Showing posts with label incompatible with life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label incompatible with life. Show all posts
Saturday, June 16, 2018

Save The 1 Intervenes in Iowa Heartbeat Case -- Our Hearts Beat Too! By Rebecca Kiessling, with Brad and Jesi Smith


On May 4, 2018, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the Heartbeat Bill into law which would protect unborn children who have a detectable heartbeat, except "when the abortion is medically necessary" and defines "medically necessary" as cases of rape, incest and fetal abnormality, making the abortion provider the sole arbiter of these determinations.  These exceptions were surprisingly added -- allegedly because certain legislators in the House would not sign the bill without exceptions.

Save The 1 is a global pro-life organization of over 600 of us who were conceived in rape, incest or sex trafficking and mothers who became pregnant by rape, incest or sex trafficking who are either raising their children, birth mothers, miscarried, or post-abortive and mourn the loss of their children.  Additionally, we have hundreds who were told by physicians to abort due to a pre-natal diagnosis, along with their children who were targeted by doctors.  We specialize in defending all of the so-called “hard cases” in the abortion debate through sharing our personal stories, and we additionally act as a support network.  The deadly discrimination contained in the exceptions within the Iowa Heartbeat Law hurts us -- because our hearts beat too!

I testified a year earlier on a life-at-conception bill.   We are grateful to the Iowa Coalition for Life -- a coalition of the major pro-life organizations in Iowa who brought us in to testify and who vigorously opposed the exceptions.  

We discussed what our response as an organization should be.  We could cooperate in order that we may have a "seat at the table" and be invited back to Iowa to speak and to testify again on a future bill.  But to what end?  To have another viral video which ultimately is rendered ineffective in gaining any protection for us and our children?  Do we want to be popular, or protected?

Others would like for us to roll over and play dead.  Sometimes it feels like the game is fixed -- like this is the Harlem Globetrotters and we are merely the Washington Generals.  We aren't supposed to cry foul when our players are thrown to the ground.  Politically, many are quite used to us being the sacrificial lamb, and we are supposed to somehow be understanding and cooperative as we are lead to slaughter.

We are told, "It's nothing against you personally," but we are persons, the attack on our very right to life could not possibly be more personal, and of course we will take it personally!

If it were just us who have already been born and merely a matter of our feelings being hurt, perhaps we could somehow "let it go," but there are others who are yet at risk, who are being targeted for killing, who are just as deserving of protection as any of us, and so, we are fighting back.

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland recently filed a lawsuit against the state of Iowa, and we are now filing a motion to intervene as necessary third party intervenors "of right" since the current Plaintiff, Planned Parenthood, clearly will not argue on behalf of our interests.  The exceptions within the Iowa Fetal Heartbeat law violate our fundamental right to life, depriving us of due process and equal protection under both the Iowa and U.S. constitutions.  Thankfully, there is a severability clause in the legislation so that the offending provisions can be severed and the remainder of the law upheld.  We have three attorneys representing Save The 1:  Erin Mersino -- a pro-life constitutional law attorney from Michigan with the Great Lakes Justice Center, Eric Borseth -- an attorney from Iowa and a board member of Personhood Iowa, and myself.

As a pro-life attorney, this is why I went to law school.  While attending Wayne State law school, I wrote what has been for decades the #1-ranked philosophical abortion essay, "The Right of the Unborn Child Not to be Unjustly Killed -- a philosophy of rights approach."  If I can't defend my own right to life in court, then what is the point of being a pro-life attorney?  What is the point of being alive?  Just to be selfish and live my life without caring about others who are yet at risk?  I was protected by Michigan law when my birth mother sought to kill me at two illegal abortions.  As a rape victim, she was not offered any help or hope -- just abortion.  My life was spared for a purpose, and for such a time as this I will use my life, my talents, my expertise and law degree to save others.

The discriminatory language in the Iowa Heartbeat law defines "medically necessary" as cases in which:

a. The pregnancy which is the result of a rape which is reported within forty-five days of the incident to a law enforcement  agency or to a public or private health agency which may include a family physician.

b. The pregnancy is the result of incest which is reported within one hundred forty days of the incident to a law enforcement agency or to a public or private health agency which may include a family physician.

c. Any spontaneous abortion, commonly known as a miscarriage, if not all of the products of conception are expelled.

d. The attending physician certifies that the fetus has a fetal abnormality that in the physician’s reasonable medical judgment is incompatible with life. 

Interestingly, among the bill’s definitions, rape, incest, fetal abnormality and incompatible with life are not included or even cross-referenced with other sections of the Iowa code, as other definitions are cross-referenced.  So the abortion providers get to decide what they deem to qualify as rape, incest and incompatible with life.

 The rape, incest and fetal abnormality exceptions are based upon a fabrication that aborting these unborn children is “medically necessary.”  Not one witness testified in the Senate hearing as to such a medical necessity.  This language was added to appease state representatives in the House who said they would not approve the bill without language that excludes these children from protection.   In other words, the legislative intent was that they believed it was politically necessary – not medically necessary, if they were being honest.  The language not only excludes innocent children from protection, doing so under a faulty premise, but really was intended merely to protect certain politicians and nothing to do with protecting pregnant mothers.

The abortion physician is given the power to decide whether the unborn child has a fetal abnormality and whether the living unborn child with a detectable heartbeat is somehow “incompatible with life.”  These preborn children are actually disabled children, and as such, should be protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Additionally, and equally as troubling, the report of the rape and/or incest merely needs to be made to the “public or private health agency” – in other words, to the abortion clinic.  So the abortion clinic becomes the sole arbiter of whether a woman was raped and whether her child is to suffer the death penalty for the alleged crimes of his or her biological father, with no guidelines provided within the legislation.  This clearly lacks due process and fails to provide equal protection.
The third prong of the exceptions doesn't even make sense at all, because the law only applies when there is a fetal heartbeat.  So how could this possibly be a spontaneous abortion situation when there's a beating heart?  In so many respects, the exception provisions are extremely poorly written law.

The targeting of our people groups for exclusion of protection, and in fact, for state-approved killing is clearly discriminatory.  The sting of this discrimination not only affects every unborn child who is deemed to fit into these legislative categories of rape, incest or fetal abnormality, but is lifelong – affecting every person born who was conceived in rape or given a challenging pre-natal diagnosis by a physician.  Additionally, it causes anguish to the mothers who became pregnant by rape or who were told by doctors to abort.  They grieve at how their children are so quickly devalued by politicians and within the law.

Permitting abortion for rape, incest and fetal abnormalities sends a message to our people groups that our lives are worth less than anyone else’s.  Imagine having an exception in cases of Asian babies, Jewish babies, or left-handed babies.  The message sent is that these people are not worthy of living and did not deserve to be protected like everyone else.  There would be an international outcry if such discrimination against these other people groups were even proposed.  Yet, it is the same for us, and we feel the sting of such hatred against or apathy toward our lives. 

 The rape survivor mothers and those told by doctors to abort grieve how their children are systematically targeted and devalued.  The rape victim mothers are not believed they were raped because they didn’t abort and because they actually love their children. 

We appreciate concern for pregnant rape victims, but they are four times more likely to die within the next year after an abortion, as opposed to giving birth.  In Dr. David Reardon’s book, Victims andVictors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions and Children ResultingFrom Sexual Assault, he cites the research done on the subject.  After an abortion, rape victims have higher rates of murder, suicide, drug overdose, etc..  Rapists, child molesters and sex traffickers love abortion, which destroys the evidence and enables them to continue perpetrating.  Sexual predators depend upon abortion clinics because the abortion protects them – not the pregnant rape victim.

Tragically, it is at times a girl’s own mother who has been either trafficking her or leaving her unprotected.  It is always the baby who exposes the rape, who delivers the pregnant mother out of the abusive situation, protecting her and bringing her healing.  If the legislators truly  care about rape victims,  then they must protect her from the rapist and from the abortion, and not the baby!  Her baby is not the enemy, despite what the legislated exceptions suggest.

In regards to a diagnosis of “incompatible with life” – it is impossible to be such when you are still living.  Physicians who peddle abortion are truly the ones with fatal heart defects, often failing to treat the children of parents who refused to abort.  A eugenics mentality becomes pervasive when you allow abortion.  For parents who are told by doctors to abort, the pressure is tremendous – and not just during the pregnancy, but after the child is born when doctors often refuse to treat their disabled child. 
The purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act is to guaranty that people with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. The ADA gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion.  Accordingly, as a suspect class, the offending provisions against disabled children within the Iowa Heartbeat Bill should be subject to strict scrutiny.

The Iowa Heartbeat bill’s bewildering exceptions legislate extreme and inexplicable hatred toward disabled children in the womb, as well as those conceived in rape or incest.  Prenatal testing -- instead of being used to treat and heal -- is used for search and destroy missions for those with medically identifiable disabilities.  Iowa legislators have now authorized doctors to commit genocide against an entire people group, decreasing their voices and representation within society. 

This deliberate targeting and killing of our people groups also results in doubt being cast upon rape victims for not aborting “like a true rape victim would”, and the “blaming” of parents for not aborting their disabled children who are seen within much of the medical community as a burden on the health care system – much like the Nazi regime which employed the medical designation of “lebensunwertes leben” (“life unworthy of life”), referring to the disabled as “useless eaters.”

Using terminology such as “fetal abnormality” or “incompatible with life“ as classifications for children with disability is deceiving and treacherous treatment from a government which claims its citizens have equal protection under the law.  Born children and adults are treated by some physicians as “incompatible with life,” and doctors and hospitals point to “medical futility policies” in order to justify discrimination against these disabled individuals.  This deadly eugenics is alive and well today in the United States, and now codified in Iowa by the exceptions within this new law.

Physicians’ predictions are not medical certainty and denying the right to life and equal protection to entire groups of disabled children based on an abortion doctor’s best guess is not medical science.  Bias and arrogance of those who wish to promote biological superiority through the destruction of disabled children in the womb brings new meaning to the words biological warfare.  

 A child’s God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should never be denied because of his or her disability or circumstances of conception.  His or her value is not based on what he or she is able to do or the behavior of his or her parents; rather, it is based on his or her humanity and that the child has been endowed by his or her Creator with these inalienable rights.

We’ve had parents within our organization who refused to abort and were told by doctors:
 “The only further testing you will receive is an autopsy,”
“If your child is born not breathing, we won’t resuscitate,” and
“Your child has already outlived her life expectancy.”
Some parents have endured others looking at their disabled child in their arms and asking, “Didn’t you get any pre-natal testing?”

The clear expectation and even obligation is to abort.  The Iowa legislature has now codified this deadly discrimination.

Since the government has not done its duty to protect disabled children in the womb, they are also targeted after leaving the womb.  Many children have medical treatments withheld and denied leading to their death simply because they have a disability. 

Children conceived in rape are often called dehumanizing names such as:

“Demon seed,” “evil seed,” “horrible reminder,” “rapist’s child” (an insult to every rape victim mother who knows that this is her child,) “monster’s child,” “demon spawn,” “Satan’s child,” “tainting the gene pool,” and on and on.  The exceptions within the Iowa Fetal Heartbeat law suggest there is something inherently different about the child conceived in rape that they would be unworthy of protection.  To legislate that aborting us is "medically necessary" further suggests that we are somehow medically harming our mothers -- furthering the notion that we are somehow the ones raping our mothers.  But we are entirely innocent and we plead our innocence.

While some states like Michigan, Georgia and Nebraska do not have a single rape exception within the law, there are other jurisdictions where the child conceived in rape is singled-out and systematically targeted for extermination.  This lack of equal protection undeniably feeds into the discrimination within the culture.  It codifies hatred, fear and prejudice against an innocent child.
 
A civilized nation must protect the lives of the innocent and disabled child, not target them for extermination and codify hatred.   It is barbaric to punish an innocent child for someone else’s crime.  The legislature should focus on punishing rapists, not babies and the Court must focus on protecting lives of the innocent and not the careers of politicians or interests of the abortion industry.  More violence does not bring healing, but only more pain, more destruction and a less empathetic society.

Given that there was no testimony before the Iowa legislature from physicians or expert witnesses to suggest that denying equal protection and due process for our people groups is somehow a “medical necessity,” it is impossible for the state to claim even a rational basis for the violation of the most fundamental right.   For the disabled unborn child, the state cannot claim any sort of governmental interest in codifying eugenics, and certainly not a compelling governmental interest.  Assuming medical necessity based upon faulty assumptions is deadly, and must not stand as a basis for violating the right to life and equal protection of the laws.

As far as we know, this is the first time in the U.S. and even globally that a group of people like us has defended our own right to life in court.  To every legislator nationwide who wants to target our people group within pro-life legislation:  we are united, we have a voice, and we will fight back!

BIO:  Rebecca Kiessling, conceived in rape, is a pro-life attorney, international pro-life 
speaker, wife and mother of 5.  She is the president and founder of Save The 1.  








Brad and Jesi Smith, Save The 1 pro-life speakers contributed.  Their youngest daughter, Faith, was born with Trisomy 18.  They were behind the Good Faith Medical Act passed in Michigan -- the first of its kind in the nation.




Labels: , , , , , , , , , | 1 comments
Sunday, November 19, 2017

Pro-Life Peru is Morally Superior, by Rebecca Kiessling

It is a great honor to have been invited to speak at Peru’s first international pro-life conference.  I’m
an attorney, wife, mother of 5, international pro-life speaker and writer, and the President of Save The 1 - a global pro-life organization with a network of over 525 who were conceived in rape (like me) and mothers who became pregnant by rape who are either raising their children, birthmothers, or post-abortive and regret aborting.  Additionally, we have hundreds of parents in our network who were told to abort due to a challenging pre-natal diagnosis, or those whose parents were told to abort them.  We value our lives and the lives of our children.  We urge the people of Peru to continue protecting human life without exception.

I’m sure you’ve heard abortion advocates say that it’s barbaric to force a rape victim to carry “a rapist’s child.”  First of all, I am not the child of a rapist – I am the child of a rape victim.  My mother and I object to me being characterized otherwise.  The rapist has no claim to me!  Tell those who say such things, do not insult me or my mother in this way.

Secondly, it is simply barbaric to punish an innocent child for someone else's crime.  Justice dictates that in a civilized society, we punish rapists, not babies. Those who would kill innocent children are the ones who are barbaric! 

I did not deserve the death penalty for the crime of my biological father.  My own birthmother had tried to kill me at two illegal abortions, and was pro-choice when we met 29 years ago, but today, we are thankful we were both protected by law from the horror of abortion, just as the women and children of Peru are protected today.   She said back then, the only option she was given was to abort me.  She said that there were no pro-life pregnancy resource centers at the time, and no one gave her any other help or hope.

Peru has legislators who have placed gun sights on children like me.  To them I say, take them off!  Remove me from your scope.  I am not your game to be hunted and killed.  I am a person and deserve life every bit as much as you.  This targeting of life is dehumanizing and demoralizing, not just for those yet unborn, but for every person living who was conceived in violence.  The sting of your hatred is palpable and life-long.

Legalizing abortion for rape or other exceptions sends a message to our people group that our lives
are worth less than anyone else’s.  Imagine hearing of some nation introducing an abortion ban with an exception in cases of babies conceived in Jewish homes, Catholic families, or from Latino moms. 
The message which would be sent is that these people are not worthy of living and did not deserve to be protected like everyone else.  There would be an international outcry if the legalization of such prejudice were even proposed because everyone would understand the discriminatory implications and intentions.  Yet, it is the same for us, and we ache from such malice and the reckless disregard for our lives.  Rape survivor mothers grieve how their children are systematically targeted and devalued.  They suffer more because they are not believed they were raped since they did not abort and because they actually love their children.

We appreciate concern for rape victims, but they are four times more likely to die within the next year after an abortion, as opposed to giving birth.  In Dr. David Reardon’s book, Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions and Children Resulting From Sexual Assault, he cites the research done on the subject.  After an abortion, rape victims have a higher rate of being murdered, committing suicide, drug overdose, etc..  Rapists, child molesters and sex traffickers love abortion, which destroys the evidence and enables them to continue perpetrating.  Oftentimes, a girl’s own mother has been either trafficking her or leaving her unprotected. 

It is always the baby who is the hero of the story, by exposing the rape, delivering her out of the abusive situation, protecting her and bringing her healing.  So if you care about rape victims, you must protect her from the rapist and from the abortion, and not the baby!  The baby is not the scary enemy.  It’s just absurd to suggest that any woman should have to be afraid of a baby.

In regards to a pre-natal diagnosis of “incompatible with life” – it is impossible for the baby to be such when that unborn child is still living.  As long as there is a heartbeat, there is life and there is hope. Physicians who peddle abortion are truly the ones with fatal heart defects, often failing to treat the children of parents who refused to abort.  A eugenics mentality becomes pervasive when you allow abortion for any reason.

I see the language of the global abortion lobby and how they try to demean pro-life nations like Peru by characterizing them as antiquated and “third-world,” as if killing the most vulnerable is somehow “progressive.”  The truth is, Peru is a morally superior nation because they’ve established the most important characteristics of a culture – one where people are loved, protected, and accepted.  Child sacrifice is what’s antiquated.  Peruvians, please do not commence a culture of death and discrimination. 

We started a Spanish language division of Save The 1 -- Salvar El 1 -- a few years ago because we saw how Latin America is being targeted by the abortion forces.  They are using the rape issue to try to legalize abortion – on demand for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy at taxpayer expense, just like they did in the United States.  We know how critical our stories are for impacting the culture because it is stories which pierce the heart in ways in which arguments cannot.

In the United States landmark Supreme Court decision of Roe vs Wade which legalized abortion across the U.S., the pregnant woman Norma McCorvey – called Jane Roe, was told by her attorneys to lie that she was gang-raped.  They said this would make her case stronger.  Many years later, she sought to have her own case overturned, feeling the weight of over one million abortions per year on her shoulders.  Nearly 60 million children have been killed in the womb based upon a lie of rape.  The abortion advocates know this and that’s why they exploit the violation of women to open the door for killing any and all unborn children.

As I speak globally, I tell people about the good people of Peru and how they fight like their own lives depend on it – how a year and a half ago, Peruvians successfully defeated the efforts to legalize abortion in cases of rape, and how one month later, they had 700,000 pro-life people attend their March for Life in Lima!  It took the U.S. 40 years of legalized abortion to finally have 700,000 attend our March for Life. 

Everyone I tell is amazed that Peru not only had that many people, but that they cared enough to show up to take a stand for the child conceived in rape.  Do you know how many people attended the March for Life in the U.S. when they began legalizing abortion in cases of rape across the southern states in the late 1960’s?  None!  There was no March for Life because scarcely anyone cared!  It wasn’t until abortion became legal for any reason that a March was organized.  Not so in Peru.  The people of Peru are very wise to be so vigilant now.

When I was asked to speak in Peru at the first ever international pro-life conference, I jumped at the opportunity to meet people who are truly my heroes and to be a source of information and encouragement.  Peru demonstrates to the world how to value all life.  They are the pro-life role models throughout the globe! 

Recently, the advocates for abortion have again introduced a bill in Peru’s legislature to legalize abortion in cases of rape.  The forces of death and destruction are not going away.  I urge the good people of Peru, do not relent!  Please, don’t let your nation turn into a killing field like the U.S., like Canada, like so much of Europe and Asia.  Don’t spill the blood of innocent Peruvian children on your land.  Continue protection without exception, from the moment of conception.

BIO:  Rebecca Kiessling is the founder and President of Save The 1.  She's a wife, mother, attorney,
international speaker, writer and activist.  She's spoken in legislatures around the world, including in Brazil, Chile, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Poland, Malta, Canada and the United States Congress, and many state legislatures. Rebecca has also worked on crafting and introducing legislation to protect rape victims and their children, including the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act and the Pregnant Rape Victims Act.  As an attorney, she's litigated numerous high-profile cases, on a pro bono basis, of international attention defending human life and rape victim mothers and their children.  She's also the co-founder of Embryo Defense.
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , | 0 comments
Wednesday, June 21, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of these claims are false.

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.

The ball is in our court -- your court.

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

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

Other states have done it.

Liberal, pro-choice controlled states have done it.

You need to do it.

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

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

I'll explain in detail here:

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

Most statistical information about abortion comes from them.

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.
Labels: , , , , , , , , | 0 comments
Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Told by Doctors to Abort, I Regained My Mother's Heart For My Child, by Jennifer Frey

My name is Jennifer Frey.  I would like to share a piece of my heart here with you, and her name is Faith Elizabeth.

Before I get there, I would like to confess, I haven’t always been pro-life.  In fact, I was very much pro-choice until my children came into my life.  I remember in high school writing my senior paper on the topic of abortion.  Being the naive teenager that I was, I thought for sure those extreme cases of rape, or health of the mother/baby were valid reasons for abortion. 

I hadn’t thought much about the topic of abortion until I had children -- in particular, my second born baby.  All of my children have changed my life, but she is the one who changed things deep in my heart.

While I was pregnant with my second born baby, at my 20 week ultrasound
came some devastating news.  Our baby was promptly diagnosed with anencephaly.  Words I had never heard before -- “incompatible with life” -- were used.  

The doctor refused to show us any more pictures of the baby, as to "not hurt our feelings."  They did not tell us the gender and they sent us on to a specialist.  I left feeling like my baby was already dead.  

At the appointment with the specialist, they confirmed the diagnosis.  They told us over 95% of families with this diagnosis have an "early termination."  They told us it was okay to do, that it was too difficult to carry the baby to term just to watch it die. We were told the baby wouldn’t make it much past birth or could pass away in utero. The doctors offered no support for choosing life.  It was never given to us as an option.

I will admit right now, I believed them.  I was a beginner Christian, a fairly new mom (my oldest was 3) and was still unsure about abortion. The doctors did a really good job of making it seem like termination was the best choice.  

Without making any decisions at that appointment, my husband and I went home, barely able to talk to each other, let alone cope.  

We were leaning towards early termination.  I thought that there was no way I would be strong enough to carry the baby to full term, just to watch the baby die.  I had even made the appointment for the termination.  By the grace of God, we ended up cancelling the termination the day before my appointment.  Something stirred in my heart to love my baby, and I regained my mother's heart for my child which was almost stolen by lies and deceit -- not just from the doctors, but by our country's opinion of babies with adverse diagnoses.

We carried our baby -- our daughter -- to full term. We named her Faith Elizabeth.  During the remainder of the pregnancy, she lay breech in my womb, her head right up under my left rib cage, close to my heart -- the symbolism of which I hold very dear.  

We included our older daughter, Julianna in all the planning so she could always remember having a part in her sister's life. 

On December 27, 2010, Faith Elizabeth was born.  We were told to expect the
worst, that she would be deaf, blind, mute, and probably unconscious.  From what they could see on ultrasound, she had a severe case and seemed to only have use of her brain stem.

Faith was born, and she defied all expectations!  She was alive, alert, eyes open, making noises and responding!  We spent the day with her, introducing her to family and friends.  

She lived for 18 hours, and died in my arms.  She was here only a short time in our lives, but the impact she made in my life is continuous and ongoing.  

While it is a sad, bittersweet memory of mine now, there is also an enormous Joy that goes along with it. Her life changed mine.  And when I think back about being in that place of finding out her diagnosis, wondering if it would be easier to terminate or not -- I find myself so thankful for choosing life.  I imagine I would have been filled with regret had I chosen to terminate.  But now I am thankful to have given her the best chance at the longest life possible for her.  I will never regret having met my daughter and seeing my oldest who was wise beyond her years cradle her baby sister.


My family and I are now a solid pro-life family.  We stand for life, we fight for life, we help others going through situations like our own because we KNOW how precious life is.  We have learned that life is sometimes short, but sweet, and to enjoy the time we have together. It is so worth it to choose life every time -- whether in your womb or in your heart.  You won't regret it!

I've been doing my own research on abortion ever since I've had Faith and it always felt like there was a portion of the discussion missing because abortion is often associated with clinics like Planned Parenthood, there wasn't much talk of the abortions that happen in hospitals due to medical influences there.  It's a whole hidden agenda that most people aren't aware of, and so many babies are killed by abortion each year as recommended by doctors, at hospitals, because of a disability.

When I was pregnant with my firstborn, it was suggested that we do genetic testing and they said our daughter had a high chance of Down Syndrome.  We were offered "options." And then again, same thing with our 3rd born child. She had measurements which were "off" and they were talking about doing more testing so I could have "options."  Today, all three of my living children are completely healthy.  Had I taken the advice of my doctors, I would have aborted three children and have only one living child today!
 
Thank you to Save The 1 for bringing awareness to this sneaky area of abortion. I am available and would love to help in any way! 

BIO:  Jennifer Frey is a wife, mother of four, photographer and pro-life blogger for Save The 1.

Labels: , , , , , | 0 comments
Friday, December 16, 2016

We Value Life and Urge the Republic of Ireland to Preserve the 8th Amendment, by Rebecca Kiessling

I’m the President of Save The 1 - a global pro-life organization of over 450  who were conceived in rape (like me) and mothers who became pregnant by rape who are either raising their children, birthmothers, or post-abortive.  Additionally, we have hundreds who were told to abort due to a pre-natal diagnosis.  We value life and urge the Republic of Ireland to preserve the 8th Amendment. 

It is simply barbaric to punish an innocent child for someone else's crime. Punish rapists, not babies. I did not deserve the death penalty for the crime of my biological father. My own birthmother tried to kill me at 2 illegal abortions, and was pro-choice when we met 28 years ago, but today, we are thankful we were both protected from the horror of abortion, just as the women and children of Ireland are protected today.

Legalizing abortion for rape or other exceptions would send a message to our people group that our lives are worth less than anyone else’s.  Imagine having an exception in cases of Asian babies, Jewish babies, or left-handed babies.  The message sent is that these people are not worthy of living and did not deserve to be protected like everyone else.  There would be an international outcry if such discrimination were even proposed.  Yet, it is the same for us, and we feel the sting of such hatred against or apathy toward our lives.  The rape survivor mothers grieve how their children are systematically targeted and devalued, and they are not believed they were raped because they didn’t abort and because they actually love their children.

We appreciate concern for rape victims, but they are 4 times more likely to die within the next year after an abortion, as opposed to giving birth.  In Dr. David Reardon’s book, Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions and Children Resulting From Sexual Assault, he cites the research done on the subject.  After an abortion, rape victims have a higher murder rate, suicide, drug overdose, etc..  Rapists, child molesters and sex traffickers love abortion, which destroys the evidence and enables them to continue perpetrating.  Oftentimes, a girl’s own mother has been either trafficking her or leaving her unprotected.  It is always the baby who exposes the rape, who delivers her out of the abusive situation, protecting her and bringing her healing.  So if you care about rape victims, you must protect her from the rapist and from the abortion, and not the baby!

In regards to a diagnosis of “incompatible with life” – it is impossible to be such when you are still living.  Physicians who peddle abortion are truly the ones with fatal heart defects, often failing to treat the children of parents who refused to abort.  A eugenics mentality becomes pervasive when you allow abortion.

Ireland is a good nation because you’ve established a culture where people are loved and accepted.  Please do not introduce a culture of death and discrimination.  We urge you to preserve the 8th Amendment.

 BIO:  Rebecca Kiessling is an international pro-life speaker, blogger and attorney.  She's also the Founder and President of Save The1, co-founder of Hope After Rape Conception, and co-founder of Embryo Defense.






mendment, without exception.
Labels: , , , , , , , | 0 comments
Friday, May 27, 2016

She Brings Joy

In 2010 we chose not to have an abortion, after learning our unborn child had a fatal fetal anomaly called Limb Body Wall Complex: Here is our story.


There are so many important things I would like to share about our story. The journey we went through to have our baby is just as important as what happened after she was born.
I knew I was pregnant almost immediately. We only took a test to confirm it. I saw my doctor who pronounced me a mom-to-be, and sent me home with a gift bag full of goodies for new moms. We were ecstatic.
I brought my 16 year old step-daughter with me to the doctor for my second appointment. I was hoping she would get to see her new baby sibling on an ultrasound screen. I knew I would be getting an ultrasound, because I was spotting slightly, and the doctor had mentioned casually that we would be taking a look to make sure everything was ok.
I was excited because I had already had one ultrasound at 6 weeks. I was looking forward to having photos to show my baby of his/her very first weeks in my womb. I didn't know then that these photos would be so very special to me, but for a different reason.
In the quiet ultrasound room, as we waited for the tech to come in, my daughter and I talked about the baby. What a baby would be like in our house- all of our children were older- 18, 17, 16, & 6. My husband and I have a “yours, mine, and ours” household. Everyone got along really well -- a baby would be such a welcome addition to our little family! From the day I realized I was pregnant I knew this baby would be a girl. I did not have a biological daughter, and my step-daughter was old enough now that she would be like a little mother for this baby (she thought the baby was a girl too). We had already chosen a name -- it was she and I who wanted to call her Beatrix.
The ultrasound started with my daughter having a perfect view of the screen. I immediately knew something was wrong. The tech was much too quiet, and after the first few seconds she almost seemed to be trying to sit between my daughter and the screen -- which was also turned completely away from me. I asked if the baby's heart was beating -- it was, and I didn't worry too much after that. I was healthy and strong. My husband was healthy and strong.
After a short time back in the waiting room, the doctor called me into her office (alone), and explained that I was most likely going to miscarry very soon. The baby seemed to be enclosed, almost in a sac of fluid. All of his/her visible organs were swollen with fluid. His/her heart was beating very rapidly but very weakly. It was only a matter of time. This was a very sick baby- and this was only at 9 weeks. The doctor thought I had been infected with some type of virus (most likely Rubella). She took a lot of blood and told me she would call with the results. She gave me instructions regarding what to do when I began to miscarry. I met my daughter in the waiting room and we walked out together.



This was the beginning of an almost endless number of ultrasounds and Drs. appointments. There was no miscarriage. There was no virus. At 12 weeks, the swelling was completely gone, but there was a large amount of fluid in the baby's nuchal fold. The technician also thought something may be wrong with the baby's legs, but the doctor didn't agree.... The diagnosis was a genetic disorder, most likely Down Syndrome.
After that appointment, my husband and I sat in the car and contemplated life with a child with Down Syndrome. We agreed -- no matter what, we would carry this baby for as long as she would stay. No matter what.
At 16 weeks we went for an early fetal anatomy scan. The thickened nuchal fold had turned into a cystic hygroma. It was also joined by a large omphalocele (abdominal wall defect located at the base of the umbilical cord) containing the baby's liver and intestines. With both problems together and my age (35 at the time), the chances for a genetic defect was almost 90%, and the genetic defect would most likely not be Down Syndrome. This was the first time we heard the term "incompatible with life".
We had an appointment for an amnio that day. Our doctor had made it clear that even if we weren't going to terminate, it would help the baby in terms of treatment after birth if we knew exactly what was wrong with him/her. After the amnio we spoke to a genetic counselor. It was horrible. She referred to my baby -- the baby we had just watched moving on an ultrasound screen -- as "the products of conception". The baby was diagnosed with Trisomy 13 based on the results of the ultrasound. We were told the baby would almost likely be miscarried, and if we did manage to carry to term, he/she would go straight from the hospital to an institution.
Three days later, we got the results of the amnio- no genetic defects. And I was going to have my baby girl- Beatrix.
I began to have hope.
Beatrix kept growing -- astounding the doctors who had insisted she would miscarry. Every appointment became an emotional struggle for us. The doctors allowed us no joy -- no hope in watching the magic of our daughter moving in the womb. Even though her prognosis was so poor we would have appreciated being allowed to enjoy her while she was living.
At 20 weeks, we were transferred to a specialist. He would be seeing to my care until I delivered- if I delivered.
He was fantastic! Unfortunately for us, he also detected new fetal anomalies. In addition to her omphalocele and cystic hygroma, he detected dolicocephaly (an abnormally shaped head), and a foot deformity. He told me that our local hospital would not be equipped to care for Beatrix, should she make it to term. He suggested a world renowned Children's Hospital in our state.
He and the doctors there would co-manage my care as the hospital was over an hour away from my home. The hospital would do an evaluation at about 26 weeks (ultrasound and MRI), but other than that he would be seeing me almost to the end. At 34 weeks my care would be transferred totally to the hospital.
At our 26 week ultrasound our world turned upside down. The list of things "wrong" with our baby grew significantly. Almost every part of her poor little body was malformed. In addition to all of the things the other doctors had found, the MRI showed a sacral agenesis (a spinal deformity which causes paralysis), kyphoscoliosis, bilateral clubfeet, and lungs which had herniated into her abdomen. She also had virtually no umbilical cord, which meant absolutely no vaginal delivery -- she could get stuck in the birth canal. This went from being a "fetal anomaly" issue to a "health of the mother" issue rather quickly.  I knew before they gave us the diagnosis what it was. I had read about this awful thing- Limb Body Wall Complex. It was confirmed, and we were sent home to plan a funeral.
I continued with care. We asked them to at least try -- we knew it was considered generally lethal, but we wanted to try. I found medical journal articles on survivors, and were laughed at (one doctor had the temerity to say, "you are a tenacious one, aren't you?" We asked for prenatal care which would give her a better chance of making it to term, such as a medical directive for bed rest. We were denied. We asked for prenatal treatments which may increase her chances for survival, such as steroid shots (for lung development) if I went into labor early, we were denied.
We finally found a neonatologist who was willing to treat our daughter, should Beatrix be treatable. Because her lethal diagnosis came from the physical aspects of her disorder, we asked for her to be assessed based on what actually presented itself at birth. With LBWC, the size of the omphalocele is the primary reason it is lethal. It leaves no room for the baby’s lungs to grow. Her brain, heart and circulatory system were perfectly normal. We could see her perfect face in the ultrasounds... we saw her smile in a 3D one.... We wanted them to save our baby. We could not give up hope that she was going to be the exception to the rule.
At 34 weeks, on the evening of December 12, 2010 I went into labor. Beatrix was born via classical c-section at 2:03 a.m. on December 13, 2010. She was not breathing when she was born. She was resuscitated and placed on a ventilator. She still could not breathe. After 20 min. the doctors came to tell us she was not going to make it. I was still being stitched up so my husband went to be with her. She wrapped her tiny hand around one of his fingers. He brought her to me, and she died peacefully in my arms at around 3:50 a.m. She never cried. She never opened her eyes. She just lay sweet and still in my arms before she continued on to her journey home.
The doctors had prepared me for a monster. I could not visualize all of her deformities in my mind during the pregnancy. When I finally got to see her, all I saw was a perfect little baby. My baby Bea. She had the most beautiful little rosebud lips. The longest eyelashes. Her tiny hands and feet were perfectly formed. She had long slender legs and a tiny hiney like my other baby's had. I opened the swaddling blankets to look at her body. To see how awful it really was. I was gratified to see it was almost the same as any other baby. Her body was not monstrous and deformed. It looked like a baby's body with two differences. Obviously, she had an omphalocele, and her legs were positioned slightly to the left of her spine, instead of straight up and down. But even with those outward issues- she looked like a normal baby girl.



I thought I would be so frightened. How could anyone be frightened of such a sweet little baby girl?
I thought I wouldn't be able to let her go. But I was the one to ask them to come and get her when the time was right. 
I thought that this would break me in two, and I wouldn't be the same person -- it has, and I'm not.
There are not many Limb Body Wall Complex babies carried to term. Most of them are aborted, because this disorder also carries the small possibility of harm to the mother if the baby has a short umbilical cord, which these babies often do.
I have loved Beatrix since the day I was born, it seems like. I was made for loving my beautiful baby girl. My arms were made to hold her until she breathed her last. My lips to cover her face with kisses. I wonder if she knew I was the one who had carried her all that time, safe in her quiet place? I would like to think she did -- that when I kissed her and whispered in her ear, so many times, that I loved her, she recognized my voice, and felt loved.
There is nothing I could ever regret in choosing to carry her. In fact, I thank God I didn't miscarry like they said I would. I cannot contemplate not knowing her here in this world any more than I can contemplate not knowing any of my other children.
I am so grateful I was able to hold her- even if only for a short time.
There are so many things I treasure from that early morning when she was born. I treasure the way the world seemed to disappear -- there was no one but the three of us. I treasure the feeling of absolute peace which permeated everything around us. I treasure my memory of the morning -- I can't tell you what the nurses looked like, but I remember exactly what my daughter smelled like and how the weight of her in my arms felt. I remember the looks which passed between my husband and I, each of us saying goodbye in our own ways
How deep and quiet was the love I felt for this tiny little baby.
I was so frightened before she came- but now I realized it wasn't her I had been afraid of, but love. I was afraid to love her. To love her and have to give her up. I know now that in allowing her to grow and live -- even if it was only inside of my womb -- she gave me such a gift, and it will hold me over when I'm feeling sad or missing her. All the love I was afraid of feeling has overflowed in me and touches everything I do.
I entitled this story "She Brings Joy" for a reason. As I said in the beginning, my step-daughter and I had chosen the name Beatrix for her. What I did not mention was that we had actually chosen the name for a future baby girl before Beatrix was even conceived. It was #1 on our "list of names we would call a new baby if we ever had one". Beatrix (the name) has been almost like a prayer at times, and like a taunt at others. Beatrix literally means (in Latin) "she brings joy". It would seem ironic to anyone who didn't understand how much I love this sweet baby girl. People could ask how this situation brought me joy? During my pregnancy, I wondered, as most bereaved people do, what I had done to deserve this. How could I feel joyous when I felt to sad? It must have been part of God’s plan that I would find joy in the midst of my sorrow.
I could never explain to anyone who hasn't gone through the same situation how easy it is to find joy in what Beatrix brought to me. Her middle name, Elizabeth, means "my oath to God". How easily I have kept this oath, that I find joy in Beatrix's life. Every last second was joy: every movement, every heartbeat, the way my heart leapt the first time I held her. How could I not find joy in loving my little baby girl?
Other people may see me and think of sorrow. I can end with this affirmation: Of all of the varied emotions I feel at having carried Beatrix to term knowing she had a lethal anomaly, the greatest has been the joy I feel at having carried her for as long as I did. She did bring me joy. Every day when I remember the way she felt when I held her, I will remember that joy. With every passing year, I will remember that joy. And in the end, when I am ending my time here on this earth -- I will leave with joy, knowing that I am going home, where she is waiting for me.


BIO:  Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4, step-mother of 2,  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.
Labels: , , , , , | 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)