Covid 19 Vaccine Refusal?

Last December, I wrote the blog Should a Covid 19 Vaccine be Mandatory? and concluded that:

“It is more likely that only certain groups of people may be required to take the vaccine like healthcare workers, universities and some employers. Even then, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may help people who have a religious objection to a vaccine as well as anti-discrimination laws and exemptions for medical reasons. An employer would have to make a reasonable accommodation as long as it’s not too costly for the business.

It is also possible that airlines, stores and stadiums could also make vaccination a condition of doing business with a person.”

In March 2021, a Monmouth University poll showed that 25% of those polled would refuse the vaccine.

VACCINE REFUSAL NOW

After a concerted public effort to encourage Covid 19 vaccination, about 67 percent of Americans 18 and older had received at least one dose of a vaccine by July 4.

So far, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) recommends that everyone 12 years and older should get a Covid 19 vaccination but has not issued guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for children under 12.

But even though there is no federal requirement for Covid 19 vaccination, there are many colleges that require students have the Covid 19 vaccinations before arriving on campus.

However, according to CNN:

“at least seven states– Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Montana, Oklahoma and Utah — have enacted legislation this year that would restrict public schools from requiring either coronavirus vaccinations or documentation of vaccination status

and

“(a)s of June 22, at least 34 states had introduced bills that would limit requiring someone to demonstrate their vaccination status or immunity against Covid-19″

with

At least 13 states — Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Utah — have passed them into law.” (All emphasis added)

In addition, more than 150 staff members at Houston Methodist Hospital were fired or resigned in June after refusing to get vaccinated for COVID-19. They are now appealing a judge’s ruling that sided with the hospital’s right to terminate their employment.

According to an April 27, 2021 American Academy of Family Physicians article, four reasons for some health care workers’ hesitancy to get the vaccine are safety and efficacy concerns, preference for physiological immunity, distrust in government and health organizations and autonomy/ personal freedom.

Some people say they are worried about the reported side effects and adverse events on sites like VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) included on the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) website as “an early warning system used to monitor adverse events that happen after vaccination” and “one of several systems CDC and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) use to help ensure all vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, are safe.” (VAERS’ reported adverse events can be found at Open VAERS.)

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The March 5, 2021 National Law Review article Declining a Shot in the Arm: What Employers Should Do When Employees Refuse Vaccines regarding health care workers points out that:

“Remember that we are still under the vaccines’ Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) period. The EEOC has indicated that employers can require that employees get vaccinated, but the EUA statute contains some language saying that people have a right to refuse any vaccine during the EUA period. Courts have not yet decided the issue. So, there’s some legal risk for employers that choose to mandate that employees get vaccinated.

Most health care employers have decided to strongly encourage – but not require – employees to get vaccinated, partly out of concern that mandating the vaccine might lead to staffing shortages if enough employees refuse to get vaccinated and quit or are fired.”

The article also discusses religious and medical exemptions.

CONCLUSION

My husband and I received our Covid 19 vaccinations in March without any problems and recommended the vaccinations to our children with the caveat that they check with their doctors first, especially since some of our children and grandchildren have special situations.

Some received the vaccinations and some didn’t but we ultimately had to leave the decision up to them.

I am pleased that Covid 19 infections appear to be waning and that our family is healthy at present but I know that this is no time for any of us to be complacent about our health or our rights.

The “Population Bomb” Fizzles, but Now There is a Birth Dearth with Grave Consequences in Many Countries

 Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich was an entomologist (a scientist who specializes in the study of insects)  at Stanford University when he published his bestseller “The Population Bomb” in 1968.  Although initially ignored, it incited a worldwide fear of overpopulation and ultimately became one of the most influential books of the 20th century.

In his book, Ehrlich predicted that unless population decreased, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” in the 1970s.

That did not happen but 50 years later in a 2018 interview with Smithsonian magazine writer Charles C. Mann, Paul Ehrlich claimed that the book’s main contribution was to make population control “acceptable” as “a topic to debate.”

However, as Mr. Mann wrote:

” But the book did far more than that. It gave a huge jolt to the nascent environmental movement and fueled an anti-population-growth crusade that led to human rights abuses around the world.” (Emphasis added)

But even 50 years later and with the population declining in many countries, Paul Ehrlich continued to insist that:

“Population will fall, either when people choose to dramatically reduce birthrates or when there is a massive die-off because ecosystems can no longer support us. (Emphasis added)

THE HARSH REALITY TODAY

In 1980, China began a strict one child per married couple policy that even included forced abortions for women who did not comply.

In 2015, China raised the limit to two children, citing a “rapidly aging society and a shrinking working-age population”.

China has now increased the number of children to 3 children but as a June 3, 2021 Wall Street Journal article states “China Delivers Three-Child Policy, but It’s Too Late for Many.

Even with years of declining birthrates, there are fewer young people willing to buck the trend of postponing or forgoing marriage and children.

The result is an aging population with a shortage of children. In one Chinese province almost 40% of the province’s population of 880,000 are 60 or older and there is a surging demand for nursing homes. The local government is looking for private investors to help some 7,000 elderly residents who cannot take care of themselves.

Even beyond China, a May 22, 2021  New York Times article titled Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications recognized that:

“All over the world, countries are confronting population stagnation and a fertility bust, a dizzying reversal unmatched in recorded history that will make first-birthday parties a rarer sight than funerals, and empty homes a common eyesore.” (Emphasis added)

HUNGARY FIGHTS BACK

A replacement rate of about 2.1 is necessary to sustain a population but the population in Hungary had been declining since 1981. It reached an all-time low of 1.23 in 2011.

Katalin Novák, the Minister for Family Affairs in Hungary, has facilitated a family-friendly approach that has seen birth rates start to rise. The birth rate is now up to 1.56, still low but improving.

As Minister Novak states:

“The government’s measures of the past ten years have evidently moved demographics in the right direction. The number of childbirths, abortions, the infant mortality rate, marriages, and divorces have all moved in a favorable direction. This also proves that we have made the right decision when we made family-centered governance a priority and are now on the right path. Families are enjoying government support, and we are helping our youth by giving them the opportunity to start a family whenever they want.” (Emphasis added)

THE SITUATION IN THE UNITED STATES

As of 2019 (the latest year for which data is available), the U.S has the lowest fertility rate on record and the lowest number of births in 35 years.

As the New York Times noted in its article about population decline:

“The change may take decades, but once it starts, decline (just like growth) spirals exponentially. With fewer births, fewer girls grow up to have children, and if they have smaller families than their parents did — which is happening in dozens of countries — the drop starts to look like a rock thrown off a cliff. (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

The “population bomb” theory has had unintended and disastrous consequences, even in the U.S. and despite immigration.

In 2018, a US Census Bureau article predicted “The Greying of America: More Older Adults than Kids by 2035 for the first time in US history-joining other countries with large aging populations.

As the US Census Bureau states:

“With this swelling number of older adults, the country could see greater demands for healthcare, in-home caregiving and assisted living facilities. It could also affect Social Security. We project three-and-a-half working-age adults for every older person eligible for Social Security in 2020. By 2060, that number is expected to fall to two-and-a-half working-age adults for every older person.” (Emphasis added)

A country with more older people than children can unbalance a society socially, culturally and economically.

Even worse, legalizing abortion and assisted suicide/euthanasia will only make the situation more dire the US.

Since the US Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973 with the Roe v. Wade decision,  more than 62,000,000 abortions have been performed and now the new Biden administration wants to roll back restrictions on abortion  and make abortions taxpayer-funded

And as efforts by groups like Compassion and Choices to legalize assisted suicide throughout the US has now spread to 9 states and the District of Columbia despite pro-life and disability rights opposition, we should not be surprised if there is another US Supreme court case in the future like the 1997 Vacco v Quill Supreme Court case  that attempted to establish physician-assisted suicide as a fundamental right for the terminally ill like the Roe v. Wade abortion decision legalizing abortion for (initially) just women in the first three months of pregnancy. 

Instead of threats to human beings at the beginning and end of life, we should be welcoming new lives and families as well as caring for the elderly, disabled and poor to improve and stabilize ourselves and our country.

Rethinking Brain Death and Organ Donation

I have been writing for many years about the implications of brain death, the lesser known “donation after cardiac/circulatory death”, diagnosed brain death cases like the supposedly “impossible” prolonged survival and maturation of Jahi McMath, the unexpected recoveries like Zack Dunlap’s and even that some mothers declared “brain dead” were able to gestate their babies for weeks or months to a successful delivery before their ventilators were removed.

Last August, I wrote about the World Brain Death Project and the effort to establish a worldwide consensus on brain death criteria and testing to develop the “minimum clinical standards for determination of brain death”. (Emphasis added)

I also wrote about the current effort “to revise the (US) Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) to assure a consistent nationwide approach to consent for brain death testing” that could otherwise lead to a situation where ”a patient might be legally dead in Nevada, New York, or Virginia (where consent is not required). But that same patient might not be legally dead in California, Kansas, or Montana (where consent is required and might be refused)”. (All emphasis added)

The Uniform Declaration of Death Act (UDDA) was drafted in 1981 by a President’s Commission study to brain death and approved by both the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Bar Association (ABA). It was intended to provide a model for states to emulate.

It offered 2 definitions of when a person could be declared legally dead to align the legal definition of death with the criteria largely accepted by the medical community:

“Irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions (the traditional definition of death); or

Irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem (brain death)” (Emphasis added)

The UDDA in some form has since been adopted by all US states and the District of Columbia.

THE PUSHBACK TO REVISE THE US UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT (UDDA)

But now, 107 experts in medicine, bioethics, philosophy, and law, are challenging the proposed revisions to the UDDA. While they admit that they “do not necessarily agree with each other on all aspects of the brain-death debate or on fundamental ethical principles”, they do object to three aspects of the revision to:

“(1) specify the Guidelines (the adult and pediatric diagnostic guidelines) as the legally recognized “medical standard,” (2) to exclude hypothalamic function from the category of “brain function,” and (3) to authorize physicians to conduct an apnea test without consent and even over a proxy’s objection.” (All emphasis added)

These experts’ objections to those proposed revisions are that:

” (1) the Guidelines have a non-negligible risk of false-positive error, (2) hypothalamic function (a small but essential part of the brain helps control the pituitary gland and regulates many body functions) is more relevant to the organism as a whole than any brainstem reflex, and (3) the apnea test carries a risk of precipitating BD (brain death) in a non-BD patient….provides no benefit to the patient, does not reliably accomplish its intended purpose”… and “should at the very least require informed consent, as do many procedures that are much more beneficial and less risky.” (All emphasis added)

And these experts further state that:

“People have a right to not have a concept of death that experts vigorously debate imposed upon them against their judgment and conscience; any revision of the UDDA should therefore contain an opt-out clause for those who accept only a circulatory-respiratory criterion.”

CONCLUSION

Many years ago, I served on a hospital ethics committee when a doctor complained that he could not arrange an organ transplantation from an elderly woman in a coma caused by a stroke because she “failed” one of the hospital’s mandated tests for brain death. He said he felt like he was “burying two good kidneys”.

Although I already knew that the medical criteria used to determine brain death vary — often widely — from one hospital to another, one young doctor checked our area hospitals and came back elated after he found a hospital that did not include the test the elderly woman “failed”. He suggested that our hospital adopt the other hospital’s criteria to allow more organ donations.

When I pointed out that the public could lose trust in the ethics of organ donations if they knew we would change our rules just to get more organ transplants, I was told that I being hard-hearted to people who desperately needed such organs.

Unfortunately, now some countries’ healthcare ethics have degenerated to the point where euthanasia by organ donation is legally allowed.

Personally, I am all for the ethical donation of organs and tissues. Years ago, I volunteered to donate a kidney to a friend and one of our grandsons was saved in 2013 by an adult stem cell transplant.

But I do not have an organ donor card nor encourage others to sign one because I believe that standard organ donor cards give too little information for truly informed consent. Instead, my family knows that I am willing to donate tissues like corneas, skin and bones that can be ethically donated after natural death and will only agree to that donation.

The bottom line is that what we don’t know-or allowed to know-can indeed hurt us, especially when it comes to organ donation. We need to demand transparency and accurate information because good medical ethics are the foundation of a trustworthy healthcare system.

NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR SIGNS LATEST US LAW TO LEGALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE AS ARKANSAS GOVENOR SIGNS THE “MEDICAL ETHICS AND DIVERSITY ACT”

On April 8, 2021, New Mexico became the latest and ninth state (along with Washington D.C.) to legalize “medically assisted suicide”.

Note the new terminology used is no longer called “physician-assisted suicide”. This is no accident but rather reflects the persistent expansion of assisted suicide law to allow even non-physicians like physician assistants and nurse practitioners to determine that a requesting patient has six months or less to live and provide them with the suicide drugs.

Ironically, Medicare benefit rules for certifying a terminal illness with a life expectancy of six months or less to be eligible for hospice states that “No one other than a medical doctor or doctor of osteopathy can certify or re-certify a terminal illness”. (Emphasis added) And having worked as a home hospice, ICU and oncology nurse, I know how difficult it is to predict when a patient is expected to die.

And, like other assisted suicide laws, New Mexico’s law also has unenforceable and easily circumvented “safeguards’ like mental health evaluations that are required for any other suicidal patient.

The law also requires that terminally ill patients has “a right to know” about all legal options including assisted suicide and that healthcare providers who refuse to participate in medically assisted suicide must refer that patient to another willing provider.

Nevertheless, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Grisham said she signed the law HB0047 to secure the “peace of mind and humanity this legislation provides.”

THE MEDICAL ETHICS AND DIVERSITY ACT

In a striking contrast to New Mexico’s assisted suicide law, Governor Asa Hutchison signed the “Medical Ethics and Diversity Act” just days earlier on Friday, March 26, 2021 which expanded conscience rights in the state.

As the statute eloquently states:

“The right of conscience is a fundamental and unalienable right.

“The right of conscience was central to the founding of the United States, has been deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the United States for centuries, and has been central to the practice of medicine through the Hippocratic oath for millennia … The swift pace of scientific advancement and the expansion, of medical capabilities, along with the notion that medical practitioners, healthcare institutions, and healthcare payers are mere public utilities, promise only to exacerbate the current crisis unless something is done to restore the importance of the right of conscience.

It is the public policy of this state to protect the right of conscience of medical practitioners, healthcare institutions, and healthcare payers. It is the purpose of this subchapter to protect all medical practitioners, healthcare institutions, and healthcare payers from discrimination, punishment, or retaliation as a result of any instance of conscientious medical objection.”

However, opponents of the law like the Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union, have argued that it would allow doctors to refuse to offer a host of services for LGBTQ patients.

In response to this criticism, Governor Hutchinson stated:

“I have signed into law SB289, the Medical Ethics and Diversity Act. I weighed this bill very carefully, and it should be noted that I opposed the bill in the 2017 legislative session. The bill was changed to ensure that the exercise of the right of conscience is limited to ‘conscience-based objections to a particular health care service.’ I support this right of conscience so long as emergency care is exempted and conscience objection cannot be used to deny general health service to any class of people. Most importantly, the federal laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, and national origin continue to apply to the delivery of health care services.”

CONCLUSION

As a nurse myself, I would not and never have refused to care for any patient. Discrimination has no place in healthcare.

However, I have been threatened with termination when I have refused to follow an order that would cause a patient’s death. It wasn’t the patient I objected to but rather the action ordered.

Conversely, I would not want a healthcare provider caring for me who supports assisted suicide, abortion, etc. This is why I ask my doctors about their stands on such issues before I become their patient.

Our country and our healthcare systems need laws, healthcare providers and institutions that we can trust to protect us. Conscience rights protections are a critical necessity for that to happen.

Share this:

NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR SIGNS LATEST US LAW TO LEGALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE AS ARKANSAS GOVENOR SIGNS THE “MEDICAL ETHICS AND DIVERSITY ACT”

On April 8, 2021, New Mexico became the latest and ninth state (along with Washington D.C.) to legalize “medically assisted suicide”.

Note the new terminology used is no longer called “physician-assisted suicide”. This is no accident but rather reflects the persistent expansion of assisted suicide law to allow even non-physicians like physician assistants and nurse practitioners to determine that a requesting patient has six months or less to live and provide them with the suicide drugs.

Ironically, Medicare benefit rules for certifying a terminal illness with a life expectancy of six months or less to be eligible for hospice states that “No one other than a medical doctor or doctor of osteopathy can certify or re-certify a terminal illness”. (Emphasis added) And having worked as a home hospice, ICU and oncology nurse, I know how difficult it is to predict when a patient is expected to die.

And, like other assisted suicide laws, New Mexico’s law also has unenforceable and easily circumvented “safeguards’ like mental health evaluations that are required for any other suicidal patient.

The law also requires that terminally ill patients has “a right to know” about all legal options including assisted suicide and that healthcare providers who refuse to participate in medically assisted suicide must refer that patient to another willing provider.

Nevertheless, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Grisham said she signed the law HB0047 to secure the “peace of mind and humanity this legislation provides.”

THE MEDICAL ETHICS AND DIVERSITY ACT

In a striking contrast to New Mexico’s assisted suicide law, Governor Asa Hutchison signed the “Medical Ethics and Diversity Act” just days earlier on Friday, March 26, 2021 which expanded conscience rights in the state.

As the statute eloquently states:

“The right of conscience is a fundamental and unalienable right.

“The right of conscience was central to the founding of the United States, has been deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the United States for centuries, and has been central to the practice of medicine through the Hippocratic oath for millennia … The swift pace of scientific advancement and the expansion, of medical capabilities, along with the notion that medical practitioners, healthcare institutions, and healthcare payers are mere public utilities, promise only to exacerbate the current crisis unless something is done to restore the importance of the right of conscience.

It is the public policy of this state to protect the right of conscience of medical practitioners, healthcare institutions, and healthcare payers. It is the purpose of this subchapter to protect all medical practitioners, healthcare institutions, and healthcare payers from discrimination, punishment, or retaliation as a result of any instance of conscientious medical objection.”

However, opponents of the law like the Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union, have argued that it would allow doctors to refuse to offer a host of services for LGBTQ patients.

In response to this criticism, Governor Hutchinson stated:

“I have signed into law SB289, the Medical Ethics and Diversity Act. I weighed this bill very carefully, and it should be noted that I opposed the bill in the 2017 legislative session. The bill was changed to ensure that the exercise of the right of conscience is limited to ‘conscience-based objections to a particular health care service.’ I support this right of conscience so long as emergency care is exempted and conscience objection cannot be used to deny general health service to any class of people. Most importantly, the federal laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, and national origin continue to apply to the delivery of health care services.”

CONCLUSION

As a nurse myself, I would not and never have refused to care for any patient. Discrimination has no place in healthcare.

However, I have been threatened with termination when I have refused to follow an order that would cause a patient’s death. It wasn’t the patient I objected to but rather the action ordered.

Conversely, I would not want a healthcare provider caring for me who supports assisted suicide, abortion, etc. This is why I ask my doctors about their stands on such issues before I become their patient.

Our country and our healthcare systems need laws, healthcare providers and institutions that we can trust to protect us. Conscience rights protections are a critical necessity for that to happen.

The Assisted Suicide Juggernaut Continues in the U.S.

Since Oregon passed the first physician-assisted suicide law in 1997, 8 more states and the District of Washington, D.C. passed assisted suicide laws by 2020. They are:

  • California (End of Life Option Act; approved in 2015, in effect from 2016)
  • Colorado (End of Life Options Act; 2016)
  • District of Columbia (D.C. Death with Dignity Act; 2016/2017)
  • Hawaii (Our Care, Our Choice Act; 2018/2019)
  • Maine (Death with Dignity Act; 2019)
  • New Jersey (Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act; 2019)
  • Oregon (Death with Dignity Act; 1994/1997)
  • Vermont (Patient Choice and Control at the End of Life Act; 2013)
  • Washington (Death with Dignity Act; 2008)

So far in 2021, 13 more states have new proposed assisted suicide bills and 4 states with assisted suicide laws are facing bills to expand their assisted suicide laws.

These 13 states are  Arizona , Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota and Rhode Island. Most of these states have been repeatedly hounded for years to pass an assisted suicide law.  

The 4 states with bills expanding their assisted suicide laws are California , Hawaii , Vermont, and the state of Washington.

The expansions range from expanding “qualified medical providers” from doctors to a range of non-doctors including nurses to eliminating so-called “safeguards” such as 15 day waiting periods, in person requests and even to allow electronic prescribing and shipping of lethal overdoses. Compassion and Choices (the former Hemlock Society) and other assisted suicide supporters have long portrayed assisted suicide “safeguards” as “burdensome obstacles”.

CONSCIENCE RIGHTS AND CENSORSHIP

Conscience rights for health care providers has been a very real problem since the 1974 Roe V. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision legalized abortion in the U.S. The legalization of assisted suicide in several states has made this even worse for nurses, doctors, pharmacists and other healthcare workers. Even healthcare institutions have faced discrimination problems.

The Christian Medical and Dental Association even compiled a long list in 2019 of “Real-life examples of discrimination in healthcare” .

Now, we are seeing censorship. A March 28, 2021 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “Big Tech Censors Religion, Too stated that:

“In January, Bishop Kevin Doran, an Irish Catholic, tweeted: “There is dignity in dying. As a priest, I am privileged to witness it often. Assisted suicide, where it is practiced, is not an expression of freedom or dignity.” Twitter removed this message and banned Bishop Doran from posting further. While the company reversed its decision after public opposition, others haven’t been so lucky.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Back in 2014, I wrote a blog “Should a Pro-Life person Become a Nurse” about a worried pro-life student nurse who wrote me asking “what area of nursing can I move into that does not demand that I do things that I absolutely will not do?”

I wrote her back and told her that I had that challenge in several areas I worked in over 45 years but was able to live up to my ethics despite some difficult situations and that I never regretted becoming a nurse.

However, conscience rights are a not a luxury but rather a necessity.

That is why some of us nurses in Missouri worked so hard to get a conscience rights law passed in 1992 after the Nancy Cruzan starvation and dehydration death that, although not as strong as we wanted, is still in effect today. And I was thrilled when the Trump administration announced a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division  in 2018 to enforce “federal laws that protect conscience and the free exercise of religion and prohibit coercion and discrimination in health and human services”.

Society has long insisted that health care professionals adhere to the highest standards of ethics as a form of for society. The vulnerability of a sick person and the inability of society to monitor every health care decision or action are powerful motivators to enforce such standards. For thousands of years doctors (and nurses) have embraced the Hippocratic standard that “I will give no deadly medicine to any one, nor suggest any such counsel.” Should that bright line to separate killing from caring now be erased by legislators or judges?

Without a strong resistance movement, the assisted suicide movement will only keep expanding. So far, much of the public has been shielded from the real truth by euphemisms and false reassurances from assisted suicide supporters, a mostly sympathetic mainstream media and often spineless professional and health care organizations.

We all must educate ourselves to speak out before it is too late.

A Light at the End of the (Covid 19)Tunnel?

My husband and I just returned from a trip to Florida where we were happily surprised to find the closest place to normal since the Covid 19 pandemic started. Everyone wore masks (except one young man we saw at a distance) and everyone was careful about social distancing. Hand sanitizers were everywhere.

Best of all, people seemed happy and we saw very few stores closed.

When we returned home, we both finally received the first of our 2 Covid 19 vaccination doses.

Is it possible that there is a light at the end of the Covid tunnel?

I am cautiously optimistic but aware that Covid 19 may still be a problem in the long term, especially since some younger family members-including children-contracted Covid despite precautions. Thankfully, they all had mild cases with no hospitalizations. My husband and I will continue to follow Missouri’s guidelines of masks, social distancing, etc. even after we receive our next dose of vaccine.

IS FLORIDA A HARBINGER OF GOOD NEWS?

Florida was among the last states to go into lockdown and one of the first states to ease restrictions.

Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis was vilified by many of the media for adopting something similar to Sweden’s strategy of protecting the vulnerable while keeping businesses and schools open but a year after the pandemic hit the US, that strategy seems to be working.

Despite having the second largest number of elderly people by state, Florida’s Covid death rate numbers are better than New York’s and California’s. And, unlike so many other states, Florida’s economy is thriving.

Now, Governor Abbott of Texas and Governor Reeves of Mississippi have announced that they would be lifting their states’ mask mandates and rolling back many of their Covid-19 health mandates.

WHAT HAPPENED?

It has been almost a year since the U.S. went on lockdown for Covid 19 when President Trump declared Covid 19 a national emergency on March 13, 2020.

At first, the lockdown was only supposed to be for a few weeks to “flatten the curve” of infections and prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed by Covid patients.

However, as the lockdowns wore on for months, some doctors and other experts started warning about the emotional and health damage occurring.

Although it received little media notice, a May 19, 2020 letter to President Trump signed by over 600 doctors detailed the physical and mental impact of the lockdown in the US due to Covid 19, calling it a “mass casualty incident” with “exponentially growing negative health consequences” to millions of non-COVID patients. 

The doctors’ letter also stated that:

“Keeping schools and universities closed is incalculably detrimental for children, teenager and young adults for decades to come.”

Then on October 4, 2020, the Great Barrington Declaration was written and released and eventually signed by thousands of doctors and experts from around the world. The Declaration encouraged governments to lift lockdown restrictions on young and healthy people while focusing protection measures on the elderly, stating:

“Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. “

Unfortunately, Covid 19 rules and lockdowns have become a political football in many states, especially with school and small business reopenings.

CONCLUSION

We know a lot more about Covid 19 now than when the pandemic started, especially from watching U.S. states and other countries use various strategies to try to contain the virus. And now, of course, it appears we have several promising vaccines.

Although there is much more to learn, we indeed might be seeing a light at the end of the Covid 19 tunnel.

Can You Tell “Fake News” from Real News?

In 2019, Nick Sandmann, a Catholic high school teenager in a MAGA hat from Covington, Kentucky was filmed allegedly showing the teen confronting an elderly Native American man after a big pro-life rally in Washington, D.C.

The tape was shown on mainstream media outlets and the young man and his classmates were then vilified in the media.

Later, a longer version of the video instead showed that it was the Native American man who confronted the teen, chanting and banging a drum in his face.

But by July 2020, after Mr. Sandmann sued several news outlets for defamation, both CNN and the Washington Post settled the cases for undisclosed amounts.

The rush to judgment by so many of the mainstream media over such an arguably small but politically potent news item was eventually exposed as “fake news”.

What caused this and how can we tell the difference between trustworthy news and so-called “fake news”?

An advanced practice nurse friend of mine recently revealed that she had studied journalism in college for three years before dropping out in 1990s. She felt that her professors were enforcing their viewpoints on students’ writings rather than promoting non-biased news reporting. She is happy now that she changed her major to nursing but said she is sad and appalled to see the biased state of journalism now.

Getting trustworthy information from news outlets can be a daunting and time-consuming effort now with the great political and cultural divide that has been occurring in the US, especially in the last few years. Even worse, we now see the rise of an Orwellian-like “cancel culture” that is enforcing new speech codes and concepts with the threat of silencing other views and even people.

WILL THE NEWS LITERACY PROJECT HELP OR HURT?

Recently, I read about the News Literacy Project (NLP) that states it is:

“a nonpartisan national education nonprofit, provides programs and resources for educators and the public to teach, learn and share the abilities needed to be smart, active consumers of news and information and equal and engaged participants in a democracy. ” It declares that “The lack of news literacy is a threat to our democracy. (Emphasis added)

NLP says it plans to build:

“By 2022, a community of 20,000 news literacy practitioners who, using NLP and resources, will teach news literacy skills to 3 million middle and high school students each year. NLP will also lead efforts to increase public awareness of news literacy and to equip people of all ages with the ability to discern fact from fiction.” (emphasis added)

NLP also has a “Theory of Change” with four pillars that will:

“Pillar One: Increase the use and the measurable student impact of NLP programs and resources (Change educator behaviors),

Pillar Two: Develop a national community of news literacy practitioners as advocates of systemic change (Change general will),

Pillar Three: Raise awareness of NLP and increase news literacy among the general public. (Change public mindsets),

Pillar Four: Build the infrastructure and fiscal sustainability to realize this plan in the short term and our vision in the longer term.” (Emphasis added)

NLP also states that since its start in 2008 ,  “More than 30 news organizations across the United States, from local outlets to internationally known print and digital publications, support NLP in a variety of ways “. NLP also states that it “has a role to play assisting others around the world who are working to expand news literacy in their countries.

This was news to me and rather concerning because so many of these same news organizations have been involved in “fake news” stories like Nick Sandmann’s. If the NLP so concerned about this, why doesn’t it also work to enforce the standard of accurate, non-biased reporting with its own news outlets instead of trying to teach children and the public how to differentiate between trustworthy news and “fake news”?

MY JOURNEY AND WHY I AM SO CONCERNED

I grew up in a mixed political family. My mother was a passionate Democrat, and my father was an equally passionate Republican. Their arguments were epic, but they spurred my interest in understanding local and national news, even as a child.

I wanted to know what was true and spent lots of time reading different viewpoints in magazines, newspapers and our local library. Back in the 1960s, there was no internet.

Not surprisingly, I wound up as an independent.

My parents and teachers wanted me to go into journalism, but I chose nursing and never regretted it.

However, I began writing again when my late first husband asked me to help him write his medical research papers. I learned a lot but was shocked by the politics of publishing medical research. Certain projects and results were taboo. I learned to have a degree of skepticism when evaluating medical research and I am no longer surprised when many papers are retracted after publication.

After my daughter Karen was born with Down Syndrome and a severe heart defect, I started researching and writing again, first in a journal and then eventually for other publications including a national newspaper.

My newspaper editor was superb, and he enforced strict journalistic principles such as reporting different viewpoints without bias and with meticulous sourcing.

I found I was not immune from occasional mistakes, but I was expected to correct them as soon as possible. Accuracy was paramount. I doubt any journalism school back then could have been better than my experience writing for that newspaper.

Today, I become immediately skeptical when I read or hear sensational news items or intense personal attacks, especially on social media sites.

And with the NLP teaching millions of students every year, I am also concerned about the power of schools and how they educate our children.

Years ago, when my children were in public high school, mandatory school sex education with the promotion of “safe sex” was a concern for many of us parents but dismissed by the school. Now, Planned Parenthood boasts it is the single largest provider of sex education in the United States.

Now, many younger parents are worried about what their children are learning and believing when their schools teach the “1619 Project” and “Critical Race Theory”.

CONCLUSION

We must and should be able to have a high amount of trust in our media, especially with the current Covid 19 pandemic, but now polls show the public’s trust in media has “hit a new low”.

“Fake news” can take many forms from bias and distortions to ignoring major news stories for political reasons. This kind of manipulation is very harmful and even dangerous to achieving a safe and well-informed society. I personally have eliminated most social media.

I also recommend keeping an open mind rather than just reading or watching news outlets with which you agree. Take the time to really try to understand and use critical thinking about contentious issues. Be skeptical when reading shocking news items and check the sources and other verification.

And just as important, we still need to stand up for what we believe and explain our positions without hostility towards those who disagree and without fear of reprisals for our convictions.

Correction to “How Missouri Became the First Abortion-free State in the U.S.”

CORRECTION: It appears that this blog and articles about “How Missouri Became the First Abortion-free State in the U.S.” are premature and inaccurate. My apologies.

Now, according an article in the January 21, 2021 St. Louis Review:

“The archdiocesan Respect Life Apostolate recently issued a statement responding to reports circulating that Missouri may be the first “abortion-free” or “abortion clinic-free” state. However, the apostolate noted that the last freestanding abortion facility in the state, Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, is still a legally licensed abortion facility by the state of Missouri, with many Missouri women being referred to the Planned Parenthood clinic in Fairview Heights, Illinois. Abortions also continue to be offered by at least one health care system in the St. Louis area.”

How Missouri Became the First Abortion-free State in the U.S.

Although the pro-life movement has faced seemingly insurmountable obstacles since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the U.S., the movement continues to make legal and cultural gains.

This is one of the latest.

In July 2019, I wrote the blog “The Last Planned Parenthood Clinic in Missouri Again Evades Closure” about how the lone Planned Parenthood clinic in my home state of Missouri received multiple court-ordered reprieves from closure after the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) decided not to renew the facility’s license because of dozens of serious health and safety violations.

Public records showed numerous problems at the clinic including unreported failed abortions, life threatening complications, an illegal abortion at 21 weeks, insufficient supervision of medical residents (students) performing abortions and inaccurate medical records among the many other violations.

Yet the St. Louis abortion clinic continued to get court-ordered reprieves.

But this month, Operation Rescue confirmed that now no abortions have been performed there for months.  Instead, all abortion appointments are now being referred to the Fairview Heights Planned Parenthood facility across the Mississippi River in Illinois.

How could this happen?

While Missouri has long been a strongly pro-life state with legislation like the 2019 “Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act” and many active pro-life organizations, Defenders of the Unborn president Mary Maschmeier, who has led a peaceful, prayerful and life-saving ministry outside the St. Louis Planned Parenthood clinic for many years, wrote an email also giving credit to the:

“ordinary citizens who would not take no for an answer. Who persevered day after day, year after year, decade after decade. Ever present on the front lines. In the streets. In the halls of our state legislature. Sidewalk counseling. Prayer warriors…Manning pregnancy aid centers. Staffing Ultra Sound vans. Rain, snow, heat, cold- ever vigilant.”

Mary also wrote that “We will not stop until the that unjust practice is banished from our land and encourage our fellow citizens to end abortion in their respective states. “

CONCLUSION

In 1989, I had just started working as an RN on an oncology (cancer) unit when we discovered that one of our patients had CMV (Cytomegalovirus).

One of our nurses was pregnant and tested positive for the virus. Her doctor told her how her baby could die or have terrible birth defects from the virus and he recommended an abortion.

“Sue” (not her real name) was frantic. She had two little girls and worked full time. She said she didn’t know how she could manage a child with serious birth defects.

I told her that it was usually impossible to know if or how much a baby might be impaired before birth. I also told her about my Karen who was born with Down Syndrome and a critical heart defect and died at 5 months. I told her that I treasured the time I had with her and later babysat children with a range of physical and mental difficulties. Most importantly, I also told her that I would be there to help her and her baby.

“Sue” decided against abortion and told the other nurses what I said.

The other nurses were furious with me and said if the baby was born with so much as an extra toe, they would never talk to me again.

But slowly, the other nurses came around and also offered to help Sue and her baby.

In the end, we all celebrated when Sue had her first son who was perfectly healthy!

My point is that what many people don’t understand is that pro-life doesn’t mean just being against abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. What being pro-life really means is truly caring about all lives, born or unborn.