Earlier this week an ordinance was passed in the city of Jackson by a 3-1 vote to “prohibit certain activities near healthcare facilities.” 

This ordinance specifically targets the last abortion clinic in Mississippi, Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The ordinance will create a “bubble zone” around the abortion facility, forbidding pro-life speech, prayer, or activity near the building. 

Council Member Melvin Priester was largely concerned with maintaining a peaceful atmosphere in the business community. Mayor Chokwe Lumumba commented that he stands for free speech, having protested in Ferguson himself. He warned that protestors must remain, “dignified and respectful.”  Council President Virgil Lindsay stated that this is an issue of access to healthcare. 

The comments, made by city council members in regards to the ordinance, were befuddling and seemingly erroneous – but, what can be said about such a blatant violation of our rights? Apart from the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, this ordinance restricts freedom of speech and assembly on public property. As such, it is a subject which our council members and other politicians should have impeccable clarity. 

Many, including myself, do not agree with various methods used on the sidewalk outside JWHO. If we stand for free speech, however, we must also stand for free speech that we are not personally comfortable with.

Additionally, it is difficult to understand how individuals practicing basic liberties outside of a “healthcare facility” are preventing access to basic healthcare. 

If our representatives are rendered unable to understand the importance of maintaining freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, it is not surprising that they cannot recognize the right to life of the unborn. 

Dozens of women, just this year, have chosen to walk from the abortion facility to the Cline Center, located across the street. Dozens of women, just this year, have chosen life because of the loving support of sidewalk counselors. It is now illegal for sidewalk counselors to offer this support outside of the abortion clinic.

We can hope that this shocking violation of basic rights will open many eyes to the shocking violation of rights that the abortion industry poses to mother and child.

The city of Jackson can attempt to hush the activity outside of the abortion clinic, but maybe, in that silence, we will be able to hear the truth of what is actually happening within those pink walls. 

As the battle over abortion continues to wage across the country, clinics have found themselves in the spotlight for the little interest they seem to show in health of women they claim to serve.

Often, abortion clinics are heralded as champions of women’s rights – safe-havens that provide reproductive healthcare services, protect essential rights of privacy, empower the right to choose, and empower the idea of autonomy over a woman’s own body. 

Is this really the whole truth? What might be unearthed if this newfound spotlight was taken advantage of and used to explore further into the practices and agenda of the abortion industry, heralded as an emblem of feminism? 

Recently, a pro-life organization, Americans United for Life, or AUL, released information containing lists of all the violations brought forth by the respective state departments of health against abortion clinics in each state. This compilation offers intriguing insight and astonishing validation to abortion clinic horror stories.

There are six states with only one abortion clinic remaining in operation; Mississippi is one of these. The pink building on North State Street is the last standing abortion facility in Mississippi. It is called Jackson Women’s Health Organization, or just JWHO, and is cited in the report released by AUL with numerous violations. 

Examples of the violations, in Mississippi and those that occurred in other states, are: 

• Quality assurance programs were not properly implemented.
• Autoclave and sterilization procedures were not followed.
• Facilities were generally “unclean,” including some where there was evidence of bloody drainage and fluids on exam tables.
• Dried blood and/or rust was found on equipment.
• Instruments labeled as “sterilized” displayed dried blood and/or rust.
• Reusable equipment and instruments were not cleaned and sterilized.
• Contaminated syringe containers were stored incorrectly.
• The bodily remains of aborted children were stored in the same refrigerators as medications and/or food.
• Staff members in some facilities were unable to locate sterile suturing supplies and equipment.
• In a Chicago abortion business, a recovery room technician was observed retrieving a paper towel from the garbage and using the same paper towel to cover a tray that would later serve food to patients.
• Patients were further exposed to unsanitary conditions by improper water temperatures for laundry. 

JWHO was cited by the Mississippi Department of Health in a statement of deficiencies and a plan of correction, with a, “failure to ensure a safe and sanitary environment.”

As stated in AUL’s report, “patients were further exposed to unsanitary conditions by improper water temperatures for laundry, sterilizers not being cleaned monthly, single-use vials being used multiple times and on different patients, vaginal probes not being disinfected between uses, and infectious waste not being stored or disposed of properly.” 

JWHO was cited with a “failure to ensure that staff are properly trained for their duties.” Examples of this violation are: 

• Medical staff did not have the necessary credentials.
• Failure to ensure that medical staff-maintained certifications.
• Failure to document staff qualifications.
• Failure to perform background checks.
• Failure to collect information from the National Practitioners Data Bank on prospective employees.
• Failure to conduct orientation programs for new employees.
• Failure to conduct annual training.

This particular issue is further perpetuated by, “itinerant providers” or, “fly-ins.” These are doctors that fly hundreds of miles away from their homes to abortion facilities. This reality raises the question: what profit motive is there to cause a doctor to trek hundreds of miles away from his home to perform an abortion?

As an example: Willie Parker, a doctor who has been known to provide abortions in Mississippi, lives in Chicago, 750 miles away from his abortion patients. As a result, abortion doctors often do not have local hospital admittance privileges. 

Willie Parker is an abortion provider, public figure, and a self-proclaimed women’s rights advocate. As stated in his official website, “his work includes a focus on violence against women, sexual assault prevention, and reproductive health rights through advocacy…” Interestingly, Willie Parker has recently been accused of sexual assault. The irony and the hypocrisy of the abortion industry only continues. 

Improper standard of patient care is an issue that is further perpetuated by another citation highlighted in AUL’s report. JWHO was found to have, “unlicensed, unqualified, and untrained staff providing patient care.”

As stated by AUL’s report, “The abortion facility failed to ensure that required medical professionals were present during abortion procedures and when patients were in the facility or could not provide proof of required professional licenses, training, or qualifications.” 

The reality that JWHO is little concerned with safety and patient care is only reinforced by the remaining violations detailed in AUL’s report. The last remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi has also been cited with the following violations: 

• “Failure to adopt, follow, and / or periodically review health and safety protocols.” This violation includes a failure to review the proper protocol required to administer abortion-inducing drugs.  
• “Failure to purchase and maintain required equipment.”
• “Failure to properly handle medications.” This citation includes failing to properly document the use of controlled substances and narcotics in patient records. 
• “Failure to comply with physical plant standards.” This violation includes a failure to provide personal privacy for women during patient evaluations and counseling sessions. 

JWHO is also a repeat offender. 

• In 2009 and 2011 – JWHO was cited with a, “failure to meet standards for emergency power.” 
• In 2009 and 2010 – JWHO was cited with a, “failure to meet standards of sanitation.” 
• In 2009 and 2011 – JWHO was cited with a, “failure to meet clinic personnel standards.” 
• In 2009, 2010, and 2011 – JWHO was cited with a, “failure to meet standards for structural soundness.” 
• In 2009 and 2011 – JWHO was cited with a, “failure to adopt or follow health and safety protocols.” 

Repeat offenders are prevalent in 11 states. Mississippi, with only one abortion clinic left standing, is one of the 11 states. This indicates incredible negligence. Unfortunately, this negligence is not isolated to JWHO. 

The owner of JWHO, Diane Derzis, owns two additional abortion facilities, in Richmond, Virginia and Columbus, Georgia. The Virginia abortion clinic, Capitol Women’s Health Clinic, is cited with four of the same violations as JWHO. These violations are: 

• Failure to ensure a safe and sanitary environment.
• Failure to ensure staff are properly trained for duties.
• Failure to purchase and maintain required equipment. 
• Failure to comply with physical plant standards. 

Derzis previously owned an abortion facility in Birmingham, Alabama that was closed in 2012 by the state health department due to numerous health code violations. 

This negligence is not simply isolated to the few abortion clinics that Diane Derzis owns, however. It is a trend, an epidemic of abortion clinic malpractice that pervades every state in the nation. This ugly reality is made abundantly clear by AUL’s report.

While abortion facilities, such as JWHO, are regulated by the state, pro-life pregnancy resource centers, such as The Center for Pregnancy Choices, or CPC, located in the Jackson metro area, are not regulated by the state – but rather, self-regulated. It is an interesting contrast. 

On one hand, JWHO and seemingly countless other abortion facilities, have proven a lack of adherence to legallymandated standards of safety, health, and overall patient care. Abortion facilities have fallen short and failed these regulations repeatedly. 

On the other hand, many pregnancy resource centers across the nation, including the CPC, are HIPPA and OSHA compliant by self-mandate. In addition, the CPC adheres to strict codes of confidentiality and professionalism by free association with national networks such as: Care Net, Heartbeat International, and The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. Most pregnancy resource centers belong to at least one of these organizations; and each organization has a set of terms concerning care and competence that must be agreed to in order to secure membership. The CPC is also overseen by an OB/GYN with local hospital admittance privileges and staffed with registered nurses who are both well qualified and properly certified. 

In the past, federal judges have blocked abortion bans and kept abortion clinic doors open. One might ask, are state regulations actually beneficial if abortion clinics fail to meet these standards and are aided in this negligence by court rulings? If left to the free market, rather than court rulings, would JWHO still be open? Even more, are abortion facilities helping or harming women? 

In recent news, Missouri may become the first abortion free state after the state Department of Health has refused to renew a St. Louis Planned Parenthood’s license. The state Department of Health has declared this abortion facility unfit to be licensed yet, pro-choice activists are labeling this loss tragic, bemoaning the this incredible afront to their rights, and screaming that the legislature must remove themselves from their uteruses.

It almost seems as if pro-choice activists are blind to the discrepancy posed between the abortion industry’s claims of championing women’s rights and their apparent inability to meet minimal standards of safety, health, and overall patient care. It is simply impossible to uphold women’s rights and simultaneously treat women who are seeking help with blatant negligence. Why isn’t this fundamental truth more obvious? 

Mississippi is viewed as ground zero in the nation’s battle over abortion. There is no other state in which this discrepancy is more apparent. In the 2016 documentary, Jackson, Diane Derzis was quoted saying, “This [tragic story] is a direct result of the Mississippi legislature trying so desperately to outlaw abortion while ignoring the health of pregnant women.”

One might pose the question to Derzis, does the problem fall upon Mississippi legislature, or does it fall upon you and abortion facility owners like you? 

What if the issue is really that abortion facilities are praised for manipulating women into their doors, with empty empowerment about autonomy and choice, and harming them for the sake of monetary gain? In 2017 there were 2,594 abortion procedures performed at JWHO. On JWHO’s website, it states that abortion procedure fees range from $600-$800. Therefore, a conservative estimate would calculate that JWHO earns over $1.5million a year.

In contrast, the CPC is a nonprofit organization that offers free services and strives to offer true empowerment and education concerning all the lifegiving choices a woman really has. If pro-choice activists believe so vehemently in choice, why have they created a society that so often views abortion as the only choice? 

In light of this invaluable information, we can arm ourselves with the truth and question widespread information that is presented as irrefutable truth. We can arm ourselves with the truth that pregnancy resource centers, like the CPC, are dedicated to walking alongside women from the first pregnancy test to long after birth, offering free services, counseling, and physical support.

Pregnancy resource centers, across the country, are the true safe havens for women – helping women who feel as if abortion is their only option, instead of harming them. 

We can arm ourselves with the truth that abortion facilities, like JWHO, operate under a pretense of empowerment, feminism, and healthcare; but, in reality, fail to meet even minimal standards of safety, health, and overall patient care.

The abortion industry is nothing but a poorly disguised agenda of monetary gain and manipulation – an industry that harms women who feel as if abortion is their only option, instead of helping them. 

Unplanned, released in a limited number of theaters across the nation in March, tells the story of Abby Johnson’s conversion from a Planned Parenthood Clinic Director to a pro-life activist.

The movie came in 4th place in box office sales over opening weekend, doubling expected ticket sales, and earning over $6 million three days after its release. This unexpected success is accompanied by controversy and apparent censorship of an impactful Christian and pro-life story.

This is exactly why we should be paying attention.

Since its release, the movie has dealt with extensive censorship issues on social media. Twitter briefly suspended the movie’s account. Though it was restored, due to public outcry, this act of censorship leaves us with questions. Was it an executive decision, made by Twitter? Was it caused by a reaction from complaints by pro-choice users? Twitter claims that they suspended the account because it was linked to an account that violated the website’s rules. Is this vague claim true? The movie’s account also suffered a quick and drastic decrease in followers, which is also entirely unexplained.

It appears as if discussion and promotion of the movie is being intentionally suppressed by mainstream media. Furthermore, it appears as if the nature of this censorship is political.

Similarly, the R rating, given by the Motion Picture Association of America, was also politically controversial. Unplanned was likely the first Christian movie, produced by Pure Flix, to receive an R rating. It did not contain nudity, sexuality, or foul language. Did the movie deserve the rating that it received, or could it have been another attempt at censorship of conservative Christian voices by mainstream media?

Candidly, the movie graphically detailed surgical abortions, a chemical abortion, and the aftermath of a botched abortion. These scenes portrayed the ugly reality and the haunting violence of abortion. The R rating could serve as warning for parents who may not want their children to witness such images, or post-abortive women who may be disturbed by such images.

However, it is reasonable to ask why a 13-year-old girl is legally permitted to obtain an abortion without parental consent (depending on the state) but not permitted to watch a movie about abortion? Deserving or not, the R rating successfully reduced the number of teenagers that a pro-life message could reach. It also prevented advertisement of the film on most major cable networks.

The various censorship efforts by mainstream media demonstrate why we need to pay attention to discussion surrounding the movie and why we need to watch the film for ourselves.

Unplanned changes the stigmas and the generalizations typically attached to Christian-made movies. Often, Christian films, even high grossing movies such as Gods not Dead, written by the same screenwriters as Unplanned, are painfully predictable, naïve, and one-sided. Christian-made movies often tend to self-righteously “candy-coat” issues and remain blissfully ignorant to ugly realities – as if they are scared to touch anything that may actually represent the gospel of a savior that ate with tax collectors or prostitutes. It is as if they are afraid to acknowledge our call to live in the world.

Unplanned changes these stigmas in a remarkable manner. The power of storytelling is immeasurable. Telling a story truthfully is an act of bravery. Abby Johnson tells her story without reservation and it is a difficult story to hear. It is not a story that is blind to ugly realities. The abortion scenes are heart-wrenching and she highlights well the paralyzing hopelessness that women experience when facing a crisis pregnancy.

It is not a one-sided story. Viewers of the film will witness difficult truths, such as the fact that women who work for abortion clinics are rarely ill-intentioned. They truly believe that they are serving and helping other women.. They are not malicious adherents to the manipulative nature of the Planned Parenthood corporation and they do not revel in the death of an unborn baby. I believe they are simply misguided, as Abby Johnson tells us that she was for many years. Likewise, pro-lifers do not always practice love, nor do they always truly want to help women in crisis. Instead, they scream slurs and label women “baby-murders.” They hold up signs of aborted fetuses and utilize scare tactics. Like most things in life, there is more gray than black and white.

This point was made clearly in the distinction made between 40 Days for Life, a non-profit organization dedicated to quietly praying outside of abortion clinics and offering women the hope of another option, and the people dressed as grim reapers who harassed women as they walked into the clinic. The film does not naively believe that the divide between the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate is consistently black and white.

Another case often brought against Christian-themed films is their tendency to preach to the choir. Ideally, Unplanned will open thousands of eyes and reach just as many hearts. Ideally, it will create dynamic and edifying conversations between the two sides of the pro-life vs. pro-choice fence. I believe that it has the potential to accomplish all of this and more – especially because of its timely release. The current political atmosphere surrounding the issue of abortion is volatile. Heartbeat bills are being passed in numerous states, as well as born alive acts and late-term abortion laws.

Yet, what if the film only reaches conservative Christians? Is it then a waste of money? Would it then be a waste of a powerful story, told bravely? This is not the case. In my experience, conservative Christians may know what abortion is, the basic definition of terminating a pregnancy, and they may vote for politicians who uphold the sanctity of life, but they may not know what abortion means.

Most conservatives have not have witnessed the violence of abortion. They may not know that abortion is a violation of women’s rights. They may not know how difficult abortion is, both physically and emotionally. Conservatives may not understand the cold and manipulative nature of the abortion industry. They may not have heard the heartbeat of an unborn child. Conservatives may not have faced  the reality of an unplanned pregnancy. They may not know that fetal parts are removed from abortion clinics in industrial-sized, blue barrels. Conservatives may not have witnessed a mother mourning a child she has never even met. There are so many people who do not know what abortion means. Just because abortion is a controversial and contentious issue does not indicate that the majority of people are well-informed, including conservative Christians.

Go and watch Unplanned. Go and appreciate the power of storytelling and the honesty of one Christian film. Go and learn what abortion really means. Go and support liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Officials at the University of Iowa have recently challenged a small group of Christians, students of the university, for supposedly threatening the university’s human rights policy.

The group, called Business Leaders in Christ, were accused of violating university policy by not allowing a gay student to serve as vice president of their group. Members of the group stated that allowing a gay student to serve as vice president of their group would conflict with their core beliefs – the belief that marriage is rightfully intended for one man and one woman. 

The court ruled in favor of Business Leaders in Christ and determined that the University of Iowa could not strip them of their rights.

This case demonstrated the sad reality of religious discrimination in America and specifically, religious discrimination on college campuses. Few of us have heard or seen any media coverage of this case. It brings to light the fact that religious discrimination, in America and on college campuses, extends far past what our mainstream media chooses to report.

The University of Iowa attempted to “de-recognize” a Christian group of students for pledging allegiance to their own faith and upholding their own ideals. The violation of rights and targeted discrimination in this act were significant. Yet coverage of the incident has been sparse.

We live in an age in which we worship at an altar of tolerance but the media remains markedly deaf to a case that involved acute intolerance and discrimination based upon one’s religious beliefs. Why? It is vital that we ponder the answer to this question.

Had this been a case of discrimination involving people and events serving the purposes of the left more adequately, would our newsfeed have provided us with more details? Had the rights of an openly Christian group not been upheld in a court of law, would we have heard more?

The lack of media coverage and the hypocritical nature of the discrimination are alarming. The officials who de-recognized the group claimed that they did so based the university’s human rights policy. Yet, where were the rights of the members of Business Leaders in Christ? Where were their natural rights to choose a leader who upheld the core tenants of their common faith?

Even as school officials claimed that the Christian group was practicing intolerance, the university simultaneously infringed on religious freedom and practiced their own brand of intolerance.

The implications of this incident are far-reaching. How we choose a college could be one implication. The way Christians are perceived by the world is yet another.

I am fortunate enough to pursue my chosen field of study at a Christian university. It is a university where I am free to express my faith in all areas of my life. Yet, one should not have to attend a Christian school, as a Christian, to obtain the rights of religious expression. The process of choosing a college should be largely based on how well a student thinks a particularly university can prepare a prospective student for entry into his or her chosen profession.

If the “everything is political” era now extends to college, however, it may become necessary for a Christian student to consider the factor of freedom of speech and religious expression when choosing a school.

The issue of religious discrimination on college campuses, safeguarded by the media’s neglect, seem to be deliberate and systematic. It is slowly teaching the world to be distrustful of Christian expression of faith. It consistently and quietly encourages and magnifies harmful stigmas and generalizations attached to Christianity.

For instance, during what little media coverage there was of this issue, reporters never mentioned if the gay student was denied participation in the group altogether or if the student was merely denied a leadership role.

The recent Iowa court case is just one example of countless others that highlight how Christians are discriminated against on college campuses. The examples are big and small – from paper grading scandals to Christian student group expulsion.

It is an emerging crisis of a violation of our rights as Americans and it is a crisis largely ignored by mainstream media.

Both the State Senate and House have passed legislation that prohibits the abortion of an unborn child with a detectable heartbeat. Gov. Phil Bryant is standing ready to sign the bill into law once lingering differences have been settled.

This bill comes in the wake of the recent and shocking New York legislation, along with similar legislation concerning late term and post birth abortion.

If the heartbeat bill becomes law, the only way to obtain an abortion after the heartbeat is detected would be when medical emergencies, the life of the mother or loss of major bodily function, necessitate. The bill also stipulates that the Mississippi State Board of Health is to regulate the appropriate methods for performing an examination to detect the fetal heartbeat.

Furthermore, any physician who does perform an abortion procedure without first detecting a fetal heartbeat will be subject to license revocation or disciplinary action. The ramifications of this bill are far reaching on both sides of the debate.

Bryant, a fervent defender of life, has stated that an unborn child is a human being and he/she have rights bestowed upon them. When questioned about the recent legislation in New York, along with other states, he commented that he hopes that these blatant attempts to grow a culture of death will shock people into realizing just how horrific this movement has become and motivate action. It appears that this just might be true.

The states of Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee are also attempting to pass versions of a heartbeat bill and enforce stricter abortion laws.

Naturally, abortion proponents will do all they can to stop this.

This is not simply a political debate; it is a deeply personal one. Pregnancy centers around the nation, including the Center for Pregnancy Choices in Jackson, witness the powerful testimonies of women choosing life after hearing or seeing their baby’s heartbeat. As someone who has personally heard the accounts of such women, I can attest that it is a tender and life-altering moment.

“We see lives changed when women are able to connect with their baby through sonogram images, Erin Kate Goode, the executive director of CPC, stated. The CPC has seen this truth reflected in so many of its client’s journeys.

One expectant mother who visited CPC said, “Once I got my free sonogram, I fell in love with my baby, and I knew right away I wanted to keep her.”

“I saw my little bitty baby,” another former patient said, “I saw its heartbeat. I did my nervous laugh, attempting to hold back my tears, as I watched my tiny baby jump and dance around. That’s when I knew that I was going to do this, whatever it took.”

While the debate is considered from every angle, the same truth emerges; an unborn child with a detectable heartbeat is a life.

The heartbeat bill only reinforces what medical science has known all along, a heartbeat is not only an indication of a viable pregnancy, it is intrinsically bonded with life. It is with hope that we witness life beginning to win and it is with pride that we know Mississippi is a pioneer of the movement to value every heartbeat.