In Their Best Interest

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Recently, I had to sign and initial a very looong and detailed page at my local Claire’s jewelry store so my 10-year-old daughter could get her ears pierced for the first time. Big milestone for her.

But somewhere today, a little girl is having an invasive medical procedure done without her parents’ knowledge. Somewhere today, your little girl’s little girl may have her life snuffed out at the end of an abortionist’s suction cannula. And you’ll never be the wiser.

The fight against parental notification of a minor’s abortion just keeps getting uglier. Today, WorldNetDaily reports:

California's San Juan Unified School District sought to change its own policy from one that prohibits students from being absent without parental knowledge except during medical emergencies to guidelines that would allow a student to leave for a "confidential medical appointment."

Thankfully, the policy didn’t make it. It lost, 3 to 2. Parents, who had “flooded” the meeting “clapped and cheered” at the result.

More and more, the rights and responsiblities of parents are being ignored, and the safety of children jeopardized in the name of “reproductive choice.” As Pacific Justice Institute staff attorney Matt McReynolds put it:

“They can't drive themselves anywhere, so some adult or somebody with a driver's license would have to get them to those so-called 'confidential' medical appointments that aren't so 'confidential' after all when you really think about it," he said. "You're talking about an older boyfriend, a boyfriend's parents, maybe even a school official? Somebody has to get them there when they're that young."

Right. And Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, is salivating over the prospects. PP spokeswoman Raquel Simental obviously didn’t agree with the district’s decision NOT to allow 7th graders off-campus without parental permission. "It's the law that they have access to these services," she told a local news station.

Wouldn’t you like to think so, Ms. Simental. But the fact is, McReynolds continued:

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU tend to always threaten these school districts with lawsuits if they vote differently than those groups want them to vote... They claim it would be illegal, but they've never actually filed a lawsuit when the school district adopts a parent-friendly policy.

I wonder why that is. Think they might get a bad reputation from fighting directly against the parents in a school district? I’m sick of PP acting as if parents are the enemy. Newsflash: The large majority of parents are not committing incest with their children. The large majority are responsible people, trying to protect their kids from the predatory behavior of others.

PP likes to come off as “reasonable” and having great concern for young women, but the bottom line is...their bottom line. They have, to date, railed against every parental notification law on the books.

Because parental involvement in a child’s life is bad for the abortion business.

So the next time you have to sign those school permission forms to let the school nurse give your daughter a Tylenol for her headache, remember: not everyone has your children’s best interest at heart. Ask a lot of questions.

Breastfeeding is "traumatic?"

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

My husband found an article on Fox News today and asked me "What's your take on this?"

At first, I have to admit, I laughed at the "Bebe Gloton" ("gluttonous baby") doll who comes with a nursing top instead of a plastic bottle (encouraging the idea of breastfeeding as opposed to bottle feeding)...until I read further at what some clearly ignorant, twisted people had to say about it.

Now, I'm guessing that the opposition or favor of this doll will be divided mostly along the lines of moms who breastfed their children and those who did not. That's to be expected. However, comments such as the following really are over the line:

“Pregnancy has to entail maturity and understanding,” [Dr. Manny] Alvarez said. “It’s like introducing sex education in first grade instead of seventh or eighth grade. Or, it could inadvertently lead little girls to become traumatized. You never know the effects this could have until she’s older.”

Hold the phone, there, Dr. Alvarez...what about little children who witness their own mothers nursing their younger siblings? Is that traumatic for them? Or is it only our horribly over-sexualized society that seems to cringe at such contact?

Many little girls see this as commonplace behavior and mimick it with their dollies already, without the aid of a specialized, decorated halter top. Are they scarred for life because of it? Hardly.

And comparing early sex education (where it's totally acceptable for some to introduce the concept of "two mommies" or "two daddies") to breastfeeding is just absurd.

The article continues:

“What’s next?” wrote Eric Ruhalter, a parenting columnist for New Jersey’s Star Ledger. “Bebe Sot — the doll who has a problem with a different kind of bottle, and loses his family, job and feelings of self-worth? Bebe Limp — the male doll who experiences erectile dysfunction? Bebe Cell Mate — a weak, unimposing doll that experiences all the indignation and humiliation of life in prison?

"Toy themes should be age appropriate. I think so anyway.”

Really. Well, thanks for that enlightened assessment...comparing a totally natural and healthy experience like breastfeeding to drunkenness and erectile dysfunction. Wow. I don't even know how to respond to that except to say that this "parenting columnist" may want to prepare himself for some very unhappy emails from nursing moms!

My opinion is, if you are comfortable with letting your kids play with Barbie dolls who are anatomically imbalanced examples of womanhood, what's your hangup with letting them play with a doll that empowers them to realize that those anatomical parts aren't just for "male pleasure," but can serve to nourish new life as well?

The UN has two faces

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

I am not a fan of the United Nations.

While lamenting the loss of US funding for lending its passive approval to China's family planning policies (which include forced abortion), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) addressed the frequently asked question among prospective donors, "Will money be used for abortion?" Answer:

No. UNFPA's work is guided by the Programme of Action of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, Egypt. It states that abortion should not be promoted as a method of family planning. UNFPA fully subscribes to this and does not provide support for abortion services. It works to prevent abortion through family planning, and to help countries provide services for women suffering from the complications of unsafe abortion."

And yet, 6 years ago, UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) came under heavy fire for violating this "family planning" policy (in paragraph 8.25 of the 1994 ICPD Programme of Action: "In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning....") by recommending that "governments should make abortion legal, safe, and affordable."

According to a 2003 Life Site News article:

UNESCO appears particularly concerned about adolescents' access to abortion, recommending that "Legislatures should remove legal restrictions to access of abortion and family planning services to adolescents" and that "Wherever the law allows, Governments should guarantee the privacy of those seeking abortion services, especially adolescent women." UNESCO also recommends that, "Where abortion is allowed, the legal system should provide means of redress for those denied access to the services that should be made available to them," without explaining what type of redress it has in mind.

UNESCO takes aim at parental consent laws, stating that, "It is common, for instance, to require adolescents to obtain parental consent for abortion services...This alone can dissuade an adolescent from seeking a proper medical procedure and leave them to seek alternative, illegal and unsafe abortions elsewhere."

UNESCO was later chastised for stating these views so publicly.

The UN is known for going against cultural and religious norms by pushing its own agenda. Just take a look at the UNFPA's State of World Population 2005 under "Reaping the Rewards of Family Planning." Apparently, regardless of what any given culture states, the UNFPA views "high fertility" as a family with 5 children. (In the early 1900s, families with 10 children were not uncommon. My own grandfather was the 7th child of 10.) By pushing the issue of contraception as "the norm" - especially to third-world countries - the UNFPA (wittingly or unwittingly) contributes to the acceptability of abortion worldwide.

And yet, here's one of those cases where the right hand seems unaware of what the left hand is doing. While promoting contraception (and even abortion), thereby undermining the worth of each child from the moment of conception, the UN also somehow believes it has the right to state what is best for each born child...

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is possibly one of the most insidious pieces of legislation to emerge from this self-anointed purveyor of "rights." Among the guiding principles of the Convention are "non-discrimination; adherence to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development...." (emphasis added)

It seems terribly hypocritical to promote the "right to life" for each of the world's children when the UNFPA would prefer that those children never be conceived and/or carried to term in the first place. But what's really frightening is the "participation" guideline of the Convention (again, emphasis added):

Children are entitled to the freedom to express opinions and to have a say in matters affecting their social, economic, religious, cultural and political life. Participation rights include the right to express opinions and be heard, the right to information and freedom of association....

... [P]arents in particular should tailor the issues they discuss, the way in which they answer questions and discipline methods to the age and maturity of the individual child.

Remember, we are talking about minors here. Children. According to the UN, parents are unqualified to make decisions regarding their own children - unless, of course, the parents are choosing to prevent their births.

Unabashed pro-abort Sen. Barbara Boxer of CA is pushing for the Convention to be ratified here in the US. According to Fox News, Boxer had this to say:

"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected."

The Fox article is worth reading in its entirety. When you hear a pro-abort attempting to sound pro-life, you know something's up.

Any governing body that urges citizens to avoid families it deems "large" and then seeks the right to dictate parenting techniques to those same citizens is not to be trusted.

Danger, Deception, and Babies

Monday, May 11, 2009

The Catholic News Agency has a recent blog about Heartbeat International’s “Babies Go to Congress” campaign, where mothers and their children spoke to Congress on the benefits of crisis pregnancy centers.

This is an issue close to my heart, as I used to operate a pregnancy care center. It was an incredibly rewarding job because of the visible impact made on the lives of moms and babies. These are the “dangerous and deceptive” centers that supporters of Planned Parenthood despise so much... these centers, offering women choices beyond abortion, which have encroached on the enemy’s territory. You know you’re making an impact when you start to encounter angry, irrational opposition. They claim things like:

CPCs do not provide abortion services or access to contraceptives. The vast majority of CPCs are not actual medical clinics and are therefore not required to meet the legal and ethical standards for medical facilities (including to provide complete and accurate medical information) or to respect patient confidentiality.

They’re right on a few counts. CPCs do not provide abortions or contraceptives, and they don’t claim to. They are non-profit organizations, staffed mainly by volunteers, which survive on donations from individuals (unlike the so-called “non-profit” number one abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, which receives millions in funding from the government every year).

And guess what else? CPCs do not claim to be medical clinics! They offer free pregnancy testing (urine tests, just like at home, only the women don’t have to pay for them), pamphlets on fetal development, information on possible abortion risks, referrals to adoption agencies, and occasionally, ultrasounds (just like you can get in some malls - which are also not medical clinics) done by trained technicians, doctors, and/or RNs.

When a client calls a CPC and asks “do you do abortions?” the standard response is, “No, we do not. We offer free pregnancy testing, information on fetal development, possible abortion risks, and counseling. Would you like to make an appointment?” Let me tell you from experience: the answer is rarely “no.” The women know exactly what to expect once they arrive, and they find compassion and confidentiality (contrary to what the biased article states above. CPCs do not give out names of clients, and will not confirm that any person has ever received services from them).

And here’s a neat little tidbit: Abortion facilities have little to no medical regulation, and they are medical facilities. Pro-lifers have fought for YEARS to get these clinics to hold to standard hospital regulations (anesthetists present and monitoring patients at all times, resuscitation equipment on hand), and the clinics fight tooth-and-nail in resistance.

Planned Parenthood's abortion numbers are up. Why are they so threatened? Because when it comes to “choice,” PP assumes that there is but one choice for most of the women who find themselves on their doorstep.

But don’t just take my word for it. These are the words of Dori Eddols of Columbus, Ohio, one of the women who spoke to Congress on behalf of CPCs:

We were not married and I got pregnant and so we went to a Planned Parenthood because I didn’t know there was a difference between a Planned Parenthood or a pregnancy crisis center... I didn’t even know there were crisis pregnancy centers.

The article goes on to say:

Believing Planned Parenthood would explain her choices, she said she and her then-boyfriend Greg, to whom she has now been married for 15 years, went in to a clinic for a pregnancy test.

Though Eddols expected she would be called back into a room to hear her test results, a staffer came into the lobby and announced that Eddols was pregnant.

"She said, ‘OK you’re pregnant,’ right there in the waiting room... ‘When do you want to schedule your abortion?’ I just turned to my boyfriend and said, ‘We gotta get out of here.’

"Crisis pregnancy centers are good for America. They are good for women. It’s not just about abortion versus pro-life. It’s about these are your choices. It explains what they are.”

Joe Young, VP of Ministry Support with Heartbeat International, added:

A lot of these members of Congress have a pre-conceived idea of what pregnancy centers are. A lot of that was formed from the Waxman Report a few years ago that was very negative about pregnancy centers. So members of Congress thought that pregnancy centers were manipulative, the religious right and (were) scaring women...

We actually get to bring clients and women who serve in these centers to meet members of Congress and say ‘Our heart is for women; it’s to serve women; it is not manipulative at all. We are going to lay out the truth about what we do and how we can serve you. And how we are going to serve you no matter what choice you make.

When women share their stories about the situations they’ve come out of, what their choices were and the help pregnancy centers have given them, they’re overwhelmed.

What the Children are Taught

Thursday, March 19, 2009

A North Carolina judge is under fire, and rightly so, after he forced a homeschooling mother to enroll her three children in public schools. Because they were receiving such a poor education at home? No. In fact, WorldNetDaily reports the judge's comments:

...Ms. Mills had done a good job [in homeschooling]....It was great for them to have that access, and [I had] no problems with homeschooling. I said public schooling would be a good complement."

And yet, he also told the mother:

It will do them a great benefit to be in the public schools, and they will challenge some of the ideas that you've taught them, and they could learn from that and make them stronger.

Really? A 10, 11, and 12 year old child should be "challenging" what their mother has taught them, even though their home education had been "good?" It seems to me that this judge is speaking out of both sides of his mouth and clearly knows nothing about properly parenting children.

But the plot thickens: this is a custody dispute between an adulterous father and a churchgoing mother. Who has the judge sided with? Why, the adulterous father, of course:

The father's submitted a statement admitting adultery, but the judge's ruling said he "became completely miserable in the marriage" and attributed that to "Ms. Mills involving herself and [the] children in the Sound Doctrine Church to such a degree that [the] entire household was turned upside down."

Ah, yes. It's all the mother's fault. How dare she come home and quote Scripture to her adulterous husband! How dare she pray in front of him! How dare she try to get him to attend church with his family instead of carousing with other women!

Hey, hubby, newsflash: Why didn't you get up off your posterior and take your family to church in the first place? You left the spiritual leadership of your home to your wife, you selfish--okay, you get my point.

This is appalling to me. Not only did this father shirk his spiritual responsibility to his wife and children, he is fighting spiritual accountability now by requesting that his children be forced back into the indoctrination of the secular public school system. Is it for their "good" or is it just to spite his non-adulterous wife? What are his children being taught by their adulterous father?

Way to go, Dad. You're a real winner. So is the judge who fell for your "poor, neglected husband" act.

Suleman's Choice

Friday, February 6, 2009

It's all over the news.

A single mother gives birth to IVF octuplets with six other children at home. She lives in a home with her mother. She is college-educated and doesn't live on welfare, and plans to go back to college to obtain her Master's degree to support her family. Talk about a woman who has decided that she can have it all, without the help of a man! The feminists should be rallying round her, shouldn't they?

No. None of that really matters, of course. What people really seem to have an issue with is the fact that this woman chose to have a family of 14 children. (When the famous Duggar family has more children, the public reaction is always, "Are they nuts? What's wrong with them?" They are accused of using their children for publicity, as if no one could possibly want such a large family in this day and age. It is practically viewed as mental illness. In fact, in Suleman's case, that's exactly what's being insinuated.)

The Today Show has published an interview with Nadya Suleman, the babies' mother. Read it here. In the interview, the "calm, poised and articulate" Ms. Suleman tells Ann Curry, "All I wanted was children. I wanted to be a mom. That's all I ever wanted in my life. I love my children."

In response to this, psychiatrist Dr. Gail Saltz (no doubt a "liberated" woman herself) had this to say: "I think she’s in a bit of denial here and quite defensive, because in fact she does talk about the fact that this has been her life’s mission: to have babies, have babies, have babies. There’s an obsession to this, and I think it’s quite disturbing. When you don’t have a connection in childhood, you go see a therapist. You don’t have 14 babies.”

Elizabeth Cady Stanton (founding foremother of the Feminist Movement) had seven children herself. She did not begrudge them, but celebrated their lives in a manner not considered acceptable by many in her day: she raised a flag at her home for each new birth so the whole world could know the power of her womanhood and the power of new life. THAT is true feminism: embracing the power of womanhood and our ability to give birth to the next generation while making our voices and actions heard in society in whatever other ways we see fit.

Now, don't get me wrong...I believe that what's best for children is for them to be raised by two parents, a mother and a father, in a stable and loving home. However, I myself was raised by a single mother who sacrificed and worked incredibly hard, so I know that what's "ideal" isn't always what's possible. This is the real world. But to treat a woman's desire for a large family as a "disturbing obsession" is appalling to me. My own great-grandmother had ten children, and I'm certainly glad that today's pervasive mentality (aided by the advent of readily available birth control) was not the driving force in her day. My grandfather was the eighth of the ten children, and I am thankful for his life as well as my own!

The bottom line is, Nadya Suleman made her own choice. She chose to give life to 14 children (in an unconventional way). Had she made use of the choice of abortion or selective reduction, the modern feminist outcry would be nonexistent. We are on very dangerous ground when we as a society begin to tell persons how many children we feel are appropriate for them.

Forget the false argument that society will have to support this woman and her children (and hey, what happened to "it takes a village," anyway?). After all, our government can gleefully fund abortion in other countries while seeking to do the same here in the States, and I've yet to hear any pro-choice feminist outrage over that decision. If "pro-choicers" believed in true "choice" then they would not condemn Nadya Suleman for hers.

I will close with another quote from the Today Show interview, from Dr. Nancy Snyderman:
"...some of these children will be physically or mentally challenged, there’s a looming price tag out here. The hospital bill alone will run $1.5 to $3 million. Forget about getting to college; just to get through special-needs stuff — it’s going to have to come from somewhere, either the taxpayers of California or her family or her church or the hospital. But she can’t do it alone.”

That's right, Dr. Snyderman. None of us can do it alone. We weren't put on this earth to "do it alone." We need each other. I hope that the public (especially the pro-life and Christian communities) will rally around Ms. Suleman and her children instead of treating them as drains on society. They need our love and support.