Furor over Planned Parenthood's "troubling insensitivity"

The furor over uncovered Planned Parenthood secrets in the sale of body parts of unborn male and female babies has shocked nations.

Anyone speaking out against these newly revealed practices must know feelings similar to those of the prophet Jeremiah, as history repeats itself in disastrous and inhumane decisions. He was punished by a king and the king's ministers for prophesying as God had told him to do.  

Jeremiah warned against the pursuit of false gods and self-interest. And God showed mercy in the delay of his wrath, repeatedly. 

As I read Jeremiah, I realize that the same gods of self-interest are followed everywhere. After videos came out showing Planned Parenthood's practices of human body part harvesting, respectable-looking people went before cameras with words selected to gloss over the implications. A bill was introduced in congress, however, and  reached the U.S. senate for a vote "yes," not to refund Planned Parenthood.   

Senator Tim Kaine voted "no," issuing a statement intended, it appeared, to blur the significant illegalities within Planned Parenthood that violate conscience, morality, and ethics:

     "For many women and families across the country, Planned Parenthood health centers are their only source of high quality health care. That’s why I voted against legislation that would deny more than 2.5 million Americans important primary care services. For years, activist groups like the Center for Medical Progress have sought to create controversy around Planned Parenthood as a way to reduce women’s access to health care. While the recent videos released by this group highlight a troubling lack of sensitivity on the part of a few individuals, moving to unilaterally defund Planned Parenthood is not the appropriate reaction'” (Augusta Free Press).

Enough other senators joined Mr. Kaine in voting "no" to the  bill to defund Planned Parenthood, thereby defeating it. They illustrate a fatal weakness of this nation's increasing tolerance for gross crimes against unborn human beings, growing the way every living person continues to develop into physical maturity, starting inside the mother's womb. 

Sen. Kaine's comments reflect the respectability that is on show, like a rose, for an agency that profits billions of dollars from tax revenues and hundreds of millions from abortions, annually.

Other facts cannot be changed. First, the lives of unborn children were violently taken in abortions, due to other violence, rape and incest; then, the lives of unborn lives were aborted "for any reason or for no reason"; now, up for discussion is the careful harvesting of unborn infants' organs for "caring" reasons. 

Their power, however, cannot touch women who receive their health care at places other than Planned Parenthood, by choice. Women who choose not to use Planned Parenthood record a win every time.

In Jeremiah's day, appealing people that acted with guile eventually had to be silent, as God closed off every escape. 

To sow death and deception means, I believe, a terrible reaping ahead,  a whirlwind.  I would not want to experience such a day. 

"...they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind"...(Hosea 8:7).
 

Abortion: A response to a recent Washington Post featured columnist

Leslie T. Dean is a guest writer on the topic of a Washington Post article by Janet Harris, "Stop calling abortion a 'difficult decision'," (August 15, 2014).

After reading Janet Harris’ opinion article in The Washington Post, I was profoundly moved to respond to her comments. Ms Harris transparently shared that she is a post-abortive woman, and her strong “pro-choice” advocacy helps me to understand her need to defend her platform. And that is a good thing, because now we are on level ground. Only first-hand experience gives someone the right to argue life and death issues with intelligence and knowledge.
 

Informed decision

In her comments regarding the use of the term “difficult decision,” Ms Harris states: “. . . it implies that women need help deciding, which opens the door to paternalistic and demeaning 'informed consent' laws. It also stigmatizes abortion and the women who need it.” 

As an RN of 35 years who has stood at many bedsides reviewing huge packets of paper with patients before they have any invasive surgery, I fully understand the need for informed consent. It removes any surprises in patients' post-op care and prepares them for any side effects that may be unwanted, but unpreventable. It’s “fair-warning," as is almost every medicine ad we see on TV today. The possible side effects almost outweigh the good intentions of the drug. However, the patient is fully informed before they enter into the therapy—or the surgery.

Why should abortion—also an invasive surgery—be treated any differently? Could it be because it’s a hot political issue? Who is truly at risk? The baby’s fate has already been decided, but what about the welfare of the girl or woman?

Parental consent

Parental consent is an issue that goes hand-in-hand with informed consent. If a parent must give permission for an aspirin, why would they not be needed for a surgical procedure? Ms. Harris only addressed this issue briefly, yet I take this opportunity to say that teens are incapable of making a decision this complicated without a parent’s guidance. Cognitively, they are not ready.

Two studies prove the outcome of teen-abortion choices. 

• Teens are at much higher risk of a suicide attempt after abortion. Researchers at the University of Minnesota found suicide attempts increased ten-fold for teens who were post-abortive in the preceding 6 months.
• New Zealand researcher David Fergusson and colleagues found that 50% of post-abortive teens (15–18 years) had suicidal thoughts and behaviors, double the rate for teens who had become pregnant but never aborted and double the rate of never-pregnant teens

Moral decision respects two lives

Ms. Harris shared:  

“An unwanted pregnancy would have derailed my future, making it difficult for me to finish college and have the independent, productive life that I’d envisioned.” Ms. Harris candidly gives her opinion, and also shares, “women who have their first child out of wedlock get less education and are more likely to be unemployed and single—even many years later—compared with other women.” 

The blatant missing piece in these comments is the obvious: adoption as a consideration. Ms. Harris could have still finished college and gone on to live a productive life—with the knowledge that her baby was safe in the arms of a couple that was unable to have their own baby. All the women she refers to could have been educated, had a job, and married—after giving up their babies for adoption. 

How sad that adoption is rarely considered an option in an unplanned pregnancy. This issue became a place of introspection for me. Years ago, when asked why I didn’t choose adoption, my quick, pre-formulated answer was always the same, “I didn’t want strangers raising my baby!” But, I could abort my baby,and that was a better option?

Psychological research results

Ms. Harris quoted a study reported in the Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health journal, which found the vast majority of women seeking an abortion—87 percent—had high confidence in their decisions. The study was based on 5,000 women in only one clinic, and made before counseling. Here is the rest of that story: “Certain variables were negatively associated with abortions, being sought by women with high confidence: being younger than 20, being black, not having a high school diploma, having a history of depression, having a fetus with an anomaly, having general difficulty making decisions, having spiritual concerns, believing that abortion is killing and fearing not being forgiven by God.” (italics added) 

Let me offer another study: In 2011, a study conducted by Priscilla K. Coleman from Bowling Green State University, Ohio, USA, was based on 22 published studies. Only the strongest studies were included, with a combined number of participants totaling over 850,000 women, with research published from 1995-2009 in The British Journal of Psychiatry. In the largest study of its kind, researchers concluded that women having abortions experience an 81% increased risk of mental health problems.

"Years ago, when asked why I didn’t choose adoption, my quick, pre-formulated answer was always the same, 'I didn’t want strangers raising my baby!'”- Leslie Dean

The British Journal of Psychiatry also reported that almost 10% of all mental health problems are shown to be directly linked to abortion. The study is the first meta-analysis of research conducted on abortion’s impact on mental health.  It found that post-abortive women are 37% more likely to suffer depression, 110% more likely to engage in higher alcohol use, and 155% more likely to engage in suicidal behavior. The post-abortive women I have met over the past 22 years, have repeatedly shared these problematic issues. Present company included.

In the following statement, Ms. Harris makes the most crucial of arguments. Actually, she has laid bare the psychological truth of this “difficult decision.”  Here is what she says, “In fact, most women—even those who obtained abortions within the first six weeks of pregnancy—would have preferred to have their abortions earlier than they did.” 

She later states there is no moral or religious reasoning behind it; the reason women want to have an abortion as early as possible is the “mother-baby bond” phenomena. The earlier the pregnancy, the less form the baby has. The less form the baby has, the easier the justification—“It’s not a baby—just tissue.” It makes the abortion “easier.”

The New England Journal of Medicine published a study in February 1983 that looked at the impact that ultrasound has upon the choice that a pregnant mother will make concerning abortion. (Please remember, this was way before the 3-D and 4-D sonograms we have now; they were much more rudimentary in the 80’s.) The article entitled "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations" observed the following:

One of us pointed to the small, visibly moving fetal form on the screen and asked,  How do you feel about seeing what is inside you?   She answered crisply, It certainly makes you think twice about abortion!  ....asked to say more, she told of the surprise she felt on viewing the fetal form, especially on seeing it move:I feel that it is human. It belongs to me. I couldn't  have an abortion now. The mother was asked about her experience with ultrasound. She said:It really  made a difference to see that it was alive. Asked about her position on the moral choice she had to make, she said:   I am going all the way with the baby, I believe it is human.

The physician/authors of this study concluded by saying:

Ultrasound examination is likely to increase the value of the early fetus for parents who already strongly desire a child. Viewing the fetal form in the late first or early mid-trimester of pregnancy, before movement is felt by the mother, may also influence the resolution of any ambivalence toward the pregnancy itself in favor of the fetus. Ultrasound examination may thus result in fewer abortions and more desired pregnancies.

“Humiliating evidence of failure in judgment”

There is one last issue Ms. Harris raised that I would like to address. She wrote, “An unplanned pregnancy is highly stressful, and for many it is humiliating evidence of a failure in judgment.” 

A humiliating failure in judgment?  As a woman who had two abortions, let me share a real-life failure in judgment:

In the past you have had an abortion. Then, you become pregnant with a baby you do want to keep. You go to the doctor, and he performs a sonogram so you can see your precious baby. (The doctor) is excited as he points out the parts of your baby. You see the baby's heartbeat and him moving inside you . . . and you catch your breath. You know. You know, without any doubts, what you did to your other baby. You know it was alive.

That is a failure you can never erase. You bought the lie, and you made the choice, That was my humiliating failure in judgment. Not once, but twice, and no one cared enough to tell me the truth. The truth allows informed decision. Sometimes the “difficult decision” doesn’t become difficult until years have brought wisdom, and wisdom has brought truth.

About the guest writer: Leslie T. Dean is the author of a published novel, Forgiven Much. She is part of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign in Maryland, a Registered Nurse and licensed counselor. Ms Dean is in demand as a speaker on college campuses and other venues. Look for her on social networks, or comment below.

The Washington Post article that prompted this response has a link here.

 

Please, Do Not Read if Your Mind is Closed on Subject of "Women's Health" as "Abortion" Euphemism

MD Sen. Mikulski stands alongside. Senator Boxer Speaks Out Against Continued GOP Assault on Women's Health (Photo credit: Senator Boxer)

"Women's Health" is one politically correct way to refer to "abortion for any reason or for no reason." Terms, like "women's health," that are used in order to "clean up" the shock of "deliberate ending of the life of an unborn human being" are euphemisms. Euphemisms help some people feel less uncomfortable than saying what they really mean or propound.  Another popular euphemism of our time is the phrase "death with dignity," increasingly used in place of "suicide" or "deliberately assisted suicide." (I agree that death can be helped along by another person; I do not think that anyone who has watched many people die would say that, overall, death is a "dignified" thing to watch during or to stay admire, in its natural, pre-funeral state, after.)
     But let's get back to "women's health." I am a pro-life person who understands and respects the frightening dilemma that the woman or young girl faces when she learns that her decision to have sex, or her victimization through a rape, has resulted in an "unplanned" or "unwanted" pregnancy. Here, I am not addressing rape, which I could speak to another time, yet without claiming to propose easy answers. But here, in this writing, I an speaking about members of the majority of females that consider abortion. They include the girl or woman that chooses to engage in sex, as a single or married woman...following her free choice/decision to have sexual intercourse with or without contraceptive restraint. 
     I look at the innocent human life that has begun to grow in such a girl or woman. That life, now seen mainly as a threat to an unwilling "mother's" future or comfort, nevertheless is not a monster but a being in formation possessing all major human features. 
     I have counseled, in the past, at a free pregnancy center for women. Many of the adolescents and adult women who came to the center learned for the first time facts about newly suspected human life, helpless and most vulnerable. Most had chosen freely to engage in sexual intercourse. Yet, afraid they were pregnant, they began to learn, at the center, that human life at that point has its own human DNA, heartbeat, blood type, gender, and so on...of its own, not solely or necessarily exactly or even only remotely like that of the biological mother. Certain identity factors belong in unique patterns to that specific, unique, unborn human life, and to no other--past, present, or future.      
     
Our human lives before we were born shared and continue to possess similar facts of our uniqueness. Including, that when you and I were in utero, where we began to thrive...if someone--medical or otherwise--had done something to harm us, we would have felt distress and pain. Deep physical pain if deliberately applied to attack or to threaten your life or mine would have had to be a result. Any threat to our being, that is...deliberate effort to prevent you or me from being born...would have caused distress and/or pain. Which is, by the way, why I take for granted that surgery done upon human life in utero--for example, heart surgery, which has been done in utero--assumes use of anesthetics, for the unborn child as well as for the mother, as needed. 
     The beating of the human heart in the womb used to be thought to begin much later than it is now known to exist' we know it is beating by three weeks, at least, after conception. We also know that pain can be recorded in life in utero, experienced by the nonverbal yet fully human life, male or female, by 20 weeks. That is scientific record. 
     In the U. S. Congress, there was debate about killing (scientifically speaking) human life in the womb after 20 weeks. One U. S. congressperson from my state of Maryland (go to the page linked, scroll down for MD representative) presented his arguments on YouTube, based not on morals but on science and basic human tolerance, concern, pity, mercy, and compassion. Here is his presentation about pain of human life before birth, in the womb. I believe that women's psychological health depends upon knowing these facts, as well.I believe that any female having sex or considering that choice deserves to know all the facts...for their health and beyond.



Copyright (c) 2012 Opinari Writers. Do you like this blog? Join, Tweet, FB, Like, or Recommend it? Thank you.