To protect the anonymity of women seeking counseling, Courtney Parks, R.N., demonstrates the ultrasound procedure she performs on women considering abortion using Christina Parker. The two attend the same church in Concord. Credit: Grant Baldwin

Bullhorns, pamphlets and full-color posters the size of flat-screen TVs depicting dead fetuses — that’s how pro-life groups commemorated the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade in Charlotte. About 20 volunteers for Cities4Life, along with members of Christ Fellowship Church and other anti-abortion activists, converged on Trade and Tryon streets on Jan. 22 to protest the historic Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

A ‘memorial service for babies lost to abortion’ was held Jan. 22 Uptown. Credit: Jeff Hahne

Though a staunch believer in the right for safe and legal access to abortion, I drew near to do a little reconnaissance on “the enemy’s” doings. What I found surprised me.

While preachers and leaders blasted passersby with biblical verses and rhetoric, a secondary cadre passed out pamphlets and drew people into more personal conversations, answering theoretical and often very personal questions as to what they believed and why. This softer approach makes their movement more palatable or more dangerous, depending on where you stand on the issue.

In recent years, the schism between hardline ideologies like zero tolerance for abortion and mainstream American mores has become more pronounced. Numerous polls suggest most Americans support safe access to abortions in cases of nonconsensual sex and to save the mother’s life, as well as it simply being a woman’s personal decision about her body. Yet time and again, conservative politicians have shown themselves in unsympathetic light on the issue, from West Virginia state senator Brian Kurcaba’s recent comment that childbirth as a result of rape is “beautiful,” to former U.S. Rep. Todd Akin’s theory that the bodies of “legitimate rape” victims know how to “shut down” and avoid pregnancy, to Rick Santorum’s suggestion that rape victims “make the best” of it and see unwanted pregnancy as a gift of life. These kinds of public stands are decimating conservatives’ image among millennials, and as the new and much more right-leaning Congress settles in, some conservatives seem to be becoming more conscious of that backlash: If not changing the message itself, at least looking at more effective ways to deliver it.

I experienced the gentler one-on-one approach with Vicky Kaseorg, a Cities4Life volunteer counselor who was at the Charlotte rally. Kaseorg blogs, and is fond of quoting from Horton Hears a Who: “A person’s a person, no matter how small.” With her diminutive stature, salt-and-pepper hair and compassionate yet direct responses, she called to mind the kind of aging, socially active hippie who might invite you to split a brownie. Kaseorg passed out brochures with a warm smile, inviting people within a few blocks of the rally to come and hear, and on the way to the nucleus shared a bit about her mission with me.

“These women are in desperate situations. Many of them, their biggest issue is hunger,” she noted, saying that her organization did not stop at abortion counseling, but also provided some free prenatal and food services. “We don’t wanna say ‘Choose Life,’ then leave the women hanging.”

She said her group provided two years’ worth of baby supplies for one of her clients, who already had three children. But Kaseorg readily admitted the woman, who has a felony record, is still struggling. Kaseorg’s brand of faith frames her activism as a gospel issue, one of loving your neighbor. She cited higher rates of suicide for post-abortive women but acknowledged that the study she saw didn’t track other factors, and said she herself didn’t do rape counseling because she is unqualified. “It’s such a devastating and serious event. I refer women who need it to a rape crisis hotline,” she said.

THAT SAME DAY, U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers, an Asheboro Republican, led a coalition that successfully thwarted a bill to ban abortions at 20 weeks unless the woman filed a police report saying she’d been raped. The language in the bill was the same as in the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which Ellmers spoke on the House floor in favor of in 2013. Scheduling the vote on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade was supposed to strike a symbolic victory for staunch abortion foes. What prompted her switch? Apparently, optics. “The first vote we take, or the second vote, or the fifth vote, shouldn’t be on an issue where we know that Millennials — social issues just aren’t as important [to them],” she told the National Journal.

Millennials are overwhelmingly pro-choice and supportive of gay rights, two issues that are likely to cause trouble for the GOP as they become more active voters.

Some mainstream media outlets characterized Ellmers’ actions as a sign of a “revolt” among female Republicans against hard-line Tea Party ideals. But North Carolina’s Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Sarah Eldred scoffs at the idea. On the very same day, the House voted 242-179 to pass a bill that would prevent Medicaid from covering abortions; restrict a woman’s ability to buy private insurance plans that include abortion coverage; and deny small businesses a tax credit, currently received through the Affordable Care Act, if they include abortions in their health insurance.

“When voters understand the implications of these laws they tend to disagree with them, because the majority of Americans believe abortions should be safe and legal,” Eldred said. “Both bills were introduced and passed with the sole intention of banning safe and legal abortions, or at least restricting access to them. We think it’s appalling to swap one extreme bill with another.”

Rank-and-file conservatives aren’t crowning Ellmers a hero, either. Of the representative and her coalition, “They’re not pro-life. They can say what they want, but they’re not. The most useless places on earth are Washington, D.C., and Raleigh, and other state capitals.” So said Flip Benham, director of Concord-based Operation Save America. He led the rally that day in a suit and overcoat.

Recently on a right-wing radio program, Benham called homosexuality, abortion and Islam different incarnations of “the devil’s fist.” He was sued a few years ago for stalking a Charlotte doctor, papering the man’s neighborhood and the area around his office with pamphlets calling him an “abortionist.”

Benham, who identified his last name as Metzger when asked for comment, had the forced joviality of a high school principal — as though, despite his smile, it might please him to put the whole world in detention. Self-righteousness permeated the air around him like poisoned gas.

He quickly dismissed preserving the life of the mother and rape as reasons a woman might terminate a pregnancy, and laid out a detailed scenario of pedophile uncles impregnating their nieces with the collusion of abortion providers. Asked why doctors who provide healthcare services to women would protect an incestuous predator, Benham fairly shouted, “Money!” But with abortion, he insisted, women are “guilty of a crime worse than rape.” Women, not poverty or lack of options, seemed to be the culprits in his eyes.

Ante Pavkovic, pastor of Christ Fellowship church near Concord, was also at the rally. Pavkovic has been protesting weekly outside of a women’s health clinic in east Charlotte for over a decade. He may be as fire-and-brimstone as Benham, but he seasons his beliefs with compassion and stresses that abortion is not the only solution. He and his wife have five children, and he supports adoption. “There are 2 million couples waiting to adopt in the United States, and we kill 1.5 million children a year,” he said. “The money is there, but the heart isn’t there [to take care of them]. Children are treasures, not conveniences.”

As for rape or incest, he insists society should “punish the perpetrator, not the innocent party.” Pavkovic admitted he was molested as a child, and the experiences pushed him toward a young adulthood of bad choices until “Jesus freed me. But I would never minimize the rape question.” He invited me to come and witness the weekend protest at the clinic, where I would see the truth of what they do. “They’re upset we’re there because we awaken their consciousness with what we’re doing, but we offer them a way out,” Pavkovic said.

IT’S MID-SATURDAY, morning, and about a dozen people are gathered out front of A Preferred Women’s Health Center on LaTrobe Drive. The placards of dismembered fetuses have returned, and a junior pastor is preaching over the PA system, set up under a tent to shield it from the drizzly weather. My attention is drawn to an RV marked “pregnancy ultrasound bus,” and I barely miss hitting a young man in a fitted cap who steps into the path of my vehicle with a pamphlet in his outstretched hand. “All babies matter,” he calls out.

The modified RV parked in front of the LaTrobe Drive women’s clinic, offering ultrasounds and counseling to woman considering an abortion Credit: Grant Baldwin

Couples, families and groups of friends leave and enter the building. The clinic’s patients are diverse in terms of age and race, but no one looks well-heeled. “You’re caught red-handed; you’re busted,” the junior pastor shouts in the microphone, amidst an analogy about God that entails going before a judge in a courtroom. “Adulterers and blasphemers will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Protesters and their children stand outside the A Preferred Women’s Health Center, sharing their message. Credit: Grant Baldwin

A man in a Sonics cap leans on the front stoop of the clinic. He says he’s been here since 10 a.m. “They wild, I don’t think they should be allowed to be out here,” the 24-year-old said, asking that his name not be divulged. “I’m pretty sure some of the stuff they’re saying is illegal. You have a right; America is free. It’s harassment. They do more than abortions here. Some people are here for a pap smear.”

I ask the registered nurse who runs the ultrasound machine inside the RV how many women have “chosen life” today. None, says Courtney Parks. They borrow the unit from Help Crisis Ministry center in Monroe. The mobile center enables the group to give women a free confirmation of pregnancy, which they can use to apply for Medicaid, Parks says. Of course, the real purpose is to get women out of the clinic.

To protect the anonymity of women seeking counseling, Courtney Parks, R.N., demonstrates the ultrasound procedure she performs on women considering abortion using Christina Parker. The two attend the same church in Concord. Credit: Grant Baldwin

“People feel like they have no choice. There has to be a standard of compassion; they’re not coming here because they woke up and said, ‘Y’know, today feels like a good day for an abortion’,” Parks says. She was a teenage mother at 15, but acknowledges she was “lucky” to have a mother who helped her.

The older-model recreational vehicle has a sharp, unidentifiable odor, dirty carpet and a couch covered in a blanket. But once you pass the “living room,” a tidy kitchen is set up for intake counseling, and a bathroom is equipped with a shower. The very back room, which was likely a bedroom previously, has been upfitted with a reclining chair and an ultrasound machine.

Daniel Parks preaches in front of A Preferred Women’s Health Center Credit: Grant Baldwin

Parks’ husband Daniel, the junior pastor who was on the loudspeaker, enters shortly after us. He’s more guarded, and it’s clear he doesn’t trust me. Daniel fully supports wars and the death penalty, but considers abortion murder. He pooh-poohs the notion that if abortion is legalized, women will continue seeking them illegally, with many more potential deaths. “Hangers? That’s a long shot,” he says. “You let God measure the worth of a life.”

Courtney, who is part of a team of several RNs who volunteer on the RV, stays quiet while her husband talks. But when she speaks, her words have stronger import than his entire speech on the microphone. “These young mothers, lots of times, just need someone to talk to. I relate from my own experience and try to help.”

This mild-mannered copy editor enjoys writing about hip-hop, indie film and twists, kinks and corners of all kinds. She's happiest when things that shouldn't make sense, do.

Join the Conversation

3 Comments

  1. Emiene Wright has written an extremely biased article. Even the title is slanted: “…a new weapon: Tenderness.” How can sincere tenderness be a weapon? And Cities4Life is sincere. I have seen members in action. I have seen Cities4Life families open up their homes to pregnant women and their children; I have seen Cities4Life workers take time out of their busy schedules and funds from their own pockets to make sure that these women get back home to a safe place, have food to eat, have supplies for their children, organize huge baby showers for needy women. A family member of mine was helped last year by Cities4Life. Today she has a healthy and happy baby. Is life easy for her? No. Is life easy for anyone?

    The Cities4Life members are not out to “trick” someone into not aborting her baby. They are there to help the mother–support her through not only her pregnancy–finding shelter, a job, baby supplies, a relationship with God–but past her pregnancy into a life where she can take care of her family. How can Wright possibly call these volunteers and families enemies?

    And Wright states how the majority of Americans support abortion. Do the majority of Americans support abortion? No. It’s still split down the middle.

    And with phrases such as “He pooh-poohs the notion that if abortion is legalized,…” Wright interprets people’s motives without really knowing their hearts and true motives.

    Wright sites that on this particular day that no woman chose life for her baby while visiting the RV. However over 400 women chose life for their babies last year in Charlotte through Cities4Life, and Cities4Life followed up on all the cases they could (some women chose not to accept their help). So exactly what is wrong about having people helping people? Whether you’re a Christian or not, don’t you believe we are to help one another?

    I have seen so many women helped through this program–lives touched and lives saved. Isn’t this a win/win situation?

  2. What do the crusaders do for these unwanted children after they are born?

    If you believe in abortion for cases of rape, incest, or even to save the life of the mother then you believe in abortion. You are just arguing over where to draw the line.

  3. Subjects addressed: 1. Rape and Incest 2. Life of mother 3. Prenatal counseling/help 4. Postnatal help
    1. When abortion was first legalized (Colorado, 1967) after I got over my shock that anyone would think it OK to kill a baby, I though rape and incest and “health” {which I innocently thought meant “life” in pre-Doe vs Bolton days) of the other seemed to my teenaged mind as reasonable exceptions, maybe. But as I gained wisdom and experience, I reconsidered my acceptance of abortion in the case of rape and incest, initially comparing the sacrifice asked of mother and child (9 months hardship versus the loss of an entire life), and felt that this was not too high of a sacrifice to ask of the rape victim. With further experience, including a number of children in my pediatric practice who were conceived in rape or incest, I have seen how the child is a way in which God brings good out of a horrendous evil. None of the mothers in my practice who became pregnant through rape/incest regret having their children, but rather look upon them as a blessing. I have learned that abortion after rape is wrong not only because it punishes the child for the sin of its father, because one of the innocent victims suffers capital punishment while the perpetrator gets a few years in prison at most, but also because abortion following rape is more traumatic to the mother than giving birth and actually is less rather than more compassionate.
    The US is supposedly a republic (though the courts rule it as an oligarchy in reality). In a republic, the opinion of the majority of voters matters. Ms. Wright is correct in stating that the vast majority of Americans wants abortion legal in cases of rape and incest (but wrong in stating that it is otherwise “pro-choice”- actually the vast majority oppose abortions after the first trimester and an even larger number after 20 weeks, and a small majority/plurality oppose it in all cases except rape, incest, and life of the mother, and younger voters are more pro-life than older voters). If abortion is to remain legal after rape and incest, what about Rep. Ellmers’ flip-flop? Remember, under the fetal pain bill, abortion would still be legal up until 20 weeks gestation. Is this not sufficient time for a rape victim to get an abortion if that is what she wants, whether or not the rape is reported? While a fetus responds to touch by the beginning of the fetal period or even before that, by 8 weeks gestation, evidence is overwhelming that a baby feels pain by 20 weeks, and since the pain fibers form before the moderating (inhibiting) fibers, the pain is likely more intense than that felt by an infant or adult. Death is caused either by an injection that causes a heart attack or by tearing the fetus apart limb by limb and crushing the skull. We don’t allow the killing of criminals by such tortuous methods. We don’t allow the killing of animals by such tortuous methods. Yet Rep. Ellmers thinks that if a child was sired by a rapist, that this is acceptable.
    The abortion/rape and incest subject is surrounded by myths. That abortion is a compassionate answer to pregnancy resulting from rape/incest is one myth. That a woman’s body can prevent pregnancy after rape is another myth. At least Rep. Akins accepted correction from more knowledgable pro-life people and admitted his error and asked forgiveness within 24 hours of making his ignorant (he should have checked his facts before speaking) comment is to be commended. To continue bringing it up when it was rapidly acknowledge and corrected is uncharitable.
    2. Likewise, there are many myths regarding the “life of the mother” issue. Old movies were fond of a “do we save the life of the mother or the life of the baby?” dilemma. With modern medicine, this really does not happen (or if so, well less than 1 in a million). If a woman would not survive pregnancy in the first 20-22 weeks, than the baby would also die with the mother. You would have a choice between 2 deaths or 1 death. (Assuming the best). Trying to save the mother’s life when there is no way to save the baby no matter what you do is not morally equivalent to abortion in any other circumstance. Other than tubal pregnancy, this situation is exceedingly rare and most obstetricians have never encountered it. On the other hand, if continuation of the pregnancy endangers a mother’s life after 22 weeks, (and even a few weeks before there is no advantage in actively killing the child, though it will not survive birth), then the safest thing for both mother and child is either an emergency c-section (fastest way to end a pregnancy), or to induce labor, trying to save both mother and child. This is not an abortion.
    3. Most pro-life people are involved behind the scenes very quietly in pregnancy counselling centers, offering help to women to enable them to choose life for their baby, providing them with parenting classes and helping them to make healthy lifestyle choices, and providing for the immediate needs of the mother and baby. In the part of the country where I live, both pro-life and pro-abortion-choice people provide for mother and babies’ medical care and food through their taxes (90% of pregnant women and newborns receive both Medicaid and WIC foods) through pregnancy and on through childhood. (point 4.) School breakfast and lunches also feed children 2 meals a day, and many support food banks through their church – my church also has a Backpack program that sends food home with children for the weekends. PCCs offer parenting classes (ours through 2 years and we hope to expand it) for moms and dads. They can earn points to get baby clothes, furniture, supplies, etc. Our thrift store sells clothes to outfit a family for a few dollars. Many of the pro-life folks around here also mentor children. That pro-life folks do not care about the mothers and their children after birth is another myth with no basis in fact.
    Tenderness? It is not a new tactic but has been integral to the pro-life movement since its inception.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *