The Face Behind the Story

Editor’s note:  Another in a series of articles describing the various “parallel events” at the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) 2013.

by Callan Goodwin

A few weeks ago I was sitting around a table discussing the ethics of abortion with 20 conservative, politically-aware college students. Their arguments against abortion were based on the philosophy of what life is, or theoretical second hand experiences. During the discussion I had a sense of unease with how the discussion was being approached. Everything being said was statistics and personal opinion; there was a lack of humanity in the discussion. Because abortion kills a human before it is even born those who are left alive don’t think to put faces to the lost babies. Abortion becomes less of a human problem and more about how it affects public policy. This approach was what caused my unease in ethics class. On Monday evening I attended a parallel event put on by Real Women of Canada and Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. That evening I put faces on two survivors of abortion, a raped mother and a child conceived by rape.

Liz Carl was drugged and raped while still in high school, a few weeks later she tested positive for pregnancy. She was frightened, confused, and ashamed. Her friends encouraged her to get an abortion. The night before her appointment a friend looked her in the eye and said, “You know that it is a baby.” Miraculously Liz didn’t wake up in time for her morning appointment. That evening she finally told her mother the whole story and began to receive support and therapy she needed. In the next nine months Liz picked a family to adopt her son so she could stay in contact with her. Today Liz is part of her son’s life and is attending college. According to her, abortion supporter’s arguments are nullified because of her story. She said, “I have never looked and seen my rapist in my son, I have only seen joy.” Liz believes abortion would have been her worst decision because she has found healing from the rape in spending time with her son.

Rebecca Kiessling also gave her story. She was adopted by a loving family and when she was 18 she began to search for her real family. The records of her biological mother’s name were confidential but she was able to obtain information such as health records and a physical description of her mother. But only her father’s height, build and eye color, a description straight from a police log. Eventually Rebecca was able to find her mother, and when they met for the first time her mom told her about the brutal rape she endured and why her mother had decided against aborting Rebecca. When the assault had been committed abortion was still illegal. This saved Rebecca’s life and led to her mother’s healing. According to Rebecca’s mother she, “forgot the rape because she saw her beautiful child.” This mother also found joy in her child, just like Liz.

Rebecca’s story is one of a close call because Roe vs. Wade was past just three months after her birth. If it had been past just a few months earlier Rebecca would have become a statistic that people now use to discuss abortion. Rebecca points out that her mother didn’t choose to save her “the law did.” These women are the human faces to an issue that even conservatives disagree on, is rape a condition to allow abortion. When you look at their faces my qualms were answered.

Callan Goodwin is a senior Government Major at Patrick Henry College in Northern Virginia. One of her interests is international affairs and its impacts on American government policy and society.

It’s All About Me

Mari Anderson & Marcy Cooper

“I found out I was pregnant on my 21st birthday. It was not planned and, in fact, I never really planned on having children in the future. I am now eight weeks pregnant and so confused. I am very pro-life; I just can’t bring myself to go through with an abortion. I have visited abortion clinics and the thought of going through with it sickens me. I feel I have no support from my family or my boyfriend. Everyone has been telling me my only choice is abortion—I need someone to talk to, someone to just listen to me and not tell me what to do. I feel so lonely lately, my relationship of two years is going down the drain and my family is just as confused as I am.” Josie[i]

Many women are faced with the unexpected news that they are having a baby and do not know how to handle the situation. They turn to abortion because they see it as the only option when; in fact, there are many other choices.  In the United States alone there were 1,200,000 abortions in the country in 2011.[ii]

As alternatives to abortion, here are several choices one can make. One option is to consider raising the child with the help of others such as the father, immediate family, or relatives. Another option is to place the child in temporary foster care. This is a great choice if the biological parent isn’t able to raise a child at that point in time of their life, but could raise the child after a year or so. One final possibility is to put the child up for adoption. But the choice is ultimately the mothers and fathers have no legal rights to determine the destiny of the pre-born child.

Many mothers come up with the excuse that just getting an abortion is the easiest way to fix the problem.   Mothers often rationalize getting an abortion because of the following excuses:

• Right now the timing is bad to have a child.
• Finances are tight and neither of the parents can afford a baby right now.
• The mother doesn’t want to be a single mother raising a child.
• Having a baby would interfere with school or having a successful career.

Since 1973 and the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision, women’s “right to choose” has led to the loss of 55 million pre-born lives.  That number represents one-sixth of the current U.S. population.   Abortion is the leading cause of (unnatural) death in America.

Who has abortions?

• In 2009, women aged 20-29 years had the highest abortion rates (27.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20-24 years and 20.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 25-29 years) (Centers for Disease Control).
• In 2009, adolescents under 15 years obtained .05% of all abortions, but had the highest abortion ratio, 785 abortions for every 1,000 live births (Centers for Disease Control).
• Black women are more than 4.8 times more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely (Guttmacher Institute).
• The abortion rate of non-metropolitan women is about half that of women who live in metropolitan counties (National Abortion Federation).
• The abortion rate of women with Medicaid coverage is three times as high as that of other women (National Abortion Federation).
• At current rates, nearly one-third of American women will have an abortion  (Guttmacher Institute).

As abortion rates rise perhaps more time should be given to its effects upon women and their families.  Having an abortion has many side effects, both emotional and physical.  The emotional side effects include post partum depression and feelings of guilt. Most people believe post partum depression will only happen after a person delivers the baby, but, it happens any time a pregnancy is ended—no matter what stage the pregnancy ended in. Many times it can be very traumatic for the mother to feel a sense of loss or abandonment.

The physical effects of abortion can last two to four weeks after the procedure has been completed. These include abdominal pain and cramping, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, spotting and bleeding. More serious complications that could arise are infection, damage to organs including the uterus and cervix, and even death.[iii] These complications are serious to the health of the mother and should be thought about before any decision is made.

How does having an abortion impact future births?

According to the Mayo Clinic, having an abortion does not cause infertility issues or complications, but a person runs the risk of developing the following complications: vaginal bleeding during early pregnancy, preterm birth, low birth rate, and placenta previa (the placenta detaches from the uterus wall). Would we want mothers to suffer theses complications when it is preventable with choices other than abortion?

By not having an abortion, a woman will save not only a child’s life, but also maybe her own. It is always a question whether the child who died could have been the next president of the United States or invented the cure for cancer.

Josie’s story is just one of many examples of women who face the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. She concludes her story by saying:

In January, I found out on my 21st birthday that I was pregnant; at that time I was confused and had no idea what to do. It is now March and I am four months pregnant.   I decided to keep my baby and raise it with my boyfriend and with the help of my family. I  am very happy with my decision; I know I couldn’t have done it any other way. I found out it’s a boy and he’s due in September.[iv]

For many women it can be extremely scary when they are in the situation of having to decide a child’s future. That decision, however, has ultimately been placed in the mother’s hands.  She can never ignore the life that would be terminated by that one decision; a decision that could negatively impact her life, her family’s life and rob her (or adoptive parents) of the blessing of a wonderful, precious baby.

___________________________

Mari Anderson is adopted from Peru. She currently lives in Denver, Colorado. She recently graduated from Brigham Young University-Idaho with a Bachelors Degree in Child Development.

Marcy Cooper is from Roy, Utah. She is studying Child Development at Brigham Young University-Idaho and will be graduating in April 2013 with her Bachelor’s Degree.

---

[i]  http://www.fwhc.org/stories/josie.htm

[ii] http://www.mccl.org/us-abortion-stats.html

[iii] http://www.americanpregnancy.org/unplannedpregnancy/possiblesideeffects.html

[iv] http://www.fwhc.org/stories/josie.htm

Of Spiders and Smelt

Greg Barlow

Recently a Texas road construction project was postponed because of the discovery of a rare species of spider.  The project will not resume until scientists have fully evaluated the risks to the spider’s habitat posed by a continuation of the project.

Thousands of acres of productive farmland in central California have been turned to desert and the local economy ruined so that irrigation water can be returned to the Sacramento River.  The habitat of a small fish referred to as the Delta Smelt was deemed more important than the economic needs of the local farming community.

To many, the natural habitat of every living organism is sacred, perhaps rightfully so.  It is a rare day that ‘habitat’ loses a legal or for that matter a PR battle against economic or other interests.

So what of our human habitat?  More specifically what of the habitat of our children?  Biology requires that as humans we need a mother and a father, research also affirms that the outcome for children is far superior when a child grows to adulthood with his or her biological parents in a married household.  The nature of the ideal habitat for children is well known; unfortunately we fail to give the same level of deference to the habitat of our children that we demand for spiders and fish.

Perhaps there should be a law that requires an ‘environmental impact study’ performed on behalf of children prior to allowing parents to proceed with a divorce.  Prior to cohabiting, a similar study should be required so that a single mother fully understands the grave damage a live-in boy friend could inflict upon her children and their habitat.[i]

Same-sex marriage and gay adoption just might lose a bit of luster when we objectively consider just what a child is losing when removed from its natural mother/father habitat and placed in such an arrangement.

Of course abortion is the ultimate destruction of habitat.  We allow the humanity of an unborn child to be defined away so that its habitat can be invaded for the purpose of destroying it.  It would be difficult to imagine a civil society allowing similar savagery visited upon any non-human animal.

What can be said of a species that fails to seek, protect and nurture the ideal habitat of its young?  As we continue to allow the natural and essential habitat of our children to be violated, degraded, and polluted we may be wise to prepare for the far-reaching and inevitable consequences.  Sadly, I seem to envy the smelt…

---

[i] Evidence suggests that the least safe of all environments for children is that in which the mother is living with someone other than the child’s biological father. This is the environment for the majority of children in cohabiting couple households.  David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together?  What Young Couples Need to Know about Cohabitation Before Marriage,” National Marriage Project, 1999.  http://marriage.rutgers.edu/publicat.htm.

A British study found that children living with cohabiting biological parents who are unmarried are 20 times more likely to be abused and children whose mother lives with a boyfriend who is not the biological father are 33 times more likely to be abused than children living with married biological parents.   Robert Whelan, “Broken Homes and Battered Children, 1993.  Patrick Fagan and Kirk A. Johnson, “Marriage: The Safest place for Women and Children,” The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder Report no. 1535, 10 April, 2002. p. 3, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1535.cfm

Wrong Elton, your son does have a mummy

Ann Bailey

In a candid moment that surprised not a few gay advocates, singer Elton John has acknowledged that it will be “heartbreaking” when the boy being raised by him and his gay partner grows and realizes “he hasn’t got a mummy.”  Elton certainly has broken away from gay orthodoxy with his statement– actually acknowledging that it might be important for a child to have both a mother and a father – blasphemous!

Elton’s 13-month old son was born via a surrogate (not the biological mother), a donated egg and a mixture of sperm from Elton and his partner (so they could both think it was their child).  What you have is a complicated mix of parentage and confusing identify that will reverberate throughout the child’s life.

Elton is definitely wrong; the child does have a mother (just as every human being ever born has one).  Elton just chose to make sure that the child will never know the woman nor enjoy all the crucial things that having his mother in his life could give him.  And that’s a problem!

We have volumes of research citing what occurs to children who are robbed of either their mother or their father – they need both!   Enough years have passed that there is also a growing body of research on outcomes for children born of artificial reproductive technologies (ART).  One of the most-often referred to studies is entitled: “My Daddy’s Name is Donor,” which gives a glimpse into the minds and hearts of children born via these unnatural relationships.

Here’s a sampling of findings from this study:

1. Young adults who are donor offspring experience profound struggles with their origins and identities.
2. Family relationships for donor offspring are more often characterized by confusion, tension, and loss.
3. Donor offspring often worry about the implications of interacting with – and possibly forming intimate relationships with – unknown, blood-related family members.
4. Donor offspring are more likely to have experienced divorce or multiple family transitions in their families of origin.     (You can go here to see more.)

Here’s the bottom line:

“Donor offspring are significantly more likely than those raised by their biological parents to struggle with serious, negative outcomes such as delinquency, substance abuse, and depression, even when controlling for socio-economic and other factors.”

Elton so enjoys his young son that he is considering repeating the process to have another child.   Elton’s comment implies that he knows that mothers matter, but he chooses to ignore what his child (any child!) might need.   It’s what I’ve always argued; the push for gay adoption and the use of artificial reproductive technologies for homosexual couples, (or for single heterosexuals – most often women) is all about meeting adult needs – not about the needs of a child.  Sad, sad, sad…

The European Court of Human Rights Gets it Right!

“Same-sex marriage is not a human right.”  No, that line didn’t come from some conservative pro-family group; but it came, last month, from an unexpected place – the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.    The ruling was the result of a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained that the French courts would not allow them, as a couple, to adopt a child.  French law allows only married couples to jointly adopt children.

The lesbian couple claimed that they were being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation and that this was a violation of their right to respect of their family and private life (Articles 14 & 18 of The European Convention for Human Rights).   But the court held that there is no human right to “gay marriage” under the European Convention for Human Rights, as the court rightly decided back in 2010 (Schalk & Kopf v. Austria)

Did you read about this in any mainstream newspaper or media outlet?  Let me say it again:  “Same-sex marriage is NOT a human right.”  What kind of coverage would there have been if the case had been decided differently?   Yup, it would have been front page/top-of-the hour news.

Benjamin Bull of Alliance Defense Fund points out:

This decision needs to be shouted from rooftops in Europe, and in the U.S. it needs to be put before American judges who have been so very fond of selectively citing foreign law to support U.S. decisions (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas). Is foreign court precedent only important when it furthers leftist priorities?

The ruling did get the attention of the policy makers in Britain who are preparing to legalize “same-sex marriage.”   Legal experts are warning that this will have serious repercussion for religious freedom in Britain.

Benjamin Bull clarifies:

And while the [European Court of Human Rights]recognized that officials could legislate same-sex “marriage,” the justices warned that doing so under the premise of protecting religious liberty would be a farce:   “If MPs legislate for same-sex marriage, the…promise that churches will not be compelled to conduct the weddings will be worthless.” The Church of England has already warned its pastors that if a same-sex “marriage” goes ahead, “equality law is likely to force churches to fall into line and perform the wedding ceremonies.”

Let’s hope that the British realize, before it’s too late, that there are serious consequences involved in caving to the same-sex lobby.

Lastly, whether you agree with the French on other things, they “get” man/woman marriage and its importance to children and to society.  It is worth reminding you about the French report that outlines the importance of traditional marriage and the fact that children have a right to both a mother and a father.

It looks like this lesbian couple didn’t choose their battle very well.

Reader Poll: “Should a gestational mother (carries an unborn child to term, but not biologically related) have parental rights after the child’s birth?”

Here’s the question we asked readers:            

Should a gestational mother (carries an unborn child to term, but not biologically related) have parental rights after the child’s birth?

Here’s how readers responded:

10 Percent                   Yes                                                                       

63 Percent                   No

27 Percent                   Don’t know

 This is a tough question and it represents just some of the dilemmas associated with assisted reproductive technologies.  Because so many of these technologies created artificial situations for which there are no natural precedents (nor legal or ethical guidelines), the human race finds itself fumbling around searching for the answers.  Unfortunately, it is the children of these situations who are left ungrounded and without a clear path as to their identity and their parentage.  It has consequences for them and for society.

Should a woman, although she might not be carrying a child with her biological material, still not be considered a mother?  Did her body and her blood not nourish and carry the baby for some nine months?  Did not part of her become part of the child during that time?  This is something that is being tested in courts in various places around the world and it is going to take “the wisdom of Solomon” to sort it out.

Broken Promises: The UN and the U.S. are killing millions

By Grace Sailor

As I delve into the book Broken Promises: How the AIDS Establishment Has Betrayed the Developing World by Harvard professor,  Edward C. Green, a  self-acclaimed lifelong, outspoken  liberal-progressive-leftist, I am mesmerized by his conservative views on the solution to what is referred to as the AIDS hyperepidemic.

As he begins to reveal the deception of the United Nations and the U.S. Congress by not acknowledging data that enforces the truth that positive “responsible” behavior such as abstinence and fidelity are a viable solution to the AIDS crisis. Instead, the U.N. and U.S. have poured billions of dollars into promoting condom distribution instead of promoting these positive behaviors. Dr. Green reports that “when Westerners convinced Botswana that condoms would stop AIDS, the results were catastrophic. About one in five adults there now have HIV.”

In the African continent, it is reported that over forty-six million people have been infected with HIV which has resulted in the death of over eighteen million natives.  Unlike the rest of the world, the majority of those infected in Africa are from heterosexual relationships, not through homosexuality or drug users. Sadly, this epidemic has left over twelve million AIDS orphans behind, and the numbers are still rising.

I have experienced Dr. Green’s frustration first hand as I have been involved at UNAIDS meetings and worked with an African AIDS prevention program for many years.  Dr. Green summarizes many of our experiences when he recounts testifing before a House subcommittee in 2006 in regard to data that supported fidelity and abstinence.  He writes that he “soon was wondering why they called it a “hearing” – because no one was listening.” After the hearing Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) informed Dr. Green that the “The rest of the world, quite frankly, disagrees with what you’re saying “and continued to state that “the rest of the world gets it.”

I have witnessed firsthand at high- level UNAIDS meetings, conservative world leaders promoting abstinence and fidelity be openly mocked and ridiculed by many fellow U.N. countries while attempting to give their speeches.  I was disgusted that these high-level leaders representing the world were acting like teenagers fighting for their rights for sexual freedom – at all costs. It was disturbing and frightening to see the lack of moral judgment among the world leaders.

Dr. Green’s book reminds me again of why it is so important that the pro-family movement fights for a voice within the international, national, and local governments.  It is an uphill battle – but a battle worth fighting. The results could save millions of lives – literally.

Hollywood wrong…again

By Carol Soelberg

Remember last summer and the controversy surrounding actress Jennifer Aniston?  While promoting her new movie “The Switch,” Aniston had commented: 

“Women are realizing it more and more that you don’t have to settle.  They don’t have to fiddle with a man to have that child.” 

Bill O’Reilly, Fox News commentator, thought that it was an ill-considered comment and chastised her with:

“She’s throwing her message out to 12 year-olds and 13 year-olds that ‘Hey you don’t need a guy.  You don’t need a dad.’”

 O’Reilly finished by calling the actress’ message “destructive to our society.”

Celebrity feud aside, I found it reassuring and encouraging that a large share of the general public agreed with O’Reilly.  Family breakdown is not something to be encouraged or celebrated.  I thought of that little brouhaha as I read through two newly released reports discussing family breakdown and poverty.

What’s happening internationally?

 A recent report authored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an alliance of richer countries, released its “first ever report on family well-being” on April 27, 2011.

According to the report, one in four children in the United States is being raised by a single parent.  This is a percentage that has been on the rise and is higher than other developed countries, according to the report.  Of the 27 industrialized countries studied by the OECD, the U.S. had 25.8 percent of children being raised by a single parent, compared with an average of 14.9 percent across the other countries.

Ireland was second (24.3 percent), followed by New Zealand (23.7 percent). Greece, Spain, Italy and Luxemburg had among the lowest percentages of children in single-parent homes.  Experts point to a variety of factors to explain the high U.S. figure, including a cultural shift toward greater acceptance of single-parent child rearing, but all seem to be derived from familial breakdown, drug use, crime, domestic violence, fatherlessness, just to name a few..

The first chapter of the report is titled “Families are Changing” and contains material on family structure and child poverty. It notes as “a particular worry that in most OECD countries, poverty risks have shifted over the past 20 years towards families with children…” A major reason for this is the steady increase in single parent households.

“The economic vulnerability of families is linked to parents’ incapacity to reconcile employment and parenthood,” says the report. That joblessness is the main cause of poverty should not come as a shock to anyone.  However, joblessness is more likely where there is only one parent, usually the mother. The report does acknowledge does acknowledge that two parents are better than one:

“Given that joblessness greatly increases the chances of a household being poor, couple households can act as a protection for children against poverty as such households are less likely to be jobless.”

 Unfortunately, projections up to 2025-2030 suggest that in almost all countries single parent households will continue to increase both in absolute numbers and as a proportion of all households with children.

Hopefully, this report from the OECD will inspire policy makers to value cultural norms, traditions and laws that re-enforce the family while realizing that a sound economy depends ultimately on the health of the family unit. Policymakers can advance an anti-poverty framework that allows civil society to flourish and individuals to thrive.

More support for strong traditional families

In a recent report issued by the Heritage Foundation,  Heritage Fellow Ryan Messmore states:

“The goal of overcoming poverty is not simply to eliminate need, but to enable people to thrive – that is, to empower them to live meaningful lives and contribute to society. Thriving is much more than a full stomach and a place to sleep. People tend to flourish in the context of healthy relationships with their families and communities. Suffering and breakdown often result when those relationships are absent or unhealthy.”

In contrast to the OECD study that calls for more socialized welfare programs and spending to replace the absence of solid families, such programs do not work and actually are counter productive. Further citing Heritage Foundation,

“Despite spending more than $16 trillion on means-tested welfare since the War on Poverty began in 1964, the official U.S. poverty rate has remained largely unchanged. During the same period, the nation’s unwed birth rate increased from 7 percent to 41 percent.”

 With more than half of all households in poverty led by single mothers, the breakdown in marriage and family over the past 40 years has devastated the well-being of thousands of women and their children and significantly hindered their chances of escaping poverty.

Government handouts can never replace the broad array of benefits derived from maintaining a cohesive family unit.  Effective responses to poverty must recognize the importance of foundational relationships like marriage, family, community, and work.

Any cultural message communicating that “marriage is optional” needs to be corrected.   If we ignore this obvious misinformation, we do so at the peril of our children and our society’s future.  Please join us as we strengthen our own families and help us to spread the message  that marriage matters!

Special needs children – a beautiful gift

by  Grace Sailor

“More than 90 percent of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted…”-ABC News

I wanted to share with you this beautiful and touching video about a brother and a special needs sister.  It captures the pure love of a sibling relationship.

When I hear of individuals aborting children with special needs, it breaks my heart. I have a brother who has Down Syndrome and he has been a miracle in not only my family’s life, but to thousands in the community. He has changed people’s lives by his loving smile and hugs. I know firsthand that raising a special needs child can be very difficult with all of the doctor’s appointments, therapies, and attendant care – but it is extremely rewarding and can bless lives more than one would ever expect.

What is wonderful is that even if a woman doesn’t want to keep the baby herself, there are many, many families who are willing to adopt special needs children. It is a beautiful gift to give to another family.

Musings from an Abortion Rally

Getting footage straight from the mouth of abortion fiends (oops! I mean friends) was the goal of the non-profit catholicvote.org.  So they took their camera to the “Walk for Choice” held in Chicago on February 27, 2011.   There they encountered (and filmed) women bragging about their abortions, claiming that “abortion IS healthcare,” and throwing out the standard canards and rationalization for abortion like:

“Unless you going to start adopting all of these children that will be born, I don’t know what we are going to do….we don’t have the maintenance…”

“It’s not a baby.  A baby is a fetus that has been born.” [so profound..]

There were a surprising number of men in attendance.  Well, why not?  Abortion works out quite nicely for them doesn’t it.  You had one man wishing there was a Planned Parenthood clinic on every corner “just like Starbucks.”  Another young man fumbled around trying to articulate the ridiculous notion that people who are pro-life don’t care about children.  That’s such a foolish statement and he, indeed, looked foolish.

Well, you take a look.    By the way, I really did mean abortion fiends…