Follow Save the 1
Showing posts with label late-term abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label late-term abortion. Show all posts
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.
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.
We aren't compromising with them.
When politicians and activists talk about compromise, they are talking about compromise within the pro-life contingent. It's pro-life legislators they are having to make exceptions for, pro-life representatives who are debating the merits of these laws and their proposed exceptions.
And they're arguing the content of pro-life laws based on your potential vote. They don't want to lose you -- their pro-life constituents -- as voters.
It's time to stop this nonsense once and for all. The state has a compelling interest in protecting all of its citizens. Science has proven the humanity of the fetus at all stages of development. Unborn children are citizens, and deserving of the same protections as everyone else. There is no reason for pro-life legislators to hold out on fetal anomaly (or rape or incest) exceptions, unless their constituents have informed them of their opposition to exceptions.
Don't blame officials you've elected for not being capable of compromise. They're only doing what you are asking them to do.
You have the power to end exceptions in laws limiting late-term abortions.
Other states have done it.
Liberal, pro-choice controlled states have done it.
You need to do it.
Second:
Pro-life organizations are wrong. Pro-life means you protect all life, without compromise.
Just because someone is a "leader" in the field doesn't mean they're right -- and oftentimes, when people become leaders they become more enamored of the politics of a movement than the
cause they're fighting for.
There are many pro-life celebrities who are more celebrity than pro-life.
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:
I'll explain in detail here:
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, April 23, 2016
TV Metereologist Heather Sophia Shares Her Pro-Life Story of Survival, by Rebecca Kiessling
I speak at a multitude of pro-life events, and meet all kinds of wonderful pro-life people, including grass-roots activists, clergy, politicians, and celebrity emcee’s. But Thursday, April
21, 2016, I had the pleasure of meeting someone who really surprised the whole audience with her very own pro-life story at the annual Spring Banquet for Pro-Life Mississippi: WLBT Jackson Meteorologist Heather Sophia. Heather was asked to substitute in last-minute as Master of Ceremonies. It’s nice to know that television personalities are pro-life supporters, but no one knew she actually had her own powerful story to tell, because she had never shared it publicly before.
As the fundraiser was wrapping up, just before giving the financial appeal, Heather began to tell the tragic story of a 16 year old girl who came home from school one day to find her 42 year old mother dead in their home from a massive heart attack. Two weeks later, the teenage girl found out she was pregnant. She talked it over with her family and she was contemplating aborting her baby. But she ultimately decided to choose life, and that baby is now Meteorologist Heather Sophia! The audience was in tears hearing her story – after all, they’d watched her share the weather forecast daily, not knowing how she was almost never born.
After the banquet, Heather allowed me to film her story – a 38 second video now on YouTube. Sharing her story of survival, she explains why she is 100% pro-life, with no exceptions. Here’s a beautiful, young woman and an articulate media personality who is willing to boldly proclaim her own pro-life story of survival. Within a matter of hours, there were over 13,000 views of the Facebook video!
Heather has since detailed more of her history to me so that I may relate it to all of you. Her mom was actually five months pregnant when she finally took a pregnancy test and realized she was pregnant with Heather, so it would have been a dangerous and more expensive late-term abortion. But it was in the South – in Louisiana, and at that time (1980’s), having a child out of wedlock was scandalous. With the love and support of her family however, her mother ultimately made the right decision. Heather doesn’t remember exactly when her mother told her about being nearly-aborted, but she says she just remembers thinking, “Wow, I’m so glad I’m here and that God showed her that life was the only choice.”
Heather’s Mom and Dad married each other and stayed married for 17 years, never having had any other children. So if she’d been aborted, her mother would have aborted the only child she’d ever had.
From the age of 5, Heather had wanted to be a Meteorologist. She says that she has always been inspired by the weather. When growing up in Louisiana, her family had to evacuate from many hurricanes. She recalls going to bed each night right after the evening newscast, having been fascinated by the meteorologist’s weather forecast.
Heather has followed her dream ever since. She’s been blessed with an Edward R. Murrow
Award, twice nominated for an Emmy, and named Feature Reporter of the Year by the Associated Press. How interesting that just as she recalls the meteorologist from her childhood helping to keep her family safe, Heather now helps other families to face the storms in life. And now her personal pro-life witness will likewise do the same.
Upon visiting her Facebook page, you will find that she not only shares the daily forecast, but she regularly posts Scripture verses as well. When I asked Heather, “What is God’s purpose for your life?,” she quickly responded: “To be in His will and to glorify Him!”
BIO: Rebecca Kiessling is a pro-life speaker, writer, attorney, and President of Save The 1 – an organization which educates and inspires on all of the so-called “hard cases” in the abortion debate.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
The Dangers of Montana's Pain-Free "Humane Abortion" Bill by Sarah St. Onge
As
the mother of a child who was diagnosed with a lethal birth defect during
pregnancy, and who carried her baby to term, I was disheartened -- better
yet, horrified -- to learn that such an influential pro-life leader as Fr. Frank Pavone from Priests for Life, as well as Jill Stanek and Eric Scheidler, would
offer any type of support for Montana's HB 479, the bill which would require abortionists in Montana
to offer women seeking late-term abortions pain relief for their unborn
children before killing them. I am frightened at the possible far-ranging effects which the passage of this bill could have, and this is what I have to say to these leaders who would support such a bill: Babies
with lethal anomalies, like my daughter Beatrix, are the most common victims of
abortion at 20+ weeks. The individuals championing this legislation
have not been in that ultrasound room, feeling their unborn child kicking inside
of their body, hearing the news that their baby is going to die. I have.
I have also been in the most private spaces with these families -- and before any response regarding the close walks supporters of this bill may have taken with families going through this type of situation -- as close as they could possibly be, they still could not possibly understand what happens when, in the space of seconds, your immediate concern shifts from finding out the sex of your child to whether your child is going to die.
For families in this position, one of the primary reasons for both terminating and continuing a pregnancy revolve around their beliefs about fetal pain. I have met very few families — even the most devout Christian families — who didn’t consider terminating their pregnancy, even if only for a short time, based on concerns about their child being in pain.
I think it can be safe to assume that for those who are inclined to terminate, this law will change very little. But for those who may have been inclined to continue their pregnancies based on the possibility that abortion would cause unnecessary pain to their unborn child, it could drastically change the decision making process. It creates a dynamic where families who may have continued their pregnancies, instead will choose abortion to avoid the possibility of a traumatic labor for their unborn child.
To reiterate -- the number one reason for terminating a pregnancy with a poor prenatal diagnosis is to spare to the unborn child pain. Strangely enough, sparing the unborn child pain is also one of the primary reasons for continuing the pregnancy.
Those of us who work to encourage parents to continue their pregnancies after a poor diagnosis owe a good portion of our success to promoting "carry to term" based on a parent’s perception of what "peace in the womb" looks like. As I stated before, even the most devout Christian families will consider termination when faced with this decision. We emphasize that the only way to ensure that their child will live a pain-free life is to continue their pregnancy. This Montana bill will change that. We will no longer be able to assure families that full-term delivery is the least painful choice for their child.
This "pain-free abortion" bill will also be used by physicians to further coerce women into aborting, when faced with their unborn child's lethal anomaly during pregnancy. The pressure from medical professionals to terminate these pregnancies is already intense. Supporters are handing physicians a tool which will be used to apply that pressure with much more force and in a very targeted manner.
Studies have shown that a woman will usually make the decision to terminate within three days of her baby’s diagnosis. Studies have also shown that information from medical professionals is one of the primary influences when it comes to a woman’s choices in this situation.
Much of that three-day struggle has to do with a mother's instinctive drive to protect her child from pain vs. what her physician is telling her is the standard medical solution for her situation? Most people do not realize that termination is the indicated medical "treatment" for lethal fetal anomalies.
When her unborn child's pain is removed from the equation, how much of that struggle will shift towards the immediate relief from her own pain? This particular pain is a very real thing. It's a ferocious animal. It can eat away at your resolve in the most terrible of ways.
I don’t think anyone who is supporting this bill understands this situation clearly, to be honest.
You aren't going to use this legislation to convince the mother contemplating pregnancy termination of her child's humanity at this point in pregnancy. Women making this decision already understand the humanity of the child who they carry. That humanity is central to the decision she makes about continuing her pregnancy.
She is deciding to end her child's life because she does not want her child to suffer, not because she does not want to give birth to her child.
Women generally do not wait 20 weeks to terminate an “unwanted” or "unplanned" pregnancy. An unborn child at 20 weeks was most likely a child she anticipated bringing home. These mothers are in the deepest, most desperate place. Like anyone in pain, many will seek what they believe to be the quickest remedy at hand. They want relief. Once they can be assured that their unborn child won’t feel pain, they may be more likely to choose termination in order to relieve their own pain.
I have spent the last five years of my life sharing space and walking with women in this position. I can assure you that if this legislation passes, it will be putting babies at risk who may have been carried to term were it not in place.
The day this Montana "pain-free abortion" bill goes into effect is the day on which physicians begin convincing women that they can give their unborn children “death with dignity.” We are opening a Pandora’s Box with this legislation!
There is another item of concern on this vein: young adults are becoming involved in the pro-life movement because they see it as a humanitarian issue, and they are joining the pro-life cause in record numbers. We are looking at the first pro-life generation since Roe v. Wade. Those same young adults are not as firm in their views about “death with dignity.” Throwing anesthesia into the mix could create an environment where individuals begin viewing these types of abortions in a similar fashion to which they view “death with dignity.”
This bill will encourage people to view abortion as a more humane choice -- but everyone involved with the pro-life movement knows that abortion is nowhere close to humane. Doing this just makes it seem humane. It gives people a rational reason to accept the necessity of late-term abortion.
This leads us to the next troubling aspect of this legislation, from the perspective of the pro-life movement as a political force.
Pro-choice political lobbies present a very compelling argument for the continued application of late-term abortion. They appeal to the emotional nature of why late-term abortions are necessary. They share stories of babies affected with lethal disorders, and the mothers who were "forced" to carry them. Mothers forced to watch their babies die.
One of the most powerful arguments which we have to combat their emotional appeals, is an emotional appeal of our own. The possibility that an unborn child can feel pain during abortion procedures levels the inequality between mother and child. This leveling then destroys the central tenet of pro-choice philosophy -- that a woman's rights overrule the unborn child's.
I can only imagine the pleasure of forward thinking pro-choice groups who are sitting back waiting for this bomb to drop, because as soon as these anesthesia laws go into effect, we have destroyed any reason for pain capable laws to be fought for on a legislative level.
Pro-life supporters of this bill also seem to believe that this legislation is a magic bullet which could force pro-choice groups to address the issue of fetal humanity and fetal pain. I am confused by this particular belief because this is already happening.
Pro-choice advocates are addressing fetal pain all the way up to the federal level. They must defend their position on it out in the open during legislative pain-capable limitation battles. They are daily opening themselves up to the same criticism that this Montana legislation would open them up to, without risking any additional lives. Again, pain-capable legislation is much more helpful in this fight, because it brings information regarding the pain of unborn children into the public arena, and unlike this anesthesia bill, it does not jeopardize the lives of innocent children by making termination of pregnancy a more attractive option for those sitting on the fence when making a decision about their lethally affected unborn child.
The barbarity of abortion is what spurs people to fight against it. While making it less barbaric would seem to be a move in the right direction, in the long run anything that makes abortion even remotely attractive is going to become a stumbling point. In supporting this bill, supporters (unintentionally) become complicit in sanitizing late-term abortion, and possibly destroying our one best shot at ending 42+ years of federally-sanctioned child murder.
As we know, Roe v. Wade created federal legislation which allows individual states to limit abortion at viability, and this has since been modified to allow limits that don't cause an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion, but this still focuses limitations only on the mother’s needs. Pain Capable bills may be fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court level if passed, and if pro-life groups can prove a compelling interest in protecting the rights of the unborn child from unnecessary pain, we stand to remove viability limits and the undue burden restrictions and replace those limits with what will essentially become personhood. Pain-capable legislation declares that abortion limitations should be based on the best interests of the unborn child, and not on our ability to save their lives outside of the womb. Pain-capable legislation has the possibility of declaring humanity from conception for every single unborn child who is in danger of being aborted. Supporters are throwing out the opportunity to possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, and possibly end abortion within our lifetime -- because as soon as these anesthesia laws go into effect, they will have destroyed any reason for pain capable laws to be fought for on a legislative level.
We don’t need new legislation to draw pro-choice persons into this discussion. We have it.
I know that many may try to argue that I am heartless, and that I am willing to sacrifice the comfort of an innocent victim in order to make a point, but neither of those ideas is true -- I am genuinely frightened at the gamble which is being taken here.
Another point I would like to address, is that in drafting this legislation, I don’t think the lawmakers involved understand how these types of abortions are performed. There are already options for anesthetic in this situation. Furthermore, when a 20+ week abortion is performed, general practice is to stop the baby’s heart before they begin the procedure -- ever since Gonzales v Carhart, when the Court said that this is the best alternative. A mother is also given IV sedation during the procedure, which crosses the placental barrier. This may not happen every time -- I can't claim knowledge of how every single 20+ week termination is carried out in the U.S., but I have yet to meet a mother whose termination did not include this as the first action done against her child.
Furthermore, this bill doesn’t guarantee that these babies will automatically receive anesthetic -- only that it will be offered. Some claim that this offer may be enough to turn a mother's heart away from terminating her pregnancy. They claim that the mother who cannot afford to pay for anesthetic may choose to continue her pregnancy when faced with the prospect of causing more suffering on the part of her baby. This is not the reality of the situation. We know that the majority of abortions done at this late time are done for fetal anomalies. These are considered "therapeutic" abortions, and for women of less financial stability, they are often paid for using federal tax dollars or health care insurance. Both financially stable and less fortunate mothers are going to be capable of utilizing anesthetic for their unborn child.
In addition, I have noted in my child loss groups (anecdotally of course) that lower income families are more likely to continue their pregnancies after with a poor prognosis than their more affluent counterparts. I don’t know the relevant statistics for this, but it’s something that needs to be stated.
And finally, at least in regards to this legislation, do supporters honestly believe that that this legislation will be confined to Montana? As more families make the decision to have their late term abortions done in Montana as a result of this "humane abortion" bill, more physicians in other states will begin offering this service voluntarily in order to compete in the market. We are already seeing abortion doulas, photographers who will accompany families to facilities to memorialize their children's lives, and physicians who offer a more serene experience for the family who is terminating because of fetal anomalies. This will create a demand for "humane abortions."
Those of us who oppose this legislation are not the ones in danger of sacrificing innocent babies to our rigid ideology -- the people who are supporting this are. This is going to become the “humane” way to end the lives of children with disabilities.
I will now continue this on a more personal note. I am quite angry at all of the pro-life leaders and legislators who support this bill, for the impact that this legislation will have on babies like my daughter.
My daughter was fortunate that I was her mother. To someone else, she would have been a throw-away baby. Babies like her don’t need someone to give them anesthesia, -- they need someone to fight for their right to life. They need a hero to tell people that they aren't worth sacrificing on the altar of your form of "incrementalism." Unfortunately, that isn’t happening here.
Once again, exceptional babies are pushed aside to compromise on abortion legislation, except this time, even staunch pro-life allies are supporting the compromise, because these babies are most likely going to die anyways. As disappointing as it is, it’s become par for the course.
To most, it seems unfathomable that any human would deny another human being pain relief in this instance. In contemplating this issue, this is where I stand: We must trust God in these instances- and lean not on our own understanding. Everyone who supports this effort is rationalizing this in human terms. We don’t like to see suffering, so we are going to fix it…. But this isn’t the way to fix the problem.
I cannot claim to know the will of God, but I feel comfortable in believing that sanitizing sadism isn't part of His plan.
My firm stance regarding this legislation isn't due to my heartlessness. I just believe in the power of a God who works as long as we follow His rules, even though our rational minds may not understand them. His laws do not permit us to conspire with others in the destruction of innocent life.
Some critics have claimed that there is no endorsement of abortion implied in supporting this bill. I understand that. I am not claiming that anyone's motives come from anywhere less than the most compassionate place.
Unfortunately, as I stated above, this misguided support will most likely end the lives of more infants with lethal anomalies, who may have been carried to term. You will be held accountable for those lives.
I know that, without a doubt, I would choose to forgo anesthesia if I knew that multitudes of my brothers or sisters would be marked for destruction due to my decision. I would do so remembering all of the martyrs who have gone before me, and how they too were killed while taking a firm stand for Christ.
We know that natural law is placed in our hearts at conception, and I believe firmly in faith in the womb. We see in the Bible (Luke 1:41), that unborn children are sentient- and recognize the power of God when they come into contact with it. How do we know that being able to voice their consent, they would not refuse to participate in something which would most probably lead to the death of others?
We find it so easy to put ourselves in their place in terms of suffering, but we find it impossible to put ourselves in their place in terms of sacrifice.
In closing, I offer this: the best comparative situation which I have found to illustrate how damaging this legislation will be, is the comparison between abortion and lynching -- an act which victimizes a specific segment of the population, and which is as brutal as that which happens in the womb. Both acts end the life of their victims, after prolonged suffering. Both acts are performed against a human being without their consent.
Now visualize the images which we have seen of lynching victims. If we were to say, "We cannot end the lynching, so we will administer anesthetic to the victim in order that they feel no pain," do you truly believe that the victim would accept that as the best option? It would be more likely that we would be shamed, because upon hearing this, the victim’s cries would overwhelm us. Every other noise would be drowned out by their appeals to you, to cut down the noose. We do not tolerate the lynching of people any longer, because we heard their cries and it was a call to justice. That justice was not incremental.
The only reason such unprincipled incrementalism has been acceptable as a pro-life strategy is because the victims of abortion cannot call out to us. They cannot tell us how our acceptance of legislation which allows certain segments of their population to be discriminated against, is harming them as a whole.
Unprincipled incrementalism, as practiced in this legislation, discriminates against a very specific group of persons and it removes their humanity, reducing them to the status of animals -- those we can kill as long as they don't feel pain.
And without even a "silent scream", it makes it easier to continue on this course.
I would like to ask you to reconsider your support for this bill, for the sake of babies like my daughter -- babies who are even now quietly resting in their mothers wombs, yet to be diagnosed with their rare disorder. You have much influence, and the ability to do good. Please don't let an emotional response to a brutal crime blind you to the possibility that this legislation will most likely end up being used for evil, and not for the good which you are visualizing.
Sarah St. Onge, mother to Beatrix Elizabeth -- 12/13/10
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 have also been in the most private spaces with these families -- and before any response regarding the close walks supporters of this bill may have taken with families going through this type of situation -- as close as they could possibly be, they still could not possibly understand what happens when, in the space of seconds, your immediate concern shifts from finding out the sex of your child to whether your child is going to die.
For families in this position, one of the primary reasons for both terminating and continuing a pregnancy revolve around their beliefs about fetal pain. I have met very few families — even the most devout Christian families — who didn’t consider terminating their pregnancy, even if only for a short time, based on concerns about their child being in pain.
I think it can be safe to assume that for those who are inclined to terminate, this law will change very little. But for those who may have been inclined to continue their pregnancies based on the possibility that abortion would cause unnecessary pain to their unborn child, it could drastically change the decision making process. It creates a dynamic where families who may have continued their pregnancies, instead will choose abortion to avoid the possibility of a traumatic labor for their unborn child.
To reiterate -- the number one reason for terminating a pregnancy with a poor prenatal diagnosis is to spare to the unborn child pain. Strangely enough, sparing the unborn child pain is also one of the primary reasons for continuing the pregnancy.
Those of us who work to encourage parents to continue their pregnancies after a poor diagnosis owe a good portion of our success to promoting "carry to term" based on a parent’s perception of what "peace in the womb" looks like. As I stated before, even the most devout Christian families will consider termination when faced with this decision. We emphasize that the only way to ensure that their child will live a pain-free life is to continue their pregnancy. This Montana bill will change that. We will no longer be able to assure families that full-term delivery is the least painful choice for their child.
This "pain-free abortion" bill will also be used by physicians to further coerce women into aborting, when faced with their unborn child's lethal anomaly during pregnancy. The pressure from medical professionals to terminate these pregnancies is already intense. Supporters are handing physicians a tool which will be used to apply that pressure with much more force and in a very targeted manner.
Studies have shown that a woman will usually make the decision to terminate within three days of her baby’s diagnosis. Studies have also shown that information from medical professionals is one of the primary influences when it comes to a woman’s choices in this situation.
Much of that three-day struggle has to do with a mother's instinctive drive to protect her child from pain vs. what her physician is telling her is the standard medical solution for her situation? Most people do not realize that termination is the indicated medical "treatment" for lethal fetal anomalies.
When her unborn child's pain is removed from the equation, how much of that struggle will shift towards the immediate relief from her own pain? This particular pain is a very real thing. It's a ferocious animal. It can eat away at your resolve in the most terrible of ways.
I don’t think anyone who is supporting this bill understands this situation clearly, to be honest.
You aren't going to use this legislation to convince the mother contemplating pregnancy termination of her child's humanity at this point in pregnancy. Women making this decision already understand the humanity of the child who they carry. That humanity is central to the decision she makes about continuing her pregnancy.
She is deciding to end her child's life because she does not want her child to suffer, not because she does not want to give birth to her child.
Women generally do not wait 20 weeks to terminate an “unwanted” or "unplanned" pregnancy. An unborn child at 20 weeks was most likely a child she anticipated bringing home. These mothers are in the deepest, most desperate place. Like anyone in pain, many will seek what they believe to be the quickest remedy at hand. They want relief. Once they can be assured that their unborn child won’t feel pain, they may be more likely to choose termination in order to relieve their own pain.
I have spent the last five years of my life sharing space and walking with women in this position. I can assure you that if this legislation passes, it will be putting babies at risk who may have been carried to term were it not in place.
The day this Montana "pain-free abortion" bill goes into effect is the day on which physicians begin convincing women that they can give their unborn children “death with dignity.” We are opening a Pandora’s Box with this legislation!
There is another item of concern on this vein: young adults are becoming involved in the pro-life movement because they see it as a humanitarian issue, and they are joining the pro-life cause in record numbers. We are looking at the first pro-life generation since Roe v. Wade. Those same young adults are not as firm in their views about “death with dignity.” Throwing anesthesia into the mix could create an environment where individuals begin viewing these types of abortions in a similar fashion to which they view “death with dignity.”
This bill will encourage people to view abortion as a more humane choice -- but everyone involved with the pro-life movement knows that abortion is nowhere close to humane. Doing this just makes it seem humane. It gives people a rational reason to accept the necessity of late-term abortion.
This leads us to the next troubling aspect of this legislation, from the perspective of the pro-life movement as a political force.
Pro-choice political lobbies present a very compelling argument for the continued application of late-term abortion. They appeal to the emotional nature of why late-term abortions are necessary. They share stories of babies affected with lethal disorders, and the mothers who were "forced" to carry them. Mothers forced to watch their babies die.
One of the most powerful arguments which we have to combat their emotional appeals, is an emotional appeal of our own. The possibility that an unborn child can feel pain during abortion procedures levels the inequality between mother and child. This leveling then destroys the central tenet of pro-choice philosophy -- that a woman's rights overrule the unborn child's.
I can only imagine the pleasure of forward thinking pro-choice groups who are sitting back waiting for this bomb to drop, because as soon as these anesthesia laws go into effect, we have destroyed any reason for pain capable laws to be fought for on a legislative level.
Pro-life supporters of this bill also seem to believe that this legislation is a magic bullet which could force pro-choice groups to address the issue of fetal humanity and fetal pain. I am confused by this particular belief because this is already happening.
Pro-choice advocates are addressing fetal pain all the way up to the federal level. They must defend their position on it out in the open during legislative pain-capable limitation battles. They are daily opening themselves up to the same criticism that this Montana legislation would open them up to, without risking any additional lives. Again, pain-capable legislation is much more helpful in this fight, because it brings information regarding the pain of unborn children into the public arena, and unlike this anesthesia bill, it does not jeopardize the lives of innocent children by making termination of pregnancy a more attractive option for those sitting on the fence when making a decision about their lethally affected unborn child.
The barbarity of abortion is what spurs people to fight against it. While making it less barbaric would seem to be a move in the right direction, in the long run anything that makes abortion even remotely attractive is going to become a stumbling point. In supporting this bill, supporters (unintentionally) become complicit in sanitizing late-term abortion, and possibly destroying our one best shot at ending 42+ years of federally-sanctioned child murder.
As we know, Roe v. Wade created federal legislation which allows individual states to limit abortion at viability, and this has since been modified to allow limits that don't cause an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion, but this still focuses limitations only on the mother’s needs. Pain Capable bills may be fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court level if passed, and if pro-life groups can prove a compelling interest in protecting the rights of the unborn child from unnecessary pain, we stand to remove viability limits and the undue burden restrictions and replace those limits with what will essentially become personhood. Pain-capable legislation declares that abortion limitations should be based on the best interests of the unborn child, and not on our ability to save their lives outside of the womb. Pain-capable legislation has the possibility of declaring humanity from conception for every single unborn child who is in danger of being aborted. Supporters are throwing out the opportunity to possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, and possibly end abortion within our lifetime -- because as soon as these anesthesia laws go into effect, they will have destroyed any reason for pain capable laws to be fought for on a legislative level.
We don’t need new legislation to draw pro-choice persons into this discussion. We have it.
I know that many may try to argue that I am heartless, and that I am willing to sacrifice the comfort of an innocent victim in order to make a point, but neither of those ideas is true -- I am genuinely frightened at the gamble which is being taken here.
Another point I would like to address, is that in drafting this legislation, I don’t think the lawmakers involved understand how these types of abortions are performed. There are already options for anesthetic in this situation. Furthermore, when a 20+ week abortion is performed, general practice is to stop the baby’s heart before they begin the procedure -- ever since Gonzales v Carhart, when the Court said that this is the best alternative. A mother is also given IV sedation during the procedure, which crosses the placental barrier. This may not happen every time -- I can't claim knowledge of how every single 20+ week termination is carried out in the U.S., but I have yet to meet a mother whose termination did not include this as the first action done against her child.
Furthermore, this bill doesn’t guarantee that these babies will automatically receive anesthetic -- only that it will be offered. Some claim that this offer may be enough to turn a mother's heart away from terminating her pregnancy. They claim that the mother who cannot afford to pay for anesthetic may choose to continue her pregnancy when faced with the prospect of causing more suffering on the part of her baby. This is not the reality of the situation. We know that the majority of abortions done at this late time are done for fetal anomalies. These are considered "therapeutic" abortions, and for women of less financial stability, they are often paid for using federal tax dollars or health care insurance. Both financially stable and less fortunate mothers are going to be capable of utilizing anesthetic for their unborn child.
In addition, I have noted in my child loss groups (anecdotally of course) that lower income families are more likely to continue their pregnancies after with a poor prognosis than their more affluent counterparts. I don’t know the relevant statistics for this, but it’s something that needs to be stated.
And finally, at least in regards to this legislation, do supporters honestly believe that that this legislation will be confined to Montana? As more families make the decision to have their late term abortions done in Montana as a result of this "humane abortion" bill, more physicians in other states will begin offering this service voluntarily in order to compete in the market. We are already seeing abortion doulas, photographers who will accompany families to facilities to memorialize their children's lives, and physicians who offer a more serene experience for the family who is terminating because of fetal anomalies. This will create a demand for "humane abortions."
Those of us who oppose this legislation are not the ones in danger of sacrificing innocent babies to our rigid ideology -- the people who are supporting this are. This is going to become the “humane” way to end the lives of children with disabilities.
I will now continue this on a more personal note. I am quite angry at all of the pro-life leaders and legislators who support this bill, for the impact that this legislation will have on babies like my daughter.
My daughter was fortunate that I was her mother. To someone else, she would have been a throw-away baby. Babies like her don’t need someone to give them anesthesia, -- they need someone to fight for their right to life. They need a hero to tell people that they aren't worth sacrificing on the altar of your form of "incrementalism." Unfortunately, that isn’t happening here.
Once again, exceptional babies are pushed aside to compromise on abortion legislation, except this time, even staunch pro-life allies are supporting the compromise, because these babies are most likely going to die anyways. As disappointing as it is, it’s become par for the course.
To most, it seems unfathomable that any human would deny another human being pain relief in this instance. In contemplating this issue, this is where I stand: We must trust God in these instances- and lean not on our own understanding. Everyone who supports this effort is rationalizing this in human terms. We don’t like to see suffering, so we are going to fix it…. But this isn’t the way to fix the problem.
I cannot claim to know the will of God, but I feel comfortable in believing that sanitizing sadism isn't part of His plan.
My firm stance regarding this legislation isn't due to my heartlessness. I just believe in the power of a God who works as long as we follow His rules, even though our rational minds may not understand them. His laws do not permit us to conspire with others in the destruction of innocent life.
Some critics have claimed that there is no endorsement of abortion implied in supporting this bill. I understand that. I am not claiming that anyone's motives come from anywhere less than the most compassionate place.
Unfortunately, as I stated above, this misguided support will most likely end the lives of more infants with lethal anomalies, who may have been carried to term. You will be held accountable for those lives.
I know that, without a doubt, I would choose to forgo anesthesia if I knew that multitudes of my brothers or sisters would be marked for destruction due to my decision. I would do so remembering all of the martyrs who have gone before me, and how they too were killed while taking a firm stand for Christ.
We know that natural law is placed in our hearts at conception, and I believe firmly in faith in the womb. We see in the Bible (Luke 1:41), that unborn children are sentient- and recognize the power of God when they come into contact with it. How do we know that being able to voice their consent, they would not refuse to participate in something which would most probably lead to the death of others?
We find it so easy to put ourselves in their place in terms of suffering, but we find it impossible to put ourselves in their place in terms of sacrifice.
In closing, I offer this: the best comparative situation which I have found to illustrate how damaging this legislation will be, is the comparison between abortion and lynching -- an act which victimizes a specific segment of the population, and which is as brutal as that which happens in the womb. Both acts end the life of their victims, after prolonged suffering. Both acts are performed against a human being without their consent.
Now visualize the images which we have seen of lynching victims. If we were to say, "We cannot end the lynching, so we will administer anesthetic to the victim in order that they feel no pain," do you truly believe that the victim would accept that as the best option? It would be more likely that we would be shamed, because upon hearing this, the victim’s cries would overwhelm us. Every other noise would be drowned out by their appeals to you, to cut down the noose. We do not tolerate the lynching of people any longer, because we heard their cries and it was a call to justice. That justice was not incremental.
The only reason such unprincipled incrementalism has been acceptable as a pro-life strategy is because the victims of abortion cannot call out to us. They cannot tell us how our acceptance of legislation which allows certain segments of their population to be discriminated against, is harming them as a whole.
Unprincipled incrementalism, as practiced in this legislation, discriminates against a very specific group of persons and it removes their humanity, reducing them to the status of animals -- those we can kill as long as they don't feel pain.
And without even a "silent scream", it makes it easier to continue on this course.
I would like to ask you to reconsider your support for this bill, for the sake of babies like my daughter -- babies who are even now quietly resting in their mothers wombs, yet to be diagnosed with their rare disorder. You have much influence, and the ability to do good. Please don't let an emotional response to a brutal crime blind you to the possibility that this legislation will most likely end up being used for evil, and not for the good which you are visualizing.
Sarah St. Onge, mother to Beatrix Elizabeth -- 12/13/10
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, February 25, 2015
Pain-Capable Abortion Bans with Exceptions are Not Pro-Life Bills bySarah St. Onge
Last week the South Carolina House voted to prohibit abortion after 20 weeks post-conception based on the strong likelihood of pain on the part of the unborn child. The law was passed without rape, incest, or fetal anomaly restrictions- a monumental achievement given the status of our current "pro-life" belief system in this country.
There is a possibility that this South Carolina legislation could pass into law- questionable is whether it will pass without those exceptions for rape, incest, or fetal anomaly. Governor Nikki Haley has expressed her support, promising to sign the bill into legislation as is, should it make it to her desk. Unfortunately supporting "no exceptions" abortion prohibitions is something that many politicians see as a political kiss of death, and many are afraid to openly do so. The few brave souls who do openly support no compromise legislation rarely offer a strong defense for their position- more often stumbling in their efforts when questioned or criticized. It remains to be seen whether the SC Senate will actually leave this an authentically pro-life law, or add those exceptions into the bill.
In addition to the bill in South Carolina, there are ten states which already have pain-capable abortion bans on the books. In addition there are other pain-capable bills presently working their way through state legislatures. For example, Ohio and Virginia are currently working on amending abortion laws to protect their most vulnerable citizens. Almost all manifestations of these laws are facing debate over exceptions for rape, incest, or fetal anomaly. Problematic in this is the nature of what the bill is trying to accomplish -- ending abortion after the point where an unborn child most likely begins to feel pain.
There is one item which seems to be ignored by those supporting these exemptions, including some pro-life supporters:
As the mother of a child born with lethal birth defect, and who did not live for very long after birth, I feel that my personal experience offers me a deeper understanding of what these laws mean. Whether an unborn child can feel pain is not an abstract concept to be fought out as political philosophy nor should it be a power maneuver by institutional trade unions (ie. ACOG) whose monopoly on women's health issues is coming to an end. It is a real question with which families will struggle when making decisions about facing an exceptional pregnancy. Babies like my daughter are purposely excluded from laws meant to protect unborn children from excruciating pain -- for no fault of their own, but rather because of society’s perception of what it means to continue a pregnancy after receiving a poor diagnosis.
There have been numerous studies, which seem to definitively prove that an unborn child can feel pain. Some studies indicate that a child at 20 weeks post-conception feels pain more acutely than a post-birth baby.
The question is, if this is the case -- why would exceptions be acceptable to anyone, especially the pro-life person?
Why is it acceptable to close our eyes to the possibility of such excruciating pain on the part of an unborn child, solely based on the events surrounding their conception or their perceived disability or life expectancy? Is there some physiological difference between babies conceived during rape and those who were not, which causes the unborn child of rape to feel pain less acutely? We know for certain that many infants with cephalic issues have active pain responses even when portions of their brains are damaged or even missing. There is no evidence that babies with anomalies feel less pain then congenitally intact infants.
The South Carolina House has taken a stand and delivered a truly pro-life piece of legislation which is a model for all other pro-life legislatures. It is also a model of what pro-life actually means for the rest of us. The understanding that pro-life means pro-all-life is something which needs to be addressed more specifically.
The majority of Americans support pain-capable abortion restrictions. Most likely a politician passing pro-life legislation was elected in part because of their life-affirming position and not through the votes of their pro-choice constituency. Yet exceptions for rape, incest, and fetal anomaly are regularly included in pro-life legislation. This is one of the most troubling aspects of this issue -- that these politicians supporting these laws are "pro-life" politicians. They represent pro-life persons when they vote. They represent you.
It is incumbent upon us to begin elucidating our positions from a logical standpoint -- if we are to support pain-capable legislation, then we need to support it for every baby, not just those who were conceived in optimal circumstances. If we create a dynamic where delegating negative value to certain groups of people is acceptable, then babies like my daughter are going to be the recipients. Unborn children will continue to be relegated a place in a strange hierarchy which assumes a pro-life title, but is discriminatory and anything but pro-life.
Abortion laws in which exceptions exist codify discrimination.
As the mother of a child born with lethal birth defect, and who did not live for very long after birth, I feel that my personal experience offers me a deeper understanding of what these laws mean. Whether an unborn child can feel pain is not an abstract concept to be fought out as political philosophy nor should it be a power maneuver by institutional trade unions (ie. ACOG) whose monopoly on women's health issues is coming to an end. It is a real question with which families will struggle when making decisions about facing an exceptional pregnancy. Babies like my daughter are purposely excluded from laws meant to protect unborn children from excruciating pain -- for no fault of their own, but rather because of society’s perception of what it means to continue a pregnancy after receiving a poor diagnosis.
There have been numerous studies, which seem to definitively prove that an unborn child can feel pain. Some studies indicate that a child at 20 weeks post-conception feels pain more acutely than a post-birth baby.
The question is, if this is the case -- why would exceptions be acceptable to anyone, especially the pro-life person?
Why is it acceptable to close our eyes to the possibility of such excruciating pain on the part of an unborn child, solely based on the events surrounding their conception or their perceived disability or life expectancy? Is there some physiological difference between babies conceived during rape and those who were not, which causes the unborn child of rape to feel pain less acutely? We know for certain that many infants with cephalic issues have active pain responses even when portions of their brains are damaged or even missing. There is no evidence that babies with anomalies feel less pain then congenitally intact infants.
The South Carolina House has taken a stand and delivered a truly pro-life piece of legislation which is a model for all other pro-life legislatures. It is also a model of what pro-life actually means for the rest of us. The understanding that pro-life means pro-all-life is something which needs to be addressed more specifically.
The majority of Americans support pain-capable abortion restrictions. Most likely a politician passing pro-life legislation was elected in part because of their life-affirming position and not through the votes of their pro-choice constituency. Yet exceptions for rape, incest, and fetal anomaly are regularly included in pro-life legislation. This is one of the most troubling aspects of this issue -- that these politicians supporting these laws are "pro-life" politicians. They represent pro-life persons when they vote. They represent you.
It is incumbent upon us to begin elucidating our positions from a logical standpoint -- if we are to support pain-capable legislation, then we need to support it for every baby, not just those who were conceived in optimal circumstances. If we create a dynamic where delegating negative value to certain groups of people is acceptable, then babies like my daughter are going to be the recipients. Unborn children will continue to be relegated a place in a strange hierarchy which assumes a pro-life title, but is discriminatory and anything but pro-life.
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, February 18, 2015
Conceived in Incestuous Rape, My Mom Said NO to Abortion! by Rowena Slusser
I woke up this morning, on my 13,499th day of life. The idea that I was unplanned and conceived in incestuous rape, floods my thoughts today. Who wanted me? My mom didn’t even know she was pregnant with me. My father may have wanted me, but why would he? He raped his daughter and that is why I am here. He should have been my grandfather. Most of my biological family on my father’s side wishes I would just go away. In the world’s “tolerant ” eyes, I am a stain in their evolutionary chain. In the eyes of some “Christian pro-lifers,” I am demon spawn, or evil offspring, a bastard or anything but a person created in God’s image.
My home state of New Mexico has a bill that will go before the House Regulatory and Public Affairs Committee, which would ban late-term abortion. This bill, which if passed would save babies’ lives, excludes the lives of the babies conceived in rape, incest, or sexual abuse. Pro-lifers who say that EVERY life matters but support a bill that excludes the lives conceived in a horrid and tortuous way are acting in a hypocritical nature. Not that I am not calling pro-lifers hypocrites, but the belief that save some as long as they are not the rape/incest conceived is hypocritical. Supporting an abortion ban with any exception is the easy way. Matthew 7:12-14, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” Ask yourself, “Would I want to be the exception?” Christian pro-lifers should give thanks that the God who chose them didn’t put stipulation on their lives. He sent His son to die for them; each “Christian pro-lifer” by name. As Christians, we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and powers in this evil age. Again, while humans are writing and voting on this ban and others like it, my battle isn’t against flesh and blood or their blinded bias. My battle is a spiritual one. God and Him Alone is the giver of life. Any law that give the okay to murder one class of unborn children is not from God!
This bill and those like its are “feel good” bills. Pro-lifers can say that they supported something good. Imagine for a moment if God told Moses that only the Jews who were between the ages of 20 and 35 were to be rescued from Egypt! How different the story of the Exodus would be. What if Jesus said Go into only three nations and preach the Gospel. Would you be saved? What if on the cross, Jesus said that his death would only save the people with blue eyes? Would you be saved? That is what exceptions are! Can you not see that exceptions for rape, incest and sexual abuse conceived babies is doing what I described above?
We, as Christian Pro-lifers should not SETTLE for a ban with exception. Yes, New Mexico is lawless and unmoral in regards to abortion, but is having a ban with exceptions really showing the heart of Creator God? NO! NO! NO! Why are some of us supporting a bill that excludes so many lives?
So back to my story. Why would I care if I am valued? Because I am created in the image of God! I had a friend, who was conceived in rape, tell me that truly the only value at the start of our lives came from God. As I thought about what she said, I could identify. Only God had a plan for me. Psalm 139:13-16 says, “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” Ephesians 1:4-5 reminds me that he predestined me for adoption. Ephesians 1:4-5,”even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,” Ephesians 2:10, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” This verse reminds me that I have been called to good works, which were prepared before hand for me. What can I take away from these verses? God knew me, knew how I would be conceived, knew that I would not be valued in this world. BUT He valued me, my life and gave my life meaning and a calling! This is why I stand and fight for the lives of babies conceived in rape, incest or sexual abuse.
Right now, God is knitting together a baby boy and/or girl. He is giving them distinct personalities, eye colors, life-callings and purposes. And right now, if this bill passed, these babies would be on the chopping block. Why? Because they were conceived in incest, rape or sexual abuse. This “ban” would make it legal to torture them in the womb. They would die violent and painful deaths. And think of their moms! Their moms are terrified and feel trapped. Many women are forced by their perpetrator to have an abortion. Likewise, families (even Christian families) pressure and shame women into having an abortion. This ban doesn’t protect the most vulnerable of women; instead it harms and victimizes them further. This ban is anti-woman!!!
I want to wrap up by telling you where I am today. By God’s grace and my mom telling the doctor “NO” to the abortion offered to her, I am now married 15 years and have two children. I share my story of how I have and am overcoming 16 years of incestuous rape, sexual assault and various other forms of abuse. Thankfully, I survived being raped by a stranger at age 20. My life is valued in my family by my beautiful mom, one younger brother, one older sister, two younger sisters, my beloved husband, my son, and my daughter. I have other biological family members who would like for me and my story to disappear because I choose to stand for TRUTH! My church family also supports and values my life and those like me.
Please pray as I stand before the New Mexico House Regulatory and Public Affairs Committee. I will do this on Friday, February 20, 2015 and give them my testimony. While I am aware that this ill will probably continue on with the rape exception, I must stand for the lives of the unborn left on the alter of politics. Jesus tells us in John 13:34-35, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” Is a ban on abortion with a rape exception truly loving one another? Truly? Is this exception not a plot written by man? Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” Also Proverbs 14:15-16 tells us, “The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps. One who is wise is cautious and turns away from evil, but a fool is reckless and careless.”
I stand All unborn lives for the Glory of God. All this is pointless if it only brings glory to me or any other person. Jesus died and saved me. He chose me to glorify Him! To Jesus Christ only be the Glory. I will end with Galatians 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
BIO: Rowena Slusser is a wife, mother of 2, and blogger for Save The 1. Conceived in rape/incest, she advocates for the protection of all human life
My home state of New Mexico has a bill that will go before the House Regulatory and Public Affairs Committee, which would ban late-term abortion. This bill, which if passed would save babies’ lives, excludes the lives of the babies conceived in rape, incest, or sexual abuse. Pro-lifers who say that EVERY life matters but support a bill that excludes the lives conceived in a horrid and tortuous way are acting in a hypocritical nature. Not that I am not calling pro-lifers hypocrites, but the belief that save some as long as they are not the rape/incest conceived is hypocritical. Supporting an abortion ban with any exception is the easy way. Matthew 7:12-14, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” Ask yourself, “Would I want to be the exception?” Christian pro-lifers should give thanks that the God who chose them didn’t put stipulation on their lives. He sent His son to die for them; each “Christian pro-lifer” by name. As Christians, we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and powers in this evil age. Again, while humans are writing and voting on this ban and others like it, my battle isn’t against flesh and blood or their blinded bias. My battle is a spiritual one. God and Him Alone is the giver of life. Any law that give the okay to murder one class of unborn children is not from God!
This bill and those like its are “feel good” bills. Pro-lifers can say that they supported something good. Imagine for a moment if God told Moses that only the Jews who were between the ages of 20 and 35 were to be rescued from Egypt! How different the story of the Exodus would be. What if Jesus said Go into only three nations and preach the Gospel. Would you be saved? What if on the cross, Jesus said that his death would only save the people with blue eyes? Would you be saved? That is what exceptions are! Can you not see that exceptions for rape, incest and sexual abuse conceived babies is doing what I described above?
We, as Christian Pro-lifers should not SETTLE for a ban with exception. Yes, New Mexico is lawless and unmoral in regards to abortion, but is having a ban with exceptions really showing the heart of Creator God? NO! NO! NO! Why are some of us supporting a bill that excludes so many lives?
So back to my story. Why would I care if I am valued? Because I am created in the image of God! I had a friend, who was conceived in rape, tell me that truly the only value at the start of our lives came from God. As I thought about what she said, I could identify. Only God had a plan for me. Psalm 139:13-16 says, “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” Ephesians 1:4-5 reminds me that he predestined me for adoption. Ephesians 1:4-5,”even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,” Ephesians 2:10, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” This verse reminds me that I have been called to good works, which were prepared before hand for me. What can I take away from these verses? God knew me, knew how I would be conceived, knew that I would not be valued in this world. BUT He valued me, my life and gave my life meaning and a calling! This is why I stand and fight for the lives of babies conceived in rape, incest or sexual abuse.
Right now, God is knitting together a baby boy and/or girl. He is giving them distinct personalities, eye colors, life-callings and purposes. And right now, if this bill passed, these babies would be on the chopping block. Why? Because they were conceived in incest, rape or sexual abuse. This “ban” would make it legal to torture them in the womb. They would die violent and painful deaths. And think of their moms! Their moms are terrified and feel trapped. Many women are forced by their perpetrator to have an abortion. Likewise, families (even Christian families) pressure and shame women into having an abortion. This ban doesn’t protect the most vulnerable of women; instead it harms and victimizes them further. This ban is anti-woman!!!
I want to wrap up by telling you where I am today. By God’s grace and my mom telling the doctor “NO” to the abortion offered to her, I am now married 15 years and have two children. I share my story of how I have and am overcoming 16 years of incestuous rape, sexual assault and various other forms of abuse. Thankfully, I survived being raped by a stranger at age 20. My life is valued in my family by my beautiful mom, one younger brother, one older sister, two younger sisters, my beloved husband, my son, and my daughter. I have other biological family members who would like for me and my story to disappear because I choose to stand for TRUTH! My church family also supports and values my life and those like me.Please pray as I stand before the New Mexico House Regulatory and Public Affairs Committee. I will do this on Friday, February 20, 2015 and give them my testimony. While I am aware that this ill will probably continue on with the rape exception, I must stand for the lives of the unborn left on the alter of politics. Jesus tells us in John 13:34-35, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” Is a ban on abortion with a rape exception truly loving one another? Truly? Is this exception not a plot written by man? Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” Also Proverbs 14:15-16 tells us, “The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps. One who is wise is cautious and turns away from evil, but a fool is reckless and careless.”
I stand All unborn lives for the Glory of God. All this is pointless if it only brings glory to me or any other person. Jesus died and saved me. He chose me to glorify Him! To Jesus Christ only be the Glory. I will end with Galatians 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
BIO: Rowena Slusser is a wife, mother of 2, and blogger for Save The 1. Conceived in rape/incest, she advocates for the protection of all human life
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)