What Will It Take?

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

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

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 PatientHaving 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”

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

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 courts 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?

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!

The Powerful Effect of the US Supreme Court’s Decision Refusing to Block the Texas Heartbeat Act

When the Texas Heartbeat Act was signed into law by Governor Gregg Abbot in May 2021 to abolish elective abortions as early as six weeks (when the unborn child’s heartbeat is “detectable using methods according to standard medical practice”), abortion rights supporters were furious and began challenges to the law.

But on September 2, 2021 and surprisingly, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against a request from pro-abortion groups to temporarily block enforcement of the pro-life law.

Pro-abortion groups and almost all mainstream media vigorously denounced the decision and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood, Whole Woman’s Health, and other abortion groups were ready to mount more legal challenges to the law.

Most recently, now a Texas Judge has issued a temporary restraining order barring Texas Right to Life and “100 unnamed individuals” from suing Planned Parenthood, writing that the Texas Law creates a “probable, irreparable and imminent injury” to Planned Parenthood if sued by the nonprofit Texas Right to Life and others.

At the same time, pro-life advocates continue to reach out to pregnant women offering resources and emotional support to help them and their babies while Texas lawmakers had already budgeted in the spring for $100 million specifically to help pregnant and parenting mothers and babies

But while even the Wall Street Journal raised legal questions about enforcement of the law by civilians and the exclusion of rape or incest exceptions, the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse to block the Texas Heartbeat Act (and the torrent of national publicity surrounding the decision) forces a recognition of the the humanity of the unborn baby and the fact that even the Mayo Clinic recognizes: the heart begins to beat at 6 weeks.

Unfortunately, many people are unaware of this fact and Planned Parenthood continues to deny this fact.

MY EXPERIENCE WITH ROE V. WADE

I was a young nurse working in a critical care unit in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion for any reason in the first trimester of pregnancy.

When other doctors and nurses asked my opinion about the decision, I said I was surprised and horrified. Some of the nurses and doctors angrily disagreed with me and asked what I would do if I were raped and pregnant.

I said I would be upset about the rape but also that I couldn’t deliberately end another human life, born or unborn. That was medical ethics.

A few years after the Roe v Wade decision, I was married and pregnant with my first child. I loved the standard prenatal development pamphlet I was given but I couldn’t help but think about how painful this pamphlet could be for a woman who had aborted before becoming pregnant with a wanted child.

I decided that when I finally had some time, I would volunteer at our local Birthright to help women and their babies.

With my subsequent pregnancies, my older children were obsessed with the development of their unborn brother or sister and asked what the baby had or could do almost every week of the pregnancy. It was touching to see how excited they got with each new phase of the baby’s development.

When one of my daughters became pregnant and unwed at age 18, she said she could never have an abortion because she knew so much about prenatal development.

Recently, I was delighted to view the “Meet Baby Olivia” video, a beautiful and “medically accurate, animated glimpse of human life from the moment of fertilization” produced by Live Action. I highly recommend this video and sharing it widely.

CONCLUSION

Until Texas, other state heartbeat laws have been blocked in court. The Texas Heartbeat Act is facing more legal challenges but it has already changed minds and hearts in Texas: An April poll by the University of Texas-Austin found that 49 percent of Texans support making abortions illegal after six weeks of pregnancy, while 41 percent oppose it.

Education about abortion and outreach to help women struggling with an unexpected pregnancy can save lives!

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is one of the latest.

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

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

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

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

How could this happen?

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ventilator Rationing, Universal DNRs and Covid 19 (Coronavirus)

As a nurse myself, it is hard to watch my fellow nurses bravely fighting on the front lines of this pandemic without being able to be there with them.

Nurses are a special breed. In my over 50 years as a nurse, I found that most of us chose nursing because we want to help people and alleviate suffering. We work the long hours on our feet, skip meals, hold hands and listen, cry when our patients die, etc. because we truly do care.

But the health care system has been changing. A dark new ethics movement is infecting our system and telling us not only that our patients have a right to choose to end their lives but also that some of our patients even “need” to die and that we can’t care for all of them during the Covid 19 pandemic.

Worst of all, we are being told that we can now know how to decide which patients are “expendable”.

VENTILATOR RATIONING

A 71 year old man with a heart condition arrives at a hospital is diagnosed with Covid 19. His condition worsens and he is placed on a ventilator to help him breathe. Then the infection rate spikes in the city and the hospital is overrun with severely ill patients, many between 20 and 50 years old and otherwise healthy.

The health care team is forced to decide which patients should they focus on and care for.

This is the scenario posed in a March 20, 2020 Medpage article “Ethics Consult: Take Elderly COVID-19 Patient Off Ventilator?— You make the call” along with an online survey with 3 questions:

1. Would you prioritize the care of healthier and younger patients and shift the ventilator from the elderly man to patients with a higher probability of recovering?
2. Would you change your decision if the elderly patient had been in intensive care for a non-COVID-19-related illness?
3. Would you prioritize the older man over college students who had likely been
infected during spring break trips?

After almost 4000 votes, the survey showed 55.65% voting yes on prioritizing the care of the healthier and younger patients, 78.11% voting no on changing their decision about the elderly patient if he didn’t have Covid 19 and 71.12% voting no on prioritizing the elderly man over college students likely to have been infected on a spring break trip.

So while most people fear becoming infected with Covid 19, less well-known ethical dangers may also affect us-especially those of us who are older or debilitated.

Every day, we hear about the shortage of ventilators needed for Covid 19 patients and the overworked and understaffed health care professionals providing the care. Now both mainstream media and medical journals are publishing articles about the ethical dilemma of denying CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) or a ventilator to older patients or those with a poor prognosis with Covid 19 in a triage situation.

Triage is defined as “A process for sorting injured people into groups based on their need for or likely benefit from immediate medical treatment. Triage is used in hospital emergency rooms, on battlefields, and at disaster sites when limited medical resources must be allocated.” (Emphasis added)

But this definition does NOT include deciding how to triage people based on age or “productivity”.

UNIVERSAL DNRs

A March 25, 2020 Washington Post article “A Framework for Rationing Ventilators and Critical Care Beds During the COVID-19 Pandemic” posed the question: “how to weigh the ‘save at all costs’ approach to resuscitating a dying patient against the real danger of exposing doctors and nurses to the contagion of coronavirus.”

This is not just an academic discussion.

As the article reveals, “Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago has been discussing a do-not-resuscitate policy for infected patients, regardless of the wishes of the patient or their family members — a wrenching decision to prioritize the lives of the many over the one.” (Emphasis added) And Lewis Kaplan, president of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a University of Pennsylvania surgeon, described how colleagues at different institutions are sharing draft policies to address their changed reality.

Bioethicist Scott Halpern at the University of Pennsylvania is cited as the author of one widely circulated model guideline being considered by many hospitals. In an interview, he said a universal DNR for Covid 19 patients was too “draconian” and could sacrifice a young person in otherwise good health. He also noted that the reality of health-care workers with limited protective equipment cannot be ignored. “If we risk their well-being in service of one patient, we detract from the care of future patients, which is unfair,” he said.

The article notes that “Halpern’s document calls for two physicians, the one directly taking care of a patient and one who is not, to sign off on do-not-resuscitate orders. They must document the reason for the decision, and the family must be informed but does not have to agree.” (Emphasis added)

This could not only upend traditional ethics but also the law as “Health-care providers are bound by oath — and in some states, by law — to do everything they can within the bounds of modern technology to save a patient’s life, absent an order, such as a DNR, to do otherwise.”

Both disability and pro-life groups have condemned such health care rationing with Covid 19, especially for older people and people with disabilities.

However, this and more is apparently already happening.

In an April 1, 2020 Wall Street Journal article “What the Nurses See: Bronx Hospital Reels as Coronavirus Swamps New York” a co-worker told the nurse interviewed that the nurses were no longer doing chest compressions to resuscitate Covid 19 patients because “it uses lots of protective gear and puts workers at greater risk than chemical resuscitations”. This was corroborated by other nurses who said this has become an “unspoken rule.”

CONCLUSION

How can we protect ourselves and our loved ones in these circumstances?

At the very least and whether or not we are older or have disabilities, we should consider or reconsider our advance directives.

As the Life Legal Defence Foundation  writes in their “SPECIAL MESSAGE ABOUT COVID-19 AND ADVANCE HEALTH CARE DIRECTIVES”:

As COVID-19 spreads around the globe, the public is learning about the importance of mechanical ventilators in providing temporary breathing support for many of those infected. Ventilators are saving lives!

A false understanding of respirators and ventilators has become commonplace in recent years. Many people think that these and similar machines’ only role is prolonging the dying process. The widely publicized treatment of COVID-19 patients is helping to dispel that myth. Many patients rely on machines temporarily every day for any number of reasons and go on to make full recoveries.

Unfortunately, many individuals have completed advance health care directives stating or suggesting that they do not wish to receive breathing assistance through mechanical ventilation.

Please take the time to review any advanced medical directives (including POLST forms) signed by you or your loved ones to make sure they are clear that mechanical ventilation is not among the forms of care that are refused. If there is any ambiguity, you may want to consider writing, signing, and dating an addendum specifying that mechanical ventilation is authorized. (Emphasis in original)

I would add that other treatments or care such as DNRs and feeding tubes also not be automatically checked off. I believe it is safer to appoint a trusted person to insist on being given all information concerning risks and benefit before permission is given to withdraw or withhold treatment.

Even as the nation is racing to get more ventilators and staff as we cope with this terrible pandemic, we all must continue to affirm the value of EVERY human life.