Wonderful Story

 

China’s Little Flower Projects care for country’s abandoned and disabled

by Lauren Enriquez

How can you say there are too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers.
-Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Photo credit: Facebook

The anti-child attitude that permeates the oppressive Chinese government has led to a life of daily tragedy for huge swaths of the country. Women are not permitted to have children freely, and if they violate the country’s one-child policy, they are likely to be subjected to forced abortion, discrimination, oppression, and even death. The attitude against children has led to the twofold problem of wanting the one permitted child to be perfect (and, often, male), which causes epidemic rates of abandonment and neglect among accidental subsequent children, disabled children, female children, and all the rest.

Photo credit: Facebook

The problem is enormous, and it would require a government transformation to change the nation’s current situation regarding children. But several organizations are working to make a difference. One in particular, the Little Flower Projects, reaches out specifically to the country’s abandoned children. Their mission is simple:

Our mission is to provide specialized services to abandoned children.  Recognizing the beauty and dignity of each and every individual person, we at Little Flower reach out to those who are rejected, abandoned, deemed as useless, and who have no voice. Our projects focus on providing special care to abandoned infants, nurturing the growth and education of older disabled orphans and providing loving care for children who are dying.  Whether by direct care, support, or education we are making a difference, one child at a time.

Photo credit: Facebook

The organization works through various projects to save, care for, and protect China’s most vulnerable. They provide hospice care for orphans who are dying, and consider it a privilege to spend time alongside the orphans and fill their last days with joy. Little Flower Projects also provides group educational foster homes, which reach out to physically disabled orphans and allow them to obtain education and training. The hope is that, after their time in the educational foster home with a family environment, the children will be equipped to function independently as adults.

The organization provides special care to children at their infant homes, where abandoned babies who have medical complications are treated. The babies stay in infant homes until they have grown strong enough to join individual families. Through long-term care, the Little Flower Projects take in older disabled orphans and keep children who have no hope of being adopted due to their impairments. Finally, the organization works to facilitate adoptions, and helps a variety of special causes, which differ from case-to-case. They can include raising money for a much-needed surgery, or helping impoverished families with difficult needs.
The full spectrum of the Little Flower Projects’ work can be found here. Follow the organization on Facebook here.

Photo credit: Facebook

Source: LiveAction News

Children Loose

 

Sperm donation: when the desires of parents trump the needs of children

by Christopher White

Dec. 30, 2013 (PublicDiscourse) - In the new film Delivery Man, Vince Vaughn plays David Wozniak, a man who discovers that he’s the biological father of 533 children—all conceived through his anonymous sperm donations. Now, almost two decades after his “donations” (from which he netted over $20,000), 142 of those children have filed a lawsuit against the sperm bank to reveal his identity. They want to know their biological father, gain access to their medical histories, and discover their roots.

The film is fictional—but it’s not far from reality. In 2011, the New York Times reported the story of one donor with 150 confirmed offspring. There have only been a handful of major studies following children who were conceived via anonymous gamete donation, yet certain key trends are emerging as they reach adulthood. Although these adult children have mixed opinions about the means in which they were conceived and the limits of such technologies, they’re almost all united in one belief: anonymity should be removed from the equation.
Readers of Public Discourse are already familiar with Alana S. Newman, founder of the Anonymous Us Project and, most recently, editor of Anonymous Us: A Story Collective on 3rd Party Reproduction. In this volume, Newman compiles over one hundred stories of donor-conceived individuals who, like the kids in Delivery Man, long to know their biological parents.

“While anonymity in reproduction hides the truth,” writes Newman, “anonymity in storytelling helps reveal it.” Accordingly, these stories offer a glimpse into the reality faced by many donor-conceived children. Some contributions are angry, others are conflicted. All, however, reveal a deep loss. Consider just a few of the sentiments shared within the volume:

“Who are you to deny me half of my family tree—branches rich and strong with stories I may never be told? Who are you to give away my heritage, knowing it will be replaced with something false?”
“I am a human being, yet I was conceived with a technique that had its origins in animal husbandry. Worst of all, farmers kept better records of their cattle’s genealogy than assisted reproductive clinics … how could the doctors, sworn to ‘first do no harm’ create a system where I now face the pain and loss of my own identity and heritage.”

“As a donor-conceived person, I have a sense of being part of an underclass … Having a child is a privilege not a right.”
There’s also the story of a young donor-conceived adult who was raised by a single mother. After her mother’s early death, she’s since been desperately searching for her donor father and potential other siblings in hopes that she might have some remnants of a family to piece together. Another young woman tells of her own struggle with infertility when she and her husband were trying to conceive. After telling her mom of their difficulties, her mom casually suggests artificial insemination—informing her for the very first time in her life that this was the means in which she was brought into the world. Countless other stories capture the experience of donor-conceived children finding out their origins after their social father is diagnosed with a major medical condition—only to be told not to worry because it won’t affect them, since they’re not actually biologically related. The grief stemming from the medical difficulties is then compounded by an unexpected family identity crisis.
 
The entries included in the Anonymous Us collective aren’t just limited to the testimonials from donor-conceived children. Stories from medical providers, sperm and egg donors, and parents who chose to conceive via this method fill the pages of these raw and emotional testimonials. While some entries are an effort to justify past decisions, others speak with great candor about the regrettable outcomes of such a practice.

One Italian sperm donor reflects on the experience of his own family life and laments that the children whom he helped bring into this world won’t be able to have similar memories:
“I have only a sister, but many, many cousins … and every time I meet them and all the relatives, we love to talk about similarities in the features, the body, the way we talk and move, because this gives us a stronger sense of identity and it is beautiful to have such a 'big family' … I hope this little story can help people in learning from the mistakes of the past.”
In another entry, a former egg donor regrets the fact that she’ll never be able to meet her son or daughter, admitting that she only participated in the practice because of the lucrative financial incentives attached to selling her eggs: “I don’t even remember what I spent the money on,” she writes. “Debt, dresses, and dinners probably. I’d give you $10,000 this very second to meet my kid. Biggest oops of my life.”
In the United States, there’s an open and unregulated market for gamete donation. Unlike Canada and most European countries, which limit the number of times a man can sell his sperm and have mandatory database registries where donor children can access their biological parents' medical histories, the United States enforces no such regulations. This lack of regulation is due, in large part, to legislators’ failure to listen to the voices of donor-conceived children. “How can we as a nation make wise decisions about family structure, third-party reproduction, and gamete donation,” asks Newman, “without the participation of and insights from those who have been most directly affected by these practices?”
Just how many donor-conceived children are born each year is anyone’s guess, due to negligible tracking and regulation. At a recent conference for fertility-industry attorneys, I listened to a prominent children’s psychologist (who favors the practice of third-party reproduction) speak about the potential psychological issues donor-conceived children might face. In a moment of candor, she admitted, “We never thought about the future families. We only set out to fix the infertility.”
And this is precisely the problem with donor conception: the desires of the parents always trump the needs of the children.

The stories in the Anonymous Us Project and Delivery Man demonstrate the real suffering and loss felt by donor-conceived children. Yet, in considering the problem of infertility, we also encounter countless couples who experience great distress and grief as a result of their inability to conceive. Infertility is a deeply painful and often isolating experience for millions of couples. The CDCestimates that 10 percent of women trying to conceive are infertile; hence the increasingly common decision to pursue assisted reproduction. This drive to have children is understandable; social science research reveals that the presence of children in a marriage leads to greater happiness, increased financial security, and a lower likelihood of divorce.

We must acknowledge the painful truth that, as infertile couples seek to remedy their suffering through third-party reproduction, they are unwittingly inflicting pain on their future children. Eventually, those children must wrestle with the circumstances surrounding their conception. In aiming to satisfy their very natural desire for offspring, infertile couples go to great lengths to create children who are destined to experience complex crises of identity and purpose.
This transgenerational suffering precipitated by the experience of infertility is one that must be met with compassion, to be sure. Yet we must also offer a corrective that acknowledges the limits of desire and love.

Rather than supporting an inward focus on one’s own pain and loss from infertility, we ought to encourage infertile couples to give deep consideration to the suffering that children conceived from these technologies may face. Moreover, rather than privileging one’s own desire for a child as the ultimate goal, we must encourage a preemptive compassion and empathy that should motivate infertile couples to refrain from pursuing such means.

In one of the most revealing entries of the Anonymous Us collective, a former sperm donor criticizes the industry he profited from: “I now realize I was wrong. This whole system is wrong. Please forgive me, but I am not your father, nor did I ever intend to be.” Similarly, in one of the scenes from Delivery Man, when one of the donor children discovers that Wozniak is his biological father, the son seeks to spend time with him. Annoyed by this prospect, Wozniak brushes the kid off, telling him that he has a real family to attend to.

Infertile parents who desperately seek a child might see anonymous egg or sperm donation as an imperfect, though still acceptable, solution to their fertility difficulties. But as the stories in the Anonymous Us collective reveal, for the children conceived through these technologies, the difficulties are just beginning.

Source: LifeAction News

More on GlAAD

 

 

Life on GLAAD’s Blacklist

by Robert Oscar Lopez

Dec. 29, 2013 (Americanthinker.com) - Readers will have to forgive me for sounding angry, but the recent news involving GLAAD has enraged me.  Mark Steyn's most recent piece in National Review sums up some of the worst aspects of the epic saga known as GLAAD v. Duck Dynasty.
Steyn resonates with me on one key point: yes, GLAAD is ridiculous and foolish.  We knew this.  But some conservatives who should know better are truly pathetic.  A National Review editor scolds Steyn for being "puerile," while people on Fox News say that Phil Robertson should have been suspended.  Pusillanimous obeisance to false ideology isn't exclusive to left or right.

A bunch of people on the left (see here and here) called GLAAD out, and I'm glad they did.  Yet a bunch of people on the right are still terrified of GLAAD, or else actually believe that it's defamation to say negative things or think negative thoughts about homosexuality.

In case you don't know the full extent of GLAAD's fascism, let me tell you what GLAAD did to me.
I won't hyperlink this, but if you go to GLAAD's website and seek out their "commentator accountability project," you will find my name.  This is GLAAD's blacklist.  Within hours of GLAAD's publication of my addition to the list, which amounts to an excommunication from polite society, an e-mail was sent to the president of my university, along with dozens of other high officials in California, with the announcement: ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ PLACED ON GLAAD WATCH LIST

The e-mail stated clearly that as a result of my being placed on this list, I would never get a direct interview in the United States.  (Whoever "they" are, they made good on the threat, because when I was brought onto Al Jazeera, they made sure that I was the only one critical of gay adoption, versus two hosts and two other panelists who were for it, and the host cut my microphone.)
According to the press release sent to my university, any media outlet introducing me would be bound to introduce me as an "anti-gay activist" certified by GLAAD as a bigot.  When I read the claims of this e-mail, I wondered if this would be true -- would media in the United States really introduce me by saying I was certified as "anti-gay" by GLAAD?

Well, the answer to that question remains mostly unanswered.  Aside from that one fling on Al Jazeera, since GLAAD placed me on their blacklist, no secular media outlet has invited me on its show in the United States.  In-depth interviews with me have been broadcast in Chile, Russia, France, Ireland, and a number of other nations.  In the United States, Christian broadcasters like the American Family Association and Frank Sontag's "Faith and Reason" show in Los Angeles have interviewed me.  And I'd been interviewed, prior to the GLAAD blacklisting, by Minnesota affiliates of NBC, CBS, Fox, and NPR, as well as a number of newspapers.  Since GLAAD's blacklisting, none.
Prior to GLAAD's blacklisting, I had received calls from people at universities discussing their interest in having me come to campus and give speeches.  Three were working with me to set up dates.  Since GLAAD's blacklisting, none.  Those who had discussed this with me said point-blank that their superiors did not want to create controversy.

That is the power of GLAAD.  There are other people on the watch list -- Maggie Gallagher, Ryan Anderson, and Robert George, all of whom I respect and all of whom make regular appearances on television.  When GLAAD excommunicates them, there might be some hurt feelings, but it isn't quite the fatwa that it was for me.  These other traditionalist spokespeople have enjoyed some advantages: they are not part of the gay community themselves, and they belong to well-established conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation.  So I surmise that for them, being blacklisted by GLAAD isn't really the end of the world.

Being blacklisted by GLAAD was the end of my world.  (It just so happens I entered a new, happier one, but that doesn't take away from the terror caused by their omerta.)  Even though I wrote The Colorful Conservative, I am too colorful for right-wing think-tanks, too vulgar for Beltway Republicans, too much a fan of Sarah Palin for the Big Boys down in D.C.  I'm too queer for the legit crowd, and GLAAD basically put the word out to the queers not to talk to me anymore.  Old friends and even some family members took GLAAD's marching orders and have summarily cut me out of their lives.  And when I mean cut me out, I mean we will never be in the same room again.  One person very close to me, who works in the entertainment industry, was accosted at a dinner and told in no uncertain terms that if he didn't join in denouncing me, he'd have difficulty finding work.  I was less important than his shot at getting better contracts -- so gosh, I miss him.

I have only my tenure, my experiences, and my blog.  I'm not rich.  I'm not white.  I'm not straight.  I was raised by a lesbian and had to climb up to the humble perch where I am now, out of the lowest and smelliest swamps of gay America.  I was cursed with a lisp when I was young and never won respect for my writing as an adult.  Everything has always been a battle, just to survive -- as it is for most gays outside the Beltway, by the way.  Somehow, amid the ravages of AIDS, homophobia, racism, class snobbery, bullying, and every possible disadvantage you can name (save perhaps sexism), I managed to make myself a writer, learn eight languages, write books, form a family, find a relationship with God, and last, get tenure.  It's a rare professor who can say he survived a tenure review with as many adversaries as mine involved -- which allows me the small pride of saying that as modest a place as CSU Northridge is, I really earned my keep.  The slightest blemish on my file would have sent me to the almshouse.

None of these difficulties was quite like what happened with GLAAD.  Though I am part of the LGBT community, I was deemed a "non-person," someone invisible.  It's easy to see why it was necessary, in a Machiavellian sense, for GLAAD to do this in 2013.  They have been using the image of "gay families" and "children of gay couples" to maximum advantage -- in fact, in the latest iteration of GLAAD's duel with Phil Robertson, GLAAD wants him to sit down and talk to "gay families."  I am certain this will involve dragging some hapless child who doesn't want to be there into a confab, where overbearing gay parents use the kid as a human shield.

America doesn't know that this is part of same-sex parenting, because Americans have been blocked from hearing from me, Dawn Stefanowicz, Jean-Dominique Bunel, "Janna," Manuel Half, Rivka Edelman, and the blogger known as "the Bigot" -- just some of the many people I've come to know over the last year and a half, who have the human stories to dispel the myth that all is well with "gay families."  This scares the crap out of people at GLAAD.  It scares the crap out of them that I'm a professor and fluent enough in the way research works to know that the "consensus" on same-sex parenting is a fraud.  It scares the crap out of them that I have a scholarly record in African-American Studies and queer readings of Thoreau and Whitman, so they can't write me off as a wacko, unwashed homophobe.
It scares the crap out of them that I know they're lying, and if people had a chance to hear me, they'd know, too.
So it's easier to engage in a blackout: make a few phone calls, send out some press releases, marshal the usual success stories, trot out the starry-eyed youths with the "I Love My Two Dads" signs, and cue up some home videos of lesbian moms with toddlers.  Give them some of the razzle dazzle.
GLAAD is hoping that the current surge of anger over Phil Robertson will begin and end with Duck Dynasty, and then the rest of us who have been erased and whose lives have been destroyed by this totalitarian organization can be out of the way again.  Broom, meet rug -- sweep the human waste underneath, march on to the next court case, and proclaim victory.
There's only one way that GLAAD will come out of this kerfuffle unscathed -- if you, the conservatives of America, let them.  Please don't.  This is much bigger than one reality show.
Robert Oscar Lopez edits English Manif.
Re-published with permission from American Thinker

Source: LifeAction News

Sad Sad Case

 

Courts: Jahi McMath will stay on ventilator until January 7

by Lauren Enriquez

Last week, an Alameda county court in California determined that Jahi McMath, a teen who was declared “brain dead” after a botched tonsil surgery, could be taken off of her ventilator on Monday, December 30, in accordance with the hospital’s wishes. McMath’s family has resisted every effort by the hospital to take ventilator support away from Jahi after a team at the hospital caused Jahi to slip into a state of brain death.
The family’s wishes are not being honored, however, and the children’s hospital where Jahi is being held will not even allow the family to transfer Jahi to a facility that would allow her to stay on a ventilator. The order that Jahi’s ventilator be removed on December 30th was extended at the last moment after the family’s attorney appealed to the judge to keep Jahi alive longer. According to the LA Times:

The family had therefore filed a new complaint in federal court and also appealed to Alameda County Superior Court to extend its temporary restraining order, the Oakland Tribune reported.
The court order keeping Jahi on a ventilator at Children’s Hospital Oakland was due to expire at 5 p.m. Monday. As the deadline drew closer Monday afternoon, local media reported that a judge had extended the deadline until Jan. 7.

There is controversy surrounding definitions of “brain death,” which have been modified in recent years (possibly in the interests of organ harvesting, which requires some state of life; organs taken from a corpse are essentially useless). The Uniform Determination of Death Act, or UDDA, was created in the 1980s and has been adopted by most states as the acceptable way to determine whether a person is dead. The Act defines “death” as a cessation of brain function, which means that people whose hearts are beating and who are breathing with the assistance of a ventilator can ethically have their organs harvested because, according to the newer definition, a person is “dead” when their brain ceases to show activity on standard neurological tests. Pro-life physician Dr. Paul Byrne, an expert on the subject, said,

The ventilator won’t work on a corpse. In a corpse, the ventilator pushes the air in, but it won’t come out. Just the living person pushes the air out.

Wesley J. Smith described Jahi’s medical situation very well, saying:

In Jahi’s case, brain dead actually means a declaration of “death by neurological criteria,” one of the two legal methods for declaring the bona fide death of a human being. To be declared dead by neurological criteria does not mean there are no brain cells remaining alive. Rather, it means that medical tests, observation of the patient post injury, and history of the case demonstrate that the patient’s brain and each of its constituent parts have irreversibly ceased to function as a brain. As one doctor told me, it is as if the patient was functionally decapitated.

Smith acknowledges that, because a person who has been declared brain dead is legally dead, there is not a legal right to keep their bodies on life support. But Jahi is not a corpse, and her family’s wishes are to allow her to continue to live on their own terms. We’ll be following this case closely and awaiting the outcome of the McMath family’s battle for Jahi.

Source: LiveAction News

Stand for Life

Pregnant nurse chooses baby’s health over flu shot, gets fired

by Susan Michelle Tyrell

In a Lancaster, PA hospital choosing to protect your unborn child is not a valid reason for exemption from a flu shot, which isn’t even guaranteed to protect against the flu.
Dreonna Breton, 29, a nurse at Horizons Healthcare Services in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, is pregnant. Because of having two previous miscarriages, she consulted with her doctor and decide to apply for an exemption to get a flu shot, Fluzone, mandated by her employer and was fired for that refusal.
Penn Live reports that Breton refused the shot after researching the vaccine and making the choice that her baby’s health, especially in light of her miscarriage history, was more important than the iffy vaccine.

“It would be a false statement to say the flu vaccine is known to be safe during pregnancy. I have lost my job, one that I love and am good at, because I chose to do what I believe is best for my baby.”

In a culture of mantras of choice, the decision by the hospital is disturbing. CNN reports:

“The mother of one submitted letters from her obstetrician and primary care doctor supporting her decision, but she was told that she would be fired on December 17 if she did not receive the vaccine before then.
“Horizons Healthcare Services spokesman Alan Peterson told CNN affiliate WPVI that it’s unconscionable for a health care worker not to be immunized and that pregnant women are more susceptible to the flu.”

Dr. Peterson, seems to think that making Breton’s choice for her on the health of her baby is appropriate, further showing that the culture of choice applies more frequently when the choice is the one. His comments, implying a mother has a lack of conscience for choosing not to take a chance with a drug unproven on pregnancies is a disturbing commentary on the lack of choice that actually exists in a co-called pro-choice culture.

Exemptions to the flu vaccine are allowed, but Breton’s was denied. According to Penn Live, when Breton filed for an exemption, she included a doctor’s note which stated,  “In my view getting the flu shot would significantly and negatively impact her health because of the increased fear and anxiety it would create as well as the emotional impact it could cause if she does miscarry again.” But even a medical professional’s opinion was not enough to prevent her firing.
Despite Breton’s offer to wear a mask on the job, a common precaution allowed in exemptions, the hospital refused her this option.  Penn Live continues:

“Sanofi Pasteur is the maker of Fluzone, one of the brands with a packaging insert stating that the impact on a pregnant woman and her fetus are unknown.
Donna Cary, a spokeswoman, attributed that to the fact that results of clinical studies involving pregnant women weren’t included in the research presented decades ago when flu vaccine received government approval.
Because of that, flu vaccine manufacturers can’t state that it’s safe for pregnant women, she said.
However, there is a registry of negative impacts of flu vaccine, and nothing in that registry has prompted the groups such as the CDC to conclude that flu vaccine poses a danger for pregnant women, she said.”

Breton told CNN, “I know that the CDC says to get it, and that’s fine, but it was our choice to avoid the flu vaccine and the unknowns that come with that.”
It seems that in the case of a woman who is also a health professional and consulted with her doctor to make a personal decision, that the hospital could have taken a myriad of other avenues besides firing Breton. Besides the mask, which is a common way to deal with exemptions, the hospital could have assigned her administrative duties, or temporarily reassigned her to an area where she would not endanger patients if she did happen to get the flu. Instead, they refused Breton’s choice to care for her unborn child and made an example of her.

What is truly unconscionable is firing a woman who chooses to protect her unborn child. Sadly, the pro-choice mentality seems to favor abortion choices over choices to protect babies. It should be a mother’s choice, regardless of her workplace, to make the best decision she can to help her baby live.
After years of employment, Breton should be allowed other options besides firing. This wasn’t an either/or decision, but the hospital has made it one, and that’s a sad statement on health care. Breton’s attitude clearly conveys that not even a job is worth the life of her baby. And that is a decision that should be honored, not result in losing a job.

Source: LiveAction News

ObamaCare

 

Stories investigate ObamaCare’s higher costs, lower benefits; as 2013 ends, clear that many more Americas will have lost their insurance than signed up for ObamaCare

By Dave Andrusko
A few thoughts today and a few more tomorrow as we are just hours away from when the impact of ObamaCare really hits the American populous—January 1, 2014.
* From “That Health Care Law, By the Numbers,” by the Associated Press’s Calvin Woodward

“4 million-plus: People whose individual plans were canceled because the plans didn’t measure up under the law [ObamaCare]. The government changed rules to allow substandard plans to exist for another year; it’s not known how many canceled policies will be revived. Another rules change allowed cancellation victims to sign up for bare-bones catastrophic coverage.

How many have signed up, through HealthCare.gov and the state health exchanges? Up to but no more than 2 million. That’s the “good news,” according to Jim Geraghty.
The bad news?  “That puts them at about 26 percent of their enrollment goal of 7 million, with half the enrollment period passed.” (And, of course, like all Obama numbers always, there will be a later revision of the number that has supposed signed up–downward.)
Conclusion? “[W]e’re still ending 2013 with more people having lost their insurance than gained it,” Geraghty reminds us.

* We know from multiple stories (including nrlc.cc/1h9MoMX and nrlc.cc/1h9MtjM) that Millennials—18-29—are turning on Obama and on ObamaCare. “57 percent of millennials disapprove of Obamacare, with 40 percent saying it will worsen their quality of care and a majority believing it will drive up costs. Only 18 percent say Obamacare will improve their care. Among 18-to-29-year-olds currently without health insurance, less than one-third say they’re likely to enroll in the Obamacare exchanges,” according to a survey by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics.
* One more. I have relatives who are the owners of small businesses. In the last month, media outlets are beginning to understand what they have known since 2010: the costs of ObamaCare for them are prohibitive. NBC News did an investigative piece on the effects on workers at one auto dealership. The blogger Allahpundit captured what is taking place:

“A sneak preview at America 2014 from the Ghost of Christmas Future. It’s not the premiums that are killing these people, although those are higher in some cases too. It’s the out-of-pocket costs. The media coverage of O-Care has paid less attention to those for the simple reason that no one’s actually incurred them yet. That’ll change on Thursday.”

As is the case over and over again, the company’s existing insurance policy was cancelled because it didn’t meet the ObamaCare requirements. It would have cost the auto dealership almost 50% more to have kept deductibles and out-of-pocket costs at the 2012 levels, according to insurance broker Michael Harp, quoted in the NBC News story. So the company gave their workers a set amount of money from which they could either not get insurance (and pay a penalty) or get a policy through the healthcare exchanges.

The most significant conclusion Harp drew?

“He said the biggest surprise to him in how the law impacts small business clients is ‘how many people are losers versus winners. … There are some people who do come out ahead, but I would say the overwhelming majority, they’re paying much higher rates and they have lower benefits.’”

In addition

“Harp says what is happening at this dealership is representative of the other small businesses he deals with. Businesses with 50 or fewer employees currently provide health insurance to about 17 million U.S. workers, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.”

And, oh by the way, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean appeared on Fox News Sunday yesterday. While he predicted that in the end ObamaCare “will work,” he also acknowledged “that Obamacare would suffer additional setbacks as it continues rolling out next year,” according to The Hill newspaper.

Dean simply reiterated what everybody knows—the Obama administration is having major problems convincing younger, healthier people to sign up. Who is? “The data does show that less healthy people are signing up,” Dean said. “Younger people are signing up less frequently than hoped.”

Source: NRLC News

What a Story

 

Three-year-old boy collects over 900 gifts for fellow hospitalized children

by Lauren Enriquez

All life is precious and worthy of support and recognition — and a story out of Houston, Texas demonstrates that even a three-year-old little boy can instinctively know that. Bennett Nester, who was diagnosed with a brain tumor own in 2011, received a teddy bear in the early stages of his treatment. His mother says that he wouldn’t let it out of his sight; somehow, the small token from a stranger helped to ease the trauma and pain that he was going through.

Today, Bennett — barely a tot himself — spends time making sure that other children like himself receive a similar well wish as they fight their battle against sickness and disease. For the last two years, Bennett has collected hundreds of teddy bears this purpose — nine hundred just this year alone. The initiative is called “Bennett’s Bears.”


A Vietnam veteran who chose not to be identified to the media noticed Bennett’s heroism in the face of his own battle against illness, and his selflessness in focusing on other children who were going through the same thing, and decided to give Bennett his own Bronze Star from the war. He told Bennett that he could keep it as long as he promised to brave his medical battle like a real hero– a promise that little Bennett seems to have no trouble living up to.

Bennett isn’t preoccupied with his illness; he spends plenty of time playing with his train set and spending time with his mommy. His mom says that Bennett is going through things that she “cannot even imagine,” but she is grateful for the Vietnam soldier who recognized the hero in her son.

Source: LiveAction News

GLAAD

•   

Life on GLAAD’s Blacklist

by Robert Oscar Lopez

Dec. 29, 2013 (Americanthinker.com) - Readers will have to forgive me for sounding angry, but the recent news involving GLAAD has enraged me.  Mark Steyn's most recent piece in National Review sums up some of the worst aspects of the epic saga known as GLAAD v. Duck Dynasty.

Steyn resonates with me on one key point: yes, GLAAD is ridiculous and foolish.  We knew this.  But some conservatives who should know better are truly pathetic.  A National Review editor scolds Steyn for being "puerile," while people on Fox News say that Phil Robertson should have been suspended.  Pusillanimous obeisance to false ideology isn't exclusive to left or right.
A bunch of people on the left (see here and here) called GLAAD out, and I'm glad they did.  Yet a bunch of people on the right are still terrified of GLAAD, or else actually believe that it's defamation to say negative things or think negative thoughts about homosexuality.

In case you don't know the full extent of GLAAD's fascism, let me tell you what GLAAD did to me.
I won't hyperlink this, but if you go to GLAAD's website and seek out their "commentator accountability project," you will find my name.  This is GLAAD's blacklist.  Within hours of GLAAD's publication of my addition to the list, which amounts to an excommunication from polite society, an e-mail was sent to the president of my university, along with dozens of other high officials in California, with the announcement: ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ PLACED ON GLAAD WATCH LIST

The e-mail stated clearly that as a result of my being placed on this list, I would never get a direct interview in the United States.  (Whoever "they" are, they made good on the threat, because when I was brought onto Al Jazeera, they made sure that I was the only one critical of gay adoption, versus two hosts and two other panelists who were for it, and the host cut my microphone.)
According to the press release sent to my university, any media outlet introducing me would be bound to introduce me as an "anti-gay activist" certified by GLAAD as a bigot.  When I read the claims of this e-mail, I wondered if this would be true -- would media in the United States really introduce me by saying I was certified as "anti-gay" by GLAAD?

Well, the answer to that question remains mostly unanswered.  Aside from that one fling on Al Jazeera, since GLAAD placed me on their blacklist, no secular media outlet has invited me on its show in the United States.  In-depth interviews with me have been broadcast in Chile, Russia, France, Ireland, and a number of other nations.  In the United States, Christian broadcasters like the American Family Association and Frank Sontag's "Faith and Reason" show in Los Angeles have interviewed me.  And I'd been interviewed, prior to the GLAAD blacklisting, by Minnesota affiliates of NBC, CBS, Fox, and NPR, as well as a number of newspapers.  Since GLAAD's blacklisting, none.
Prior to GLAAD's blacklisting, I had received calls from people at universities discussing their interest in having me come to campus and give speeches.  Three were working with me to set up dates.  Since GLAAD's blacklisting, none.  Those who had discussed this with me said point-blank that their superiors did not want to create controversy.

That is the power of GLAAD.  There are other people on the watch list -- Maggie Gallagher, Ryan Anderson, and Robert George, all of whom I respect and all of whom make regular appearances on television.  When GLAAD excommunicates them, there might be some hurt feelings, but it isn't quite the fatwa that it was for me.  These other traditionalist spokespeople have enjoyed some advantages: they are not part of the gay community themselves, and they belong to well-established conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation.  So I surmise that for them, being blacklisted by GLAAD isn't really the end of the world.

Being blacklisted by GLAAD was the end of my world.  (It just so happens I entered a new, happier one, but that doesn't take away from the terror caused by their omerta.)  Even though I wrote The Colorful Conservative, I am too colorful for right-wing think-tanks, too vulgar for Beltway Republicans, too much a fan of Sarah Palin for the Big Boys down in D.C.  I'm too queer for the legit crowd, and GLAAD basically put the word out to the queers not to talk to me anymore.  Old friends and even some family members took GLAAD's marching orders and have summarily cut me out of their lives.  And when I mean cut me out, I mean we will never be in the same room again.  One person very close to me, who works in the entertainment industry, was accosted at a dinner and told in no uncertain terms that if he didn't join in denouncing me, he'd have difficulty finding work.  I was less important than his shot at getting better contracts -- so gosh, I miss him.

I have only my tenure, my experiences, and my blog.  I'm not rich.  I'm not white.  I'm not straight.  I was raised by a lesbian and had to climb up to the humble perch where I am now, out of the lowest and smelliest swamps of gay America.  I was cursed with a lisp when I was young and never won respect for my writing as an adult.  Everything has always been a battle, just to survive -- as it is for most gays outside the Beltway, by the way.  Somehow, amid the ravages of AIDS, homophobia, racism, class snobbery, bullying, and every possible disadvantage you can name (save perhaps sexism), I managed to make myself a writer, learn eight languages, write books, form a family, find a relationship with God, and last, get tenure.  It's a rare professor who can say he survived a tenure review with as many adversaries as mine involved -- which allows me the small pride of saying that as modest a place as CSU Northridge is, I really earned my keep.  The slightest blemish on my file would have sent me to the almshouse.

None of these difficulties was quite like what happened with GLAAD.  Though I am part of the LGBT community, I was deemed a "non-person," someone invisible.  It's easy to see why it was necessary, in a Machiavellian sense, for GLAAD to do this in 2013.  They have been using the image of "gay families" and "children of gay couples" to maximum advantage -- in fact, in the latest iteration of GLAAD's duel with Phil Robertson, GLAAD wants him to sit down and talk to "gay families."  I am certain this will involve dragging some hapless child who doesn't want to be there into a confab, where overbearing gay parents use the kid as a human shield.

America doesn't know that this is part of same-sex parenting, because Americans have been blocked from hearing from me, Dawn Stefanowicz, Jean-Dominique Bunel, "Janna," Manuel Half, Rivka Edelman, and the blogger known as "the Bigot" -- just some of the many people I've come to know over the last year and a half, who have the human stories to dispel the myth that all is well with "gay families."  This scares the crap out of people at GLAAD.  It scares the crap out of them that I'm a professor and fluent enough in the way research works to know that the "consensus" on same-sex parenting is a fraud.  It scares the crap out of them that I have a scholarly record in African-American Studies and queer readings of Thoreau and Whitman, so they can't write me off as a wacko, unwashed homophobe.

It scares the crap out of them that I know they're lying, and if people had a chance to hear me, they'd know, too.
So it's easier to engage in a blackout: make a few phone calls, send out some press releases, marshal the usual success stories, trot out the starry-eyed youths with the "I Love My Two Dads" signs, and cue up some home videos of lesbian moms with toddlers.  Give them some of the razzle dazzle.
GLAAD is hoping that the current surge of anger over Phil Robertson will begin and end with Duck Dynasty, and then the rest of us who have been erased and whose lives have been destroyed by this totalitarian organization can be out of the way again.  Broom, meet rug -- sweep the human waste underneath, march on to the next court case, and proclaim victory.
There's only one way that GLAAD will come out of this kerfuffle unscathed -- if you, the conservatives of America, let them.  Please don't.  This is much bigger than one reality show.

Robert Oscar Lopez edits English Manif.
Re-published with permission from American Thinker

Source: LiveAction News

Hobby Lobby

 

Hugged by a Hobby Lobby employee

by Christina Martin

A Hobby Lobby store (photo credit: Fan of Retail on Flickr)

I’m in Texas for the holidays. My fiance and I came here to spend Christmas with one of his dear childhood friends. It’s been a joy to get away from the snowy New England streets and relax under the Texas sun. In the past I’ve visited Houston and Dallas to participate in prayer meetings focused on ending abortion. One of my favorite memories of Texas was the bus trip I took from Atlanta to Houston to pray in front of the largest abortion clinic in the nation. From those prayer meetings to Texas’s recent ban on abortion after twenty weeks, I’m proud of the way many in the state have engaged themselves in the pro-life cause.

Earlier I was driving around Rockwall in a friends pick up truck looking for a late Christmas present. I asked the friend to take me to Target and he gladly obliged. On the way to the store, we passed a Hobby Lobby. The big bright orange letters on the brown store put a smile on my face. I live in Connecticut, a state that’s sadly deprived of Hobby Lobby. I’ve been following Hobby Lobby’s court case that’s centered around their refusal to provide insurance coverage for their employees to get forms of birth control that could cause abortions.


The Christian corporation already provides sixteen forms of birth control for their employees. The founders moral stand and strong faith prevents them from providing any form of birth control that can destroy the gift of life. Hobby Lobby’s case should be decided by the Supreme Court this summer. Those who are following this case know it’s about more than contraceptives.

This is a case about religious freedom, the right for corporations to follow their faith and the need for limited governmental involvement in those decisions making. By refusing to pay for contraceptive in Obama Care Hobby Lobby is putting principle before profit and faith before financial gain. In doing so they are taking a big risk. If they lose the case they can be fined 1.3 million dollars a day for refusing to go along with the Affordable Health Care Act.

When I saw the Hobby Lobby store, I knew I had to support them. It didn’t really matter what I bought. I just wanted to give my money to a company that is standing for life. As I walked through the aisles I was tempted to buy almost everything I saw. I’ll admit it’s an added benefit that the store has really cute stuff.

As I was checking out of the store I began a conversation with my sales clerk Natalie. Natalie was a young women, likely in her early twenties. I asked her if she knew about the Supreme Court case and what she thought about it. To my delight Natalie said Hobby Lobby’s stand on abortion was what made her want to work for the organization. In her interview she told them she was pro-life and shared her support for their decision regarding birth control. Along with working at Hobby Lobby Natalie also helps women facing crisis pregnancies. She told me about an organization she’s worked with called ‘Gabriel Project‘ that connects pregnant women with trained mentors to guide them through their pregnancy.

I told Natalie that I wrote for Live Action News and when I did she beamed. She told me she read our news blog and said she read a story about the Hobby Lobby case on our site. I let Natalie know I survived an abortion and thanked her for standing for life. Natalie looked at me with a glowing face and asked if she could give me a hug. When I said yes she came from behind her counter, opened up and arms wide and squeezed me. She thanked me for being a voice for life.
It’s not everyday I buy a gift and receive much more than what I purchased. Today I caught a glimpse of faith in action. A young woman who told me that even if Hobby Lobby lost their case, shut down and she lost her job, she wouldn’t regret working for a company with strong principles. Along with getting a Christmas gift I bought a beautiful wall plaque that says, ” And we know that in all things God works together for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to their purpose, Romans 8:28.”

When I look at that verse on my wall I’ll remember my trip to the Hobby Lobby store in Rockwall and Natalie’s passion for life. I’ll continue to pray that God works all things together for good for Hobby Lobby and their Supreme court case.

Source: LiveAction News

Love Them Both

 

Loving Them Both

By Sarah Terzo
In an article in the American Medical News (Diane M Gianelli, “Abortion Providers Share Inner Conflicts,” American Medical News, July 12, 1993), a counselor at a Dallas abortion clinic talked about how she deals with the stress of doing her job. In her own words:

“This may sound like repression: however, it does work for me. When I find myself identifying with the fetus, and I think the larger it gets, that’s normal… then I think it’s okay to consciously decide to remind ourselves to identify with the woman. The external criteria of viability really isn’t what it’s about. It’s an unwanted pregnancy and that’s the bottom line.”

This clinic worker is struggling with her conscience. Deep down, I suspect that she knows that the “fetuses” her clinic aborts are actually babies. You don’t “identify with” tissue, products of conception, or collections of cells. You identify with human beings. This clinic worker is struggling to silence her conscience, which tells her that these babies are more than just tissue or uterine growths. They are people. As the developing child grows bigger and begins to look more and more like a newborn, it becomes harder and harder to deny his or her humanity. This forces the clinic worker to rationalize what she is involved in. In order to cope, she blocks out the reality of the child and focuses only on the woman as her patient, making the woman her only concern.
Pro-choice arguments almost always focus solely on the woman involved in the pregnancy. The baby is completely disregarded.

The pro-life movement, on the other hand, is at its best when pro-lifers are concerned about both the child and the mother. Groups like Silent No More and countless post-abortion support groups and organizations exist to help women cope with their past abortions. Crisis pregnancy centers, which outnumber abortion clinics, help women through their pregnancies and try to meet their needs. More and more, it’s becoming clear that women are physically and psychologically harmed by abortion. In opposing abortion, pro-lifers are not simply helping the baby – they are helping the mother as well. It is important that we do not deny that there are two people involved in each pregnancy – the woman, and her unborn baby. Both are important. Both require our support and compassion.

It is important that we never allow ourselves to see only the baby and disregard the woman who also needs our help and support. It is of course the baby whose life is at stake – but the woman obviously has a pivotal role and should never be forgotten.

Pro-lifers are here to support both people involved in the pregnancy. We don’t exclude either one from our help and care.

Source: NRLC News

Sad News From the Emerald Isle

 

Irish Health Minister James Reilly signs order to commence legalized killing of the unborn from January 1st

By Pat Buckley, European Life Network

James Reilly, Minister for Health

According to the Irish Independent, Irish health Minister Dr. James Reilly has signed the order to bring the controversial abortion law into operation from January 1 2014, a day that go down in infamy.

“The Protection of Life During Pregnancy act” was passed by the Oireachtas consisting of both houses of the Irish Parliament last July and signed into law by President Michael D Higgins. But it required a commencement order from Dr. Reilly to take effect.
It is understood that the commencement of the law was due to the need to publish regulations. The independent however reports that the delay occurred in order to establish a review panel to deal with applications for termination of pregnancy.

This could be more accurately described as termination of unborn babies’ lives
In what is clearly an assault on their right to conscientious objection, 25 hospitals in the State have been listed to carry out abortions, irrespective of whether medical personnel are willing to do so or not.

Source: NRLC News

Life -A Beautiful Choice

 

“Choose life. You’re never going to regret it.” Teen mother explains her difficult choice

By Lauren Enriquez
In a moving video, a young mother shares the story of finding herself pregnant at just sixteen years old. Darby explains taking the at-home pregnancy test and being in a state of disbelief, almost as if the positive test were a joke. She shares:

“I didn’t really believe it was real still. You’re kind of, ‘haha, this is funny, good joke.’ But then I went into the doctor’s office to get the official ‘yes, you are for sure pregnant.’ That was when the tears kind of came flooding in and the emotions were suddenly heightened.”

Darby knew she had three options: parenting, adoption, and abortion. Her doctor told her that she had seen many women who ended up regretting their abortions, but not once have I ever met a single mother who has ever regretted having their baby. Darby didn’t know what to do. After a few weeks she was leaning towards abortion, and she was inclined to believe the lies of the abortion industry, which said her baby was just a mass of cells and not a human.

But Darby ultimately decided against abortion and chose life for her son.

“It’s pretty amazing that you can love someone so little, so much. I just can’t imagine not having him here with me today, and what I would be doing if he wasn’t in my life right now. I think I’d be very lost and wondering this November, ‘where was my baby?’ Life is a wonderful gift. We can never take it for granted or put ourselves in a position where we can be the controllers of life.”

Choose life. You’re never going to regret it.

Source: NRLC News

No Common Core in Illinois: The Illinois Elite Who Are Imposing The Common Core Standards

No Common Core in Illinois: The Illinois Elite Who Are Imposing The Common Core Standards

What Is Going On Here

 

Insane Conversations – talking to children about euthanasia

By Paul Russell, founder, HOPE Australia.
If Belgium continues on its reckless path towards child euthanasia, as seems likely, what will the conversations look like that precedes the killing of a child?
Let’s assume for the sake of this exploration that the protocols and so-called safeguards will always be adhered to. There’s plenty of evidence to doubt that this will occur; that observance will deteriorate over time. But, initially at least (and at least because of initial public scrutiny), we can assume proper regard for the new law.
So, how does the conversation begin? We know that the child must ask for euthanasia and that an assessment of the child’s ability to comprehend what he or she is asking for must be tested and attested to. So what is it that would prompt a child to ask?

There would be some need here for an exchange of information. Perhaps there’s a leaflet outlining the child’s rights. Perhaps it’s part of an informal discussion with the child about his or her prognosis and medical treatment options. Whichever, it would not be a matter of an ‘unknown, unknown’. By some method at some time the child would have need to be made aware of the euthanasia option.
So the edict that ‘the child must ask for it’, which suggests initiative on the part of the child, is likely never to be entirely the case. Not convinced? Think about why it would be that the specialist medical practitioner or the parents would come to a point where they thought it necessary to tell the child (or to remind the child) about euthanasia as an option. The very act of saying as much is ‘loading the gun’.

Such information is loaded with any number of possible undercurrents of thought which, even if explained away by the doctor or parent, may have the reverse effect of actually highlighting them.
The inferences abound – all leading to any number of further subtexts – real or imagined:

• Are they saying that I should take the euthanasia option?
• Are they saying that my life is hopeless and not worth the living?
• Are they saying that they (the parents) just can’t take it anymore?
• Are they telling me that euthanasia is a heroic option?
• Are they saying that there’s no point to my life?
• Are they telling me that I’ve suffered enough?

How else is a child to interpret this information? If the parents didn’t want the euthanasia option and wouldn’t agree to co-sign any request, why would they add to the anguish by telling the child? But they may be forced to do so under some sort of quasi-rights protocol. After all, if it is a legal and legitimate option, could they deny such information?
And what about the doctor? He or she may also be bound by some protocol to advise the patient. Is he or she, in doing so, making a preliminary judgment about the child’s capacity to make such a decision? Would he or she be likely to have to first ask the parents if he or she can inform the child patient?
This is not a values-neutral option, like choosing dessert or a movie. All of us, even if we sought a second medical opinion on a diagnosis or possible treatments, take a doctor’s suggestions as considered professional opinion. This will be no different. Such advice is loaded with moral considerations.
In all of the above we would be considering a situation where a child was probably already in a hospital or hospice situation and at an advanced stage of progression of his or her condition. But there’s no reason to expect that this will be the stage at which the euthanasia discussion is introduced.
In The Netherlands, and likely in Belgium also, we know that, for adults, the discussion about euthanasia is not seen as a ‘last resort’ option when all else fails, but, rather, is often introduced at or shortly after diagnosis in a manner that some have called an ‘early intervention’. There’s no reason to suppose it would be any different for a child.
We know also that ‘suffering’ is broadly interpreted to include existential suffering – even in anticipation of later difficulties as the disease or condition progresses. It has been observed that the suffering of the parents is also a consideration. Could this also be interpreted as ‘suffering in anticipation of suffering’? No parent wants to see their child suffer.

Consider also the pressure that may be put upon parents to agree in circumstances where their child has decided for euthanasia and where they are against it or at least undecided. We do not know yet whether the protocols will see the necessary professional attestations as to the child’s capacity to decide occur before parental endorsement or afterwards. Should the parental agreement come as the last box to be ticked, imagine the pressure upon those parents to conform? The child has asked for it, the doctors have agreed that he or she has capacity to ask for it, will the parents have the strength and internal resources to stand against it?

Even if the child’s request to die was thwarted by the parents, there’s nothing to stop the child thereafter rejecting the dominion of his or her parents and claiming status as an ‘emancipated minor’ – a provision for an ‘emancipated minor’ to request euthanasia without reference to his or her parents already exists in Belgian law.

Even if the parental consent were to occur before the capacity tests, one can still imagine the difficulty parents would face. It would be the unspoken subtext of the entire treatment process.
And all of this is a situation where the same child is otherwise under the care and direction of the parents; where he or she can’t yet vote; probably can’t yet marry, drive a motor vehicle or consume alcohol.
It is certainly true that some young people develop the capacity for reason and sound judgment before they reach their majority. It is also likely that a young person who has endured a long and difficult illness will have, in some ways, matured more quickly for the experience. But the question still remains: whose choice ultimately would it be for death by euthanasia?
It will never be the child’s choice. Nor will it be the parents’ choice. It will remain a decision by the doctor who loads and delivers the lethal dose. That’s the inescapable reality.
And what of the role of the doctors and nurses? What conversations happen in the quiet moments when no-one else is around? Will letting a child patent know that they can always request euthanasia become a matter of duty? Will a perverse sense of compassion see subtle reminders conveyed to the child in the wee hours when he or she can’t find sleep?

No matter what the child’s capacity for reason, there is never going to be a situation where subtle pressure, real or perceived, won’t be part and parcel of the contract. It’s just the way it is.
It’s merely academic now; but one wonders if, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, whether the Belgians would have taken the first precarious step towards killing its citizens back in 2002 if the concept of child euthanasia had been foreseen as inevitable.

Is this the end of the depravity or are there other extensions possible and perhaps as yet unseen? Child euthanasia where the child lacks capacity to make a decision seems to me to be the logical next step. This would extend to any minor of any age. After all, parents retain decision making capacity for minors in all other circumstances relating to medical interventions, so why are the Belgians pretending that child capacity and request is necessary at all?

The logical end of this spiral is death on demand without reason or restraint. The pretense of necessity, in this case, is simply a sham. The Belgians, like the frog in the pot, are being brought to a simmer in incremental stages.

Source: NRLC News

Lessons to Learn

 

What does Wendy Davis’s nomination as a finalist for the 2013 ”Texan of the Year” award tell us?

By Dave Andrusko
Over the next three days NRL News Today will include some “year in review” stories. They are fun to write and useful overviews.
I’d like to begin with our benighted opposition which is really scrambling to find silver linings in a sky filled with dark (i.e., life-affirming) clouds.

We talked last week about California (“So who really cares about ‘protecting women’”?)
Their triumph? Guaranteeing that women have greater “access” to abortion by ensuring that tons more non-physicians can perform certain first-trimester abortions. (That will certainly enhance women’s safety, won’t it.) And if that weren’t enough, pass another law guaranteeing that abortion clinics do not receive the kind of scrutiny they ought to by exempting them from the more stringent building code standards for surgery.
Then there is one of the finalists for the Dallas Morning News’ 2013 “Texan of the Year.” Let’s think hard: pro-abortion newspaper that can never beat up pro-life Republicans enough or celebrate pro-abortion Democrats sufficiently.

Of course, who else? State Sen. Wendy Davis, now running for governor to succeed pro-life Rick Perry, whose 11-hour filibuster is the stuff that legends are made of. (Pretty thin gruel for legends, but times are tough for the Abortion Establishment.)
While they don’t often explicitly link to Jimmy Stewart’s “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” the parallel drawn in the endless puff pieces is impossible to miss. And in this case, the connection is more clear than usual. In a nod to the filibuster maintained by Stewart’s character, Sen. Jeff Smith, we read of Davis that when this “lone senator stood her ground, the scene in the chamber resembled a Hollywood script.” Only….

“Except she was not on a movie set. The Harvard-trained lawyer was in the midst of the sharpest of political debates. Her oratory galvanized a portion of the Texas electorate that had been hungering for dynamic leadership. Suddenly many Democrats no longer felt like they belonged to the party of lost causes. That came all because Davis seized the moment and microphone, earning her a berth among finalists for 2013 Dallas Morning News Texan of the Year.”

(A quick side note. In another nod to Jeff Smith—a man of incomparable idealism– we’re told that while ”Her filibuster was calculated,” according to one political consultant, “it was not built around statewide ambitions. She did not know how this would transform her.” Just the fortunate benefit of doing her duty to try to make sure babies capable of feeling pain can be torn limb from limb.)
Davis leaves the Dallas Morning News’s heart a fluttering. Why? Is it because she killed the legislation? For a few weeks. Gov. Perry called another special session and the multiple-faceted bill became law.

Is it because Davis will be the next governor? Maybe, may not. But that’s almost irrelevant to the authors of gushy fluff pieces like the one found here.
“Whether her new celebrity helps her win the governorship in 2014 is another question,” we read. “But this summer’s strategic moment of defiance energized Texas Democrats and launched a new Texas political star.”

I come to a different conclusion. The craziness that was the pro-abortion frenzy at the Texas capitol during the filibuster taught many pro-lifers an invaluable lesson: At least some pro-abortionists will stop at virtually nothing, including not-in-the-least-subtle threats of violence.
We will prevail in the future as we did last summer in Texas: by being civil, persuasive, and, as always, non-violent

Source: Nrlc News

A Very Sad Case

 

Family seeks to move teenager to another facility after judge rules she is brain dead

 

 

By Dave Andrusko

Omari Sealey, left, uncle of Jahi McMath, speaks with attorney Christopher Dolan before Thursday’s news conference in front of Children’s Hospital Oakland. Jahi, who has been declared brain dead, remains on life support at the hospital
(Ben Margot / Associated Press / December 19, 2013)

The increasingly bitter battle between the parents of a teenager declared brain dead and the hospital where her routine tonsillectomy went terribly awry December 9 continued yesterday when the family members said they wanted to transfer Jahi McMath to a nursing home they say is willing to continue her care.

The family’s announcement at a press conference Thursday followed the Tuesday decision of Alameda Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo. Based on the independent evaluation of Dr. Paul Fischer that Jahi met the criteria for brain death, Grillo ruled that the 13-year-old could be taken off life support.

On Thursday, Jahi’s uncle, Omari Sealey, told reporters, “Yesterday we spent Christmas together as a family — doing a lot of prayers and trying to have some fun, hoping for a miracle, and looks like we may have gotten our miracle. We found out that someone is willing to take Jahi away from Children’s Hospital to a facility nearby here in the Bay Area to treat her,” Thursday.”
He added, “So right now, we’re asking Children’s Hospital to work with us to make that possible,” he said, referring to Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland.
The family did not name the other facility.

Christopher Dolan, the family’s attorney, said that Jahi would need to have breathing and feeding tubes inserted before she could be moved.

“The most logical people are the ones in the hospital where she’s sitting who have the ability to do that,” he said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “If they refuse to do that, and insist upon moving towards this deadline of pulling the plug, then we’ll just continue to do what we’ve been doing.”
Children’s Hospital Oakland said it would not go along with the family’s request. Chief of Pediatrics David Durand said in a statement

“Judge Grillo was very clear on Tuesday December 24. He ruled Jahi McMath to be deceased and instructed the hospital to maintain the status quo. Judge Grillo did not authorize or order any surgical procedures or transfer to another facility. Children’s Hospital Oakland does not believe that performing surgical procedures on the body of a deceased person is an appropriate medical practice. Children’s Hospital Oakland continues to extend its wishes for peace and closure to Jahi McMath’s family.”

In a prior ruling Judge Grillo said that the hospital must hold off on any decisions until December 30. If the family decides to pursue its case to keep Jahi on the ventilator, the decision will be up to the California Court of Appeal.

Dolan told reporters Thursday “that if the family was unable to immediately move Jahi they would appeal the ruling,” according to the Times’ Matt Stevens. “He said the family’s private health insurance would cover the cost of her long-term care.”

“They told us there is a bed; they care for children like her all the time,” Dolan said. “They believe they can provide her with care and support and treat her as if she’s a living person.”
Jahi underwent the tonsillectomy to address sleep apnea and other concerns. The operation, at least initially, appeared to have gone well. But soon afterwards Jahi began bleeding profusely and suffered cardiac arrest which cut off the flow of oxygen to her brain.

Source: NRLC News

 

  Runs in the Family

By: Haley Kirkpatrick

 

I am a Birth Mom. I placed my little girl for adoption when I was 15 years old. This was not my first encounter with adoption, though. When I was a 10 years old, my mom was suddenly facing an unplanned pregnancy as a divorced, single mom of 5 children. My Mom is a Birth Mom. She placed my half-brother 14 years ago.

I guess you could say being a Birth Mom runs in the family? Or the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree? I’m not sure how to describe it, but I can tell you that it is a very unique situation, a situation that I am very grateful to be a part of.

When I found out I was expecting a child at 15 years old, I was terrified, to say the very least. My mind was a complete ball of questions, worries, and fear. My Mother is the one who calmed all of that. She never yelled at me for my unplanned pregnancy, she never said harsh things about the decisions I had made to lead me to my pregnancy, she only had kind, loving, and concerned remarks for me. I cannot imagine her handling it any better than she did.

The day I found out, she was the first person I told. She rushed home from work to find me sobbing in my bed. I remember her rubbing my back, crying, telling me that everything was going to be okay. We were going to make it through this. She presented my options to me, adoption, parenting, or abortion. She never pushed any of these options on me; she presented them all with the same love and care and let me be the one to make the decision. She never ever forced adoption on me, but I can say that without her example, I probably never would have decided on adoption.

I watched my Mother give birth to a beautiful little boy. A little boy that I knew I would not call my Brother. She lovingly placed him in the arms of another woman and it was an amazing thing to be a part of. My mom always kept things so positive during her pregnancy. She simply told us that a family was unable to have a baby, so she was using her belly to grow one for them.

I took that mentality into my adoption experience. Yes, I knew this was MY child, but once I had selected a family, I really did see this as their baby. It did not make my pain any less, but I knew that this is where she belonged. My Mom was by my side throughout my entire adoption journey. She went to every appointment, every meeting with my social worker, all of it. She was my saving grace. But, the thing I appreciate the most about my Mother's support was that she never once sugar coated what I was about to go through. She told me from the moment that I decided to make an adopt ion plan, that it would be the hardest thing I ever did. She told me about the pain, about the loss, about the life long grief I would feel, but I went ahead anyway, and she completely supported that.
I feel as though I had an advantage to some expectant parents who decide to place. I went into placement ready, ready for the pain. My mom had prepared me and I knew that it was not going to be easy. Now, as a mother myself, I cannot imagine how my mom must have felt watching me sign those papers. I know that every inch of her must have been hurting. I could never watch my daughter go through something that I know would cause her so much hurt, but my mom did…she put her feelings aside and allowed me to make this decision completely on my own. A decision that not only broke her daughter’s heart, but that took away her first Grandbaby.

My Mother is my super hero and I will never be able to thank her enough for her amazing leading example in my life. Our adoption journeys have been completely different, but knowing that I have her there on the bad days, there to comfort me and completely understand how I feel, what more could I ask for?

Source: Students for Life of America