pro-life

Journal of Neurotrauma Paper on Withdrawal of Treatment in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

nancyvalko advance directives, brain injury, disability, futility, Living wills, medical ethics, pro-life, Simon's Law, ventilators/life support

Just before Drs. Jennet and Plum invented the term “persistent vegetative state” in 1972,  I started working with many comatose patients as a young ICU nurse. Despite the skepticism of my colleagues, I talked to these patients as if they were awake because I believed it was worth doing, especially if it is true that hearing is the last sense to go. And why not do it to respect the patient as a person?

Then one day a 17 year old young man I will call “Mike” was admitted to our ICU in a coma and on a ventilator after a horrific car accident. The neurosurgeon who examined him predicted he would be dead by morning or become a “vegetable.” The doctor recommended that he not be resuscitated if his heart stopped.

But “Mike” didn’t die and almost 2 years later returned to our ICU fully recovered and told us that he would only respond to me at first and refused to respond to the doctor because he was angry when heard the doctor call him a “vegetable” when the doctor assumed ‘Mike” was comatose!

After that, every nurse was told to treat all our coma patients as if they were fully awake. We were rewarded when several other coma patients later woke up.

Over the years, I’ve written about several other patients like “Jack”, “Katie” and “Chris” in comas or “persistent vegetative states” who regained full or some consciousness with verbal and physical stimulation. I have also recommended Jane Hoyt’s wonderful 1994 pamphlet “A Gentle Approach-Interacting with a Person who is Semi-Conscious  or Presumed in Coma” to help families and others stimulate consciousness. Personally, I have only seen one person who did not improve from the so-called “vegetative” state during the approximately two years I saw him

Since then, I have written several blogs on unexpected recoveries from severe brain injuries, most recently the 2018 blog “Medical Experts Now Agree that Severely Brain-injured Patients are Often Misdiagnosed and May Recover” and my 2020 blog “Surprising New Test for Predicting Recovery after Coma

However, there is now a new article in the Journal of Neurotrauma titled “Prognostication and Goals of Care Decisions in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Survey of The Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference Working Group” about a panel of 42 physicians and surgeons recognized for their expertise of traumatic brain injury that states:

“Overall, panelists felt that it would be beneficial for physicians to improve consensus on what constitutes an acceptable neurological outcome and what chance of achieving that outcome is acceptable. “Over 50% of panelists felt that if it was certain to be enduring, a vegetative state or lower severe disability would justify a withdrawal of care decision.” (Emphasis added)

In addition:

“92.7% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that there is a lack of consensus among physicians as to what constitutes a good or bad neurological outcome (Fig. 3A). Similarly, 95.1% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that there is a lack of consensus among physicians as to what constitutes an acceptable chance of achieving a good neurological outcome.” (All emphasis added)

RESPONSIBILITY FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CARE DECISIONS

As the article states:

“Although many would report that decision making following devastating TBI is the responsibility of well-informed substitute decision makers familiar with the wishes of a patient,12,25 our survey confirms that the relationship between clinicians and decision makers is complex. As our panelists recognize the marked influence that physicians have on aggressiveness of care, it would seem that in many cases physicians are actually the decision makers and that substitute decision makers are limited by the perceptions (communicated to them. (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Legally, the issue of who makes the decision when treatment or care can be withdrawn as “medically futile” varies.

Often ethics committees are called in to review a situation. Sometimes, as in the Simon Crosier case, families can be unaware that treatment is being withdrawn.

For years, Texas has had a controversial “futile care” law that allows treatment to be withdrawn with the patient or family having only 10 days to find another facility willing to provide care. This was challenged in court and was successful in the Baby Tinslee Lewis’ case . Tinslee eventually went home.

Now a new bill H B3162 has passed in the Texas legislature and is headed to the Governor to be signed and Texas Right to Life states that:

“HB 3162 modifies several aspects of the Texas Advance Directives Act, including the 10-Day Rule. The bill by Representative Klick offers more protections to patients, such as:

  • Requiring the hospital to perform a procedure necessary to facilitate a transfer before the countdown may begin, 
  • Specifying that the process cannot be imposed on competent patients, 
  • Prohibiting decisions from being based on perceived “quality of life” judgments, and 
  • Giving the family more notice of the ethics committee meeting and more days to secure a transfer.”

Every state should consider having such protections for vulnerable patients and their families.

“Safer Than Tylenol” is Deliberate Medical Abortion Disinformation

nancyvalko abortion, culture, medical ethics, Planned Parenthood, pro-life

February 23, 2023, the Attorney General of Connecticut issued a press release “Attorney General Tong Sues FDA Over Unlawful, Unnecessary Restrictions on Medication Abortion Drug”, stating that:

“Attorney General William Tong today joined a multistate federal lawsuit against the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) accusing it of singling out one of the two drugs used for medication abortions for excessively burdensome regulation, despite ample evidence that the drug is safer than Tylenol.” (Emphasis added)

In April, 2021, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) lifted a requirement for women to have in-person visits with their doctors before receiving medication abortions. and a February 17, 2022 Bloomberg article titled “The Abortion Pill Is Safer Than Tylenol and Almost Impossible to Get” argued for medication abortion pills by mail.

As Dr. Christina Francis, a board-certified OB/GYN and chair of the board of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), wrote in a 5/21/2021 article titled “The government’s abortion pill policy puts mothers’ lives at risk-As an OB-GYN, I know that allowing women to access abortion drugs through telemedicine is the wrong move“, stating:

“The medication regime for these abortions has real risks. When Mifepristone,
the first-stage medication in a chemical abortion, was first approved in 2000, it was
only approved with safety regulations in place (later known as REMS) that would
minimize the significant risk of hemorrhage, retained fetal tissue and infection.
These REMS were then relaxed in 2016 by the FDA absent any further safety testing
and despite mounting evidence of significant adverse events and maternal deaths….

For unknown reasons, however, the FDA also made the decision in 2016 to stop
collecting data on nonfatal adverse events related to Mifepristone, instead only
collecting data on maternal fatalities related to the drug. This change ignores the
women who may show up to their local emergency rooms with severe complications
potentially caused by the drug — women whose lives are typically saved not by their
abortionist, but by an on-call physician at the hospital. (Emphasis added)”

And:

One of the most significant reasons why an in-person visit has been required is for
proper medical oversight as well as a physical exam and ultrasound. These visits are
meant to accurately assess the gestational age of a woman’s pregnancy, as well as rule
out ectopic pregnancy, which is life threatening. The difference in size of an 8-weekold and 12-week-old preborn child is significant”

Mifepristone abortions are only approved for use up to 10 weeks gestation because the complication rates increase significantly beyond this stage.

IS THIS JUST PRO-LIFE PROPAGANDA?

The Cleveland Clinic, a respected healthcare institution and NOT pro-life, has a section:

“Who should NOT get a medical abortion?

Medical abortion is not a safe option for those who:

  • Are too far along in the pregnancy.
  • Have a pregnancy outside of the uterus (ectopic pregnancy).
  • Have a blood clotting disorder or significant anemia.
  • Have chronic adrenal failure.
  • Use long-term corticosteroids.
  • Have an intrauterine device (IUD).
  • Have an allergy to the medications used.
  • Do not have access to emergency care.
  • Can’t return for a follow-up visit.

It is important to discuss your medical history with your healthcare provider before a medical abortion procedure.” (Emphasis added)

So, how can abortion pills by mail be safe?

It is also disturbing that now CVS and Walgreens Plan to Offer Abortion Pills Where Abortion Is Legal”. The two chains said they would begin the certification process under a new FDA regulation that will allow retail pharmacies to dispense the prescription pills for the first time.

It is also disturbing that now the two chains said they would begin the certification process under a new FDA regulation that will allow retail pharmacies to dispense the prescription pills for the fist time.

Even worse, the American Pharmacists Association said in a statement that it had urged the FDA “to level the playing field by permitting any pharmacy that chooses to dispense this product to becomes certified.” (Emphasis added)

So, how can abortion pills by mail be safe?
It is also disturbing that now “ The two chains said they would begin the certification process under a new F.D.A. regulation that will allow retail pharmacies to dispense the prescription pills for the first time.
Also disturbing is that “The American Pharmacists Association said in a that it had urged the F.D.A. “to level the playing field by permitting any pharmacy that chooses to dispense this product to become certified.” (Emphasis added)

Also disturbing is that “The American Pharmacists Association said in a  that it had urged the F.D.A. “to level the playing field by permitting any pharmacy that chooses to dispense this product to become certified.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Not surprisingly, unmentioned in these articles is informing the woman about the abortion reversal option that I wrote about in my 3/20/2018 blog titled “What You Need to Know About Medical Abortion and Abortion Reversal”

However, the pro-abortion ACOG (the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) condemns abortion reversal, claiming that “Facts Are Important: Medication Abortion “Reversal” Is Not Supported by Science”, stating that “”So-called abortion “reversal” procedures are unproven and unethical“. They maintain this despite citing a “A 2012 case series reported on six women who took mifepristone and were then administered varying progesterone doses. Four continued their pregnancies. This is not scientific evidence that progesterone resulted in the continuation of those pregnancies.” And the article admits that “A 2020 study intending to evaluate medication abortion reversal in a controlled, IRB-approved setting was ended early due to safety concerns among the participants.” (Emphasis added).

As I wrote in my May, 2019 blog “New Study on Progesterone to Prevent Miscarriage Supports Use in Abortion Reversal“:

“(M)edical abortions can often be reversed by taking progesterone if the mother changes her mind after the first abortion pill to block progesterone is given but she hasn’t yet taken the second pill to expel the baby. There is now a website at www.abortionpillreversal.com for information on abortion reversal that includes a hotline phone number at 1-877-558-0333.

But according to Planned Parenthood :

 “…(only) a handful of states require doctors and nurses to tell their patients about (abortion reversal treatment) before they can provide abortion care. But these claims haven’t been proven in reliable medical studies — nor have they been tested for safety, effectiveness, or the likelihood of side effects — so experts like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reject these untested supposed treatments.” (Emphasis added)

Why don’t we all deserve to know all the facts and all the options like crisis pregnancy centers and abortion reversal when it comes to abortion instead of relying on a mostly biased media, Planned Parenthood and wealthy, pro-abortion healthcare provider organizations?

As a society, we can’t afford not to know!

Canada and the Euthanasia Endgame

nancyvalko assisted suicide, disability, education, end-of-life, euthanasia, law, Living wills, medical ethics, pro-life

Several nations like Belgium and the Netherlands have had legalized assisted suicide and/or euthanasia, even for minors and for people just “tired of life” But now the worst is Canada which legally approved MAiD (medical aid in dying) it in 2016, according to Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex Schadenberg quotes Kevin Yuill, a professor who spoke at the Euthanasia Symposium in Brussel in November who said:

“Canada has the dubious honour of being the global capital of euthanasia. Through its medical assistance in dying (MAID) programme, Canada killed more people with lethal injections last year than any other country on Earth – many of them poor, homeless or hopeless. And soon, from March 2023, lethal injections will be offered to anyone who judges their mental-health difficulties to be intolerable.”

Even worse, some people with disabilities are saying that they are being pressured to take a lethal overdose.

In a November 2022 UK article titled “Canadian man alleges hospital is pressuring him to end his life by assisted suicide”, a man with a disease affecting his brain and muscles is suing his Canadian hospital after secretly recording the hospital staff, stating:

“They asked if I want an assisted death. I don’t. I was told that I would be charged $1,800 per day [for hospital care]. I have $2 million worth of bills. Nurses here told me that I should end my life. That shocked me”.

Mr. Foley has applied for “direct funding” from the Canadian government to “employ agency workers of his own choosing and manage his schedule”.

  

The article also cited “a pro-assisted suicide and euthanasia group of doctors in Canada have recently said that doctors have a “professional obligation” to initiate discussion of assisted suicide and euthanasia with patients who might fit the legal criteria. They claim there is nothing in Canadian law which forbids this.”

CANADIAN STATISTICS

The UK article also notes that:

“In 2021, 10,064 people ended their lives by assisted suicide and euthanasia, an increase of over 32% from the previous year, accounting for 3.3% of all deaths in Canada.

According to the latest report on Medical Assistance in Dying from Health Canada, 17.3% of people also cited “isolation or loneliness” as a reason for wanting to die. In 35.7% of cases, patients believed that they were a “burden on family, friends or caregivers”. (Emphasis added)

Canada was set to approve MAiD for people with mental illness but recently, the Canadian government announced its plan to temporarily delay MAiD eligibility  for people whose sole medical condition is mental illness.

CONCLUSION

In 1993, just 3 years after Nancy Cruzan, a woman in a so-called “vegetative state” died a long 12 days after her feeding tube was removed in my home state of Missouri, a letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a prominent ethicist and one of the future architects of Obamacare, acknowledged that the actual proof purported to show that the Cruzan case met Missouri law requiring “clear and convincing evidence” that Ms. Cruzan would not want to live in a so-called “vegetative” state rested only on “fairly vague and insubstantial comments to other people”.

Ominously, he also noted that:

“..increasingly it will be our collective determination as to what lives are worth living that will decide how incompetent patients are treated. We need to begin to articulate and justify these collective determinations.” (Emphasis added.)

“(O)ur collective determination as to what lives are worth living” is the very real and frightening potential endgame of legalized euthanasia and it should be stopped now!

What Will It Take? Part Two -Does Abortion Really Help Women?

nancyvalko abortion, bereavement, culture, hospice, law, media, medical ethics, mental health, Planned Parenthood, prenatal testing, pro-life

In August 2019, I wrote a blog titled “Pro-abortion Desperation in Missouri” about the last Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Missouri losing its license because of numerous health and safety violations but continued to operate only because of several temporary injunctions by a judge.

The clinic finally closed only after the Supreme Court’s June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision returned abortion law to the states.

Unfortunately, the pro-abortion choice response to that decision has resulted in terrible turmoil and animosity.

Now the attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and churches with few arrests and prosecution of peaceful pro-life demonstrators are continuing unabated.

To try to portray abortion as a positive empowerment for women, Planned Parenthood has tried the “Share Your Story” and “Shout Your Abortion— Normalizing abortion and elevating safe paths to access, regardless of legality” campaigns to increase abortion support and activism. (The National Association of Pro-life Nurses countered with “Shout out Your Adoption!“, pointing out that “Adoption is a wonderful act of love and one of the best alternatives to abortion.”)

Now Planned Parenthood has another strategy for increasing abortion support and activism originally published in MS Magazine on 4/12/2022 and titled “A Firsthand View of the Crisis Ahead for Abortion Rights—and What We Should Do About It”

The article states:

“Since it seems we can no longer rely on the courts to protect these rights, our only solution is to pass a new federal law that will protect abortion rights in all 50 states. The Senate’s recent failure to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act makes it clear that we will need a greater pro-choice majority than we have today to pass this new legislation.

This will not happen in one election cycle, and it will take a commitment of time, energy and resources beyond that which we have been expending to date. We have to get all the voters who support reproductive rights registered and encourage them to vote. We have to elect representatives at all levels of government who will protect our reproductive rights that are currently under attack. (Emphasis in original)

THE TRAUMA OF ABORTION

And as a nurse, I have seen the mental and/or physical trauma after abortion in both friends and patients.

For example, one friend felt she had to have an abortion because the doctor said her unborn baby had little or no brain, which may not have even been true according to the doctor I knew who read the ultrasound. That doctor was devastated to learn that an abortion was done.

Knowing that I was pro-life, my friend said she didn’t want to talk about the traumatic 28 hour induced abortion but, after 5 years, she called me and said she needed to know how the hospital disposed of the body. She also revealed that she secretly hung an ornament for that baby on the Christmas tree every year.

And I wrote a November 2016 blog “Why Talk About Abortion” about one of my elderly hospice patients who told me that she was afraid to die because of a secret abortion she had 60 years ago because she believed that abortion was an “unforgivable sin” and she would go to hell. She also felt her now swollen belly due to her terminal condition was God punishing her for the abortion.

My heart went out to this woman who was suffering so much, more emotionally than even physically.

We talked for a long time and in a later visit about God’s love and forgiveness. I told her about Project Rachel, a healing ministry for women (and even men) wounded by abortion. I gave her the phone number and offered to be with her to meet a counselor or priest, but she insisted that my talking with her was enough to help. I felt it wasn’t, but she seemed to achieve a level of peace and she even started smiling! 

Rose died comfortably and apparently in her sleep about a week later.

SOME RESOURCES TO HELP WOMEN WHO ARE CONSIDERING ABORTION OR OTHERS WHO ARE HURTING AFTER AN ABORTION

  1. Support After Abortion “aspires to shift the conversation to compassion and support for those impacted by abortion” (including men)
  2. Project Rachel for women and even including how to talk to a friend who has had an abortion
  3. Birthright An organization with many resources and help
  4.  American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists states it “Promotes Dignity for BOTH our Patients!”
  5. There are also organizations like Prenatal Partners for Life and Be Not Afraid that provide support, information, resources and encouragement for carrying to term with an adverse prenatal diagnosis.

6. CareNet helps find a crisis pregnancy center in your area

CONCLUSION

Serrin M. Foster of Feminists for Life in her 2018 National Review article “Women Deserve Better than Abortion: The Ultimate Exploitation of Women” perhaps said it best:

 “The reality is that there is no such thing as a safe abortion. Few unborn human beings escape a violent death, but what is underreported is the mortality of healthy pregnant women killed during or as a result of abortion.

When we know how much a woman grieves from reproductive loss through miscarriage or stillbirth, who would choose abortion? According to the Guttmacher Institute, those who have abortions come primarily from the poorest among us (75 percent), women of color (61 percent), women pursuing post-secondary degrees that would lift them out of poverty (66 percent), and mothers who already have dependents (59 percent). Half of all abortions are performed on a woman who has already had one or more abortions, proving that abortion solves nothing. Abortion isn’t empowering, and it’s not something to celebrate. Abortion is a symptom of, not a solution to, the problems faced overwhelmingly by women who don’t have what they need and deserve. Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Women deserve better.”

And ALL of us deserve a better and more peaceful society!

What Will It Take?

nancyvalko abortion, assisted suicide, brain injury, Compassion & Choices, culture, disability, euthanasia, law, medical ethics, Planned Parenthood, pro-life

I recently wrote a blog titled “The War Against Crisis Pregnancy Centers Escalates” about the attacks on crisis pregnancy centers after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision returning abortion law to the individual states was outrageously leaked.

 Now that the final Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision  is public, the violence against crisis pregnancy centers and churches has continued with few if any arrests.

However, now even pro-life individuals have been targeted.

For example, an 84-year-old pro-life volunteer was shot on Sept. 20 while going door-to-door in her community to talk about a ballot measure concerning abortion in Michigan. Thankfully, she is expected to recover.

Even more disturbing and over the last weekend, was the news that the FBI raided the home of a pro-life advocate Mark Houck and arrested him in front of his 7 crying children for the alleged crime of “Assaulting a Reproductive Health Care Provider”.

According to the National Review, Mrs. Houck “described an incident in which her husband ‘shoved’ a pro-abortion man away from his 12-year-old son after the man entered ‘the son’s personal space’ and refused to stop hurling ‘crude… inappropriate and disgusting’ comments at the Houcks.” The man did not sustain any injuries but did try to sue Houck. The charges were later dismissed.

WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO RESOLVE THE NATIONAL TURMOIL SURROUNDING ABORTION?

I was a young intensive care unit nurse when the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision came down in 1973. Like most people I knew, I was surprised and shocked when abortion was legalized. However, I quickly found that my medical colleagues were split on the issue, and I was vehemently attacked for being against abortion. I was even asked what I would do if I was raped and pregnant. When I replied that I would not have an abortion and would probably release the baby for adoption, I was ridiculed. Our formerly cohesive unit began to fray.

But I was professionally offended by the pro-life argument that legalizing abortion would lead to the legalization of infanticide and euthanasia.  

It was one thing to deny the truth with an early and unobserved unborn baby, but it was quite another to imagine any doctor or nurse looking at a born human being and killing him or her.

But I was wrong.

As I wrote in my 2019 blog “Roe v. Wade’s Disastrous Impact on Medical Ethics”, personal and professional experiences opened my eyes to the truth.

I have seen the push for “choice” to expand to abortion for any reason up to birth, infanticide and medical discrimination against people with disabilities, including my own daughter who had Down Syndrome.

I wasn’t long until “choice” also became the heart of the “right to die” movement to include to include legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia, withdrawal of feedings from people with serious brain injuries whose “choice” was exercised by family members or doctors and even the voluntary stopping of eating and drinking (called VSED by the pro-death-choice group Compassion and Choices).

With VSED, Compassion & Choices maintains that:

“Many people struggle with the unrelieved suffering of a chronic or incurable and progressive disorder. Others may decide that they are simply “done” after eight or nine decades of a fully lived life. Free will and the ability to choose are cornerstones of maintaining one’s quality of life and dignity in their final days”.  (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

I have long preferred the term “respect life” to “anti-abortion” because obviously we should respect the lives of all people at any age or stage of development.

But this doesn’t mean anger or vilification of others.

Over the years I have written, spoken, debated, etc. people who do not agree with the respect life philosophy, but I never became angry.

I also found that listening to and not judging others-especially people in crisis-was crucially important.

For example and many years ago, I ran into an acquaintance I will call Diane and I congratulated her on her obvious pregnancy.

I was stunned when she replied, “Don’t congratulate me yet. I might not be pregnant.”

Diane, the mother of a 5-year-old boy, went on to explain that she was awaiting the results of an amniocentesis and said, “I know what you went through with your daughter but I can’t give up my life like that. If this (the baby) is Downs, it’s gone.”

I reassured her that the test would almost surely show that her baby was ok, but I added that if the results were not what she expected I would like her to call me. I promised that I would give her any help she needed throughout the pregnancy and that my husband and I or even another couple would be willing to adopt her baby. She was surprised, as I later found out, both by my reaction and the information about adoption.

Diane gave birth to a healthy baby girl a few months later and ran up to me to apologize for her comments, saying that she probably would not have had an abortion anyway. But I understood her terrible anxiety. Society itself seems to have a rather schizophrenic attitude towards children with disabilities. Special Olympics is considered inspirational but Down’s Syndrome is too often seen as a tragedy.

Whether it is abortion or legalized assisted suicide, we must be prepared to help desperate people either personally and/or referring them to a crisis pregnancy center or suicide hotline.

Every life deserves to be respected.

The War Against Crisis Pregnancy Centers Escalates

nancyvalko abortion, culture, family, family planning, pro-life

When the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization draft decision by the US Supreme Court to return abortion law to the individual states was outrageously leaked, I wrote about the pro-abortion violence perpetrated on crisis pregnancy centers and the threats against Supreme Court judges.

Now, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is not only strongly protesting the final ruling but also states:

“With Roe gone, it’s more important than ever to crack down on so-called ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ that mislead and deceive patients seeking abortion care,” said Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, promoting her bill. “We need to crack down on the deceptive practices these centers use to prevent people from getting abortion care, and I’ve got a bill to do just that,”

Her bill titled the “Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act” or “SAD Act” directs the Federal Trade Commission to “promulgate rules to prohibit a person from advertising with the use of misleading statements related to the provision of abortion service.” It would also allow charities to be fined $100,000 or “50 percent of the revenues earned by the ultimate parent entity” for disinformation, although the legislation itself does not define the prohibited speech.

Joining Senator Warren on the bill are Senators Hirono, Schatz, Booker, Smith, Klobuchar, Sanders, Murray, Merkley, Blumenthal, Feinstein, Wyden, Gillibrand, Markey, Warner and Markey.

Speaking with reporters in July, Senator Warren stated that:

“In Massachusetts right now, those crisis pregnancy centers that are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help outnumber true abortion clinics by 3 to 1. We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts, and we need to shut them down all around the country. You should not be able to torture a pregnant person like that” (All emphasis added)

This pronouncement was met with derision, even from some reporters.

A CRISIS PREGNANCY DIRECTOR RESPONDS

Heidi Matzke, who heads a Crisis Pregnancy Center in Sacramento, California was eloquent in describing the violence her center has faced as well as responding to Senator Warren’s point that centers like hers must be shut down:

“We have had to stop operations of our mobile clinic. We’ve had to hire 24-hour onsite security. We’ve had to add cameras. We’ve had to arm our staff with pepper spray,” she said, adding last week a man with a machete showed up and was stopped before he could inflict any harm or damage.”

She also called Ms. Warren statements “horrific”:

“Pregnancy centers give away $266 million of free medical services and resources to communities all over this incredible country. And her words are just incredibly hurtful.” (Emphasis added)

She also said her center provides fully licensed OB/GYN care with medical professionals and that “most of the women working at her clinic have had an abortion before and many believe their lives would be ‘so much different’ if they had gone to a pregnancy center.”

CONCLUSION

Personally and as a nurse, I have had experience with women considering abortion as well as women (and men) who relate how they were damaged by an abortion. They need compassion and real help.

Crisis pregnancy centers are a wonderful resource and even Sen. Warren acknowledges that crisis pregnancy centers outnumber well-funded abortion clinics by 3 to 1. There’s a lesson in that.

But most importantly, I wish that all of us would realize that abortion is a tragic loss of a life regardless of the circumstances, not a political cause to celebrate!

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)

Baby Tinslee Lewis Finally Goes Home after Beating the Texas 10 Day Rule

nancyvalko futility, law, medical ethics, pro-life, Simon's Law, ventilators/life support

In 2019, Baby Tinslee Lewis was born prematurely with a rare heart condition called Ebstein’s anomaly and underdeveloped lungs at Cook Children’s Medical Center in Texas. She needed life support, including a ventilator to help her breathe.

The medical team began talking to her family soon after her birth about possible end-of-life care. Eventually, the medical team met with the hospital’s ethics committee and the committee agreed that it would be inappropriate to continue to treat Tinslee.

As HALO (Healthcare Advocacy and Leadership Organization) explains, this met the Texas 10-day rule for removing Tinslee’s life-sustaining treatment:

TEXAS 10-DAY RULE
  The 10-Day Rule is a part of the Texas Advance Directives Act (§166.046). Basically, this “rule” allows a hospital ethics committee to decide to remove life-sustaining treatment from a patient against the patient’s or family’s wishes. The patient or patient’s decision maker (usually family)    most likely, not professionals and are generally ill-equipped to defend their position. The committee follows with a written notice of its decision that life-sustaining treatment is “inappropriate.” Receipt of this notice marks the start of a ten-day countdown. “The physician and the health care facility,” states the law, “are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision.” Finding another facility that will honor the patient’s/family’s treatment wishes and transferring the patient—at the expense of the patient and/or family—are monumental tasks which often prove impossible within the ten-day window.

The family was told they had until Nov. 22 to find a new hospital willing to take Baby Tinslee.

However, Tinslee’s family fought for her and they won a last-minute reprieve from a judge to stop the Texas hospital from taking the now 9 month old off life support against their wishes.

The hospital spokesperson stood by the hospital’s decision to end life support, saying:

“In the last several months, it’s become apparent her health will never improve,” and

“Despite our best efforts, her condition is irreversible, meaning it will never be cured or eliminated.” and

“Without life-sustaining treatment, her condition is fatal. But more importantly, her physicians believe she is suffering.

In July 2020, the hospital again wanted to take Tinslee off life support while Tinslee’s mother asked for another specialist to see her. The specialist recommended a tracheostomy to help her.

With help from individuals, lawyers and groups like Texas Right to Life and HALO (Healthcare Advocacy and Leadership Organization), Tinslee’s case was eventually taken all the way up to the Texas Supreme Court. Finally, this court ruled to keep Tinslee on life support. The US Supreme Court upheld the Texas court‘s decision.

Now, Tinslee has so steadily improved (see the pictures) that the hospital released her to go home to her family. She is now on a portable ventilator with a tracheostomy and home health care.

Texas Right to Life states:

“Tinslee’s success story shows that in the absence of an anti-Life countdown, families and hospitals can work together for the benefit of the patient. Tinslee has received excellent care from Cook Children’s Medical Center. It is with their efforts that Tinslee will now transition to home health care. Meanwhile, Texas Right to Life is committed to doubling our efforts in the Capitol and with our full-time patient advocacy team to combat and stop the deadly 10-Day Rule from destroying the lives of more vulnerable patients like Tinslee. “

CONCLUSION  

I have been writing about medical futility problems for decades, especially about Simon’s Law to protect medically vulnerable children and their parents from medical discrimination, including my own daughter.

We need to send a strong message that medical discrimination against medically vulnerable or disabled people of any age based on subjective judgements of “medical futility” and/or predicted “poor quality of life” is wrong.

My 2000 Voices Magazine Article: Who Wants a “Defective” Baby?

nancyvalko abortion, adoption, civil rights, disability, education, faith, family, law, medical ethics, prenatal testing, pro-life

This month, it was revealed that President Joe Biden “wants Congress to pass a law making abortions legal up to birth” after the US Supreme Court refused to temporarily block the Texas Heartbeat Law.

While talking to a friend about this, I remembered a 2000 Voices magazine article I wrote about why every unborn child deserves protection and she asked that I send it to her. Sadly, this magazine is no longer publishing.

This is the article I wrote that appears on my other blogsite that contains articles, op-eds, etc. that I wrote up to 2014, when I started this blog. The reflection at the end of this article was published by the National Down Syndrome Association and was-to my surprise-eventually reprinted in several other countries.

Voices Online Edition
Summer 2000
Volume XV, No. 2 – Jubilee Year

Who Wants a “Defective” Baby?

by Nancy Valko, R.N.

“Of course, no one wants to adopt a defective baby. ” This was said with much emotion (and not much charm) by an older gentleman in a class at a local university where I was speaking this past April. I had been invited to discuss the legalities and effects of Roe v. Wade from a pro-life point of view to a class of senior citizens studying the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

While several of these senior citizen students defended abortion as a matter of complete privacy for the mother, their arguments centered around the “need” for legalized abortion as a solution for social problems.

Since I had told the story of my daughter Karen, born in 1982 with Down Syndrome and a severe heart defect, the pro-abortion students were extremely vocal about the personal and societal justifications for aborting a baby like Karen. Hence the statement about no one wanting to adopt a “defective” baby.

“Happily, sir,” I told the senior student, “You are wrong. Even back when I had Karen, I found out from the National Down Syndrome Association that there was a list of people waiting to adopt a baby with Down Syndrome. Just the night before, I added, I had found a new website for matching prospective parents with children who had chromosomal and physical defects.”

The student refused to believe that this could be true.

The effects of Roe v. Wade
Life of the mother, incest, rape and fetal defect are the four hard cases usually cited to justify what has now become abortion on demand. All of these are uncommon reasons given in the estimated 1.3 million abortions every year; but the possibility of having a child with a birth defect is a common fear nearly all expectant mothers experience and, not surprisingly, polls show that the majority of the public support abortion in this circumstance.

Although I have always been pro-life, I could understand the fear underlying these poll results — until my own daughter was born.

Just two weeks before the birth of my daughter Karen, I saw a mother trying to pry her young son with Down Syndrome away from a display case at the supermarket. She looked exhausted.

“Please, Lord,” I silently prayed, “Let this baby be ok. I can handle anything but Downs.”

When Karen was born with Down Syndrome, I was stunned. But I was quickly put in touch with mothers from the Down Syndrome Association who replaced my fears with information and realistic hope.

Then a doctor told me the truly bad news. Karen had a heart defect, one so severe that it seemed inoperable and she was not expected to live more than 2 months. That certainly put things in the proper perspective.

What “pro-choice” really means
It turned out later that Karen’s heart defect was not quite as bad as originally thought and could be corrected with one open-heart surgery, but I was shocked when the cardiologist told me he would support me 100% if I decided not to agree to the surgery and allow her to die. This was especially hard to hear because, as a nurse, I knew that the doctor would have been otherwise enthusiastic about an operation offering a 90% chance of success — if my child didn’t also have Down Syndrome. Apparently, even though Karen was now a legal person according to Roe v. Wade by the fact of her birth, this non-treatment option could act as a kind of 4th trimester abortion.

It was then that I realized what pro-choice really meant: Choice says it doesn’t really matter if a particular child lives or dies. Choice says the only thing that really matters is how I feel about this child and my circumstances. I may be “Woman Hear Me Roar” in other areas according to the militant feminists, but I was not necessarily strong enough for a child like this.

I also finally figured out that Roe v. Wade’s effects went far beyond the proverbial desperate woman determined to end her pregnancy either legally or illegally. The abortion mentality had so corrupted society that it even endangered children like my Karen after birth. Too many people, like the student in Supreme Court class, unfortunately viewed Karen as a tragedy to be prevented.

Medical progress or search and destroy?
In the late 1950s, a picture of the unborn baby using sound waves became the first technique developed to provide a window to the womb. Ultrasound in recent years has been used to save countless lives by showing women that they were carrying a living human being rather than the clump of cells often referred to in abortion clinics.

But while expectant parents now routinely and proudly show ultrasound pictures of their developing baby, there is a darker side to prenatal testing. Besides ultrasound, which can show some birth defects, blood tests like AFP testing and the Triple Screen to test for neural tube defects or Down Syndrome are now becoming a routine part of prenatal care. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling are also widely available tests to detect problems in the developing baby. It seems that every year, new testing techniques are tried and older ones refined in the quest to find birth defects prenatally.

97% of the time, women receive the good news that their baby seems fine; but the tests are not foolproof, and they can only test for hundreds of the thousands of known birth defects. Relatively few such birth defects can be treated in the womb at the present time. Some women want testing so that they can prepare for a child who has a birth defect, but when the tests do show a possible problem like Down Syndrome, up to 90% of women will abort.

While some hail prenatal testing as a way to prevent birth defects, the effects of such testing has led to what author Barbara Katz Rothman calls the “tentative pregnancy” in her 1993 book of the same name. Although Rothman calls herself pro-choice, her studies of women considering amniocentesis led to her conclude that such testing has changed the normal maternal-child bonding in pregnancy and the experience of motherhood, usually for the worse.

“I might not be pregnant”
I observed this firsthand several years ago when I ran into an acquaintance and congratulated her on her obvious pregnancy. I was stunned when she replied, “Don’t congratulate me yet. I might not be pregnant.”

Diane, the mother of a 5-year-old boy, went on to explain that she was awaiting the results of an amniocentesis and said, “I know what you went through with your daughter but I can’t give up my life like that. If this (the baby) is Downs, it’s gone.”

I reassured her that the test would almost surely show that her baby was ok, but I added that if the results were not what she expected I would like her to call me. I promised that I would give her any help she needed throughout the pregnancy and that my husband and I or even another couple would be willing to adopt her baby. She was surprised, as I later found out, both by my reaction and the information about adoption.

Diane gave birth to a healthy baby girl a few months later and apologized for her comments, saying that she probably would not have had an abortion anyway. But I understood her terrible anxiety. Society itself seems to have a rather schizophrenic attitude towards children with disabilities.

On one hand, people are inspired by the stories of people who have disabilities and support organizations like the Special Olympics; but, on the other hand, many people consider it almost irresponsible to bring a child with disabilities into the world to suffer when prenatal testing and abortion are so available.

But as the vast majority of parents who are either natural or adoptive parents of children with disabilities will attest, all children are born with both special gifts and special limitations. No child should be denied birth because of a disability or even a limited life expectancy.

Women who do abort after a diagnosis of a birth defect are also hurt. Besides depriving themselves of the special joys — which occur along with the difficulties — of loving and caring for such a child, these women often experience unresolved grief, guilt and second-guessing instead of the relief and peace they expect.

A few years ago, a local hospital which performs late-term abortions for birth defects asked a miscarriage and stillbirth counseling group to help with their distressed patients. The group declined, citing the fact that the most reassuring message they give grieving mothers is that there is nothing they did or didn’t do that caused the death of their babies. Obviously, that was not a statement they could make to mothers who abort. There is a very real difference between losing and terminating a child.

How many of these mothers knew before their abortions that, in practical terms, there has never been a better array of services and support for children with disabilities and their parents? Or that their children were dearly wanted by prospective adoptive parents? Such information might have been just the support they needed to choose life for their children.

Final thoughts
Despite the best medical care, my Karen died at the age of 5 and 1/2 months, but the impact of her life has lived on. At her funeral Mass, the priest talked about how this child who never walked or talked had transformed the lives of those who met her.

Especially mine.

After Karen died, I sat down and tried to put into words what Karen and all children with disabilities have to teach the rest of us. The following reflection was published in the National Down Syndrome Association newsletter in May, 1984.

THINGS NO TEACHER EVER TAUGHT
In 1982 my daughter, Karen, was born with Down Syndrome and a severe heart defect. Less than six months later she died of complications of pneumonia. Karen may have been retarded but she taught me things no teacher ever did.

Karen taught me:

That life isn’t fair — to anyone. That self-pity can be an incapacitating disease. That God is better at directing my life than I am. That there are more caring people in the world than I knew. That Down Syndrome is an inadequate description of a person. That I am not “perfect” either, just human. That asking for help and support is not a sign of weakness. That every child is truly a gift from God. That joy and pain can be equally deep. That you can never lose when you love. That every crisis contains opportunity for growth. That sometimes the victory is in trying rather than succeeding. That every person has a special purpose in life.

That I needed to worry less and celebrate more.

Sources:

1. “Prenatal Testing”, by Nancy Valko, R.N. and T. Murphy Goodwin, M.D., pamphlet, Easton Publishing Co.

2. “Doctors have prenatal test for 450 genetic diseases” by Kim Painter. USA Today, 8/15/97

3. Rothman, Barbara Katz. The Tentative Pregnancy. Revised, 1993. WW Norton and Co.

4. “Advances, and Angst, in a New Era of Ultrasound”, by Randi Hutter Epstein. New York Times. May 9, 2000.

Nancy Valko, R.N., a contributing editor for Voices, is a former president of Missouri Nurses for Life who has practiced in St. Louis for more than thirty years. An expert on life issues, Mrs. Valko writes a regular column on the subject for Voices.

**Women for Faith & Family operates solely on your generous donations!