Even some pro-lifers do not understand why we with Red Rose Rescue do counseling to abortion-minded couples not only outside the abortion center (where I go every month) but also occasionally inside the abortion center (which I have only done twice in my life—both times resulting in arrest, even though our actions on the inside of the killing center were always peaceful and respectful.)

Because I have never blocked entrance to an abortion mill (something my friends who are more courageous than me have indeed done) I have only been charged in the past with trespassing.  However, some pro-lifers believe this is imprudent and even increases buffer zones for the pro-life counselors who would stay on the outside of the clinic day-in and day-out.  I understand this opposition.

The analogy we use to justify Red Rose Rescue goes like this:  Imagine you were walking by a covenant-controlled swimming pool and on the gate you saw a sign (like the featured image above) that read “Pool Members Only.”  However, you see a child drowning and the lifeguards are flirting with each other.  You run past the “members only” sign and dive into the pool to save the drowning child.  Technically, you trespassed.  But saving a life took precedent over arbitrary law.

Or, imagine you are walking in downtown Houston and there are ten ten-year-olds all lined up ten meters from each other and a madman is walking the sidewalk with sledgehammer and bursting each child’s head open with a forceful crash for each child.  Which sane man (or woman) would refrain from using proportionate means to stop such a murder?  Even moderate Catholics would admit lethal force would be beyond justified here.

Yet we at Red Rose Rescue are using no lethal force.  We are simply putting our bodies peacefully between the killer and the baby.  And when we refuse to leave when the killing-staff or police tell us to leave, we simply say “I can’t leave until every baby and mother is safe here.”  Again, the normal outcome is arrest.

The reason why many pro-lifers refuse to see what we are describing is because they are only ambiguously “pro-life” not anti-abortion.  Yes, I joined the pro-life movement in the 1990s when we were told to use the term “pro-life” not “anti-abortion.”  But a gentleman named Scott down in Florida a few weeks ago explained to me why we must also be “anti-abortion.”  The short reason is that “pro-life” is nebulous and is often based in compromise.

But can we compromise any more when children are being mercilessly and ruthlesslessly slaughtered?  Many pro-lifers believe intellectually that abortion is murder, but they haven’t let that reality make it to their hearts yet.  Why?  Either because it’s too horrible to comprehend that we live in a country that kills so many children or because the killing is so sterilized that children who die without audible screams are easier to ignore than those murdered outside of a uterus.

But when you are ready to admit that every abortion is a murder of a perfectly fine human being who can’t yell out for himself, then our entrance into abortion centers to peacefully beg for the life of the child becomes an act of normalcy, not extremism.

In court this week, we used the necessity argument.  It is a part of all civil law and I will include here the basics that a lawyer in Florida named Zach texted me before our trial about the basics of necessity in civil law:

3.6(k) DURESS OR NECESSITY:

An issue in this case is whether (defendant) acted out of [duress] [necessity] in committing the crime of (crime charged) (lesser included offenses).

It is a defense to the (crime charged) (lesser included offenses) if the defendant acted out of [duress] [necessity]. To find the defendant committed the (crime charged) (lesser included offense) out of [duress] [necessity], you must find the following eight elements:

  1. The defendant reasonably believed [a danger] [an emergency] existed. 
  2. The defendant reasonably believed the [danger] [emergency] would cause death or serious bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another].
  3. The perceived harm of death or serious bodily injury was imminent and impending.
  4.       The defendant did not intentionally or recklessly place himself in a situation in which it was probable that [he] [she] would be forced to choose the criminal conduct. 
  5. The defendant had no reasonable means to avoid the [danger] [emergency] except by committing the (crime charged) (lesser included offenses). 
  6. The (crime charged) (lesser included offenses) was committed out of [duress] [necessity] to avoid the [danger] [emergency].
  7. The perceived harm that the defendant avoided outweighed the harm caused by committing the (crime charged) (lesser included offenses).
  8.     The defendant ceased [his] [her] criminal conduct as soon as the necessity or apparent necessity for the criminal conduct ended.

“Imminent and impending” means the [danger] [emergency] is about to take place and cannot be avoided by using other means. A threat of future harm is not sufficient for this defense to apply.

The reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that [a danger] [an emergency] existed should be examined in the light of all the evidence.

In deciding whether it was necessary for the defendant to commit the (crime charged) (lesser included offenses), you must judge the defendant by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the crime was committed.

Thank you if you are able to donate.