Follow Save the 1
Showing posts with label fatal diagnosis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fatal diagnosis. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Exceptions for Fetal Anomalies Encourages Doctors' Coercion to Abort, by Sarah St. Onge
In 2010, I continued a pregnancy after my unborn child was diagnosed with a "lethal birth defect." During my pregnancy with Beatrix, {full story told here} I was repeatedly pressured by medical professionals to "terminate."
Because of the lack of support during my pregnancy, I have dedicated the last five years to supporting families faced with the same diagnosis we were given for our daughter. In addition, I joined support groups for women who choose to continue a pregnancy after a poor diagnosis, hoping to encourage women on their journey. During this time, I have heard the stories of dozens of families who were pressured to "terminate" pregnancies after being given a poor pregnancy diagnosis. Whether the issue was with the child or with the woman carrying the child, these parents' refusal to consider late-term abortion was often met with derision on the part of health care providers.
Those of us who try to encourage women to continue their pregnancies hear these types of stories often. It is tragically common for doctors to present "therapeutic abortion" as the normal course of "care" for a pregnancy in which an adverse diagnosis has been made. Many doctors do not even broach the subject of continuing the pregnancy, simply asking pregnant mothers, “when should we schedule your termination?” after a diagnosis. Most medical professionals assume that every woman wants to -- or should want to -- end a pregnancy where a child has been diagnosed with a lethal birth defect. In fact, when researching different lethal congenital disorders, you will often find "termination" listed as the “treatment” for the disorder! This is not a woman-centered or parent-driven attitude, but a physician-driven attitude.
In terms of parents' decision-making, the carry to term path has flourished with organizations which support the parent(s) continuing their pregnancy. The good news is that many hospitals have now created perinatal hospice programs for those using their facilities to deliver their babies. In terms of women's health -- carry to birth has consistently and unequivocally proven to be a healthier medical treatment for women.
Yet individual physicians seem unable to shake the opinion that prematurely ending the baby's life is best. They often deny patients access to pre-natal treatment due to the concept of "medical futility." These narrow-minded physicians decline to answer questions in layman's terms so that parents understand they have a right to continue the pregnancy. They manipulate parents by telling them that birth will be incredibly traumatic for their child, often giving them horror stories about babies being ripped to pieces in the labor process. This particular tactic has been shared in many parents' recollections of speaking to doctors after deciding to continue a pregnancy. Angie Smith's groundbreaking book about continuing a pregnancy after a poor diagnosis, "I Will Carry You" mentions this phenomenon.
Because of the lack of support during my pregnancy, I have dedicated the last five years to supporting families faced with the same diagnosis we were given for our daughter. In addition, I joined support groups for women who choose to continue a pregnancy after a poor diagnosis, hoping to encourage women on their journey. During this time, I have heard the stories of dozens of families who were pressured to "terminate" pregnancies after being given a poor pregnancy diagnosis. Whether the issue was with the child or with the woman carrying the child, these parents' refusal to consider late-term abortion was often met with derision on the part of health care providers.
A few months ago, I was introduced to a family who was expecting a sweet baby with Limb Body Wall Complex -- the same diagnosis of my daughter Beatrix. Their story of how they were treated by medical professionals is perhaps the worst I have ever heard.
Not only were they pressured to abort their baby, but when they refused, their doctor began a course of minimal care in an obvious effort to punish them for wasting his time.
He refused to spend more than five minutes with them at visits; he explained the medical challenges in a way that was incomprehensible for a layperson, thereby not providing them the information they needed to make a true medically informed decision; and, he was condescending toward them as if they were only making the decision to continue the pregnancy because they weren't smart enough to understand the gravity of the situation. They understood the gravity. They knew this was a lethal diagnosis, but just didn't want to be responsible for ending their baby's life.
As if that treatment wasn't bad enough, he even refused to allow them to look at their baby on the ultrasound screen. They requested to see their baby, and the physician outright refused. The parents went to a mall which offered ultrasound services, paying out of pocket, just so they could have a glimpse of the baby they loved. This may have been the only living picture they would have of their child, and they needed this memory of their child alive -- something others take for granted.
While this physicians was looking at their precious baby's face, he horrified them when he used the offensive term “not like a baby.”
Imagine this for a moment -- you’ve learned your baby will not live for long, if at all, outside of the womb. Your only opportunity to see your child moving and alive may be in your doctor’s office on an ultrasound screen, yet your doctor turns the screen away telling you your child “isn’t like a baby”, -- refusing to allow you a glimpse of that tiny person in your body.Not only were they pressured to abort their baby, but when they refused, their doctor began a course of minimal care in an obvious effort to punish them for wasting his time.
He refused to spend more than five minutes with them at visits; he explained the medical challenges in a way that was incomprehensible for a layperson, thereby not providing them the information they needed to make a true medically informed decision; and, he was condescending toward them as if they were only making the decision to continue the pregnancy because they weren't smart enough to understand the gravity of the situation. They understood the gravity. They knew this was a lethal diagnosis, but just didn't want to be responsible for ending their baby's life.
As if that treatment wasn't bad enough, he even refused to allow them to look at their baby on the ultrasound screen. They requested to see their baby, and the physician outright refused. The parents went to a mall which offered ultrasound services, paying out of pocket, just so they could have a glimpse of the baby they loved. This may have been the only living picture they would have of their child, and they needed this memory of their child alive -- something others take for granted.
While this physicians was looking at their precious baby's face, he horrified them when he used the offensive term “not like a baby.”
This was all after they had confirmed their decision to continue the pregnancy, and after they had already named their baby.
This physician’s personal bias didn’t stop at trying to manipulate a family into ending their baby's life, but included attempts to persuade them to travel out of state to procure the abortion, because they had already passed the legal gestational age of 24 weeks for late-term abortion in their own state. Those of us who try to encourage women to continue their pregnancies hear these types of stories often. It is tragically common for doctors to present "therapeutic abortion" as the normal course of "care" for a pregnancy in which an adverse diagnosis has been made. Many doctors do not even broach the subject of continuing the pregnancy, simply asking pregnant mothers, “when should we schedule your termination?” after a diagnosis. Most medical professionals assume that every woman wants to -- or should want to -- end a pregnancy where a child has been diagnosed with a lethal birth defect. In fact, when researching different lethal congenital disorders, you will often find "termination" listed as the “treatment” for the disorder! This is not a woman-centered or parent-driven attitude, but a physician-driven attitude.
In terms of parents' decision-making, the carry to term path has flourished with organizations which support the parent(s) continuing their pregnancy. The good news is that many hospitals have now created perinatal hospice programs for those using their facilities to deliver their babies. In terms of women's health -- carry to birth has consistently and unequivocally proven to be a healthier medical treatment for women.
Yet individual physicians seem unable to shake the opinion that prematurely ending the baby's life is best. They often deny patients access to pre-natal treatment due to the concept of "medical futility." These narrow-minded physicians decline to answer questions in layman's terms so that parents understand they have a right to continue the pregnancy. They manipulate parents by telling them that birth will be incredibly traumatic for their child, often giving them horror stories about babies being ripped to pieces in the labor process. This particular tactic has been shared in many parents' recollections of speaking to doctors after deciding to continue a pregnancy. Angie Smith's groundbreaking book about continuing a pregnancy after a poor diagnosis, "I Will Carry You" mentions this phenomenon.
As a side note -- many parents who "terminated" a pregnancy after a poor diagnosis are often offended by carry to birth families, feeling that our stories somehow imply that they made their decision due to ignorance or medical pressure. But they generally aren't witnesses to the after-affects of those manipulated into "terminations" -- stories which are often shared in post-loss, pro-life leaning on-line groups. These parents also discount the experiences of those of us who did choose to carry to term and who were relentlessly pushed to terminate over our strident refusals.
Studies have shown that when facing a poor pregnancy diagnosis, parents report being unsupported and rushed by their physicians. Studies have further shown the decision to terminate will often culminate in an abortion within three days of a diagnosis -- clearly not sufficient time to research all of the options. Lastly, studies show parents who continue their pregnancy after a poor diagnosis have better mental health outcomes than those who terminate, and some may be surprised to learn that the earlier gestation of the baby, the greater the negative feelings. So those early detection tests are actually harming women's mental health.
Studies have shown that when facing a poor pregnancy diagnosis, parents report being unsupported and rushed by their physicians. Studies have further shown the decision to terminate will often culminate in an abortion within three days of a diagnosis -- clearly not sufficient time to research all of the options. Lastly, studies show parents who continue their pregnancy after a poor diagnosis have better mental health outcomes than those who terminate, and some may be surprised to learn that the earlier gestation of the baby, the greater the negative feelings. So those early detection tests are actually harming women's mental health.
When you allow exceptions for fetal abnormalities, or even for a fatal fetal diagnosis, you are giving your "blessing" to these women to end the lives of their children, and your position directly affects every single child diagnosed in the womb -- including the one whose parents choose not to have an abortion. You give doctors permission to badger patients into abortion. You are telling the medical community that these babies are acceptable targets for killing.
“I think that the greatest sin of all is bringing children into the world – that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be human beings practically.”
This hits at the root of the abortion exceptions argument. Is a baby diagnosed with a lethal birth anomaly somehow less than human? We shout back and forth about a mother's grief, the horror of being forced to carry a baby who will inevitably die, all the while ignoring the fact that neither of these things have any relevance on the rights of the child who is a human being.
When we legislate to allow medical professionals to respond to unborn children as less than human based on disability (or mode of conception), we cannot expect them to suddenly respond as if some unborn babies are human, just because parents choose to continue a pregnancy.
This hits at the root of the abortion exceptions argument. Is a baby diagnosed with a lethal birth anomaly somehow less than human? We shout back and forth about a mother's grief, the horror of being forced to carry a baby who will inevitably die, all the while ignoring the fact that neither of these things have any relevance on the rights of the child who is a human being.
When we legislate to allow medical professionals to respond to unborn children as less than human based on disability (or mode of conception), we cannot expect them to suddenly respond as if some unborn babies are human, just because parents choose to continue a pregnancy.
Let me explain:
While I don't view all medical professionals as cold-hearted, I do believe that for many, a poor pregnancy diagnosis is just another day at work. Termination of pregnancy may be preferable for him/her in terms of liability, time management, and even paperwork. In essence, it's often to the physician's benefit when a parent ends a preborn baby's life prematurely due to fetal anomaly.
When a parent chooses to continue their pregnancy after a diagnosis, it can become an inconvenience to the physicians who have no emotional attachment to the unborn child they have diagnosed, and who often don't even view the child as human. Even worse, for some physicians, continuing care is viewed as a waste of their time and skills. The more patients a physician has who decide to end their pregnancies, the more accustomed the physician becomes to: a) believing his/her recommendation to be the correct recommendation (vs. a personal opinion on care); and b) believing that the patient who continued their pregnancy is the anomaly.
When a parent chooses to continue their pregnancy after a diagnosis, it can become an inconvenience to the physicians who have no emotional attachment to the unborn child they have diagnosed, and who often don't even view the child as human. Even worse, for some physicians, continuing care is viewed as a waste of their time and skills. The more patients a physician has who decide to end their pregnancies, the more accustomed the physician becomes to: a) believing his/her recommendation to be the correct recommendation (vs. a personal opinion on care); and b) believing that the patient who continued their pregnancy is the anomaly.
When even otherwise pro-life individuals state that one person has the right to end the life of another on grounds of disability or imminent death, the door is cracked open to coerced abortion, and dehumanization. Medical professionals efforts to manipulate women into unasked for abortions is affirmed by the willingness to look the other way for the sake of expediency.
When pro-life individuals promote legislation which includes abortion exceptions, we are directly responsible for the pain of this little family whose story I just shared -- the family who delivered their sweet baby alive just a few weeks ago.
As pro-life persons, we are supposed to be champions for families like this. Please don't be a part of the reason they are struggling.
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.
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.Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Time Magazine Got It Wrong By Sarah St. Onge
Last week, Time magazine featured a commentary
by Katie Lyon, a mother who terminated her pregnancy due to a poor pregnancy diagnosis. She
chose to terminate her pregnancy in the second trimester due to her unborn
daughter's diagnosis of Spina bifida and other issues which she does not expand
upon. The goal of Ms. Lyon's commentary was to explain how fetal tissue donation works as a way of
showing her support for Planned Parenthood. However, her characterization is a grossly inappropriate defense of Planned
Parenthood's tissue procurement and "donation" process.
I am going to begin this by stating clearly -- this is a response to Ms. Lyon's support of fetal tissue donation through Planned Parenthood, not her decision to terminate her pregnancy. I am personally and politically 100% pro-life with no exceptions, and I do not support fetal tissue donation at any gestation. I do understand what it is like to be given a poor pregnancy diagnosis for your unborn child, and I myself am regrettably post-abortive. This confluence of life experience makes my writing this extremely touchy. My empathy towards a grieving mother is too great to create a dynamic where her decision is something to cheaply debate about on social media. My own culpability in ending the life of my unborn child leaves me very little latitude to pass personal judgment against the mother. However, in the interest of being true to my own ethical and moral beliefs I need to clarify that no matter what the gestation, I believe donating "fetal tissue" is terribly wrong.
As the mother of a child who was diagnosed in the womb with a lethal birth defect and who runs a website for families whose children are diagnosed with my daughter's disorder, I do have a unique insight into the donation of fetal tissue for research purpose. I myself have created agreements with researchers to accept donations from our babies, and many of our families have chosen to make both tissue and whole body donations for science.
The first item I would like to address is the most obvious: it is not necessary to end the life of your child in order to donate tissue for medical research-- and if you continue your pregnancy, in some cases, your baby may be able to donate tissue to other babies who are on recipient waiting lists. Heart valves, corneas and cartilage can all be used to enhance or save the life of a baby waiting for transplant. There are even organizations which help families investigate the complexities of neonatal tissue donation. Purposeful Gift is one of the most prominent organizations helping parents navigate this territory.
Secondly, the type of tissue donation of which she is speaking is nothing like what we have seen from the Planned Parenthood videos. As she herself clearly states, she donated to a specific organization specializing in Spina bifida research. The donation was handled by a genetic counselor in her physician’s office. Chances are (and I could be wrong about this because I'm not certain how she specifically handled her "termination,") she had her procedure in an outpatient setting, most likely in a hospital or surgical center -- not an abortion clinic. I also highly doubt Ms. Lyon's physician haggled with the researchers over storage and transport costs, and most likely did not "part out" her unborn baby. Ms. Lyon's donation was similar to the type of {whole body} donation to science which many people choose during their end-of-life planning. Ms. Lyon's contribution was no doubt appreciated by those who received her daughter's remains. I imagine they were treated with dignity and respect, and even reverence, recognized for what they were -- the remains of a human being with a serious congenital birth defect; though the whole body donation of a precious baby carried to term and delivered to {a short} life would be most appreciated, both by scientist researching specific disorders, and families whose children are waiting for life altering and life saving transplants.
Third, and finally -- in the past few weeks many still images have come out along with the Planned Parenthood videos. Two of them which have made their way into my timeline are these: {1} and {2} . Note that they are marked very clearly with the notation "no abnormalities". I do acknowledge these to be older examples of procurement requests, however, it would still be accurate to claim that due to the nature of research done with stem cells, unless someone is actually studying a congenital anomaly they aren't going to accept tissue donations from babies like Ms. Lyon's. Tissue with abnormalities simply isn't usable for general research or curative medicinal purposes.
I end this repeating my statement above -- at this time, I am not intending to
open a debate on whether Ms. Lyon's choice to terminate her pregnancy was the
correct one or not. This is not because I have no opinion on terminations done
for medical reasons -- I have quite strong opinions on this subject. It's
because it would cheapen the life of her precious baby to turn her into nothing
more than an internet debate. My own commentary was only necessary because her
justification of Planned Parenthood's practices was inappropriate, and could be
used to further an agenda which purports to be compassionate, but is instead
avaricious.
Two additional notes:
{For clarification purposes -- when most people think "stem cells" they are thinking of pluripotent embryonic stem cells, which come from discarded IVF blastocysts, and are not the same as the fetal stem cells which are being harvested by Planned Parenthood. Fetal stem cells are used in a similar fashion to adult stem cells, and the utilization of them is both unnecessary and -- some believe -- scientifically inappropriate.}
{All terms used to identify developmental stages of an unborn child's life in the womb are the common scientific terms, and in no way used to imply that an unborn child is anything less than human at any stage of gestation.}
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.
I am going to begin this by stating clearly -- this is a response to Ms. Lyon's support of fetal tissue donation through Planned Parenthood, not her decision to terminate her pregnancy. I am personally and politically 100% pro-life with no exceptions, and I do not support fetal tissue donation at any gestation. I do understand what it is like to be given a poor pregnancy diagnosis for your unborn child, and I myself am regrettably post-abortive. This confluence of life experience makes my writing this extremely touchy. My empathy towards a grieving mother is too great to create a dynamic where her decision is something to cheaply debate about on social media. My own culpability in ending the life of my unborn child leaves me very little latitude to pass personal judgment against the mother. However, in the interest of being true to my own ethical and moral beliefs I need to clarify that no matter what the gestation, I believe donating "fetal tissue" is terribly wrong.
As the mother of a child who was diagnosed in the womb with a lethal birth defect and who runs a website for families whose children are diagnosed with my daughter's disorder, I do have a unique insight into the donation of fetal tissue for research purpose. I myself have created agreements with researchers to accept donations from our babies, and many of our families have chosen to make both tissue and whole body donations for science.
The first item I would like to address is the most obvious: it is not necessary to end the life of your child in order to donate tissue for medical research-- and if you continue your pregnancy, in some cases, your baby may be able to donate tissue to other babies who are on recipient waiting lists. Heart valves, corneas and cartilage can all be used to enhance or save the life of a baby waiting for transplant. There are even organizations which help families investigate the complexities of neonatal tissue donation. Purposeful Gift is one of the most prominent organizations helping parents navigate this territory.
Secondly, the type of tissue donation of which she is speaking is nothing like what we have seen from the Planned Parenthood videos. As she herself clearly states, she donated to a specific organization specializing in Spina bifida research. The donation was handled by a genetic counselor in her physician’s office. Chances are (and I could be wrong about this because I'm not certain how she specifically handled her "termination,") she had her procedure in an outpatient setting, most likely in a hospital or surgical center -- not an abortion clinic. I also highly doubt Ms. Lyon's physician haggled with the researchers over storage and transport costs, and most likely did not "part out" her unborn baby. Ms. Lyon's donation was similar to the type of {whole body} donation to science which many people choose during their end-of-life planning. Ms. Lyon's contribution was no doubt appreciated by those who received her daughter's remains. I imagine they were treated with dignity and respect, and even reverence, recognized for what they were -- the remains of a human being with a serious congenital birth defect; though the whole body donation of a precious baby carried to term and delivered to {a short} life would be most appreciated, both by scientist researching specific disorders, and families whose children are waiting for life altering and life saving transplants.
This is very different than the "tissue donation" for stem cell research we see in the
Planned Parenthood videos. The callousness with which the workers treat the
remains of beings even they identify as humans is appalling. There is no
appreciation, no understanding, and definitely no reverence. These babies are
parted out for indifferent researchers. There is no correlation between the two
circumstances.
Third, and finally -- in the past few weeks many still images have come out along with the Planned Parenthood videos. Two of them which have made their way into my timeline are these: {1} and {2} . Note that they are marked very clearly with the notation "no abnormalities". I do acknowledge these to be older examples of procurement requests, however, it would still be accurate to claim that due to the nature of research done with stem cells, unless someone is actually studying a congenital anomaly they aren't going to accept tissue donations from babies like Ms. Lyon's. Tissue with abnormalities simply isn't usable for general research or curative medicinal purposes.
I end this repeating my statement above -- at this time, I am not intending to
open a debate on whether Ms. Lyon's choice to terminate her pregnancy was the
correct one or not. This is not because I have no opinion on terminations done
for medical reasons -- I have quite strong opinions on this subject. It's
because it would cheapen the life of her precious baby to turn her into nothing
more than an internet debate. My own commentary was only necessary because her
justification of Planned Parenthood's practices was inappropriate, and could be
used to further an agenda which purports to be compassionate, but is instead
avaricious.Two additional notes:
{For clarification purposes -- when most people think "stem cells" they are thinking of pluripotent embryonic stem cells, which come from discarded IVF blastocysts, and are not the same as the fetal stem cells which are being harvested by Planned Parenthood. Fetal stem cells are used in a similar fashion to adult stem cells, and the utilization of them is both unnecessary and -- some believe -- scientifically inappropriate.}
{All terms used to identify developmental stages of an unborn child's life in the womb are the common scientific terms, and in no way used to imply that an unborn child is anything less than human at any stage of gestation.}
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.Friday, March 20, 2015
Our Eliana is Compatible With Life and Especially Love by Naomi Coy
Confused. Upset. Scared. Angry.
These were my feelings when the high risk doctor from Riverside Hospital’s Maternal
Fetal Medicine told me that my baby was going to die. He told me she had
Trisomy 18 and bluntly stated that she was, “incompatible with life.” He asked
my husband and I if we wanted to "terminate the pregnancy." We politely declined.
He asked us again. We told him no once more. For a third time, he strongly
stated that she was going to most likely die in my womb and there would be no
reason to further the pregnancy. Once again, we declined, but this time we
added, “This baby is our child. We just saw little arms, legs, fingers and toes
on the ultrasound! Just because she has an extra chromosome and a few
abnormalities, doesn’t mean she is not our sweet, precious baby. We are
pro-life and you are not going to change our minds.”
Eliana made it to 33 weeks
gestation before she had to be delivered due to her cord blood flow being
reversed, which could have caused her to be stillborn. She was born December 5th,
2014. She needed help from the CPAP to open up her lungs (just like most
preemies). She was transferred to Children’s Hospital due to her little heart
having many unforeseen abnormalities.
Her cardiologist said, “Eliana’s case is the most complex I’ve had in my
entire career.”
Originally, the Heart Center at Children’s Hospital denied her
heart surgery, knowing that without it she would die. Her neonatologists told
us that they’d give her narcotics, take her off respiratory support, let her
pass in peace and allow her to “die with dignity.” Up to that point, she had been low on her
oxygen requirement and moderate on her pressure requirement. She just needed a
little help -- help which the medical community denied her. I contacted 8 different
children’s hospitals around the nation. A
surgeon out of St. Louis, who is extremely Trisomy-friendly, offered to do the
lifesaving surgery! Once I told Eliana’s cardiologist that we were planning to
transfer, he kicked things into high gear. He took a surgeon aside and pleaded
with him to do the surgery on Eliana. He agreed!
On February 26th, Eliana got
the heart surgery she desperately needed! She is doing very well and we are
working with her neonatologists to get her home. She still has many, many obstacles to
overcome, but the fact is, we gave her the opportunity to fight. We fought for
her in the womb when she didn’t have a voice. We fight beside her now.
Eliana loves to smile. She loves to
have her head rubbed. She loves to stare and look all around. She has a feisty
personality which she gets from her mommy. She has a stubborn will just like her
daddy. She is a child. She has been discriminated against because of the number
of chromosomes she has, but chromosomes should not determine the value of a life.
The PRO-LIFE
MOVEMENT is upon us! There is a worldwide movement forming. Many organizations supported the Geneva Declaration on Perinatal Care
which was presented in front of the United Nations on March 11th.
This declaration will end terminology like “incompatible with life” and promote
support for mothers to continue the pregnancy after a fatal diagnosis, such as
Trisomy 18. I urge everyone to join in the
movement!
Abortion should be illegal because
EVERY life, no matter how short, has value!
We don’t know how long we will have Eliana. We are very thankful and
grateful for every minute we have with her. We believe she is completely
compatible with life and most certainly compatible with LOVE!!
BIO: Naomi Coy is a wife, mother and pro-life blogger for Save The 1. She has almost 18,000 followers on her Facebook page, Eliana's Journey!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)