Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth

Pro-lifers swallow the pill

Coming to a pro-life pregnancy center near you? Some centers are offering clients contraceptives. Others say that compromises their mission

Linda Wells at Eden Clinic Photo by Chris Landsberger/Genesis

Pro-lifers swallow the pill
You have {{ remainingArticles }} free {{ counterWords }} remaining. You've read all of your free articles.

Full access isn’t far.

We can’t release more of our sound journalism without a subscription, but we can make it easy for you to come aboard.

Get into news that is grounded in facts and Biblical truth for as low as $2.99 per month.


Already a member? Sign in.

Photo by Kevin Vandivier/Genesis

Mary Jackson

Mary is a book reviewer and reporter for WORLD. She is a World Journalism Institute and Greenville University graduate who previously worked for the Lansing (Mich.) State Journal. Mary resides with her family in the San Francisco Bay area.



Please wait while we load the latest comments...


Please register or subscribe to comment on this article.


When will Marvin Olasky, my hero in responsible journalism, come to his senses.  When will he add to the World stylebook that Pro-Birth is different than Pro-Life?  Pro-Life means people care about the 225,000 and counting deaths from COVID-19 without an adequate Federal Government response.  Many who call themselves Pro-Life do not take personal responsibility to stop the spread and insist restrictions violate their liberties.  Do they care about the thousands of immigrants who die trying to get to the United States or in camps here waiting for processing?  Are they concerned about the thousands killed by guns in crimes and by police and do not support reasonable gun control policies that will let most Americans own a weapon for protection, sport, or a well-regulated militia (whatever that means today)?  Any new controls will not stop all criminals, but maybe just the one who may cost you your life.  Is there concern for the hundreds of dead when their health insurance canceled because of changes this administration made to health regulations?  Is there concern about militarism rhetoric?  I recall our President calling for “fire and fury,” or a nuke on Iran if they develop a nuke.  How many innocent people will die from that action?  Not to mention the hypocrisy of us being the world leader in nuclear weapons.  Is there concern for the many dead from capital punishment when state and federal laws are inconsistently applied and just one innocent person may have slipped through the cracks?  When talking about abortion those people should be called Pro-Birth.  Pro-Life is supporting  ALL life from birth until natural death.  I think I heard a President say those words at a Pro-Birth rally in Washington.  All of the aforementioned issues are related to people dying before “natural death.”.  I battled news directors who had complaints because I used the word “homosexual” in my reports on LG issues (the rest of the alphabet was not there at the time).  The complainers wanted me to use the word “gay.”  I told my boss, “I do not know if you know, but I am gay.”  Slightly stunned by my admission he said he did not realize that.  Then I said, “But I am not homosexual.”  He agreed with my word usage.  The same happened when he got complaints about me using the word “baby” in fetal research stories.  The complainers wanted me to use the word “fetus.”  I explained to my news director that words are important and should be used correctly.  My wife was pregnant at the time and I told him when I go home I ask, “How are you and the baby today?”  I do not ask, “How are you and the fetus?”  He agreed.  Words matter.  Pro-Birth is not Pro-Life.  And this President is not Pro-Life.​



In light of Austin city council's vote on August 13, 2020 to defund the police (by $150 million) and "reinvest" $21.5 million into "a wide array of programs, including mental health response, permanent supportive housing food access, abortion access, an early childhood coordinator position and violence prevention," I want to append my previous comment. 

Providing government-funded access to abortion is wrong on so many levels.  First, the thinking seems to be that it's more expedient to curb criminal activity by preventing miscreants from reproducing than it is to enforce the law.  Abortion advocates are hiding behind a high incidence of crime and low income in their decision where to place clinics, which coincidentally, happen to be in black neighborhoods.  Planned Parenthood's agenda has not changed from that of its founder.  This is the ugly specter of eugenics. 

Second, government-funded abortion is likely to increase lawlessness.  Men who think they won't be prosecuted for rape and that the women they assault can "fix" the consequences will become more emboldened to literally take what they want.  Free contraceptives offer no more protection from violence than free abortion.  And some women just don't want to use them for health reasons.  They shouldn't have to choose between preventing an unwanted pregnancy or terminating it because the police can't protect them. 

And finally, there's the obvious — that countless human beings will be murdered at taxpayer expense.  

The role of government is to ensure law and order, not engage in social engineering.  Many of the programs the city of Austin wants constitute the latter.  When man rebels against the social order God ordained, things get complicated, but truth will out, eventually.  Pro-life pregnancy centers who offer contraceptives really need to think this through and decide whether they are being somehow complicit with their mixed messages.