Article adapted from episode content.
The pro-life movement in 2026 finds itself in a paradoxical position. While legal victories have shifted the battlefield to the state level, the intellectual and social climate has grown increasingly volatile. Pro-life advocates no longer face merely reasoned disagreement; they are now subject to what can only be described as “staggering” levels of aggression and personal animosity. These attacks are not limited to secular critics but frequently originate from within evangelical circles and even from within the pro-life movement itself. Navigating this landscape requires more than just a list of facts; it demands a deep understanding of the tactics used to silence the message through the destruction of the messenger.
The Anatomy of the Character Attack
A recurring theme in modern discourse is the attempt to shame pro-life Christians into silence by using “struggle sessions” reminiscent of the Marxist playbook. In a recent incident at Biola University, Dr. Thaddeus Williams, a biblically grounded professor, was subjected to intense character assassination for choosing to speak on the topic of abortion. Critics did not attempt to engage his arguments or refute his biblical worldview; instead, they labeled his focus “ridiculous and foul” because he was not simultaneously leading protests against immigration policies or Border Patrol.
This tactic is designed to shift the focus away from the moral status of the unborn and onto the perceived moral failures of the advocate. By calling a pro-life speaker a “fascist” or a “xenophobe,” the critic aims to make the speaker’s name “shameful” in the eyes of their children and grandchildren. This is a diversionary strategy intended to bypass the actual debate. It mirrors historical intimidation tactics where individuals were shamed for not vocally supporting a specific political revolution, thereby focusing national attention away from the “murderous regime” in power and onto the “awful people” who allegedly ignored social injustice.
The Resilience of the Syllogism
The most effective counter-measure to character assassination is a steadfast return to the pro-life syllogism. Pro-lifers must realize that the truth of their position does not depend on their personal perfection or their involvement in every other social cause. The formal argument remains:
- Premise One: It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
- Premise Two: Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
- Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.
Even if an advocate were “the worst person on the planet”—someone who truly lacked compassion for refugees or the marginalized—their argument against abortion could still be factually and morally correct. The merits of an argument stand or fall on their own, independent of the person making them. When critics attempt to “muddy the waters” with unrelated social issues, advocates should call their bluff. If a pro-life speaker agreed to join every protest the critic demanded, the critic would still likely refuse to oppose abortion. This exposes the “struggle session” for what it is: a bluff intended to shut down the prolifer rather than a genuine call for social consistency.
Addressing the Myth of Pro-Life Profiteering
Furious attacks are not always external; some of the most destructive “craziness” currently comes from within the pro-life world, specifically from “abolitionists” and “immediatists”. These groups have recently leveled the “insidious” accusation that established pro-life leaders are “profiting off the lives of the unborn” and want abortion to remain legal to protect their livelihoods.
Such claims are described as “flabbergasting” and factually baseless. For example, Life Training Institute (LTI) operates with complete financial transparency, as is required for all 501(c)(3) organizations. The leadership of such organizations often sacrifices significant personal income to remain in the movement; Scott Klusendorf, for instance, has noted that he has not drawn a regular salary from LTI for years, despite his skills being highly marketable in more lucrative fields like life coaching or political punditry.
The history of the movement is not one of wealth, but of sacrifice. Pioneers like Joe Scheidler labored into their 90s and passed away in “near poverty” after a lifetime of closing clinics and saving thousands of lives. To attack these individuals as “profiteers” is a gross reversal of reality. These leaders should be “saluted” for their dedication rather than subjected to “very, very unfair” personal attacks.
Deconstructing Political Propaganda: The Case of Liz Cheney
External attacks frequently involve the dissemination of misinformation by figures who claim to be pro-life. Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney has recently “buying the rhetoric” of abortion advocacy groups, claiming that pro-life laws in red states are “preventing women from getting life-saving care” for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies.
This is a powerful but ultimately hollow piece of propaganda. When challenged to cite a single piece of state legislation that prohibits life-saving care in medical emergencies, critics cannot do so. The actual language of these statutes typically makes explicit exceptions for medical emergencies and situations where the mother’s life is at risk. The confusion often stems from two sources:
- Broad Definitions of “Health”: Pro-life laws restrict using “health” as a broad justification for elective abortion (which could include economic or social health), but they do not restrict treatment for physical life-threats.
- Medical Malpractice vs. Legal Statute: If a doctor is “reluctant to save a woman’s life” out of a vague fear of prosecution, the problem lies with the doctor’s ignorance of the law, not the law itself.
The tragic cases often cited by critics, such as the death of a young woman in Georgia, frequently involve complications from abortive drugs taken without medical supervision rather than the effects of pro-life legislation. To counter this “hearsay” and “whataboutism,” advocates should point to the actual language of the statutes and utilize resources like the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) to provide factual medical reality.
The Imperative of Intellectual Fortitude
The “ranker” and hate currently directed at pro-life advocates necessitate a new level of intellectual toughness in the rising generation. It is no longer enough to have “pro-life sentiment”; believers must have a “good grounding in the issue” to avoid being “duped” by sophisticated propaganda.
Organizations like Summit Ministries are essential in this regard, as they move beyond simply providing answers to teaching students how to think biblically. Students must be equipped to handle “common objections” and “hard cases” while also understanding the “sophisticated arguments” put forward by secular philosophers like Peter Singer or Michael Tooley. By learning to make a formal case and recognizing the “bad ways people argue about abortion,” the next generation can remain “in charge” of the conversation rather than feeling like they are “in the hot seat”.
Conclusion: Standing Tall in the Hot Seat
When the attacks are furious, the temptation is to either retreat into silence or to compromise the message to appear more “inclusive” or “compassionate” to critics. However, the sources suggest a different path: exposing the bluff of the critic and standing firm on the objective truth of the human person.
Whether the attack is a “struggle session” regarding immigration, an internal smear about “blood money,” or political propaganda regarding medical care, the solution is the same—clarity and tenacity. Advocates must refuse to owe an explanation to “fools” who use shame tactics rather than reason. Instead, they must remain focused on the primary mission: “saving as many lives as we can” in the face of a culture that would rather the issue simply go away. By combining rigorous apologetics with a “tough-minded” and “statesmanlike” demeanor, the pro-life movement can withstand the fury and continue to speak for those who have no voice.
Episode Transcript
This transcript was generated from the episode’s YouTube captions and lightly edited for readability: filler words and the mid-show announcements have been removed. It may still contain transcription errors.
Hello friends, welcome to The Case for Life program. Delighted you’ve joined us. I thought I would begin today by reading some comments that I got online and they illustrate some of the things we try to teach you here on the program. I think you’ll find them interesting. The first comes from a commenter who watched a Biola University professor give a pro-life presentation or more accurately this pro-life professor Thaddius Williams, Dr. Thaddius Williams, who by the way is a good guy, solid biblically grounded pro-lifer.
He was scheduled to speak and did speak in Biola’s chapel on the topic of abortion. And he made an announcement ahead of time that he was going to do it. And the response from some of his followers on social media was just staggering to me. And I thought I’d go ahead and read some of what was said to him. Here’s the first response. And by the way, I think you’ll sense the angry tone from some of these responders. The first writes, “The fact that this is what you were choosing to speak about right now with what all that is going on in Minnesota at the hands of ICE agents and the current Trump regime is utterly ridiculous and foul.” that this is your fixation and not the abduction of illegal aliens, the brutal human rights violations that are going on speaks volumes of your character for decades to come.
And she’s not done. Listen to this next part. Your children will see that this is what you spent time on while the regime acted as murderous thugs and fascist xenophobes. Your grandchildren will note this as well. Okay, now let’s just stop for a moment here. Notice there’s no attempt to refute the pro-life case that he is about to make. This is just full-blown character assassination. We’ve talked about this before on this show, but how does it follow is here’s the key question.
How does it follow that because Dr. Williams opposes the intentional killing of an innocent human being in the womb. He has to be more outspoken about these other issues than he does abortion itself. I mean, this is nuts. There’s no attempt to refute the pro-life view, the biblical worldview on abortion here. It’s just let’s go ahead and attack the messenger. Now, what’s interesting as well is notice the attempt here to shame him. We talked about this last week and it’s just coming up more and more.
I could have pulled five stories for this show with examples of critics of pro-life Christians coming from inside evangelicalism that attempt to shame pro-lifers into silence rather than deal with their arguments. And the argument goes like this. Why are you fixated on abortion when there’s all this terrible stuff going on with ICE, with immigrant immigrants being treated terribly? This is the real Holocaust. You bring shame on your name and you bring shame on Christ. Your own children will hate you for this one day because they will realize how shameful it was for you to be fixated on abortion than it was to deal with what’s going on with ICE and Border Patrol right now.
Again, I want to make it clear these are intimidation tactics and they are they come right out of the Marxist playbook. In fact, when the Chinese had their Marxist revolution in the late 50s, there were things known as struggle sessions. And what would happen is Communist Party officials would pull citizens into a room and shame them for not vocally supporting Mao in his revolution. And it was an attempt to focus the attention of the country away from the murderous regime that Mao was bringing into play in China.
And instead what happened is anybody that was opposing it in the early stages was shamed into thinking that they were living in the past that they were ignoring injustice that they didn’t care about the poor workers and they were most awful people in the world and generations to come would condemn them. Again, no attempt to argue that what Mao was doing was the correct way to go. Rather it was just an attempt to shame and silence the those that might be opposed to Ma.
Well, the same is going on here. This young woman has no interest in refuting the case that Dr. Williams would put forward in defense of the pro-life view. She is trying to run around that by shaming him with a personal attack. Men and women, don’t fall for this garbage. This is just pure unadulterated garbage. Let’s go back to what we tell you to do every time you hear something like this. Go to your syllogism. Premise one, it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
Premise two, abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. Conclusion, therefore, abortion is wrong. Suppose that Dr. Williams is the worst person on the planet. He doesn’t care about immigrants. He wants refugees carted off to prison. He wants children separated from their parents. He wants illegal aliens to get no justice at all and for their natural rights to be totally trampled on. Let’s say that was his position. Could he still be right about abortion being wrong? And the answer is of course because his argument stands or falls on its merits, not him, the person making that argument.
But what critics want to do here is simply change the subject. Now, here’s a good way to stop someone in their track like this. I would look at that that girl. I think her name was Bella. I can’t remember. But I would look at her and say, “Okay, Bella, here’s the deal. Let’s say I do everything you demand. I join the next ICE pro protest. I fly up to Minneapolis. I buy a plane ticket up there. And I stand in the street with a bullhorn and I condemn ICE.
And I put my body between an immigrant and an ICE agent that is trying to arrest them. If I do all of that, will you join me in opposing abortion? What do you think the answer is? I think you know the answer. Crickets. And that’s exactly what happened when she was challenged on that form to do exactly what I just mentioned. She didn’t reply. She can’t reply. This is all a big bluff. It’s a struggle session, an attempt to silence the pro-lifer, not actually deal with the argument that’s being presented.
It’s sad that we’ve come to this in our country, but it really is where we are. And pro-lifers are going to face increasing intimidation from people who don’t want to reason with you. They just want to shout you down or shut you down using shame tactics or scare tactics rather than engaging your argument. These people are fools. You don’t owe them an explanation. You can expose it by calling their bluff like we just did, but don’t be surprised when they don’t change their minds.
Now, I had another inquiry come in this week that was rather troubling to me, but I’ve heard it before, so I thought I’d go ahead and address it. It was found on a website of another pro-life group where this person made the following claim. This came from a person who also opposes abortion. Or so they said. And here’s what the claim was. Those of you in the pro-life movement want abortion to continue so that you can continue to profit from it, to make money off it, to earn a living off of it.
Okay, that was the claim that was made. And by the way, that’s been directed at me by a number of different abolitionists and immediatists who want to try to make the claim that I’m just in this to make money by being pro-life. And if abortion ever became illegal, I’d lose my livelihood. Therefore, I want abortion to remain legal. And that’s why I don’t support some of the bills they put forward that have no chance of passing, that are not prudent, that are not going to help save children.
They really just give the abolitionist a place to sit up on their high and holy horse. So, I have opposed some of their bills because they don’t work. They’re not going to save lives. There aren’t the votes to pass them. And even if they were, they are structurally problematic in many cases. But let me step back for a moment and talk about how insidious this accusation goes. And I’m honestly quite flabbergasted that I even have to bring it up on a show like this.
And say that yeah, there are some divisions within the pro-life world that are quite destructive. And when it comes to these kinds of personal attacks, particularly destructive, I had a young woman say to me in a public forum one time, you are profiting after abortion. You are making millions off of it. So I asked her a question, and here’s the question. And I said to her, “Tell me what my annual salary is with LTI.” Now, by the way, what I make as president of LTI is public knowledge because we have to file that on our forms for tax purposes.
If you’re a nonprofit C3 organization, what you are paid as an officer of the organization is public record. So, that is easy to look up. Now, I’m going to let you in on something here, and I don’t say it self-righteously, but since the beginning, I have not drawn salary from LTI. There have been rare occasions where I’ve taken some amount of money in a particular month when I was running short, but that is not a regular salary. And I don’t think there’s ever been a year where I’ve taken more than maybe $5,000, $6,000 from the organization.
And one of those times was during COVID when we were given a grant by the government and we had to use that money to pay salaries. It was mandatory that you do. So in order to use the money, I did take salary then. But the reality is she didn’t even know what my salary was. And so I said to her, “How do you know that I’m making millions off of abortion when you don’t even know what my salary is? This is the level of craziness that we have duped to in some quarters of the abolitionist movement.
And it’s really sad that this is the way it’s come because I think there’s place for a good faith discussion about crafting bills in a post jobs world. I think there’s room for that. But to attack somebody because you think they’re just making money and want to speak so they can use blood money to fund their own personal lifestyle. Boy, that’s a crazy one, but here it is. We’re hearing this in 2026. Now, what I also find interesting is this. I’m just going to say it.
I’m a pretty good public speaker. I get very good reviews where I go. Audiences love me. And I’ve been privileged to deliver keynotes at very large conferences where people explained that they really enjoyed what I had to say and that I communicate effectively. I know that I could make a whole lot more money taking my speaking skills and using it to talk about something else other than abortion. How does abortion help make me rich? It doesn’t. Because I don’t have people lining up to say, you know, we’d love to write you a big fat check to talk against abortion.
If I wanted to make money with my speaking skills, which I’ll credit God with giving me, what I ought to do is become the next Joel Olstein, become a life coach, start a church, a television ministry where I give people pep talks, and I use the skills I have to make them feel good about themselves, and in response, they pay me millions to do it. Well, that would be a way to make money. But talking about an issue that you have to drag people to hear and who often don’t want to even approach the issue because they’d rather just have it go away.
That’s not something you’re going to make money on. And you would do a lot better if you chose an issue that people were more likely to buy into. In fact, right now, I could make a lot of money if I went around the country condemning ICE or condemning Donald Trump. I’d make a lot more money than I’m making now. But the reality is pro-lifers who labor at this decade after decade. Most of the ones I know are dying in near poverty.
The ones I know that have passed on to glory did not die rich. Joe Shidler did not pass away rich. But that man who did his work well into his 90s saved thousands of lives and was responsible for closing untold numbers of abortion clinics. And his legacy lives on today in the work of his son who does great work filling in for what his father was doing and doing it admirably. These people are not profiting off the lives of the unborn.
They’re getting up every morning and saying, “What can we do given the realities confronting us to save as many lives as we can? These people should not be attacked. They should be saluted.” So, I hope I never have to bring this up again on a show like this, but it’s just sad that it’s floating out there in circles and you should be aware that these kinds of attacks are very, very unfair. Okay, we’re going to take a break, but before we do, I want to say something about one of our primary sponsors this month, Summit Ministries.
You know that I teach at Summit Ministries, and we teach kids how to think. We take high school students and we teach them a biblical worldview. I teach all the pro-life stuff. They learn how to make a pro-life argument, how to defend it, how to handle common objections, how to deal with the hard cases, how to deal with the sophisticated arguments that people like Peter Singer, Michael Tulie, Kate Griezley, and David Boon might put out there. They learn how to be effective pro-life apologists where God places them.
And I’m a big fan of Summit Ministries. I teach there. I know the team that’s there. I am I am good friends with all of the other speakers and some of the other speakers include people that are just the best in their fields. John Stone Street of the Coulson Center, Sean McDow from Biola University, Brett Conungle from Maven Ministry, Alan Schlean, and Megan Alman from Stand to Reason and others. The list goes on and on. All people who understand what it means to help teenagers communicate a biblical worldview and buy into it.
And parents, I will tell you this. Just take what I’ve read you a moment ago from that one gal, Bella, who was all upset at Thaddius Williams for his pro-life talk. That kind of ranker, that kind of hate, that kind of casting espersions on somebody who is doing good is what your students are going to be exposed to. And they are going to have to be tough. I wish we could shield our kids, but we can’t. They are going to have to be intellectually tough.
And when they hear stuff like that, they go, “That’s a bunch of dril. I’m not falling for it.” And they stand tall. Well, Summit Ministries is the place to equip your kids to do just that. And I’m taking some time now before the break just to say to you, I know their slots are already filling up. In fact, I just looked today and one of the camps is already nearly sold out. I think there’s 10 seats left and the others early in the summer are quickly going to sell out.
There is an option though that you may also want to consider. Not only does Summit have the Colorado sessions, they also now are offering two sessions in South Carolina at Anderson University. Anderson University is set within a quaint southern or South Carolina town. It’s beautiful, the town of Anderson and the facilities there are perfect for both recreation time and learning time. And if you don’t have the opportunity to send your son or daughter to Colorado for a summit, I will tell you that what’s available in South Carolina is is absolutely first class, second to none.
So that’s an option. Now a third option, if you cannot send your student at all, you could enroll them for Summit online. They have an online course. I think it’s about 95, maybe a hundred bucks. And your student can take the teaching material and take it online. They’re not watching the lectures online that the normal attendees at the summit conferences watch, but they are being taught by the same faculty in a direct form where the faculty member speaks right into the camera to them.
And that’s an option if your student cannot give up two weeks in the summer to go to summit. But I would encourage you to send your students to the two-week conference. Get there before they sell out because what I just gave you examples of whether it’s from inside the pro-life movement where people attack those doing good work or outside where people are attacking pro-lifers because they’re not committing to the issues secularists want us to commit ourselves to. Your student needs to know how to think biblically.
All right, we’re going to take a break. When we come back, we are going to listen to some remarks by former Congresswoman Liz Cheney that I think ought to trouble us because she is claiming to speak as a pro-lifer. And yet the stuff she is saying is full of misinformation and it’s fooling a lot of Christians and we need to be aware of it. So, we’ll tackle that when we come back from the break.
Welcome back everyone. Sometimes people who claim to be on our side of the issue get duped into the rhetoric being pedled by abortion ad advocacy groups. And I want to give you an example here from former Republican Congresswoman Lynn Cheney or excuse me, Liz Cheney. Now I get it. Liz Cheney has been criticized because she opposed Trump. But if you look at her voting record in Congress, she was solidly pro-life. But since leaving Congress, she has made some statements that are troubling.
She’s buying the rhetoric of the other side. And principally she is buying into this notion that if we pass laws protecting unborn humans, women will not get lifesaving medical care that they need because the doctors will fear prosecution or the bills themselves say that women cannot get the medical care they need should they have an ectopic pregnancy or a miscarriage. So, let’s see what she has to say on this. You mentioned how you don’t you certainly don’t agree with Kla Harris on every issue or even most issues in terms of the traditional political debates of domestic politics.
Let’s talk about abortion which is a big issue in this race. You are against abortion. You’re pro-life. You supported Roie Wade being overturned in 2022. Last week at an event with Kla Harris, you said you were deeply troubled by what you’ve watched happen in many Republican le states since the DOS decision in terms of the bans that the legislators have put into place. Can you explain your view on this further?
Yeah. And well, what I would say is I’m not the only one who holds this view, but I think that that and I certainly have talked to many of them. You have pro-life women all across this country who have been watching what’s happened in places like Texas, in places like North Carolina where since Row was overturned you’ve had laws put in place at the state level that are preventing women from getting life-saving care.
Okay, let’s stop right there. She made a claim that these pro-life laws are preventing women from getting lifesaving care. The question for the former congressman is simply this. Congresswoman, what states state that in their language in these bills? Cite for me a single example from a piece of legislation drawn up in a red state that opposes abortion that says women cannot get life-saving care if they face an ectopic pregnancy or suffer a miscarriage. She’s not going to find it because we’ve looked at these bills.
None of them has language saying women can’t get life-saving care. In fact, almost all of them make it very clear they can get that care, that the bill does not apply to medical emergencies, does not apply when the woman’s life is in danger. Now, it is true that some of these bills make it clear that a mere health concern is not enough to justify ending a pregnancy because health, as you know, has been defined. So broadly you can drive a Mac truck through it.
Health might mean social health. It might mean economic health. It might mean emotional health or family health. In other words, virtually anything can be justified using a health definition to drive through an abortion. But none of these bills say that women are going to be at risk because we’re protecting unborn humans from conception or from heartbeat or whatever it is the bill states. This is propaganda and it’s important that you be equipped to refute it because I think she’s right about one thing.
A lot of people who think of themselves as pro-life who really don’t necessarily have a good grounding in the issue, but they have at least what we would call pro-life sentiment. They haven’t thought it through. They haven’t mastered the arguments. So, they are vulnerable to this kind of propaganda. And they think, “Oh, you mean my pro-life view means women can’t get the medical care they need? Oh, boy, we can’t have that. We can’t have women dying. Maybe we do need to make sure we relax these pro-life bills or do away with them in fear that women will be harmed.” That’s just nonsense.
Let’s see what else she has to say.
You have circumstances where, you know, women are faced with, you know, whatever sorts of emergency care it might be. Whether it’s miscarriages and they require treatment that that aren’t able to get that treatment where you have doctors unsure of whether or not the kind of care that the woman needs may in fact be something that’s been criminalized by state law.
Okay, this is really fuzzy thinking on her part. Notice what she appeals to as evidence. Instead of going to a state statute, an actual law that’s been passed, and reading the language from that, she says, “Well, there may be doctors who fear that if they give this lifesaving treatment to women, they won’t they’ll get prosecuted for murder or they’ll get thrown in jail. So, therefore, they’re going to be reluctant to save a woman’s life.” Okay? If that’s true, the problem is with the doctor not knowing the law, not the pro-life doctor or not the pro-life law itself.
She appeals to what might be, you know, well, what about a possible scenario where the doctor doesn’t know the law? If he doesn’t know the law, he ought to get out of business or he ought to educate up and learn what’s actually going on. This is not actual evidence. She’s citing.
That’s not acceptable. And I think that’s where you have women who like me have been pro-life who are saying no this what we have seen happen cannot stand.
Okay. She hasn’t seen it happen. She’s appealing to hearsay. Now there were there were two young women who tragically died after the dos decision. One was named Amber and I forget the name of the other one. One was a Georgia girl, the other was a Texas girl. But here’s what happened in let’s take the Georgia one as an example, the Amber example. This young woman took an abortacient drug without med medical supervision. She got it through the mail, which means there’s no medical supervision.
The drug had a very harmful effect on her and she died. It was not the pro-life law that killed this young woman. It was the fact that she was taking the drug with no medical supervision at all and suffered from this. Now, there’s an organization that has done great work uncovering the lies that are being told by Liz Cheney here and others who support abortion. And that website is called Alog, the American Association of Prolife Obstitricians and Gynecologists. You can go to a Plog a Pog.org.
Oorgg to get some very good information on the reality, the factual reality of these laws, not the stuff that we’re being scared into believing. So, it’s sad that the former congresswoman who claims to be pro-life is falling for the very same lies that the pro-abortion industry is putting out there. Let me put it to you simply. The test for whether or not a law will kill women is found in the language of the statute itself. You cannot just say, “Well, it might be the case there’s a doctor out there who’s afraid to do a life-saving surgery.
Therefore, the law here is illegitimate and we need to get rid of it.” That’s an appeal to what aboutisms, not factual reality. Thank you for joining us today. I look forward to joining you on our next episode.