As a BPAS employee, Cath Sutton's first priority will inevitably be to deflect attention from what they're doing by, in my opinion, lying about what we do.
The photos Abort67 uses, however, are accurate depictions of the results of what BPAS does to babies. Sutton and BPAS are frankly lying when they accuse us of shouting at or insulting women. We've never called anyone a murderer, we just let the photos speak for themselves. The photos are real, and raise the question: if what goes on in an abortion facility is so horrific that it has to be hidden at any cost, why do we tolerate it?
Neither is it true we film women going into abortion clinics. We invite the police to our displays and record ourselves precisely because groups like BPAS, and their lackeys in the media, are either careless with the truth or are actively helping them maintain this smokescreen. We can present the truth in public with a perfectly free conscience, at any time. Do they dare say the same thing?
Because the media refuses to show it, most people don't think about the realities of what goes on inside those walls. This is the real reason abortion has been allowed to flourish. Show the reality, and the people of Britain will be naturally repelled and demand a halt. This is the essence of our work.
Moreover, exactly this has been our experience on the ground, with people coming up to us and saying, "I never knew abortion was that bad." Which is why BPAS hates us: we're costing them business. Between them, BPAS and Marie Stopes have raked in millions of pounds, mostly of public funds, your money and mine, to kill our children. How many cures for cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's have gone into the medical waste bin and incinerated, how many great works of art or music, or even simple acts of human decency and kindness, are lost forever, and all at public expense?
It's always been the tradition that the great moral reformers, opponents of slavery, injustice, corruption and oppression are publicly vilified and opposed, and always by those who make a profit from those evils. But now the whole world is grateful that the Wilberforces of history did not give up.
The photos are the truth, they show the reality of abortion that BPAS and other abortion profiteers want hidden: abortion is out-of-control mass bloodshed, a catastrophe that absolutely must be ended forever. Killing unborn children should never be the solution to a crisis pregnancy.
If BPAS were genuinely interested in women's health and well-being, they would be taking those millions of pounds and providing pre and postnatal medical care, maternity clothes and baby items, help with job training, babysitting so young girls can stay in school. Or helping the millions of desperate infertile couples to adopt a child. There is no such thing as an unwanted child.
But I forgot, this is all work that is already being done by the selfless volunteers in pro-life pregnancy care centres, the very same who are now being threatened with legal action by BPAS colleague Marie Stopes. There's money in abortion, and in spreading the abortionist ideology, and no profit in helping women.
Of course abortion providers and supporters will tell lies to discredit Abort67. BPAS and its friends in the pro-abortion press want no significant opposition to abortion; but since that isn't working out so well, they are now trying to rig the game by imposing two sets of rules: a liberal set from which BPAS can benefit and a restrictive set by which Abort67 will be burdened.
BPAS says that Abort67, for instance, should be permitted to state conclusions about abortion, but prohibited from proving the facts which compel those conclusions - especially if the proof involves abortion pictures.
And Abort67 should be allowed to state those conclusions to voters and/or elected officials, but never to the mothers who are actually considering BPAS abortions.
BPAS thinks it should be granted exclusive access to these mothers because they are too "vulnerable" to see the horror of the abortions to which BPAS wants them to submit.
BPAS says it should be permitted to recruit an American medical director (Patricia Lohr) to "Americanise" the BPAS approach to their baby-killing process, but Abort67 should stand condemned for any collaboration with Americans whatsoever.
BPAS also argues that this medical director should be allowed to tell mothers that abortion is actually good for them but that Abort67 should be barred from citing the many medical journal articles which say abortion is bad for them.
There may be no Abortion Wars - particularly of the noisy, conspicuous, American sort - but BPAS may continue to wage its quiet, invisible war on pre-born children.
Abort67 is changing the debate from the meaningless slogan, "a Woman's Right to Choose!" to what is actually being chosen. Of course abortion supporters want to defend the "choice" slogan, rather than defend the indefensible act of killing innocent human beings.