From Amy Gordon.

I greatly appreciate the time and courtesy that Mr. and Mrs. Tuns and Ms. Smyth took in writing a response to my article on "Show the Truth [STT] and Children." I would like to respond to some important issues which they raised.

First, one must distinguish between a parent's right to be the primary educator of their children and projects which are designed to motivate social reform such as STT. The parent's prerogative as educator is a completely separate issue from public events which a child may encounter on the street. The real question is whether these expressions such as STT are actually harmful to children. Concerning this issue, I wrote about my family's experience in the article, because it was personal example, and also because my family's case seemed to be a particularly relevant example because my siblings are sensitive children who were exposed to the issue of abortion for the first time. My parents' approach to reassuring their children is not atypical in any way; it can be expected from any reasonable parent. I have become confirmed in this conclusion after witnessing a similar response in parents repeatedly in my ten years of experience on the street.

The Tuns and Ms. Smyth raised a slightly different concern, namely, that these images may cause pain to people who have been touched by abortion. I quote: "Show the Truth did not cause the original pain, but they need to consider their responsibility in exacerbating it." STT can provide an occasion of painful memories or regret, but they do not make the original pain worse. Some women weep at these pictures; they also thank us for speaking on their behalf and for saving others from the same suffering. Some ask for resources or counseling; others, for ways in which they can help the pro-life cause. Some approach our volunteers to unload their hidden pain, often for the first time. Many are encouraged by our presence; we make them realize that their suffering is not dismissed or ignored, but that there are people who are willing to try to make a difference.

To suggest that STT volunteers are motivated by "paternalism," "righteous anger," and that STT is "used to intimidate" is unfair and shows a lack of experience with STT on the streets. STT volunteers think, supported by their experience and by history, that graphic pictures are a legitimate and effective means of exposing and slowly changing a serious injustice in a democratic society. It is unjust to label them for this.

Finally, I do not understand how Catholic Insight undermines its clear position with respect to the Magisterium by printing my article. The project of STT does not fall under the concern of doctrinal orthodoxy.

I would like to thank the authors and Catholic Insight for permitting me to respond, and I would like to suggest an informative link on this topic for those who are interested: http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/graphicimages.html.

Ottawa, ON