me momma,” she writes, “for you are a special gift to me.”

Amazing grace, especially in the cultural climate of convenient solutions to difficulties like this.

“The doctor said the babies won’t make it, and termination is the best option,” Amanda said. “I broke down. I wasn’t thinking about abortion, I was thinking, ‘Will they survive?’ Not ‘I want them to die.’?”…

“Some people were really supportive and thought I was doing the right thing … while others, not so much,” she said. “They would say things like, ‘the kids would suffer’ … ‘I’m selfish if I keep the babies because of how short their life span is’ … ‘they’re just going to die anyway.’?”

This pretty much sums it up:

Amanda said her blog has been a double-edged sword, with some contributors lifting her up, and others telling her to get an abortion.

“People say really mean things. I am constantly deleting things,”

Amanda said she will stand by her choice. “If they were in my shoes, maybe they’d see it differently.”

And the ultimate question:

Amanda said if mothers don’t protect their children, who else will?

This Sun-Times editorial sort of tries to reason this out, but with limited reasoning skills.

We are a pro-choice editorial page. We will always defend a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

The flip side of that coin is that we also will always defend a woman’s right not to have an abortion, even when that choice looks to us to be most unwise. Pro-choice means pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

Good, for starters. They cite Amanda’s case, heartbreaking as it is. And then say this:

We can all list plenty of good reasons Schulten might have chosen abortion.

Not sure who “all” they’re speaking for, but besides the babies’ expected short life span, the editors offer this “reason”:

The medical cost of Schulten’s pregnancy and delivery and the babies’ future care will be enormous, only a portion of which insurance will likely cover. And, really, what kind of life is ahead for these girls?

So the first sentence reveals a cost/benefit calculation on human life. And the second one applies the ‘quality of life’ standard that measures the objective good of human life by a subjective standard like the one increasingly used to justify euthanasia.

However, once said, editors pivot again.

But if Schulten was not convinced by such arguments, so be it. The call was hers to make — and hers alone. And we believe her when she says she will love her girls “always and forever, no matter what” and give up her “whole life” for them…

We defend her right to choose. What she chooses is her business.

That’s about as honest (though obliquely honest) a bottom line as any big media outlet has offered on this subject lately. Maybe the face and the heart Amanda Schulten brings to the question forces a more considered response.

The life force of motherhood

Several years ago, a film came out that was part psychological thriller/part science fiction, that involved a missing child and a woman tortured by the denial of his existence. Way too creepy a premise for me, so I didn’t see it. Then I learned that it was all based on the premise that a mother’s love was a force so powerful, it could not be broken.

I don’t care whether the film got good reviews, its message was phenomenal.

Eventually Telly hunts down one of “them” at a dilapidated airport and he tells her that she has been a part of an experiment into whether the bonds between mother and child can be diminished. Telly refuses to deny her son’s existence. She is choked and ordered to give up her first memory of her son; the first time she saw him as a newborn. But she recalls her pregnancy and the being who has been experimenting on her is ‘blown away’.

Such is the power of a mother/child bond. This is remarkable.

When my sons were born, a woman professional friend told me she’d never seen motherhood so transform a woman as it had me. When my sons were young, I considered myself a ‘Mama Lion’ (many years before I ever heard of Sarah Palin or the term ‘Mama Grizzlies’).

So I thought of this suddenly on my radio show Friday, headed into Mother’s Day weekend, interviewing an expert on families and parenting and the love of a mother. No matter what the difficulties parents and children face, nothing is beyond the reach of relentless, unconditional, invincible love. Nothing matters as much to both  mother and child, she said, as the primal need for love.

Which made me think of the simple fact that when a pregnant woman says she’s ‘going to have a baby’, she already has one. That’s a fundamental truth and it’s where we need to start.

I’ve dedicate some upcoming radio shows to renewing the language about human life and abortion. The basics. Staring with a primer on how to even talk about it. The next show will be a roundtable to re-set the relationship between the pro-choice and pro-life movements. I’m calling on anyone of goodwill who wants to participate. What’s the single toughtest questions you’re unable to answer in the abortion debate? Or, the one you don’t know who to ask? I’ll bring them to the table, and report back how that goes.

Abortion reality show provokes thought

The idea behind the interactive webcast program ‘Bump’ was to follow three fictitious characters through unplanned pregnancies and invite viewers to debate and try to shape whatever decisions the three women came to about choosing abortion or not. It set out to be provocative, and it did provoke.

Now the web series has come to an end, and producers are encouraging more conversation. What to say…..?

It is certainly a unique cultural moment. From the beginning of the series, I’ve been receiving updates in my inbox regularly as I somehow landed on Yellow Line Studio’s mailing list as no doubt thousands of others have. And to borrow the phrase from Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink, I felt intuitive repulsion before thinking about it more, but have thought about it more. Especially when I saw the comments of a few people whose insights I value.

Matthew Archbold sized it up in his usual creatively pointed way, and I agree with much of what he said.

Here’s the thing. Very real abortions are procured for much more fatuous reasons than viewer votes on a game show. To many progressives, abortion just isn’t that big of a deal. And that’s going on in real life, never mind in a reality game show…

Right now, abortion as a cultural conversation is barely a whisper…When someone holds up a sign of a dismembered fetus in front of an abortion clinic people are outraged at the man holding the sign while ignoring the fact that abortionists are actually pulling apart real babies just inside the building. America is experiencing a silent holocaust. And let’s face it, silence only helps the status quo…

I’ll accept just about anything to stop the cultural blackout we have on all things abortion.

Fr. Frank Pavone says pretty much the same thing. He’s generous and open to this new venue for conversation.

“Bump+’s” target audience is not the pro-life community. It is trying to reach the vast number of citizens whose attitude toward abortion can best be described as conflicted. “Bump+” is not a forum for an abortion debate. The point here is to help viewers hear and feel both sides of the issue through stories. This is simply a conversation, not a condoning of abortion. We need to bring people through the conversation through stories. Jesus was a storyteller. You tell a story and let people connect with that…

The big benefit for people in the middle is that “Bump+” helps people get beyond the slogans. Slogans can contain a lot of truth and grace, but they can also shut down thinking. If you can get people beyond slogans, that is a big benefit.

That’s a good point. Slogans can shut down thinking.

On the pro-life side of the coin, we have to make sure that we’re not just articulating arguments, but that we can feel with those who are facing the decision and the temptations that lead one toward abortion. This doesn’t mean that the decision should be anything other than choosing life, but the more we understand them, the better we will be able to help them.

This is exactly what I’ve tried to say for a long time (but not as well or succinctly as Fr. Pavone). In order to engage, we need to both listen and speak, but for so long now we’ve mostly talked past each other. Conversions from the ‘pro-choice’ side to the pro-life have mostly been through traumatic firsthand experiences, which is why Silent No More Awareness Campaign is so effective at changing hearts and minds.

But that takes listening to people who regret participating in abortions, and the general ‘pro-choice’ population likely pay no attention to those people.

That’s why producers decided to make this series. ‘Bump the Show’s website encourages viewers to click on different characters and episodes and

add your voice to any discussion you choose. We’re looking for personal experiences, honest conversation, and compassionate advice for our characters. We’ve heard all the arguments on both sides of the issue. This is a place to share your stories and talk to each other, not at each other.

It’s a new direction and one the young adult generation is starting to take us in, through their eyes. And they see things differently from generations preceding them.

The Yellow Line Studios notice that showed up in my inbox today was intriguing. Here’s some of it:

During a final episode, set to premiere this Monday, March 15, 2010, members of the production team will address the thousands of viewers in sixty-four countries who have tuned in to watch the series. They will be joined by members of that viewing audience who have been an ongoing part of the accompanying discussion on the website. Guests currently scheduled to appear include Sister Mary Agnes Dombroski, a New Hampshire nun whose order operates a group home for abused children and created; and Jennifer Filipowicz, a pro-choice blogger and mother of two known to other fans by the screen name SuperHappyJen.

It also quoted a statement by Yellow Line’s CEO:

“We’ve been attacked and praised by people on both sides of the debate – but when you read the posts from our audience members, it’s impossible to deny that a respectful, compassionate conversation about abortion has begun. That was our only goal, and we hope it continues on the BUMP+ website and elsewhere.”

As Matthew Archbold said, the more shows like Bump the better. Make people confront the realities of abortion.

And if this was one step too far I’m begging them to take two…

Give ’em their game show. Let’s have it out. In public. Because i know if abortion is talked about, we win.

Hopefully, we all win.