Wednesday, July 26, 2017

My son was never a "rapist's baby" or a "product of rape" -- he's my child, by Jennifer Christie

The technical term is "survivors guilt".  It doesn't sound especially technical, but I give it full points for accuracy.  It could also be called "throw up and cry a lot" . . .  because that's what
I did when I heard about the next victim during phone call from an FBI agent who told me 
that the DNA collected during my rape kit three years earlier had returned a match.

The woman had been brutally raped and beaten to death. I thought back to the hotel housekeeper who found me unconscious in the stairwell, badly beaten and barely clothed. We always believed her presence saved my life -- that my rapist never intended to leave me alive.

The FBI agent told me the murdered woman also had red hair -- like me.  I'm not sure that last detail was one I was supposed to know, but once it was uttered it dangled in the air before me like a key to Pandora's box.  If I opened it, I could potentially drown in a world of pain, in gut-wrenching questions:  Did anyone call her their "Strawberry"?  Was she around children who would play with her hair and ask her to sing "Part of your world"?  

The FBI had not even contacted next of kin yet because she was a university foreign exchange student in Ohio. Would her family be told about me?  Would they hate me for not being able to stop him, and for surviving?  In that moment, I hated me for not being able to stop him. 

I clung to this: There was no record of his DNA when I was attacked, and now there was.  I did that. That had to count for something. . . .  Didn't it?  Not enough, but something. It helped me to cope. 

But then they found the next woman -- their third redhead. My life suddenly felt like a poorly scripted made-for-TV movie. 

"Find him", I whispered on the phone. "Just stop him." 
"We'll get him."  They assured me of this. They didn't. But he WAS eventually "got.".

Somehow they now had a lead, and DNA evidence to make an arrest. But the rapist was a native American, so I was told that would be a delay because local law enforcement had to work with tribal police to find this man on his reservation, and federal laws applied where they couldn't just go and make an arrest.  

Then I received the call -- several states away, the rapist/murderer was stabbed to death by a fellow tribe member whose 13 year old sister had been raped nearly a decade earlier by this monster.  Unable to live with the stigma and the pain, she took her life one year after the attack.

In ten years, her brother never gave up seeking justice for his sister. I wish I could shake his hand -- not that I support vigilantism, but because my family and I have endured much of the same pain. I can't ever reach out to him or his family though.  My case has been closed and with that ends any connection to the rest of the story.  I've done an Internet search with the sketchy details I had been given.  The FBI won't provide me anything further. 

I don't know specifically what tribe the rapist was from. I have no idea what tribe my son --who was conceived when I was raped -- has blood ties to.  I still wonder if I may be able to find out one day.  I think it's information my son will probably want to have. 

I also don't know the real name of my attacker -- only the alias he was using at the time.  I don't know the identities of the other victims.  I won't know how many women there were in total, or if cold cases will be solved.  I also won't ever know if this man's death helps to bring any peace to the families of the two women sIain.  I won't know the end to everyone's story. I only know the end to this chapter of mine. 

As far as that goes?  Hearing that he was gone, I exhaled a breath I didn't know I'd been holding -- and three years is a long time to hold your breath.  I felt such a weight lift from my chest that I thought I might float away. The relief was dizzying. It still is.
I'm safe.  My son is safe. I'll never have to face my worst nightmare in court or recount, in excruciating detail, everything he did . . . things I've learned from my doctors, things I've tried so hard to forget. 

Equally as important -- and this is going to be hard for some people to understand -- somehow with him gone and no longer a threat, he becomes someone I can begin to forgive, someone I have to forgive.  When he was at large, still tearing apart lives, I justified holding onto anger, and even hatred.  That hurts me though.  It damages my spirit.  I believe God tells us to forgive for several reasons -- one being the freedom it gives us.  And I want to be set free. 

So I'm letting that happen.  For me.  For my family.  For my God.  I'm letting it happen. 

Forgiveness isn't a "once and done" thing -- rarely, if ever.  I imagine this is going to be something I'll need to actively forgive, repeatedly, daily, probably several times a day, for the rest of my life.  That's okay.  There is much to be learned in the process. 

I guess I'm choosing a path of forgiveness. That's the only thing that makes my story one of "choice" though. It's a story about my son -- about his life, which is a life he never asked for.
You might wonder, now knowing the depth and breadth of the man's evil, how it changes the way I feel about my little boy.  It doesn't.  My son was never a "rapist's baby" or a "product of rape".  He's my child.  He's my husband's child.. He's a child of God. 

Why should he bear the anger and vitriol intended for his biological "father"? And to the point of death?  We hold ourselves up as a great civilized society yet tear apart our most vulnerable and innocent when they're inconvenient or evoke bad memories. 

Some people read my story and want to hold me up as an example of a good person. It's a kind thought, but I'm not a good person because I kept my baby.  I've been called amazing. . . . Amazing?  Think about that for a moment.  I take into consideration the writer's heart when commenting and I'm blessed by every encouraging word, but I ask you to think about that one.  I'm an "amazing woman" because I love my son?!  How offended would you be if I applauded you for loving your child?  I don't see my baby any differently than you see yours. 

I'm a deeply flawed human being, not too different from most.  I became pregnant.  I had a child. That's really all there is to it. 

I recently read a comment under one of my articles which simply asked "Why is this a story?"  Exactly -- it shouldn't be!  In a better world, it wouldn't be.  I'll keep telling my story until it isn't.

BIO:  Jennifer Christie is a wife, mother of 5, pro-life blogger and pro-life speaker for Save The 1.  She's written two prior articles for us:   Raped While on a Business Trip – My Husband and I Chose Life! and  Raped, Married and Pregnant:  When People Said We Shouldn’t Have You, We Loved You Louder,, and her husband Jeff wrote this article for Save The 1: My Wife and I Both Saw This Baby As Something Beautiful Coming From Such Evil.

See 3-minute video where Jennifer shares her pregnant by rape story while signing it in ASL:

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.