What Randall Terry Wants You to See at the Superbowl

Anti-abortion advocate exploits federal law to run graphic ads.

By running in the Democratic primaries, Republican Randall Terry has found a way to push his biggest issue onto the TV screens across at least one state. And just one look at his campaigns website will clue you into what that issue is; abortion.

He has already bought “nearly 10” ads in Minnesota. The kicker is that the federal law in question will allow him to run his ads completely uncensored, so viewers will be treated to a montage of pictures of aborted Fetuses. I remember all the controversy over the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction, so I am somewhat incensed that Mr. Terry’s ads will get played. While he does have the freedom to do this, I await the fallout after his videos air.

(Source: Talk 2 Action)


  1. Pierce R. Butler says

    The fetuses, according to Randall A. Terry’s viewpoint, are children.

    They will be shown for the purpose of causing emotional arousal, and without clothing.

    Therefore, by RAT’s own logic, he’s broadcasting child pornography.

  2. Luna_the_cat says

    Actually, one of the things that concerns me is that the photographer who provided the images of the fetuses said she “took them from the trash.” Really??? Because simply disposing of aborted fetuses in the trash is against every state code that I know of; most disposal laws are something like Minnesota’s code:

    Minnesota Statutes section 145.1621 (Disposition of Aborted or Miscarried Fetuses)

    Requires that hospitals, clinics, and medical facilities in which an abortion or miscarriage takes place, and laboratories to which the remains of a human fetus is delivered, must provide for the disposal of the remains of the human fetus by cremation, interment by burial, or in a manner directed by the commissioner of health. Remains of a human fetus are defined as remains of the offspring of a human being that has died through abortion or miscarriage, and that has reached a stage of development so that there are cartilaginous structures, or fetal or skeletal parts.

    So either she got them from a place which is operating illegally and should face prosecution for not behaving in a safe and ethical manner, or she actually stole the fetuses — which would obviously raise the question of “how.”

    • Kathy says

      http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/monica-migliorino-miller/ this story details the source of the images. They are all documented to prove authenticity. These babies were taken from places where women go to abort their children, not where one goes while having a miscarriage. It’s ashame that once people see the real “products of abortion” that the abortion industry has to lie about what people are really seeing. Too many former abortion clinic workers, including Jane Roe, have come out to speak the truth for the industry to continue to hide it anymore. Hey, if you are in favor of “choice” at least be honest about what it is.

      • Luna_the_cat says

        I don’t think you get what we’re saying. We’re saying that if those are real, then something illegal has happened for this woman to get them, and we think *she* is lying.

        • Kathy says

          Actually, you must not have looked at the link I posted because she clearly states where she got them and there are pictures to prove it. Also, she did inform the authorities about the remains disposed of in the garbage. There is nothing illegal about going through garbage. What should be illegal was the fact human remains and intact medical records were thrown in a dumpster. But hey, what does the truth matter if it doesn’t fit your theory.

          • Luna_the_cat says

            Most anti-choice protesters would know all about “if it doesn’t fit your theory, ignore it”, I suppose.

            So what you are saying is that those images are from 1988. That I could accept, I suppose, since laws regarding disposal have changed since then.

          • Luna_the_cat says

            Sorry, more images from 2008 I see, and in fact, the clinic WAS disposing of the remains illegally…as I said.

            However, there is still reason to doubt that the later-term remains in some of her pictures could possibly have originated there. Reasons outlined elsewhere on this page.

            And the fact is, regardless of images, it’s still a tactic of trying to evoke visceral disgust in order to deny women control over their own bodies.

          • Kathy says

            What I’m saying is she has gone to painstaking efforts to document the authenticity of her pictures. This story, from her website, documents a case in 2010. http://www.prolifesociety.com/prolifesociety/archives/2010/WomansChoice/MutilatedHumanRemainsFound.aspx. This was in Michigan where it isn’t illegal to dump the remains in the trash. They worked with the Attorney General, sheriff, and other authorities. Here is a news article from October 2011 regarding what is being done legislatively in Michigan about it and confirming the remains were found in the trash. http://m.wlns.com/default.aspx?pid=2705&wnfeedurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wlns.com%2fstory%2f15744268%2fnew-legislation-on-disposal-of-fetuses-moves-forward%3fclienttype%3drssstory Please make sure you have your facts straight before you call someone a liar. What I’m also saying is if you are for “choice” you should be willing to know what that choice really is and women should know what it is before they make that decision. It’s called informed consent. An identifiable hand in the first trimester is certainly far different than a “blob of cells.” Any book on human development will also contradict the blob of tissue story.

          • says

            Sadly when you post alot of links, the comment gets held for moderation. I didn’t get to check my comment box until I got home from 11 and a half hours of defending freedom through superior paperwork.

      • ema says


        You have two options: 1) lie but don’t provide link that refutes your lies, or 2) provide link but don’t lie.

        They are all documented to prove authenticity.

        In your link, it clearly states that the pics taken 20 yrs ago by Mrs. Migliorino Miller were (a) from a loading dock in Northbrook, Ill., a suburb of Chicago, and (b) a Chicago alley … in a trash-hauling bin, and the ones in 2008 in (c) in trash-hauling bins outside two Michigan abortion clinics. Similarly, it details the problems with the “Malachi” pic — a jar with parts from multiple fetuses stolen from a clinic and reassembled as an art project for pics a month later, with no documentation of indication for procedure, gestational age, length of storage, condition of storage after it was stolen, etc.

        These babies were taken from places where women go to abort their children, not where one goes while having a miscarriage.

        What is a miscarriage? Where do women go to have them? [Hint: Both are trick questions.]

        It’s ashame that once people see the real “products of abortion” that the abortion industry has to lie about what people are really seeing.

        The shame in all of this is that you seem unaware that your link refutes your lies about the documentation and authenticity of the path specimens in the pics.

        Too many former abortion clinic workers, including Jane Roe, have come out to speak the truth for the industry to continue to hide it anymore.

        This may come as a monumental shock to you, so brace yourself. Women who undergo abortion are perfectly capable of assessing the, you know, truth all by their pretty little selves.

        There is nothing illegal about going through garbage. What should be illegal was the fact human remains and intact medical records were thrown in a dumpster.

        The fact that you steal the specimens from the loading dock, a clinic, or retrieve them from the garbage bin where they were improperly disposed of does not constitute consent to use the path specimens. Photographing, public display, and use for financial gain of path specimen without consent is illegal. As is improper disposal of medical waste.

  3. judykomorita says

    I haven’t seen these photos, so I can’t say for sure.

    But the photos I’ve seen didn’t look like “aborted fetuses” (which are almost always less than 12 weeks gestation) or “pre-born children.”

    They looked like some sobbing teenager birthed an unwanted child in a garage or alley, and dumped it in the garbage. What seemed like marks of an “abortionist’s” knife was probably teeth marks from dogs and/or mice and/or rats.

    The photos I’ve seen do not support a pro-life position. They support a pro-choice position!

  4. Gregory says

    Here is a thought: Someone should run as President under the banner of the Naked Party, make very graphic campaign ads, and tell the prudes to screw off when the ads are shown during major national television events.

    Hey, if it is sauce for the goose….

  5. ema says

    OK, I watched the video so you don’t have to. My [educated] guess: 1st fetus anencephalic (full cranial view clumsily obscured); hand staged (fetal tissue isn’t diaphanous); next to 1987 cross, collection of unrelated bits arranged to simulate human fetal outline; 2 fetuses and a flower, can’t tell if anything to do with abortion, let alone elective abortion.

    One more thing. Some of the specimens in the video are clearly human, as in human path specimens, meaning you need to have a weapons-grade release from the patient/physician before you can display them and use them for commercial purposes. It would be useful to know if the TV stations have those releases.

  6. sceptinurse says

    I have seen this video as well.

    As a surgical nurse of many years I’ve seen the results of many abortions. None of them look like what is in his video. Most first trimester abortions looks like a blob of blood and tissue. there are no discernible parts in the POC (products of conception). Second trimester abortions are a different story but not very many elective abortions are done after the first trimester. The ones that are tend to be missed abortions (the fetus is already dead but body isn’t getting rid of it) or done for fetal anomalies (these can also run into the third trimester.

    Operation hasn’t changed it’s tactics ever. It’s all about playing on peoples emotions with the most graphic lies they can come up with.

  7. Kathy says

    Interesting how my last comment isn’t anywhere to be found. Its also interesting how informed consent is considered anti-choice. I have friends that have had abortions and if they had been told the truth about the stages of development of their babies they would have chosen a different path. In a sense they were tricked into those abortions because they weren’t given the facts that they needed to make an informed choice. Women deserve the truth before they make such a life altering decision. As for control over our own bodies — try telling that to a TSA Agent at the airport while they are feeling you up or x-raying you.

    • Garrett says

      “As for control over our own bodies — try telling that to a TSA Agent at the airport while they are feeling you up or x-raying you.”

      What? You just implied that people who support abortion support invasive TSA procedures, which is far from logically sound. In fact, one would argue that someone who wants to give women control over their own bodies would most likely be against the ‘nude’ airport scanning and other such searches.

    • says

      For someone who claims to be all about women having informed choice, you sure don’t seen to think much of a women’s ability to choose at all.

      I am pro-choice, for informed choice, not MANDATED informed choice, like the laws that require women to have an ultrasound or wait 24 hours or what have you before having an abortion. These laws are pretty much saying to women, “oh you poor dears, you don’t really want to do this. And if you’re really sure, let’s just waste your time with another doctor’s visit you’ll have to pay for and have you submit to an exam you didn’t ask for (that you’ll probably have to pay for), because once you see that little blob on the screen, you’ll change your sweet little mind. Because we know better than you about you and your situation.”

      I mean, who cares about poor women, or female victims of rape, or childfree women, right? The power of the accidental fetus will make a loving mommy out of them!

      I’m sorry your friends have regrets (and hey, I’ve got friends who’ve had abortions and don’t regret a thing, so maybe our anecdotes just cancel out), but forcing women to undergo procedures they didn’t ask for isn’t going to help your friends heal, and it may cause other women undue pain in what is a very personal decision in the first place.

      Oh, and by the way, saying they were “tricked” takes away their responsibility for making a decision with the best information they had at the time. They were not “tricked” in any sense.

      Geez, I wish people like you and Randall Terry would quit trying to insult our collective intelligence with visceral appeals to our emotions. It’s even more offensive coming from a woman…

      • says

        Other when it goes beyond the pale, I tend to stay out of the abortion argument since it is primary a woman’s issue. But when it comes to waiting periods tied to Ultrasound, I worry that seeing such an emotional thing can effect how a person makes a long term decision.

        My mother got pregnant early, early enough to realize that having a child would have destroyed her career and lower the future prospects for all involved. She decided to have an abortion and wait to raise a family later, which she did and that put me on a career path full of life choices that gave me a great chance at a good life. It is a terribly difficult decision but, there must be a right to choose.

  8. baal says

    I had to have a surgery a few years back and since I try to be informed about what’s going to happen to me, I looked it up on youtube. I was surprised to see the amount of surgery they have there but couldn’t make it through the video.

    This was for a spinal surgery.

    I really wonder at the value of the gore to R.A.T. and Kathy. You do not enhance your argument by making the audience sick. You’re using normal responses to hideousness and taking it for your own. That’s not a moral way to argue.

  9. says

    After study a couple of of the weblog posts on your website now, and I truly like your approach of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark website list and will be checking again soon. Pls take a look at my web page as effectively and let me know what you think.

  10. says

    I am often to running a blog and i really respect your content. The article has really peaks my interest. I’m going to bookmark your web site and keep checking for brand spanking new information.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *