media

California is Suing Christian nonprofits that Help Women Save Their Unborn Babies

nancyvalko abortion, adoption, bereavement, chemical abortions, Compassion & Choices, conscience rights, culture, education, family, law, media, medical, medical ethics, nursing, Planned Parenthood, pro-life, safeguards

In a disturbing op-ed in the July 30, 2026 edition of the Wall Street Journal titled “California’s Case Against Second Chances,” Archbishop Salvatore of San Francisco and Bishop Michael C. Barber of Oakland write that “The State is suing Christian non-profits that help women save their unborn babies.”

The Bishops write:

“Elizabeth Barrett, a young college dropout in Southern California, swallowed a pill the local abortion clinic had given her—and then, almost immediately after, changed her mind. An online search for advice on how to undo the chemical abortion led her to Heartbeat International, a Christian nonprofit that refers women to licensed doctors for treatment. It worked. Ms. Barrett is the mother of a healthy girl.

The state of California wants to be sure that such things never happen again. In an extraordinary case now unfolding at trial in state court in Oakland, California’s attorney general seeks an injunction and up to $20 million in fines against Heartbeat International and another small pro-life Christian nonprofit, RealOptions. Their offense is telling women who regret swallowing the abortion pill that there is a medical treatment that can sometimes save their babies.

Consumer fraud, the prosecutors are calling it. Legal scholars call it an abuse of power. “This novel use of California’s commercial-fraud statute seems designed to intimidate nonprofit organizations that—with no hope of commercial gain—seek to educate the public about services that are lawful but contrary to the ideological preferences of the government,” says Michael McConnell, a professor who teaches free-speech law at Stanford.

California isn’t alone in attacking these Christian groups. New York’s Attorney General Letitia James has filed a similar lawsuit against Heartbeat International and other pregnancy centers. The Thomas More Society, a Catholic public-interest law firm, is pursuing separate federal cases challenging the constitutionality of these prosecutions in federal courts.

California’s attorney general has found no evidence that any woman has complained of harm by the defendants. That didn’t dissuade the state, which is marshaling its taxpayer-funded resources to shut these ministries down.

The state argues that because the nonprofits raise money from donors, they are engaged in commercial speech. If the government wins, doctors may still prescribe the medication, but no nonprofit can tell women the treatment exists—a novel legal theory that would vastly expand lawfare against those who hold views with which the government disagrees.

One wonders whether the pro-abortion lobby has really thought this through. The prosecution’s theory “would expose any nonprofit in America” to “the same government overreach,” Paul Jonna, an attorney from the Thomas More Society, said in a news release. Don’t they worry that some future state attorney general in Mississippi might use similar tactics to go after Planned Parenthood?

Reading the depositions of these women is a painful experience. To be a Catholic priest these days, as we both are, is to have heard many similar stories of women who felt pressured to have an abortion they didn’t want.

Everyone should oppose this. But these women especially need support from the religious—those who hold that creation in God’s image means life is endowed with a dignity that can’t be trampled by a government determined to punish those who oppose unquestioned abortion.

Consider just the case of Ms. Barrett. In 2023, she was struggling financially, and she and her live-in boyfriend were experiencing increasing strain in their relationship. When she learned she was pregnant, “I panicked at the thought of spending 18 years in family court,” Ms. Barrett testified. She “struggled to imagine where I would be able to find funds to cover child-care costs.”

At the clinic, she told staff she was scared and thought she might want to keep her baby, hoping to talk through her options. “I was a huge supporter and donor to Planned Parenthood at the time,” she said. “I thought for sure that staff at the clinic would help me out.” Instead they urged her to take the abortion pill that day and warned that if she delayed, she might not be able to get another appointment. “With that scheduling pressure and overwhelmed by misgivings about getting the abortion—what if I wanted to proceed but couldn’t later?—I took the first of two pills for a chemical abortion.”

But before she left the clinic, her boyfriend texted her saying he wanted to keep the baby and raise their child together. That changed everything. So began a frantic search for anything to stop the abortion: “I was desperate, borderline hysterical, and willing to try just about anything.” Ms. Barrett found Heartbeat International online. Within an hour, she had a clinic appointment with a licensed California doctor to reverse her abortion pill. She’s a mother today thanks to this Christian nonprofit and its donors.

California v. Heartbeat International and RealOptions is a rare case that should bring together both sides of the abortion debate. In particular, it tests the souls of those who claim the platform of “pro-choice.” What kind of people see a pregnant woman who wants to reverse the effects of an abortion pill and think, “Let’s punish the nonprofits that informed her she has a choice”?

Are they really pro-choice, or do they just like killing?

Archbishop Cordileone is archbishop of San Francisco. Bishop Barber is bishop of Oakland.“

CONCLUSION

It is not just abortion clinics, it is also about teleheath abortions.

As I wrote June 4, 2026,

New Lozier Study Shows Chemical Abortions Are Largely Unregulated

 nancyvalko abortion, chemical abortions, education, law, medical, medical abortion, medical ethics, Planned Parenthood, safeguards

As a new June 4, 2026, National Right to Life article by Michael New titled “New Lozier Study Shows Chemical Abortions Are Largely Unregulated” just reported:

“Last week, the Charlotte Lozier Institute released a study by research associate Mia Steupert showing that organizations selling chemical abortion pills online are largely unregulated. Specifically, these organizations often fail to comply with existing laws, FDA regulations, and basic health and safety standards. The study considered entities that provide telehealth abortions through the formal U.S. health-care system. The study also considered overseas and online entities that sell abortion pills.

Here are some of the specifics. The Lozier study identified 80 organizations that provide telehealth abortions through the formal U.S. health-care system. Thirty-eight of these organizations are online only, and 42 are hybrid brick-and-mortar and online facilities. Again, these facilities are technically subject to FDA regulations. The study, however, provides strong evidence that these facilities frequently violate FDA policies, states’ pro-life laws, and basic health standards:

  • Only 15 of 80 report they will adhere to FDA rules and not ship abortion pills to pregnant women after 70 days gestation.
  • 43 of the 80 either had no age requirement for the woman obtaining abortion pills or did not publish this information. This would put them in violation of state parental involvement laws.
  • Only 39 of the 80 formally required women to take part in a video call to discuss their eligibility for taking abortion drugs.
  • Only 9 of 80 require that all women submit a form of identification before obtaining abortion pills. One additional organization required a form of identification only from women living in certain states.
  • Only 16 of 80 require a virtual follow-up after the abortion has taken place.“

Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, unregulated telehealth abortions have posed a serious challenge to the pro-life movement. These telehealth abortions undermine and weaken many of the strong state-level pro-life laws that have been enacted post-Dobbs. This new Lozier study highlights the extent to which chemical abortions are largely unregulated, posing serious public health concerns. The study also details ongoing litigation where women unknowingly took chemical abortion pills because their partners wanted their pregnancies terminated. Had appropriate regulations and safeguards been in effect, these women and their preborn children would have been protected.

The Lozier study identifies several policy tools that could be used to ban or limit telehealth abortions. The FDA could restore the rules that existed before the COVID-19 pandemic and require women obtaining chemical abortions to have an in-person meeting with a health-care professional. Multiple lawsuits are being filed by various state attorneys general, arguing that the new rules violate the FDA’s Administrative Procedures Act. Finally, the Comstock Act, which prevents abortifacients from being sent through the mail, could be enforced.

This important Lozier study demonstrates that stopping telehealth abortions should remain a top priority for pro-lifers.

This appeared at National Review Online and is posted with the author’s permission.“

Share this:

s

s

Physician Group Opposes Youth Gender Transition Surgery— Plastic surgeons support waiting until patients are at least 19 years old

nancyvalko AMA, culture, health care reform, law, media, medical ethics, transgender, transgender care

In a stunning February 3, 2026 Medpage article “Physician Group Opposes Youth Gender Transition Surgery” by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting, MedPage Today reports:

“For the first time, a major U.S. physician group has recommended against gender transition surgeries for youths.

On Tuesday, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) sent a position statement to its 11,000 members recommending against gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old.”

and

ASPS said its understanding has evolved in light of “additional comprehensive evidence reviews” on gender dysphoria, including an HHS report that was issued last May. Both the HHS report and the U.K.’s Cass Review concluded that the “natural course of pediatric gender dysphoria remains poorly understood,” according to the position statement.

“The HHS report underscores that this uncertainty has significant ethical implications: when the likelihood of spontaneous resolution is unknown and when irreversible interventions carry known and plausible risks, adhering to the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence … requires a precautionary approach,” the statement said.

ASPS emphasized that its advice comes in the form of a policy statement, not a clinical practice guideline, given the “current state of the evidence and variability in legal and regulatory environments.”

It also advised its members to “remain aware of state laws concerning transgender and gender-diverse individuals that may impact their practices,” as many states have banned gender-affirming care in youths.

The ASPS statement comes just a few days after a jury in New York awarded $2 million to a patient who had accused her psychologist and plastic surgeon of failing to obtain adequate consent before performing a double mastectomy on her when she was a teenager. It’s the first malpractice verdict against providers of youth gender care.” (Emphasis added)

She also writes that:

“The position statement breaks with other major medical associations in the U.S., most notably the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Endocrine Society, which support gender-affirming care. It’s also a departure from ASPS’s past stance in 2019, which was that gender surgery can help patients improve their mental health, according to the Washington Post.

The American Medical Association said in a statement that it supports evidence-based treatment, including gender-affirming care. The association agreed with ASPS in part, but stopped short of saying surgeries should be deferred to adulthood in all cases.

“Currently, the evidence for gender-affirming surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement,” the group said in a statement. “In the absence of clear evidence, the AMA agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.”

However,

“The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which develops standards of care for transgender patients globally, reiterated its support for access to surgical care for minors under “cautious guidelines and criteria.”

The group’s guidelines oppose a “definitive age or ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach for every patient.” Decisions should be case-by-case, based on the evaluations of multiple types of health experts and experts in adolescent development.

“WPATH stands firm in its commitment to advancing evidence-informed clinical guidelines to help improve the lives and well-being of transgender people around the world,” the group said in a statement.

and:

“AAP president Andrew Racine, MD, PhD, said his organization “does not include a blanket recommendation for surgery for minors” with gender dysphoria. “The AAP continues to hold to the principle that patients, their families, and their physicians — not politicians — should be the ones to make decisions together about what care is best for them.”

Fewer than 1,000 children under age 19 receive gender surgery in the U.S. each year, and the vast majority of those cases are mastectomies, according to a 2023 cohort study.

CONCLUSION

As the Medpage article states:

Nonetheless, the Trump administration has been cracking down on gender-affirming care in the U.S., through the HHS report, as well as through proposed CMS rules that would prohibit hospitals from performing gender surgeries for people under 18 as a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs.

HHS issued a press release supporting the ASPS position statement, with Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. congratulating the group for “standing up to the overmedicalization lobby and defending sound science.”

CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz, MD, also applauded the move: “When the medical ethics textbooks of the future are written, they’ll look back on sex-rejecting procedures for minors the way we look back on lobotomies. I applaud the American Society of Plastic Surgeons for placing itself on the right side of history by opposing these dangerous, unscientific experiments.”

This will continue to be a hot topic.

What do YOU think?

Share this:

Customize buttons

New York Times: A PUSH FOR MORE ORGAN TRANSPLANTS IS PUTTING DONORS AT RISK

nancyvalko advance directives, assisted suicide, brain death, brain injury, civil rights, euthanasia, law, media, medical ethics, organ donation

A bombshell article in the July 20, 2025, New York Times titled “A Push forA Push for More Organ Transplants Is Putting Donors at Risk More Organ Transplants Is Putting Donors at Risk” states:

“People across the United States have endured rushed or premature attempts to remove their organs. Some were gasping, crying or showing other signs of life.” (Emphasis added).

and:

“Organ transplantation had another record year in 2024. That’s great news for all the recipient patients. But there is increasing scrutiny on the costs of the regulatory incentives pushing this success. An alarming number of donors were still alive as transplantation began. “ (Emphasis added)

The next day, the US HHS (Health and Human Services) published a report, “HHS Finds Systemic Disregard for Sanctity of Life in Organ Transplant System,” that reported:

“The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the leadership of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., today announced a major initiative to begin reforming the organ transplant system following an investigation by its Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) that revealed disturbing practices by a major organ procurement organization.

Our findings show that hospitals allowed the organ procurement process to begin when patients showed signs of life, and this is horrifying,” Secretary Kennedy said. “The organ procurement organizations that coordinate access to transplants will be held accountable. The entire system must be fixed to ensure that every potential donor’s life is treated with the sanctity it deserves.” (Emphasis added)

HRSA directed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) to reopen a disturbing case involving potentially preventable harm to a neurologically injured patient by the federally-funded organ procurement organization (OPO) serving Kentucky, southwest Ohio, and part of West Virginia. Under the Biden administration, the OPTN’s Membership and Professional Standards Committee closed the same case without action.

Under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HRSA demanded a thorough, independent review of the OPO’s conduct and the treatment of vulnerable patients under its care. HRSA’s independent investigation revealed clear negligence after the previous OPTN Board of Directors claimed to find no major concerns in their internal review.

HRSA examined 351 cases where organ donation was authorized, but ultimately not completed. It found:

  • 103 cases (29.3%) showed concerning features, including 73 patients with neurological signs incompatible with organ donation.
  • At least 28 patients may not have been deceased at the time organ procurement was initiated—raising serious ethical and legal questions.
  • Evidence pointed to poor neurologic assessments, lack of coordination with medical teams, questionable consent practices, and misclassification of causes of death, particularly in overdose cases. (All emphasis added)

Vulnerabilities were highest in smaller and rural hospitals, indicating systemic gaps in oversight and accountability. In response to these findings, HRSA has mandated strict corrective actions for the OPO and system-level changes to safeguard potential organ donors nationally. The OPO must conduct a full root cause analysis of its failure to follow internal protocols—including noncompliance with the five-minute observation rule after the patient’s death—and develop clear, enforceable policies to define donor eligibility criteria. Additionally, it must adopt a formal procedure allowing any staff member to halt a donation process if patient safety concerns arise.

Secretary Kennedy will decertify the OPO if it fails to comply with these corrective action requirements [PDF].

HRSA also took action to make sure that patients across the country will be safer when donating organs by directing the OPTN to improve safeguards and monitoring at the national level. Under HRSA’s directive, data about any safety-related stoppages of organ donation called for by families, hospitals, or OPO staff must be reported to regulators and the OPTN must update policies to strengthen organ procurement safety and provide accurate, complete information about the donation process to families and hospitals.

These findings from HHS confirm what the Trump administration has long warned: entrenched bureaucracies, outdated systems, and reckless disregard for human life have failed to protect our most vulnerable citizens. Under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HHS is restoring integrity and transparency to organ procurement and transplant policy by putting patients’ lives first. These reforms are essential to restoring trust, ensuring informed consent, and protecting the rights and dignity of prospective donors and their families.

HHS recognizes House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie’s (KY-02) bipartisan work to improve the organ transplant system and looks forward to working with him and other issue-area champions in Congress to deliver reforms.” (All emphasis added)”

CONCLUSION

As I wrote in my October 18, 2022, blog “PLEASE READ BEFORE YOU AGREE TO BE AN ORGAN DONOR”:

“But are ethical lines being crossed in the zeal to obtain organs to transplant?

While most people presume that organs can be removed and transplanted only after “all efforts to save your life have been exhausted” and brain death has been determined, that presumption is no longer necessarily true. (Emphasis added)

Now, organ donation can occur with a person who is in a coma and considered close to death but who does not meet the criteria for brain death. In those cases, an organ donor card or relatives who have agreed to withdraw a ventilator (a machine that supports or maintains breathing) and have the person’s organs removed for transplant if or when the heartbeat stops. This was called DCD or donation after cardiac death until some doctors found that the stopped heart could be successfully restarted it in the patient receiving the transplant!

Now, that ethically questionable procedure is called donation after circulatory death (also DCD) since circulation stops when the heart stops.

If circulation does not stop within 60 minutes, the organs are deemed to be too damaged for transplant and the patient dies without donating organs.

IT GETS WORSE

A September 29, 2022, article in Medpage titled “No Brain Death? No Problem. New Organ Transplant Protocol Stirs Debate-Is it ethical to pull the plug in patients who aren’t brain dead, then restart their hearts?” reported on a new procedure to get more organs:

“With little attention or debate, transplant surgeons across the country are experimenting with a kind of partial resurrection: They’re allowing terminal patients to die, then restarting their hearts while clamping off blood flow to their brains. The procedure allows the surgeons to inspect and remove organs from warm bodies with heartbeats.” (Emphasis added)

The article also said that this new procedure is being criticized by doctors like Dr. Wes Ely and the American College of Physicians, who warned that the procedure raises “profound ethical questions regarding determination of death, respect for patients, and the ethical obligation to do what is best.”

and

“PRESUMED CONSENT AND LAW

Another problem is “presumed consent,” which is the assumption that everyone is willing to donate his/her organs unless there is evidence that they would not want to donate. Illinois narrowly avoided a “presumed consent” statute a few years ago in which people who didn’t want to donate had to file an opt-out document with the Secretary of State. (Emphasis added)

Some countries already have “presumed consent” laws, most recently in England, which states:

“it will be considered that you agree to become an organ donor when you die, if:

  • you are over 18;
  • you have not opted out;
  • you are not in an excluded group”

Even more horrifying, there have also been proposals to link organ donation and assisted suicide as “a potential solution to the organ scarcity problem”. Countries like Belgium and the Netherlands already allow this.

CONCLUSION

Organ donation can truly be “the gift of life”, and innovations such as adult stem cells. The donation of a kidney or part of a liver by a living person generally poses no ethical problems and holds much promise to increasingly meet the needs of people with failing organs. I have a grandson whose life was saved by a stem cell transplant, and another relative who has had 2 kidney transplants.

Personally, I have offered to be a living donor for friends, and my family knows that I am willing to donate tissues, such as bone, corneas, and skin, that can be used after natural death.

Everyone can make his or her own decision about organ donation, but we all must have the necessary information to make an informed decision. (Emphasis added)

SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES MAY DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD

nancyvalko abortion, culture, education, law, media, medical, nursing, Planned Parenthood, pro-life

Supreme Court clears way for states to kick Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid – POLITICO

A stunning 6-3 Supreme Court decision on June 26, 2025 has now cleared the way for states to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs, concluding that federal law doesn’t allow health care providers or patients to sue if a state violates a provision of federal law guaranteeing the Medicaid patients can visit their preferred provider.

According to Politico:

“The decision rejected a challenge to South Carolina’s 2018 expulsion of Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. It will likely allow other conservative states to similarly expel reproductive and sexual health clinics — shrinking the already narrow network of providers available in the health insurance program for low-income Americans.”

and

“Defunding” Planned Parenthood is a goal of many conservatives, who object to its abortion services. Federal law has long banned federal money from being used for abortions. But Planned Parenthood clinics provide many other health care services that are typically eligible for payment under Medicaid.

Thursday’s ruling will make it easier for states to deprive Planned Parenthood — and other clinics that provide abortions — from receiving Medicaid payments for any of their non-abortion-related care.”

BACKGROUND

As I wrote in my December 14, 2018 blog, “Why is the US Supreme Court Ducking the Issue of States Defunding Planned Parenthood?”:

“Most of Planned Parenthood’s federal funding is from Medicaid reimbursements for preventive care, and some is from Title X. At least 60% of Planned Parenthood patients rely on public health programs like Medicaid and Title X for preventive and primary care.” (Emphasis added)

According to a Lozier Institute Report, in its latest report 2016-2017, Planned Parenthood received “$543.7 million in funds from all levels of government in that fiscal year…primarily from the Medicaid program”. (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Ironically, although the brief by Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast  to the Supreme Court insisted that their clinics “..provide essential medical care to thousands of low-income Louisiana residents through Medicaid” and “offer a range of services, including annual physical exams, screenings for breast cancer and cervical cancer, contraception, pregnancy testing and counseling, and other preventative health services”, the reality is that there are many more places, such as federally qualified community health centers (which do not provide abortions) that provide more comprehensive health care services than those offered by Planned Parenthood.

On a personal note, several years ago my late daughter Marie secretly went to a Planned Parenthood clinic for a possible sexually transmitted disease. She finally admitted this to me when her symptoms grew worse. I immediately took her to my own gynecologist who had to perform surgery to remove part of her cervix to deal with the damage.

Planned Parenthood had missed the diagnosis.

Shocking Article in Academic Medicine: Helping Patients Die: Implementation of a Residency Curriculum in Medical Aid in Dying

nancyvalko assisted suicide, culture, disability, education, end-of-life, euthanasia, media, medical ethics ,

“First, do no harm” is attributed to Hippocrates and is one of the principal precepts of bioethics that all healthcare providers are (or were) taught in school and is a fundamental principle throughout the world.

But today,  the Hippocratic Oath, the oldest and most widely known treatise on medical ethics that forbade actions such as abortion and euthanasia that medical students routinely took upon graduation, has now been revised or dropped at many medical schools.

So we should not be surprised that we now have an article in the August issue of Academic Medicine (lww.com) titled Helping Patients Die: Implementation of a Residency Curriculum in Medical Aid in Dying by Spielvogel, Ryan MD, MS; Schewe, Savannah MD

The authors state the need for such a program is because:

“As more states legalize medical aid in dying (MAID), there is an ever-increasing need of physicians trained in this type of end-of-life care. However, resident curricula in MAID have not been previously reported or assessed. The authors describe a residency curriculum in MAID and evaluate the resident outcomes of this program.” (Emphasis added)

They describe the program they started in California:

“Since 2018, the Sutter Family Medicine Residency Program in California has offered training in MAID to its residents. Residents attend lectures, evaluate patients for MAID, write prescriptions for aid-in-dying medications, and attend the planned deaths of their patients if desired. In February 2023, an anonymous branching survey was sent to graduates of the program from 2019 to 2022 to evaluate residency graduation year, receipt of MAID training, currently practicing MAID, how rewarding MAID is compared with other clinical responsibilities, how stressful MAID is compared with other clinical responsibilities, comfort discussing MAID with colleagues, comfort discussing end-of-life care generally, personal view of MAID as a practice, and works where MAID is permitted.”

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY

“The authors surveyed 28 graduates and collected data from 21 former residents (response rate, 75%). Of these 21 former residents, 17 (81%) reported having opted to receive training in MAID during residency. Of the 12 residents who received training and were currently practicing in a location that allowed MAID, 7 (58%) were still practicing aid-in-dying, and of these 7 residents, 5 (71%) reported that their aid-in-dying work was more rewarding than their other clinical responsibilities.” (Emphasis added)

The authors of this study conclude that there is:

“promising preliminary evidence that MAID training in residency may be an effective strategy in the long term at closing the suspected patient access gap that purportedly exists. This preliminary evidence can be inferred by the fact that 7 of the 21 responding graduates (33%) in this study reported actively practicing MAID compared with the 30 of approximately 5,000 physicians (approximately 0.6%) practicing MAID group-wide at the large institution described above.” (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Ominously, an August Gallup poll titled ” Most Americans Favor Legal Euthanasia ” stated that ” 71% of Americans polled “believe doctors should be ‘allowed by law to end the patient’s life by some painless means if the patient and his or her family request it’.”

That is a change from polling in 1950 showing only 36% support for “ending a patient’s life through painless means”. (All emphasis added)

Tragically, too many Americans are falling for the lie that it is better to be made dead than disabled or dying. Assisted suicide laws are tragically wrong and I have personally testified against them. It’s not about politics. It’s about medical ethics and the need for trust in both our healthcare system and our healthcare providers.

Gallup Poll: Most Americans Favor Legal Euthanasia

nancyvalko Alzheimer's, assisted suicide, end-of-life, euthanasia, faith, family, grief, law, media, medical ethics, pro-life, suicide

A shocking Gallup poll titled Most Americans Favor Legal Euthanasia published on August 2, 2024, stated that 71% of Americans polled “believe doctors should be ‘allowed by law to end the patient’s life by some painless means if the patient and his or her family request it’.”

and

“Sixty-six percent of Americans believe doctors should ‘be allowed by law to assist the patient to commit suicide’” for terminal patients living in severe pain who request it.”

That is a change from polling in 1950 showing only 36% support for “ending a patient’s life through painless means”. (All emphasis added)

However, as Gallup reports,:

” Most U.S. subgroups are somewhat more inclined to support doctors ending patients’ lives through painless means than to agree with doctors assisting patients in dying by suicide. Among the exceptions are Democrats and women, who are about equally likely to say both euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide should be legal. Democrats (79%) are more likely than Republicans (61%) or independents (72%) to favor legal euthanasia.” (Emphasis added)

The Perceived Morality of Doctor-Assisted Suicide

Gallup says that:

“Americans’ feelings on the morality of doctor-assisted suicide are more mixed than their views on its legality, with a slim majority (53%) agreeing that the procedure is morally acceptable and 40% calling it morally wrong. More than half of Americans have considered doctor-assisted suicide as morally acceptable since 2014. In contrast, from 2001 to 2013, this sentiment was generally at or below 50%.” and that “Religiosity has the most significant impact on one’s perceptions of morality regarding this question.”

Not surprisingly, Gallup reports that “Americans in regions allowing doctor-assisted suicide are also among the most likely to say it is moral.” (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Tragically, so many Americans are falling for the lie that it is better to be made dead than disabled or dying. Assisted suicide laws are tragically wrong and I have personally testified against them. It’s not about politics. It’s about medical ethics and trust in our healthcare system.

For decades, I have personally and professionally cared for many patients, friends, and relatives who were disabled or dying- either at home or in a health facility.

Pain can be controlled without killing the patient but, just as important, is helping both the patient’s and family’s emotional distress and fears.

I ask two questions: what do you want and what are you afraid of?

With patients, fear of a terrible death or being a burden on the family are usually the biggest fears. With families, fear of not being able to care for their loved ones adequately can be overwhelming. Luckily, there are many options and services available. Families and friends also need support and encouragement. Loneliness can be devasting and laughter can be therapeutic for everyone.

I have found that when patients and their relatives are allowed to talk honestly and get the support they need, relationships and old regrets can mended. A good death is possible.

I feel blessed as a nurse to witness the healing power of caring.

Share this:

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ASSISTED SUICIDE?

nancyvalko assisted suicide, conscience rights, culture, end-of-life, euthanasia, law, media, medical ethics, pro-life

Many people believe that if something is legalized (like marijuana), it must be ok and if something is federally funded, it must be something GOOD.

In a May 7, 2024, article titled “Democratic Lawmakers Seek To Allow Federal Funding for Assisted Suicide “ in the New York Sun newspaper, Maggie Hroncicht explains the situation and a new petition to oppose this travesty

As she writes:

“For nearly 30 years — since Oregon became the first state to legalize physician-assisted death — Congress has prevented federal funding such as Medicare from being used by patients to pay for the practice. A bill proposed by Democratic lawmakers seeks to change that. 

In 1997, Congress passed the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act, which prohibits using federal funds to provide for any health care services that assisted in someone’s death, including “assisting in the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual.” 

NOW THE PRO-ASSISTED SUICIDE MOVEMENT IS EXPANDING

Right now, pro-assisted suicide proponents have been successful in getting assisted suicide laws passed in 10 states and Washington, D.C and several other states are considering passing assisted suicide this year. This includes my home state of Missouri.

The article notes that:

“Public polling indicates broad support for doctor-assisted suicide, as the Sun has reported, with Gallup inducing that a majority of Americans have “consistently favored” it for nearly three decades.”

The article continues:

““Medical aid-in-dying, an authorized medical practice, is not euthanasia, mercy killing, or assisted suicide,” a draft discussion of the new “Patient Access to End of Life Care Act’’ obtained by the Sun reads.

In states where physician-assisted death is legal, the 1997 restrictions “shall not apply to any information, referrals, guidance, or medical care provided consistent with such programs,” the bill, sponsored by Democratic Representatives Brittany Pettersen and Scott Peters, notes.” (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

But now, an online petition started by Alex Schadenburg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in Canada has hundreds of signatures is already forming against the proposal, noting that it “would force Americans to pay for assisted suicide (medically approved killing by poison) with their tax dollars.”

“The Canadian group is outspoken in warning America not to follow its path, arguing that legalizing medically assisted death opens a door that can’t be shut. In Canada, as the Sun reported, assisted suicide numbers have been surging, with more than 13,000 patients dying from the procedure in 2022 — representing 4 percent of the country’s total deaths.”

The petition states:

“Dear Representative Jeffries and Representative Scalise,

Thank you in advance for upholding my conscience rights by not approving the use of tax dollars for killing.

I oppose The Patient Access to End-of-Life Care Act (HB 8137) that would force Americans to pay for assisted suicide (medically approved killing by poison) with their tax dollars.

I oppose assisted suicide and I vehemently oppose paying for medically approved killing.”

“Sign and share our petition opposing The Patient Access to End-of-Life Care Act (petition link) 

I have signed and I encourage others to do the same!

The Legalization of Cannabis (Marijuana) and the Effects on Pregnant Women and Their Babies

nancyvalko culture, Drugs, law, media, medical, mental health

With 30 US states now fully legalizing marijuana/cannabis, others decriminalizing or only allowing it for medicinal use and only 4 states where it is illegal, the use of marijuana has risen exponentially.

And this is not the marijuana of the 1960s and 1970s.

According to a May 9, 2023 article in KFF Health News, legal marijuana is more potent than ever and still largely unregulated. Even worse, ” Marijuana-related medical emergencies have landed hundreds of thousands of people in the hospital and millions are dealing with psychological disorders linked to cannabis use, according to federal research.”

Now there is growing concern about the negative effects, especially on pregnant women, their babies and teenagers.

According to a May 26. 2023 article in Medscape titled “How Has Cannabis Legalization Affected Pregnant Mothers?”;

“”Severe morning sickness was a major risk factor for care in the emergency department or hospital for cannabis use,” said Myran. “Prior work has found that people who use cannabis during pregnancy often state that it was used to manage challenging symptoms of pregnancy such as morning sickness.”

“Most acute care events (72.2%) were emergency department visits. The most common reasons for acute care were harmful cannabis use (57.6%), followed by cannabis dependence or withdrawal (21.5%), and acute cannabis intoxication (12.8%).”

Compared with pregnancies without acute care, those with acute care related to cannabis had higher rates of adverse neonatal outcomes such as birth before 37 weeks’ gestational age (16.9% vs 7.2%), birth weight at or below the bottom fifth percentile after adjustment for gestational age (12.1% vs 4.4%), and neonatal intensive care unit admission in the first 28 days of life (31.5% vs 13%).”

And:

“There is no known safe level of cannabis consumption, and its use by pregnant women has been linked to later neurodevelopmental issues in their offspring. A 2022 US study suggested that cannabis exposure in the womb may leave children later in life at risk for autism, psychiatric disorders, and problematic substance abuse, particularly as they enter peak periods of vulnerability in late adolescence.”

and

“In the US, prenatal cannabis use is still included in definitions of child abuse or neglect and can lead to termination of parental rights, even in states with full legalization.”

Even worse, marijuana-as well as opioids, nicotine and other drugs-can lead to Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS). According to Stanford Medicine Children’s Health:

“Neonatal abstinence syndrome is what happens when babies are exposed to drugs in the womb before birth. Babies can then go through drug withdrawal after birth. The syndrome most often applies to opioid medicines” but also “Depressants such as barbiturates, or alcohol, or marijuana” (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

It is a symptom of an increasingly dysfunctional society when so many of us turn to drugs, alcohol, the internet, etc. to escape reality and/or amuse ourselves instead of coping with reality.

Marijuana and other drugs are too often portrayed as harmless and fun, especially after marijuana legalization.

Groups like teenagers and especially pregnant women and their babies are particularly vulnerable.

Everyone needs to know the facts.

Catholic Hospital in Canada Under Fire for Naming Euthanasia Provider as Palliative Care Director-Why Should We Care?

nancyvalko AMA, assisted suicide, Compassion & Choices, conscience rights, dementia, disability, economics, education, end-of-life, euthanasia, food and water, futility, hospice, law, media, medical ethics, mental health, nursing, palliative care, terminal/palliative sedation, ventilators/life support, VSED

In a shocking Sep 16, 2023 article from the Catholic News Agency titled Catholic hospital under fire for naming euthanasia provider as palliative care director | Catholic News Agency, Dr. Danielle Kain, a palliative care specialist who is associate professor and division co-chair of palliative medicine at Queen’s University, was appointed to the directorship of palliative care at Providence Hospital in Kingston, Ontario in Canada despite being “is both a staunch proponent and practitioner of euthanasia.”

Providence Hospital is one of 22 health care institutions in Ontario under the sponsorship of Catholic Health Sponsors of Ontario (CHSO). Canada has one of the most expansive assisted suicide laws in the world and is now considering adding people whose sole medical condition is mental illness. (Emphasis added)

The article also states that “Kain has argued that all publicly funded institutions, including Catholic hospitals, should be compelled to offer MAiD (Medical Aid in Dying) She has also expressed support for the Effective Referral Policy: doctors who have conscientious objections to euthanasia must refer patients to MAiD-offering doctors. In a 2016 Twitter post, Kain wrote: “Making an effective referral is not an infringement of rights.” (All emphasis added)

And

“A variety of professional associations of Canadian Catholic health care providers, including the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians, have made appeals to both the CHSO and the local ordinary, Archbishop Michael Mulhall, to intervene….but “The archbishop’s office did not respond before publication to a request for comment.” (Emphasis added)

RECENT HISTORY

In 2019, The National Association of Pro-life Nurses joined the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA and other organizations in opposing the  Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act (2019) H.R. 647, S.2080 (known as PCHETA) introduced in the US Congress.

We stated that:

“As nurses, we strive to care for our seriously ill, disabled and terminally ill patients with compassion and the highest ethical standards. We applaud the medical innovations and supportive care options that can help our patients attain the highest quality of life possible.

However now many of us nurses are now seeing unethical practices such as assisted suicide, terminal sedation (with withdrawal/withholding of food, water and critical medicines), voluntary stopping of eating, drinking and even spoon feeding, etc. used to cause or hasten death but often called palliative, “comfort” or routine hospice care for such patients.

Such practices are already  considered acceptable by many influential hospice and palliative care doctors like Dr. Timothy Quill, a board-certified palliative care physician, 2012 president of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine and promoter of legalizing physician-assisted suicide and terminal sedation.

It is also disturbing the Compassion and Choice, the largest and best funded organization promoting assisted suicide and other death decisions,  has a mission statement stating:

“We employ educational training programs, media outreach and online and print publications to change healthcare practice, inform policy-makers, influence public opinion and empower individuals.”

and a “Federal Policy Agenda / 2016 & Beyond”  goal to:

“Establish federal payment for palliative care consultations provided by trained palliative care professionals who will advocate for and support the values and choices of the patient….” (All emphasis added)

We believe that the Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act (2019) will allow federal funding to teach and institutionalize such unethical practices without sufficient oversight, safeguards or penalties.”

NOW A NEW PCHETA BILL HAS NOW BEEN PROPOSED

The 2019 PCHETA did not pass in Congress but now a new and almost identical version US SB2243 has just been has been introduced into the US Senate.

A new addition is included to “develop and implement a strategy to be applied across the institutes and centers of the National Institutes of Health to expand and intensify national research programs in palliative care in order to address the quality of care and quality of life for the rapidly growing population of patients in the United States with serious or life-threatening illnesses.”(Emphasis added)

A letter of support for the new 2023 PCHETA bill was signed by a multitude of groups including the Alzheimer’s Association, American College of Surgeons, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Geriatrics Society, the American Heart Association, American Psychological Association, Association of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Nurses, American Academy of Association of Professional Chaplains, Hospice Action Network Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Motion Picture & Television Fund, etc.

Even the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the Catholic Health Association of the United States have also sent a letter of support for the 2023 PCHETA, citing that it “includes crucial clarifications which ensure that the palliative and hospice care training programs abide by the provisions found in the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-12) and are not furnished for the purpose of causing or assisting in causing a patient’s death for any reason.” Unfortunately, as we have long observed, practices such as terminal sedation, withdrawal of food and water, etc. are routinely called just “patient choice” or routine comfort care-even in Catholic institutions.

And, as lawyer Sara Buscher of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA writes, the 2023 HHS Office of Inspector General’s report cites problems with hospice and she says that the PCHETA’s “safeguards are illusions”, “unenforceable and pretty much meaningless.”

CONCLUSION

In September 3, 2023 article titled ” by Jonathan Turley, a 19 year-old woman with is critically ill with a rare genetic mitochondrial disease that is progressively degenerative but conscious and communicative and on a ventilator, feeding tube and dialysis wanted to be allowed to travel to Canada for an experimental treatment but doctors opposed her plan saying that “she is not accepting the realities of her terminal illness.” She and her family appealed to a court but “Nevertheless, the judge found that she is mentally incapable of making decisions for herself because “she does not believe the information she has been given by her doctors”  and “Accordingly, the court ruled that decisions about ST’s further care should be determined by the Court of Protection based on an assessment of her best interests. Her “best interest,” according to the doctors, is to die.” (all emphasis added)

As lawyer Turley writes: “Thus, the courts have declared that ST cannot choose to continue life-extending treatment and can be forced into palliative care against her will.”

Thus the “choice” of a “right to die” can trump the choice of a right to live and even become a “duty to die”.

We need to be able to trust out healthcare system to provide ethical, life-affirming and compassionate care when we need it most.

A good first step would be to make sure the 2023 PCHETA does not become law.

The National Association of Pro-Life Nurses: We Care About All Lives

nancyvalko abortion, Alzheimer's, AMA, ANA, assisted suicide, Cancer, culture, dementia, disability, drug addiction, education, end-of-life, grief, law, media, medical ethics, nursing, pro-life

Recently, I was contacted by a college political science professor who is writing a paper about “pro-choice and pro-life viewpoints” and she wanted to know more about the National Association of Pro-Life Nurses.

I was delighted and we had a long conversation about what motivates pro-life people-and especially nurses.

I told her about our National Association of Pro-life Nurses and the why and how we do what we do. Our motto since the organization began in the 1970s is “Take my hand, not my life”.

The professor seemed surprised that the pro-life movement is founded on caring rather than the common misperception of politics and political power.

Instead, as I told her, the pro-life movement is about helping people in crisis situations from conception to death and educating people about upholding the excellent, life-giving ethics and laws that protect all lives from conception to natural death.

It is also not about being judgmental but rather about truly caring and offering help to desperate people in crisis situations and the people around them before-or even after- a person has chosen abortion or is considering medically assisted suicide. (see “Pro-Life and Other Resources for Help and Information to Protect Human Life”)

And this works!

Many people are surprised when they find out that even NBC News admits that:

“More than 2,500 crisis pregnancy centers operate in the country, outnumbering abortion clinics nearly 3 to 1 by some estimates. Critics, as well as supporters, have said the number of women seeking support at them has grown quickly in the 11 months since federal abortion rights were overturned, which resulted in the closing of abortion clinics in dozens of states. ” (Emphasis added)

And as pro-life nurses who care for everyone-not just in hospitals and crisis pregnancy centers, but also in prisons, at home in poor and sometimes dangerous areas, in homeless situations, etc., we are truly interested in helping instead of judging people.

Our message is “We Care” and I have yet to meet a pro-life nurse who isn’t also involved in some sort of volunteer work.

CONCLUSION

In my 50+ years as a nurse, I have worked in burn units, medical and surgical units, burn units, dialysis, intensive care, oncology (cancer), hospice and home health. I have also cared for relatives and friends with terminal illnesses, dementia, critical heart defects, cancer, disabilities, severe psychosis, suicide, drug addiction, teen pregnancy, etc. but never once was I tempted to end a life.

Just as doctors used to take the Hippocratic Oath that said ” I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor
will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”, new nurses used to take the Nightingale Pledge that said ” I will abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous, and will not take or knowingly administer any harmful drug.”

Unfortunately, today these oaths are little used or changed to allow for formerly illegal practices and this has harmed both professions and to the detriment of healthcare and public trust.

I have also been a newspaper reporter and writer for several publications but  in 2015, I started my blog “A Nurse’s Perspective on Life, Healthcare and Ethics” to report on the many healthcare ethics controversies and I often use my personal and professional stories to show resources and how to help people in difficult circumstances.

Most of all, I have seen the power of “I Care/We Care” to help people and their families at some of the most desperate times of their lives and I am proud to be a member of the National Association of Pro-life Nurses.

Please join us and/or follow NAPN on Facebook.