Posted by: Ed | February 7, 2012

When is Choice Not a Choice?

I’m not quite sure how to interpret this political cartoon which appeared over the weekend in the Chicago Tribune by Scott Santis.

Is he acknowledging that Susan G. Komen for the Cure gave Planned Parenthood the boot because Komen acknowledged that PP does abortions (baby into the garbage can)? If that’s so, then I think it’s great.

Ultimately, Komen made a choice not to support an organization that killed nearly 330,000 babies last year. BTW, that’s only the surgical abortion procedures and doesn’t include the RU-486 abortions; and who knows how many may have been caused by emergency contraception (1.46 million distributed).

But the bottom line is that Komen chose not to support Planned Parenthood for whatever reason it chose and the so-called pro-choice folks didn’t like it. That’s great, but that’s now their choice not to support Komen and  just move on instead of continuing to vilify Komen and its directors and employees for their choice.

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems the only time a choice is not a choice is when it’s not for the pro-choice agenda.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Abortion | Tags: , , ,

Posted by: Ed | February 5, 2012

Beware the Wrath of Planned Parenthood and its Supporters

Op-ed pieces in some main stream media outlets are starting to realize that there was something overtly wrong with the response that Planned Parenthood and its supporters (media, individuals, companies, and politicians) had to the fact that Susan G. Komen for the Cure would no longer give grants in the future to Planned Parenthood. Make no mistake about it, the supporters of Planned Parenthood went into all-out attack mode when the announcement was made. What these supporters forgot was that Komen is an independent charitable organization that has every right to decide where their grant money goes.

The reaction of the Planned Parenthood supporters was also irrationally disproportionate to what Planned Parenthood would potentially lose. The amount of grant money that Planned Parenthood received from Komen in 2010 was about $600,000, merely 0.06 percent of Planned Parenthood’s FY2010 revenue figure of $1.05 billion. Yes, that BILLION with a “b.”

Here are some of the comments. From Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post:

Whatever one believes about the motivation behind its decision, the larger point is that Komen has no binding responsibility to allocate any part of its $93 million in grants to any organization. Komen is a nonprofit, free agent, and the good it has performed for millions of underserved women around the world is staggering.

Nevertheless, given the rabid response from abortion-rights supporters, you’d think that Brinker and her organization were running puppy mills for soup vendors. Even if their real reason for ending funding is because they no longer want to be associated with an organization as politically controversial as Planned Parenthood — or even if because some of their potential donors want the relationship severed — it is inarguably their right to change course.

Ross Douthat wrote in the New York Times regarding Komen’s decision to change it’s granting criteria and the charge that it was politically motivated: “…it’s no more “political” to disassociate oneself from the nation’s largest abortion provider than it is to associate with it in the first place.”

Regarding the media’s vicious attacks on Komen, Douthat wrote: “… journalists betray their calling when they simply ignore self-evident truths about a story” including this truth, “…for every American who greeted Komen’s shift with “anger and outrage” (as Andrea Mitchell put it), there was probably an American who was relieved and gratified.”

I would also include this truth to Douthat’s list that main stream media ignored: Planned Parenthood does not provide life-saving mammograms for anyone, let alone underserved women.

In the Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook column, they wrote:

Apart from the brutal lesson in the intolerance of abortion advocates, the larger principle at stake is the right of a charity to donate to whomever it likes, for whatever reason it likes. Mr. Bloomberg is free to do whatever he wants with his money. But it is to his great discredit that he would join a campaign to smear Komen for exercising exactly the same right.

Syndicated columnist Mark Steyn summed it up pretty nicely when he wrote about the severity of the attacks on Komen and the disproportionate response: “Komen could not be permitted to get away with disrespecting Big Abortion.”

I hope everyone is hearing the real message behind the Komen-Planned Parenthood fiasco: “Beware the Wrath of Planned Parenthood and its Supporters.”

Leave a Comment

Posted in Abortion, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: ,

Posted by: Ed | February 4, 2012

Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen Confusion; So…Now What?

An opinion by
Maggie Karner, Director, LCMS Life and Health Ministries, and
Ed Szeto, Special Projects Coordinator, LCMS Life Ministries

Feb. 4, 2012
Updated Feb. 7, 2012 

This past week was a firestorm of news reports, accusations, and public discussion regarding Susan G. Komen for the Cure® (Komen) and their support of Planned Parenthood.  Komen is a non-profit organization dedicated to helping women in the early detection of breast cancer and finding cures for breast cancer.  It is important to understand what really happened and what this means for us as prolife Lutherans.  The ties between Komen affiliates and Planned Parenthood affiliates have been acknowledged and reported on in the past.[1]  Why is this connection a bad thing?  Simply put, Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the US.  The grants given by Komen were to be used exclusively for breast cancer education and screening and not for abortions.  However, there is legitimate concern with the integrity of these funds and their appropriate use because money can be fungible.

Timeline

12/05/11    As far back as December, LifeSiteNews reported that Life Decisions International, a well respected prolife organization dedicated to exposing companies that support Planned Parenthood (and regularly provides a list of those companies), has removed Komen from its “dishonorable mention” portion of the list.[2]

01/31/12    The news hits the mainstream media: An Associated Press article appearing in the Huffington Post[3] reports that Planned Parenthood will no longer be eligible to receive grants from Komen.  Leslie Aun, spokeswoman at Komen stated that the reason is that “newly adopted criteria [bars] grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities.  According to Komen, this applies to Planned Parenthood because it’s the focus of an inquiry launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., seeking to determine whether public money was improperly spent on abortions.”

The article also reported that “Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties … received a Komen grant for 2011 and was able to obtain an additional grant of $120,000 for 2012 by signing the deal … just before Komen’s new criteria took effect.  Under the criteria, no further grants will be allowed unless the pending House inquiry is resolved in Planned Parenthood’s favor.”

02/01/12    Komen responds to the growing liberal media backlash by issuing a statement: “we made the decision to implement stronger performance criteria for our grantees to minimize duplication and free up dollars for direct services to help vulnerable women.  To support this new granting strategy, Komen has also implemented more stringent eligibility standards to safeguard donor dollars.  Consequently, some organizations are no longer eligible to receive Komen grants.”[4]

02/01/12    Nancy Brinker, Founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen for the Cure® created a YouTube video explaining why “any number of long-standing partners” will be affected.[5]

  • “recently implemented new granting strategies and criteria”
  • “highest responsibility to ensure that these donor dollars make the biggest impact possible”
  • “Starting in 2010, I initiated the comprehensive review of grants and standards”
  • “We want to grant to the provider that is actually providing the life-saving mammograms”
  • “more stringent eligibility and performance criteria to support these new strategies”
  • “not pulling any existing grants…current grants are not affected”
  • “As we move forward, we will implement these new strategies which will allow us to serve more women.”

02/02/12    Nancy Brinker, on an interview on MSNBC, stated that one of the problems with Planned Parenthood is that they don’t provide cancer screenings (i.e. mammograms) but only refer the patients to other clinics.  In the same interview, Brinker acknowledged that the existing grants to Planned Parenthood “will go on this year, and they will probably be eligible for the next grant cycle.”[6]

It should be noted that the prolife group Live Action had previously documented that Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms.[7]  In reaction to this investigation, Komen itself acknowledged that it was aware that Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms.[8]

02/03/12    Komen releases a statement that many news outlets called a reversal.[9]

  • “We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.”
  • “We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”
  • “We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.”

A Reversal in Plans?

Many prolife Lutherans are concerned that there was an apparent reversal on Komen’s new criteria.  As a granting organization, LCMS World Relief and Human Care understands Komen’s attempt to tighten their granting procedures and focus donor dollars where they will be most effective to accomplish their mission.  Poorly executed and monitored granting procedures  minimize the effect of a charity and erodes the trust of both donors and of the grantees. .  From that perspective, most charities can empathize with Komen.

A periodic review of granting criteria and procedures is prudent for granters that value every donor dollar and to be good stewards with God’s gifts.  In the economic condition which we face today, all granters would want to ensure that they only support other organizations that share the same goals and who focus carefully on the mission of the granter.

Since Komen did not release publicly what the new eligibility standards and selection criteria are, we can only rely on what was reported in the media and from Komen’s statements.  Apparently, the change in the Komen-Planned Parenthood relationship was triggered by the on-going Congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood and the fact that they were not direct providers of “life-saving mammograms.”

Was there a reversal by Komen as many media outlets, both mainstream and prolife, claimed?  The wording in the February 3 statement is not conclusive.  The clarification that the “disqualifying investigations must be criminal” should still prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving funds due to several ongoing criminal investigations of the organization: e.g. Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast falsifying Medicaid documents,[10] and an ongoing investigation into the shredding of evidence by Planned Parenthood and/or the office of former Governor Kathleen Sebelius (currently the Secretary of Health and Human Services) in a case against Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri.[11]

Does the statement that Komen “will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities” constitute a reversal?  Brinker stated in her February 1 video that the current grants would be honored, so that was not a change.  Additionally, anyone is allowed to apply for a grant from any granting organization.  The key to receiving a grant depends upon an applicant’s ability to meet the granter’s standards of “eligibility and performance criteria.”  As for the statement that the affiliates of Komen would make decisions regarding grant approvals, it is certainly hoped that the affiliates would abide by the rules of the overarching organization under whose name and reputation they reside.

Should prolife Lutherans support Susan G. Komen for the Cure®?  We believe a “wait and see” attitude is warranted.  As we are aware of several grants awarded to Planned Parenthood prior to the change in the selection criteria, we need to be diligent to see if Komen administers new grants according to its self-stated criteria.  Komen’s actions in the future will demonstrate whether it was sincere in creating these new criteria.

The Key Lesson

The important thing to highlight in this rather confusing story is the very-public demonstration of Planned Parenthood’s methodology for destroying anyone or anything that stands in the way of its funding stream.  Planned Parenthood is a pro-abortion, politically-connected machine dedicated to a scorched earth policy against those that threaten its agenda, an agenda that kills nearly 330,000 babies every year through abortion in its facilities.[12]  What Planned Parenthood did this week was unleash its multi-million dollar fury and political might against a group wholly unprepared for such an attack.  Like a wood tick that won’t let go of its host, Planned Parenthood grabs onto its funding organizations and never lets go.  Planned Parenthood has made it clear that any other organization that doesn’t bend to its agenda will suffer the consequences of the Planned Parenthood public relations smear and the blistering wrath of its socially-networked supporters.  And, quite frankly, this nasty tactic was well strategized and executed for maximum public relations gain.  Whether Planned Parenthood strategically engineered the initial campaign against Komen to garner over $3 million in newfound donations[13] is a case for every individual to decide.

What are Lutherans to Think?

As pro-life Lutherans, what are we to think of current public opinion and the effect of the national media?  We should only regret we could not have done more to make Komen strong and able to fight off controlling, heavy-handed pressure from Planned Parenthood.  But more than that, we have seen that the forces of an evil worldview are focused and strategically targeted at our Biblical and moral beliefs.  It’s a scary world with which we are asked to engage.

We’ve seen in this ugly media-driven story that Satan can disguise himself in many “socially conscious” ways…this time he disguised himself as support for the abstract and misleading concept of “women’s health.”  Even the apostle John warned of the need to be discerning when it comes to the world’s messaging; “They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them.  We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us.  By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”(—1 John 4:5-6)  But this is nothing new.  Jesus Himself said “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (–Matthew 10:16)  But this same Jesus brings consolation when He says, “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace.  In the world you will have tribulation.  But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (–John 16:33)

For in Christ, we have the love of a Savior who proclaims the unwavering truth, understands our fears, carries our sorrows, brings us strength, and sustains our faith for the long haul—even when our belief is “controversial” and unpopular with society.  And His love is not just for us, but intended as a gift for all—for us to carry out into a lost, hurting and very confused world.  He has given us the gift of eternal peace among times of disillusionment, and salvation when all seems hopeless, so that we can go out and share that peace with others who so desperately need it…with mercy forever.

[1] “Behind The Pink Ribbon: Komen’s Ties With Planned Parenthood”; http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/13/behind-the-pink-ribbon-komens-ties-with-planned-parenthood/; accessed February 4, 2012

[2] “Is Komen stopping funding Planned Parenthood?: maybe, but let’s wait and see”; http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/is-komen-stopping-funding-planned-parenthood-maybe-but-lets-wait-and-see/; accessed February 3, 2012

[3] “Komen For The Cure Halts Grants To Planned Parenthood”; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/komen-for-the-cure-halts-_n_1245320.html; accessed February 3, 2012

[4] “Statement from Susan G. Komen for the Cure®”; http://ww5.komen.org/KomenNewsArticle.aspx?id=19327354133; accessed February 3, 2012

[5] “Straight Talk from Ambassador Nancy G. Brinker, Founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen”; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4oOh6JhayA; accessed February 3, 2012

[6] “Komen head: Planned Parenthood lost funding because they don’t do cancer screenings”; http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/komen-head-planned-parenthood-lost-funding-because-they-dont-do-cancer-scre/; accessed February 3, 2012

[7] “Planned Parenthood cheats taxpayers with imaginary mammograms”; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq0kBkUZbvQ; accessed February 3, 2012

[8] “Komen: Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Do Mammograms With Grants”; http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/18/komen-admits-planned-parenthood-grants-dont-get-women-mammograms/; accessed February 4, 2012

[9] “Statement from Susan G. Komen Board of Directors and Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker”; http://ww5.komen.org/KomenNewsArticle.aspx?id=19327354148; accessed February 3, 2012

[10] “Planned Parenthood Continues Falsifying Medicaid Documents”; http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/07/planned-parenthood-continues-falsifying-medicaid-documents/; accessed February 4, 2012

[11] “Sebelius-Planned Parenthood Record-Shredding Scandal Gets Worse”; http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/08/sebelis-planned-parenthood-record-shredding-scandal-gets-worse/; accessed February 4, 2012

[12] Planned Parenthood Federation of America Annual Report 2009-2010; http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_financials_2010_122711_web_vf?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage; accessed February 4, 2012

[13] “Web Fury Spurs Komen Reversal, $3 Million for Planned Parenthood”; http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-04/web-fury-spurs-komen-reversal-3-million-for-planned-parenthood.html; accessed February 4, 2012

6 Comments

Posted in Abortion, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: ,

Posted by: Ed | November 7, 2011

The Girl Scouts and Their Ungodly Agenda

This is not breaking news, but I wanted to share Chuck Colson’s commentary on the situation. You can read it in its entirety here by clicking here.

I’ve written in the past about the Girl Scout’s support of Planned Parenthood and sexual immorality (see What are the Girl Scouts Supporting?, The Girl Scouts Deny the Allegations, and If it Seems Like I’m Picking on the Girl Scouts…) but the Girl Scouts of Colorado have now taken it to a new low. They allow those who claim to be “transgender” to join the GIRL scouts.

The last time I checked, there is a biological definition of the words BOY and GIRL. It would have to do with how we’re physically made. But more importantly, it would have to do with created order and how God created and continues to create human life. Being a boy or a girl has little to do with how we FEEL.

From Colson’s commentary:

So apparently gender is based more on feelings and decisions rather than an unfair, arbitrary thing like anatomy or the science of biology. The dictionary, which defines “male” as being: “Of, relating to, or being the sex that has organs to produce sperm for fertilizing ova.” A secondary definition of “male” says “masculine.”

Such facts mean nothing amid today’s moral confusion.

Now, let me say that I’m not criticizing Bobby. I don’t know him, his home life, or anything about him other than what has been reported in the media. We all face challenges, and this is a real big one. But if Bobby can’t get clear guidance and help from his own family, not to mention society as a whole, he will likely face a lifetime of devastation.

Such help needs to begin by simply remembering that there is a moral as well as physical order to the universe. It’s inscribed on all creation. The Christian worldview clearly embraces an objective moral order, and living by this is the way to human flourishing.

A basic building block of the Christian worldview is found in Genesis chapter 1: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

And yet, the Girl Scouts decided it was okay to accept a BOY into the Girl Scouts because the boy’s parents have been allowing him to live his life as a girl. This just falls neatly into their ungodly agenda to rid all vestiges of God and Christian faith from this world.

Think about that the next time you buy cookies and what that organization you are supporting wants to do to your daughters.

1 Comment

Posted in Creation, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: , , , ,

Posted by: Ed | October 20, 2011

The Face of Abortion

Abby Johnson is one of my heroes in the pro-life movement. For those who don’t know her story, here’s a brief synopsis: for many years she was pro-abortion; so much so that she was a volunteer, and eventually, an employee at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas. In 2009, she left Planned Parenthood and began volunteering at the Coalition for Life. Since that time, she has spoken out and written books, blogs, and articles about the lies that Planned Parenthood tells women who come into their clinics and the public.

Today, she wrote a blog for LifeNews.com recounting her second abortion. Her first abortion was surgical abortion, but for the second one, Abby opted for what she thought at the time was the “more ‘natural’ way to abort…the medication abortion.” Here’s an excerpt from her post:

Then came the excruciating pain again.  I jumped out of the shower and sat on the toilet.  Another lemon sized blood clot.  Then another.  And another.  I thought I was dying.  This couldn’t be normal.  Planned Parenthood didn’t ever tell me this could happen.  This must be atypical.  I decided that I would call them in the morning…if I didn’t die before then.  It was around midnight and I had been in the bathroom for a good 12 hours.  I knew I couldn’t leave yet.  I didn’t want to lay in the bed…the bleeding was too heavy.  And the clots were still coming; not as often, but they were still coming.  So, I decided to sleep on the bathroom floor that night…right by the toilet.  The cold floor felt good on my face. I was physically depleted, but I could not sleep.

There’s much more in her article. She had the courage to write about…will you have the courage to read it…and then do something about it? Click here to read the blog.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Abortion | Tags: , ,

Posted by: Ruthie | October 18, 2011

Toddlers Don’t Count Either

A news story caught my eye when I logged onto the internet today; CNN is reporting (with accompanying video) that a two year old girl was run over by two trucks outside a hardware market in China’s Guangdong province while her mother was shopping. A van struck her, crushing her with his front tires, paused, and then continued on and ran over her again with his rear tires and drove away. Onlookers, cyclists, and other motorists ignored her and did nothing to aid her (while some did swerve to avoid her body in the street), and shortly thereafter, another truck ran over her again. The security camera footage shows that seven minutes passed by while the girl lay in the street bleeding before a trash collector finally came to her aid, picked her up and went to find the mother. Taken to the hospital, the little girl is in a coma on a respirator, listed in critical condition and not expected to survive.

Now, the country is apparently experiencing some collective angst as they try to figure out “how” something like this could happen – that is, the callousness and apathy of not just the driver(s) who didn’t stop (after committing the crime), but the many people who were not compelled in any way to help a bleeding, helpless child.

“Many people are discussing what they perceive as a loss of morality in Chinese society,” she (CNN’s Enuice Yoon) said to Erroll Barnett. “…some observers have been pointing out that China education system really has failed here, that it’s failed to emphasize and reinforce the need to respect human life at a time when 1.3 billion people all clamoring and rushing to climb up the economic and social ladder.”

It is not China’s education system that has failed; it’s a greater failure; it’s a human failure, and it’s not just China – it’s global. If we, as a world, reject God, then there is no logical impetus for us to be compassionate, kind, or merciful.

The cold indifference to the plight of a little girl so brutally injured should be no surprise to anyone in a country where individual rights mean nothing to the greater machine that runs the society. In a country where the government decides who gets to live and who gets to die, who gets to speak and who gets silenced, and most importantly, where women are forced to abort babies against their will every single day, because the government has decided that “for the greater collective economic success” of the country, families can only have one child….why is anyone surprised? The results are that life has no intrinsic value; the government reigns as “god”; and the only value people hold is what they can offer to the state.

Why are the people surprised? Why is the world outraged? The detachment and indifference to the horror of what happened to this little girl is a natural, and not surprising, result of a world gone mad that has propagated the belief that we can decide and determine which life is valuable and which life isn’t.

If life is not precious in the womb, then life is not precious outside of the womb. Once you draw a line and put some people on one side of that line, and some on the other side, then you have in effect declared that no life has value.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Abortion | Tags:

Posted by: Ed | October 18, 2011

Protecting My Wife

My mentor, Linda Bartlett, (click here to see her blog ) has always taught that one of God’s roles for men is to provide a covering for their wives. This covering, among other things, can be provided through physical protection or spiritual leadership.

This year, I purchased my first lawn mower. As I’ve done a couple of times already, I poured too much oil into the reservoir. Needless to say, when I started the mower, it looked like I was laying down a smoke screen to hide an invading army. My pride took a big hit…what would the neighbors think? What’s wrong with Ed: he can’t fill the oil properly and when he does it wrong, he can’t figure out how to drain it so it wouldn’t look like the subdivision was burning down!

So here I was, ready to give up and have the repairman come out again. Yes, again, because he’d already been out earlier this year when I ran over a tree stump in the backyard, a move that killed the blade and sheared something off (and I have no idea what that was). My wife was beside herself. Not only did we have the cost of buying a new mower this year, we’ve already had to pay to fix it once already. Her anxiety rose, her spirits dropped.

So I worked in a cloud of smoke and mowed the lawn. I buried my embarrassment and focused on getting the grass cut to an acceptable height. Someone once said to me that owning a home and doing the DIY jobs around the house was worth the pain and fatigue because you could be proud of the a job well done at the end of the day. Not really.

Rather, at the end of the day, I thanked God that I was able to provide my wife with a covering in the form of peace of mind. Even if it meant walking behind a cloud a smoke for an hour.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Marriage | Tags: , ,

Posted by: Ed | June 6, 2011

Man Does Not Know His Time — Jack Kevorkian

On June 3, 2011, Jack Kevorkian died of natural causes. He is best known for promoting assisted suicide and his claims to have helped over 130 people to end their lives. In an interview last year, Kevorkian stated that he had no regrets, “How can you regret helping a suffering patient?“

During his years at medical school, Kevorkian was promoting a utilitarian view of human life as he advocated for allowing murderers on death row a choice to die by anesthesia thus allowing their bodies to be used for medical experiments or organ donation (see NY Times article). His utilitarian view served as the foundation for why he viewed death as a help to a suffering patient. Never mind that suffering is totally subjective and that anyone, at any time, could say that they are suffering too much and wished to die. Rather than offering hope, love and care, Kevorkian only offered death as a solution to pain and suffering.

In today’s world, society tells us that it’s okay to look at someone who is suffering or in pain, shake our heads and say “wouldn’t it be better if we could just end this suffering?” Kevorkian’s promotion of assisted suicide, and even euthanasia, led people only to despair…the despair of thinking there is nothing of value to their lives and that they are a burden to their families, friends, and caregivers.

But there is a different way. We are admonished to “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ”  (Galatians 6:2 NKJV). We can help those who are suffering know that they are not alone, that someone does care for and love them. Rather than confirm someone’s fear that they are no longer “useful” to us by helping them kill themselves, we ought to reaffirm that they are valuable and valued. By selflessly bearing one another’s burdens, we fulfill Christ’s commandment to “love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12 NKJV).

Maybe it’s just me, but…rather than do what Kevorkian did, that is, help or encourage people who are facing seemingly insurmountable pain or suffering kill themselves, or kill them directly at their request, we ought to help someone through their suffering. We can walk beside them and show them that all human life is precious and valuable no matter what age the person is, what condition the body may be in, or what stage of development that human life has reached. Even more importantly, we ought lead them to the one true hope we have, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

May God have mercy on your soul, Dr. Kevorkian.

“But as for me, I trust in You, O LORD; I say, ‘You are my God.’ My times are in Your hand.” Psalm 31:14-15 (NKJV)

Leave a Comment

Posted in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: , , ,

Posted by: Ed | January 22, 2011

Private Family Matter

Today, President Obama defended the right of a woman to choose to kill her baby as a “private family matter” and that “government should not intrude” on it. What does that mean?

If I have a child with a woman out of wedlock, I am forced by the courts to pay child support even though I don’t want to. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some parents choose to not to vaccinate their children, yet the government makes it mandatory for entry into school. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some parents don’t want to take their children to the doctor when they’re sick, yet the government may take their children away if they don’t. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some parents don’t think their child should be restrained in a car seat, yet that’ll get the parents a traffic ticket. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some parents choose to give their children alcohol, yet the government says it’s illegal to provide alcohol to a minor. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some parents think it’s okay to leave their children at home alone, yet the government will arrest the parents for endangering the welfare of a minor. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some parents think it’s okay to have sex with their child, yet that parent would be arrest for pedophilia. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some men (and women) think it’s okay to have more than one wife at the same time, yet they’ll get arrested for polygamy. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some men think it’s okay to beat their wives, yet that’ll land the guy in jail. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some people don’t want to purchase health insurance, yet under the health care reform law passed last year everyone will be forced to purchase an insurance plan. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters. (President Obama’s big idea.)

So why is it okay for the government to become involved in all these private family matters (and more), but Obama uses that as an excuse to justify legalized abortion-on-demand? You can’t have it both ways, Mr. President. You cannot, on the one hand, legislate dozens, if not hundreds, of private family matters and then say that the government should not intrude on a private family matter when it is politically expedient for you (Obama has flip-flopped on many things but he has unswervingly supported the right to kill a baby in the womb).

Maybe it’s just me, but…justifying the murder of 1.2 million babies in the womb every year by saying it is a “private family matter” is patently disingenuous and a red herring cop out used to justify receiving pro-abort PAC money.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Abortion, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: , ,

Posted by: Ed | January 22, 2011

Health Care Repeal Vote

The Health Care Reform Law passed last year has already led to attempts to use taxpayer funds to pay for abortion (see “Attempts to Fund Abortions with Tax Dollars”). In the House of Representatives, the new Congress is attempting to repeal this law and the first step came last week with H.R. 2 “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act”. The bill was overwhelmingly passed in the House on Wednesday, January 19, 2011.

The bill is not expected to be heard in the Senate, as the Democratic Party, which controls the Senate, has no interest in passing legislation that would limit abortion-on-demand in the United States. When asked if the Senate would hear the repeal bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) simply stated, “No.” Ironically, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged the perfect Law of God when he said, “We … believe that the only perfect law ever enacted was carried down the mountain by Senator Moses.” How then, does he support the health care law that supports taxpayer funded abortions in light of the Fifth Commandment?

Although some are saying that the members of the House who are sponsoring H.R. 2 are merely taking part in a political exercise, it should be noted that they are fulfilling their promise to their constituents: i.e. working on the repeal of legislation that devalues human life by providing taxpayer funded abortions. Since the Health Care Repeal bill was voted on in the House, another pro-life bill has been introduced: H.R. 3 “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.” This act is even more important as it will codify the Hyde Amendment banning the use of federal funds paying for abortion through Medicaid.

As Luther teaches, we are citizens of two kingdoms, and as such we have a duty to participate in our civil government. Thus, Lutherans should use this opportunity to let their elected officials know that any taxpayer funding of abortions (including funding of the United Nations as they export abortions worldwide through the International Planned Parenthood Federation or on military bases, as well as the health care system) is not acceptable.

Surgical abortions already end the lives of 1.2 million American babies every year. We should not allow the increase of senseless murders of the innocent pre-born by making it easier to obtain an abortion-on-demand by funding it with taxpayer dollars.

Just as importantly, as Luther also instructs us in the Large Catechism, by not speaking out, and by allowing our tax dollars to be used to pay for murder, we are complicit in the sin of abortion.

Now is the time to contact your representatives to let them know that H.R. 3 should be passed to ensure that future congresses cannot fund abortions with your tax dollars simply by allowing the Hyde Amendment to fall by the wayside. It is also time to contact your senators to let them know that they need to allow discussion on the Senate floor on H.R. 2. By allowing one person (Reid) to deny public discussion on a law that most Americans do not want funded from their own pockets is not how a “representative government” works.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Abortion, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: ,

Posted by: Ed | January 19, 2011

What will you do on Blog for Choice Day?

NARAL announced last week their 6th Annual “Blog for Choice Day” to celebrate the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Their stated goal is to get people “reading and talking about reproductive rights.”

NARAL wants Americans to celebrate the Roe decision that opened up abortion-on-demand in the U.S. during all nine months of pregnancy, but is that something to be celebrated? Because of that US Supreme Court decision, we currently have an estimated 1.2 million surgical abortions every year in the U.S. Since 1973, it is estimated that over 50 million babies have been aborted in America. Please note that these numbers do not include medicine abortions such as those deaths caused by RU-486.

And that’s the “choice” they want to celebrate.

So, pro-life bloggers are sponsoring a counter “Ask Them What They Mean When They Say ‘Choice’ Blog Day” on the same day, Friday, January 21.

The idea is simple: on that day, whenever you see a post or comment on  a blog, website, Facebook, or Twitter espousing how wonderful it is to be “pro-choice,” ask the author: What exactly is that choice you’re talking about?

From Jill Stanek’s blog:

Is it to eat carrots rather than broccoli? To wear red instead of blue? No, of course “choice” is code for killing babies. What’s their problem with the A-word?

Yes, this is a shameless scheme to suck oxygen out of the pro-aborts’ social media universe, to deny them any time whatsoever to support abortion without defending it.

Email Jill Stanek if you want your to show your support by adding your own blog to the growing list. Let’s make sure people know what they’re supporting when they say they are “pro-choice.”

Leave a Comment

Posted in Abortion, Maybe It's Just Me, But...

Posted by: Ed | January 6, 2011

Be Ever Vigilant

In 2009′s various versions of the health care reform bill, one section that received much attention was the section that called for annual “end-of-life planning” sessions for everyone who was covered by government-approved health insurance (that would have been you and me). I’ve written about it previously here, you can read about it in Health Plans Forced to Provide Assisted Suicide Counseling.

The final version of the bill that was ultimately passed and signed into law did not include separate sections detailing these mandatory annual planning sessions. Instead, the planning sessions were folded surreptitiously into sections that altered Medicare. On January 1, the new regulation, which allows Medicare to pay for end-of-life planning went into effect. Here is an excerpt from a New York Times article:

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.

Do you see the two-step process that was used to circumvent the public’s distaste for this kind of “counseling”? First, the health care legislation allowed for “coverage of yearly physical examinations.” That’s well and good and people on Medicare should have that kind of coverage. But the second step is what is disturbing: an administration official decided, contrary to what the people wanted, that counseling on end-of-life decisions should be part of wellness visits, and included it in the regulations that govern Medicare.

I am a proponent of discussions regarding care in end-of-life situations–that’s not the concern here. The problem  is who is giving this counseling and what resources are used. One example of a government resource would be the Department of Veteran’s Affairs document, “Your Life, Your Choices.” I’ve written previously about the problems with this document in The VA’s “Your Life, Your Choices” Document.

After the news of the new regulation was released, and pro-life bloggers and commentators started pointing this out, the Obama administration had a sudden reversal regarding this regulation and deleted it from the Medicare regulation; from a New York Time article:

The Obama administration, reversing course, will revise a Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations covered under the new health care law, administration officials said Tuesday. …

While administration officials cited procedural reasons for changing the rule, it was clear that political concerns were also a factor. The renewed debate over advance care planning threatened to become a distraction to administration officials who were gearing up to defend the health law against attack by the new Republican majority in the House. …

Although the health care bill signed into law in March did not mention end-of-life planning, the topic was included in a huge Medicare regulation setting payment rates for thousands of physician services. The final regulation was published in the Federal Register in late November. The proposed rule, published for public comment in July, did not include advance care planning.

An administration official, authorized by the White House to explain the mix-up, said Tuesday, “We realize that this should have been included in the proposed rule, so more people could have commented on it specifically.”

“We will amend the regulation to take out voluntary advance care planning,” the official said. “This should not affect beneficiaries’ ability to have these voluntary conversations with their doctors.”

Did the Obama administration get caught with its hand in the cookie jar? The section in the 2009 health care reform bill that mentioned these mandatory visits were removed and provisions which would open the way for it were quietly hidden  in other sections. Then the proposed rule published for public comment last July did not include this regulation, once again hiding it from view. Is this the kind of “transparent government” that then-candidate Obama promised voters in 2008?

Folks, this is just one more reminder that those who are defending the sanctity of human life need to be ever vigilant. Those who want to devalue human life are constantly probing for weaknesses in our defense and will do anything to further advance their agenda where the sanctity of human life takes a back-seat to political expediency.

Follow me on Twitter for daily information .

Leave a Comment

Posted in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: , , ,

Posted by: Ed | December 29, 2010

New Year, New Start

Okay, I’ve said it before: I’ll try to post more. But now I think I’ve finally figured out a way to do it. I’ve finally joined the Twitter world. That way, if something strikes me, I won’t have to wait until I get all the right words and all the right links and so on and so forth.

So, if you have Twitter, follow me @edszeto4life. I also post more on my Facebook page, search for me with szeto4life@gmail.com or edsternj. And if you really want to get connected, look for these two Facebook pages which I contribute to: LCMS Life Ministries and National Pro-Life Religious Council.

Happy New Year!

Leave a Comment

Posted in Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: ,

Posted by: Ed | November 11, 2010

If it Seems Like I’m Picking on the Girl Scouts…

…maybe it’s because I am.  Or more precisely their poor choice of partners, specifically Planned Parenthood.  Until the Girl Scouts acknowledge that an organization that is supposed to edify girls is at odds with itself when they support organizations like Planned Parenthood that promote sexual promiscuity (with all its attendant risks such as STIs, emotional and psychological fallout) and abortion, information like this needs to be disseminated.

Planned Parenthood says that “Healthy, Happy and Hot“ has become their most popular booklet.  It was handed out at the World Youth Conference in August and early this year at a Girl Scouts USA sponsored event at the UN. A recent online post by the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute sums up parts of the booklet thusly:

Aimed at young people with HIV, the brochure contains sexually explicit language and promotes casual sex with multiple partners, as well as oral, anal, and homosexual sex.

“Some people like to have aggressive sex,” says the brochure.  “There is no right or wrong way to have sex.”    It encourages young people who might have sex after drinking or using drugs to “plan ahead by bringing condoms.”  Another section suggests readers visit family planning clinics for help in preventing or aborting unplanned pregnancies.

The publication encourages youth to keep their sexual activity secret from their parents, as well as visits to family planning clinics.  “You should find out whether there are any centers near to you where you can go without needing the permission of your parents or guardians.”

Girl Scouts USA continues to refuse to decry the booklet and it continues to deny that the booklet was given out at their event earlier this year (even though reported by a reliable witness).

2 Comments

Posted in Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: , ,

Posted by: Ed | June 24, 2010

Condoms for First Graders

I was taking a break at the National Right to Life Convention and saw this little report on HLN: Provincetown (MA) schools will give condoms to any student who asks for them. That’s ANY student, including children in the FIRST GRADE.

The report also states that parents will NOT be able to opt their children out from this program. Additionally, no names of students will be recorded; there will be no “paper-trail.” In other words, parents in P-town have no parental rights in the P-town school system.

The long-held plan of “family planning” advocates (to teach sex to children as young as five years old) are now being realized in more ways and in more places than ever before. Does no one see how this will promote and help hide sexual abuse of children by older children or adults? Does no one care?

Click here to see a video of the news report.

2 Comments

Posted in Maybe It's Just Me, But...

Posted by: Ed | June 24, 2010

2010 National Right to Life Convention

I’m at the 38th National Right to Life Convention and I hope to share so news and information with you as the day goes by. Stay tuned!

Click here for more information about the convention.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Maybe It's Just Me, But...

Posted by: Ed | May 4, 2010

Choice of Words

Do you ever wonder why your choice of words is so important? It’s no secret that the battle between pro-lifers and pro-aborts have hinged on how words are used: e.g. am I pro-life or anti-choice; is it a baby or a mass of cells; etc. But sometimes, the carelessness of pro-lifers can leave an opening for the pro-aborts to challenge something good.

Many states already have laws that require women to have ultrasounds performed prior to getting an abortion in order to verify that the women are actually pregnant. These laws were passed because many abortionists performed D&Cs on women who were not pregnant in order to collect money for the abortion (see Carol Everett’s book Blood Money for more information).

But Oklahoma’s new ultrasound law states that women are to obtain “an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly….” Because of the stated allowance of the use of a vaginal transducer, the pro-aborts have been given an opportunity to claim that the law violates women by forcing “rape by implementation.”

Jill Stanek makes a good argument (click here for her article) that the instruments used in an abortion is more like rape than an ultrasound probe. However, my question is this: why even give the pro-aborts this opportunity to strike down a good law? It is estimated that 80-90 percent of abortion-minded women who see ultrasounds of their babies decide not to get the abortion.

Watch your words because words can win or lose a battle.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Abortion, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: ,

Posted by: Ed | April 8, 2010

An Amazing Advertisement

I’m in Malaysia this week representing LCMS WR-HC Life Ministries as we finalize details for a grant to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Malaysia to start their first pregnancy resource center. Darin Storkson (LCMS WR-HC Director, Asia Region) and I performed a site visit of the proposed center location yesterday.

With a group of over 20 leaders, both clergy and laity, in attendance, we shared a presentation on the work of LCMS World Relief and Human Care as well as Life Ministries; and affirmed our biblical and Lutheran foundation on how we view the various life issues. You’ll be able to read more about this exciting project on the Life Ministries pages in the future.

What I want to share with you is an amazing advertisement in Thursday’s (April 8, 2010) local newspaper, the Sun, which is delivered daily to the hotel where I’m staying. The front page and page 2 are full-page ads for the same thing: a new insurance product called PRUmy child that offers pregnancy and infant coverage, health and education. One tag line is “Comprehensive protection begins before birth“; another states “Protection starts early, even before birth.” The product is being offered by Prudential Assurance Malaysia Berhad, a subsidiary of Prudential plc of the United Kingdom.

The advertisement features Malaysian recording star Sheila Majid. The first page of the ad shows Sheila putting one of her children to bed and the copy reads:

Before you were born, my love for you began. I want to protect my child for as long as I can, starting as soon as I can. Now that’s possible with Prudential’s comprehensive protection plan which starts early, even before birth! Covering health, financial and education security, all your child’s needs are taken care of. When love begins, now protection can too.

Page two of the ad shows Sheila holding an ultrasound picture of one her children and the copy reads thus:

From the moment I saw her, I wanted to protect her. From the moment I first heard her heartbeat, I wanted to be able to keep her safe. And now that’s possible with Prudential’s new plan, comprehensive coverage can begin early, even before birth. And it grows as your child grows, taking care of her health, finance and education. It’s a simple solution to all your child’s needs, from the people who understand.

From Prudential’s product website:

From the moment of conception, this tiny miracle has the power to transform the people around it. Fathers and mothers everywhere find their priorities reordered, goals refocused and their energies centered on ensuring the best for their child.

With this product, you can add an insurance rider to cover congenital conditions for the fetus if the baby is between 18 and 35 weeks into the pregnancy. While it’s not unusual for health insurance companies to cover babies in the womb for congenital conditions (as an example, click here to see Aetna’s policy for fetal surgery in utero), what is most impressive and exciting is the company’s willingness to talk about the baby as a human life from the moment of conception and recognition that the baby in the womb should be loved and protected.

Maybe it’s just me, but…don’t you wonder how long this irrational dichotomy can exist – pregnant women who want their baby know it’s a baby! They want safety and security for their baby! They have love and concern for their baby! Even the insurance companies are savvy enough to know that the preborn baby is a human life, or they wouldn’t be providing a product intended for the protection of that life! And yet, in the US, abortion-on-demand is legal during all nine months of pregnancy and you have organizations like the UN pushing abortion-on-demand worldwide as part of women’s reproductive health care.

Wouldn’t it be great if all insurance companies had the courage to  make such a bold public statement?  I applaud Prudential – I just can’t wait to see an ad like that in the US!

Although the Sun’s online version of the paper doesn’t have the ad, you can click here to go to Prudential’s product website to see a video interview with Sheila. Check back later to see if I’m able to scan the ad and post the ad here.

1 Comment

Posted in Abortion, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: , ,

Posted by: Ed | April 5, 2010

Values That You Support

In the wake of the passage of the abortion-supporting health care bill, there has been much discussion about what it means to be a pro-life Democrat. Some have said that the pro-life Democrats are our allies and are trying their best. But here’s a question for you: what does it mean when you support a politician or political party?

I am a member of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod and therefore I can state clearly that I agree with and support the beliefs and teachings of this church body. Does that mean I agree with what an individual LCMS congregation may teach? Maybe, as long as what they teach is in agreement with the Bible and with the main church body.

Well, I see it that way with political parties as well. I may or may not agree with what a particular person has done or said under the label “Democrat” or “Republican,” but I want to see if what they have done is in line with the larger group with which they claim to align.

So let’s look at what the party platforms of the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee state. The party platform is what a politician supposedly supports while under its aegis. I would also assume that if you support a political party directly, or if you support a politician of that party, then you also support the party platform.

Let’s start with the platform of the Democratic Party. You can read the whole thing by clicking here.

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion,  regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. (Page 50)

So, there you have it. If you support the Democratic Party or a politician who is a Democrat, then you also “unequivocally”  support “Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion” and you also “oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

By the way, here’s a little bit of irony from the Democratic Party Platform:

Ending violence against women must be a top priority. (Page 51)

Considering an estimated 1.2 million babies are aborted in America every year and the US Census Bureau estimated in July 2008 that 50.7 percent of Americans were female, I think it’s safe to say that more than half of the aborted babies are female. How can you end violence against women when you also advocate one of the most violent actions that can be taken against baby girls?

In contrast, let’s read what the Republican Party Platform states about human life.  Click here to read the entire platform.

Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

Respect for life requires efforts to include persons with disabilities in education, employment, the justice system, and civic participation. In keeping with that commitment, we oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society.

I understand that there other political parties in the US and some of them may also believe in the value of human life. I encourage you to comment here with examples of those parties’ platforms.

Meanwhile, I want to make it clear that I’m not advocating for any particular political party; it’s not the “label” that has my loyalty – it’s the foundation on which they stand that I support – that all human life has intrinsic value, regardless of age or ability.  Ideally, what I wish for is that ALL political parties value human life and will protect it. When that happens, then we can get on with looking at the other issues that differentiate the various parties. But until that happens, the fact that one major political party in the US openly supports the ending of innocent human life should concern everyone.

“Do not put your trust in princes.” (Psalm 146:3a NKJV)

Leave a Comment

Posted in Abortion, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: , , , ,

Posted by: Ed | March 31, 2010

Is it Really Death with Dignity

The Washington Post carried an article on March 17, 2010 about a new book called “Imperfect Endings” written by a daughter, Zoe FitzGerald Carter, who helped her mother, Mary, die. Mary had been suffering with Parkinson’s Disease for 20 years and decided in 2000 that she would kill herself and she wanted her daughters to help. This book is about the last year of Mary’s life.

Other people mentioned in the article excerpt below are Guth, Zoe’s husband, and Sarah and “Katherine,” Zoe’s sisters.

Here are some excerpts from the article (click here to read the whole thing):

At a family Christmas celebration in 2000, Mary was still walking. But shortly after a series of painful writhing episodes (uncontrollable jerking and twisting common in Parkinson’s patients), she took to her bed, moving only to use the bathroom. Zoe was never sure whether movement had become too physically painful or just too emotionally exhausting, but either way it was around this time that the woman who had once strived to capture the perfect brogue started pursuing the perfect death.

… A volunteer from the Hemlock Society visited the house and suggested placing a bag over Mary’s head and having her inhale helium; a Dupont Circle doctor met with Mary and Zoe to prescribe the sedative Seconal after a consultation to assess Mary’s mindset. In a catch-22 twist of logic, he would provide a means to die only to someone who was not depressed.

“The scenario of her trying to choke down Seconal was horrifying, and the Hemlock Society was even worse,” Zoe says. She was horrified by the legal implications of assisting her mother — even tacit approval felt like too much — and she was horrified by the casual glibness with which her mother discussed dying.

… Her [Zoe] father had died in 1994; Guth’s had fallen seriously ill in 1995 before eventually passing away in 1998, which was only shortly before Mary began contemplating suicide. “We had seven years of losing parents,” Guth says. “How much time can you put into each process, and what are the consequences if you don’t?”

Zoe was horrified that her mother would no longer be living, or maybe “horrified” is not the right word.

She was sad.

“I didn’t understand why,” she says, “she didn’t want to stay alive and be my mother.”

… After months of discussion, Mary had decided to end her life not with helium or Seconal but by starvation. The family had been told she would die in a matter of days, but after a week her body was still strong, though she appeared smaller each day, wasting into nothingness. She suffered. She begged Zoe and Sarah — “Katherine” hadn’t come down after all — for their blessing to allow her to take morphine.

On a baking hot evening in the middle of July, Zoe, her husband and Sarah said goodbye at their mother’s bedside. To prevent themselves from being implicated in Mary’s death, they had decided not to be in the room when she actually ingested the drug.

Mary FitzGerald Carter died a few days after the night of morphine, on July 11, 2001. Her passing brought grief and peace, both in Zoe’s ongoing relationship with her mother and in her relationship with her sisters.

Do we fool ourselves to think that there is dignity in dying just because we choose the method by and the time at which we die? Is there really dignity in starving oneself to death (a painful and slow process)? Is there really dignity in putting a plastic bag over your head as your body reacts violently while you are suffocating yourself to death?

There is no inherent dignity in dying, no matter how it occurs. It is not natural. The fact that most of humanity resists and struggles against it to the end is evidence that God did not intend for death to be part of life; but because of sin, we do have disease and disability, and ultimately, physical death.

I cannot and will not speak to what the family went through that year, nor am I condemning them for the decisions they chose.  I have never personally experience that kind of despair and can’t imagine how overwhelming the conflicting thoughts and emotions must be.

But feelings lie, and that is why we all need to consider caregiving options for ourselves and for our loved ones before we find ourselves in the midst of the emotional maelstrom that comes with end-of-life decisions.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: , ,

Posted by: Ed | March 28, 2010

A Different Kind of Walk

We’ve all heard of them or participated in them: a walk for life; a march for life; a walk for hunger; a race to find a cure; or even a three-day walk, but how many have heard about a Pro-Life Walk Across America?

Believe it or not, there’s a bunch of college-aged men and women who are going to make a pro-life statement by walking across the United States and Canada (click here for more information). In the US, there are three walks which all end in Washington DC. The three starting points are Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

It’s not just about walking across the US, the walkers will also stop at parishes to speak to groups and at abortion clinics to participate in peaceful prayer and sidewalk counseling. If you’ve been looking for a unique way to spread the message of life, think about participating in one of the walks across America.

Click here to see a video made during the 2009 walk.

1 Comment

Posted in Maybe It's Just Me, But...

Posted by: Ed | March 20, 2010

More on “Vegetative State”

In February I wrote about an article reporting that patients in a vegetative state may not be as unaware of their surroundings as doctors had previously thought (see News the Public Needs to Know). Now, I know that I’ve said I’ll try to be better in reading my books and magazines, but I just recently read the December 2009 issue of Scientific American. In it, there’s a short article about how some people can still learn while in a vegetative state.

A team of doctors at the Integrative Neuroscience Laboratory at the University of Buenos Aires has started developing tests to determine if patients have the ability to learn. The director of the lab, Mariano Sigman, said, “We want to have an objective way of knowing whether the other person [the patient] has consciousness or not.” The desire to find this objective method… (click here to read the entire article)

…stems in part from surprising neuroimaging work that showed that some vegetative patients, when asked to imagine performing physical tasks such as playing tennis, still had activity in premotor areas of their brains. In others, verbal cues sparked language sectors. …

To explore possible tests of consciousness in patients, Sigman and his colleagues turned to classical conditioning: they sounded a tone and then sent a light puff of air to the patient’s eye. The air puff would cause a patient to blink or flinch the eye, but after repeated trials over half an hour, many patients would begin to anticipate the puff, blinking an eye after only hearing the tone.

If two stimuli are delivered at exactly the same time, even snails will equate the stimuli. But the team actually delayed the puff after the tone by 500 milliseconds. To associate two stimuli separated by that time gap, “you need conscious processing,” says lead study author Tristan Bekinschtein of the Impaired Consciousness Research Group at the University of Cambridge. In fact, delaying the second stim­ulus by more than 200 milliseconds is enough to demonstrate some learning, he adds. By comparison, people under general anesthesia, considered to be entirely lacking awareness, showed no sign of such learning when given the tone and air-puff test.

…The detection of learning…also opens up questions about when patients should be classified as being in a persistent vegetative state, in which emergence isn’t predicted to be likely.

Why is this an important advance in diagnosing a patient’s condition? The article also states that: “A recent study found that about 40 percent of vegetative state diagnoses are incorrect” [emphasis mine].

In March, another news item on this topic showed up on the Scientific American website. It seems that certain patients in a “minimally conscious state” or a “vegetative state” due to brain injuries may be revived by injecting the patient with apomorphine, a drug used for patients with Parkinson’s disease.

Esteban Fridman of the FLENI hospital in Buenos Aires is one of the leading proponents in of this treatment. This excerpt tells a little bit about the theory and the research to this point (click here to read the entire news item):

Fridman hypothesizes that apomorphine might work by acting in place of dopamine. Flooding the injured brain with the chemical might stimulate it enough to repair the connections, enabling the patients to reach full consciousness. He notes the drug wouldn’t work in cases where the brain has been deprived of oxygen or blood, because the damage is more widespread. Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman whose care sparked a nationwide controversy that peaked in 2005, was in a vegetative state caused by that kind of injury.

…Fridman first tried apomorphine on a patient in 2004. The man had been in a minimally conscious state for 104 days. After he was given the drug the patient’s mother called Fridman to tell him her son had awakened after only 24 hours.

Over the next few years, Fridman and a colleague, Ben Zion Krimchansky at the Loewenstein Hospital Rehabilitation Center in Israel tried the drug on a total of eight patients. Seven recovered consciousness. (One subsequently died of an unrelated problem.) One welcome effect, Fridman says, was that patients did not regress even after the treatment was discontinued. Five improved to where they could walk, and one can now drive by himself.

…But because these clinical observations were not double-blind studies—in which neither the physicians nor the patients know if subjects get a placebo or the drug—Fridman currently is starting a formal clinical study with a total of 76 patients. The apomorphine will be given between one and four months after a traumatic brain injury, and the dosages will be spread over several weeks, given over 12-hour periods. Some patients will get the drug and some will be controls.

Maybe now that science has raised doubts about the realities of “vegetative state,” doctors and health-care professionals will be a little less quick to judge whose life is worth saving and whose is not. Maybe we’ll start honoring all people as human beings deserving of love and care, whether we think they can see us or hear us, or react the way we expect them. And when talking about Terri Schiavo and others in her condition, maybe we shouldn’t be so quick say, “I wouldn’t want to live like that.”

Because maybe, just maybe, that patient in a “vegetative state” can hear every word you’re speaking and is scared to death of what’s going on and that no one will hear her silent cries.

3 Comments

Posted in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Maybe It's Just Me, But...

Posted by: Ed | March 19, 2010

An Alternative to the Girl Scouts

Some friends of mine have told me that all I ever do is harp on the negative and never offer alternatives. Well, never let it be said that Ed Szeto doesn’t offer solutions. Over the last week, I’ve posted twice about why we shouldn’t be supporting the Girls Scouts anymore in light of their continued collaboration with Planned Parenthood by distributing materials from the International Planned Parenthood Federation that encourage sexual promiscuity (see What are the Girl Scouts Supporting? and The Girl Scouts Deny the Allegations).

Reading other blogs and press releases, I found an alternative to the Girls Scouts in the United States: the American Heritage Girls. I’m not completely endorsing this organization as I have not spoken to anyone involved in it or contacted the organization directly, but I wanted to let you know that there are alternatives to helping young girls develop a better self-image and confidence.

What interested me the most about this organization is its Statement of Faith. I reprinted the statement below so you can read it for yourself.

American Heritage Girls is a Christ-centered leadership and character development ministry. The following Statement of Faith applies to all American Heritage Girls Charter Organizations, Adult Members and Adult Leaders.

We believe that there is One Triune God – Father, Jesus Christ His one and only Son, and the Holy Spirit – Creator of the universe and eternally existent. We believe the Holy Scriptures (Old/New Testament) to be the inspired and authoritative Word of God. We believe each person is created in His image for the purpose of communing with and worshipping God. We believe in the ministry of the Holy Spirit who enables us to live a Godly life. We believe that each individual is called to love the Lord their God with all their heart, mind, soul and strength; and to love their neighbors as themselves. We believe that each individual is called to live a life of purity, service, stewardship and integrity.

Clarity is further provided to the following terms:

Purity – An AHG member is called to live a life of holiness, being pure of heart, mind, word and deed, reserving sexual activity for the sanctity of marriage; marriage being a lifelong commitment before God between a man and a woman.

Service – An AHG member is called to become a responsible member of their community and the world through selfless acts, which contribute to the welfare of others.

Stewardship – An AHG member is called to use their God given time, talents and money wisely.

Integrity – An AHG member is called to live a moral life, demonstrating the inward motivation to do what is right, regardless of the cost.

What I like the most about this (beside being founded in the Triune God so there can be no mistaking which god we’re talking about) is the stance on purity. No wishy-washy “we didn’t distribute that sexually explicit brochure but we’re not going to say we don’t agree with it” sitting on the fence like the Girl Scouts. There it is, loud and clear: American Heritage Girls believes in “reserving sexual activity for the sanctity of marriage; marriage being a lifelong commitment before God between a man and a woman.” They are not afraid to say to  young girls: “you don’t have to buy into the cultural message that pressures you into having sex just because ‘everybody else is doing it.’”

Let’s support organizations that will help build character and self-image based on the proper foundation: that we are all created in the likeness of God. When we understand that, then there’s nothing on this earth that can take away who we are. Let’s stop supporting organizations like the Girl Scouts that partner with organizations like Planned Parenthood, who believes that sexual promiscuity is good thing for young, adolescent girls and that abortion is considered a part of women’s “health care.”

And besides, wouldn’t be it better for all of us (myself included) if we didn’t pay $3.50 or $4.00 a box to scarf down cookies that contained 9 grams of fat for a single serving? [Tagalongs®, 2 cookies; click here and select the link on the right for nutritional information.]

Leave a Comment

Posted in Maybe It's Just Me, But..., Sexual Purity | Tags: , , ,

Posted by: Ed | March 16, 2010

The Girl Scouts Deny the Allegations

Not surprisingly, the Girl Scouts deny the allegations that they helped Planned Parenthood  hand out sexually explicit materials during a conference held at the UN earlier this month (see What are the Girl Scouts Supporting?).

According the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), the Girls Scouts have denied placing that material in the meeting room and they have stated that C-FAM’s source was not in the room during the Girl Scouts meeting.

In a press release, C-FAM rebuts the claims of the Girl Scouts thus:

1.    The Girl Scouts imply another group left the literature prior to their panel. Understand that the Girl Scout meeting was on opening day of the conference (March 1), which means the room was clean of all literature that morning.

There were four other meetings in that room that day prior to the Girl Scouts meeting. At 10 am the NAACP had a meeting about climate change. At noon the UN had an orientation meeting for NGOs attending the conference. At 2 pm CORAID had a meeting about counterterrorism and women.

Very clearly, none of these meetings were on adolescent topics, which was the target audience of the sex guide.

2.    The Girl Scouts say we were not in the room. That is true. All non-Scout adults were thrown out prior the meeting; and no wonder given what was distributed there. However, even though our source was thrown out of the room, she stayed around and as the doors opened she went right in to see what was being distributed. It was there and then that she found the stack of dangerous sex brochures.

Maybe it’s just me, but…isn’t it interesting that, although they are denying any connection with the distribution of the brochure, the Girl Scouts have not decried the contents of the brochure? Does the Girl Scouts organization really support what is presented in that brochure? If not, then they need to say so. But their silence on the brochure itself can, and should, be taken as support of it. And that’s where you need to tell the leadership of the Girl Scouts that this is wrong for our daughters in the US and around the world.

A simple rule of thumb when trying to figure out who is being truthful and who is lying is to ask yourself, “Who has the most to lose if the truth comes out?”

Click here to read the entire C-FAM press release. Click here if you haven’t read the IPPF brochure and want to see what all the fuss is about.

4 Comments

Posted in Maybe It's Just Me, But..., Sexual Purity | Tags: , ,

Posted by: Ed | March 12, 2010

My First Magazine Byline

I dislike self-promotion, but I just have to do this. :)

I got my first magazine byline!

I wrote a short piece for the Lutheran Witness, the official magazine of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. The article is a reflection on the 2010 March For Life and was in the printed magazine (March 2010 issue, no pun intended) and online. You can read the article by clicking here.

I’ve written for several organizations’ newsletters before, and of course I’m writing here on my blog, but there’s something different when you get a byline in a national magazine.

Yes, I know, I’m shameless.

:) My first byline! :)

“Rejoice with those who rejoice.” (Romans 12:15a NKJV)

Leave a Comment

Posted in Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: ,

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers