Follow Save the 1

Translate the Blog

Monday, July 17, 2017

Does Pro-Life Language Regarding Charlie Gard Prove thePro-ChoiceArgument?

Does Pro-Life Language Regarding Charlie Gard Prove the Pro-Choice Argument?

Over the last few days the Charlie Gard situation has ignited into an inferno within the pro-life community. 

Arguments by those who support GOSH, because they believe his dignity is best protected by allowing him to die "peacefully" by removing his ventilator, make up one camp. The other side of the debate is made up of those who are outraged at the idea of "death with dignity" due to strong pro-life positions on assisted suicide and euthanasia.

This is being argued out on both sides in terms of "parental rights", and how far they extend when you've got a gravely ill child. Those who support GOSH have come out strong for hospital personnel and medical professionals, who they believe have the better handle on the situation. Those who support Charlie's parents are crying foul on terms of traditional beliefs when it comes to parents and children.

In the middle of this maelstrom comes a strong warning from some pro-lifers who have noted our language in terms of "who decides" is eerily similar to the pro-choice camp: in pushing this as solely a parental rights issue, our rallying call has become, "parents have the ultimate authority over their children's life and death", when it comes to serious illness and birth defect. We are setting a dangerous precedent here, as we are using the pro-choice language of our opponents to justify overturning the court order which will end the life of Charlie Gard. 

I myself fell victim to this rhetoric, and while I still hold my position that when it comes to a medical decision a parent has authority over medical professionals, I would like to make one clarification: a parent should not ever have the option of removing life support from a child who is still living, which is the case with Charlie Gard. 

Charlie Gard is alive, and he is fighting. 

What does this mean? 

That he has a right to potentially life-saving treatment not because his parents have decided they would like to pursue it, but because he is a human being with inherent value. This speaks to the core of our pro-life mission at Save the 1: we fight for the exceptional cases where even pro-life persons may waver on their life ethics. We do this because we understand the question isn't whether a woman should have the right to end the life of a child, but rather, whether a pre-born child is human and deserving of equal protections under the law. 

Because the questions which seem to be causing so much division revolve around potential pain and suffering, any conversation must include information about this. 

There is absolutely no definitive proof Charlie Gard is suffering, and furthermore, with the extent of damage the hospital is claiming, there are legitimate medical arguments to dispute the idea that he's in pain. Without going into too much detail and getting sidetracked: the type of damage they are claiming he has would also affect his body's ability to process pain. His condition leaves him unable to feel pain, as the relevant proteins needed for this process are missing. 

What people are perceiving as pain is really scary photos of him on a ventilator- but when we put aside our emotions on this one, reality tells us people can live full lives while on a ventilator. 

Back to the central issue: Even if he were capable of feeling pain, pain is treated with palliative care, not death. Charlie Gard's case is less relevant in terms of whether the suffering individual should be euthanized (by either doctors or parents), and much more relevant in terms of the rights of the disabled people to live to their own potential vs. the potential society decides to set for them, in terms of quality of life.

In addition to this, Charlie Gard's parents have said in interviews that critical information may have been withheld from the court. They have clarified there are many more physicians who are now in consensus with them and the physicians who hope to treat him in the US. 

These doctors are working for Charlie. Not his parents, not GOSH, and certainly not the pro-life superstars who've shown up at his bedside (no insult intended).

These doctors recognize a possibility for success with treating Charlie Gard, and for the sake of all humanity, maybe we should too. 

It's not about who has the right to decide how he's treated, but about whether a desperately ill child has the right to potentially curative medication. We believe he does, and we are firmly in 
Charlie's camp on this one- not because we believe his parents have the right to decide whether he lives or dies, but because our little niche of the pro-life stratosphere is home to the most desperate of cases- children whom the rest of the pro-ilife world sees only as bargaining chips. We've seen the power of life in little Faith, and Christian, and Angela, and once you see those tiny miracles, it's impossible to believe our God may have a bigger plan for Charlie Gard. 

We hope you too support Charlie Gard- not because you put yourself in his parents shoes, or you believe the government health system has overstepped its boundaries. We hope you support Charlie Gard because he deserves this chance to live to his potential, whatever that potential may be.

BIO:  Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4, step-mother of 2, and pro-life blogger for Save The 1.  She's also the founder of, a pro-life, diagnosis specific website which supports parents who

continue their pregnancy after receiving the same lethal diagnosis which took her daughter, Beatrix Elizabeth.  She blogs on faith, grief, loss, and pro-life issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been diagnosed, at
Monday, July 10, 2017

Woman From El Salvador Given 30 Years For Killing Her Son Was Never Raped, by Rebecca Kiessling

If you search the name of "Evelyn Beatriz Hernandez Cruz," you will find a multitude
of global news stories written in English about this young woman from El Salvador who was recently sentenced to 30 years in prison for aggravated homicide for the death of her child – all of them saying she was a rape victim, and just about all of them using her story to advocate for the legalization of abortion in El Salvador.  But it’s finally being reported – in Spanish in the Salvadorian news outlets, including Fiscalia General De Republica and  – that she was never raped, but at 18 years old, had a consensual relationship with the baby’s father, Henry David Vásquez Hernández.

When I wrote an article about this story last week, I pointed out evidence that facts were being subverted by the media in order to push the abortion agenda, so I had our Spanish team (Salvar El 1 from Save The 1) reach out to pro-life leaders in El Salvador, and they provided us with links to these news stories telling the court records of what actually happened.  Our friends explained that the misinformation distributed to the English-speaking world is a concerted effort of pro-abortion feminists to interfere with the solidly pro-life policies established in El Salvador.

In a search of the father’s name -- Henry David Vásquez Hernández  -- I could not find a single story in English with this name, demonstrating that not one English language news outlet in the world is reporting the truth in this case, but simply repeating what’s been fed to them by the abortion lobby.

Not only is it a flat out lie that Hernandez Cruz was being gang-raped or even raped at all, but it was also a lie that the baby was delivered in and found in a toilet.  In fact, the baby was found at the bottom of a septic tank which his mother had thrown him into.  
The manipulated facts were also that the baby was stillborn.  However, coroners testified that the baby had been alive 12 to 24 hours before being killed and had breathed and sucked.  It was determined that he did not have blood on him because he’d been cleaned after his birth, and that he died from inhaling feces.

Hernandez Cruz went to the hospital seeking care for herself, still denying she’d ever been pregnant.  She claimed she threw something “hot and big” into the septic tank, but denied knowing this was a baby. 

On rumors she was pregnant, a health care professional had visited the home several times during her pregnancy, offering pre-natal care.  But Hernandez Cruz refused, claiming she was not pregnant.

This is a horribly tragic story.  Every effort was made to get pre-natal help for this 18 year old and her unborn child.  This is not an example of a young mother who wasn’t offered help and didn’t have access to the care she needed.

The abortion lobby is manipulating this story to advance more bloodshed.  They would have you believe that this situation would have not been tragic at all if they could have just killed the baby before he’d been born.

Every child is worthy of protection, without exception. The abortion advocates’ lies once again demonstrate why you cannot trust them, and why a rape exception will open the door for abortion on demand for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, because if the woman isn’t fabricating a story that she was raped, you can surely count on the abortion clinics to do so.

BIO:  Rebecca Kiessling is an international pro-life speaker, attorney, wife, mother of 5,
founder and President of Save The 1, co-founder of Hope After Rape Conception, and author of the Heritage House ’76 pamphlet “Conceived in Rape:  A Story of Hope.”  Visit her website at

Friday, July 7, 2017

Abortion Advocates Exploit El Salvadorian Rape Victim and Her Son's Death, by Rebecca Kiessling

The death of a baby conceived in rape and the sentencing of his teen mother  for “aggravated
homicide” is being exploited by abortion rights activists to push for the legalization of abortion.  Evelyn Beatriz Hernandez Cruz, 19, from Cuscatlán, El Salvador, has been sentenced to 30 years in prison for the death of her son.

A multitude of news stories have quickly been published globally, using this case to justify the legalization of abortion.  In each of these one-sided articles, either someone from the pro-abortion Amnesty International is quoted or from the Citizens’ Group for the Decriminalisation of Abortion.  It’s no surprise that earlier this year, a bill was introduced in El Salvador to legalize abortion in cases of rape.  It is evident that they see this as the opportunity to pounce.

As the founder and president of Save The 1 – a global pro-life organization with a network of over 500 conceived in rape (like me,) or mothers who became pregnant by rape, I have great concern that only one viewpoint is being expressed in the news coverage thus far, and facts are being subverted.

The news articles all demonstrate that there was a trial and a sentencing, but you will find that the various articles provide different information about what really occurred in this case – some seem to intentionally be omitting pertinent information.  Some articles indicate that local media reported that she was convicted on the grounds that she did not seek “antenatal care.”  However,  given the facts, the circumstances are quite a bit more alarming than that.

Many cite the Guardian article as their source, where it was reported not only that Cruz gave birth in the toilet, but also that she was arrested after the police found the baby still in the toilet.  This tells me that there was no effort to remove the baby from the toilet.  The reports say that medical experts could not ascertain whether the baby was born alive or stillborn, but leaving a baby in the toilet to potentially drown to death is more than failing to obtain ante-natal care. 

According to the Sun article, the judge believed she dropped the baby in the toilet to die – which would be premeditated murder under the law. The Guardian news story also says that, at sentencing, the judge expressed that it seemed apparent that the girls’ mother played some role as well.  I have to wonder what came out at trial.  I’m finding that it takes reading dozens of articles to get a broader picture than what the pro-aborts would have everyone believe.
This BBC article explains that her mother drove the 18 year old to the hospital for care due to anemia, while leaving the baby in the toilet – very strange behavior if they weren't trying to hide something.

All reports indicate that the young mother (18 at the time,) was suffering on-going gang rape.  If she was living at home with her mother, perhaps she knew or should have known her daughter was being raped.  I find it unconscionable that none of these articles are reporting what efforts, if any, had been made for the girl to be protected, and there are no quotes from advocates expressing such concern.

What we often find, is that a girl’s own mother may be participating in her trafficking, or at the very least, leaving her neglected or unprotected.  Alternatively, we find that it is the police who have left rape victims unprotected, with no hope for obtaining justice. 

Regardless, it is most often the case that the baby is the one who finally exposes the rape, and delivers her out of the abusive situation.  It is typically the baby who protects the rape victim, by bringing the rape to the light of day so she can obtain justice, or because the child motivates her to escape her circumstances and seek a better life.  In this particular case, it seems clear that the baby did indeed expose the rape, but too late for her to obtain proper justice.

Abortion actually enables and protects sex traffickers, rapists and child molesters, by destroying the evidence, and allowing them to continue perpetrating.  Rapists LOVE abortion!

Again, there is surely so much we do not know in this particular case – many facts which would undoubtedly work against the interests of the abortion rights lobby.  Their story line is that the baby was stillborn and she’s being convicted for homicide, and that legalized abortion would have been the solution for her.  

The BBC report indicates that she was initially charged with having procured an abortion.  Yet, Cruz told the court, “I did not want to kill my son.”  Her own admissions counter what the abortion lobby is saying!  Like most rape victims who become pregnant, she did not want to end the life of her child.

Cruz is being exploited by the abortion lobby, while her own testimony, sworn under oath, is that she never wanted to end her baby’s life.  This is much like the exploitation of Sandra Cano – Jane Doe from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Doe v Bolton, which was the companion case to Roe vs Wade, together having legalized abortion in the U.S..  Cano since testified under oath that she had never even sought an abortion during her pregnancy, but was exploited by pro-abortion lawyers.

Cruz’s own story is absolutely tragic.  Just like her son, she deserved to have been protected.  Justice would have been served with the rapists having been punished – not her and not her innocent son.  We should all be advocating for the punishment of rapists, not babies.

So the question is, what should her penalty have been, if any?  If she had procured an abortion, what would be the appropriate judicial solution?  How do we provide a proper deterrent to abort, and incentive for rape victims to report their rapists, and abortionists? I believe the answer is to legislate whistle-blower statutes – to offer women immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony against the abortion provider.  This way, there would be a disincentive to anyone else to provide an abortion, for fear that the women would turn them in.

Several of the women in our network of 500 are post-abortive from rape, and they are now speaking out regarding their rapes and the loss of their children through abortion.  Do I wish to see these women in prison?  No.  I think justice would be served if they could report their abortion providers and if they could sue the abortionists in civil court for wrongful death of their children.
A rape victim who has already been exploited is prone to further exploitation and more violence is never the solution.  A rape victim deserves to be protected from the rapist, and from the abortion – and not the baby!  The baby is not the perpetrator.  The baby is not harming her.

My daughter at 6 years old wrote:  “Conceived in rape is not bad because that’s my mom.  Rape is bad and abortion is bad because they both hurt people.”  This is a basic truth which everyone must understand.  We don’t have to ever be “either/or" is our approach to pregnant rape victims.  We can care about a rape victim while at the same time caring about her innocent child.

This case of Evelyn Beatriz Hernandez Cruz and her deceased son is tragic, but the outcome is no justification for the legalization of killing other innocent children.

BIO:  Rebecca Kiessling is an international pro-life speaker, writer and attorney, as well as a wife
and mother of 5.  She’s the founder and President of Save The 1 (Spanish division is Salvar El 1, co-founder of Hope After Rape Conception, co-founder of Embryo Defense, and on the Executive Committee of Personhood Alliance.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

South Carolina, Eugenic Abortion, and the Ugly Side of Pro-Life Politics, by Sarah Connors

South Carolina, Eugenic Abortion, and the Ugly Side of Pro-Life Politics

Last month, South Carolina's legislature passed and the Governor signed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,  banning late-term abortions beginning at 20 weeks post-fertilization (or 22 weeks LMP) on the basis that unborn children experience pain and that the State has "a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain."

The legislature even explained that children with fetal anomalies experience pain:  "Substantial evidence indicates that children born missing the bulk of the cerebral cortex, those with hydranencephaly, nevertheless experience pain."  Hydranencephaly is often labelled as a "fatal fetal abnormality" or "incompatible with life."  However, the legislature inexplicably included an exception to the late-term abortion ban in the case of "fetal anomaly," which the legislation defines as: "in reasonable medical judgment, the unborn child has a profound and irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly that, with or without the provision of life-preserving treatment, would be incompatible with sustaining life after birth."

There's no further definition of "incompatible with sustaining life after birth."  So how long would the child's predicted lifespan have to be in order to be protected?  For hydranencephaly, the oldest documented person still living is 33 years old.  So if you can live till 33 with a disorder, it's okay to kill you while you suffer pain?  Why is pain even relevant?  Those with congenital analgesia are incapable of feeling pain, but don't they have a right to life?  And what if the doctors were wrong in their diagnoses?  The statute has a reporting requirement, but no mention of autopsies to determine whether the child actually had any disorder, and no cause of action is created legislatively to permit parents to sue doctors who were wrong.  Therefore, the doctors' have no disincentive to push for an abortion.

But the passage of this law was hailed as a win for the pro-life movement.  Pro-life organizations couldn't start tossing the confetti in the air fast enough. 

Except that this isn't a pro-life law.  It's a pro-choice law with restrictions. When you write a late-term abortion law with exceptions, you are writing a law giving your blessing for late-term abortion under certain circumstances -- in essence stating there are acceptable reasons for killing babies late in pregnancy.

As I worked my way through the quagmire of comment threads on major pro-life sites and their social media pages, I contributed a few comments of my own, mainly explaining that this law was discriminatory because it failed to protect the most vulnerable.  My opinion was wholeheartedly, and sometimes vehemently, opposed by people who claimed to be pro-life.

I pointed out the reality that most late-term abortions are done to end the life of a child with fetal anomalies, so an exception for fetal anomalies would make this bill essentially useless.  I was refuted multiple times with cut-and-paste info from Wikipedia, which referenced a very flawed study done in 1987 (there was an addendum which stated the study was reexamined in 2013 and the results were similar, but the parameters were the same, so this study had just as many issues, which I will address later in this post.)

Pro-lifers are using biased research studies to bolster their arguments explaining why it's acceptable to allow certain babies to be aborted. 

We have some huge problems within the pro-life movement, and it's killing babies!

Politics has fooled people into believing that exceptions are necessary to pass pro-life laws.
Pro-life organizations and "superstar" activists have fooled people into believing you can still be pro-life and support a woman's right to choose in certain circumstances, for the sake of political expediency.

Wikipedia has fooled people into believing most women choose late-term abortion for financial and social reasons.

All of these claims are false.


There have been a number of significant pieces of state-level legislation which contain no exceptions for late-term abortions (please see footnote if you haven't already).

Alabama, Michigan, Indiana, and Wyoming are just a few states which do not have exceptions in their late-term abortion laws. (Note, link is a pro-choice resource because Americans United For Life which tracks pro-life legislation has made the decision not to track exceptions within abortion legislation.)  South Carolina did not have a fetal anomaly exception in it's Partial Birth Abortion ban.

It is simply not true that pro-life persons cannot pass late-term abortion laws without exceptions: even New York, which has some of the most permissive abortion laws in the US, does not have exception clauses in its late-term abortion cut-off (although their cut-off is a bit later than the SC bill, at 24 weeks).

This lie has been perpetuated for too long, and it's time we push back.

We don't need exceptions in abortion limitations to push them through the legislative process.

When we've come to a point where the most pro-choice state in the US recognizes the right-to-life of a late-term unborn child, yet conservative pro-life legislators in conservative states cannot persuade other politicians to support late-term abortion prohibitions without exceptions this is a problem..... we need to find new, more persuasive legislators.

The answer to the "late-term abortion dilemma" is not to continue compromising, it's to make it clear we will not elect representatives who do not take a firm stand against abortion, no matter what the circumstances.

When politicians say, "we won't get support without compromise", who do you think they are compromising with? Pro-choice legislators?

Generally speaking, pro-choice legislators will vote against virtually any pro-life law. They don't care what the parameters of the proposed legislation are.

We aren't compromising with them.

When politicians and activists talk about compromise, they are talking about compromise within the pro-life contingent. It's pro-life legislators they are having to make exceptions for, pro-life representatives who are debating the merits of these laws and their proposed exceptions.

And they're arguing the content of pro-life laws based on your potential vote. They don't want to lose you -- their pro-life constituents --  as voters.

It's time to stop this nonsense once and for all. The state has a compelling interest in protecting all of its citizens. Science has proven the humanity of the fetus at all stages of development. Unborn children are citizens, and deserving of the same protections as everyone else. There is no reason for pro-life legislators to hold out on fetal anomaly (or rape or incest) exceptions, unless their constituents have informed them of their opposition to exceptions.

The ball is in our court -- your court.

Don't blame officials you've elected for not being capable of compromise. They're only doing what you are asking them to do.

You have the power to end exceptions in laws limiting late-term abortions.

Other states have done it.

Liberal, pro-choice controlled states have done it.

You need to do it.


Pro-life organizations are wrong. Pro-life means you protect all life, without compromise.

Just because someone is a "leader" in the field doesn't mean they're right -- and oftentimes, when people become leaders they become more enamored of the politics of a movement than the
cause they're fighting for.

There are many pro-life celebrities who are more celebrity than pro-life.

As I said before, pro-life laws without exceptions can be passed. And more specifically, late term pro-life laws without exceptions can pass.

Polls show that the majority of Americans, even those who identify as pro-choice, believe there should be limitations to late-term abortions.

Go back and read that last sentence again.

Why do pro-life organizations keep pushing the idea that laws without exceptions are inevitable?

You can't claim to believe all life is equally valuable, but it's ok to kill any certain demographic for expediency 's sake.

Not only is this incredibly biased against the targeted demographic, but it gives ammunition to the pro-choice crowd. Our views regarding the humanity of a pre-born child are seen as inconsistent or emotion-based.

If our morals teach us the value of each life, and science speaks to the fact that a fetus really is a human at all stages of development, how can we codify legislation which states that it's acceptable to kill even one fetus for the benefit of the other?

This is simply a matter of viewing one person as having more value than another. Of telling one group of people: "you are not worth fighting for, because somehow you are less-than".

We are essentially saying that the right of a "typical" fetus to be carried to term overrides the right of a "defective" fetus to be carried to term.

How is this pro-life again?

This would he an equivalent argument:

"All slaves except females who have small hands will be freed. Plantation owners really wanted small-handed females to remain in bondage, because they are docile workers who follow direction well. We feared that if we didn't agree to this demand, we would lose freedom for all the males and the remaining females who have average sized hands. Sometime in the future, when the political climate is favorable to us, we will secure complete emancipation for all slaves. Until then it will be considered divisive to bring up freedom for the small-handed slaves who remain in bondage."


This Wikipedia entry on late-term abortion was repeatedly cut and pasted into comments under my arguments against this legislation.

This was a very concerning sign. We are relying on arguments which:

A) are being taken from Wikipedia, which anyone can contribute to. I could write that purple sharks like to have abortions, and it would stay until someone noticed it and took it down. Wikipedia is not a valid source of information.

B) come from pro-choice sources

C) are shared in such a way that the article itself omits relevant facts regarding how the study was conducted.

I'll explain in detail here:

The Guttmacher institute was once the research arm of Planned Parenthood. See: (1) and (2)

Most statistical information about abortion comes from them.


It's not because they are the best authority with the most intelligent researchers. It's simply because they are in the business of abortions. They have access to women immediately following a procedure, and they have the ability to request follow-ups from willing patients.

Their studies are mostly composed of women who receive abortion services at their clinics.

The problem with this is that women who terminate pregnancies for fetal anomalies generally don't go to abortion clinics. If they do use a clinic it's generally one which specializes in late-term abortions, and many of these are not affiliated with Planned Parenthood. Most go to an out-patient surgical center where their personal physician performs a D&C, or they induce pre-viability at a hospital.

The sample used for the study didn't include information from any OB/GYN offices.

It didn't include information from any hospitals. It included extremely limited information from non-Planned Parenthood clinics.

It also included women well under the 20 week mark.

In essence it didn't focus on information from women who received a diagnosis at 20 weeks, which is when most problems are found, nor did it include information from medical professionals more likely to be treating a woman whose baby was diagnosed with fetal anomalies.

The study should be titled: "Reasons a woman has a late-term abortion, excluding most fetal anomaly cases". The study isn't a study at all -- it's an exit-survey from an abortion clinic, proscribed by the parameters in which its administered: there is a very small control sample, and the control sample they have consists only of women coming from abortion clinics.

Suffice to say: if pro-choice activists didn't believe that women were primarily seeking termination of pregnancy after 19 weeks for fetal anomaly, why do they consistently use fetal anomaly as an argument against late-term abortion at virtually every turn?

They know women generally terminate late due to fetal anomalies. It's just us pro-life persons who refuse to acknowledge reality.

We are addicted to exceptions. It's a habit we need to break -- and we need to go cold turkey. There is no valid reason for laws which contain discriminatory exceptions.

We need to make the next step, and actually be the pro-life activists we are claiming to be.

It's time to let your legislators know you no longer want exceptions in your laws

Footnote: Regarding "Health of the Mother Exceptions", pro-life groups have become more savvy regarding the usage of this clause to allow virtually any abortion, and have narrowed the language in state-level bills considerably to protect pre-born children.

This, from Colorado Right to Life, explains how a life of the mother clause could, and often is, written to protect both mother and child. Occasionally there is a real concern for both mother and child -- who have an equal right to life. We do not believe "health of the mother" clauses are a discriminatory exception, under the parameters of most pro-life legislation written today, because they contain measures to help save the life of the child involved.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Dear Instructor, I am wondering how you can justify murder in cases of rape and incest, by Christina Scarborough, homeschool student

Lisa Scarborough decided to home school her 8th grade daughter after experiencing the public school classroom to be hostile toward their pro-life, conservative views. However, when 13 year old Christina was taking an online Civics course through a Christian home school program, she was shocked to hear her teacher justifying abortion in cases of rape and immediately alerted her mother, who then contacted me for resources to provide to this instructor, and for a strategy to resolve the situation favorably.

Since they live in my area, we had the opportunity to meet in person when I spoke in her hometown a week later. Here is her letter to her instructor, along with his response -- a great outcome as you can see, which is why the teacher's identity and the program are not disclosed. Christina's courage and determination demonstrate that young people are not merely relegated to the future of the pro-life movement -- they are an indispensible part of the cause for the protection of preborn children now! As a further note, when she contacted the administrator of this program, she learned that this administrator was himself conceived in rape, and he was extremely appreciative of not only her diligence, but her care and concern for those like him.
-- Rebecca Kiessling, President of Save The 1

Dear Instructor,

I would like to start off by thanking you for teaching civics in an exciting manner, which helped me to digest the information with enthusiasm.  I liked the fact that you were willing to change the way that you presented the material to adjust to the different learning styles that students had.  That kind of flexibility is appreciated and helped me to hone in on the material that you presented.

However, I am extremely concerned with something you said on Tuesday, when you were speaking on how “America is not as great as we think it is”.  You were telling us that one of the reasons is because America permits abortion.  You went on to say, “We definitely messed this up and there are some countries who have not, for example: Poland has a ban on abortion except in cases of rape, incest, imminent death of the mother, if the fetus is unviable. Poland has got this right and America has got this wrong.”

I was shocked to hear that you believe that abortion is right in cases of rape, incest, and if the fetus is unviable.  I was under the impression that you were conservative and that you were strongly pro-life.  I was also under the impression that your organization had the same conservative, Christian beliefs; however, your statement portrayed just the opposite.

Murder is murder no matter how it happens or where it takes place.  Why is it any different if the murder takes place inside or outside of the womb?  In the womb the baby still has human DNA which means that it could only be a human and could never, no matter what age, be a blob of cells or tissue.

I am wondering how you can justify murder in cases of rape and incest.  How can you murder innocent babies because of the crime of their father?  For instance, if my father murdered someone and was sentenced to the death penalty, would I also be sentenced and pay the ultimate price?  No, of course not.  This is exactly what happens every day in America in cases of rape and incest.  The baby is brutally ripped from the mother and killed in the process while 99% of the so called “fathers” escape the punishment of the crime. The death penalty for rape is considered unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Yet, you condone the death penalty for an innocent baby based on his father’s rape?  The Word of God says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin"- Deuteronomy 24:16. God also said, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son… the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" - Ezekiel 18:20. There are numerous other verses about shedding innocent blood. It’s something God hates. (See Proverbs 6:16-17).  Exodus 23:7 says "...Never sentence an innocent or blameless person to death, for I never declare a guilty person to be innocent.” So, because of these scriptures, and more, I am very confused about why you would condone the killing of the innocent for the guilty.

If you permit abortion for incest, do you realize how many clinics cover up the crime and cruelly send the victim home to be re-abused by her incestuous relative?  Far too many. These kinds of situations bring them repeat business.  The Bible can attest to this when it says, “For the love of money is the root of all evil”.  Have you thought about how abortion could be empowering an offender because they can just kill the evidence? That’s repulsive!

Are you trying to be kind to the woman? Because the kindest thing you could do for her is not make her live with the horrendous crime of murdering her own child. This is creating another innocent victim and killing a unique individual with his or her own DNA. Someone made in the image of God.  Adoption is a loving and Christian option, which literally brings psychological healing to a victim of rape or incest. It prevents a victim from becoming a victim again of a procedure that that leaves her in the mental torment of a guilty conscience and can have horrible physical consequences too.

Throughout the scriptures we see example after example of how God cares for and loves the little children.  He takes it very seriously when someone harms one of his little ones.  One example of this is portrayed in Exodus 21:22-25.  It states, “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.  And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”  Yet, in America each day 3,300 horrendous abortions take place.  He clearly conveyed his love for children in Matthew 19:14.  Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them...”  Abortion is exterminating the next generations who have a unique purpose and plan on their lives(according to Jeremiah 29:11).

Then I realized that you also said Poland had it right because they allow abortion until a fetus (which is Latin for “young one”) is viable. This, Sir, is an even bigger problem! Sometimes babies are not considered viable until a woman is around 6 months pregnant. Are you serious? If it’s OK to brutally dismember a baby who is 5 months gestation or burn it with saline, why is is it any different take suction out a baby’s brain just prior to birth? And why stop there? Shouldn’t we be able to kill a newborn? After all, it’s “unviable” without someone to feed it, and care for it. It’s still entirely incapable of making it on it’s own. The dictionary definition for viable is: (of a fetus or unborn child) able to live after birth. What makes a child viable? Someone who cares for it! What makes a 2 or 3 year old child viable? The exact same thing! I believe you have created a seriously slippery slope, Sir!  Worst of all, you have done it to the hearts and minds of youth who were counting on you to teach them right from wrong!  These same students are the next voters who will ultimately be deciding if this atrocity continues throughout America in the next generations.

I would like to be a teacher when I grow up. I don’t take it lightly that the Bible says, “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because we who teach will be judged more strictly -James 3:1. With all due respect, Sir, I suggest you don’t take this lightly either.

Most Sincerely,
Christina Scarborough

P.S Please read the article below.


Hello Christina,

Thank you very much for emailing me with your concerns!

I am gratified to hear that you share my passion to protect unborn children in their mothers’ wombs. I wish that more Americans felt as strongly as you do about this incredibly important topic.

Please allow me to clarify my comments some: I am strongly, unabashedly, and unequivocally pro-life. I believe that life begins in the womb and ends at natural death, and that only God has the authority to exert any influence on this process, for He is the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

My comments in class regarding Poland were meant more as a relative comparison, rather than as an absolute endorsement of Polish legislation. While I do believe that Poland’s laws protect more babies on the balance than American laws do (given our liberalization of abortion), I wish very strongly that Poland’s laws were stricter. Because any life taken away is a moral tragedy, I wish they had stronger regulations upon abortion in the cases of rape, incest, endangered life of the mother, and inviability of the fetus.

I wished to praise the Polish government’s resilience against the progressive agenda to legalize abortion-on-demand, which is why my comments were very positive. Pragmatically speaking, I would support any small measure to curtail the practice of abortion in minute ways; on the whole, I would see the abominable practice of abortion burned and discarded on the ash heap of history. That, and not any point of compromise in the middle, is my prayer.

I will address this issue again in class tomorrow. Thank you again for your email, and please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns.

Classroom Teacher

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Thankful I Didn't Kill My Innocent Baby Conceived in Rape, by Aimee Kidd

Last Monday, I received a call from the District Attorney’s office stating they did not have enough evidence to file criminal charges of any kind against my rapist.  I literally collapsed on the floor upon hearing the news.  The wind was knocked right out of me.  That wasn’t enough, however.  The story of my rape, pregnancy, and birth of my child made a lot of local news headlines because of my demands for justice, so when the DA made the nine page memo describing why he wouldn’t pursue any criminal charges against my rapist public, the media had a field day.  Within a couple hours, my face was once again splashed all across the television and social media.

            The reaction on social media was nothing short of disgusting and devastating.  Sure, I had support from friends and family, even from strangers who have been following my story, but the nasty comments were hard to ignore. 

I read things like:
“Your credibility went out the window when we found out you had a bunch of different kids with a bunch of different fathers.”
            “You’re a known drunken whore.”
            “You are a liar.”
            “You belong in jail.”
But the worst was:
 “I feel sorry for that poor baby.  I hope the father will finally get to see his baby.”

Immediately, I began to pray.  I pleaded that God would protect my child.  In the state of Wyoming, telling your rapist “No” is not enough to prosecute a rape.  In Wyoming, being incoherent, drunk, or drugged is not enough for a rape conviction.  Further, a rapist has total access and ability to exercise his parental rights to his child conceived in rape without a conviction. In other words, it's open season on women.

My mind wandered to a dark place.  I thought about the fact that, had I just snuck out of town and had an abortion, no one would’ve ever known about the rape.  My rapist wouldn’t be able to fight for custodial or visitation rights.  No one would be calling me a liar or a whore.

I wanted to slap myself.  I sobbed and looked down at my beautiful little girl and I thanked God for her.  I am so thankful God protected her, and I didn’t kill my precious and innocent baby with an abortion.  How dare I let my mind even consider such horrible thoughts, just because of the cruelty of others.  I refocused and praised God.

Having my beautiful daughter, finding my voice, giving hope and inspiration to other women who have been victims of sexual assault, and advocating for victims' rights was worth whatever public backlash I was receiving via social media and within my community.  I was being labeled a liar and a whore.  I was being told I made the entire thing up just so a "potentially loving father" wouldn’t get to see his baby -- never mind the fact that he never sought to see her.  So despite all of my public advocacy for my rights, for rape victims and victims' rights, I learned I have a long road ahead of me with the news of the DA not being willing to file charges.

My fight is just beginning.  I am so thankful for the people who continue to support me and who continue to stand beside me.  I am proud of the choice I made to keep and parent my baby conceived in rape.  I will continue to fight tooth and nail to ensure my rapist cannot exercise parental rights to her.  With the help of social justice advocates and local legislators, I hope to achieve legislation that will actually protect babies like mine. 

If a woman is brave enough to report her rape, give birth to a child conceived in rape, and speak out against a flawed legal system, the last thing she should ever have to worry about is her rapist having access to her child.  No wonder so many women are forced into silence and feel as if they are forced to abort.  What a nightmare to be faced with the potentiality of having to co-parent with a rapist!

I am so thankful for the legislators who have reached out to me and offered support to pass a bill in the state of Wyoming which will include language to prevent rapists (even without a conviction) parental access to the child conceived in rape -- The Rape Survivor Child Custody Act.  I hope other legislators will see our laws are flawed.  Rape is almost impossible to get an arrest, let alone to convict in my state.  Loving mothers who become pregnant by rape shouldn’t be further victimized by being forced to subject their innocent children to rapists.  Our laws need to be fixed.  Rapes need to be easier to prosecute; police need to be given all the tools to investigate a rape swiftly; and children conceived in rape need protection from their mother’s rapist.

Please keep my family and my beautiful baby in your prayers.  I declare God will protect my child -- a precious blessing He bestowed upon me. 

Thank God for protecting her and loving her.  I pray He continues to do so.

BIO:  Aimee Kidd is a mother of 6, self-employed, in Casper, Wyoming, and is a pro-
life blogger for Save The 1.  Her first piece written for our blog is found here: and her second piece is found here:
Friday, March 10, 2017

Are You Planning on Supporting the March of Dimes this Spring? Think Twice- Their History of Eugenics May Surprise You

Are You Planning on Supporting the March of Dimes this Spring? Think Twice- Their History of Eugenics May Surprise You

It's the beginning of March- spring is almost here, and some of us welcome the image of snow melting away and flowers in bloom once again.

Something else happens in March, which most people are probably aware of, but don't pay mind to. The March of Dimes steps up its fundraising campaigns, utilizing the warm weather (great for walking), the fact that people are financially recovering from their Holiday shopping, and the name of the month for inspiration.

Those of us who advocate for the non-typical child may see friends posting information about their personal walks. My family participated the first year after losing our daughter, Beatrix and raised a small bit of money. However, upon taking a more detailed look into the March of Dimes  we decided that it wasn't for us. 


Who could speak out against an organization which has the sole purpose of saving the lives of babies?

Over the years the March For Babies has come to symbolize all that's good about public contribution to modern medicine: it's most likely the closest many people come to actively working towards ending birth defects. It gets people together to work for the most worthy cause of all: saving lives.

Unfortunately the March of Dimes has a decidedly eugenic, pro-abortion history. 

Originally founded by FDR to combat polio, the March of Dimes moved on to "birth defect prevention" after successfully curing polio in the US, via funding research for Jonas Salk's polio vaccine. 

During the early 60's, when they switched gears and began working to prevent birth defects, prenatal testing became their main focus. The purpose of this testing was to figure out how to detect anomalies in order to terminate pregnancies where they were found.  The researchers employed, educated, and/or supported by the MOD pioneered the use of amniocentesis and chorionic villi sampling to prenatally detect disorders such as Downs Syndrome. The MOD claim this testing is necessary to "prepare" parents for a child with special needs, yet over the decades it's become apparent that the tests are used for search and destroy missions against genetically atypical children. For example, in the US we know that 90% of children with Trisomy 21 (DS) are aborted after a positive genetic test. For more serious Trisomy disorders, the percentages of abortion are even higher. In addition, for those babies who are allowed to progress full-term, the prenatal testing which identified their syndrome can be used to deny life-saving medical care. Their "quality of life" becomes an issue, as does the concept of "futile" care, leaving many parents without the legal ability to advocate for their children's lives (1) (2). Genetic testing has become the means by which a human being can legally be denied medical care, and that genetic testing was developed through the MOD.

While the March of Dimes claims this to be an unfortunate byproduct of their research, and to be a neutral party to the abortion debate, they have a history of supporting the studies of eugenic physiciansutilizing aborted fetal tissue in fetal experimentation(1), and relying on exceptionally gruesome fetal experimentation- including experimentation on living fetuses- which far surpasses anything we've heard on videos from current times. While we can't draw a direct line from their research into prenatal diagnosis to abortion, the connection is abundantly clear for any who choose to search for it -- although, you must search through archived internet articles because they've "scrubbed" many of the documents supporting abortion which they previously authored and offered.  (please see note below regarding links).

The March of Dimes, far from being a premier supporter of the rights of babies with disabilities, currently uses their clout to secure funding and donations which are used to develop even more specific testing. While claiming to have "conquered" a number of genetic disorders, the record shows that many of their "successes" comes from ever-earlier prenatal testing and abortion, rather than finding cures for genetic disorders which affect children.

We urge pro-life individuals to refrain from donating to this organization. 

For those who wish to contribute to research into prenatal diagnosis and complimentary treatment for children with disabilities, there is an alternative organization you can donate to: the Lejuene Foundation (named after Jerome Lejeune, the physician who discovered the cause of Down Syndrome). The Lejeune Foundation is a life-affirming research group which studies genetic disorders with the aim of helping individuals live better, fuller lives within the context of their disabilities. Jerome Lejeune was horrified when his discovery of a third chromosome 21, as the cause of Down Syndrome, was used to target affected unborn children for the purpose of ending their lives. He spent the later part of his life fighting for the rights of all children to live to the best of their ability. 

If you would like to give to this organization (or any other pro-life organization which helps individuals and families meet the challenges of an atypical life), we have included a few links below. All of these organizations are decidedly pro-life, and will satisfy both the desire to help families, and the desire to encourage them to keep their babies. 

From their website:

"Be Not Afraid (BNA) is a private non-profit corporation whose mission is to provide comprehensive, practical, and peer-based support to parents experiencing a prenatal diagnosis and carrying to term. In addition, BNA encourages development of new services so more parents find support at diagnosis by offering training, consulting and technical assistance as well as materials to other organizations and individuals committed to service development."

From their website:

"Support information & encouragement for carrying to term with an adverse prenatal diagnosis and support for raising your child with special needs after birth."

From their website:

"The mission of the Jerome Lejeune Foundation USA is to raise and disburse funds in order to provide research, care, and advocacy to benefit those with genetic intellectual disabilities in accordance with the medical and ethical standards of Dr. Jerome Lejeune, the father of modern genetics. This is carried out by conducting, promoting, and funding therapeutically oriented research; by assisting in the development of healthcare services for these individuals; and by serving as their advocate in a spirit of respect for the dignity of all human persons."

(Note: Much of the information available is only accessible via print, so sources linked above may not be varied enough to satisfy some readers- please feel free to research individual claims on your own, and if you find discrepancies or current links, please comment below so we can correct the information. Unfortunately the Pro-Life clearinghouse for MOD info, The Michael Fund, is no longer in service, and adding each individual link rather than articles referencing them would mean an excessive number of outbound links.)

BIO:  Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4, step-mother of 2, and pro-life blogger for Save The 1.  She's also the founder of, a pro-life, diagnosis specific website which supports parents who continue their pregnancy after receiving the same lethal diagnosis which took her daughter, Beatrix Elizabeth.  She blogs on faith, grief, loss, and pro-life issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been diagnosed, at