John Stenberger answers several questions for The Abortion Museum and this is the raw footage of our interview. This footage will assist us in creating a series of museum exhibits on the truth/history surrounding abortion.
Transcript
The transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.
Jacob Barr :
Welcome to the pro-life Team Podcast my name is Jacob Barr and in this episode we’re sharing footage captured for the Abortion Museum so John, please introduce yourself and explain your connection to the issue of abortion.
John Stemberger :
So my name is John Stenberger i’m an attorney. I’m a political leader and I’m an activist. I spent 10 years trying to figure out, am I supposed to be a pastor am I supposed to be attorney or am I supposed to be a political leader? And I get to do all three of those things kind of together, which is interesting and a real privilege, actually. So the issue of life and human dignity is really the DNA of my life and what compels me. I was working for a Liberal Democratic campaign in college. I was student body president and they said this guy’s free of education, the other guy’s not. So I’m working in this. I’m trying to figure all this out, like where am I stand, politically speaking where do I stand with truth and life and issues? And so I stumbled upon the abortion issue this is in the mid eighties, and it just struck me as the most gross human injustice that we are destroying human beings in the most safest, secure place where they ought to be protected. And so I shared this observation with these folks I was working with and I suddenly realized I’m in the wrong camp. Like if they can’t see this, how can they see anything else? This is so clear to me. So that helped me to Orient myself to worldview, to politics, to the world really, and understanding what’s right and wrong at a very fundamental level of justice issues. And so since that time, it’s just been a very key motivational part of everything that I do, it’s.
Jacob Barr :
A good origin story. So question. Sorry, question number two. How has the abortion debate evolved since the nineteen sixties to today?
John Stemberger :
Yeah so the abortion debate has evolved quite a bit and I think primarily because of technology and the wonders of the ultrasound, how crisp and how clear and how 3 dimensional we can see that this is not a BLOB of tissue, it’s not a duck, it’s not a Buick, it’s a baby, right. We can’t lie about that anymore. And so I think the power of this ultrasound, the power of technology has shifted the debate where we can’t just say is a Bob of tissue really the issue now is shifted to personhood, and personhood is the status of being protected under the Constitution. And so in the same way that in the Dred Scott case, the court said he didn’t say he wasn’t a human being, he said he wasn’t a person because persons are those who are protected under the Constitution. What’s fascinating is that the law protects fake entities like corporations as persons, but it doesn’t protect the unborn child, at least not in every state. And so that really is the proper place if you’re going to have a debate. Those who are pro abortion rights, they won’t debate this issue you don’t see many debates at all nowadays. You see some in the margin, maybe in some kind of rough places where Lila Rose is debating A Blogger or something, but serious minded pro abortion rights people don’t debate this issue because they have very weak moral footing they have weak scientific ground and they just really are not able to sustain an argument other than the brute force of we’re going to do this because we want to do it and we have jurisdiction over our bodies. And so the debate has shifted in the sense that there’s no more debates. It’s shifted in the sense that technology has made it clear what’s in Mommy’s womb. And I think that the tone and tenor of the debate is more broad now i think within the pro-life movement we have incrementalists, we have abolitionists, we have this kind of sense of difference of opinion on how we should solve the problem and how we should approach it, legally and otherwise.
Jacob Barr :
That’s good. Any big changes in the last two to three years for the same question, like how is the abortion debate evolved or change? And when it comes to some of the big changes in the last two to three years.
John Stemberger :
Well, I think that the Dobbs case has revealed that we have a lot of work to do. I mean, we have not won anything we just simply have started the pro-life movement. And so I think that we really have to go back to the basics we have to go back to arguing for the humanity of the unborn child. We have to show people and convince them that this is a baby in mommy’s belly, that this baby should have the full same rights that a natural human being does. And we shouldn’t discriminate based upon age and location because that’s really what we’re talking about if this child is older, if this child was located in different places in mommy’s womb would have full constitutional protection. But because it’s located in the mother’s womb, we somehow think that the mother has the right to destroy this child. And it’s very sad that a mom would be that despondent to take the life of their own human child. So I think that that’s the biggest change in the last two three years yeah.
Jacob Barr :
That makes sense. Ok so question number four is how significant, How significant is the Dobbs decision?
John Stemberger :
It’s huge. I mean the Dobbs decision, we have been praying and working to overturn Roe versus Wade for over 50 years and it’s remarkable. We it’s I remember hearing the news and it was just surreal because I remember one of my best friends called me and said I remember in college where you told me I will work my entire life to see over to see Roe versus Wade overturned i don’t even remember that but if he told me that I know it’s great sounds like something I would have said in college right. But it’s true we’ve all thousands of people have worked for decades now and it’s a remarkable victory but it’s also a great challenge because now people feel like on the other side feel like OK we have to defend abortion rights there’s no protection under the under the federal constitution. It also creates a very different political dynamic because the Congress can no longer say, hey, we have this issue, it’s now backed. They want to say it’s to the states in fact, the case, the Dobbs case said, no, it’s to the people and their elected representatives, both state and federal. But a lot of federal officials are trying to say no, it’s to the states. And so it creates a different political dynamic as well. But the decision itself is just a groundbreaking, probably the most important decision in the last hundred years in constitutional case law perfect.
Jacob Barr :
What are some of the biggest, specially Mario in case John texts you should have your phone. Can you see your phone if you need? Not this John, I mean Mario, but John outside texting.
John Stemberger :
He’s right outside still.
Jacob Barr :
Oh, is he is he still talking?
John Stemberger :
Yeah, he’s talking to that gentleman.
Jacob Barr :
Ok, he’s probably good then. Yeah, OK, good. Ok, just to make sure. So this is question number five. What are some of the biggest lessons you’ve learned over the course of your experience in pro-life activism? If you need to take a minute before starting, that’s fine. Just take your time and start whenever you’re ready.
John Stemberger :
Some of the lessons that I’ve learned.
Jacob Barr :
It’s one of the biggest lessons that you’ve learned in pro-life activism.
John Stemberger :
I think the biggest lesson that I have learned is we have to get along with everybody. There’s a lot of people that disagree on strategy, on techniques, and I try to bring everybody together and I may disagree with a guy vehemently, but I want to bring him into the coalition because we need everybody. So in as much as I have specific views about how we should do things, I try to unify people. And there’s some people that won’t even be in the same room. I mean if you. And it’s partly because they they’ve been attacked and they’ve been vilified wrongfully so. But we still need everybody. And so I tried to take the role of bringing people together. That’s a very challenging thing because there’s a lot of tension. You know, do we use dead baby pictures outside of an abortion clinic or do we not? Abby Johnson says we shouldn’t. But yet it’s the picture of a baby being destroyed in a womb that actually changed her mind on a sonogram. And I’ve talked to her about this and so, you know, there’s a lot of tension in the movement and so we have to figure out a way to disagree disagreeably. The public discourse is at an all time low for a variety of reasons we’re Jerry Springer politics and it’s filtrated the church and the pro-life movement, everything so we don’t respect each other, we don’t listen to each other and we scream a lot and we just demand things. And so we have to get back to a civil place where we can be firm in our beliefs, but respect each other and still work with each other in as much as we can.
Jacob Barr :
Good What are some of the biggest missteps in the pro-life movement over the years?
John Stemberger :
I think some of the biggest missteps in the pro-life movement, as we’ve not been strategic. We’ve not really thought through how to do something, how to accomplish the goal of saving babies. A lot of people just want to talk about it and kind of scream, but they don’t have a strategy for actually how to do it, right. You look at William Wilberforce, he didn’t even end slavery directly he did it indirectly through flags on the ships that were carrying the slaves. So it was not an automatic thing he argued for the humanity of all human beings and the end of the slave trade. But in the end, how it happened procedurally in the, in the, in the Parliament was it was a very gradual thing. And so we can learn from that i think that, you know, we can take the position that all life is innocent, all life should be protected. We’ll have to figure out a strategy to make that happen because it’s not going to happen all at once. And so I think that’s a real tension. You know, do we demand 15 weeks for Congress And this is this is the minimum you have to have for a presidential campaign or to be a elected official or do we say no, we want to argue that all human life is precious. Those are, those are tough questions. And I think that we have to figure out how to be strategic. Secondly, we have to figure out that we can love them both this is not just about the baby this has to be about the baby and the mother. We can love them both and we’re going to love them both. And I think that’s has to be key. Jesus would have loved them both, right? It’s just common sense to reach the mother. To save the baby, you have to reach the mother. And so I think that to save the baby, you have to reach the mother. And so we have to love them both. That’s just critical. And I think that we can do a better job of that. The crisis pregnancy center movement is amazing. I mean, these women are just unbelievable heroes and they go completely under the radar until Dobbs, when they’ve been attacked by congressmen on the left, they’ve been attacked by just vandals. It’s horrible what they’ve gone through these women are just, look, there’s a lot of weird people in the pro-life movement. The pregnancy center ladies are the most normal, compassionate, wonderful ladies you will ever meet anywhere. They are just remarkable in every way. And in Florida, what we did is we have about 200 pregnancy centers we invited them all of the capital to our family days, the capital, and we honored them. They were the guests of honor we gave them a rose. Tim Tebow’s mom recognized them on stage we had a whole special program with how many babies they ‘d saved and how many years they ‘d labored. We took them to the Florida Supreme Court, and they were addressed by a justice who had eight adopted kids. And so we took them to the House chamber and just in the speaker of the House, and they were so blown away because no one honors these legs. No one does. They labor in obscurity, and they have emotional highs and emotional lows that none of us will ever understand because they’re literally holding life and death in their hands and in their words. And so it’s really remarkable what they do. The Christian Church, I think, has a lot of reasons to be criticized, both Catholic and Protestant. Legitimate abuse, heresy, crazy stuff that’s happening. But one thing I think the history will show clearly is that the pro-life movement, and specifically the pregnancy care movement, it is just God saying, well done, my good and faithful servant. It’s something we can legitimately be proud of and it wasn’t anybody but Catholics and Protestant Christians who have a compassion and a real passion to save human beings and just to protect human beings that did this remarkable work that’s.
Jacob Barr :
Good. So John, tell me, what is Florida Family Policy Council and why does it exist?
John Stemberger :
So Florida Family Policy Council is merely 1 of 40 state based policy groups around the country. Originally a birth by Doctor James Dobson and folks in the family, we’re now all separate entity we come under a group called the Family Policy Alliance. We’re all separate we all fund separate boards, but we all work together. We’re constantly talking to each other as sharing notes, sharing information and as a team, we’re putting strategies together around the country because a lot of the battles are focused on the states now in many issues. I mean, in fact, Doctor Dobson, after he created Family Research Council, he realized a lot of the issues are domestic policy issues we’re like family. They’re not at a federal level, they’re at a state level. And so states are critically important. The founding fathers understood this, that the powers in the States and so a Florida Family Policy Council, along with the other policy councils, we champion issues regarding life, marriage and religious liberty those are the three big issues that we do. And life for me personally and for just the priority of our organization has always been the key issue. And so it’s not, it’s it is abortion, but it’s also about human dignity, everything from treating people with respect. It affects your view on racism it affects your view on just kindness and compassion and how we think about other issues, other policy issues and so I think that, you know, human dignity is a very important thing. Interestingly enough, it can also be used in a twisted way. The Supreme Court in Obergefeld literally used the concept of human dignity to justify same sex marriage and redefining marriage in a way that totally has opened a can of worms for us as a society where we don’t even know what gender is anymore. So when you unlock that can of worms but the point is that human dignity is important, but it has to be informed by history, tradition, common sense, faith. Otherwise you just go off the deep end best what human dignity really means and how we should implement it in our lives can take one quick break just can move the mic up just a little bit up. You’re doing good, not a mistake. I think we’re almost done already. The questions there?
Jacob Barr :
You go ahead and say something real quick, just to verify everything’s OK.
John Stemberger :
Sure test Test 1-2-3 Florida Family Policy Council, 1-2-3.
Jacob Barr :
Ok, cool. All right are we still rolling?
John Stemberger :
Right.
Jacob Barr :
So question number, eight in your view, how will our churches engaged on the abortion issue? Please explain.
John Stemberger :
So the big problem that we have with churches is that in the world, everything’s become political. The weather’s political, you know, abortion’s political, everything’s political. And so churches naturally react negatively if anything seems to be political. Well, what if it’s clearly biblical, clearly in the faith tradition, but it’s just happens to be viewed as political. And So what the church has done is they’ve drawn away from really important human issues that need to be addressed that are clearly addressed in Christian tradition and in biblical authority, but they’re pulling away because it’s perceived to be political. What they really mean is that it’s controversial and so they don’t want to be controversial. Well, Jesus was very controversial, extremely controversial and extremely anti establishment, countercultural. So there’s, I think the church needs to understand that they’ve been duped into thinking that this is a political issue this is not a political issue this is the most fundamental moral, social issue that there could be no issue that’s more clear in the scripture. Let’s start with thou shalt not kill. I mean, and so, you know, you see, there’s just so many ways you could argue this, but in the scripture in the Old Testament talks about the fact that we were knit in our mother’s womb, that God knew us even before the foundations of the earth. And it also talks about the fact that in the New Testament, we see John the Baptist being in Mommy’s belly, right and jumping for joy. And so there’s just all these biblical references to this so the church should view this as pure ministry and many churches do. We were at a big coalition meeting and I asked the lady who’s in charge of all the Florida pregnancy centers. I said rate the church. What grade do you give the church on helping you do your job? She said some A and some FI said interesting i said give me one letter grade for the whole church across Florida. She said, CI said, you know what that’s not good enough. That’s not good enough. There can be no more. When we look at the scripture that talks about pure and undefiled religion is to rescue widows and orphans in distress. There is no more person that is more in distress and that’s more orphaned than an unborn child with an abortion minded mother this is the ultimate orphan you’re about to destroy human being forget abandoning them as a parent or not having the ability to care for them. So I think this is clearly pure and undefiled religion and the church needs to see it as such, ministering to both mothers and then secondly to the unborn children as well wow.
Jacob Barr :
That was really good answer. Do you have any words of warning for up and coming pro-life activists?
John Stemberger :
Warning.
Jacob Barr :
Warning as in like you know, maybe you don’t make this mistake.
John Stemberger :
Yeah, I think I may have covered this already, but I’ll just do it again. Might be a better take. I think the biggest warning and the biggest mistake that we have to make is we have to work together. We have to disagree with each other do it respectfully. Hold your convictions, but at least listen and understand what the other side is saying, why they’re saying it, and be able to say, OK, we disagree, but where can we come together and agree and work together? We saw this in the abolitionist movement in England, the slave trade they had all people in various places they had an incrementalist they had abolitionist, complete abolitionist. And so we have to be able to use history as a guide to understand how to end this horrific, grisly procedure where mothers are so despondent they’re willing to take the life of their unborn child. We want to make this not just illegal, we want to make it unthinkable we want to change everyone’s mind about how they think about this human being in the mother’s womb. And so it’s going to require. Maybe another 50 years before we had literally changed and become the mainstream position of the culture. But it can be done and we have to have hope we have to think strategically we have to never give up hope we have to look at history examples where people stood alone for principle and they changed the course of human history because of that. You could just name biblical figures you can name figures in American history and world history. They were willing to stand alone to do what’s right and true and beautiful, even though the odds just seem like there’s we’re never going to win this battle, right. And so I think about the states that have very pro abortion laws or constitutional amendments that lock them in. Those are states that are going to have that kind of resilience. I just wrote a book, A Legacy of Life, and we almost called the book. It honors the 50 greatest leaders of the pro-life movement and as I’m looking and studying each one of these 50 leaders, the one word that comes to mind is resilience. They were all like, had a toughness that even though they were set back, they’re not willing to let them discourage them they were willing to say, I’m going to, I’m fight, I’m in the fight, and I’m not going to be set back by failure. And that I think is such a powerful thing when you can get to a sanctified resilience where you’re not willing to allow failure or defeat to, you know, to squelch your motivation, that’s very powerful.
Jacob Barr :
That’s good. Now that’s the next question, sort of like the opposite do you have any words of encouragement you’d like to share with pro lifers who might be hearing this, maybe try and think of a different yeah angle perhaps. So maybe the your first answer was sort of like build the bridges. Maybe the second answer could be use the bridges. I’m not sure. I feel like that was your first answer was talking about, yeah, build the bridges with other groups, yeah, or you can.
John Stemberger :
Yeah, it sounds like the same thing to me i’m not sure I have a different answer.
Jacob Barr :
Angle you might think of, but what you know, what’s another thing you would encourage? Yeah, because your first answer was encouragement, which is good, but yeah, what’s another encouragement you might have or if you don’t think it’s something I can go to the next question.
John Stemberger :
Yeah, just go to the next question.
Jacob Barr :
So the next question is, let’s go with this one here. Ok, so recording is still going. This is for the this is question number one. This is the only, the only question I’m doing on this set for medical and abortion. So when does when does new human life begin? Please explain.
John Stemberger :
So it’s a medical fact that life begins at conception and ends in natural death. That’s not a theological proposition it’s not my opinion, It’s just a medical fact. And so it’s fascinating to me that even scientists and people who claim to follow science are unwilling to understand that simple reality. So the second part that’s the scientific fact. The legal argument is that all human beings, from conception and natural death, should be protected by the government and by its laws. And I think the theological argument, to put the third part about it is that all these human beings are unique because they’re made in the image and likeness of the Creator, and so they’re worthy of distinct protection and respect, and the full force of the law should protect them as any other person would be protected perfect.
Jacob Barr :
And let’s see. All right so it’s 6:00 let me just make sure that we, I don’t see a text from John oK, good. So we could do these. I wanted this one first. This was this one I think you’re going to hit a home run on because you brought it up before. So this is question number twenty, four our law set. There is a debate in the anti abortion or pro-life camp between abolitionism and incrementalism. Would you explain these two positions and what difference it makes or yeah, you should explain your thoughts on the two the two camps, abolitionism and incrementalism.
John Stemberger :
I think any serious thinker about really anything in life, any truth in life, you have to hold tension. There’s tension you have to hold between two ideas that are competing with each other. And if you just ignore the tension and just go with one side, you’re going to have an imbalance you’re going to have a lack of full understanding of how to really attack a problem or a challenge. And so I think that this is classic in the pro-life movement you have some people that believe we need to incrementally move, change laws incrementally and they would argue that Roe versus Wade is evidence of that waste 50 years of incremental change in the courts, you know, arguing for that there’s other people that say, no, we need to advocate for all unborn children. I think that I think we would agree with them but I think the issue is that the abolitionists would not support any incremental laws. So I think that they should see that if we can save 30 babies instead of 100 babies, we should save the 30 babies, right. But there’s also, I think, great virtue in the abolitionist position because it’s uncompromising, it’s pure. It’s saying, hey, we need to advocate for every human being, not just for those that the law can protect. So again, I think that they have a good argument, they have a good position. But in the world of politics, in the world of law things, unless you can have a majority opinion, unless you can create a consensus, you can’t get anything done. So I think that’s the challenge is having to if you’re arguing in the public square apart from law, then you can make the argument we should protect every unborn child. It’s easy to be an abolitionist in the public square if you’re making an argument in the debate on a blog or something like that but if you’re trying to get law passed, it’s very hard because you’re basically saying we want all the babies survive or none of them survive and if I can save a portion of them, I want to save a portion of them. So I think that I think the incrementalists need to listen to the abolitionists and learn from their spirit they have a very strong, principled position. And I think the abolitionists can learn from the incrementalists and their strategy that they’re not compromising, they’re simply trying to save as many babies as possible perfect.
Jacob Barr :
I think that’s, yeah, I think that’s that was really good. Well, I really appreciate you being.
John Stemberger :
Here sure oh.
Jacob Barr :
Actually one last question, do we hear stop or no?
John Stemberger :
No what?
Jacob Barr :
Was that OK? good. Got it. Oh, and we need a clap first. Ok, good. So yeah, go ahead and tell us a story or something you would like to share that you didn’t get a chance to share with these previous.
John Stemberger :
Questions so when I was in college, I was very much an activist and I was always doing some campaign on at a radio show and I’m just always busy doing things. And so when I went to law school, my friends, my best friend said, hey, now you need to study. You can’t go playing around and beating up people and doing this activism. So I said OK, I promise you I’ll stay out of the newspapers i won’t get involved and so I come to law school at Cumberland School of Law at Stanford University in Birmingham, alabama and my first year law student and they announced Sarah Weddington’s going to be the speaker now this is a Baptist college. Sarah Weddington is the plaintiff’s counsel in Roe versus Wade she argued the case on behalf of Norma Mccorvey, the client who ostensibly wanted to get an abortion but couldn’t get an abortion because of the abortion laws of Texas. So I was kind of really upset at this. And so we begin to organize kind of not demonstrations, but we actually had a packet of literature for everybody to have as soon as they walked in the room. And I was there. And she was very entertaining i mean, she was just, I’d never dreamed that I’d be able to help so many women as the daughter of a Methodist pastor and she went on and on and she was very funny and very entertaining. But she never talked about the title of her remarks, Abortion in America. So I’m sitting there just restraining myself and trying to, you know, not be rude. But I couldn’t let her just say, you know, do this and not have her be challenged all the all the questions were like, well, what was just a so and so like and you know, what was it like and what kind of high heels did you wear, you know? And so i raised my hand and she called on me and I said, Mrs weddington, you’ve made us laugh, you’ve made us cry you’re a very compelling speaker. I said, but it’s interesting you have not talked about the subject mark subject matter that you’ve if you talk and it’s abortion in America. And I said frankly, I can’t blame you because it’s rather grisly procedure. I’ve seen it done. What’s your question, Sir i said, well, my question is this. As you know, Margaret Mccorvey, the plaintiff that you represented in Roe versus Wade, actually went on to have our child and did not abort it. And I said, what if I were to tell you that Margaret Mccorvey’s daughter was 18 years old today is in this courtroom with us and all the TV cameras are like this full it’s a packed house in this giant courtroom. All the TV cameras are scanning looking for this 18 year old girl. And I just stood there and then everybody was like freaked out because. And I was shaking because i’m thinking all my professors are going to mark me they’re going to dog me for the rest of the time in law school. And so I was very kind of shaking and not exactly confident of myself. So I just paused for, you know, dramatic pause and then I said, well, she’s not in this room. But if she was, And I asked her to step on the stage because you look her in the square in the eye today and tell her that her mother’s right to privacy outweighed her right to life and she should have been systematically ripped apart in her mother’s womb, could tell her that today. And she just instantly started crying. Just very good tactic and talking about back alley abortions and things of this nature. But anyway, I ended up on the front page of The Birmingham News and all the TV stations that my friends were like Stan Berger we told you not to get involved. We told you not to do this. So anyway, it was an interesting moment in time. She just passed away this last year. Margaret Mccorvey, I’m not. I’m sorry. Sarah Weddington just passed away this past year. So yeah, so it was interesting but that was my brush with the plaintiff’s council on Roe versus wade so.
Jacob Barr :
Wow that’s a powerful story. That was really good.
John Stemberger :
Yeah, so.
Jacob Barr :
Thank you for sharing that sure we really appreciate you.