HHS Wants to Force States to Fund Planned Parenthood

By | Blog, News and Events, Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

hhslogoIn September, the Health and Human Services Department released a report detailing their argument for a new rule saying that states can’t deny Title X funding to “focused reproductive health providers” — which is code for Planned Parenthood.  Title X was a provision of the Public Health Service Act, originally enacted in 1980 and dedicated to funding family planning programs.  Under their argument, family planning and women’s health services which qualify for Title X funding are offered by Planned Parenthood, and regardless of what else Planned Parenthood does, they can’t be denied the Title X funds.

If such a new rule is enacted, all the state and federal efforts to redirect funding to Community Health Centers would thus be rendered useless.

According to HHS, Planned Parenthood provides services that are more “effective” and “high quality” than other health centers.  But this HHS recommendation is littered with agenda-driven jargon that bulldozes state rights, disregards fair reporting, and invents unclear qualifications.

  • States would no longer be able to control who receives Title X funding. States are the best judge of which entities in their state serve their people best, but would lose jurisdiction to make those geographically-specific qualifications.
  • HHS is trying desperately to undo the work of state legislators who have defunded Planned Parenthood. HHS is effectively disregarding the legislative branch and the public will in favor of further government executive overreach. Bottom line: the Obama Administration is protecting big abortion.
  • Community Health Centers outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics 20 to 1; they would be able to absorb the influx of patients, especially with funds further redirected away from Planned Parenthood and towards them.
  • Some women may not know a Community Health Center option is available to them, but a marketing push to help them know all the places they can get help can aid this transition.
  • Planned Parenthood makes enough profit to be able to make up for the lack of federal funds. Thus, any real reduction in Planned Parenthood’s services is due to a failure of Planned Parenthood to prioritize their budget to women most in need, not a failure of the direction of state funds.  In some states, Planned Parenthood would still receive Medicaid reimbursements for their medical services, even if the Title X funding source is removed.
  • The reporting methodology of the HHS report relies on demographic trends to generate numbers, not hard data such as assessment of women’s true needs, structures, processes, and outcomes that would be required for a full audit of the effectiveness of Title X recipients and subrecipients.
  • When national numbers are considered, community health centers are providing more services in both number and type, and serving more patients, than Planned Parenthood.
  • The HHS arguments that reproductive-focused health clinics are more “effective” and provide “high quality” care are subjective terms that beg further definition.
  • The actual goal of Title X includes making provision for improving the health of women and infants. Considering Planned Parenthood’s narrow focus on reproductive healthcare for women only, Community Healthcare, which cares for a broad spectrum of health needs for women and children, is actually more effective at fulfilling Title X’s stated purposes.
  • If HHS is going to adapt their rules for recipients, they would be wise to consider the larger trend in healthcare towards more comprehensive care, not more specified services.
  • Thirty-one citations of the HHS report are generated by a biased source — a research arm that used to be part of Planned Parenthood.

Many of these points are outlined in a bipartisan letter authored by Joni Ernst and Diane Black, available here in its entirety. The HHS rule is available to read here.  You can view more information about why women don’t need Planned Parenthood here.

Chaney Mullins serves as Special Projects Writer for Concerned Women for America.

The Hyde Amendment

By | Blog, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

As the Hyde amendment turns 40, preserving and making permanent the Hyde Amendment is one of the greatest tasks of the pro-life movement.  It is not an exaggeration to say that Hyde is the only thing standing between abortion and full federal funding.  If Hyde does not stand, our taxpayer money goes directly to funding abortion in all circumstances.  Hyde currently allows for exceptions in the case of rape, incest, and the mother’s life, but those who want to abolish Hyde have much more sweeping hopes for abortion funding.

Our nation would be catechizing abortion as a part of women’s health.  Pro-lifers know this to be a grossly misguided ideology, as abortion hurts women as well as unborn children.  But never mind the facts, abortion lobbyists believe abortion is a right and a right that needs to be “safe, legal, and accessible” to poor women everywhere who, of course, “need” abortion to succeed in life.  To them, it is a right so fundamental that you have to pay for it.

Hyde prevents this. Hyde protects conscience rights for the pro-life American taxpayers who do not believe abortion funding is a just purpose of government.  And Hyde is consistent with the public opinion of 62% of Americans, including pro-choice taxpayers, who believe abortion should not be federally funded.

But it doesn’t just protect the taxpayers.  Hyde has literally saved lives, and continues to do so at the rate of 60,000 lives a year.  Over two million people living in American today owe their very lives to Hyde.  Twenty peer-reviewed studies have verified over and over again that the Hyde amendment has reduced abortion.  In fact, one-in-nine people born to a mother receiving Medicaid can claim Hyde as saving their life.  This is because once Hyde took effect, the number of Medicaid mothers increased by 13 percent, indicating that instead of using federal money for an abortion, women were utilizing available, better help — Medicaid’s provision of pre-natal care and delivery.

It appears that when abortion isn’t covered by federal funding, women don’t in desperation turn to abortion’s faulty promises of a “quick fix” that destroys unborn life and leaves them physically and emotionally wounded.  Instead, women learn to turn to options that are healthier for them and their babies.  They turn to what federal funding should do — protecting women’s health with prenatal care, delivery, and comprehensive health services for women and children in need.

Those who value unborn life and religious freedom need to protect Hyde.  Those who know women deserve better than abortion and who don’t want their taxes sanctioning death need to protect Hyde.  Those who believe the government has no business in the abortion industry need to protect Hyde.  And finally, those who could owe their very lives to the passage of Hyde need to work intensely to protect the Hyde Amendment for all the good it has done and still can do.


10 Principles about Healing From Abortion

By | Blog, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Abortion. Almost one in three women in America has now faced it; almost everyone is touched by it in some way.  It has changed our world more than any other issue in that the very inhabitants of the world have been lost.  In mourning such a gargantuan loss, people can forget to consider that we should mourn not only for the children, but for the mothers who have often been taken advantage of, who need great compassion and mercy.

  1. Knowing that God will heal abortion doesn’t mean you should choose one. The possibility of healing from abortion is not at all a justification for the deed.  Far too often at the sidewalk, I heard women walking in say, “God will forgive me.”  They figure that if God is as loving as we say He is, He will, therefore, understand why they are having an abortion and just cover it in grace and excuse it.  This is a form of the antinomian heresy that Christ’s love justifies proceeding to choose bad behavior.  Paul says in Romans 6, “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!”
  1. Repression and healing are vastly different. Many post-abortive women try to find a way to cope through repressing what happened. Repressed trauma can manifest itself in various degrees of visibility through symptoms like depression, self-destructive behaviors, and repeat abortions.   Trauma also often causes illogical overreaction to subtly triggering circumstances.  There is information available online to help women identify whether they may be suffering from PASS-Post Abortion Stress Syndrome.
  1. Healing requires genuine confession of wrongdoing. Until a woman admits what happened, her conscience will chase her. Budziszewski has theorized five furies that happen until a woman finally seeks healing.  Among these is a desire to share one’s personal abortion story without admitting it was actually wrong.
  1. Healing involves admitting being wronged by others, but also forgiving them. Many can be blamed for the prevalence of abortion.  Maybe a woman blames her partner, pressuring family, doctor and nurses, the culture at large, the lawmakers, Planned Parenthood, or the lack of alternative options.  All of these people and institutions do bear some of the weight of responsibility, but first acknowledging having been wronged or manipulated, and then forgiving the perpetrators, is vital to healing.  Focus on the Family talks about what forgiveness is and is not in reference to divorce, but some of the same principles apply to the issue of abortion.
  1. Healing requires forgiving oneself. On the other extreme of antinomianism are women who feel like God will never be able to forgive them for what they have done or who struggle terribly with forgiving themselves. Often, forgiving oneself can be the hardest thing to do, but one must cling to knowing that Christ’s grace is enough for you and that refusing to forgive yourself is minimizing the extent of His sacrifice.  Thus, it is possible to overemphasize the sacrifice by justifying a decision to go ahead and have an abortion, or underemphasize Christ’s sacrifice in a refusal to forgive yourself after you have already had one.
  1. Healing is not an instantaneous process. It will take lots of time and a different amount of time for each person. It will not often happen overnight but take lots of combing through the issues leading up to and following the abortion.  Trying to rush one’s own or a loved one’s healing is unhelpful, because it is impossible to simply “get over it.”
  1. Healing doesn’t happen alone. This is why it is very important that everyone should know a bit about recovery from abortion. It is very important that others aren’t judgmental of the women, but rather eager to hear her story, love her, and help her heal. Friends, family, partners, and spouses should be supportive and seek healing themselves if they were involved in the abortion. Women should feel free to seek outside help through counseling, pregnancy center support groups, and post-abortion retreats.  Project Rachel is a well-known post-abortion retreat option that has helped many women as they strive to go on with life after abortion.
  1. Healing will look differently for different people. This is because people will often have had the abortion for different reasons.  One’s own circumstances and one’s own personality means one’s own healing will be unique. People need different amounts of engagement with God, counselors, friends, other post-abortive women, and others involved in their abortion in order to fully heal.
  1. Healing involves remembering. Many women have found great refuge in remembering their unborn children through memorial services.  Often, as a part of these, an aborted child is named.  By acknowledging the dignity and humanity of their children, they are able to come to grips with what abortion was.  Until they face that reality, it is difficult to heal.
  1. Healing is ongoing and not complete. Regrets will remain.  Life will never be the same without the child that was lost.  It’s okay that the feeling never entirely goes away.  The scar is still there, even if the wound is no longer raw.  On this side of heaven, the painful memories will, in some sense, remain.


Legislative Efforts to Reduce the Number of Abortions

By | Blog, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

In 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton invalidated state abortion bans and made abortion for any reason legal on the federal level in the United States throughout the pregnancy.  But certain state restrictions on abortion were still possible.  In the next few years, the pro-life movement mobilized against these rulings.  In 1980 a grassroots pro-life movement formed to not just counter abortion, but to help women choose life.  By caring about both the woman and child, the pro-life movement moved beyond being simply anti-abortion.  Legal strategies to reverse Roe v. Wade also began. The pro-life work of crisis pregnancy centers became like a fireproof building, while the work of legislators trying to save as many dying children as possible became the firefighters.

Those legislative “firefighters” have set about passing several important restrictions to abortion working with state laws.  You can view a map of abortion restrictions where, in 2013, more than 25 states had implemented four or more restrictions to abortion!  You can see below the types of restrictions that have been implemented state by state.  Many pro-life groups have sprung up to help in this effort.  For example, Americans United for Life has help craft model legislation for such restrictions, with an “Infant Protection Project” and a “Women’s Protection Project.”  This is because abortion isn’t solely about protecting the unborn, but also the women who are at serious physical and psychological risk from abortion.

One particularly encouraging development has been the ability to work with unlikely allies in the middle, who have reservations about abortion on demand for any reason.  Many are willing to pass restrictions which truly benefit women’s health, ensure abortion isn’t coerced, or limit late term abortions, as long as that legislation that allows for certain exceptions. (In fact, rape and incest make up only about 1 percent of all abortions and are rarely the only reason given to obtain an abortion.)

The Washington Examiner put it this way, “Large majorities oppose re-criminalizing all abortions.  But large majorities also support limits on abortion, including banning them after … 24 weeks (when half or more [babies can survive]).”  Sen. Marco Rubio explained his philosophy working with these moderates on passing legislation which includes exceptions: “I recognize that in order to have consensus on laws that limit the number of abortions, a lot of people want to see those exceptions.” And he clarifies, “I’ll support any legislation that reduces the number of abortions.”

But the public momentum slowed some after pro-lifers faced a crushing defeat this summer when the Supreme Court ruled against abortion restrictions in Texas meant to protect women’s health by ensuring each abortion clinic and abortionist was up to safe medical standards. It’s particularly crushing to have legislative successes trampled by court overreach.  But this defeat should not discourage pro-lifers to continue legislative efforts in the states, many of which have been and continue to be successful ways to save lives, as you will see in the list of types of pro-life laws below.

Until Roe v. Wade is repealed, we need more of these laws to advocate for unborn babies and also for women who are at risk from abortion.  We pray these kinds of laws will pass in many states and, eventually, on the federal level.

 Below are some types of pro-life laws that have helped to reduce the number of abortions in this country.  

 Gestational Limits: These laws make abortion legal after a certain age in the womb — often at viability.

Ultrasound Requirement: These laws require women to have an ultrasound before they decide on abortion.  Sometimes they are required to hear a description of the ultrasound.  Sometimes women who are raped or incest victims are excused from this requirement.

Informed Consent: These laws ensure women have all the information about abortion and its risks before deciding to go through with one.

Restrict Interstate Access: These laws prevent women from traveling across state borders for abortion.

Health and Safety Requirements: These laws require abortion clinics to meet certain safety standards like ambulance access.

Legal Restrictions on the Abortionist: These laws often take the form of requiring an abortionist to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital (ensuring a certain standard of medical report and competency). There are also cases of laws which reduce medical malpractice protection for abortionists.

Parental Consent Laws: These laws require parents at least be informed about a minor’s decision to abort; in some cases they must consent to the decision.

Defund Planned Parenthood: Legal proposals like defunding Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics aim at limiting or banning federal or state funds like grants from being awarded to these organizations.

Allow States to Defund State Medicaid to Clinics Performing Abortions: Recently, the House passed a bill which authorizes states to decide that they will not provide Medicaid reimbursement of medical expenses if the medical office providing that service is also performing abortion.  Thus, this legislation clears a path for states to stop giving money to abortion providers.

Web-Cam Abortion Bans: There are proposals to administer abortion drugs via skype-like technology without needing to meet the doctor! These laws ban that.

Choose Life License Plate: These allow people to pay to have Choose Life License Plates on their cars; money raised goes to pro-life centers.

Waiting Periods/Counseling Before Abortion: This makes women wait, receiving counseling and/or simply time between expressing her desire for abortion an actually obtaining one.  At times, this requires two trips to the clinic.

Fund Health Center Alternatives and/or Adoption Options: Some states with pro-life leadership have, instead of funding abortion clinics, funded programs that fund adoption agencies, pregnancy centers, or non-abortive healthcare centers.

Fetal Homicide Laws: These laws mean that if a criminal harms a pregnant mother he is responsible for the harm causes to both mother and child as two victims.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban: A national law now bans partial-birth abortion, the procedure of delivering most of the baby’s body before snapping the neck while the child’s head is still in the birth canal.  There is some evidence from the Center for Medical Progress videos that Planned Parenthood may still be using the partial-birth abortion procedure to obtain “intact specimens” of whole baby organs.

Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act: This law would ban abortion after 20 weeks, because it is scientifically proven that the baby at that gestation can feel pain and the abortion is painful to them.  The law failed to pass the United States Senate.  However, some states have implemented the law.

Note: Find out what laws your state still needs to limit abortion!  Explore your state’s laws here, and find out how they compare to other states here

The pro-choice research entity Guttmacher Institute also provides detailed charts of abortion restrictions (you can click on a restriction, such as gestational limits here called “state policies on later abortions,” and see the states that have it.  A summary overview chart of all restrictions is here). 

Are Humans an Invasive Species?

By | Blog, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

most-invasive-speciesEvery summer, my family and I make a trip to Calvert County to visit Old Spout Farm, a historic property that our cousins own on the banks of St. Leonard’s Creek.  For many years, they have urged us to visit the local Calvert County museum to experience their science exhibits.  This summer, we finally did, and we were beyond impressed with the quality of the museum experience.  That is up until one particular exhibit.

At first it seemed innocent — invasive species were introduced as a problem in many ecosystems.  Various suggestions were presented to solve this issue, such as eating invasive species in weird culinary creations.

But then we came upon a strange mirror on the wall, and I realized with horror the message being conveyed. “See the most invasive special of all” — and then you were staring at yourself.

My scientific curiosity turned to outrage.  What are we teaching children on field trips about themselves?  After they have just learned one solution to invasive species is eating them, they then learn that they are an invasive species.  This was unacceptable.

Invasive species are defined as: “Plants, animals, or pathogens that are non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause harm.”

Putting aside the question of whether a human can even be called an animal, the idea that humans are alien on earth is problematic in so far as earth was created for us. Genesis 1:28 reads, “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’”  Some eschatological theologians even believe Christ’s return will eventually result in the establishment of His Kingdom in a restored earth.

We must admit that at times humans have abandoned their call to stewardship of Earth and have contributed to environmental and social problems in this fallen world.  But to imply that humans invaded the earth — that we aren’t supposed to be here, that we mess up earth’s balance and perfection (which is implied to be clearly more valuable than us) — is a great devaluing of human life. This isn’t to say poverty and starvation are not series problems in some regions.  But humans are just as much a solution as they are a problem. We are complex beings with potential to follow or depart from God’s will.  But we are not something to be eliminated!

This “humans are invasive” attitude has profound implications for public policy.  If we see humans as invasive, then, logically, there should be fewer of them.  I couldn’t help thinking of China’s disastrous one-child policy, recently amended due to the negative effects.  I couldn’t help thinking of the scary eugenics movement in response to this idea that humans were overpopulating the earth, and all the human rights violations that came out of it, like forced sterilizations and human genetic engineering research.

I couldn’t help thinking about the overpopulation myth which leads to policies which propagate abortion as a solution to human “invasion.” And I couldn’t help thinking of our country, when we justify selling the aborted baby body parts of unborn children so we can supposedly figure out some way to save others.

Bottom line: Believing humans are an invasive species can lead to clear violations of the sanctity of life.

The idea that human beings are actually invasive to the world has morphed from eugenics to abortion in this culture of death.  This exhibit can create deep-seated issues in young children who needn’t feel guilty for being alive.

Human life is the most valuable resource of all, and I would hope our educational museums teach children to value their own lives and those of their fellow man.

Chaney Mullins serves as Special Projects Writer for Concerned Women for America.


Grassley: No hearings on Supreme Court nominee this year

By | Blog, Iowa, News and Events | No Comments

GrassleyStrackeJanae Stracke, CWA’s Communications Coordinator and a native Iowan, attended Senator Grassley’s last town hall meeting for the year in Jones County Iowa yesterday. She spoke on behalf of Concerned Women for America to support the senator and his stance to give “We the People” a voice regarding the next Supreme Court justice appointment. Our voices will be heard through the presidential election in November. She was quoted in an Iowa newspaper following the meeting:

Janae Stracke of Concerned Women for America, who was sporting an “I stand with Grassley” sticker, thanked him “wholeheartedly (because) we don’t need a Supreme Court full of judicial activists as we have been seeing.”

“We need to make sure Justice Scalia’s position is filled with a strict constitutionalist,” she said. As a millennial, Stracke said she understands the next justice will affect her and her children for years to come.

Many people who disagree with him think his decision to delay confirmation hearings “is about the next four years,” Grassley said. “But in the case of the Supreme Court, it’s about the direction of the Supreme Court for the next 40 years.”

To read the entire article, click here.

Planned Parenthood: What Can We Do?

By | Blog, News and Events, Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life, Uncategorized | No Comments

When Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards was called before the House Oversight Committee.  The question of the day was whether Planned Parenthood deserved federal funding (a decision Congress put off by passing a temporary budget until December when the debate on passing a budget will resume). Miss Richards was the only one questioned with Republicans grilling her and Democrats rushing to her defense.

The hearing was sparked by the Center for Medical Progress undercover videos which show Planned Parenthood’s illegal activity. Using the videos as a starting point, members of the Oversite Committee plunged deep into the larger spending habits of Planned Parenthood and the things that make them unworthy of funding. Planned Parenthood, Republicans pointed out, uses money for exorbitant salaries ($520,000 just for Cecile Richards — by her own admission!), overseas funding ventures, pro-choice political lobbying, and expanding their services, though they are already the largest abortion provider in America.

Planned Parenthood makes millions in excess revenue each year and does not need federal money to continue its mission. Proposals to defund have two components — 60 million federal dollars directly, and around $500 million more government reimbursements for Medicaid services. Though Medicaid money can’t go directly to abortion (except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother’s life), the money Planned Parenthood gets from the government allows them to move their other sources of revenue into their abortion-centric business and their questionable lobbying efforts.

If you were watching the hearing and felt like pulling your hair out (trust me, we understand), then you’re probably wondering, “What can I do?” Beyond calling your senators and representatives, learning more about Planned Parenthood, and signing a petition, there are several important ways a concerned Christian can be involved:

  1. We need to pray and discuss.
    Don’t be silent about what is happening. So many still don’t know about the videos or don’t think they can trust them. Discuss them, and prove them wrong. Pray for those who stand against us, especially mislead pro-choice advocates like hurting post-abortive women.  Pray for Cecile Richards that God would touch her heart. We need to treat her with the same human dignity we wish she would extend to the unborn.
  1. We need to actually be the medical alternative to Planned Parenthood.
    The pro-life movement has done an excellent job of meeting many needs, such as counseling, baby supplies, ultrasounds, post-abortive healing, legal advocacy, and educational initiatives.  Unfortunately, we have let Planned Parenthood hold a monopoly on medical services like family planning, STD testing, and breast exams. It is true that community health centers, primary care doctors, and increasing numbers of medicalized pregnancy centers and non-profit OBGYNs serve many of the health needs of women, but the pro-life movement itself is still primarily non-medical, a reality that needs to be addressed.
  2. We need to realize that health clinic name ID truly matters.
    Planned Parenthood is so successful in many ways because of their marketing and the coherency of their affiliates in a way that makes women think Planned Parenthood is the only option, when scattered community health centers are little known, underfunded, and underutilized. As we consider offering alternatives, we should carefully strategize marketing, franchising, and name ID.
  3. We need to question Planned Parenthood’s lies that they help women.
    Because Planned Parenthood is such a recognizable name in women’s healthcare, they’re thus able to define the terms of their services, leaving many women unaware of findings such as abortion’s link to breast cancer, certain health risks of some birth control, potential abortifacients, and the effectiveness of hormone-free family planning.  Furthermore, Planned Parenthood has essentially made “women’s health” synonymous with birth control and abortion, denying or minimizing all other health issues facing American women.  For instance, the number one killer of women is heart disease, and we do not hear them discussing that fact.  They also continue pushing the ideology that the government should be the one funding their “healthcare” services, despite the deep controversy and possible criminal activity of Planned Parenthood.

Chaney Mullins serves are Special Projects Writer for Concerned Women for America. 

Valuing Life in the Special Needs Community

By | Blog, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments
Chandler's friend, Jason Dohrman, is a senior at Sparkman High School in Harvest, Alabama.

Chandler’s friend, Jason Dohrman, is a senior at Sparkman High School in Harvest, Alabama.

Every life is a gift. Each of us is fearfully and wonderfully made. If our society advocates for equality and opportunity for all, we must ensure the right to life, especially for those who cannot speak up for themselves. Nearly 90 percent of babies in the womb diagnosed with a disability like Down syndrome are aborted. This statistic is absolutely unfathomable.

The claim of atheist apologist Richard Dawkins that “it is immoral not to abort a baby with Down syndrome,” breaks my heart in more ways than one. My heart is broken because the very individuals who take this horrific stance are likely to have missed out on the opportunity to form the beautiful relationships that I have developed which have positively affected me. Some of my most cherished friendships are those that I share with my Down syndrome friends, who are extra-special to me.

With this in mind, Congress MUST pass H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, into law. The passage of this 20-week abortion ban would prevent the termination of an innocent child’s life past 20 weeks for any non-fatal reason — including those with diagnosed disabilities. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is important to all lives, but today I’m advocating for the passage of this legislation for our special needs community.

Let me share a personal anecdote:

Before my birth, my soon-to-be mother took a number of standard prenatal tests, and one indicated she was at high risk for having a child born with Down syndrome. My mother was encouraged by her nurse to undergo the prenatal testing procedure known as “amniocentesis.” According to my mother, our family medical records were not, and have not been, as readily available due to my family’s origin, which is one of the reasons they proceeded with the testing. As my parents were sitting in the waiting room, many of the couples surrounding them had a history of Down syndrome in their families. During the procedure, with the assistance of an ultrasound, a needle punctured my mother’s abdominal wall into her uterus to retrieve amniotic fluid for testing. This fluid contained fetal cells that were examined for chromosome testing to determine whether or not I, her baby, had Down syndrome.

By no means were my young and expecting parents considering an abortion, but they were desperately seeking answers to a question that they assumed a test would correctly answer.

The test led the doctors to believe I would be born with an extra chromosome. I would have Down syndrome.

The test was inaccurate. The test was also later labeled by my mother’s doctor, not her nurse who originally suggested the test, as an invalid and unreliable test.

Based on this personal anecdote, my concern is heightened for mothers like mine who achingly receive these (potentially inaccurate) results and, unlike my mother, regretfully choose to end their child’s life. The majority of abortions done to children diagnosed with disabilities occur after the 20-week period, and since the most informative testing procedures take place between 18-20 weeks gestation, there may be a correlation between the two.

This must stop. Congress must pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

I believe every child is a child of the Lord and deserves the right to life to fulfill a meaningful purpose. My heart beats wildly for the special needs community, and it manifests outwardly in the relationships that I have with my extra-special friends. Two of my friends have truly epitomized what it means to exude a genuine joy. Jason and Chad are brothers; they both have special needs, and their parents willingly adopted them. I am confident there are families who are actively seeking the opportunity to serve as loving parents to those with special needs.

Statistically speaking, 79 percent of parents said their lives were more positive as a result of their child with Down syndrome. Ninety-nine percent of people with Down syndrome reported they were happy with their lives.

Let us value opportunities for others. Let us value friendships, sons, and daughters.

Let us value life itself.

“I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well,” Psalm 139:14.



CWA Poetry Corner: Dudley E. Garner, Jr.

By | Blog | No Comments

What follows is a selection of poetry from our friend, Dudley Garner, Jr., whose heart for the unborn moved him to write a selection of pro-life poems. Mr. Garner gives Biblical references for his poetry, and we encourage you to read the verses that serve as a skeleton to these works. To read his poetic offerings, click here.

Living Together Before Marriage? God’s Best Is Worth the Wait, Research Shows

By | Blog, News and Events | No Comments

They say some of the smartest people in the world move to D.C., but take one look at the housing costs, and you may beg to differ. If you’ve ever lived in the vicinity of our nation’s Capital, you know it’s not cheap.

My fiancé took one for the team and recently moved to the D.C. Metro area — the plan being that he’d rent a one bedroom apartment for half a year, then I would move in after the wedding. When we told people, they were shocked and even a professing Christian was slightly surprised.

We got questions like, “Don’t you want to test it out first and see if you’re compatible?” or “Don’t you want to save money?”

I felt like responding, “Is the Pope Catholic? Does Hillary delete e-mails?” Of course we want to live together, but instead we simply replied, “To us, it’s worth it.”

The wait, that is.

But “wait” is not a word we hear often today.

We Americans have developed a short attention span; whether it’s social media, fast food, or even relationships (thanks to the hook up culture), the more quick and “hassle-free” the better. As a result, people both inside and outside the Church are becoming increasingly willing to settle for substitutes of God’s best — especially regarding sex and marriage.
Click here to read the rest of this article on The Christian Post.