The pro-life organization 40 Days for Life kicked off their fall campaign this week. The group organizes prayer vigils around abortion clinics, to dissuade pregnant women from going through with abortions and to convince employees and volunteers at the clinics to change their minds and abandon their work.
They organize their vigils around 40-day blocks (hence the name). It is a smart strategy in terms of recruitment and publicity because it gives each prayer event a sense of occasion and also provides participants a definite starting and ending point-- a concrete project with a beginning and end.
Does it "work"? It depends on how one conceptualizes victory-- shutting down a clinic, convincing women to not go through with an abortion, convincing clinic workers to abandon their posts, or, in a more general and long-term way, changing the culture through a hearts/minds/spirits campaign. They will claim that they are doing good work and "winning" in some of the ways just mentioned. Pro-choice people and organizations would disagree, naturally! Even some pro-life activists that use different general methods (e.g., political lobbying and legislative work) might say that their energy is rather misplaced and that they are, at best, using a spoon to bail out the boat.
Note that pro-life activists having a presence at clinics is nothing new; this has been going on since the late 1970s. What is different about the 40 Days for Life concept is its contrast with the ultimately counterproductive (I would argue) clinic blockades and confrontational tactics of groups like Operation Rescue in the 1980s and 1990s. The 40 Days for Life concept is much more PR-friendly and (so they would say) emphasizes positive methods of persuasion-- no angry shouting about 'baby killers,' for example.
If you want to read a sympathetic account of 40 Days for Life and its effect on one clinic worker, read Unplanned, by Abby Johnson. If you want to read a critical account of their activities, see this article, published in RH Reality Check.
They organize their vigils around 40-day blocks (hence the name). It is a smart strategy in terms of recruitment and publicity because it gives each prayer event a sense of occasion and also provides participants a definite starting and ending point-- a concrete project with a beginning and end.
Does it "work"? It depends on how one conceptualizes victory-- shutting down a clinic, convincing women to not go through with an abortion, convincing clinic workers to abandon their posts, or, in a more general and long-term way, changing the culture through a hearts/minds/spirits campaign. They will claim that they are doing good work and "winning" in some of the ways just mentioned. Pro-choice people and organizations would disagree, naturally! Even some pro-life activists that use different general methods (e.g., political lobbying and legislative work) might say that their energy is rather misplaced and that they are, at best, using a spoon to bail out the boat.
Note that pro-life activists having a presence at clinics is nothing new; this has been going on since the late 1970s. What is different about the 40 Days for Life concept is its contrast with the ultimately counterproductive (I would argue) clinic blockades and confrontational tactics of groups like Operation Rescue in the 1980s and 1990s. The 40 Days for Life concept is much more PR-friendly and (so they would say) emphasizes positive methods of persuasion-- no angry shouting about 'baby killers,' for example.
If you want to read a sympathetic account of 40 Days for Life and its effect on one clinic worker, read Unplanned, by Abby Johnson. If you want to read a critical account of their activities, see this article, published in RH Reality Check.
Comments