So Your Child Has Down Syndrome, by Stephanie Gray

A couple years ago, a friend of mine contacted me about someone he knew who was considering abortion because their pre-born child was diagnosed with Down Syndrome.  He consulted me about what to say to his friend (who was related to the expectant couple) to try to change their minds.  Recently, another friend of mine contacted me about a friend of hers in a similar situation.  What are pro-life people to do and say in these situations?  Here was my advice:

Further to our text exchange, I am praying for your friends as they face this unexpected and difficult situation of knowing their pre-born child has Down Syndrome.  Indeed you are correct that we must pray, for it is God’s wisdom that we must rely on here, not our own.  It’s important to remember that our prayers should naturally flow to action, for just as a canoe will go in circles if only one oar is used on one side, but it will glide forward with an oar on each side, so too must prayer guide action, and action flow from prayer.

As I reflect on your friendship with your friend who is the brother of the pregnant woman, I am reminded of Esther in the Bible.  As you well know, she was placed where she was “for such a time as this.”  Her uncle could not make the appeal to the King, but Esther could.  She prayed and fasted in preparation for the verbal appeal she was to make to the king.

Since I am more removed from this situation than you, I will do my best to equip you with perspectives and insights to help you make an appeal to your friend, an appeal asking him to make a similar appeal to his sister.  I’m certainly happy to chat further to this e-mail, so let me know.

As I mentioned in our text, time is on the side of life.  It is important that she not be rushed into a decision, which is something proponents of abortion in this case may do.  There is no need to rush, and rushing only leads to making decisions based on emotion and fear, thus leading to choices that can then lead to heartache and regret.

Empathy

So, how can you help your friend help his sister?  Start with the prayer of St. Francis: “O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be understood as to understand.”  Your friend’s sister is devastated. Empathy is so important here.  Seeking to understand her and her concerns and fears is very important.  Those who have not faced a poor prenatal diagnosis can’t know what it’s like, so while it isn’t accurate to say “I know what you’re going through,” when we don’t, it is accurate to say, “I can’t even imagine how difficult this must be for you.” 

From what you’ve told me, it sounds like this couple joyfully embraced the news of their pre-born child so many weeks ago.  That news heralded the news of their other child being an older sibling.  It filled them all with joy and anticipation—new life meant new adventures for this little, growing family.  One plus one equaled three, and now one plus one equals four—their love is multiplying in ways that defy math.  And all that seemed dashed with news that their beloved, youngest child is disabled and sick.  It is very possible that a negative and depressing picture of the future has now been painted for them.  Discouragement, disappointment, and despair are very real emotions they may be experiencing.  Let them express that.  Then, it’s important for you, and your friend, to be a voice of hope, seeing a future they may not be able to see yet.  It’s your job to paint for them how life is beautiful (not easy—but beautiful), even when life brings with it suffering.  More on that in a bit.

Questions

Asking questions is important.  This woman and her husband need to be heard, and they need to feel heard.  It’s hard to find the right help when the problem isn’t clearly identified.  So what, specifically, do they fear most?  That their child will suffer?  That they themselves will?  Financial costs?  No support?  What does she fear?  Only when fears are verbalized can we seek to alleviate them.

Support

Often in these situations, people can feel very lonely.  Over 90% of children who have Down Syndrome are killed by abortion, so there doesn’t seem to be many people around who have what their child has.  And yet, 10% do make it out alive, and often the families of these children are beautiful witnesses to the gift of life, even—and especially—a life that is less than “perfect.”  I have a friend, Leticia, who has a daughter who has Down Syndrome; in fact, I just visited her in Connecticut.  She is interested in speaking with your friend’s sister.  She can address concerns they have, such as finances or suffering, as these are real situations she herself has lived.  Further, she has written a book on embracing children with special needs, and I can give that to you for your friends as well.

I can also connect this couple with a pro-life doctor in their area if they are open to that, so please let me know.  A pro-life doctor would have a more hopeful picture of the future, and provide life-affirming ways to help this family.

Further, I certainly am more than willing to meet with them, or the brother or parents if they are open to it.  When I went to Romania I looked after a little boy, Cristi-Daniel, who has Down Syndrome.  His little life, accomplishments, and joy were a gift to me and I’d be happy to share my experience.  I am back on Tuesday so please let me know if anyone in the family is open to meeting.  You mentioned the grandparents are practicing Catholics.  Perhaps they’d be willing to get together with me to pray and discuss things?  I think they’d appreciate what my friend Leticia received in prayer when holding in her arms her child with Down Syndrome; she thought about Jesus' mom mothering Him, and reflected on her own mothering of her daughter, and meditated on the commonalities between Jesus and children with special needs; she writes,

 “Mary bore a Child like no other; A child who did not conform to society's expectations; He was different from the others; He gazed upon Heaven when the rest could only see clouds. He reminded them of their failings, their lack of charity, their shallowness, their impatience, and their rush to judgment. His government tried to kill Him, and eventually succeeded. He had to endure constant misunderstanding of what He was trying to communicate, and bore the frustration of those who misunderstood Him. He was mocked and rejected, and at times, it seemed only His mother still stood by Him. She felt the loneliness of seeing her Son rejected because He was different, yet she bore the pain patiently because she knew that it was for us, the ‘least of these’ that He suffered and died.”

Perspective

You mentioned that their pre-born child has heart problems.  And in the face of this (a common ailment for those with Down Syndrome) they are thinking of ending that child’s life. A good question for them to consider is what would they do if their born child was diagnosed with a heart condition?  Why treat this younger child any differently?

Related to that, another good question to put things into perspective is to consider what we do when those we love are not well—do we eliminate the sufferer or alleviate the suffering?  Hospitals and the medical community exist to fulfill the latter.  This little child’s difficulties can be alleviated without the child being eliminated.  And there are people who will rally around this family and help ensure the latter; I know the people and I guarantee we will help.

I’m not sure if the child’s heart condition is so severe that the doctors are saying she or he will not live long after birth, but if that is the case, a good question to consider is this: When we love someone, and don’t have much time left with that person, do we maximize or minimize the short time we have left?  Imagine someone you love was told they had only 4 weeks left to live—would you wait until the end of the 3rd week to visit, or go right away?  So it is if their child will have a shorter life—if they don’t have as much time with the child, why cut that limited time short with abortion?  If they would embrace every month, week, day, minute, and second with a loved one who is born and given a poor diagnosis, why not embrace every moment with this child who is pre-born and given a poor diagnosis?

Often people fear that because of the grief they will experience when the child naturally dies.  And that grief is very real.  A good question to consider though, is whether they’d experience grief at abortion.  You mentioned they wanted this child so that means if they have an abortion they will assumedly experience the sadness of losing the child.  There is, however, an important difference between these two kinds of grief—with an abortion they will grieve the death of a child they killed; if the child dies after birth due to illness/disability, they will grieve the death of a child who died naturally.

I have been very moved by this video called “Choosing Thomas.”  I cannot recommend this enough.  It is a beautiful story (under 10 minutes) of a couple who were given a poor prenatal diagnosis (their child had Trisomy 13) and they were offered an abortion.  They opted against it and embraced every moment of Thomas’ short life, from his last months in-utero to his 5 days after birth. One of the compelling quotes in the documentary is this: “The only thing Thomas will ever know in this world is love.”  How beautiful, and how true.  But tragically the same cannot be said for a child aborted—for the only thing those children will know in this world is rejection, abandonment, and killing.  Thomas’ mother also says,

“I’m afraid to say goodbye.  But I can’t imagine what it would have been like to not have had this opportunity to go through this with him and to get to know him and to love him.  It really has been amazing as opposed to just shoving it down and forgetting about it and pretending that his life didn’t happen and that it didn’t matter.”

Finally, perhaps most poignant, is what his mother says at the end: “We knew it would be a hard road but I think sometimes when you make the toughest decisions you can get the greatest joy out of those.  We didn’t not terminate because we were hanging on to some sort of hope there was a medical mistake or there was going to be some sort of medical miracle.  We didn’t terminate because he’s our son.”

Suffering

And so that brings me to another point I wanted to address, which is suffering.  We humans naturally recoil at suffering, for it is painful and hard.  And yet, suffering is a part of life.  Nick Vujicic, a motivational speaker, suffered greatly in his early life, having been born without arms and legs.  In the face of suffering he thought about killing (in this case, himself) and then realized that his suffering put him in a unique position to reach out to the world, to offer a message of hope and inspiration to people in a way someone with arms and legs could not.  The same can be said for other ailments, whether genetic disabilities or sickness—while painful, these can be opportunities to love and be loved in beautifully unique ways.  If we think about inspiring people, what sets them apart from those who do not inspire is not that they face suffering (the uninspiring person faces suffering too) but rather how they respond to their suffering (the inspiring person doesn’t give up on life, but does the right thing even when it’s hard).  These stories feature this point:

Dad and Daughter with Down Syndrome

Nick Vujicic’s Story: Part 1 & Part 2

https://positiveexposure.org/

Iamviable

Finally, it’s important to point out that not only does abortion deprive someone of the opportunity to live the life they were conceived to live, but it directly destroys the body of a precious baby who cannot defend herself. Now, more than ever, this little one needs her parents to be her advocate, not her destroyer.

Does Birth Control Prevent Abortion?

This article by Stephanie Gray first appeared in the September issue of LifeCanada's Reflections Magazine.

In the Spring of 2004, I went to the University of Manitoba to help its pro-life student club display an abortion exhibit.  A Buddhist student approached me and said she was “pro-choice” and was concerned that there was no one at the display expressing the opposite perspective to ours.  After a brief discussion she left, but returned an hour later with a friend.  I was struck by their response: They did not hold signs with “pro-choice” slogans, saying our anti-abortion message was wrong; instead, they distributed condoms to passersby.  More protestors came throughout the day and handed out literature about various forms of birth control.

If you were to ask these students why they were protesting an anti-abortion message with a pro-birth control message instead of a pro-abortion message, they would say something like this: “We don’t like abortion.  We think the best way to avoid abortion is to avoid the need for it.  If people don’t have unwanted pregnancies, they won’t have abortions.  Birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies, so birth control prevents abortion.”

But does it?

While birth control is considered to prevent pregnancy, some methods may actually work after pregnancy has begun—thus being capable of ending the life of a tiny human being.  Take the birth control pill: most assume it is a contraceptive (i.e., works contra, against, conception); however, when asked about how birth control pills work, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state in part, “The lining of the uterus thins, making it less likely that a fertilized egg can attach to it.”[1]  The “fertilized egg” is actually an embryonic human and if that child cannot attach to her mother’s uterus, that child will bleed out in an early, and undetected, abortion. 

So while the birth control pill may prevent some “unwanted” pregnancies (by suppressing ovulation), it may actually end others (by the mechanism described above).  But even if the birth control pill never had the mechanism to affect the pre-born child’s ability to implant, even if it was truly contraceptive, does it prevent abortion overall?

Decades of birth control pill and abortion usage gives us a clear answer: No.  All the while birth control has been on the rise for decades, abortion has been too.  This actually shouldn’t be surprising because birth control was created to divorce babies from sex and abortion does the same.  So while the means of the two can be different (prevent a baby from existing versus ending the life of a baby who exists), the end result is the same (sex without babies).

The connection between birth control and abortion can even be seen in the timelines of their entrance into modern culture: In 1960 in the United States, the birth control pill was approved for contraceptive use.[2]  Nine years later in Canada the Trudeau government made it legal to disseminate, sell and advertise birth control products.[3]  That same year in Canada, legal abortion made its way into the country, and just three years later the same happened in America.  With there being over 1 million abortions annually in the US[4] and approximately 100,000 abortions annually in Canada[5], all alongside widespread birth control usage, it is simply wrong to conclude birth control prevents abortion.

If anything, birth control actually creates an environment for abortion.  Indeed, even the pro-abortion organization Guttmacher Institute admits, “Fifty-one percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant…”[6]

That statistic is backed up in the mentality of many who think birth control usage actually gives people license for abortion access.  Consider a pro-abortion pre-law student who said the following to me at a pro-life exhibit:

“If someone used several methods of contraception then they shouldn't be forced to keep a child in their uterus.  If my body is like a house, use of contraception is like locking your doors.  And if someone breaks into your house when your doors are locked, it's not your fault and you can kick them out.  Maybe if someone didn't use contraception abortion would not be reasonable (analogous to keeping your doors open and inviting someone in, a degree of negligence in a way), but with the presence of contraception, I'm putting up a 'keep off my property' sign.”

One could actually use this student’s own illustration to rebut her point, saying that because no birth control is 100% effective, using birth control is like putting up a “keep off my property” sign a certain percentage of the time, but for the other percentage (i.e., failure rate), it is like putting up a “come on in” welcome sign. 

More fundamentally, though, her point shows that birth control usage and abortion are fruits from the same tree: they are connected in that both attack the bond between sex and new life.  In the minds of many in our culture, when birth control fails to adequately keep life separated from sex, abortion is a reasonable follow up.  That is why birth control will not prevent abortion.

[1] “Frequently Asked Questions: Contraception,” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, http://www.acog.org/-/media/For-Patients/faq021.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20150730T1600096966 Accessed July 30, 2015.

[2] “A brief history of the birth control pill,” Alexandra Nikolchev, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/health/a-brief-history-of-the-birth-control-pill/480/ Accessed July 30, 2015.

[3] “Triumph of the Pill: The Pill Turns 50,” John Allemang, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/conditions/the-pill-turns-50/article572652/?page=3 Accessed July 30, 2015.

[4] “Fact Sheet: Induced Abortion in the United States,” https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html Accessed July 30, 2015.

[5] “Annual Abortion Rates,” http://abortionincanada.ca/stats/annual-abortion-rates/ Accessed July 30, 2015.

[6] “Fact Sheet: Induced Abortion in the United States.”  This particular fact sources the following: Jones RK, Frohwirth L and Moore AM, More than poverty: disruptive events among women having abortions in the USA, Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 2012, 39(1):36–43.

Berkeley & Bodily Rights, by Stephanie Gray

I recently wrote here about my participation in an abortion forum against Dr. Malcolm Potts (above) at the University of California, Berkeley.  In that post I quoted from a student who e-mailed me a question and followed that with my response.  That same student replied to that message with more questions, and my reply is below, addressing the topics of the beginnings of life, anencephaly, and bodily rights:

Dear [student's name],

Great to hear your follow up reflections and questions--thank you for continuing to engage this discussion.  I think it's a good one!

You wrote, "I guess I see human beings as needing a brain in order to truly live."

I'd like to propose the idea that it's not about what "I see" or "you see."  It's about what is, and about us conforming to that reality.  Leo Tolstoy once said that "Truth is obtained like gold, not by letting it grow bigger, but by washing off from it everything that isn’t gold.”

So when we wash away conveniences, interests, etc., and look at the science of embryology there is no denying the scientific fact that the youngest human beings amongst us do not need a brain in order to truly live.  This isn't about whether one is aware of her life or enjoying her life, this is about whether one is a separate being, an organism, who is not dead.  

Again, you make it about your views, not about science, when you write, "To me, this unique, 'fascinating' quality of an embryo developing with no brain to guide it effectively disqualifies it from being human."  On what scientific basis?  If the embryo's parents are human, wouldn't it logically follow that the embryo must be human too?  If, as time goes on and the embryo grows up into a fetus, infant, toddler, and teen, all of whom are alive, then wouldn't it logically follow that the embryo they grew from couldn't have been dead, since living things come from other living things?

You write, "I suppose you and I may differ on our definitions of 'alive,' which again comes back to where in human development we choose to assign human rights."  If we assign human rights based on development, then we don't believe in human rights, and that's a problem (as problematic as assigning human rights based on ethnicity).   As a refresher, one of the points I made in my presentation was that women get women's rights and children get children's rights.  The necessary criteria for each is not doing something, it's being something (in these cases, being women or being children).  Likewise, with human rights, it's not about doing it's about being; namely, being human. That's it.

You wrote, "I can't help but think of Dr. Potts' story about the newborn he delivered that was born without a brain; he killed it because it was essentially a shell of a baby with no nervous system to grant it human capacity."  If the newborn wasn't alive, why would Dr. Potts have killed her?  His very act of killing her is proof that she was very much alive.  So is his own language: He said, "I wanted that to die as quickly as possible."  His very word choice is an admission that she wasn't dead yet.  Plus, his claim that no child with anencephaly lives longer than 12 hours is simply false: this child Faith who had anencephaly lived for several months after birth.  Furthermore, a child with this condition isn't brain dead--she's brain damaged, and there's a significant difference.

Now, I don't deny that most children born with anencephaly do not live long after birth; something to consider about that is this: Do those of us who will live longer have a right to kill those who will live shorter?  

Your final point you asked about was this: "There is a concept called body autonomy. It's generally considered a human right. Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. It's why you can’t be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead. Even if you’d save or improve 20 lives. It’s why someone can’t touch you, have sex with you, or use your body in any way without your continuous consent.  A fetus is using someone’s body parts. Therefore under bodily autonomy, it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a person's continuous consent. If they deny and withdraw their consent, the pregnant person has the right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else’s body parts to live, they can also legally deny me their use."

Great question, and it's one I answer in my book to be released next month.  Briefly, however, I will respond for you to consider the following:

Consider all you said above in light of an infant.  That born child requires her caregiver's body, whether breastmilk in the case of the mother, or the hands and arms that will prepare formula and bottle-feed the baby.  What if a caregiver decides they no longer wish to use their breasts, hands, or arms to meet the basic needs of an infant--that, in particular, they believe their right to bodily autonomy absolves them of further responsibility for this child?  What if they cease to hold, feed, clothe, change, and shelter the child?  They abandon her and she dies.  Would we say the caregiver should be at fault for neglect and homicide?  

From this thought experiment we can deduce this principle: parents have a responsibility to their offspring they don't have to strangers, and that responsibility involves meeting a child's basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter--and meeting those needs involves the parents using their bodies in some way.

Moreover, if you read this reflection I wrote for my previous ministry, I point out that the uterus is unlike someone's blood, tissue, or other organs, in that while my blood and body parts exist in my body for my body, my uterus is unique from the others in that it exists in my body, but more for someone else's body.  Proof of that is that my uterus, every month, is getting ready for the body of my offspring.  I can exist without my uterus, but my offspring cannot.  Therefore, a child can claim a right to be housed in the uterus the way an infant can claim a right to be nurtured: Just as an infant needs to be bottle or breast fed, and the caregiver has a moral duty to use her body to meet the child's needs (but does not have a moral duty to do so if the child is an independent adult), so too, just as an embryo or fetus needs to be fed by the umbilical cord, the mom has a moral duty to use her body to meet the child's needs.

I hope you find this helpful insight!

All the best, 
Stephanie

Berkeley & Brains, by Stephanie Gray

That's me with some of the Students for Life at Berkeley before the big event.

On November 23, I gave a pro-life presentation alongside Dr. Malcolm Potts, the first medical director for International Planned Parenthood who gave a pro-abortion presentation; together, we spoke to over 400 students in a Public Health 116 class at the University of California, Berkeley.  Although the Q & A which followed our presentations allowed for a small opportunity to rebut each other's views, unfortunately the format of the evening didn't give time for a formal rebuttal of each other's lengthy presentations themselves.  

As it should happen, one of his students e-mailed me a question that came from a point Dr. Potts made, giving me a chance to provide a rebuttal.  Here is the student's e-mail and my response as a teaching tool:

Question from a Berkeley Student:

I am a second-year student at UC Berkeley, and I just returned home after listening to yours and Dr. Potts' presentations tonight. First of all, I would like to thank you for coming and starting the conversation here; Berkeley is a tough place to bring up pro-life arguments but you were incredibly interesting to listen to. 

I am very curious to hear your thoughts regarding the issue of life support. If you consider an embryo to have human rights no matter the status of its brain development, what do you think about the ethics of taking someone off life support after they become brain dead? An embryo with no brain development is fundamentally in the same state as a human that is brain dead, so do you think it is ethical to keep someone who is essentially a shell of a human "alive" on life support? 

In other words, where do you draw the line between when it is humane to "pull the plug" on an embryo versus a brain dead patient? If they have the same mental capacities (none), then why would one be okay to kill over another?

Hope my question(s) makes sense. Again, thanks so much for bringing this discussion up. It was the most engaging lecture I have experienced in this class all semester. My friends and I were discussing it the entire walk home, and I must applaud you on your bravery when faced with an auditorium full of liberal Berkeley students!

My reply:

Thank you so much for your kind and thoughtful e-mail.  Although the topic is a sensitive and touchy one, you and your classmates were respectful and welcoming and I appreciate that--thank you!

I think you've asked a fantastic question!  There is an article called "Life: Defining the Beginning by the End" that I'd like to recommend to you here and would love your feedback on.  That article is authored by the same professor of neurobiology, Dr. Maureen Condic, whose paper, "When Does Human Life Begin?" I mentioned in my presentation last night.  What makes the first link so insightful as regards to your question, is that Dr. Condic points out that brain death criteria is what should cause us to conclude that we should protect the pre-born, rather than not protect them. She writes, 

"Embryos are in full possession of the very characteristic that distinguishes a living human being from a dead one: the ability of all cells in the body to function together as an organism, with all parts acting in an integrated manner for the continued life and health of the body as a whole."

Dr. Condic further explains the nature of the living embryo, as follows:

"Organisms are living beings composed of parts that have separate but mutually dependent functions. While organisms are made of living cells, living cells themselves do not necessarily constitute an organism. The critical difference between a collection of cells and a living organism is the ability of an organism to act in a coordinated manner for the continued health and maintenance of the body as a whole. It is precisely this ability that breaks down at the moment of death, however death might occur. Dead bodies may have plenty of live cells, but their cells no longer function together in a coordinated manner. We can take living organs and cells from dead people for transplant to patients without a breach of ethics precisely because corpses are no longer living human beings. Human life is defined by the ability to function as an integrated whole”not by the mere presence of living human cells. 

"What does the nature of death tell us about the beginning of human life? From the earliest stages of development, human embryos clearly function as organisms. Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances."

What I like to point out to people is this: A brain dead person is dead because they have complete and total, irreversible cessation of the entire brain.  In short, we could say their brains are "no more."  In contrast with the early embryo, their brains are "not yet."  Consider this simple analogy: A green banana will become a yellow one, but a brown banana will never become a yellow one.  The brain dead person will never again have a functioning brain, whereas the early embryo will, in fact, develop a functioning brain.   In a sense, this means embryos are more impressive than you and me; here's what I mean by that: You and I have developed to the point that we need our brains, so that if our brains are "no more" we ourselves are no more too (hence, "irreversible" cessation).  You and I cannot live without our brains.  The early embryo, however, has an incredible ability you and I do not have: the early embryo can in fact live without her brain (otherwise, if the early embryo, without a brain, were actually dead then the embryo would never develop into the fetus, infant, toddler, teenager, and adult like she does).  She can move through some stages of human development without the very thing you and I need to continue moving through our stages of human development.  Fascinating, eh?! [And the Canadian in me slips out ;)].

One final point I'd make is this: In the case of a truly brain dead person, there is no ethical dilemma about "unplugging" them because they are dead.  There may be other cases, however, where someone's brain is not dead, but rather is damaged, which raises questions about how we determine what medical interventions to use or not use on such individuals.  I've developed an FAQ here, which gives perspective on end-of-life matters.

I hope that was helpful.  Thank you again for your thoughtful message, and please know that I'd be happy to hear from you again should you have more questions or feedback. 

All the best, and happy American thanksgiving!
Stephanie :)

Suffering Unleashes Love

On September 12, 2015, I gave a presentation (called "Love Unleashes Life") at Calgary's 40 Days for Life formation afternoon.  In that presentation, I quoted from St. John Paul II's "Salvifici Doloris" (On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering).  He wrote,

"We could say that suffering . . . is present in order to unleash love in the human person, that unselfish gift of one’s 'I' on behalf of other people, especially those who suffer. The world of human suffering unceasingly calls for, so to speak, another world: the world of human love; and in a certain sense man owes to suffering that unselfish love that stirs in his heart and actions."

The wonderful Victor Panlilio kindly recorded my presentation, and this (above) is a one and a half minute clip he put together.

A Tale of Two Baby Boys Slated for Abortion, by Stephanie Gray

“If she can’t calm down, I can’t do the abortion,” an abortion doctor frustratingly declared in the presence of Holly O’Donnell, an ex-procurement technician who used to obtain tissue from aborted fetuses.  In Episode 3 of “Human Capital,” the expose on Planned Parenthood by the Center for Medical Progress, O’Donnell describes her observation of, and participation in, what happened after. 

The patient eventually did calm down; the abortion eventually did happen; and O’Donnell eventually did do her job.  O’Donnell was soon to see the intact, later-term baby who was killed as a result of the abortion the child’s mom calmed down for (although when, precisely, the fetus died is in question, since O’Donnell said a colleague tapped the baby’s heart with an instrument and it started beating).  In order to procure a brain, O’Donnell cut through the middle of the child’s face. 

It was a boy.

To think that this precious child could have been saved if—if his mom hadn’t “calmed down.”  Incidentally, that’s what saved the life of another little boy, the son of Dana.

When Dana was pregnant with her fifth child, overwhelmed by the pressures of raising a family, she and her husband opted for abortion.  She went to the clinic for a medical abortion: RU486.  She ingested the first pill in the presence of a doctor, and took the second pill home to consume the following day.  The first pill would kill her baby; the second pill would expel her baby.

Dana already had reservations about the abortion when she went to the clinic.  Those concerns only deepened as time went on.  She wrote, “I was already regretting my actions. I was thinking, ‘What if that would have been the son I wanted.’ I cried with my husband, and I cried myself to sleep.”

By the next day, Dana, like the first woman mentioned, couldn’t calm down.  In fact, she was crying hysterically.  But she had an advantage over the other woman: She was not in a clinic with time pressures, waiting rooms, and organs to harvest; moreover, she herself was in control of administering the abortion. 

So Dana went online and searched “Abortion pill regret” and discovered a miracle: It is possible to reverse the effects of RU486. The first pill in RU486, mifepristone, kills a pre-born child by blocking the effects of progesterone, a hormone a woman’s body produces that is necessary to grow a healthy baby.  So the Culture of Life Services in San Diego, California, was able to connect Dana to a physician who immediately began administering progesterone to her body, to counteract what the first pill was doing. 

It was a success: Dana maintained her pregnancy and in April of this year, to the great joy of his parents, a baby boy was born.

In struggling to “calm down,” both women showed that they intuitively knew how it goes against a woman’s nature to kill her child.  And in a bittersweet way, both women’s stories teach us how vital it is to never, ever give up.

"Let's Play Planned Parenthood!" by Stephanie Gray

Image Source: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/endthekilling/postcards

When I was little, I routinely said to my sister and friends, “Let’s play house!” or “Let’s play doctor!”  Indeed, it is common for young children to enjoy replicating in their imaginary world of play land what they see adults do. 

With that in mind, let’s imagine that two siblings are playing in their living room.  “Let’s play Planned Parenthood!” one little girl cries to her sister.  “Okay!” she responds.  So they gather their Barbies and their baby dolls and ask Mom to lend them some scissors.  Mom, figuring they’re doing arts and crafts, says, “Sure!”

The little girls then proceed to cut off Barbie’s limbs and cut open their dolls’ heads.  Now imagine the Mom walks in on this display and understandably shrieks, “WHAT ARE YOU GIRLS DOING?!?!?!”  They innocently reply, “We’re playing Planned Parenthood! We’re harvesting tissue!”  Something tells me that their mom would not celebrate their budding sense of “reproductive justice,” but would instead make an emergency call to a child psychiatrist about how to handle children who dismember dolls.

If we wouldn’t want children to play such a game in their imaginary world, why would we want adults to act in such a way in our reality world?  And that’s the very point the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform powerfully makes with this postcard of theirs (front and back).

Our very different intuitive reactions to a child’s declaration, “Let’s play house!” versus “Let’s play Planned Parenthood!” reveals there is something gravely disordered with the latter.

Making All Things New, by Stephanie Gray

Photo Attribution: Texas Radio & The Big Beast

There are some emotional pains that are so excruciating, so deep, and so overwhelming that words are inadequate to describe the agony.  In such experiences, the deepest and most guttural of sobs seem to provide no relief.

That kind of suffering came to mind when I met a beautiful college student at my recent talk at an American university this past week.  She approached me afterwards to thank me for giving her something she didn’t have previously: a way to articulate the reasons behind the pro-life position in order to make “The Case for Life” (the title for my talk in which I equipped the audience to persuasively defend the right to life of pre-born children).  After she thanked me, she made a significant disclosure:

“I had a baby last December.”

She then told me her story: her parents wanted her to have an abortion.  She didn’t know back then how to make the case for life to convince them it was wrong to meet their wishes, but she nonetheless knew it in her heart.  And so, even if she couldn’t articulate it with her tongue, she would not allow abortion to be the answer.

An unplanned pregnancy. 

An unmarried student. 

A betrayal by one’s own parents who wanted their grandchild dismembered. 

Agony. 

Utter agony.

As she walked through that trial, a parallel suffering was being lived by two others: there was a married couple who lost not one, not two, but three children to sudden deaths.  Children should expect to one day bury their parents, but parents should never have to bury their children.  This couple had to bury three.  Torture.

But these parallel journeys would intersect.  Two crises would meet and mysteriously produce beauty: “I gave my baby up for adoption,” the student told me, “to a couple I knew for four years who had had three children and all of them died.”

She took out her phone and showed me a most precious picture of her baby girl. What joy for her to know that she played a role in bringing the gift of life, and its fruits of joy, to a couple who had known such deep sadness.  What a joy for the adoptive parents to know that they played a role in receiving the gift of life and affirming the courageous and loving choice of this young woman.  What a joy for both parties to know that when faced with the neediness of a little child, their response was a spirit of responsibility, generosity, and love.

Amidst the crisis pregnancy, the stirring in this student’s heart to consider adoption was as though God was whispering what He said in Revelation 21:5 “Behold I make all things new.”

Amidst the great loss of their children’s deaths, the adoptive couple’s reception of new life was as though God was breathing into them, “Behold, I make all things new.”

And 24 hours after that baby girl’s birth, her grandfather who had previously wished her aborted, called his daughter to apologize, and to thank her for giving life to his grandchild that he had held the day before—in that moment of mercy, it was as though the written word of God came to life yet again:

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Address at Westmont College Chapel by Stephanie Gray, March 16, 2015 in Santa Barbara

40 Days by Stephanie Gray

We are now at the half-way point of Lent.  It is also the half-way point of an international movement: the 40 Days for Life Campaign which consists of three elements: 1) prayer and fasting, 2) constant vigil, and 3) community outreach in response to the killing of the youngest of our kind through abortion.  On Sunday in Vancouver we marked the middle of this campaign with a rally outside Vancouver’s largest abortion clinic.

 At that gathering I gave a speech about 4 principles we need to take to heart as we follow the call to be salt and light, and those lessons are extracted from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s words in his Letter from Birmingham Jail:

“There was a time when the church was very powerful -- in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being ‘disturbers of the peace’ and ‘outside agitators.’ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were ‘a colony of heaven,’ called to obey Gad rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be ‘astronomically intimidated.’ By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.”

Just as the early Church, through God’s grace, brought an end to historical evils, we too can help bring an end to present-day evils by seeking Dr. King’s advice to

1)      Be thermostats,

2)      Enter a town,

3)      Press on, and

4)      Obey God

If you consider a thermostat in contrast to a thermometer, the latter merely records the temperature—it tells us something, whereas the former actually adjusts the temperature.  A thermostat is the controller which turns heat or cool air on or off to ensure an environment is at the proper temperature.  Likewise, we must step back and say what is the ideal “temperature” for our culture—how ought things be?  And when we identify what should be the way (i.e., respect all human life) then we must work to bring our culture up to that level. 

One 40 Days for Life volunteer in Wisconsin did just that.  Standing alone on a cold day, praying outside an abortion clinic, he saw a couple whose hearts were cold as they walked into that clinic to kill their child.  But the volunteer adjusted the temperature—he conveyed warmth by lovingly looking at them and saying, “God bless you two.  No, wait—God bless all three of you!”  That’s all it took—a witness, a kind gesture, a correction of words for greater accuracy and the couple was changed.  They left the clinic and months later a baby boy was born.

Not only must we be thermostats, we must “enter a town”—in other words, in order to change the culture we must engage the culture.  The early Christians reached many because they took their message directly to the people.  We all ought to do an inventory of who we know, or who has been placed in our path, and how we can reach out to them. 

Not only should we create opportunities to engage those we know, but we should seize opportunities that arise.  Unfortunately I didn’t do that a couple days ago, and hope others can learn from my mistake: I was at my cousin’s house alone when the doorbell rang.  A Liberal party candidate was canvassing the neighborhood and I simply said, “The homeowners aren’t here” so she gave me a flyer for them and that was it.  As I took the flyer to the kitchen I realized I had just missed an important opportunity—knowing that that candidate’s leader Justin Trudeau’s abortion-supporting views are so extreme he said he will force MPs in his caucus to vote against any legislation restricting abortion, I should have engaged the candidate in a discussion about that.

Thankfully pro-life students at UBC did seize a similar opportunity just last week when they decided to throw together a protest in response to Justin Trudeau speaking on their campus.  When I joined them at this demonstration, I spoke with a student who initially thought abortion was okay, but when he looked at an image of an abortion victim and when I took him through basic pro-life reasoning about human rights, he admitted that that made sense and thanked me.  That exchange wouldn’t have happened if we hadn’t engaged the culture—so let’s re-capture the spirit of the early church and do just that.

Of course, we also need to press on—and that can be difficult when an injustice seems never-ending and when we don’t always see the results.  Several years ago a friend of mine told me that even though she was raised in a pro-life home and was taught and believed that abortion was wrong, when she got pregnant in her twenties everything changed—she told her doctor she wanted an abortion and was given a number to a clinic where she was going to get it done.  But one day when she was driving to work she noticed a mini-van in front of her with a bumper sticker which displayed a quote by Mother Teresa: “It is a poverty to decide a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”  Her heart softened, she rejected abortion, and several months later gave birth to a baby boy. 

The people in the blue mini-van have no idea that their pro-life proclamation saved a baby—but it did.  That is proof that we may never see the fruits but our job is to press on, and trust that God will use our efforts to bring about great good.

Finally, in all things we need to obey God, remembering that all His commands are summed into one: Love.  We are called to love God and love neighbor, and love is wanting the other’s good.  That’s what drives pro-lifers to stand and pray and reach out and circulate the pro-life message—it is willing the good of the pre-born as well as the born.  Of course, it is love which drove Jesus to the cross.  And so, at this mid-way point of this 40-day journey, let us remember to take up our cross and follow Christ, just as the early church martyrs did.