During this series on euthanasia and assisted suicide we’ve examined what they are and what they are not, and we’ve examined how these laws are being abused overseas.  In this blog, we’re going to bring this information a little closer to home, literally and figuratively, and talk about the impact of these laws here in the United States, specifically in the states of Oregon and Washington.

On October 27, 1997, Oregon enacted the deceptively named “Death with Dignity Act” which allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose. A 2008 study found that more than one out of every 4 people in the study who had requested assisted suicide were depressed.  However in the last 5 years, only 2% of patients requesting assisted suicide were referred for psychological evaluations. To make matters worse for someone who may be understandably upset by a negative diagnosis, as Barbara Wagner discovered, her health plan will not pay for aggressive cancer treatments, but offered her coverage to kill herself.  Something else to consider is that because Oregon doesn’t require oversight or protection, almost 90% of those killing themselves did not have a prescribing physician present. In fact, at least one person who died by assisted suicide in 2015 obtained the lethal dose 1,004 days prior, even though the law requires a 6-month diagnosis.

None of this is to say that oversight is the answer.  Consider the case of Dr. Charles Bentz who had a patient who was understandably depressed due to his cancer diagnosis.  When the cancer specialist who Dr. Bentz had referred his patient to called and asked Dr. Bentz to provide the “second opinion” for his patient to die of assisted suicide, Dr Bentz, knowing his patient was depressed, and therefore not qualified for assisted suicide, refused.  Apparently the cancer specialist continued to call more doctors until he found one who would prescribe death for their mutual patient because the patient eventually died of assisted suicide.

Washington State has had similar experiences.  In 2014, there were 175 lethal prescriptions written, but only 126 assisted suicide deaths.  That means there are potentially 50 lethal doses of prescriptions out there floating around like a ticking time bomb.  What’s going to happen when some poor little child stumbles across one of those pill bottles?

The experiences of doctor-prescribed suicide in the states of Oregon and Washington have proven one thing.  They have proven that when someone has just been given terrible news, when they are suffering, they do not need a doctor coming alongside them with a bunch of pills to kill themselves. What they need is people like us to comfort, support, and encourage them, and to help them find that there’s always a reason to choose life.

 

March 21^st is World Down Syndrome Day so you may see an increase of articles about individuals with Down syndrome who have had great success in life.  People like restaurant owner Tim Harris, special Olympian Karen Gaffney, model Madeline Stuart, and actress Lauren Potter are just a few of the over 400,000 individuals in the United States proving every day that Down syndrome is not a disease or disability, just a disorder.

Unfortunately, doctors have failed to hear this message.  Far too often when Down syndrome is detected in a preborn baby, the first reaction of the doctor is to recommend an abortion.  The parents are told they should not have to be burdened with this child who may need some extra tutoring, or even therapy and extra time being educated, resulting in abortion of these special children 75-92% of the time.

In response to the doctor’s prejudice and discrimination, in 2014 the Pennsylvania legislature passed, and Governor Corbett signed, “Chloe’s Law”.  This legislation requires medical practitioners to give accurate information, provided by the PA Department of Health, about Down syndrome to the parents.  It also requires the parents be given up-to-date information reviewed by medical experts as well as information about support services for children with Down syndrome to parents whose preborn child has been diagnosed with the disorder.  The bill is named for Chloe Kondrich, an amazing 6^th grader from Upper St. Clair who happens to have Down syndrome but could read by age 3 and has been in a regular classroom since first grade.

It is important that we do all we can to support those who have found out they are going to be blessed with a child with Down syndrome.  These parents are frequently given all the negative information and the challenges that can arise and they often feel pressured to end the baby’s life before it has a chance to start. The goal of Chloe’s Law, and our goal overall, is to make sure parents of not just babies with Down syndrome, but all pre-born babies, have all the information they need to not be afraid but to always choose life.

 

As someone who has spent his career in communications of one type or another, I am very interested in the idea of free speech.  I firmly believe it is vital, especially in a democratic republic like ours, to have a robust and vigorous discussion of important issues.  Even when there are opinions expressed contrary to my own, I work to refute those opinions based on evidence and sound logic, not to just squash them so they are not heard.  As we’re seeing more and more often this Presidential political season, when one side tries to drown out another, instead of listening and responding, both sides lose.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that those who support abortion are quite so fair minded when it comes to freedom of speech and while abortion advocates use every means at their disposal to disseminate their propaganda, they protest when their views are not promoted and are loathe to give the pro-life movement a fair opportunity to do the same.

There are many examples of the main stream media and entertainment outlets repeating pro-abortion messages. Last year during the popular show Scandal, the main character Olivia Pope was shown having an abortion with the song “O Holy Night” playing in the background.  During a recently released episode of the hit Netflix series House of Cards, one of the main characters Claire Underwood touted Planned Parenthood’s supposed work doing mammograms screenings (only problem being, they don’t do mammograms).

When a member of the media doesn’t mimic big abortion’s talking points, abortion advocates are quick to cry foul.  Consider the uproar over the Doritos Super bowl ad NARAL accused of humanizing fetuses and the similar outcry when the New York Times’ front page didn’t include any pictures of the pro-abortion crowd at the Supreme Court hearings for Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt (never mind pro-abortion advocates had to pay people to be there).

Unfortunately the main stream media and entertainment world do not stop there.  They try to silence the pro-life message by threatening to rape pro-life supporters, as a pro-abortion Purdue University staff member did to a pro-life student activist in February or by creating a special google chrome extension that changes the words “pro-life” to “anti-choice”.  A recent example of this is Cosmopolitan’s decision to publish actress Amy Brenneman’s story about her abortion, but not Congresswoman Diane Black’s thoughtful letter to the editor in response.

It’s fairly obvious why abortion advocates have to employ these kind of dishonest and deplorable tactics.  When they are confronted with science, medicine, and facts, abortion advocates know they will lose every time.  This is why the public is recognizing the value of life more and more often. It is why abortion clinics are closing all over the country and why the younger generation is overwhelmingly pro-life.  Most importantly it is why the demand for abortion is decreasing.  The only answer for abortion advocates is to suppress the truth as much as possible and try to replace it with their version of reality.

Last week we began a series on euthanasia and assisted suicide by talking about what they are, and what they are not. This week we will discuss some examples of euthanasia and assisted suicide overseas, and look at how they are being used and next week we’ll consider their use in North America (Canada and the United States) before wrapping the series up with a discussion on how to make sure this type of legislation doesn’t become law in Pennsylvania.

There are some alarming examples of people who have committed suicide or euthanasia overseas, which it is important to study as a harbinger of what is to come here in Pennsylvania if we are not vigilant.  Perhaps the most alarming of all these was Pietro D’Amico who died by assisted suicide at a Switzerland suicide clinic in April 2013 because he was diagnosed as being terminally ill, only to have his autopsy reveal he was given a wrong diagnosis.  Then there is the case of Ann, who died by euthanasia in 2012 after accusing her psychiatrist (who subsequently lost his medical license) of sexually exploiting her and several other patients, causing her pain she said was unbearable and making her want to die.  Finally, consider the case of Marty and Eddy, brothers born deaf and going blind. They committed euthanasia together in December of 2012 because they were afraid of becoming dependent on others.  These are just a few of many examples of people who needed help, but instead got a prescription to kill themselves.

It is apparent after looking at several studies done in Belgium that these cases are not the exception, but the rule.  One study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in June of 2010 surveyed 1678 nurses.  Of those, 1265 responded and 248 (almost 20%) reported their last patient died by euthanasia.  Almost half of those (120) reported the deaths were hastened without explicit request and in 14 of the cases, the nurses admitted to injecting the patients, even though it is still illegal for them to do so, even in Belgium.  According to a 2015 Belgian euthanasia report, there were 2021 euthanasia deaths that year, more than double the reported euthanasia deaths just 5 years ago…despite the fact that estimates of unreported euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands start at 20% and increase from there.  These, and other similar studies, prove that these laws do not provide the necessary controls and are being abused.  Even Dr. Jan Bernhein, a pioneer of the Belgian euthanasia law admitted during a debate in November 2013 “There are problems with the Belgian euthanasia law”.  As Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition replied “That is cold comfort to the dead”.

When you consider these cases and studies, among many others, it is clear what a disaster these laws are.  There is little to any real oversight and control, and people are dying who just need a helping hand.  Unfortunately this is not just a phenomenon overseas, as we’ll discuss next week.

Recently, abortion advocates celebrated a “National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers”.  Pro-abortion groups such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood tweeted praise for abortion center employees and volunteers throughout the day.  It’s interesting to consider the careers of some of those they featured…and some they (maybe purposefully) ignored.

One of the quotes Planned Parenthood featured was from abortionist Raegan McDonald Mosley.  This is the same “Dr.” Mosley whose clinic sent a woman to the hospital for what appears to have been a botched abortion.  The same clinic was inspected in 2013 (its only inspection) and was found to be using surgical equipment not properly sterilized.  They also “honored” Susan Robinson who aborts disabled babies as late as 37 weeks if they won’t have “productive lives”.   Maybe the most egregious abortionist featured was Willie Parker who once compared criticism against abortionists to the crucifixion of Jesus.

Sadly, these abortionists, as outrageous as they are, aren’t the worst…which may be why they were highlighted. Consider Stephen Brigham, who has had his license revoked in multiple states, or Naresh Patel who was convicted of selling abortion pills to women who were not even pregnant and who has been accused of raping and sodomizing his patients. Of course, all we have to do is look at the “house of horrors” run by abortionist Kermit Gosnell to find examples of abortionists operating deadly practices.

We live in a world where everyone gets a “participation medal” and every day we’re celebrating one thing or another.  However I think we can all agree that individuals who tear precious lives out of the place they should be safest and end them in the most brutal way don’t deserve appreciation.  They should be prayed for, that they will see the error of their ways and repent…but not celebrated!

 

We are going to be devoting one blog post every week over the next several weeks to euthanasia and assisted suicide: what it is, and what it is NOT; stories and statistics abroad, in Canada, and in the United States; and conclude by talking about how to stop it here in Pennsylvania.

First, let’s consider assisted suicide, or what we refer to as “doctor-prescribed suicide.”  By definition, assisted suicide is when one person is directly or intentionally involved with ending the life of another person–essentially aiding, encouraging, or counseling someone to die by suicide. What many don’t often realize is that in most cases of doctor-prescribed suicide, all the doctor does is issue a prescription for a lethal dose of medication; he or she is not even generally present when the pills are taken.  The victim takes the prescription, fills it like any other prescription, and takes the medication that ends his or her life whenever he or she feels like it.  Doctor prescribed suicide is not “aid in dying” or “assisted death” as pro-death advocates like to pretend.

Euthanasia is the direct and intentional cause of death, usually done by lethal injection.  The only difference between euthanasia and murder is the misguided intent to relieve suffering. It is not about withdrawing medical treatment, or the proper use of pain killing drugs or sedation.  Sometimes in euthanasia cases the victim requests euthanasia for a variety of reasons, but involuntary euthanasia, in which one person decides that another person’s life doesn’t have value and ends it, also occurs.

Meet Rachel and Alora.  Their story, told by CareNet and featured in Live Action News is an amazing one on many levels.  It starts as many abortion stories do…Rachel made a series of mistakes in life, and now is facing a situation she feels unprepared for.  When her boyfriend finds out he is going to be a father, he wants to keep the baby but quickly learns he has no say and that someone is going to choose to kill that baby legally before he has a chance to meet him or her.

Thankfully, this is where the story takes a different turn.  First, she sees a picture of the baby when the abortion staffer didn’t turn the monitor fast enough.  She instantly knew that the life inside her has value and she couldn’t end it….which speaks to the amazing power of ultrasound.

This is where the story takes a scary (and potentially sad) turn when the abortionist refused to follow her demand to remove the luminaria he had inserted to dilate her and stop the abortion process (so much for her body, her choice).  Furthermore, when she left the facility and went to the hospital, even the doctors there couldn’t convince the abortionist to remove the luminaria causing her to dilate…the abortionist insisted on continuing to kill Alora against Rachel’s wishes.

Thankfully, this is where the story takes a turn for the better.  Rachel had coworkers who supported her, and they suggested she go to a pregnancy center.  They could have judged her for her poor life decisions, but instead they gave her the love and support she needed to save her daughter.  The pregnancy center was able to find a doctor willing to follow Rachel’s wishes and remove the luminaria.

This story has a happy ending, but so many like it don’t.  Imagine if Rachel hadn’t seen the ultrasound and gone through with the abortion.  She would’ve had to deal with that abortion, probably ending her relationship with her boyfriend, and they wouldn’t be married now with a beautiful baby girl…and now a second child.  Imagine the guilt and suffering she would have felt if that abortionist had his way and forced her to have an abortion she didn’t want.  Imagine if she hadn’t had the support and love of coworkers and the pregnancy center to help her get out of a terrible situation.  Of course, we don’t have to imagine…we know it happens all the time.

 

 

Bloomberg Business reported yesterday that abortion centers are closing at a record pace. By their research, 162 facilities have closed since 2011 (a rate of one business every two weeks).  Already in 2016, 9 abortion facilities have closed, or announced they will be closing.

The Bloomberg piece blames “Republican state lawmakers’ push to legislate the industry out of existence”, at least in part, for the drop off.  First, this bears a question of why these facilities (who like to refer to themselves as clinics) can’t/won’t adhere to clinical standards.  In fact, shouldn’t facilities performing a risky surgery like abortion that ends the life of one person, and leaves the surviving victim (the mother) with guilt and emotional scars that will last a lifetime (and may make her more likely to commit suicide), have to comply with basic medical standards?  Is it a bad thing to prohibit facilities like abortionist’s Kermit Gosnell’s “house of horrors” with blood stained floors and a feral cat walking freely through the halls and even in the examination rooms themselves?  Shall we keep allowing unsanitary facilities and add to the over 450 women who have died from an abortion?

Even if you want abortion facilities to be able to operate without any standards, the author argues that “state regulations that make it too expensive or logistically impossible for facilities to remain in business drove more than a quarter of the closings.”  That means almost 3 out of every 4 closings were due to some other factor besides these regulations.  In fact, almost 12 of those facilities that closed were in California, which is not exactly stringent when it comes to abortion regulations.

The reality is, a number of factors are contributing to this decrease in abortion facilities.  Some are closing because of industry consolidation or due to changing demographics.  A third factor is declining demand.  It seems these facilities are subject to the same laws of supply and demand as any other business, and as the general public’s perception of abortion changes, so decreases the demand for abortions.

The interesting exception to this trend is Planned Parenthood. The article notes that about one out of every three facilities closed were operated by Planned Parenthood, but ¾ of the facilities opened were under the Planned Parenthood brand.  The one factor that could possibly be allowing Planned Parenthood to reverse the trend of their other facilities may be the $500 million in taxpayer funds they receive every year.  It would be interesting to see how they would fare without that subsidy!

 

I have to admit, today is kind of an odd day for me.  Every year for the past 5 years on this day I celebrate the birth of my 2^nd son, Nathaniel.  In that sense, today is a day full of joy and celebration. Unfortunately, today also marks another much sadder milestone.  It was on this day 6 years ago that the Philadelphia police and the FBI discovered abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s “house of horrors” in Philadelphia.

Gosnell (I personally will never refer to him as “Dr.”) was suspected of selling prescription drugs illegally. However what was found in that building was far worse.  Blood stained the floors. A feral cat walked freely through the halls and even in the examination rooms themselves.  There were fecal remains in the staff food freezer.  A row of jars contained severed feet, including one which a mother who visited that clinic later discovered to be that of her pre-born child.

The unthinkable only became worse.  After interviewing employees, investigators learned that since he wasn’t very good at his job, and late term abortions are difficult, Kermit Gosnell took the “easy way out” and employed a tactic called “snipping”.  Women who came in for late-term abortions would be induced, live babies would be born, and then Gosnell would kill the baby by using scissors to sever his or her spinal cord.  The only consolation (if there is such a thing) is that those babies didn’t suffer as much as the ones he and his staff left struggling in toilets gasping for air.

I confess, I haven’t seen 3801 Lancaster: An American Tragedy which is the movie that was made to expose the horrors of Kermit Gosnell.  I have never understood the appeal of the genre of horror movies, and I’m not sure I have the stomach to watch this one.  There’s a showing of the movie in Upper Darby in a couple of weeks (tickets can be purchased here) and maybe by then I will gather the strength to attend.

The good news is, Gosnell is in jail and will never have the opportunity to wield those deadly scissors again.  The haunting question remains, how many victims could we have saved if state officials had not been so worried about inspections threatening “access” and more concerned about the woman they knew had died there…not to mention the countless pre-born babies lives lost?

So this is the context in which I celebrate my son’s birthday today…knowing while we spoil him with sweets, balloons, and presents, thousands of babies will die today in facilities not so different than Gosnell’s house of horror.  I will pray for each of those souls, as well as their mothers living with the guilt of what they did, and the staff at the facility complicit in the horror that went on there.