The following is a letter from Scott Klusendorf to a crisis pregnancy center director who questioned the use of abortion videos in public presentations. Names have been changed.

Dear Wendy,

Thank you for you letter regarding the use of abortion pictures by pro-life advocates. I share your concern that the video "Harder Truth" be used appropriately so as not to unduly offend people.

I was surprised, however, by your comment that perhaps it shouldn't be used with any audience. Although you raise some important concerns about the film, none warrants suspending its use.

    1) As for the claim that the video will turn people off (i.e. "harden hearts"), no one has ever presented any credible evidence to demonstrate that this is true. In fact, the debate over partial birth abortion proves just the opposite. The graphic imagery of aborted fetuses has, since 1995, caused support for abortion under any circumstances to drop on average from 33 percent to 22 percent. As reported in "USA Today," this drop is documented in nearly every poll taken in the last three years.

Why the shift? Because for the first time in 26 years, the debate is about what happens to the unborn. As feminist (and abortion advocate) Naomi Wolf points out, "When someone holds up a model of a six-month-old fetus and a pair of surgical scissors, we say 'choice,' and we lose." Pro-abortion columnist Anne Roiphe writes, "Horrible pictures of [partial birth abortion] have emotional resonance and erode public support for all abortions."

The shift in public opinion has also led to legislative progress. Thirty-one states have passed restrictions on abortion since 1996, with many liberal Democrats supporting the efforts. In New Jersey, Democrats joined pro-life Republicans in overriding the governor’s veto of a partial-birth bill. The reason for the shift in that state is clear. As reported by the "New York Times", lawmakers were shown graphic depictions of abortion prior to the committee vote on the legislation.

Will the video upset women who are abortion vulnerable or moderately "pro-choice?" It may. But what is worse: seeing an abortion or actually having one? The real question is not, Will some be offended?, but, Will those offended exceed the number of those motivated to change how they are living?

As Naomi Wolf points out ("New Republic," 10/16/96), we patronize women when we assume they can't look at abortion objectively. She writes: "The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers' practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics...[But] how can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted by them, then we are making the judgement that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they must make a grave decision. This view is unworthy of feminism."

True, the film must be used properly. That is why we should never spring it on an unsuspecting audience. When pro-life speakers tell people exactly what is in the film and invite them to avert their gaze (if they so desire), nearly everyone watches and almost no one complains. I have found this to be true in diverse settings such as debates, banquets, schools, etc. With Christian audiences, I introduce my remarks by noting that Christ is eager to forgive the sin of abortion and that my purpose is not to condemn, but to clarify and equip.

My experience after nine years of speaking is that people who are not heartbroken over abortion seldom make the lifestyle concessions necessary to support CPCs (or any other pro-life endeavor) at a sacrificial level. Pictures change the way people feel about abortion, while facts change they way they think. Both are vital in changing behavior.

In the past, pro-life advocates have made one of two mistakes with graphic visual aids. They either use them poorly (which is to say they spring them on an unsuspecting audience with no warning and no preparation) or, they don't use them at all. There is a third alternative: use them wisely and with sensitivity. When that happens, the public response is more favorable than not.

    2) You are correct to point out that many people cannot make the jump from seeing pictures of a baby in the womb to the conclusion that abortion is a serious moral wrong. That is because although pictures of pre-born babies are necessary for changing public opinion, they are not sufficient. To cite an example, the modern environmental movement got its start with graphic pictures in the late 1960's. As activist Jerry Mander points out in his book "Five Arguments Against Television," initial attempts at mobilizing public support for preservation of the giant redwood trees produced a giant public yawn. Breathtaking photographs of majestic trees, though inspiring, did little to incite public anger at the timber industry. So, activists took a lesson from the Vietnam War. Instead of showing pictures of pre-cut tress in all their glory, environmentalists began circulating before and after photos. "We started carrying around photos of acres of stumps where hundreds of redwoods had been cut down. I don't know if you have ever seen a field of tree stumps, but it is a horrific sight, not unlike a battlefield."

The public outcry was immediate. "At that moment," Mander concludes, "I realized that death is much better subject for television than life. Images of life--whether of trees themselves or the finely tuned Vietnamese culture--accomplished nothing. They only put people to sleep."

Educators universally acknowledge the value of graphic visuals when used properly. High school students, for example, are routinely shown grisly pictures of the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Images of mutilated bodies stacked like cordwood communicate the horror that raged in the death camps in a way no lecture can. In fact, the producers of "Schindler's List" donated a copy of the film to every high school (public and private) in America, in spite of its graphic content. At the same time, movie theaters provided free screenings (during school hours) to over 2,000,000 students in 40 states. Faculty acknowledged the disturbing images, but argued that students would not understand the holocaust unless they first saw it. They were so convinced of this that when a conservative congressman protested exposing young children to the film, 40 of his colleagues in the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing outrage at his comments. "While it is true that 'Schindler's List ' depicts nudity and graphic violence," the letter states, "we believe these scenes are critical to the film's accurate portrayal of the dehumanizing horrors of the holocaust. As noted television critic Howard Rosenberg writes in The Los Angeles Times, 'Although almost too horrid to watch, these segments are absolutely essential.'"

The same can be said about teaching the controversial histories of the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. Teaching the abortion holocaust with any less academic rigor is intellectually dishonest. If students and adults are mature enough for "Schindler's List," they can certainly view "Harder Truth."

    3) Finally, you are right to be concerned about post-abortive women, but it doesn't follow from this that we should forgo the use of graphic visuals.

People wounded by abortion desperately need to be brought out of denial and into confession so they can repent (and ultimately find healing). The fact that repentance is painful does not relieve us of our responsibility to teach it. "Godly sorrow," Paul writes, leads to "repentance" and "eternal life." (2 Cor. 10:7). True, we must always be gentle, but ignoring the reality of abortion does not spare a young woman guilt, it spares her healing. Unconfessed sin will keep her from full fellowship with her Savior. (See, for example, 1 John 1: 8-10, Proverbs 28:13) Anecdotally, numerous post-abortive couples write me after seeing the film. Each admits the difficulty in viewing it, but all agree it was a necessary step for healing.

Anyway, Wendy, these are my thoughts. I am happy to be of service as you strive to save moms and their little ones.

Sincerely yours,

Scott Klusendorf

(By the way, each of the recommendation letters in my press kit is from a location where I showed the film. As you can see, the success rate is overwhelming!)