abortion

Protecting Abortion, Ignoring Safety

nancyvalko abortion, medical ethics, nursing

This is the official statement of the National Association of Pro-life Nurses on the Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstatd decision of the U.S. Supreme Court:

The National Association of Pro-life Nurses joins the chorus of astonished Americans who are in disbelief that the Supreme Court of the United States has turned their backs on American women who procure abortions in facilities which do not meet the same health and safety standards as other facilities performing similar invasive procedures.

In Whole Women’s Health V. Hellerstadt the Supreme Court has once again sacrificed the health and well-being of women to political correctness in its 5-3 decision. This is the real War on Women. As the American Association of Pro-Life OB Gyns says (see statement below), it is Supreme Stupidity as it drastically reduces the safety of abortion across the United States. If the Texas law and similar other state laws across the country incur an “undue burden” on the abortion industry, do not similar laws governing the safety and health standards of other free-standing clinics also place an undue burden on the operators thereby negating the justification of such laws?

This is a sad day for the health of Americans everywhere with its far reaching implications and for those of us in the medical profession who are forced to observe these tragic decisions. Such is the state of political correctness in America today.

For Immediate Release from The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists:   

SUPREME STUPIDITY:  Common Sense Health and Safety Requirements for Elective Abortion Struck Down by Supreme Court.

As a professional body of 4000 physicians and reproductive health care professionals,   the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists exists to defend both the lives of pregnant women and their unborn children.   AAPLOG is greatly concerned about the impact of the Supreme Court decision in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstadt,  the Texas Clinic Regulations case.    By striking down common sense health and safety regulations that apply to all standard surgical procedures,   the Supreme Court has not only taken away the ability of State Governments to regulate the practice of medicine within their borders but has also made elective abortion mills exempt from controls of any kind.

This politically motivated decision  by the Supreme Court will drastically reduce the safety of abortions across the country, as now abortion clinics and abortionists will be accountable to no one for the conditions inside their walls.   Surgical abortion carries all the risks of any other surgery, and offices which perform abortion should have to meet the same safety standards as those who perform any other comparable surgery.   Medical abortion frequently leads to severe hemorrhage resulting in the need for emergency surgery and transfusions.   Today’s Supreme Court ruling means that abortion clinics across the nation are now permitted to be incapable of responding to these known and predictable surgical emergencies.

The people of Texas clearly wanted to protect women who undergo elective abortion from the Gosnell-type situations in which the woman’s life is put in jeopardy by substandard conditions.   The 5 unelected Justices in the Supreme Court today prevented the State of Texas from regulating the practice of medicine within Texas.   

Abortionists do not face the kind of accountability and safety environments in which all other physicians operate.   Today the Supreme Court made abortionists immune from peer accountability and immune from state regulation.    This lack of accountability legally minimizes the safety of women undergoing abortion procedures.

Those who promote elective abortion as a “medical” procedure desire the status of medicine, without the responsibility of patient safety or accountability.  This Supreme Court decision puts abortionists and their substandard practices above the law.   This decision will effectively allow abortionists to practice without meeting basic safety requirements.   If the Supreme Court really cared about women’s health, this was an exceedingly stupid decision.

 The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists is a professional organization of over 4000 Reproductive Health Care physicians, midwives and others across the country.   AAPLOG exists to provide an evidence based defense of both the pregnant woman and her unborn child.  

media@aaplog.org

Communciations@aaplog.org

Office:  202 230-0997

Tolerating Evil

nancyvalko abortion, assisted suicide, Canada, euthanasia, law, medical ethics

Years ago, one of my daughters was caught after she did something she knew was wrong. “But it looked so good!” she wailed. I told her that if evil looked like it really was, no one would choose it.

I thought of this incident when I read Kathleen Parker’s June 10, 2016 USA op-ed titled “Freedom to kill and permission for sick people to die”.

In the article, Ms. Parker reveals her struggle:

“Here, I should confess my own ambivalence. Basically, I’d like to have the means to end my own life on my own terms when my body has clearly called it quits. I’m just not sure I like the idea of the state and doctors lending a hand.”

Many people can find physician-assisted suicide alluring when they ponder their own potential demise. As a former hospice nurse myself, I recognized this in some of my patients even before assisted suicide was legalized. However, with care and treatment, we were able to help these patients live as well as possible before death. And I never saw a patient go on to die by suicide or assisted suicide.

It is a myth that a personal choice for assisted suicide will not affect others or have far-reaching consequences.

Ms. Parker’s conclusion recognizes this:

“As more than a dozen other states consider similar legislation, it isn’t irrational to wonder whether, in tampering with our medical culture of healing, we aren’t inviting unintended consequences that we’ll live — or die — to regret.”

The truth of her conclusion became starkly obvious when a few days after California’s new assisted suicide law took effect,  one doctor immediately opened up a dedicated assisted suicide clinic in San Francisco.

Dr. Lonnie Shavelson, 64 and a long-time supporter of assisted suicide, was an emergency room doctor for 29 year and then spend 7 years at an Oakland clinic for immigrants and refugees before taking a 2 year break.

His new assisted suicide business could be quite lucrative. Although Medicare will not pay for assisted suicide costs, Shavelson says he will charge $200 for an initial patient evaluation. If the patient is deemed qualified under California law, Shavelson said he would charge another $1800 for more visits, evaluations and legal forms..

Like the past so-called “back alley” abortionists, Shavelson defends his business by claiming that “..the demand (for assisted suicide) is so high, that the only compassionate thing to do would be to bring it above ground and regulate it.”

We cannot afford to be ambivalent or tolerant about evil, whether it is abortion, assisted suicide, terrorism, etc. Evil never limits itself because evil always seeks to expand unless it is stopped

We only have to look at Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and other countries where assisted suicide has already expanded to direct euthanasia and, in some of those countries, even without consent and for virtually any psychological, emotional or physical condition.

“34% of ‘Pro-Choice’ Women Who See This Viral Video Turn Against Abortion”

nancyvalko abortion, education

After my daughter Karen who had both Down Syndrome and a severe heart defect died in 1983, I never discouraged people from asking questions. Any questions. I felt the answers to the questions could educate people about the enormous gains made by people with Down Syndrome and how families and their children with disabilities could not only survive but thrive.

But one day when a nice woman asked if I had prenatal testing and what I would have done if I knew about my daughter’s conditions before birth, I changed my answer.

Instead of talking about Down Syndrome, I asked the woman if she knew how abortions are done. When she answered no, I asked her if she would want to know. Very tentatively, she said yes.

So I simply described the basic procedures as they were then done in the 1980s in each of the 3 trimesters of pregnancy. I just used simple clinical terms to describe each procedure in a short period of time.

However, this woman’s reactions were stunning. She was totally horrified and blurted out “You couldn’t do that to your baby!” She admitted that she had no idea how abortions were done before this.

Exactly the point. The real issue is not how wanted a baby is or how “perfect” he or she must be but rather how a baby must be horribly killed to “solve” a problem.

This woman’s reaction opened my eyes to the power of the truth, even if that truth is considered “politically incorrect.”

Today we have the power of the internet and other social media. Now a former abortionist is changing minds and hearts through a video about abortion on the internet that has been watched over 42 million times so far.

Please see the LifeNews.com article and video titled “34% of “Pro-Choice” Women Who See This Viral Video Turn Against Abortion”. And please share this article and video with others. Doing this could not only change other minds and hearts but, most importantly, even help save a life!

“Flash of light” Not Needed to Prove Conception

nancyvalko abortion, conception

 

In a May 23, 2016 National Catholic Register article ” Contrary to Reports, There is No Flash of Light at Conception”, writer Stacy Trasancos takes some people who wrote about the amazing research article and video to task  for exaggerations:

“At conception, there is no flash of light, no burst of fireworks, no sparks flying, no fiat lux, no scientific proof of ensoulment, no vindication of doctrine by this research. There is a misunderstanding.”

She is right that claims of ensoulment  or actual “fireworks” in the mother are wrong and inaccurate.

But while I understand Ms. Trasancos’ point about  the over excitement by some writers, the phenomenon itself actually is a pretty big deal.

I am a nurse, not a scientist, but I read the scientific article myself  before I wrote a recent blog on the research.

The researchers were not trying to make a theological or philosophical point but rather reporting a testing phenomenon:

“We monitored calcium and zinc dynamics in individual human eggs using selective fluorophores following activation with calcium-ionomycin, ionomycin, or hPLCζ cRNA microinjection. These egg activation methods, as expected, induced rises in intracellular calcium levels and also triggered the coordinated release of zinc into the extracellular space in a prominent “zinc spark.”

The truly relevant point is that there IS a moment of  “human egg activation”. Using fluorescence to show a chemical reaction accompanying that moment of activation enhances the reality of  when life begins-a fact that Justice Blackmun in the Roe v. Wade abortion decision said was unresolvable because so many people disagreed.

As I wrote about years ago,  the photos of the “sperm injection” mode of IVF  (in vitro fertilization) developed over 20 years ago and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)  before implantation of the new life back into the mother should have been proof enough of when life begins, even for a Supreme Court justice.

No fluorescence or sparks necessary.

 

 

 

 

Sparks Fly at Conception-Literally

nancyvalko abortion, conception, law, medical ethics, prenatal testing

I remember the shock I felt when I first read these words in the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision:

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

I could not believe that anyone could deny the obvious: life begins at conception.

Just 5 years later, the first child conceived through in vitro fertilization was born. While I recognize the several ethical problems with this procedure, I thought that at least this obviously proved that life begins at conception since the process was monitored from the beginning. Unfortunately, not to the pro-abortion movement that then pivoted to we don’t know when human personhood begins.

Ironically, presidential candidate Hilary Clinton recently revealed the hypocrisy of this pivot when she said “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights” on NBC’s Meet the Press TV show. (Emphasis added)

Flash of Light

But now researchers at Northwestern University have discovered a flash of light that occurs at the moment of conception!  To see the video of this phenomenon, go to the link at LifeNews.com.

Here is the science behind this:

“The bright flash occurs because when sperm enters and egg it triggers calcium to increase which releases zinc from the egg. As the zinc shoots out, it binds to small molecules which emit a fluorescence which can be picked up my camera microscopes.

Over the last six years this team has shown that zinc controls the decision to grow and change into a completely new genetic organism.

In the experiment, scientists use sperm enzyme rather than actual sperm to show what happens at the moment of conception.

“These fluorescence microscopy studies establish that the zinc spark occurs in human egg biology, and that can be observed outside of the cell,” said Professor Tom O’Halloran, a co-senior author.”

And

Dr. Teresa Woodruff, a professor at Northwestern said, “We discovered the zinc spark just five years ago in the mouse, and to see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking. It was remarkable.”

An Ethical Downside

Regrettably, the scientists say that the intensity of the flash of light also appears to indicate the egg’s quality and the embryo’s future health. This could allow more in vitro fertilization embryo selection with the destruction of embryos thought to be of lesser “quality”.

Therefore, instead of celebrating this physical proof of conception, Dr. Eve Feinberg, who co-authored the study, said

 “Often we don’t know whether the egg or embryo is truly viable until we see if a pregnancy ensues… If we have the ability up front to see what is a good egg and what’s not, it will help us know which embryo to transfer, avoid a lot of heartache and achieve pregnancy much more quickly.”

However, real heartache comes with infertility, desperate medical procedures to obtain a baby by any means possible, and the termination of life both inside and outside the womb.

But in the meantime, we can still rejoice in the apparent discovery of a true “spark of the Divine”.

 

Why New Indiana Law Bans Abortions Based on Race, Sex or Disabilities like Down Syndrome

nancyvalko abortion, disability, education, medical ethics, Planned Parenthood, prenatal testing

Just three days after World Down Syndrome Day, Governor Mike Pence of Indiana signed a law that, among other provisions, bans abortion doctors from knowingly aborting an unborn baby solely because of an unborn baby’s race, sex, or genetic disability such as Down Syndrome.

Predictably, there was an immediate backlash from groups like Planned Parenthood, the mainstream media and others.

A Bit of History

In 2008, the  Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush. This law, co-sponsored by Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Sam Brownback (R-KS), was meant to provide parents receiving a pre- or post-natal diagnosis of Down syndrome or other disabilities – like cystic fibrosis and spina bifida – more information and support than had been available in the past. It was inspired by the words and actions of Brian Skotko , who has a sister with Down Syndrome and who is now a board-certified medical geneticist and Co-Director of the Down Syndrome Program at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Among other provisions, the law was written to:

coordinate the provision of, and access to, new or existing supportive services for patients receiving a positive diagnosis for Down syndrome or other prenatally or postnatally diagnosed conditions, including—

the establishment of a resource telephone hotline accessible to patients receiving a positive test result or to the parents of newly diagnosed infants with Down syndrome and other diagnosed conditions

the establishment of a national registry, or network of local registries, of families willing to adopt newborns with Down syndrome or other prenatally or postnatally diagnosed conditions, and links to adoption agencies willing to place babies with Down syndrome or other prenatally or postnatally diagnosed conditions, with families willing to adopt

the establishment of awareness and education programs for health care providers who provide, interpret, or inform parents of the results of prenatal tests for Down syndrome or other prenatally or postnatally diagnosed conditions, to patients. (Emphasis added)

However, the law was never funded due to disputes among members of Congress “over how the topic of abortion would be handled in the materials accepted for distribution.”

But while such positive initiatives went unfunded, funding has been no problem for companies developing prenatal screening tests that can be done ever more easily and earlier in pregnancy. Currently, there is a “cell-free DNA” blood test for expectant mothers that can be done as early as 10 weeks into a pregnancy that claims near perfect accuracy in detecting Down Syndrome and other conditions.

However, a three month examination of these unregulated tests by the non-profit New England Center for Investigative Reporting reported

“companies are overselling the accuracy of their tests and doing little to educate expecting parents or their doctors about the significant risks of false alarms.”

And the Center also noted that “prenatal screening tests prompt abortions”.

Even the abortion-supporting American Congress of Obstetrician and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) current position expresses concerns and states that :

“Given the potential for inaccurate results and to understand the type of trisomy  for recurrence-risk counseling, a diagnostic test should be recommended for a patient who has a positive cell-free DNA test result.”

and

“Management decisions, including termination of the pregnancy, should not be based on the results of the cell-free DNA screening alone.” (Emphasis added)

Nevertheless, a recent study showed that abortion after prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome reduced the Down Syndrome community by 30%.

“Disclosing Down Syndrome to Pregnant Patients: Must You Give an Upside?”

In this rather offensively titled opinion article by Arthur Caplan, PhD. who heads the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU’s Langone Medical Center, he criticizes laws like Indiana’s:

One reason that women seek abortions is because they don’t want to have a child with Down syndrome. Recently there has been a movement among people who have had children with Down syndrome to say, “That rate of abortion indicates bias. It’s not really choice. It’s fear of Down syndrome. It’s prejudice against Down syndrome.” Some families who have had children with Down syndrome say that they mean a lot to their family; that it has been a great experience to have a child even though the child has Down syndrome; they accomplish a lot, they’re happy, and people have the wrong view about it.

Some have gone further and started to change state laws to say that when you get a positive test for Down syndrome, you are required to get in touch with the Down syndrome associations in your state and get the message that balances the bias that no one wants a kid with Down syndrome.

The problem is that far too many medical professionals themselves seem to have a negative bias when it comes to conditions like Down Syndrome and see no “upside” to Down Syndrome versus abortion. New or expectant parents deserve better, especially when that professional is giving them their baby’s diagnosis.

I found that out personally not only when I had my daughter Karen but also when I talked to other parents who encountered negative attitudes from some medical professionals.

Eventually, we developed an educational program for hospital maternity divisions about how to help new parents of children born with disabilities. I always brought a child with Down Syndrome and his or her parent to these programs and the reaction was amazing. Doctors and nurses who only saw upset parents before now heard from these same parents about the challenges and very real joys of life with their child. Even better, these professionals were charmed by meeting the children themselves.

We found that changes in attitudes and information can change future outcomes for the better for children and their parents.

Conclusion

It is natural to feel shocked and overwhelmed when you are told either before or after birth that your baby has a condition. Panic and fear is not uncommon.

But it is at this vulnerable time that parents especially need the accurate information, resources and support that the Kennedy-Brownback law was designed to provide.

Unfortunately, we have groups like Planned Parenthood that demand legalized abortion at any time during pregnancy for any or no reason at all as a civil right. However, that must not stop us from continuing to strive for a compassionate society that protects every human life, promotes accurate information and fights discrimination at the same time.

College professor Rachel Adams:”My son with Down syndrome is not a mascot for abortion restrictions”

nancyvalko abortion, adoption, disability

In this Washington Post article, Rachel Adams, herself a mother of a child with Down Syndrome, maintains that

“But we won’t end discrimination by limiting access to abortion, which will have the unwanted consequence of driving some women to risk their health by seeking illegal alternatives and other women to bear children they are not prepared to raise. Better to put resources into services and supports that improve the lives of people with Down syndrome and their families.” (Emphasis added)

This presents a false choice between aborting a child because of a probable diagnosis (without knowing the eventual prognosis) and a possibly difficult life for the mother, even though studies have shown great satisfaction in families with a child with Down Syndrome.

Also, it is very telling that nowhere in this article does Ms. Adams even mention adoption. There are groups helping prospective adoptive parents for children with Down Syndrome and other special needs. Here are just a few (this does not imply my personal endorsement of any group) : National Down Syndrome Adoption Network, Special Angels Adoption, Adopt America Network, Love without Boundaries-Adopt Special Needs, Special Needs Adoption Coalition.

Ms. Adams obviously loves her son but prenatal medical discrimination has led to medical discrimination after birth for people with disabilities. All the “resources into services and supports that improve the lives of people with Down syndrome and their families” she mentions will not necessarily protect her son’s life as he ages and especially if her son outlives her.

My son and daughter-in-law hope to adopt or foster a child when my daughter-in-law recovers from her recent kidney transplant. They have said they would be happy to have a child with special needs, especially a child with Down Syndrome like my son’s late sister Karen.

“David Daleiden Refuses Plea Deal for Probation: ‘What We Want is an Apology’”

nancyvalko abortion, fetal tissue, Planned Parenthood

I was glad to read the LifeNews.com article by Steven Ertelt about this response to the Houston grand jury indictment of David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, especially one day after reading an outrageous USA Today op-ed titled “The great deception behind the anti-Planned Parenthood videos: Column” by Dawn Laguens, Executive Vice President and Chief Experience Officer for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Ms. Laguens’s op-ed claims that

“Daleiden, working in concert with other well-known anti-abortion extremists including Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, who has documented ties to violence, spent nearly three years creating a fake company, creating fake identities (including fake government IDs), obtaining a credit card using a fake name and information, trespassing onto private property and illegally recording conversations without consent with the express goal of finding a way to attack Planned Parenthood and the health care services we provide.”

Unfortunately, almost all mainstream media have supported the Planned Parenthood explanation of the surprising Houston grand jury’s indictment of Mr. Daleiden and Ms. Merrit rather than investigating whether a Houston Planned Parenthood clinic had sold the organs of aborted babies, the original purpose of the grand jury.

Journalism and Ethics

As a former reporter myself, I am constantly amazed by the lack of investigative reporting on abortion-related as well as other “politically incorrect” issues.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines investigative journalism as “a type of journalism that tries to discover information of public interest that someone is trying to hide.”

The mission statement for the Center for Medical Progress that was founded by David Daleidan shows how important this is:

The Center for Medical Progress is a group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances. We are concerned about contemporary bioethical issues that impact human dignity, and we oppose any interventions, procedures, and experiments that exploit the unequal legal status of any class of human beings. We envision a world in which medical practice and biotechnology ally with and serve the goods of human nature and do not destroy, disfigure, or work against them.

Investigative journalism itself has had a long and mostly proud history and for many years there has even been a Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting.

While Planned Parenthood criticizes David Daleiden’s and his Center for Medical Progress’ “deception” in making the undercover videos about selling fetal tissue from aborted babies, the Society of Professional Journalist’s Code of Ethics states that journalists should:

Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public. (Emphasis added)

The Center for Medical Progress’ undercover investigation undoubtedly meets this criteria.

Planned Parenthood has long gone to great lengths to keep negative information about its activities from the public while taking over $500 million dollars a year in taxpayer money. Planned Parenthood is now endorsing Hillary Clinton for president and its’ “advocacy and political organizations have plans to spend at least $20 million in the upcoming election cycle”.

It seems the real problem with the undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood is not really the alleged “crimes” of the investigators but rather a fear of damaging information undermining Planned Parenthood’s carefully crafted public façade as a benevolent, “top-ranked non-profit” organization that helps women and families.

But even the threat of a lawsuit such as Planned Parenthood’s against the Center for Medical Progress has caused many individuals and organizations to settle cases rather than potentially be imprisoned and/or bankrupted by legal fees. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to such intimidation tactics by an entrenched, politically connected and well-funded organization like Planned Parenthood.

Good for David Daleidan and the Center for Medical Progress!

 

God Bless the Dedicated Marchers for Life

nancyvalko abortion

This year I was scheduled to go to Washington DC to speak at the Cardinal O’Connor Conference for Life at Georgetown University the day after the annual March for Life commemorating the tragic anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision and the 58 million lives lost by abortion.

Unfortunately, my flight was cancelled because of the impending snowstorm. However, I did watch the proceedings live on the EWTN network and I salute all of you who marched, especially the hundreds of St. Louis ‘Right-to-Life’ teens who were unfortunately later  trapped in the east coast snow storm! See their story at http://fox2now.com/2016/01/22/hundreds-of-st-louis-right-to-life-teens-trapped-in-east-coast-snow-storm/

 

 

“What Kind of Mother is 8 Months Pregnant and Wants an Abortion?”

nancyvalko abortion, disability, euthanasia, family, grief, medical ethics, prenatal testing

Just after Christmas, the popular fast news website Yahoo News published the article “What Kind of Mother Is 8 Months Pregnant and Wants an Abortion?”  “as an example of one of our best of 2015.” (emphasis added)

In this story, an anonymous woman called “Kate”, a married mother of one daughter, found out at almost 8 months that her unborn second daughter had Dandy-Walker Syndrome, a genetic disorder that can result in mental and physical disabilities. A subsequent test was said to show severe brain abnormalities.

Kate, now an administrator of the website “Ending a Wanted Pregnancy” which includes a Poor Prenatal Diagnosis Index, decided to have an abortion-for her unborn daughter’s sake. Adoption and keeping the baby were mentioned as options but were rejected by Kate without explanation.

As Kate relates her story:

The doctor said, “We expect your baby to have moderate to severe mental retardation; she’s going to have moderate to severe physical disability; she is probably never going to walk or talk; she will possibly never be able to lift her head; she is going to have seizures all of the time… (and) Babies like this one are not generally comfortable enough to sleep.”

In that moment, I had to shift my thinking. I was hoping for special ed, and had been focusing on questions like: How much should you save to know your special-needs daughter will be OK after you die? I was thinking about long-term care and mild to moderate disability. Instead, I had to think about a baby who was probably not going to live very long, and the longer she lived, the more pain she would be in. That realization – that I was more scared of her living than of her dying — is what made the choice for me.

Kate then tells how difficult and expensive ($25,000) it was to find an abortionist to perform such a late abortion. Kate’s doctor eventually found one in Colorado, far from Kate’s home in Boston and Kate endured a four day abortion procedure.

Kate relates the procedure:

The whole first day was counseling and testing to make sure it was safe to do the procedure. They want to make sure you completely understand what is going to happen and that no one is pressuring you into the decision. At the end of the day, I signed all the paperwork, and the doctor injected the baby with a drug that, over a few hours, slowed her heart to still. It was a very, very difficult day. Euthanizing the baby is, obviously, a very hard thing to do. (emphasis added)

On the fourth day, labor was induced and Kate delivered her dead daughter.

Kate’s 2 year old daughter cried when Kate told her that her expected sister was “gone”. Three years after the abortion, Kate says

Now, every six months or so, we talk about it again — her understanding of it evolves as she grows. At this point, she knows the baby died because she was sick in a way the doctors couldn’t fix, because she had holes in her brain, and you need your whole brain to be healthy.

Kate’s story was obviously meant to generate sympathy for a distraught mother and thus show why abortion should continue to be legal. However, the shocking description of the third trimester abortion and the continued effect on the mother and sister undermine the narrative that abortion is the best option in such a difficult situation.

ANOTHER SIDE TO THE LATE-TERM ABORTION DECISION

Personally, I know what it is like to be told that your baby has severe problems and might die. I was told just a short time after my daughter Karen was born that she had an inoperable heart defect and would live just “2 weeks to 2 months.” I know the panic and fear that mothers like Kate must feel but in my case, as in many others, the doctor turned out to be  wrong about her terminal diagnosis.

Although my Karen later died of complications from pneumonia before her open heart surgery, I treasure the almost 6 months we had together and I have no regrets.

Today, I also have a wonderful stepdaughter who has Turner’s Syndrome, one of the conditions listed in the Poor Prenatal Diagnosis Index on the  “Ending a Wanted Pregnancy” website, and she is now a kind, generous woman who has no mental or physical disabilities.

In both these cases, abortion would have “solved” nothing.

Unfortunately, stories like Kate’s are desperately discouraging to women and families facing a difficult prenatal diagnosis. Tragically, the article also ignores the help and resources available to help such children and their families.

For example, the article does not mention groups like local Birthright centers and the website Prenatal Partners for Life which is “dedicated to providing families, either expecting, or those who have had, a child with special needs or a life limiting condition, the support, information, and encouragement they need to make informed decisions involving their preborn or newborn child’s care.” There are also support and information websites for specific conditions like the Dandy-Walker Alliance , the condition that Kate’s baby had.

And anyone who reads pro-life news sites such as Life News  and NRL News Today  has read many inspiring stories of hope and even unexpected happiness when a woman chooses life for her baby despite a difficult or even terminal diagnosis.

These and other other websites also contain information about Project Rachel, an organization that helps women, men and even families to heal after abortion.

CONCLUSION

I am not writing this blog to condemn Kate or other women who have had abortions. My heart goes out to them and I wish I could have had a chance to personally offer help, options, encouragement and information. I consider these women as additional victims of the abortion mentality that has so infected our society.

However, I do have a problem with abortion supporters who use such tragic stories to garner sympathy and support for their political agenda of legal abortion at any time for any reason and paid for by taxpayers as “reproductive health”.

Women and their babies deserve better.