culture

A Crisis Pregnancy Close to Home

nancyvalko abortion, adoption, culture, economics, family, law, pro-life, sex ed

A few days ago, I read an article from one of the medical news sites I subscribe to titled Would You Like to Keep This Pregnancy?’ I Asked My 13-Year-Old Patient–Having a choice can help end cycles of poverty among marginalized teen patients”.

Of course, the doctor/author was pro-abortion and the article was horrifying to me. I thought how differently a pro-life healthcare provider would handle the situation and remembered a news article I wrote in March, 1998 for the National Catholic Register newspaper.

Here is the news article:

“A Crisis Pregnancy Close to Home“

When it’s your own unmarried teenage daughter facing a staggering ‘choice,’ are you still pro-life?

“Mom, I’m pregnant.” When these words are uttered by your unmarried teenage daughter, it’s a heart-stopping moment for any parent. When the parent is a committed pro-lifer, the shock is often overlaid with stunned disbelief, shame, and guilt. “Hasn’t she been listening? This isn’t supposed to happen to my daughter!” and “How did I fail her?” are common first reactions. I know.

This Christmas, my 18-year-old daughter quietly told me that two at-home pregnancy tests came out positive.

Marie, named after the Blessed Mother, had long been my “worry child.” A brittle crust of teen rebellion had long covered a soft, sensitive heart, leading to a constant round of minor and not-so-minor infractions and arguments. Lately, though, her life seemed to be coming together. A“B” average at college and a job she loved lulled me into a sense that the worst was over. She confided that she thought she was falling in love and we talked about the pressures and temptations such strong emotions bring. Street-wise and assertive, I thought she was “safe.” But, as countless other parents have also discovered, my child lives in a world that too often considers virginity a disability and chastity an old-fashioned ideal.

The one bright spot in that night of tears and fears was that abortion was never considered an option by Marie: “Mom, I couldn’t kill my baby!” Although I was heartbroken by the circumstances of this pregnancy, I couldn’t help but feel proud of her for having the courage and common sense to reject the abortion “option.”

Surprisingly, she said all her friends were against her having an abortion and a few who had been leaning “pro-choice” were now rethinking their position. Two of her friends actually threatened to physically stop her from having an abortion even before she told them that she would never abort.

We didn’t resolve everything that first night or even later. Adoption or keeping the baby is still the big question and one that will involve a lot of prayer, thought, and discussion. It hasn’t been easy, but facing this crisis together has taught both of us so much already. What the future holds for Marie and her baby is uncertain but, with prayer and love, it is still a future bright with promise for both of them.

A Common Stereotype

A January 1998 New York Times article, “Many Women Make No Link Between Abortion and Politics,” perpetuates a common stereotype-the pro-lifer who chooses abortion when a crisis pregnancy hits home. Writer Tamar Lewin states, “Almost every abortion-clinic counselor can reel off stories of patients who say that they have always opposed abortion but that their own situation is different, or men who bring their pregnant wives or teenage daughters to the very same clinics that they have long spoken out against.”

But conversations with people active in the pro-life movement reveal a very different picture. Not surprisingly, pro-life people willing to help total strangers with a crisis pregnancy are also ready to help and support their own sons and daughters facing the same crisis.

“You think it’s the blackest day in your life when your daughter tells you she’s pregnant,” Lucy R., long active in the pro-life movement, says. A smile lights her voice. “But it’s really the beginning of a great blessing. That little boy (now six years old) is the light of our lives.” She credits prayer and pro-life principles for that happy ending.

Janet B. was a young professional when her sister told her that she had had an abortion without their parents’ knowledge because although their mother and father were strongly pro-life, the sister was sure they “just couldn’t take it (an unwed pregnancy).”

When Janet herself became pregnant out of wedlock, her parents became her biggest supporters. “We became so much closer,” she says. “My sister was wrong.” Interviews with pro-life supporters around the country reveal that this kind of family support during a crisis pregnancy appears to be the norm, not the exception.

Marcia Buterin RN, founder of Missouri Nurses for Life and active in the pro-life movement for 25 years, has had broad experience with pro-life parents whose daughters or sons have had crisis pregnancies. “It almost seems like an epidemic sometimes,” she says. “Pro-lifers are not immune from what is happening in the rest of society.”

But, she says, the reaction of the parents she has known has been invariably positive despite the heartache at discovering a son or daughter has been sexually active. She also says that, in the vast majority of cases, the young women keep their babies rather than releasing them for adoption. This echoes statistics which show that more than 90% of unmarried mothers keep their babies, almost the opposite situation of a generation ago when most of these mothers chose adoption. Thus, pro-lifers are not only supporting their daughters and sons during their pregnancies but also are usually involved in helping to raise their grandchildren.

Waning Support for Abortion

Not only do pro-lifers appear to routinely reject abortion for their unmarried children, society seems to be slowly starting to change its attitude toward abortion and the unmarried. According to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, not only has support for abortion-on-demand eroded by an estimated 8% since 1989, but public support for abortion when pregnancy threatens to interrupt a woman’s career or education has also dropped 14% and 8% respectively.

A clear majority of the people polled did not feel these circumstances justified abortion. Undermining a basic abortion rights tenet that familiarity with abortion increases public acceptance, the same poll showed that “personal experience” was twice as likely to be given as a reason for becoming less favorable towards abortion rather than more supportive of abortion.

At the same time, a new wave of pro-life sentiment appears to be rising in a most unexpected place-the young people who have grown up under the shadow of Roe. The Times/CBS News poll showed even less support for abortion on demand among 18-29 year olds (29%) than among the general public (32%). The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, has noted that “in recent years, fewer pregnant teens have chosen to have an abortion.” Even the media is beginning to notice. In a Jan. 21 New York Times article “A New Generation Rising Against Abortion,” writer Laurie Goodstein interviewed an eclectic group of young people attending a Rock for Life concert and found thoughtful and strong pro-life support even among those sporting tattoos and punk-style clothing.

Some explained that they began considering the value of life after losing friends to suicide, drug overdoses, and automobile accidents.

Goodstein also noted that many of the concert-goers she interviewed said that they arrived at a “right to life” position on their own and that, to be consistent, they also opposed the death penalty and assisted suicide and supported abstinence.

Countering Rock for Choice and other groups which help raise money for abortion rights groups, Rock for Life is a relatively recent phenomenon which reaches young people through the potent medium of music. Concert organizer Bryan Kemper told Goodstein that 15 concerts have already been staged and that there have been 110 bands “willing to perform for gas money.” Rock for Life is not the only sign that the pro-life movement is connecting with a new generation. Teens for Life, started in 1985, is a national organization run by young people encouraging teens to speak up for life and get involved in community activities. It has chapters throughout the country and continues to grow in numbers.

Another positive sign is the increasing number of pro-life groups springing up on college campuses. And not just on religiously-affiliated college campuses. MIT, Princeton, and the University of Texas are among colleges which not only have pro-life groups but also have websites on the Internet.

What Helps, What Hurts

But trends and statistics do not meet the needs of the individual young woman and her family suddenly facing a crisis pregnancy. The first reactions of parents and others to the news is extremely important to the woman and can even make the life-or-death difference for the unborn baby. When the first reaction is anger or a stern lecture about premarital sex, the young woman can feel abandoned and, in her despair, decide that eliminating the baby will make everyone feel better.

Parents and friends of young men and women coping with an unwed pregnancy are often unsure of what to say or how to handle the situation. One newer resource developed to help with this problem is a video and pamphlet called First Words: Can Our First Reaction to an Unplanned Pregnancy Save a Child’s Life? produced by American Life League.

The video tells the stories of four young women who faced an unwed pregnancy and encountered a range of reactions from friends and family. In their own words, these young women share how these reactions influenced their decisions about whether or not to abort their babies. The pamphlet is written by Cathy Brown who candidly tells her own story and offers helpful advice to parents and others.

But deciding against abortion is only the first step in a crisis pregnancy. The decision about whether to keep the baby or release him/her for adoption is often the most agonizing question for a young woman. Questions about insurance coverage and prenatal care, maintaining or losing a relationship with the father, the reactions of other children in the family, etc. are some of the practical and immediate concerns. Birthright and other pro-life pregnancy counseling centers can be a big help to families struggling with a crisis pregnancy.

Members of the family’s church can also help provide much needed spiritual and emotional support as well as involving the community in the nurturing of a new life.

For parents, especially pro-life parents, embarrassment and feelings of failure are common and understandable. It’s hard to put aside such feelings and concentrate on the feelings and needs of a son or daughter. But, as Donna B., a long-time pro-life activist and herself the mother of a pregnant teen, says, “Abortion is the real failure. It’s OK to be proud when your daughter chooses life.”

Nancy Valko writes from St. Louis, Mo.

WHILE PRO-ABORTION VIOLENCE AGAINST PRO-LIFE CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS INCREASES, THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION SAYS CONSCIENCE RIGHTS REGARDING ABORTION MAY BECOME “INDEFENSIBLE”

nancyvalko abortion, assisted suicide, bereavement, Compassion & Choices, conscience rights, culture, law, medical ethics, Planned Parenthood, pro-life

We have been witnessing the rage and misinformation dividing Americans after the outrageous leak of Supreme Court Justice Alito’s draft decision on the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization returning abortion laws back to the states since it was reported on May 2, 2022.

Many pro-life crisis pregnancy centers are now being attacked with paint, firebombs, etc. by pro-abortion groups like “Jane’s Revenge”. But as Nicole Ault of the Wall Street Journal points out:

“No woman is forced to go to one of these clinics, where more than 10,000 licensed medical professionals worked or volunteered as of 2019, according to the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute. In addition to providing ultrasounds and pregnancy tests, the centers help women get supplies and counseling.”

But then, on June 8, 2022 and during the night, U.S. Marshals protecting the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh from illegally picketing protesters apprehended an individual with a gun and a knife who readily admitted that “he was there to kill Justice Kavanaugh in response to the leaked draft opinion that indicated the Court might be preparing to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

Now, Jane’s Revenge has issued a call to ‘riot’ against the Supreme Court if it does overturn Roe v. Wade.

Their flyer “DC CALL TO ACTION NIGHT OF RAGE” declares “THE NIGHT SCOTUS OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE HIT THE STREETS YOU SAID YOU’D RIOT. TO OUR OPPRESSORS: IF ABORTIONS AREN’T SAFE, YOU’RE NOT EITHER.’ JANE’S REVENGE.” (Emphasis added)

THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION ON ABORTION

On March 8, 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO), the international body responsible for public health and part of the United Nations involved in many aspects of health policy and planning, issued its’ “Abortion Care Guideline“.

In the Guideline, WHO recommends “the full decriminalization of abortion” and calls conscientious objection to abortion a major obstacle to making abortion freely available.

According to the WHO recommendations:

“If it proves impossible to regulate conscientious objection in a way that respects, protects and fulfils abortion seekers’ rights, conscientious objection in abortion provision may become indefensible.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Personally, when my daughter Karen, born with Down Syndrome and a severe heart defect, died at 5 1/2 months in 1983, my grief was substantially lessened by donating Karen’s clothes, formula, etc. to our local Birthright organization, one of the many pro-life organizations providing help to pregnant women.

Since Karen and as a nurse and mother, I have been able to help advocate for distressed mothers and their families, children and adults with disabilities and, best of all, my own daughter who found she was pregnant in her first year of college and gave birth to my first grandchild.

And I know that the WHO is absolutely wrong in calling conscientious objections to abortion “indefensible”. Conscience rights are critically important for all of us, whether or not we are healthcare providers.

As I wrote in my December 13, 2019 blog “Are We Witnessing the Coming Extinction of Conscience Rights?”:

“With the current support of a predominantly sympathetic mainstream media, well-funded and politically active groups like Planned Parenthood and Compassion&Choices are also putting pro-life health care providers and their supportive institutions in grave danger of becoming an endangered species in law, politics and health care.

If this happens, our health care system will radically change-especially for the unborn, the elderly and people with disabilities.

When dedicated and compassionate people are denied entry into the health care professions because they refuse to deliberately end lives, harassed and/or fired when they refuse to participate in a deliberate death decision and efforts to make religiously based healthcare institutions to allow lives to be ended by “choice”, will any of us ever be able to trust our healthcare system when we need it the most?” (Emphasis added)

Rest in Peace, “Melissa”

nancyvalko bereavement, Covid 19, culture, disability, end-of-life, faith, family, inspiration

I have written blogs about my elderly friend “Melissa” (not her real name) and some of her health care experiences to explain some of the pitfalls elderly people may encounter when they get seriously ill.

I have known “Melissa” for decades and, with her permission, she agreed to my writing about her in my blogs. She was thrilled to hear about my 2018 blog “Covid 19 and Nursing Homes”   and my 2020 blog “Don’t Write Off the Elderly”.

She even told me she like the name “Melissa” better than her real name!

I first met Melissa when she was in her 80s through her daughter who is also one of my favorite people.

Both were involved in planning the beautiful wedding reception at my home when my second husband and I were married in 2008. Melissa even remembered my favorite flower and made beautiful centerpieces with them for every table.

After Melissa could no longer drive, I took her to Mass at her parish and then to Chic-Fil-A on Fridays for breakfast with her daily Mass friends until she couldn’t physically make it.

I then visited her on Fridays and was inspired when she accepted hospice care and the care of her family with grace and gratitude.

Eventually, she spent her last days in a bed near a large window where she could watch the birds at her birdfeeder and have some of her beloved flowers at her bedside.

During that time, Melissa and I laughed a lot, prayed together, chatted about current events and family, and watched funny videos and old episodes of TV shows she enjoyed like “Barney Miller” and “Bewitched”.

She also told me many of the fascinating stories behind the pictures of her and her family covering the walls of her room.

Melissa died peacefully on May 6, 2022, at her home at the age of 99 years, 9 months and 5 days, lovingly cared for by her family and great home health and hospice providers.

A devout Catholic, Melissa was unafraid of death and knew she would meet her late husband and her son who died at age 4. Another son unexpectedly died at 56, shortly before Melissa.

Melissa generously donated her body to Logan College to help future doctors with their education.

After her funeral Mass, her family had a Celebration of Life event with pictures and stories about her life. There was a lot of laughter and some tears as we all talked about Melissa and what she meant to us.

CONCLUSION

Melissa and her family are an inspiration to me and an example of how to have a good death, something that seems impossible to many people.

I visited her the day she died peacefully and comfortably, but not awake.

She died just as she hoped.

We will miss you Melissa but we will never forget you!

Rest in peace.

Our “Covid” Christmas

nancyvalko Covid 19, culture, education, faith, family, law, medical ethics, vaccines

My husband and I were excitedly looking forward to finally having all our blended family members to our home for Christmas this year but Covid 19 almost ruined it. We will forever remember it as the “Covid” Christmas.

We felt fortunate that one of our families was driving to Ohio for an early Christmas with their vaccinated in-laws before driving home in time for our Christmas celebration, especially after we saw other people around the country waiting in lines for hours to get a Covid test before the holidays. We were also glad that they decided to drive when we saw thousands of airline flights delayed or cancelled because of Covid, bad weather and staffing shortages.

However, it turned out that one vaccinated in-law in Ohio attended a large rock concert a few days before the Christmas celebration. Although he showed no symptoms at the time, our youngest grandchildren started to cough and get sick on the ride home.

Early on Christmas morning, the parents were notified that the in-law now tested positive and they tried frantically to get covid tests for themselves and the grandchildren, one of whom was recently diagnosed with asthma. But there were no covid testing kits available and the pediatric emergency room near them told the parents that they could not do a covid test unless the children were admitted.

After two days, they all finally got their covid tests and were negative.

They missed the Christmas party with the other relatives but celebrated with us grandparents a few days after Christmas and it was wonderful.

HOW COULD THE DEARTH OF COVID 19 TESTS HAPPEN ON CHRISTMAS?

As I wrote in my January 7, 2021 blog “When Can We End Lockdowns for Covid 19?”:

“the FDA (food and Drug Administration) approved the use of several rapid Covid 19 tests, some that can even be done at home. This can be a gamechanger with some experts saying that the massive distribution of rapid self-tests for use in homes, schools, offices, and other public places could replace harmful sweeping lockdowns with knowledge.

And as the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) itself has reported:  

“Since March 2020, the FDA has authorized more than 400 COVID-19 tests and sample collection devices, including authorizations for rapid, OTC at-home tests. The FDA considers at-home COVID-19 diagnostic tests to be a high priority and we have continued to prioritize their review given their public health importance.” (All emphasis added)

However in a December 21, 2021 interview, President Biden was said to “express some regret that he didn’t ramp up necessary supplies before the nation got hit with yet another winter coronavirus surge” and announced a plan for the government to “distribute 500 million free rapid in-home test kits in an effort to slow the spread of the virus” and admitted  that ““I wish I had thought about ordering half a billion [tests] two months ago”.

However, as reported on December 24, 2021 at webmd.com:

“President Biden has promised Americans that 500 million coronavirus tests will be available for free, but the kits won’t arrive for several weeks or longer”

and

“the Biden administration hasn’t yet signed a contract to buy the tests, and the website to order them won’t be available until January, according to The New York Times“.

CONCLUSION

I have been writing blogs on the various aspects of the Covid 19 pandemic for almost 2 years and I am frustrated by the missteps, lack of accountability and the constantly changing rules that often seem to often be more based on politics rather than science.

We need to demand better from ourselves, our leaders and our country to become a healthier nation mentally, physically and spiritually.

Six Problems with Covid 19 Vaccination Mandates

nancyvalko civil rights, conscience rights, Covid 19, culture, law, medical ethics, vaccines

When the Covid 19 vaccine was first authorized for emergency use in December, 2020, President-elect Joe Biden said that he wouldn’t impose national mandates to get vaccinated for Covid 19.

But on September 9, 2021 and in a televised speech, President Joe Biden announced a federal Covid 19 vaccination mandate affecting as many as 100 million Americans “in an all-out effort to increase COVID-19 vaccinations and curb the surging delta variant.”

Calling Covid 19 “a pandemic of the unvaccinated” and that “our patience is wearing thin” with the estimated 80 million Americans who have not been vaccinated, President Biden announced new rules that:

“mandate that all employers with more than 100 workers require them to be vaccinated or test for the virus weekly, affecting about 80 million Americans. And the roughly 17 million workers at health facilities that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid also will have to be fully vaccinated.”

and signed

“an executive order to require vaccination for employees of the executive branch and contractors who do business with the federal government — with no option to test out. That covers several million more workers.” (Emphasis added)

PROBLEM ONE

There are different rules for different groups people, leading to confusion and further divisiveness.

For example, while international travelers visiting the US must provide proof of vaccination before being allowed into the country, the hundreds of thousands of people illegally crossing our southern border and being released into our country are not required to have the Covid 19 vaccine.

What scientific justification is there for this?

PROBLEM TWO

Now the Biden administration just unveiled its new 490 page Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) “emergency temporary standard” that also requires companies with 100 or more employees to mandate that workers get vaccinated, or tested weekly and wear a face mask. 

But surprisingly, as a November 4, 2021Wall Street Journal editorial article titled “OSHA’s Vaccine Mandate Overkill“ notes:

“Separately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a vaccine mandate for health-care facilities with no testing option.” (Emphasis added)

and

“According to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey last week, 37% of unvaccinated workers said they would leave if their employer required them to get a vaccine or be tested weekly.“(All emphasis added)

PROBLEM THREE

Firing unvaccinated employees in a tight labor market when so many employers are desperate to hire hurts not only employees but also businesses.

In addition, these vaccine mandate rules have led to vaccine refusal by some essential workers like police, garbage collectors and healthcare workers in cities like New York who then lose their jobs. This not only affects these workers and their families but also the delivery of these essential services to the populace.

PROBLEM FOUR

Religious or medical exemptions from taking the vaccine are often difficult to obtain.

For example, a hospital system in Arkansas maintains that the “majority of religious exemption requests cited the use of fetal cell lines in the development of vaccines” but counters that the “practice uses cells grown in labs to test many new vaccines and drugs, including common antacids and cold medications.”

Therefore, the hospital’s religious exemption form “includes a list of 30 common medications that used fetal cell lines during research and development” and asks employees to attest that they:

“truthfully acknowledge and affirm that my sincerely held religious belief is consistent and true” and that they won’t use the medications listed.” (Emphasis added)

PROBLEM FIVE

Now the CDC has announced emergency use authorization of Covid 19 vaccine for children 5-11. If mandated, what will that mean for schools and parental rights to refuse or consent to medical treatment?

PROBLEM SIX

So far, 68% of Americans have received at least one dose of a vaccine and 59% are fully vaccinated.

At the same time, at least 27 states so far have decided to take legal action against the new rules, claiming the mandate is an example of federal overreach and both “unlawful and unconstitutional.” And on November 6, 2021, a US federal appeals court temporarily halted President Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for businesses, citing potentially “grave statutory and constitutional” issues.

CONCLUSION

Unfortunately, the Covid 19 vaccination mandates have caused some severe divisions between those who have been vaccinated and and those who refuse to be vaccinated for various reasons.

My husband and I are fully vaccinated but some of our adult children are not. We encouraged them to take the vaccine but we have to respect their decision. We believe that people who refuse or are hesitant about the vaccine should not be vilified or treated as second class citizens.

We are all Americans and we need to work together.

And there may be hope on the horizon as new Covid 19 pills are being developed and showing promise with Pfizer’s pill said to be 89% effective for mild to moderate Covid 19 symptoms. Pfizer now plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to authorize the pill’s use this month. Another Covid 19 pill from Merck & Co. was cleared for use in the U.K. this week.

These pills could be a gamechanger and help heal not only Covid 19 but also our fractured country.

Covid 19 Vaccine Refusal?

nancyvalko Covid 19, culture, law, vaccines

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

nancyvalko abortion, aging, assisted suicide, Compassion & Choices, culture, disability, economics, end-of-life, family, family planning, law

 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.

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

nancyvalko assisted suicide, conscience rights, culture, end-of-life, law, medical ethics, nursing

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”

nancyvalko assisted suicide, conscience rights, culture, end-of-life, law, medical ethics, nursing, Uncategorized

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.

Can You Tell “Fake News” from Real News?

nancyvalko culture, education, Planned Parenthood, sex ed

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.