Death penalty - a letter to the Democratic party

Last night was reportedly the first case of a federal execution in any years.  However, supported by the Democratic party, federally funded executions are occurring by the thousands every day in abortion clinics. Human life begins at conception, biology 101.  Since Roe v. Wade, there have been 62+ million executions of unborn human individuals in the United States, all under the guise of health care. I am using the word execution as abortion is the willful termination of the life of a unique human individual.

Once upon a time, the Democratic party did not think that abortion was so wonderful. Remember legal, safe and RARE? Now, the DNC platform only wants to keep abortion legal.  States, that try to enact regulations that require abortions clinics to maintain conditions required of other medical facilities, such as dental offices and outpatient surgical centers, are bombarded by so-called choice supporters with objections that women’s right to abortion are being denied.  But, it costs money to maintain sanitary conditions or design a clinic so that EMT’s can safely and quickly transport a woman who has had a complication to an ER.  Listen to the objections and follow the money.

So, money trumps safe. What about rare?  Despite the denials of choice supporters, many women say that they did not think that they had a choice other than an abortion. Where is the Democratic party’s concern for these women? Women say that they felt pressured by others, by their economic status, by their healthcare status, by the numbers in the family that they were already caring for, by the choice between a baby, and getting and education that would support them both.  But these women can choose abortion with no regrets, according to the so-called choice supporters. No regrets?  Many years ago, I read of a woman in her 70’s who found that the underlying sadness in her life was the result of an abortion.  Another woman felt that she was unable to love her living children since she had ended the life of her first child. Regret, depression and family problems have arisen from abortions.  Post-abortive programs would not exist if women did not regret having abortions.

Women are given options at the abortion clinics. Just how true is that?  Women, who were once abortion clinic counselors, have related how they had a script which skewed the options toward abortions, like putting the cost of raising a child versus the cost of an abortion.  How many clinics offer guidance to social programs that would enable women to raise her baby?  Oh, that would require a social worker.  Abortion clinics are not into social work.  Adoption is mentioned, but so also the life-long grief of giving the baby to another person. What of the grief of an abortion? Oh, women are supposed to feel relief. Feeling grief from an abortion means someone shamed them into feeling grief.  Supposedly pro-choice supporters rail against pro-life clinics that offer information on fetal developments and ultrasounds of the baby. They say that it shames women into not choosing an abortion. Since when is having all the information one can have before undergoing a life-changing procedure be shameful? Would they say the same if a woman was undergoing surgery for breast cancer? How many women have said that if they only knew they were not aborting “just a clump of cells” they would never have had the abortion? 

What is the Democratic party, the party that is portraying itself as caring for the people, going to do for the women who do not want an abortion but think that because of their life circumstances they do not have any choice?  Will the Democratic party push for the regulation of abortion clinics that will at least compare to standards of other clinics or even hair salons?  Will the Democratic party promote more programs for women, and men, who want to care for their babies? (There are men who are willing to raise their baby on their own, but then the women would be unwilling incubators, according to the supposedly pro-choice people. How ‘it’s all about me’ have we become to put one’s convenience over the life of another?)  Will the Democratic party promote adoption and fund adoption agencies as much as it funds abortion clinics, under the guise of health care? (This would include religious organizations with acceptance of their adoption parameters, if the woman chooses them.) 

Or, will the Democratic party buckle to the so-called pro-choice people?  They say that they are for ‘my body, my choice’, but their actions say that is a lie.  Every baby kept or adopted is a loss for an abortion clinic’s profits, or excess revenue over expenses if Planned Parenthood.  Hear the objections and follow the money.  Is the Democratic party really for the welfare of the people or a slave to the abortion lobby and a minority of people, just as the Republican party is to the NRA?

Time to put your policies where your mouth is.  Give women real choices.  That will make abortion rare. 

Want some ideas?  Democrats for Life have ideas. https://www.democratsforlife.org/

Proposed Platform Language to Unites Democrats Around Historic Democratic Principles

"We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, such as abortion and the death penalty.  We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength, and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.

However, we can find common ground.  We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies.  We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy – including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, and childcare; and appropriate child support.  We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term."

The Democratic party and Pro-Life

Just what is keeping the Democratic party from even trying to woo millions of pro-life voters, who hold to the principles of the past, where every human individual's life has valued and ought to be cared for? Is it the power that NARAL and Planned Parenthood have over you, like the power that the NRA has over the Republican party? Make any move that supports a policy that hints of being just a little pro-life; and they jump all over you, screaming of a woman's right to choose, limiting access to health care and shaming women. Why did you give them such power? Being cynical, I would say the promise of votes. So, you pander to the pro-choice supporters just as the Republicans do to pro-life. 

The words are all there, but really? Is it choice when the party does not PUBLICLY and STRONGLY
push for meaningful options for women who want to choose life but think that abortion is the only option? Is it caring for women when the party doesn't support legislation that regulates abortion clinics to the sanitary standards of other health facilities, or even places like hair salons? Is it shaming women to let them know as much as possible about the unique human individuals that are living inside of them before abortion and sparing them the consequences when  they realize they have ended a human life later? (Yes, women still do say that they were told that they are getting rid of a clump of cells. And, yes those pro-life facilities that do give women the knowledge of their fetus and other available choices are labeled as anti-choice.) Is the Democratic party saying in reality that women are too stupid to make their own choices when fully informed? (I have read how abortion counselors give out information with a bias towards how an abortion would be the best choice.)

The Democratic party is unrecognizable from the party that I knew as a teenager and young adult. That party fought for the civil rights and the dignity of ALL human individuals, regardless of the stage of life. That party held the promise of a better, greater nation, once we got out of the quagmire of the Vietnam war. 

That party is gone, but not forgotten by those of us who knew it then. That party is gone, but wished for by the millions of pro-lifers of all ages. 

The nation is changing, just as in the 1950's and 1960's when the civil rights movement challenged the party. The party moved to support civil rights and a lot of voters became and still are Republicans. The Democratic party was the better for it. 

In its continuing move to the radical pro-choice position, the voters who were in the party in the 1960's and 1970's, like me, also turned to the Republican party. But that was also a false hope. There are millions of pro-life voters who see neither party as an option for this nation.

 

Now, there are people of all types declaring to be pro-life. It is not only Democrats for the Life of America. It is not only Catholics; I am one. There are Pro-Life Muslims, Jewish Pro-life Foundation, National Black Pro-life Union. It is Secular Pro-life.  It is Feminists for Life. It is New Wave Feminists. It is Students for Life. It is Rehumanize International. 

The Democratic party is going to be left behind if it doesn't recognize that this is not the 1980's anymore, or the 1990's. If you do not support a candidate who can manage to bring the two sides together on common concerns for women, then the Democratic party will not be able to beat Trump in November. 

Your choice.

https://prolifewholelife.blogspot.com

How a Formerly Pro-Choice Nursing Instructor Discusses Abortion with her Students 

http://thetorchblog.net/?p=996

August 12, 2016 by Cynthia Isabell

 I have been a labor and delivery nurse since 1980. During my thirty-six year nursing career, I have also worked in medical units and for hospice. Being a nurse has allowed me to be present with people through their early beginnings of intrauterine life, and with others through their last breaths. It has been an amazing and rewarding journey. Life is precious and life is fleeting, and life should be respected. I am pro-life. I am also a nursing instructor and have taught obstetrics to hundreds of young men and women, our future nurses. My students often ask me what my opinion is regarding abortion. “Are you pro-life or pro-choice?” they ask me. I do not ask them the same, as I don’t want them to fear that their position might affect how I grade them. When I answer that I am pro-life, the students often assume that my position is based on my religious beliefs, and so they respond that “you can’t force your religious beliefs on everyone else.” I explain that my argument against abortion is based on the anatomy and physiology of pregnancy, and on logical reasoning... Cynthia, DNP, ACNS-BC, is a registered nurse with twenty-eight years experience working in low and high risk obstetrics, and eight years working medical surgical and hospice nursing. Cynthia has also been a nursing instructor for seventeen years. She holds a masters degree in adult health nursing and Doctor of Nursing Practice with a certificate in nursing education.

Why Liberals Should Oppose Assisted Suicide

Michael Sean Winters, Oct. 28, 2015 Distinctly Catholic 
National Catholic Reporter  

http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/why-liberals-should-oppose-assisted-suicide

Assisted suicide is now legal in five states: California, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont. In the coming year, Connecticut, Maryland and New York will likely face the issue in their state legislatures. All but one of those states, Montana, is a blue state, and in the three states set to consider the issue, Democrats control both houses of the legislature in Maryland and Connecticut, and the governorships in Connecticut and New York. So, this political battle will largely be fought within the ranks of the Democratic Party.

Liberals certainly value personal autonomy. They also have been the core of the party which has evidenced a sense of social solidarity: Democrats created the New Deal and continue to defend it, they support union rights, they care about immigrants and how they are treated. On the issue of assisted suicide, these values, personal autonomy and social solidarity seem to conflict and, indeed, there are prominent Democrats who support it and prominent Democrats who oppose it. All Democrats and liberals should oppose it and here is why.

Whatever your thoughts on the issue per se, how Democrats conduct the debate on assisted suicide will have a clear impact on how our nation confronts one of the most consequential political struggles in the coming years: entitlement reform. Medicare and Social Security (and other entitlements) account for a large and increasing share of federal spending. These benefits go disproportionately to the elderly, who some of us believe have earned the right to live out their lives in dignity and consequently believe that the rest of us have an obligation to provide for our seniors. This issue, along with immigration reform, more than any others, requires a renegotiation of the social contract, the sense of what we as citizens owe to one another. (Assisted suicide is not only an issue about the elderly, but it is primarily about them and they are the focus of my concern here.)

It is obvious to me that if liberals spend the next twelve months in the important media markets of Washington, D.C. and New York talking about the importance and value of social solidarity in opposing assisted suicide, they will be well positioned to defend against efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare funding. If, on the other hand, those of us who care about entitlements celebrate personal autonomy, we play into the hands of those who wonder why they should be expected to pay their money in taxes to support people they do not know or do not care about.

Make no mistake about it: When the ideological libertarianism of the right on economic issues combines with the moneyed interests of those who will have to pay more taxes to keep Social Security and Medicare afloat, powerful political pressure will be brought to bear. It is easy to scare people about the rising costs of entitlements because the numbers are scary. It is easy to find someone who defrauded Medicare and make that person the poster child of an otherwise very effective system for providing health care. (I have never understood why people buy into this kind of attack, using one person’s fraud to demean an entire system. After all, in Watergate, we drove Nixon out of office, we did not cease holding presidential elections.) In the 1980s, Republicans regularly denounced “welfare queens” to attack social welfare programs, and stoke a bit of racial animus as well. Some such campaigns will likely be used to convince Americans that “we can’t afford” Social Security and Medicare, we have to make cuts, the laws of economics demand it, that we are depriving our children of their future, etc. Just because this is bunk doesn’t mean it won’t work.

This line of argument will have a harder time working if we on the left spend the next twelve months talking about the elderly in terms of solidarity and confronting assisted suicide because it is the opposite of solidarity. Solidarity with those who are suffering should speak to the liberal heart, shouldn’t it? And, it should speak to our brains too. Assisted suicide as public policy is a statement of failure, of social failure, not medical failure: Pain management has come a long, long way and those who are dying need not suffer pain and they can experience a death with dignity, surrounded by caring family and nurses. Vicki Kennedy, whose husband Sen. Ted Kennedy had died after a long illness, spoke to this in her important op-ed opposing assisted suicide in Massachusetts three years ago.  She wrote:

When my husband was first diagnosed with cancer, he was told that he had only two to four months to live, that he'd never go back to the U.S. Senate, that he should get his affairs in order, kiss his wife, love his family and get ready to die.

But that prognosis was wrong. Teddy lived 15 more productive months. During that time, he cast a key vote in the Senate that protected payments to doctors under Medicare; made a speech at the Democratic Convention; saw the candidate he supported elected president of the United States and even attended his inauguration; received an honorary degree; chaired confirmation hearings in the Senate; worked on the reform of health care; threw out the first pitch on opening day for the Red Sox; introduced the president when he signed the bipartisan Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act; sailed his boat; and finished his memoir "True Compass," while also getting his affairs in order, kissing his wife, loving his family and preparing for the end of life.

Because that first dire prediction of life expectancy was wrong, I have 15 months of cherished memories — memories of family dinners and songfests with our children and grandchildren; memories of laughter and, yes, tears; memories of life that neither I nor my husband would have traded for anything in the world.

When the end finally did come — natural death with dignity — my husband was home, attended by his doctor, surrounded by family and our priest.
That is what death with dignity looks like. That is what health care, which Sen. Kennedy considered the cause of his life, looks like. That is what solidarity looks like.

Assisted suicide is promoted as a means to alleviate suffering, but that is not how it is actually practiced. All of us fear being in great pain at the end of our lives, but once this right is established, people who are not facing great pain avail themselves of it. This is not a slippery slope argument. There is clear evidence that the slope is slippery. In Oregon, where assisted suicide has been legal since 1997, the principal reasons for availing oneself of the “right-to-die” are: loss of autonomy (91.4%), decreased ability to engage in enjoyable activities (86.7%), loss of dignity (71.4%), loss of control of bodily functions (49.5%) and becoming a burden on others (40%).  Advocates of assisted suicide say they are in favor of “compassionate choices” but surely, there are more compassionate ways to help people cope with these anxieties than inviting them to kill themselves.

All of those items on the list are things people with disabilities confront and overcome, which is one reason the disability community is in the vanguard of opposition to assisted suicide laws. They understand that, yes, life is made more challenging because of their disabilities, but they are not expendable, they still have dignity. They understand, too, that a society that starts calculating what people can and can no longer contribute to society, that links human worth with other people’s determination of social utility, leads to inhumane judgments and expectations: If you are a burden, and you know it, why not dispose of yourself? On second thought, why shouldn’t society help you? Our country found its better angels when it passed the Americans with Disabilities Act that responded to the challenges people with disabilities face by trying to ameliorate the hurdles, not encouraging people to make themselves scarce.

Still undecided? When confronting a decision that involves competing values of personal autonomy and social solidarity, a pertinent question to ask is whether a given policy will impact the poor disproportionately. The rich can hire help so that they are not a burden, nurses to take of their physical needs, and the like, but the poor cannot. This should set off alarm bells in liberal minds. Among the reasons Gov. Jerry Brown should have vetoed the assisted suicide law in California is that the state’s Medicaid program does not cover palliative care, but it will cover assisted suicide. So much for choices! Advocates of assisted suicide argue that everyone is free to choose whether or not to seek the drugs that will take their life and this is true in a formal sense. But, formal freedom is not real freedom. The rich and poor alike are formally free to rummage in the dumpster for their dinner. Blacks were formally free to vote before the Voting Rights Act. Real freedom is something different.

I return to the issue of entitlement reform and pose a question to fellow liberals: Do you really trust President Obama and incoming Speaker Ryan not to find a compromise on entitlement reform that harms the poor and the elderly? I don’t. No one, absolutely no one, either man speaks with on a regular basis receives their actuarial statement from the Social Security Administration, looks at their estimated retirement benefit, and asks themselves if they will be able to live on that amount. They are wealthy and highly successful people. When they leave government service, they will likely make large fortunes in the private sector or go work at a think tank where the idolatry of the market convinced far too many that Simpson-Bowles was a good deal. I will support cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security only when the top marginal tax rate is back around 70% where it was in the Eisenhower years! Those were good years for the country, good years for the wealthy, good years for working people, but they were not years that produced the kind of Gilded Age economics we have today.

Social Security and Medicare exist so that the elderly will not be destitute. That is a low bar. We as a society, not our government, should do even more for our elderly. Our churches, our unions, our neighborhood watch groups, our schools, and most especially our families, should do more to keep our seniors involved in our lives. As Pope Francis never ceases reminding us, they hold the wisdom of years, which is a wisdom we could all use. Instead of seeing the elderly, and the entitlement programs that support them, as a burden, we should all find ways to celebrate their lives and keep them integrated into our own. We can start exercising this kind of social solidarity by opposing assisted suicide and reminding our seniors that they are not a burden, that they are needed and valued, that they have dignity and can never lose it. Here is an issue on which solidarity must trump personal autonomy or else we will all lose, and we might lose more than we first thought.

http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/why-liberals-should-oppose-assisted-suicide

#ShoutYourAbortion Consequences

By Sydna Massé, Ramah International

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425585/shifting-money-from-planned-parenthood-to-community-health-centers-benefits-womens-health

Planned Parenthood’s recent encouragement to women to tweet their abortion truth using #ShoutYourAbortion will have a long lasting impact not only on the women who responded but also on many families who will read, with horror, about the death of a family member.

The candor of this truth, tweeted quickly and without thought to future consequences, will remain a permanent record of a child’s death. It will also be a black mark in some circles for the woman who confessed in such a sensational manner. Sharing this truth rarely enhances the post-abortive life but often reduces it.

I was one of the early pioneers in sharing my abortion experience publicly in 1992. My story was shared on a two-day broadcast that reached millions outlining how horrifying my abortion impacted me at a spiritual, emotional, psychological and physical level. Thousands of women who felt the same way about their “choice” responded. My work in helping women find healthy ways to grieve this choice and forgive themselves began with that first public sharing. Yet there were major costs to my family for this confession.

Immediately after an abortion, it is a typical post-abortion experience to endorse and even recommend abortion. After my abortion in 1981 I surrounded myself with pro-choice people who would not judge me for this choice should they discover my truth. I only supported pro-choice candidates and even encouraged one of my friends to abort. Thankfully, she didn’t listen to me and is enjoying her daughter’s grandchildren these days. It wasn’t until I saw my next child fully formed on an ultrasound screen that I “realized” I had lost a person that day in the abortion clinic.

Defunding Planned Parenthood efforts across America have dredged up many women’s vivid experiences in these clinics during their own abortions. Footage from the Center for Medical Progress featured brutal discussions and clear dissection of our “blobs of tissue.” These images brought back memories we had hoped to forget.

Yet an amazing thing resulted from these video exposes – the world finally realized what women endured being under the “care” of such brutal hearts that were so calloused to tiny human beings. Compassion for the post-abortive has finally been released, particularly for those who regret their abortion choice.

Once you have lost a child to abortion, the experience becomes part of your soul forever. As long as it remains a secret, it can fester and grow into either pro- or anti-abortion sentiments. Once an abortion secret is revealed publicly, it can be used as a reason to discredit the women at many levels.
Few consider the consequences to family and friends who don’t understand a love one’s stance to glorify a choice that cuts off a whole family branch. Anger and outrage typically results towards the post-abortive woman from these family members.

Two years after my abortion, I was entering my last semester of college. Before I met two family members for dinner, I spent twenty minutes talking with fellow students about how abortion had empowered women. I was in that “abortion is great” mood when I sat down to dinner.

While it was unplanned, I casually announced, “I’m so glad that abortion is legal. I‘d never be to this point in my education without it.”

My family responded in total shock. Anger was the next emotion expressed as one asked fiercely, “You actually had an abortion?”

My response was positive and upbeat, “Yes and it was the best decision of my life.”

The emotions these two presented then were unexpected. I had no clue that my abortion truth would be considered a death experience to my family.
Heartlessly, I continued to outline why my abortion had been a great choice. As I talked, the anger and opposing sadness increased. Confused, I grew angry at these people and said, “Do you think I shouldn’t have aborted?”
No answer was given. They simply stood up and left the restaurant. Never again would these two people sit in my presence without the same emotion of disrespect and hatred being presented towards me. My casually shared abortion truth ended their love for me permanently.

While my life has drastically changed in regard to my support of abortion, it made no difference to these two individuals. Even in specifically asking for their forgiveness for both aborting my child and speaking so casually about it to them, no clemency was gained.

For every person that learned of a loved one’s abortion truth through the #ShoutYourAbortion social campaign, understand they did not share this truth publicly to specifically wound you. They simply do not understand your angst towards their abortion choice. These women believe that if abortion is safe and legal, why would it upset anyone?

If a #ShoutYourAbortion tweet outlined the death of a loved one in your life, take time to carefully guard your words. Take time to grieve this lost child and learn more about why women abort. Visit a local pregnancy center to discover how to communicate with your loved one and help others make a better choice than abortion. Please also continue to pray for the post-abortive person as the consequences to sharing this truth so publicly may be more than they can bear in the years to come.  The last thing they need is your rejection.

God’s grace, mercy and truth applies to every post-abortive person despite the pain they may have caused in your heart. I’m grateful for God’s help to face the anger and outrage that I often experience from people after public presentations despite being clearly against the abortion option. But for God’s grace, anyone could have chosen abortion, even you!

For more information on finding healing after abortion, visit ramahinternational.org. 

Sydna Masse is President & Founder of Ramah International and author of the book, Her Choice to Heal: Finding Spiritual and Emotional Peace After Abortion.

https://ramahinternational.org/blog/shoutyourabortion-consequences/

Gianna Jessen: I Was an Abortion Victim at Seven and a Half Months

by Gianna Jessen
December 6, 2005

LifeNews.com Note: The following is based on an interview 28 year-old Gianna Jessen gave to the Independent, a newspaper in the UK.

My biological mother was seven-and-a-half months pregnant when she decided to abort me. I don’t know why she made that decision. It was 1977. She and my biological father were 17 at the time and weren’t married.            

She went to a clinic in Los Angeles and had a saline abortion. A salt solution is injected into the mother’s womb, which the baby gulps. The solution also burns the baby inside and out. The idea was that within 24 hours she would deliver a dead baby. But, by the grace of God, I survived.
The abortionist wasn’t on duty when I came into the world. Had he been there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation or leaving me there to die, which was considered perfectly legal up until 5 August 2002 in the United States. Now, a child who has survived an abortion must receive proper medical care. The abortionist had to sign my birth certificate. He had to acknowledge a life that just hours before he was trying to end.

Choosing Death, Choosing Life: did being distinctly 'normal' make a difference?- - part 2

CNN) -- A brain-dead pregnant woman lies on a hospital bed. Doctors want to keep her on life support until they can deliver her baby. An anguished husband waits.

At first glance, the case of Robyn Benson of Victoria, British Columbia, appears to bear similarities to that of Marlise Munoz in Texas -- except for two key differences.

In Munoz's case, her husband wanted her taken off a ventilator and the hospital acknowledged the fetus she carried was not viable.

But Benson's situation is different.

Here, both her husband, Dylan, and the doctors are trying to keep her on a ventilator until they can deliver the baby via a C-section. And the life inside her is growing normally.

"We go see her every day and she is doing so much to grow our son," Dylan Benson told CTV. "Her brain is not alive, but she still is."

The Benson family ordeal began shortly after Christmas.

Robyn Benson complained of a "terrible, terrible headache" and sent her husband out to get some Tylenol. When he returned, she was unresponsive, but still breathing.

At the hospital, doctors discovered she suffered a brain hemorrhage. She was later declared brain dead.

Now, Dylan Benson is in an unimaginable position.

He's counting down the days to the birth of his son -- and the death of his wife.

A much different case

The Munoz family, on the other hand, had nothing to look forward to.

Their case, which played out internationally, sparked a wrenching two-month legal debate about who is alive, who is dead and how the presence of a fetus changes the equation.

Erick Munoz found his wife unconscious at their home on November 26. A blood clot in her lungs had killed her. She hadn't been breathing for about an hour. At the time, she was 14 weeks pregnant with the couple's second child.

But, unlike the Bensons, the fetus Marlise Munoz was carrying was described by family attorneys as "distinctly abnormal," with multiple deformities including a possible heart problem.

Munoz fought a Texas law that says "you cannot withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment for a pregnant patient," eventually winning a lawsuit and the right to remove Marlise from life support in late January.

He said he knew his wife wouldn't want to be kept alive artificially.

A community rallies

Five weeks have passed since Dylan Benson found his wife unconscious. The odds are getting better for the boy he's named Iver.

"The doctors have said that he now has higher than an 80% of survival and that increases with every day that passes," Benson said.

Doctors hope Robyn Benson can carry the boy seven more weeks when she will be about 34 weeks pregnant. The baby will then be healthy enough to be delivered.

The community has rallied to support the Bensons in a online fundraising campaign that began over the weekend.

The Baby Iver Fund began with a goal of $36,000. By early Tuesday, it had already doubled that with 88 days left in the campaign.

And the number keeps climbing: It exceeded $92,000 as of noon (3 p.m. ET), about $17,000 above what it was earlier in the day.

"Please help to raise funds for my unborn son, Iver, and I," reads the front page of the online effort. "He has already lost his mother, but I want to provide the best life I possibly can for him."

The money will be used to pay for bills, baby supplies, daycare, housing, food, transportation and an education fund for Iver. Dylan also noted that he hasn't worked during this ordeal, and that compensation during his leave after Iver is born will cover just more than half his normal salary.

People shared the link to the fundraising page around social media, from former co-workers to the local Anglican diocese to strangers in Canada and beyond.

"Humanity fills me with such hope when it comes together like this," tweeted one woman. "Support Dylan and #BabyIver."

Among those chiming in on Twitter was Dylan Benson, who thanked several people -- including one who pointed to a news story from France -- who'd brought attention to his campaign.

He spoke more extensively in a blog post about his unborn baby and wife.

"She was my rock," Dylan wrote of Robyn.

"It is very difficult to know that our son will grow up never meeting his wonderful mother, and that we will have to say our goodbyes to Robyn within hours of seeing Iver for the first time."

Brain-dead Canadian woman dies after son's birth

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/02/12/dnt-brain-dead-woman-dies-after-giving-birth.cbc-news.html

From Paula Newton, CNN

updated 7:32 AM EST, Wed February 12, 2014

 

(CNN) -- A ventilator kept Robyn Benson breathing for weeks so the baby growing inside her could survive.

Doctors delivered the brain-dead Canadian woman's son on Saturday. She died the next day.

"On Sunday, we had to unfortunately say goodbye to the strongest and most wonderful woman I have ever met," her husband, Dylan Benson, wrote on his website.

Pregnant woman kept on life support

Their newborn son, Iver, is in a neonatal intensive care unit in Victoria, British Columbia, a hospital spokeswoman said. He could be hospitalized for eight more weeks, Dylan Benson told CNN on Tuesday.

"He's doing well, still learning to breathe and all those things. ... But he's the cutest little man," he said.

The Benson family's ordeal began shortly after Christmas.

Robyn Benson complained of a "terrible, terrible headache" and sent her husband out to get some Tylenol. When he returned, she was unresponsive, but still breathing.

At the hospital, doctors discovered she suffered a brain hemorrhage. She was later declared brain-dead.

The situation left Dylan Benson in an unimaginable position, counting down the days until the birth of his son -- and the death of his wife.

The case drew some comparisons to the case of Marlise Muñoz in Texas, another pregnant woman who was declared brain-dead and hooked up to machines that kept her heart and lungs working. But there were two key differences.

In Muñoz's case, her husband wanted her taken off a ventilator, and the hospital acknowledged the fetus she carried was not viable. A court ultimately ordered the hospital to disconnect the ventilator.

In Benson's situation, family members and doctors agreed to keep her on a ventilator until they could deliver the baby via a cesarean section. And the life inside her was growing normally.

On Tuesday, Dylan Benson told CNN he was grateful for the support he'd received as word spread about his family's story.

"I feel very, very, incredibly thankful. The message of positivity has been incredible, and it's made it easier to get through these past few weeks," he said.

An online fund-raising campaign to support the Bensons began this month.

The Baby Iver Fund started with a goal of $36,000. By Tuesday afternoon, it had already raised more than $150,000.

The money is slated to be used to pay for bills, baby supplies, day care, housing, food, transportation and an education fund for Iver.

"I hope that it makes it so he can have the life he deserves," Dylan Benson said. "I want to thank everyone around the world."

If Robyn Benson were still alive, he said, there's no doubt about what she'd think.

"She would be very proud of our son," he said. "I think she would be happy that there were so many people all over the world that want to see him healthy and happy. "

CNN's Ed Payne, Stephanie Gallman and Catherine E. Shoichet contributed to this report.

Choosing Death, Choosing Life: did being distinctly abnormal make a difference?- part 1

Husband of pregnant woman wants her off life support

By Elizabeth Landau, CNN
updated 4:11 PM EST, Tue December 24, 2013

(CNN) -- Erick Munoz wants to see his wife's wish fulfilled this holiday season, but it's one that carries ethical and legal challenges: To be taken off of life support.

Marlise Munoz, 33, is in serious condition in the intensive care unit at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas, hospital officials said. She is unconscious and on a ventilator, her husband told CNN affiliate WFAA, but she wouldn't have wanted her life sustained by a machine.

"We talked about it. We're both paramedics," he told WFAA. "We've seen things out in the field. We both knew that we both didn't want to be on life support."

Complicating an already difficult situation is that Munoz is also pregnant, about 18 weeks along, WFAA reported. Texas state law prohibits withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient, regardless of her wishes.

 

Man wants pregnant wife off life support

 

Patients can indicate their future wishes about medical treatment, in the event that they are unable to communicate them, through forms called advance directives. But in Texas, under the Health and Safety Code, such a form includes the provision "I understand that under Texas law this Directive has no effect if I have been diagnosed as pregnant."

Erick Munoz told WFAA doctors said his wife may have suffered a pulmonary embolism, which happens when blood clots travel to the lungs from elsewhere in the body. They do not know how long the baby went without nutrients and oxygen.

The hospital would not release specific details about Marlise Munoz's condition, but officials said the hospital would follow Texas law regarding care during pregnancy.

 

"We have a responsibility as a good corporate citizen here in Tarrant County to also provide the highest quality care we can for all of our patients," said J.R. Labbe, vice president of communications and community affairs for JPS Health Network, in a statement.

"But at all times, we will follow the law as it is applicable to health care in the state of Texas. And state law here says you cannot withhold or withdraw life sustaining treatment for a pregnant patient. It's that clear."

The husband and wife, both paramedics in the Tarrant County area, have a 14-month-old son named Mateo.

Erick Munoz and Marlise Munoz's mother did not immediately respond to requests for comment from CNN.

Erick Munoz found his wife unconscious on November 26, around 2 a.m. He performed CPR on her and then called 911, WFAA reported.

Since that day, the pregnant woman has been on life support, her husband said. Tests have shown that the fetus has a normal heart beat, he said. At 24 weeks, doctors may know more about when the fetus can be taken out, Munoz's family told WFAA. Doctors have also discussed the possibility of taking the fetus to full term.

He told WFAA that his wife had said she would not want to be kept alive by machine, and said he has reached "the point where you wish that your wife's body would stop."

Munoz wears his wife's pink and blue bracelets on his wrist, WFAA reported. Her wedding ring is on his pinkie.

When Munoz walks in the door, he said his son Mateo is waiting for his mother to show up.

"You can see it in his eyes," Munoz said.

 

Brain-dead Texas woman taken off ventilator
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/01/27/newday-valencia-tx-mom-off-of-life-support.cnn.html

From Caleb Hellerman. Jason Morris and Matt Smith, CNN

updated 7:26 AM EST, Mon January 27, 2014

 

Fort Worth, Texas (CNN) -- A wrenching court fight -- about who is alive, who is dead and how the presence of a fetus changes the equation -- came to an end Sunday when a brain-dead, pregnant Texas woman was taken off a ventilator.

The devices that had kept Marlise Munoz's heart and lungs working for two months were switched off about 11:30 a.m. Sunday, her family's attorneys announced.

"May Marlise Munoz finally rest in peace, and her family find the strength to complete what has been an unbearably long and arduous journey," the lawyers, Heather King and Jessica Janicek, said in a written statement.

Munoz was 14 weeks pregnant with the couple's second child when her husband found her unconscious on their kitchen floor November 26. Though doctors had pronounced her brain dead and her family had said she did not want to have machines keep her body alive, officials at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth had said state law required them to maintain life-sustaining treatment for a pregnant patient.

Attorneys: Fetus was 'distinctly abnormal'

Sunday's announcement came two days after a judge in Fort Worth ordered the hospital to remove any artificial means of life support from Munoz by 5 p.m. Monday. Earlier Sunday, the hospital said it intended to comply with that order.

"The past eight weeks have been difficult for the Munoz family, the caregivers and the entire Tarrant County community, which found itself involved in a sad situation," a hospital statement said. "JPS Health Network has followed what we believed were the demands of a state statute."

The hospital acknowledged Friday that Munoz, 33, had been brain dead since November 28 and that the fetus she carried was not viable. Her husband, Erick Munoz, had argued that sustaining her body artificially amounted to "the cruel and obscene mutilation of a deceased body" against her wishes and those of her family.

Marlise Munoz didn't leave any written directives regarding end-of-life care, but her husband and other family members said she had told them she didn't want machines to keep her blood pumping.

The ethics of life support

In an affidavit filed Thursday in court, Erick Munoz said little to him was recognizable about his wife. Her bones crack when her stiff limbs move. Her usual scent has been replaced by the "smell of death." And her once lively eyes have become "soulless."

The hospital's position drew support from demonstrators outside the hospital, some of whom held signs last week that read "God stands for life" and "Praying for Baby Munoz and family." But others countered with placards bearing messages like "Let Marlise rest in peace" and "Respect Marlise's wishes."

Pro-Life Without God, by Kelsey Hazzard

Pro-Life Without God  

by Kelsey Hazzard
The Bell Towers

May 1, 2013 at 8:30 am 

As the president of Secular Pro-Life, I have been asked to present the non-religious case against abortion.  But actually, you’ve probably heard it already.  Many people who hear the secular arguments against abortion simply fail to recognize them as secular, because they expect pro-life apologetics to have a religious source.  Expectations powerfully color the way we see reality.  Discard these expectations, however, and you will soon find that most arguments against abortion do not require the existence of a god.

We start from a premise that is shared by many religions and by secular humanism: the lives of human individuals are exceedingly valuable.  A religious person might express this concept as the “sanctity” of life, while a secular person might refer to the possession of fundamental human rights.  The core value judgment is the same.

We also make a factual assertion that human individuals begin their lives inside the womb, when sperm meets egg.  I began my life as a single-celled zygote; so did you.  The scientific consensus on this point is overwhelming.  Frankly, denying that life begins at conception is on par with denying the theory of natural selection; the evidence is that strong.  And what’s more, the leaders of the abortion rights movement know it.  While some rank-and-file abortion advocates will insist that the unborn aren’t alive, or are mere “blobs of tissue,” you will not hear such ignorance from the heads of abortion advocacy groups.  Nor will you hear it from abortion doctors.  Intellectually honest people on both sides agree that abortion kills a living human individual.

The question raised by abortion is whether the living unborn human being is part of the human community, deserving of rights like older humans; or whether living unborn human beings should be treated differently, as objects rather than as persons.

Abortion supporters have suggested various justifications for the latter approach.  None are convincing.  In every case, a consistent application of the justification would allow the killing of some human beings outside the womb.

Consciousness
The most common justification for abortion is that unborn children are unconscious, at least in the early stages of pregnancy when most abortions are done.  Of course, you are unconscious every night when you go to sleep.  People who use this argument do not actually believe that the right to life depends on consciousness.  Probe more carefully, and they will clarify that they feel the right to life depends on an inherent capacity for consciousness.  But don’t unborn children have that capacity?  Consider a woman in a coma, who is expected to come out of the coma in a few months.  Is the unborn child’s situation appreciably different?  In both cases, consciousness is not present in the moment—there is only a potential for consciousness.  If that is a good enough justification for killing a child in the womb, and we’re going to be consistent, then the comatose woman is also a non-person who can be killed “on demand and without apology.”  That can’t be right.

Bodily autonomy
Another common abortion argument is the appeal to bodily autonomy; we’ve all heard the saying “my body, my choice.”  This is sometimes articulated as a belief that in order to have rights, you must not be dependent upon another body for survival.  But as with the consciousness argument, a consistent application of this rule would threaten rights of some born persons.

Other times, the bodily autonomy argument is expressed in terms of consent; you cannot use another person’s body without their permission, and if a woman does not want to be pregnant, the fetus does not have that permission.  If the only way to stop the fetus’ use of its mother’s body is to kill it, so be it.

That argument misses an important point: except in rape situations, the mother had a role in causing the unborn baby’s dependence in the first place.  In that light, it seems unfair to revoke consent—especially when doing so will kill someone!

When pro-lifers make this point, we are usually accused of being anti-sex and using pregnancy as a “punishment.”  That’s untrue.  It’s like saying that if you oppose drunk driving, you’re anti-beer!  Have your fun—just don’t put the lives of others at risk.

Women’s Health
Next, we have the argument that abortion is necessary to promote women’s health.  If abortion is not available on request, they say, women would rather risk harm themselves than allow their child to live.  In support of this theory, they point to the “bad old days of back-alley abortion,” when tens of thousands of women died annually.  This argument is powerful because it appeals to the same value that the pro-life movement does: a desire to save human lives.  The problem is that the women’s health argument has no basis in fact.

In the late 1960s, Dr. Bernard Nathanson co-founded the National Association for Repeal of Abortion Law, which now goes by the name NARAL Pro-Choice America.  Nathanson was an abortionist.  An atheist, he became pro-life when improved ultrasound technology convinced him of the humanity of the unborn child.  (He converted to Catholicism in his old age, and died in 2011.)  During his years as a pro-life atheist, he shared his insights into the early abortion movement—in particular, the messaging it used to shape the abortion debate.  One key tactic was to conjure abortion statistics out of thin air.  In Aborting America, Nathanson wrote:

It was always “5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the “morality” of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?

So what are the actual numbers?  According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 39 women died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade.  Maternal deaths from abortion haven’t been in the thousands since the 1930s, before the advent of antibiotics!  For perspective, the CDC reports that 12 women died in legal abortions in 2009; that number is almost certainly low, because many states (notably California) do not report to the CDC.

Gender equality
Finally, abortion advocates resort to an argument of brute force.  Yes, unborn children are human beings.  Yes, abortion kills them.  But abortion is necessary for gender equality: the lives of the unborn are “worth sacrificing,” and we must “be prepared to kill” for the cause.
The fact that this horrific view is being entertained at all actually encourages me.  I believe that these are the dying gasps of a pro-abortion movement that simply has no good arguments left.

As a woman, I do not want my worth to be based on my power to destroy the life of a defenseless child.  And I’m convinced that as long as abortion is accepted, society will never address the true causes of gender inequality.

Conclusion
This article has reviewed just a few of the secular arguments against abortion.  In contrast, purely religious arguments are fairly limited in number; you can argue that abortion violates a divine commandment, or displeases God in some way, or interferes with an act of divine creation.  In my experience, even devoutly religious pro-lifers view these purely religious arguments as secondary.  The secular case for life is the dominant case for life!

Let us again turn to Dr. Nathanson.  His testimony makes it clear that abortion was very deliberately framed as a “religious issue” from the beginning, in order to silence important pro-life voices:So why does this violate our expectations?  Where does the expectation come from, that a belief in God is necessary to oppose abortion?

We fed the media such lies as “we all know that opposition to abortion comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics” and “Polls prove time and again that most Catholics want abortion law reform.” And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favor of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were (and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheists’ opinions.

It worked then, but it won’t work for much longer.  Pro-abortion leaders are worried that the Millennial generation is rejecting abortion.  Polling confirms their fears.  And nearly a quarter of Millennials have no religion.
In short, the most pro-life and least religious generation is poised to take over the country.  The “religious issue” framework will be completely untenable in such a climate.

Secular Pro-Life is leading the way into a new era of pro-life advocacy.  If you like what we’re doing, please join us and support the cause of life.

Kelsey Hazzard is the founder and president of Secular Pro-Life.  She received her J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law.