Abortion Pill Reversal Saves Lives—And Women Have A Right To Know About It

CaptureAndrea was scared—just like many other young women in her position.

The third-year nursing student and college cheerleader had found out just days before that she was unexpectedly pregnant, and now, in the abortion clinic with her boyfriend, she was facing pressure from doctors and nurses. They were telling her that she was “doing the right thing” by getting an abortion. After all, as the doctor said, “It’s not the right time” to have this baby—and her boyfriend agreed.

Andrea knew she had reservations about what she was doing. In the days leading up to her trip to the abortion clinic, her mom had been begging her to reconsider her decision. This morning, Andrea had barely been able to keep back her tears in the waiting room while waiting for the clinic nurse to call her name.

When the doctor handed her the first of two abortion pills—an increasingly common method of abortion, called chemical abortion, performed during the first trimester of pregnancy—Andrea says she “froze.” The doctor, seeing her hesitation, said abruptly, “Now hurry up and take that pill before it melts in your hand, it’s very expensive.”

Suppressing that screaming inner voice telling her not to do it, Andrea swallowed the pill, then, wishing she hadn’t, tried to throw it up. The doctor reminded her to take the second abortion pill 24 hours later.

When she left the clinic, Andrea says she ran “straight for the car where I fell to the ground crying and screaming for God to forgive me.” She knew she had to “fix” her “mistake,” so she called her mom, who took her to hospitals and doctors, hoping someone could offer a way to reverse the chemical abortion already in progress. Their search turned up empty, so Andrea, devastated, called her aunt to pray that God would save her baby despite her bad decision, and then went to bed.

When Andrea awoke the next morning, she stumbled upon an article about a doctor who had successfully reversed a chemical abortion. She immediately called a phone number, operated by Abortion Pill Rescue, a coalition of prolife OBGYNs who offer what is called “abortion pill reversal.” The compassionate voice that answered the phone put Andrea in touch with a local doctor, who told her to rush to the doctor’s office.

The doctor confirmed the baby’s heartbeat and immediately began the reversal procedure, which involves progesterone injections that can reverse the chemical abortion, stabilizing the pregnancy and allowing for a healthy baby.

Just like Andrea, many women enter abortion clinics unsure about the decision they’re making. These women immediately regret taking the first dosage of medication to end their pregnancy, yet they often don’t know where to turn or what options they have available to reverse what could be the worst decision of their lives.

Knowing this, North Dakota Rep. Daniel Johnston and other state legislators, with the help of Family Policy Alliance of North Dakota®, led a successful effort earlier this year to enact a state law requiring that women who receive chemical abortions be informed that it may be possible to reverse the effects of the medicine if they change their minds.

Unfortunately, pro-abortion activists are suing the state to overturn the North Dakota informed consent provision that empowers women like Andrea with the knowledge to make an informed decision about their chemical abortion. To make matters worse, a judge recently blocked the enforcement of the law.

As the director of advocacy for Family Policy Alliance of Idaho®, I’ve seen something comparable to what is taking place in North Dakota also play out in my state.

The Idaho legislature, with the help of Family Policy Alliance of Idaho and other pro-life organizations, passed a similar informed consent bill in 2018 that also faced legal challenges in the courts. Our informed consent law survived the court challenges, an outcome that should give hope to our friends in the Peace Garden State.

Informed consent for chemical abortion is supported by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which boasts a membership of over 2,500 medical professionals.

And these laws seem to be effective. Although it’s a relatively new medical practice, abortion pill reversal protocol has saved the lives of 750 babies so far, according to Heartbeat International. Sadly, too many mothers living in states without these informed consent laws don’t find out there’s a way to reverse their chemical abortion until it’s too late.

Remember Andrea, the cheerleader and nursing student? She gave birth to Gabriel, a perfectly healthy, beautiful baby boy. “I thank God and I thank my doctor, an angel sent from above to save precious little lives, and to save the lives of mothers, because without her, I don’t know where I would be today,” Andrea also wrote in an online testimony. Family Policy Alliance® talked to her in this video after Gabriel was born.

Please keep praying that the North Dakota informed consent provision survives its legal challenges in the courts. Laws like these are medically sound and legally defensible, furthering a compelling state interest to ensure women are adequately informed before undergoing medical procedures. But perhaps most importantly, these laws really do save lives—and save mothers from a lifetime of regret.


This article was written for Family Policy Alliance.


 

Four Reasons Christians Must Defend Religious Liberty

Bill-of-Rights3By April 1777, John Adams—then a delegate in the Continental Congress—felt a sense of growing despair. Facing the realization that American success in the War for Independence was anything but certain, he grew concerned that his countrymen were losing their resolve to fight in the face of consecutive military defeats and that they were growing wearisome of the sacrifices necessary to secure independence and liberty for all.

Distressed but still clinging to the hope that God would come to the aid of his fledgling nation, the future president wrote a letter to his wife Abigail, in which he made this startling declaration:

“Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present generation, to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.”

Perhaps the most treasured of these freedoms is religious liberty. Called the “first freedom” because of its place as the first inalienable right protected by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, religious freedom is also protected by the Idaho Constitution, which forcefully affirms:

“The exercise and enjoyment of religious faith and worship shall forever be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege, or capacity on account of his religious opinions.”

Despite its legally protected status under our federal and state constitutions, religious liberty is under attack today.

Here are four reasons Christians should be concerned about preserving religious freedom:

  1. Our ability to openly preach the Gospel is at stake: As historian Bill Federer astutely puts it, “Our most important job is to preach the Gospel. Our second most important job is to defend our right to preach the Gospel.”
  2. Religious freedom is biblical: The Bible tells us that we are accountable to God for our religious beliefs and the actions that flow from those beliefs. Romans 14:4 says, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall.” The Bible makes clear that civil government should neither infringe on our duties to God (Acts 5:17-42) nor coerce someone to believe or act contrary to their conscience (Daniel 1, 3, 6).
  3. Our right to live, and raise our children, according to the dictates of our faith is in jeopardy. And not only living out our faith just at home or church, but at work and in school and in public, too.
  4. Love for neighbor: We should work to ensure religious freedom is preserved not only for ourselves, but for our neighbors as well, whatever their faith may be.

Our founding fathers warned that a government willing to infringe religious liberty will soon begin violating other dearly held rights. James Madison, the ‘Father of the Constitution’ and our fourth president, rightly cautioned:

“There is not a truth to be gathered from history more certain than or more momentous than this: that civil liberty cannot long be separated from religious liberty without danger, and ultimately without destruction to both.”

The founding generation sacrificed much to secure our freedoms, as have generations of soldiers, statesmen, and citizens since. Christians today must take seriously their duty to preserve religious liberty for their neighbors and children, and for future generations.

For their sake and ours, let us recommit ourselves to this righteous cause, protecting our freedom to share the Gospel and our right to live, work, and raise our families according to the precepts of God’s Word.


This article was written for Family Policy Alliance of Idaho.


 

Idaho Lottery Celebrates Its 30th Anniversary. Should We Be Celebrating, Too?

LotteryCheckPicWith much fanfare, the Idaho Lottery observed its 30th anniversary last month, but is the occasion really worth celebrating?

Proponents of the Idaho Lottery trumpet the dividends it pays to Idaho K-12 public schools, which totaled $18.6 million in 2018. Yet that accounts for only 1.1 percent of the total state spending for K-12 public schools for the same year. Not exactly the windfall gain for public schools that supporters of the lottery make it out to be.

In truth, the Idaho Lottery creates victims and drains our economy. Gambling is accompanied by a host of social problems often exceeding any alleged benefits.

Most lottery tickets are purchased by the poorest Idahoans who can least afford it. A study conducted by Duke University researchers found that households making less than $25,000 annually spend more than double as much on lottery tickets as households with an annual income of more than $100,000. Researchers have also “found that the poorest third of households bought more than half of all weekly lottery tickets sold.”

Low-income lottery participants often redirect their spending from essential items (housing, food, education, and transportation) to purchasing lottery tickets. Despite the near impossible odds of winning it big, many of them see gaming as a ticket out of their financial difficulties, and the consequences of their gambling place an inordinate strain on their marriages and children.

While the state lottery brings in a negligible amount of funding for public schools and other government programs, it functions as a regressive tax on the poorest people in our state and discourages economically productive and socially beneficial behavior. As with most government schemes to wrest more dollars from the public, the problems caused by the lottery far outweigh any overstated benefits.

Through its lottery, the State of Idaho encourages poor financial decisions and behaviors that negatively affect families and communities. Certainly we shouldn’t be celebrating that.


This article was originally written for Family Policy Alliance of Idaho.


 

A “Fragile Superhero” Shows the Inherent Value of Children With Disabilities

KadenHave you heard about “fragile superhero” Kaden Casebolt? 

Kaden is a five-year-old boy born with osteogenesis imperfecta, a very rare disease that makes a person’s bones extraordinarily brittle.

Meeting with Kaden’s mom while she was still pregnant, doctors recommended she get an abortion. They informed the expectant mother there was a 95% chance her son wouldn’t survive birth. But even if he did, doctors said he wouldn’t survive long after.

Kaden’s mom declined to abort her preborn son. In an interview with BBC3 this summer, she says she made the right decision. 

Although Kaden has had over 40 broken bones requiring frequent surgeries, he “loves life.” Kaden is fascinated by superheroes, and he enjoys playing with his superhero action figures. He’s particularly fond of Superman, who impresses Kaden with his flying skills and suit.

“I think Kaden loves superheroes so much because he feels like he is one,” his mom said. “He’s already overcome so much, and he can still do the impossible.”

The doctors who recommended abortion were wrong, something Kaden’s mom says is evident in her son’s happiness and great potential.

“I’m very glad that I didn’t listen to the doctors who told me that he wouldn’t live, or walk, or do anything,” Kaden’s mom said. “If I did listen to them, then I wouldn’t have a strong little boy doing everything they said he couldn’t do.”

Every person deserves a chance at life. But too many preborn children with disabilities are aborted and denied the opportunity to live happy lives.

Thankfully for Kaden, he has parents who understood the infinite value of their son. They chose life.



This article was originally written for the Indiana Family Institute.


 

UK Doctors and Judges Sentence Another Innocent Baby Boy to Death


Update (6:00PM EST, 04/23/2018): Despite ongoing efforts by Italian and Vatican diplomats to secure Alfie’s release, the hospital has removed the boy’s ventilator, and his hospital room has been surrounded by police officers. The English judge appears obstinately committed to his decision that Alfie’s life is not worth living, notwithstanding video published by LifeSiteNews earlier today showing that the toddler is “lively and alert.”


Update (2:00PM EST, 04/23/2018): Alfie has been granted Italian citizenship in hopes that English authorities will release him for treatment at a hospital in Rome with ties to the Vatican. His doctors, resolute in their efforts to prevent the boy from receiving treatment elsewhere, planned to remove him from his ventilator today. The big question right now is whether the English are as determined to murder Italian citizens as they are to murder their own?


29789950_2042672899282211_9078872337536778240_nI am angry and upset that, for the second time in less than a year, the English legal and medical systems are conspiring to condemn a sick baby boy to death against the instructions of his parents.

Alfie Evans, who is now 23 months old, was taken to an English hospital in December 2016 to be treated for a lung infection. Some time later, he slipped into a coma. Doctors have been unable to diagnose Alfie’s malady, although they assume he has a mitochondrial disorder.

In February, the High Court in London agreed with doctors that the boy should be removed from life support, and the UK Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision. “Alfie’s brain had been so corrupted by mitochondrial disease that his life was futile,” the judge wrote in the decision. Alfie’s parents, on the other hand, want to take Alfie to an Italian hospital with ties to the Vatican for treatment.

Whether Alfie will be given the opportunity to receive treatment in Italy is still to be seen. The inappropriately named European Court of Human Rights rejected the family’s request to seek treatment elsewhere, and the hospital plans to remove life support today.

Screen Shot 2017-06-12 at 9.20.28 PMThe ongoing case brings to mind Charlie Gard, who was murdered under similar circumstances by doctors and judges last summer. Gard’s parents brought him to a London hospital in October 2016 for breathing problems when he was three months old. Gard was subsequently diagnosed with a mitochondrial disorder. In January 2017, he had seizures and fell into a coma. Claiming that the seizures had caused irreversible brain damage, Charlie’s doctors petitioned an English judge to grant them the ability to end his life, despite the ongoing discussions between his parents and an American doctor who was willing to administer an experimental treatment that might have saved Charlie’s life. Hospital officials prevailed in court (just like with Alfie, the European Court of Human Rights refused to hear Charlie’s case) and removed Charlie from life support last July.

Justice Francis, the High Court judge who heard Charlie’s case, ruled that “it is in Charlie’s best interests” for the hospital “to permit Charlie to die with dignity.” In his ruling, Justice Francis rejected the objections of those who ask why courts should make these decisions and override the rights of parents:

“The duty with which I am now charged is to decide, according to well laid down legal principles, what is in Charlie’s best interests. Some people may ask why the court has any function in this process; why can the parents not make this decision on their own? The answer is that, although the parents have parental responsibility, overriding control is vested in the court exercising its independent and objective judgment in the child’s best interests.”

It is morally reprehensible for a judge to claim the power to decide whose lives are worth living and whose lives are not. Furthermore, it can only be described as a blatant infringement on parental rights when doctors and judges attempt to override decisions by parents regarding medical treatment for their children.

For the historically literate, Alfie and Charlie’s cases conjure up images of Nazi Germany, where doctors routinely euthanized the “unfit,” whose lives, in the eyes of politicians and doctors, weren’t “worth” living.

Lest we forget, physicians take an oath to “do no harm.” Although doctors shouldn’t be forced to provide care with which they personally or professionally disagree, they have no right to prevent parents from taking their children to another medical provider for treatment that may potentially prolong or improve the quality of life.

While the doctors involved in these two cases clearly overstepped their professional prerogative, they could not implement their murderous schemes without the legal support provided by English law and judges. Any government that presumes it has the power of life and death over its innocent citizens is tyrannical and monstrous. Any government that violates the natural right of parents to make medical decisions for their children is illegitimate, acting without authority, and flaunting the natural order, God’s law, and His design for human society.

Pray for little Alfie and his parents, both of whom are in their early twenties. Pray for the English authorities to repent and change direction. And pray that the American people will wake up and recover the conviction that life is sacred, lest our nation follow in England’s footsteps.

Marriage Rates Decline, Concerning Social Scientists

The percentage of single adults reached a new record high in 2016, according to a recent report by the U.S. Census Bureau. But social scientists say the precipitous decline in marriage rates over the last four decades has resulted in negative consequences for individuals, families, and communities alike.

Only 59 percent of men and 69 percent of women under 35 years old have ever married. In 1976, 88 percent of men and 95 percent of women had married before turning 35 years old.

Young adults aren’t forgoing romantic relationships entirely, however. The number of young adults cohabitating with their boyfriends or girlfriends has increased by more than 1,200 percent during the same period.

Social scientists have found that individuals who delay marriage or cohabitate miss out on numerous benefits that follow from tying the knot. Marriage causes men to become more productive, increasing their success at work and improving their financial well-being. Their wives are more likely to have a fulfilling sex life and are less likely to become victims of sexual assault. Married men and women are emotionally, psychologically, and physically healthier than their unmarried peers.

Children also benefit from growing up in a household where both parents are married. Such children are statistically less likely to have behavioral problems, experience poverty, or suffer abuse. They are also more likely to do better in school and have healthy families of their own when they grow up.

The trends outlined in the Census Bureau report are concerning. Healthy communities are the product of healthy marriages, and healthy marriages promote individual contentment and fulfillment. Therefore, we must always work to ensure that we encourage marriage, thereby strengthening individuals, families, and communities.


This article was originally written for the Indiana Family Institute.


 

Public School Employee Threatened With Discipline After Offering to Pray for Coworkers

Screen Shot 2017-11-17 at 12.05.53 PM
youtube.com

Private expression of religious faith is under attack in public schools.

Toni Richardson, who works with special needs children at a Maine high school, was approached by school officials for allegedly violating the First Amendment and the “separation of church and state.”

What misdeeds had she committed? She had told a Christian coworker that she was praying for him or her and used phrases including “That’s such a blessing.”

After learning of these supposedly grave violations, school officials told Richardson that telling other teachers “‘I will pray for you’, and ‘you were in my prayers’ is not acceptable—even if that other person attends the same church as you.” She was informed that continuing to “use phrases that integrate private and public beliefs when in public schools” would result in “discipline or dismissal in the future.”

Thankfully, our friends at First Liberty accepted Richardson’s case and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on her behalf. School officials have since backed off their original claim that Richardson must give up her First Amendment right to free religious expression when she enters school each morning. In an updated memo, they now affirm that “comments such as ‘God Bless You’ or ‘I am praying for you’ are permissible when made to co-workers outside of the hearing of students.”

The Constitution protects a person’s right to express their faith. Public school teachers shouldn’t be forced to pretend as if they aren’t Christians at their workplace. Unfortunately, more and more Christians are finding themselves in the crosshairs of school officials who are armed with a dangerous misinterpretation of the First Amendment and ignorance of the true meaning of “separation of church and state.”

The founding fathers who framed the U.S. Constitution believed that our nation’s schools should teach the Bible and Christian morality. Prayer and Bible classes were once common in public schools. Yet our school system, aided by the Supreme Court, has strayed from this founding conviction.

We’ve not only forgotten the central importance of teaching the Bible and Christian morality to the next generation so that they may faithfully fulfill their obligations as free citizens, but we’ve also begun targeting Christians within the public school system.

Fortunately, Richardson is no longer at risk of losing her job for showing Christian love and care to her coworkers, a privilege many other Christians in public schools currently lack.


This article was originally written for the Indiana Family Institute.