If we can ignore the glaring discrimination, the passage of Iowa’s heartbeat bill was a watershed moment in pro-life advocacy. While the bill still hasn’t been signed into law, it sent a strong message out to the rest of the country: we can pass restrictive pro-life legislation in a state which is not necessarily conservative. It would seem to be a shining achievement for the pro-life movement. 

But with the exceptions, the bill sent another message: A message of exclusion for those conceived in rape or who have been diagnosed with a serious birth defect, and there have been some who’ve spoken out against that message.

Viewing the very personal video, seeing the visceral reaction the news has provoked in her, leaves the watcher feeling a bit less certain about whether the Iowa bill is as great as it seems. 

We move on to a statement from Rebecca Kiessling who, with tears in her eyes and audible distress in her voice, explains the emotional toll these

Sarah St. Onge with Rebecca Kiessling and Darlene Pawlik

exceptions take on her.

Watch HERE.

As a strong and outspoken representative of those conceived in rape, her words add an element of intimacy to the proceedings which highlight the fact we’re speaking of real people: children conceived during a sexual assault aren’t just a philosophical concept -- they’re our friends, neighbors, and loved ones. They deserve equal protection under the law -- the same protections you or I deserve.

Last, we hear from me, Sarah St. Onge.

Watch HERE.

My daughter was diagnosed with a lethal birth defect before birth. Exceptionally frustrated with the liberties lawmakers take in excluding children like mine from protection, I want to know why we continue to place these exceptions into laws we are writing. Why not leave the picking and choosing to the pro-choice side? Why ruin our reputation with an inconsistent message regarding the value of an unborn child? 

With the wealth of information available about the life of the unborn, it’s foolish for us to continue on the discriminatory path we are headed down. Rarely, if ever, do these exceptions get removed once they’re in place. We are sentencing valuable, wanted, and fragile innocents to death. There is no excuse for this -- the time for political maneuvering should come when we meet those who oppose us on the floor, and not before we've even put an offer on the table.

We beg you to continue to help us fight for our rights, and the rights of our children, to have equal protection under the law, like all other American citizens. 

BIO:  Sarah St. Onge is a mother and pro-life blogger for Save The 1.  She blogs on faith, grief, loss, and pro-life issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been diagnosed, at www.shebringsjoy.com.

A fierce battle is being waged in Ireland over the “8th Amendment”. Unlike the US, and most of its European neighbors, Ireland formally recognizes the preborn child as a human being with his/her own inherent value and right to life.  The 8th amendment prohibits abortion from conception and through all 9 months of pregnancy, under any circumstances save when the life of the mother is threatened.

While we’re mourning the death of a dissolute human trafficker, and feigning outrage over the latest NFL decision, Ireland is deciding whether to continue protecting its most vulnerable citizens or join the  21st century abortion death-cult led by Planned Parenthood.

Irish pro-lifers (ie the majority of rational Irish citizens) have come out en force. They have spent months knocking on doors to inform the public about the issue. They’ve secured television and print ads, as well as held rallies. Their rallying cry- "Love them Both" is one of compassion and understanding.

However- they’ve been met with fierce opposition by radical pro-abortion groups who have decided to use the most aggressive of tactics to silence them.

“I knew this campaign was going to be divisive, that there would be nastiness and vitriol battered at prolifers. The level of abuse is truly off the scale though. Is this still Ireland?? Or have we woken up in another country? Frightening is an understatement, women who have been pregnant through rape or conceived through rape are reduced to standing on the street to deliver their stories? Is this some Soviet state where freedom of speech is punishable? Is this what freedom was fought and won for in Ireland?  Absolutely terrifying and sickening, and no date as yet set for an actual referendum, all of this from a minority of rabble rousers and anarchists allowed to screech and bully...we've been funding these miseries for much too long.”

This statement from an Irish pro-life activist, who wishes to remain anonymous, in response to the numerous threats and intimidations visited on American pro-life speaker Rebecca Kiessling of Save the 1. She traveled to Ireland this week as part of the “Unbroken- Life Beyond Rape” tour, arranged by Life Institute. She was scheduled to speak on the realities of pregnancy and abortion after a sexual assault in two separate venues.

Instead, pro-choice activists decided to silence her, publicly bragging about removing posters, which were placed to advertise the event. In addition, they began a campaign of harassment- including sending death threats to individuals they identified through social media who were staff at the hotels where their speaking engagements were to be heard, causing both hotels and a third alternate, to rescind their contract with the Unbroken –Life Beyond Rape group.

Women are naturally inclined to love and protect their offspring. They must be conditioned by external forces to despise them.

The abortion lobby teaches women to view their children as invaders or aggressors, instead of victims of circumstance, especially in cases where a sexual assault has occurred.

Children conceived during an assault have the same inherent value as those who are conceived during a consensual act of passion. They are human beings.

Women who have been assaulted deserve better than an abortion. They need help to integrate their violation into their lives. We don’t need to become destroyers of life in order to regain power over our own lives.

Unfortunately the vitriol continued, with gruesome comments left on Save the 1’s Facebook page- there were threats of violence aimed at both women, and no attempts to excuse the threats and destruction of pro-life property. In fact, those responsible for doing so were proud of their actions. Their official responses delivered with flippancy. We’re not linking to their sites or pages. We won’t give them the satisfaction of sharing.

The truth is- the Repeal movement really doesn’t care about women. If they did, they wouldn’t send their men out to re-violate a rape survivor, by in essence telling her that her story doesn’t matter and her right to speak her truth is subordinate to others. They wouldn't tell a woman conceived in rape that her mere image offends them, if they cared about women.

Ms. Kiessling did not travel to Ireland to bring an American viewpoint to the debate. They all came to offer their testimony in the court of opinion- their personal and traumatic testimony- in hopes of letting Irish women who may have been through similar circumstances, that they aren’t alone. Their stories matter. One Irish woman wrote, after meeting them, “I felt that I belonged yesterday and was not ashamed to say I was raped and I could never talk to anyone about it in Ireland until yesterday. You helped me cry out openly...”

They also went to create a dialogue with those who may be on the fence, or even those who oppose them, in hopes of changing hearts and minds and bringing them to a place of love.

Unfortunately the Repeal movement has decided to offer them only threats of violence in response...... just like with the men who violated them, these women have been told to "keep quiet or else." Fortunately these women are much stronger than those who try to silence them will ever be. And for Ireland's children, women like them may make all the difference.

Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4, step-mother of 2, and pro-life blogger for Save The 1.  She blogs on grief, loss, and pro-life issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been diagnosed, at www.shebringsjoy.com.

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 blogs on faith, grief, loss, and pro-life issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been diagnosed, at www.shebringsjoy.com.

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.

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.

First:

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.

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.

Second:

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."

Third:

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

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

Most statistical information about abortion comes from them.

Why?

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.


BIO: Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4, step-mother of 2, and pro-life blogger for Save The 1. She blogs on grief, loss, and pro-life issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been diagnosed, at www.shebringsjoy.com.

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. 

Why?

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 physicians, utilizing 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. 

http://www.benotafraid.net/

From their website:

http://www.prenatalpartnersforlife.org/

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."

http://lejeuneusa.org

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.)

A short time ago, Gerard Nadal, apologist extraordinaire for pro-life exceptions, posted a social media status update which essentially claimed those of us who fought against exceptions in pro-life legislation were making "idols of our consciences". The accolades for his outrageous statement were (sadly) generally supportive from his followers.

In the past, he has also positioned himself as morally superior by declaring us "petulant" for wanting to save the lives of babies who would be passed over by laws riddled with exceptions. He was supported by his followers in this characterization of us as well.

The problem with his position is his refusal to even entertain the possibility of passing no exceptions pro-life laws. For a man who claims to have such an immense faith in a God who can work any wonder, his lack of belief in this matter is troubling.

Politics has fooled people into believing that exceptions are necessary to pass pro-life laws.  

This is incorrect.

First, we need to acknowledge that when we speak of "exceptions," we are generally speaking of classes of persons targeted within legislation which prohibit abortions after 20-24 weeks, as most states allow unfettered abortion up until then.

As of late, exceptions apply to late-term abortion laws.

There have been a number of significant pieces of state-level legislation which contain no exceptions for abortions (please see footnote).

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 -- a distinct indication of its relevance to them.)

This lie that exceptions are necessary has been perpetuated for too long.  We are blatantly attacked by the likes of Gerard Nadal for speaking this truth, 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 without discrimination, yet conservative pro-life legislators in conservative, pro-life states cannot persuade other politicians to support abortion prohibitions without exceptions, this is a problem..... We need to find new, more persuasive legislators, and better pro-life leaders worthy of following and supporting.

The answer to the "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.

Our allegedly pro-life legislators and leaders 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, Right to Life PAC-endorsed 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, regardless of the condition of conception or future outlook in terms of disability. 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, rape or incest exceptions, especially when the pro-life grass roots voters have been in the dark that these discriminatory exceptions are even within these proposed laws!

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 we are asking them to do.

Don't let pro-life "hot shots" make claims which are proven false with a minimal amount of research and lack of care -- having made the determination in their own sense of wisdom that certain children are expendable.

Don't let people convince you to compromise on your principles by creating an atmosphere of fear.  Because this is what they do: they make you afraid of the collapse of any abortion legislation.

We have the power to end exceptions in laws limiting abortions, and save lives. Other states have done it. Liberal, pro-choice-controlled states have done it.

All it would take is a unified voice of pro-life people clarifying that pro-life means pro-life. Not pro-life except for those who were conceived in rape and/or incest or those with abnormalities.

How many of you privately don't support, and are uncomfortable with, legislation which doesn't protect all preborn human life?

How many of you go along with compromise due to expediency?

How many of you don't say anything because every time you do, someone calls you heartless or tells you you're being divisive?

How many of you are tired of being called "petulant" because you're disappointed by another year of abortion legislation which doesn't save the most vulnerable?

I know I am.





(footnote: Federal law requires that all states have exceptions for life of the mother in their abortion legislation)
 BIO:  Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4, step-mother of 2, and pro-life blogger for Save The 1.  She blogs on grief, loss, and pro-life issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been diagnosed, at www.shebringsjoy.com.