Judah and I attended our first pro-life rally together on Sunday. Bundled up and shivering in our hats and gloves and coats, we heard from several pro-life leaders from all over the country. My favorite speaker was the least charismatic. He read his speech directly from his notecards. He often lost his place. He was so shy and nervous that he apologized several times for his poor performance. He had me in tears.
Michael Clancy reminded us more than once that he is a photographer, not a speaker. He likes to be behind the scenes, not in front of a crowd. He shared his experience taking the famous photograph of "The Hand that Touched the World." I didn't realize the photograph was taken at Vanderbilt, just a few miles from my house. I also didn't realize that this photograph was the "earliest human reaction ever recorded." The baby was 21 weeks along when he underwent a successful surgery to treat spina bifida. (Remember Baby David, who was born at 26 weeks? He is now a year old, healthy, happy, and home. For the story and picture of a baby who was born in Miami at 21 weeks and 6 days, a world record, click HERE and HERE.)
Michael Clancy set up a website featuring the picture and the story and offers the reproduction of the picture for free, encouraging crisis pregnancy centers around the world to use the photo in their counseling. You can print the story and picture from this pdf: http://www.michaelclancy.com/Samuel%27s%20Story.pdf.Samuel's parents, Alex and Julie Armas of Villa Rica, Georgia, testified September 25 [2003] before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space about the photo and their experience with in utero surgery. They were joined at the hearing by Dr. James Thorp, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Florida Pensacola, and by Michael Clancy, the photographer who captured Samuel's awe-inspiring grasp.
Dr. Thorp testified that in utero surgery, while still in the experimental stages and posing significant risks, offers incredible promise to parents of unborn children with birth defects. Alex and Julie explained that their surgery, initiated to treat spina bifida, remarkably changed the course of Samuel's life and of their own lives.
Alex testified, "Today, Samuel is nearly four years old and has not had to endure the surgeries that are common for most children with spina bifida. He's walking with leg braces, is cognitively normal, and loves looking for bugs."
. . .
Spina bifida, a sometimes fatal and typically severe brain and spinal cord anomaly, results from the spine failing to close properly during the first month of pregnancy. If the baby survives, spina bifida often leaves debilitating defects including accumulation of fluid in the brain (hydrocephalus), and a host of devastating secondary conditions.
Julie, an obstetrics nurse, decided after hearing the diagnosis to research treatments and discovered a pioneering program of maternal-fetal (in utero) surgery for spina bifida at Nashville's Vanderbilt University Medical Center. After intensive consultations with the medical staff, Julie and Alex not only gave the go-ahead for sur-gery on 21-week-old Samuel; they also agreed to let USA Today photograph the event as a way to increase awareness of the new procedure.
USA Today assigned photojournalist Michael Clancy to capture the surgery on film. Michael had no idea that the shoot would change his life forever.
. . .
As Sen. Brownback observed during the hearing, "There is little debate about whether the child in utero is alive; the debate is over whether or not the child is a life worthy of protection."
. . .
If it would be illegal to kill Samuel any day after he was born, why is it "legal" to kill Samuel any day before he is born?
Some of his testimony, which he shared at the rally, can be found HERE.
While I am thrilled that the country I live in now has a commander in chief who is a man of color, a man who, just 45 years ago, would have experienced overt discrimination in the South and covert discrimination in the North, is now the leader of our country, I am also deeply burdened for our nation and the course that we are taking.
Out of "respect" for pro-life protestors who marched on Washington on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Obama waited 24 hours before signing a bill that will support abortion providers worldwide.
President Obama said, "I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund. By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries,” said President Obama.
"UNFPA Executive Director, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid welcomes President Obama's decision to restore funding and noted how quickly he addressed the issue." She notes:
"Congressionally-approved funding for UNFPA has been withheld by the U.S. Administration for the past seven years. During that time, the Fund has not received a total of $244 million in U.S. funding. Restoration of funding will allow us to maintain recent gains during the current financial crisis and provide support to women in some of the poorest countries in the world," said Ms. Obaid.
"The current financial crisis." Oh, yeah. We're supposed to be working toward a stronger economy, right? So . . . maybe spending should be pretty strictly curbed and monitored. Does a nation facing an economic crisis need to spend countless millions on supporting abortion efforts in other countries? Does this sound completely irresponsible from a financial standpoint to anyone else? President Bush stopped $244 million from going out to fund "Voluntary Population Planning" projects. However, one of the first things President Obama does once in office is to open the flood-gates for millions in taxpayer dollars to benefit--not our own economic crisis--but the "Voluntary Population Planning" efforts of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
What are some of the results of so-called population planning? Well, in China, where "more Chinese women would like to have more than one child," the enforcement of their one-child policy "has involved forced abortions and other abuses. It has also been blamed for a gender imbalance, as a traditional preference for boys has persuaded some parents to abort girl foetuses."
We are face to face today with a governing body that not only turns a blind eye, but also provides the tree and the rope--in a "safe," "clinical," "legal" setting.
We are at war with an international organization that is systematically targeting country after country in the name of "women's rights" but their hidden agenda is death. For example:
Increasingly the pro-aborts' attention has turned to Central and South America, and specifically Mexico. In 2006, the Center for Reproductive Rights won a lawsuit before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in which the Mexican government agreed to guarantee access to abortion in the case of rape. During the course of the lawsuit, the pro-abortion group Human Rights Watch recommended punishing doctors by revoking their licenses if they refuse to perform abortions on moral grounds. (boldface mine)But this victory for the pro-choice movement was not enough. It was not enough to require access to abortion for rape victims. No, these pro-choice militants have only one thing in mind: unrestricted access to abortion as a "fundamental human right."
Sound familiar? If you've read anything surrounding the so-called Freedom of Choice Act, these phrases should send chills down your spine. Take a few minutes to find out what's going on in other countries with regard to abortion and population control and tell me that we're not at war.
Mexico City now offers "abortion on demand" during the first trimester. This is especially significant because "the new law violates the Mexican Constitution, which states that human life must be defended 'from conception until its natural end.' . . . The law has also paved the way for the legalization of euthanasia, an effort already underway in Mexico.
In the year since the law's passage, 6,400 abortions have been performed. Twenty-two women have been injured, and eight women have died from complications related to their abortions. While the law contains a clause that girls under the age of 18 must obtain parental consent before abortion, at least one of the fatalities was a minor. Thus, an effort that was claimed to "help" women is in actuality killing women as well as their unborn children.Abortion is not simply a "choice." It is more than a choice. It is the most common surgical procedure in the United States. It comes in many forms, some more dangerous than others. Partial-birth abortion, for example, was banned in 2003, but it would become legal if FOCA is passed. According to the ban, partial birth abortion "poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives . . . [it] could ultimately result in maternal death."
http://www.aul.org/Mexico_Example
Planned Parenthood would have you believe that abortion is safe, but that giving birth is dangerous. They will tell you how many women die every year giving birth (to make the number sound high), but what they don't tell you is that they're providing you with a worldwide figure and over 90% of women who die during childbirth are from underdeveloped countries.
Planned Parenthood will not, however, tell you how many women die each year during abortions . . . or how many take their lives after undergoing an abortion . . . or how many women give birth prematurely and experience the grief of losing a child they actually want after having an abortion. No, they will instead warn you about Crisis Pregnancy Centers. They will say that what is inside of you is simply a blob of tissue. They won't tell you that the abortionist actually has to piece together all the body parts afterward to be sure he didn't leave any inside your uterus. No, they won't mention any of those things. There's no money in full disclosure.
Combine declining morality with a powerful, well-funded international federation of busy, intentional, passionate advocates and what do you get? I'll give you a hint. It's not constitutional.
1 comment:
My heart bleeds for all the babies murdered since Roe.
Back in 2000 I wrote an articel titled "Casting An Unselfish Vote" with thrust toward protecting unborn life over any other criteria from the standpoint of being a Christian. I received a surprising response from a lady who said she was a Christian and pro-life but was intending to vote for Al Gore because her family had more money under Bill Clinton's administration. She was expecting the same from Gore. She stated that abortion wasn't as important. It was an issue she could set aside.
I was flabbergasted. I cannot wrap my mind around that. People ruin other people's lives with even an unfounded allegation of child abuse but won't protect that same child before birth?
I'm at a loss. Sometimes I feel as if I don't have the fight in me anymore. I keep on, though, but to what avail?
Post a Comment