Kristine Hunerwadel
"Cast Down Your Cares"
"Cast Down Your Cares"
Steve Wagner
They Stop and Think (Then We Pray)
They Stop and Think (Then We Pray)
Kaitlyn Donihue
Connecting the Dots
Connecting the Dots
Justice For All
Team Be Nimble

In this Impact Report, we feature highlights from Justice For All (JFA) events that took place from March to September. Each highlighted event illustrates the way smaller training teams can help us make a bigger impact. We’ve found that empowering our trainers to do events on their own helps our team to be nimble and ready to meet the great need all over the country for good dialogue training—training that includes outreach whenever possible.

Team Be Nimble
Tammy Cook
Passing the Baton

Tammy Cook reflects on 28 years with JFA.

Passing the Baton

The Impact of a Single Conversation

I was recently at Wichita State University (WSU) for outreach when two young men approached my colleague Tammy Cook and me at our poll table. Tammy asked them, “Do either of you have any thoughts on abortion?” One student shared that he is pro-life. The other (who I’ll call “Dillon”) said something that left both Tammy and me quite surprised. He said,

Our August outreach took place at WSU. I’m pictured wearing a hat on the left, and Tammy is sitting behind me. Hannah Cook is in the blue shirt in the foreground.

“I used to be pro-choice, but I had a three-hour conversation about abortion with someone last school year. She pulverized all of my arguments. When I realized I couldn’t respond to anything she said even in my head, I knew I had to change my mind.”

Pictured above is Bella (in the grey sweatshirt on the right) and me (sitting on the left) talking to students at WSU during our February outreach.

The “someone” he was referring to was my former colleague, Bella O’Neill. Their conversation took place in February earlier this year. What began as a simple one-on-one survey with questions related to human rights turned into a comprehensive discourse with five other pro-choice advocates challenging her pro-life position. What’s fascinating is that Dillon showed no sign of shifting his view throughout the duration of their discussion. If he had never come back, we wouldn’t have known that he had re-evaluated his stance.

“You changed your mind after that one conversation?” Tammy asked.

Another conversation I had with a student at our previous WSU outreach in February

“Yeah, she had a really good response to everything I said. If this was a debate, she definitely won.”

Dillon kept reiterating how well Bella had made her case.

“Did you know that... more babies are killed by abortion than there were victims of the Holocaust?” Dillon asked.

The rawness of his question caught me off guard. Not only was he suggesting that abortion is an injustice; he was implying that it’s a genocide.

After his newfound pro-life conviction had proven itself authentic, I decided to challenge him with a higher level pro-choice argument made from bodily autonomy. Within a matter of seconds, he started breaking it down to explain why it wouldn’t justify abortion.

Dillon’s story is an important reminder that the impact of a single conversation is oftentimes hidden. It can be discouraging when we don’t get to witness the fruits of our labor, but God occasionally rewards us with follow-up conversations like this one to affirm that, with His grace, our efforts are not in vain. With each conversation, we must persistently pray that He will continue the conversation in their minds after we “leave them with a pebble in their shoe” (as apologist Greg Koukl says).

Dillon’s story also demonstrates the critical need for all pro-life people to prayerfully work up the courage to talk about abortion. So many of our peers are eagerly searching for truth. They desire an honest conversation that challenges the assumptions behind their current beliefs. Unfortunately, many of them have never had the chance to discuss their beliefs in a healthy way. Their opportunity to get closer to truth may begin with you.

If you would like to learn the conversational skills that Bella used with Dillon, please consider signing up for Love3, JFA’s online interactive workshop series. We will teach you how to respond to common pro-choice arguments all in the context of being a loving ambassador for Christ. You can register for free at www.jfaweb.org/love3.

Bella’s courage to talk about abortion gave Dillon an opportunity to encounter truth. And because of Dillon’s desire to follow truth, he concluded that abortion is not merely a choice—it’s the destruction of a person with rights. Please join me in prayerful thanksgiving for Bella saying “Yes!” to God’s invitation to talk to Dillon, as well as Dillon’s “Yes!” to humbly allowing the conversation to change his mind.

Note: This letter was originally sent to supporters in September 2022.

No Regrets

Impact Report - October 2022

For most people, talking about moral or spiritual matters with other people is daunting when we have no knowledge of how they might respond. But what about when people have shown us that their views definitely conflict with ours? Even worse, what if someone has demonstrated he or she is close-minded or has even made mocking comments about the pro-life position or Christianity or people who believe in Jesus? We don’t want to “cast our pearls before swine” so should we step into the conversation even if we have reasons to believe it won’t be fruitful? In this Impact Report, JFA dialogue artist Andrea Thenhaus describes a recent conversation that illustrates why our answer to this question is usually “Yes!” She learned that we can have misconceptions about people and that conversations can go far better than we predicted. -Steve Wagner, Executive Director

Towards the end of the second day of our Texas State University outreach this month, a group of four people started looking at the free speech board. I stood nearby for a few minutes listening. They were making inappropriate and crass remarks about the comments they were reading.

Andrea (right) interacts with a student at Fort Lewis College in Durango, CO in April 2022.

At first, I did not want to talk with these students. What if they decided to direct their rude comments toward me? I had several excellent conversations that day, and I did not want to end on a discouraging note.

Then I decided I wanted to finish the day having no regrets. If they did not want to engage, or if the conversation did not go well, at least I would know I had done my part by trying to dialogue with them.

I asked them if they had any thoughts on the issue of abortion. They started by saying that they are pro-choice and then began sharing with me why they thought abortion should be legal. Christy, a member of the Students For Life club on campus, asked if she could join the conversation. Our conversation went something like this:

Sophia: I have seen so much suffering in this world. I just want to prevent kids from having to experience suffering. I think abortion should be legal for that reason. It would be more compassionate to end the life of the unborn when they are not conscious or aware of what is going on.

Jessica: There are many children suffering in foster care. We need to change the foster care system if abortion is going to be illegal.

Christy: Can I ask you a question? Imagine that there is a group of kids in the foster care system. Would it be okay to kill them to help relieve the suffering they are experiencing?

They agreed that would not be right, but then they noted differences between these kids and the unborn:

Jessica: At that point they are already in this world.

Sophia: The unborn is different, and I just want to prevent the child from experiencing pain and suffering.

Jessica: I have two siblings who have been in the foster care system. It was very hard on them.

In that moment, I sensed that they had a story to share. I realized that I needed to just listen.

Sophia: I have had a hard life. Many people in my life have died. Yesterday, my friend told me that her mom recently passed away after she had been missing. I also attended a school where we were frequently on lockdowns due to shootings. At first it was terrifying to attend school every day knowing that I might get shot. I eventually stopped fearing death and accepted that I could die. As the conversation continued, both of these young women expressed that they don’t have hope.

Andrea: Thank you for sharing. Everyone has a story, and it is important to listen to one another. I want people to know that I care about them. You never know what someone is going through or has gone through in their life.

Sophia: I can tell that you care.

She started to tear up, and I reaffirmed my concern for her. After a few minutes, it seemed helpful to note why we were on campus and how that related to listening to individual stories.

Andrea: JFA is a pro-life organization. The heart behind our outreach is to create healthy and productive dialogue about abortion. That means it’s important to hear where each person is coming from.

Sophia: I agree that it is important to talk about this issue. We can bring both sides to the table and listen to each other.

Andrea: This is the way I look at it: If the unborn are living human beings like you and me, then abortion is taking a life. I think we need to protect the unborn. If the unborn are not human beings, then it does not matter if someone gets an abortion. You mentioned earlier that abortion is a choice. I think choice is good as long as it does not harm another human being. This is why I am pro-life, but I think that pro-life should not end at birth.

They looked at each other and then Sophia exclaimed,

Sophia: I can’t believe you just said that! You are the first person I have heard say that pro-life should not end at birth. Wow! This has been a groundbreaking conversation.

As we continued talking, my heart ached for them and their lack of hope. I felt prompted to share the gospel because I know that true hope is only found in Jesus Christ. I asked a question to begin: “What gives you hope?”

We then launched into a conversation in which I was able to share in detail what Christ has done for us. Finally I said, “I share all this with you because I care about you. There is not much hope in this world, but I find my hope in Jesus. I am confident that one day I’ll go to heaven, and that gives me hope!”

Throughout our conversation, and especially during our discussion of spiritual things, Sophia and Jessica were exceptionally receptive and appreciative.

As the conversation came to a close, I thanked them for taking the time to talk. They replied, “No. Thank you. We greatly appreciated this conversation and all that you shared. So thank you!”

I thank God for allowing me to see a window into His work in their hearts. I did leave this conversation with no regrets, and I was grateful for their remarkable shift in attitude. I am reminded that not all our interactions will go like this one. Often, we do not get to see the fruit of our labor. No matter the outcome, we can focus on being faithful to plant seeds and let God do the rest. I pray that you take the opportunities God gives you in the coming weeks so you also can say, “I have no regrets” and give thanks to Him for whatever results He brings.

Does the Bible Say Anything about Abortion?

Years ago, I received this email from a friend*:

“My secretary is a very wonderful Christian sister. Her daughter is 37 and pregnant and she is considering having an abortion. Unfortunately her daughter talked with an uninformed person who said the Bible doesn't address the topic of abortion.” [Identifying details have been removed.]

I fired off the following response without much editing and found out the next day that this simple Biblical defense against abortion, along with accurate pictures of abortion and the mother’s persistent expression of concern, persuaded the 37 year-old not to abort her child.

The Bible does address abortion as directly as it addresses the killing of toddlers. Neither is specifically mentioned, but it is clear from the following passages that human beings are made with a special dignity as part of their nature.

Gen. 1:26-28 *

“Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (v. 27) God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Gen. 9:6-7

‘Whoever sheds man's blood,

By man his blood shall be shed,

For in the image of God

He made man.

‘As for you, be fruitful and multiply;

Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.’ ”

James 3:8-10

“But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.”

And if our dignity is part of our nature, we have that dignity from the moment we begin to exist. And because it is clear scientifically that there is no essential change in the human organism from conception to natural death, the unborn must also have the same dignity we ourselves have.

So, Scripture does directly deal with abortion in the sense that abortion kills an innocent human being (if anyone questions whether abortion kills, they should consult abortion photos at www.abort73.com) and killing an innocent human being is seriously wrong no matter the stage of development, degree of dependency, or appearance of the child. Because the unborn is a human being (see “No One Knows When Life Begins” (Chapter 3) for a simple defense of the humanity of the unborn), all of the verses in the Old and New Testaments condemning the shedding of innocent blood and commanding us to protect the weak apply also to the unborn:

Ex. 20:13

“You shall not murder.”

Ex. 23:7

“You shall not pervert the justice due to your needy brother in his dispute.

“Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty.

“You shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of the just.”

Deut. 19:10-13

“Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed. But if a man hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him, assaults and kills him, and then flees to one of these cities, the elders of his town shall send for him, bring him back from the city, and hand him over to the avenger of blood to die. Show him no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you.”

Prov. 24:10-12

“If you are slack in the day of distress, Your strength is limited. Deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back. If you say, "See, we did not know this," Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?”

Prov. 6:16-19

“There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.”

Prov. 31:8-9

“Open your mouth for the mute, For the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.”

Matt. 19:16-19

“And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Matt. 28:19-20

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Sometimes abortion advocates point to Exodus 21:22, saying it directly supports abortion. To see why the verse is actually a defense of the pro-life position, see Greg Koukl’s excellent article, “What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion” (linked below). See also Scott Klusendorf’s “Dead Silence: Must the Bible Say Abortion is Wrong Before We Can Know that It’s Wrong?” for an incisive treatment of the Exodus passage as well as a response to the argument from Biblical silence on abortion.

(Note: I wrote the above years ago. Recently, through a World Magazine article by Leah Savas, I’ve become aware of another Biblical passage people are citing to justify abortion: Numbers 5:27. Alan Shlemon’s response is helpful: “Did God Ordain Abortion as Punishment for Infidelity?”)

* Note: All References: New American Standard Bible (Lockman Foundation: La Habra, CA 1995). Emphasis added.

An earlier version of this article appeared at Stand to Reason under the title, “Does the Bible Have Anything to Say About Abortion?”

Which Kind of "Wrong" Is "Right"?

With Dobbs returning abortion policy back to the states and consequently back to the people, pro-life advocates need to actively engage others in dialogue, perhaps now more than ever. In a “Classic Reprint” of a 2012 letter we sent to supporters this month, Joanna Bai illustrates how to listen to understand, make careful distinctions, and challenge people in a gentle way that helps them think more clearly. She also models the humble spirit we at JFA aim to bring to all of our work, being willing to say, “I was mistaken.” It can’t be overstated how important this is to help people feel free to adopt that same humble spirit. “Humble” is one of ten character qualities described in the Ambassador’s Creed from Stand to Reason. Our team reviews this excellent list every year as a reminder, and we heartily recommend it. - Steve Wagner, Executive Director

A large group was forming around JFA volunteer Lori Navrodtzke as she spoke with a student named “Julie” at our University of Kansas (KU) outreach last month [September 2012]. Intrigued, I also listened in.

Julie seemed opposed to our attempts to change people’s views about the morality of abortion because she believed that morals are relative. She explained that society sets moral standards based on what it thinks is beneficial for people. I requested permission to ask a clarifying question.

Joanna: From the little I’ve heard of your conversation, it sounds to me like you’ve asserted that we [at JFA] are wrong to impose our standard of morality on others. Is that correct?

Julie: Yes. That is what I meant.

Joanna: If you make that assertion, isn’t that action [of asserting that JFA is wrong] imposing your standard of morality on us? Your view does not seem to line up with itself.

In other words, her claim seemed to be self-refuting. She then agreed there was a problem in her claim, but only as I had presented it.

As she clarified her position, I saw that I had equivocated on her use of the term “wrong.” Perhaps she didn’t mean that it is unjust (morally wrong) to make a moral claim about abortion. Perhaps she really meant that we were mistaken (logically wrong) in claiming that there is any such thing as objective moral truth.

“Maybe she isn’t making a moral claim at all,” I thought. What she said next confirmed this:

Julie: You can say whatever you want about your beliefs, but those beliefs don’t make it bad for someone else to do something contrary to them.

Sensing that I had been missing her intent, I asked another clarifying question.

Joanna: Do you reject the idea of objective truth in general, or do you only reject the idea of objective moral truth specifically?

Julie: I only reject the idea of objective moral truth.

Clarifying this was extremely helpful to our conversation. In doing so, I realized she actually believed in truth and falsehood – just not truth and falsehood regarding moral claims. She believed there are such things as false beliefs, and she believed that one of my false beliefs was that there are objective moral wrongs (such as abortion). In other words, she believed there is an objective truth that morality is subjective.

She continued to clarify her thoughts.

Julie: I do believe in objective truth. Truth is that which can be proven empirically.

Now we were getting somewhere. She believed that truth is only that which is empirically proven (observed using the five senses). While my concern about self-refutation missed the mark with her previous statement, it was clearly appropriate now. I attempted to help her see the problem.

Joanna: Julie, can you empirically prove the statement you just made?

(In other words, “Can your statement hold to its own standard?”) Her statement about empirical proof would have to be proved by philosophical means, not empirical – but the statement itself didn’t leave room for any philosophical statements to be taken seriously!

This conversation clarified a number of things for me. First, while the denial of objective truth is self-refuting, the denial of moral truth is not necessarily self-refuting. Sure, if Julie had meant, “It is morally wrong to say any action is morally wrong,” that claim would have been self-refuting because the act of making the claim would violate the meaning of the claim itself. But Julie didn’t make that claim. By using the word “wrong,” she made it possible for me to confuse her meaning. She had actually meant that we were “mistaken” rather than morally wrong.

“We need to be careful to try to understand what people mean before we accuse them of holding contradictory points of view.”

As it turned out, Julie did have a view that was self-refuting – the very common claim that truth is only that which can be empirically proven. That’s a claim that can’t live by its own rules. So, unlike the claim, “You’re wrong (incorrect) to think there are moral rules,” (which is false for other reasons), this claim, “Truth is only that which can be proven empirically,” actually is self-refuting because one can’t know that the statement itself is true through empirical means. If the statement is true, then it is also false. Now, that’s a problem!

In talking with Julie, I experienced the importance of “listening to reflect,” rather than “listening simply to refute.” We need to be careful to try to understand what people mean before we accuse them of holding contradictory points of view. When I asserted that Julie’s initial claim was self-refuting, I was assuming I understood what she meant by “wrong.” When I stepped back and listened more carefully, it became clear I had misunderstood her. This further listening proved to be providential. By listening to understand her view clearly, I was able to ask better questions, which put us on the path of finding truth together.

Joanna Bai served as a JFA trainer from 2012-2022. This story was originally published in Joanna Bai’s October 2012 newsletter (“Which Kind of ‘Wrong’ Is ‘Right’ - How a Conversation at KU Taught Me to Listen”). See also Joanna’s “One Central Question Helps Change a Mind” which we featured in March of this year. Read many other excellent letters by Joanna and other alumni trainers JFA has had the privilege to employ over the years at the link below.

Featured Image (Steve Wagner): Walkway near the Governor’s Palace at Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia.

Melody's Story

Melody was not supposed to live very long according to what most doctors predicted. However, she is now 9 1/2 years old and thriving!

My sister was born with Trisomy 18.

Trisomy 18 is a genetic condition in which an individual has a third copy of chromosome 18. The statistics my parents were given when Melody was born were grim. They were told that babies with Trisomy 18 only make it out of the womb alive 10% of the time, and If the babies survive delivery, 50% don’t survive the first week. Of those, only 5-10% make it to a year.

Melody not only made it to a year, she has lived for close to a decade! She is a healthy and happy little girl. Tragically, when babies in the womb have a positive screening test for Trisomy 18, they are labeled “incompatible with life”, and the pressure to abort is overwhelming.

Melody is certainly not “incompatible with life.” She is equally human like the rest of us and full of vitality.

Go to melodysstory.com to read more about her incredible story. (I drew liberally from Melody’s website which is written by my mom, Jennifer Thenhaus.)

Raw from the Fallout of Dobbs?

Towards the end of a recent Love3 online workshop, one participant I’ll call “Sabrina” startled me with these words: “Now I have to find a new place to live.”

Sabrina’s roommate had seen her support for the Dobbs decision on social media and said, “We need to talk.” She made it clear she no longer felt comfortable living with Sabrina, so Sabrina needed to move out.

My heart ached for Sabrina. What an unfortunate result of her reasonable rejoicing over a good Supreme Court decision! For those of us who share Sabrina’s support of Dobbs and strong opposition to legal abortion, it’s perhaps easy to sympathize with her pain of loss. This situation causes me also, though, to sympathize with Sabrina’s friend and others who are feeling so raw from the Dobbs decision that they’d be willing to lose friends over it. Many see abortion as a fundamental right and when it becomes clear that this “right” is not only no longer recognized by the Supreme Court but also not even recognized by those thought to be friends, it can be especially painful.

How should we respond to pro-life and pro-choice people in our acquaintance as they experience fallouts from the Dobbs opinion? One strategy some Christians are following is to simply avoid the topic of unwanted pregnancy and abortion altogether. If we follow this avoidance strategy, we aren’t really serving anyone – not the unborn, not the women and men struggling with past abortions who need to heal, not friends who need more conversation about spiritual topics, and not the Christians who have a special opportunity to make a difference right now.

Dobbs has provided perhaps the best opportunity of the past few decades to discuss unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and the intrinsic value of every human being. As our team embarks on a busy fall with a number of outreach events, I am looking forward to discovering if my hunch about Dobbs is correct. I suspect that the Supreme Court’s decision to return the abortion question to the states will motivate great numbers of people to engage in discussion for the first time.

Sure, if I’m right and people are ready to talk, and if I’m also right that many are sad, angry, and otherwise “raw” from the Dobbs opinion, the conversations will be difficult. But I’d much rather have a difficult conversation than no conversation at all. Getting meaningful conversations started with the millions of people who have been too apathetic to engage has been one of our chief struggles. If it’s true that they will now engage, we must not waste this moment when they are ready.

Think of the unborn children who have been getting the “raw end of the deal” for decades under the Roe and Casey regimes (and still under Dobbs in many, many states) when they are killed by abortion. Whether this reality leaves our emotions “raw” or not, how should we respond?

Instead of glibly flaunting the Dobbs opinion with a smug sense of victory, with no goal of dialogue, we should indeed start conversations, and we should begin with concern for the feelings of those who disagree. Then we should fearlessly offer reasons that compel any person who cares about human rights to include unborn children in their circle of concern. Instead of shrinking back, fearful of making a mistake, we should prepare our minds and hearts, then spend time praying for God’s help. With that foundation, we trust God to use each encounter, however complicated by emotions, for the good of each person and for the purposes of God’s kingdom.

We invite you to join us during our Love3 Workshops beginning September 15 (or at other events in your area – see below) to get equipped for this important task ahead of each of us.

Thank you for praying for us and partnering with us as we train Christians and other pro-life advocates to infuse these dark conversation spaces with the light of love and the light of truth.

Image by Andraz Lazic on Unsplash

Recent Articles and Posts by JFA Trainers

Recent Instagram post @picturejusticeforall

Recent and Upcoming Events—Fall 2022

8/27 Seminar (Wichita, KS)

8/29-30 Outreach at Wichita State (KS)

9/4 Presentation (Canton, OH)

9/8 Workshop (Denver, CO)

9/10 Seminar (Windsor, CO)

9/11 Seminar (Fort Collins, CO)

9/12-14 Outreach, Colorado State (Fort Collins, CO)

9/15 Love3 Workshops Begin (Online)

9/17 Seminar (Rogers, AR)

9/18 Seminar (Bentonville, AR)

9/18 Workshop (Ogallala, NE)

9/25 Workshop (Owosso, MI)

October Workshops in DC, TX, OH

October Outreach in DC, TX, OH

November Workshops and Outreach in TX

Jan. 2023 Workshops and Outreach in CA

To Christians Upset About Roe's Reversal

There have been claims made by some in the Christian community that Roe being overturned is a distraction from the real issues at hand. There have been Christians lamenting the reversal. It’s been said that focusing on laws and overturning court cases is not the answer to reducing or eliminating abortion. A host of other social issues are presented with the claim that caring for human beings means we need to focus on basically every other issue except making laws that protect unborn children from violence. Hearing this come from people who call themselves Christians is disheartening. 

Of course there are many other issues to care about. Of course women and their circumstances matter and merit our attention and concern. Pro-life advocates’ concerns are not just about making abortion illegal, though that is a crucial part of this issue. We understand there are other issues to solve. But working to protect innocent human beings from violence is not a distraction. It is a very worthy thing to focus on. 

Go to Human Defense Initiative to read the full article.

What Now?

What is next after the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs? I have been trying to come up with a concise way of thinking about that for the last month or so. Recently on a podcast I heard Henry Olsen, a Washington Post opinion columnist and polling expert, give the following post-Dobbs action plan which I think best expresses my thoughts:

“Overturning Roe, in hindsight, will be seen as the easy part. And I know that sounds like an absurd thing to say, since it took us almost 50 years to overturn Roe. But the fact is that the majority of American public opinion says that life within the womb in the first trimester (when the vast majority of abortions occur) does not deserve legal protection. They do not see the unborn child at that stage as sufficiently human to demand protection of the law. That opinion can change, it was different 60 years or 70 years ago, but that’s the battle that pro-lifer’s need to fight.

Jeremy Gorr in conversation with some students at UCLA in May, 2022.

“We can eliminate abortion extensively throughout the nation only when we change public opinion in that way. That’s the real battle, changing public opinion about the legal status and the human status of the unborn child in the first trimester. When we win that battle, we will win nationwide. Until we win that battle, it will always be a case of carving out enclaves and doing what we can.”

(“Life After Dobbs,” Episode 9, 33:58)

We convinced five judges, now we must convince 300 million Americans.

Roe v. Wade Overturned

On June 24 when the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Court made a significant correction and a step toward justice.

This case centered around a 2018 Mississippi law that banned abortions after 15 weeks. The law sparked litigation that challenged the constitutionality of such a ban because Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey claimed abortion was a constitutional right well beyond 15 weeks. After hearing the Dobbs case in December 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 upholding Mississippi’s abortion law, and ruled 5-4 to strike down Roe and Casey.

Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion and said,

“We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.” (Dobbs, p. 69)

On June 25 the Wall Street Journal Weekend Edition captured these powerful photographs showing the division on this topic.

As we look back on the past 49 years with Roe in place, we are thankful that our nation finally recognized that the Roe decision was egregious and faulty. Overturning Roe was a significant step toward a more just society.

While it is worthwhile to take some time to reflect and celebrate, that time is short. We need to double down and focus on reaching our communities with the message that every human being, born and unborn, deserves equal protection from violence. We need to focus on serving families in our communities, especially women in need that are all alone in raising their children.

It’s as important as ever to actively, boldly, and faithfully engage our college campuses and wider culture with truth. We are gearing up for the fall semester. Our travels will take us across the country to talk with students and many others about the grave evil of abortion and the great value of unborn children. As we engage, we will continue to eagerly love babies, mothers, and those with whom we disagree.

“Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Your speech must always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.
”
— Colossians 4:5-6

Colossians 4:5-6 holds much wisdom for us in this time. We need to use great care in how we talk to each person about Roe and the state of abortion in this country. Many people are celebrating. Many others are grieving. People with different experiences and backgrounds require a careful approach that is gentle, compassionate, and truthful. We need to dig deeper to discover underlying issues that form people’s views on abortion. May we be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger (James 1:19-20) so that people feel safe to transform their views about unborn human beings.

We are grateful for every person who has taken time to get trained to communicate well about abortion. We are also grateful for every person that has taken time to reach out to someone to have a conversation about abortion even when it has been uncomfortable.

The Justice For All team is excited to train and impact many more pro-life advocates during this critical time in history. We are deeply committed to training these advocates to speak the truth in love and treat each person we meet with gentleness and respect. This will create a world that is more just and more safe for every human being. We expect the Dobbs decision to save many lives. There are, however, many more lives that can only be saved when abortion becomes truly unthinkable for more people in our country. These efforts continue to be Justice For All’s main focus.

By training individual advocates and connecting personally with those who disagree, Justice For All has been focused on planting tens of thousands of seeds throughout our nation. We fully trust that God will continue to nourish and grow those seeds into something beautiful. Thank you for standing with us in this important movement and for your part in making this work possible.

Sincerely,

The Justice For All Staff

Attitude Can Make or Break the Conversation

Recently, veteran JFA trainer Rebecca Hotovy found an unsent email in her drafts folder. It contained a nearly complete newsletter detailing a conversation from years back. I was so taken with it, I wanted to share it with you. (Rebecca still coaches other JFA speakers part-time during brief breaks from her full-time job as mom to two precious boys.)

We know this story definitely happened at the University of Oklahoma, and we think it happened around 2015. Whatever the date, the story beautifully illustrates the power of JFA’s dialogue approach, the power of a few carefully crafted questions asked with an open heart, and the way in which our attitude has the power to make or break a conversation. - Steve Wagner, Executive Director

Impact Report, June 2022

Rebecca Hotovy, JFA Trainer Certification Coach and Trainer Emeritus

 Several years ago at the University of Oklahoma (OU), as I stood next to the large exhibit, a young man approached me. I’ll call him Chris. Confident that abortion was a woman’s right, Chris started to explain why he felt abortion should remain legal. Several feet from me stood another man, likely twenty to thirty years older than Chris. Although this older man was not a volunteer with Justice For All, he held a pro-life view. He was close enough to hear my conversation with Chris, and as the conversation continued, he listened in.

Rebecca (center) interacts with an OU student in 2015 near a small version of the JFA Exhibit.

In the first few minutes of that discussion, I took time to figure out the reasoning behind Chris’s belief that abortion should remain legal. Without first understanding why Chris held his view or how he came to the conclusion that abortion should remain legal, I knew I wouldn’t be able help him see errors in his reasoning. I was also aware that blatantly pointing out any errors may upset him enough that he would end the conversation. If he didn’t end the conversation but he stayed and continued talking, it would likely make him put up barriers of self-defense that would prevent him from wanting to listen to the ideas being presented, even if he was physically present and talking. Sadly, I’ve seen this happen many times – two people begin to dialogue about a controversial subject, quickly start defending their own positions, and turn a conversation into two monologues because they feel offended. If they feel offended for whatever reason, they may hear words coming from the other person’s mouth, but they don’t listen to the meaning of the message of those words.

In my conversation with Chris, over time it became clear that he did not believe the unborn was biologically human. When I felt I had built a good rapport with him, I allowed our conversation to take a turn. I started asking questions not just to discover his reasoning in defense of legal abortion but also to challenge that reasoning. At this point in the conversation I knew he would welcome the challenge because he could see that I didn’t desire to push my agenda down his throat. The challenge questions I asked were exactly the ones we train participants to ask when they attend the Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue seminar. I said something like:

Rebecca: Chris, do you mean that you don’t believe the unborn is biologically a human being or that the unborn isn’t a human being that deserves the same rights as you and I do?

Chris: Oh, it’s not biologically a human being at all. It’s just a clump of cells in those early stages.

Rebecca: If I could offer evidence for why the unborn is a human being, would you mind?

Chris: Sure. Go ahead.

Rebecca: If the unborn is growing, isn’t it alive?

Chris: [pausing and then slowly nodding his head] Yeah, sure I can agree with that.

Rebecca: If the unborn has human parents, isn’t it human?

Chris: [pausing and pondering the question with a slight grin on his face] Yes.

It was his answer to my third question, though, that threw me for a loop.

Rebecca: And living human beings, like you and me, are valuable, aren’t they?

Chris: Oh my gosh. Yes.

There was another moment of silence as he continued to ponder the questions I had just asked that laid out a defense for the humanity of the unborn. We stood in silence for a while longer. Then he said something like:

Chris: Wow, okay, so I need to think through this more.

This was so unexpected to me because most students I talk to do not agree with each of these questions. They have all sorts of creative ideas to share, such as “Well, fire grows, and it’s not alive” or “Yeah, well a clump of cells might be alive and have human DNA, but that doesn’t mean it is a human being...Are tumors human beings?” or “Sperm are alive and have human DNA. Are all sperm valuable, too?”

Chris didn’t have any retorts like these. He simply agreed that the unborn was a human being.

Just as I thought the conversation was going really well, it took a turn for the worse. The pro-life man who had been listening in stepped close enough to us to join the conversation, turned to Chris, and snootily remarked, “She got ya! Didn’t she‽”

My heart dropped to my stomach. I had taken such care not to make Chris feel like I was attacking his position and to make him feel comfortable sharing his thoughts with me, and in less than three seconds someone who claimed to be pro-life obliterated all my efforts. Chris was as shocked as I was. His face showed it. He also became really nervous and started stumbling over his words.

One would think that I would easily become frustrated with people who hold beliefs against the dignity and sanctity of human life, but in this instance I became frustrated instead with this person who was like-minded to me in certain ways but didn’t realize the importance of treating the human standing in front of us with respect. Fortunately, I was able to jump back into the conversation, regain a good rapport with Chris, direct the conversation away from the “got ya” remark, and help him feel less nervous.

In hindsight, I now take another step back and realize that the art of learning to dialogue is a journey for everyone – the pro-life advocate and the pro-choice advocate alike. Prior to my training and work with Justice For All, if I had been that pro-life person standing there listening in on the conversation, I may have made a similar remark. Early on I didn’t understand that the way I shared the truth about the unborn could actually affect whether that truth helped pro-choice advocates change their minds. Thank you, Justice For All, for your gift of teaching me the beauty of dialoguing in love!

Note: Yes, that’s an intentional interrobang in the fourth from the last paragraph. Learn more about this controversial punctuation mark through this engaging podcast episode from 99 Percent Invisible.

Resources for Women, Men, and Their Families

RESOURCES

If you or someone you know is pregnant and needs support during and after pregnancy, here are resources for locating a center near you that can help. If you or someone you know is considering abortion or has had an abortion in the past, there are resources below that may help.  Or, call the JFA office (316-683-6426) and ask to speak with one of our trainers who can help you find resources in your area.

Grant and the Gospel

“I don’t understand why I need to role-play,” Grant announced as I took my seat at the table.

About a year ago, my team and I traveled to San Antonio to facilitate a seminar for the pro-life club at University of Texas at San Antonio. During the last section of the seminar, we invited the participants to role-play a conversation on the topic of abortion with a JFA staff member.

It was at this point that Grant let me know he did not see any value in this exercise. I saw this as an opportunity to impart understanding. He informed me, “I will never have a conversation on this issue.” I encouraged him that it is important to be prepared to articulate his personal beliefs if someone asks him about abortion.

Grant then went on to share that he did not know where he stood on the issue of abortion. He had never thought about it prior to that day. The training material we presented was foreign information to him, including the images of the unborn in the different developmental stages. Grant also explained that he is not a confrontational person at all. If he is ever in a conversation where he disagrees with the other person, he stays quiet for fear that someone might ridicule him or make fun of his position.

I now began to understand where he was coming from. I naturally assume that most people who attend our seminars are pro-life. That is not always the case. As we talked that day, Grant did conclude that abortion is wrong.

Our conversation continued.

Andrea: I know you mentioned earlier that you have not thought through your position on the topic of abortion. You had a lot of information presented to you today. Since we agree that abortion is wrong, could we also agree that we need to stand up for the unborn? It would be as if your neighbor were abusing his child. Would you do something about it? Would you try to protect this child by calling social services?

Grant: Yes, of course.

Andrea: If someone came onto this campus and started shooting his gun, would you do what you could to stop the violence?

Grant: Yes, I would at least run for my life. I would also try to warn others and call the police.

Andrea: Exactly. Let’s imagine that your neighbor’s house was on fire at three in the morning. You would not think, “I do not want to offend my neighbor at this time of night.” No, you would warn your neighbor of the fire and do whatever it takes to get everyone out to safety. It’s the same with the unborn. I believe we should do what we can to stop this injustice.

Grant: That makes sense. I see where you are coming from.

We continued conversing on the topic for a few more minutes. For the most part, I asked questions and let him share his thoughts.

Andrea at UTSA Feb. 2022

He told me of his upbringing, how he was in foster care for three months and then adopted.

At this point, I knew role-playing a conversation was not what he needed. Grant had already sat through a four hour seminar.

I shifted our conversation to spiritual matters, and discovered he is currently searching. We had an extensive discussion in which I was able to share the hope of the gospel with him. He was actively engaged and seemed to be greatly impacted by our conversation.

Grant concluded, “I think it’s great to have conversations like this one. It is okay to disagree about certain topics, but still respectfully hear each other out. When I talk to my friends about issues that we may disagree on, they think we should just be done talking altogether. That is not how it should be. In our conversation, we had different views on things, but because you listened to me, I felt like I could actually share my opinion.”

The heart of JFA is to ask questions, listen, and find common ground whenever possible in every conversation. This approach can have a powerful impact in any conversation, not just when conversing about abortion. “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” (Theodore Roosevelt) We should never assume we know what someone believes. We must ask questions and listen, showing that we care about them. The impact can be profound. Even though Grant had different views than I do, he still felt like he could share his thoughts, and as a result was more open to listening.

Please join me in praying that God will continue to work in Grant’s life. Please also pray for us as we continue to talk to people like Grant.

The SCOTUS Leak

In early May, a leaked document from the Supreme Court showed that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey could be officially overturned in June. In the leaked majority opinion draft of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Justice Alito says, “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled…”

If the official outcome is in fact that Roe and Casey are overturned, we will have made a huge step forward in protecting the equal rights of unborn human beings.

As good as this news is, it’s important to remember that overturning Roe and Casey will not make abortion illegal. It just returns the decision to the states. Some states will ban abortion. In others it will remain legal and easily accessible.

Supreme Court of the United States, Jan. 2022

Whatever the official outcome is, our job remains the same. We must continue to engage those around us in conversations. We still need to work to change hearts and minds about abortion. We need to help people see unborn children, not as burdens, but as fellow human beings with equal rights to you and me. We need to support and help pregnant women and their families. We need to engage those with whom we disagree in civility and open dialogue.

The news that Roe could well be on its deathbed is a frightening prospect to a lot of people. Many people are angry. They see this as a dangerous step backward in history. They see this development as an attack on women’s equality. Given the recent developments, there may be many people who are ready and open to having conversations who otherwise may not have been. What we say and how we say it matters. “Sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness.” (Proverbs 16:21b).

With this in mind, let’s engage those around us sharing truth with compassion, love, and patience. Let’s listen to their concerns, ask questions to understand where they are coming from, and find common ground with them whenever possible. May we use our conversations to come alongside people in humility, patience, and great love helping them recognize the humanity of our unborn brothers and sisters.

Two Buckets, Take 2

In our team debriefs recently, a number of our younger staff members have been remarking about a tool they picked up from Tammy Cook, who has been working at JFA since 1996. Tammy originally described her “Two Buckets” analogy in our September 2017 Impact Report (I encourage you to go back and read that story above). This Impact Report features a second “Two Buckets” installment from Tammy. She details a conversation that happened at Wichita State University in August, along with a summary of the impact of all of her conversations at that outreach event. - Steve Wagner, Executive Director

Impact Report, April 2022

By Tammy Cook, JFA Training Specialist

Tammy interacts with a student at Wichita State University in August 2021.

What a privilege it was to be back on the Wichita State University (WSU) campus on August 30 and 31 with the JFA team! I was excited to once again dialogue with college students face to face after a 17-month wait. I was ready to meet the challenge of helping them think through their views on abortion, and I prayed to see hearts and minds changed.

I introduced my Two Buckets analogy in 2017. It continues to be a very useful approach with pro-choice students that say, “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I can’t tell others what to do.” I’m thrilled to share the impact that this analogy had on a WSU student named James.

James didn’t identify as pro-life or pro-choice. He said, “I’m in the middle.” I asked several questions to help him think through his views. I discovered that he believed that we become human at fertilization and that the unborn are human like us. He also agreed that the unborn deserved to be treated equally to born people and should be protected.

I then asked, “If you were to vote tomorrow on whether or not to keep abortion legal, how would you vote?” He thought long and hard and said, “I can still see both sides of the issue. I believe strongly in freedom of choice. I just don’t think I can take someone else’s rights away.” I shared my Two Buckets story to help him dig deeper into his thinking.

Tammy: Imagine that I have two buckets. The first bucket contains choices like murder, rape, stealing, and molestation. Do you agree that these choices are wrong and should not be legal?

James: Yes.

Tammy: The second bucket contains personal choices—for example, a favorite food like strawberries, choosing to go to college or not, dying your hair blue, etc. Do you agree that everyone should have the freedom to make these personal choices that do not harm others?

James: Yes.

Tammy: The significant difference between each of the two buckets is that one contains choices that harm people and the other bucket contains choices that do not harm people.

Two Buckets (Illustration by Joanna Bai)

James: That makes a lot of sense. Many people think pro-life people want to take rights away, but I can see now that you’re actually wanting to add rights to people— to let them have plenty of rights as long as it doesn’t harm another human being...

I smiled and nodded in agreement.

James: What about rape? That’s a really tough situation.

Tammy: I agree.

I spent some time empathizing with women who’ve been raped and stated that we should punish rapists more fully. He agreed, and I continued:

Tammy: There are most likely students walking on this campus that were conceived from rape. Do you think they are any less valuable than those students who were not conceived in rape?

James: No.

I could see that this was a lightbulb moment for him.

Tammy: So, in which bucket does abortion belong?

James: [after a short pause] Abortion belongs in the bucket with murder.

I again nodded in agreement. We smiled at each other. Then I returned to my earlier question:

Tammy: If you were to vote tomorrow on whether or not to keep abortion legal, how would you vote?

James: I’d definitely vote no!

This was such a great moment. I paused to thank God for using me as an instrument to help James have a change of heart so significant that he is now willing even to vote to protect the unborn.

Summary of My WSU Event Conversations

Tammy Cook

I saw God working in the hearts of many people. I had conversations with ten students over the course of two days at WSU (see one in the photo above). Here’s how I would categorize the students after asking a few questions to assess their views:

BEFORE: Undecided: 2 Pro-Choice: 5 Pro-Life: 3

I saw a complete shift in thinking by the end of the conversations with the two undecided students and two of the pro-choice students. All four said they would vote to make abortion illegal. I used the Two Buckets analogy in most of these conversations, and I believe it was integral in helping several of them, if not all, rethink their views.

AFTER: Undecided: 0 Pro-Choice: 3 Pro-Life: 7

Note: This story was originally published in Tammy Cook’s September 2021 newsletter. You can read and share both this and the first “Two Buckets” story using the following webpage: www.jfaweb.org/two-buckets.

One Central Question Helps Change a Mind

After serving at JFA for almost a decade, my sister Joanna Bai is moving on from her JFA work to focus completely on her growing family (she is due to give birth to another baby in March). Jon Wagner and I consider it a great gift and privilege to have been allowed to serve alongside our dear sister at JFA for so many years. The rest of the JFA team has expressed similar sentiments.

In this Impact Report we are featuring a conversation story Joanna shared in her March 2013 newsletter both because of the impact within the story itself, but also because it illustrates Joanna’s compelling teaching, her heart for mentoring, and her beautiful, clear writing – just a few of the many ways Joanna has impacted JFA’s team and mission. Please join us in thanking God for Joanna and enjoy with us this look back at His work through her. Thank you, Joanna! We will miss working with you! - Steve Wagner, Executive Director



Impact Report, March 2022

She started out defending abortion because of the plight of those in poverty. In just minutes, she said, “We really need to resolve the question of what the unborn is.” From there, I was able to help her find an answer. What caused the change?

I noticed “Jamie,” a confident young student at the University of North Texas, when she rode her bike up to the edge of the Justice For All Exhibit [Nov. 2012*]. It took me a few moments to decide if I would approach her. I’m so glad I did.

Joanna (right) interacts with a student at Arizona State in February 2013. Image: Cheryl Caffarella Wilson

Joanna (right) interacts with a student at Arizona State in February 2013. Image: Cheryl Caffarella Wilson

I asked Jamie what she thought about abortion. She told me openly, “Well, don’t get me wrong, I don’t like abortion. It just seems like difficult circumstances make it necessary. I’d say I’m pro-choice.”

“What sorts of circumstances are you concerned about the most?” I asked. She replied, “There are so many things. What about poverty? How can we force women who have no money and no resources to have kids? And how can we force those kids into such horrible lives?”

Jamie was raising an important point, but I knew that the fact of poverty itself wouldn’t help us discover whether abortion is a good solution to poverty. The conversation that followed illustrated perfectly one of the things we teach JFA volunteers: With abortion, there’s one central question we need to answer before moving on to other questions. I follow four steps to help people discover for themselves how central this question is. We call this process Trot Out a Toddler.*

Step 1: AGREE where possible.

Joanna: Jamie, I agree with you that many women have so little money and so few resources that it is difficult for them to be mothers. We need to be more concerned about those in poverty.

Step 2: APPLY the situation to a two-year-old.

Joanna: But Jamie, imagine a woman who is living in extreme poverty and who absolutely cannot rear a child. She doesn’t even have enough money to feed herself. Imagine that this woman has a two-year-old. Should she be able to kill that two-year-old because their lives are so difficult?

Jamie: Of course not. She cannot kill a two-year-old!

Joanna: I agree. Of course she cannot kill her two-year-old. And I know that question sounds a little odd on its face...

Joanna (left) interacts with students at Arizona State in February 2013. Image: Cheryl Caffarella Wilson

Joanna (right) interacts with students at Arizona State in February 2013. Image: Cheryl Caffarella Wilson

Step 3: ASK WHY the mother cannot kill the two-year-old.

Joanna: ...but let me ask you this: Why is it not okay to kill the two-year-old?

Jamie: Well, it’s not okay to kill the two-year-old because the two-year-old is a human being.

Step 4: AH! (The light-bulb moment: Discovering the central question, “What is the unborn?”)

Joanna: I agree. So it sounds like we don’t need to resolve the question of whether poverty matters. We agree that it certainly does. Rather, the question we need to resolve is, ‘What is the unborn?’ If the unborn is human like the two-year-old, then we can’t kill the unborn even because of poverty, right?

Jamie looked at me and I could tell she was thinking hard. She replied,

Jamie: That makes a lot of sense. I don’t know that much about when we become human, but it seems like that is the question we have to answer.

Most people will agree that abortion kills something, but whether or not we can kill a living thing depends first on what it is. Some pro-choice arguments address this question, “What is it?” and argue that the unborn is not a valuable human being. But others, like Jamie’s, ignore the unborn completely. Although arguments like hers raise important concerns, they assume that the unborn is not valuable. The four-step Trot Out a Toddler process helped Jamie realize that she needed to focus on the central question, “What is the unborn?”

Jamie and I continued our conversation for a few more minutes, discussing the evidence for the biological humanity of the unborn. We also discussed why we can have confidence that the unborn human has the same basic human rights that you and I have. Toward the end of the conversation, I was excited to see the progress we had made:

Jamie: You know, a lot of my friends are the ones protesting over there. [A number of pro-choice students had gathered with drums and signs to protest during the outreach.] But, I actually grew up in a Christian home, and my parents are pro-life. I don’t see eye to eye with my parents about a lot of things – for instance, I’m a lesbian – but I think I can agree with them about this issue. I think I can call myself pro-life now. I thought, by the way my friends talked, that you all were gonna shove anti-gay, anti-woman rhetoric at me. But I actually enjoyed this conversation. I really appreciate the way you all are creating dialogue.

I thanked her, and then she said something I’ll never forget:

Jamie: I have a lot of friends who have had abortions. And Joanna, you can see the change in them after the procedure. They carry an undeniable emptiness, as if they’ve truly lost a person.

And with that, she had to go to class.

Jamie’s barriers to being against abortion had been mainly social and cultural. She didn’t want to be identified with certain politically conservative views or certain “pro-life” people. The Trot Out a Toddler process was essential in our conversation because it helped her focus on the central question “What is the unborn?” Although this tool didn’t make the pro-life case for me, it helped Jamie and I agree about the question we needed to answer. It was just a short step from that point of agreement to Jamie’s moment of realizing that abortion is wrong because it kills a valuable human being.

* This story originally appeared in Joanna Bai’s March 2013 newsletter. See the links below to read other letters from Joanna. We owe the memorable phrase “Trot Out the Toddler” to Scott Klusendorf (prolifetraining.com) and the concept of “one central question” to Greg Koukl (str.org).

Joanna Bai: Selected Newsletters