Thank You for Choosing Me

Ryan and Michael NRL Convention 2017

Celebrate Life Banquet speaker Ryan Bomberger with our Executive Director Michael Ciccocioppo

By Maria Gallagher, Legislative Director

Celebrated pro-life speaker Ryan Bomberger has written a fascinating letter of thanks to his adoptive father, who is suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. Our friends at National Right to Life have published the entire letter here, but here is just a sample of the eloquent missive:

“I would never be who I am today without you, helping to shape that Input. Your dedication unleashed undeniable purpose. You refused to accept the world’s low expectations, especially for the ten racially diverse and handful of differently abled children you had adopted that many would have written off as ‘unwanted.’ You and mom shattered the myth of the ‘unwanted’ child, loving each of us, helping us find divine imprint on our lives.”

You will have the exceptional opportunity to hear about Ryan Bomberger’s amazing journey at our Celebrate Life Banquet September 28 at the Hotel Radisson Harrisburg in Camp Hill. Register now to reserve your seat for this not-to-be-missed event!

Government Study May Have Put Premature Babies at Risk

I always find it interesting how news stories seem to coincide.

A few days ago, I read about a Time magazine cover story featuring the wonderful medical technology now available to help premature babies survive and thrive.LiveActionvideo

Today, I read about an investigation into a government study of premature babies that may have put the babies’ lives at greater risk.

The Daily Signal reports that some parents were encouraged to sign up for the study without receiving details about what it was or how it could risk their babies’ already fragile health.

According to the article, “It was a national, government-funded experiment on 1,316 extremely premature infants in which their fate may as well have rested with the flip of a coin.”

The study researched the effects of oxygen given at different levels to premature babies. When a premature baby’s lungs are still developing, too much or too little oxygen can cause serious damage. Researches wanted to find the perfect amount for these babies.

Sounds good, right? The problem was that “there were key differences in how researchers treated babies in the study compared with those not in the study.”

“Normally, medical personnel constantly adjust oxygen as preemies’ conditions change, based on their individual needs. But the SUPPORT study was designed to keep infants in their randomly assigned range, despite a baby’s individual needs.
“And in a decision that one government source says shocked seasoned researchers when they learned of it, the babies’ oxygen monitors intentionally were altered to provide false readings. The reason: so medical staff wouldn’t be tempted to adjust oxygen out of the babies’ study-assigned range.”

Why are some babies treated with the utmost care and value, while others are being used as objects for research? Why this inequality?

Our abortion-minded culture has allowed us to devalue certain human beings, to treat them as objects because they are sick or poor or unwanted.

Through stories like these, we as pro-lifers can help others to see how critically important it is to treat every single human life equally.

Gosnell Murder Trial, Florida Bill Point to Inconsistencies in Arguments for Abortion

At what point should humans’ right to life be protected? The moment of conception? After the first trimester? Viability? After birth?

Two abortion-related stories in the news point to this key question in the abortion debate.

First, the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia. Right now, jurors are considering, among Gavelother things, whether he is guilty of murdering seven newborn babies. Gosnell, rather than perform complicated late-term abortions, allegedly preferred to cause his patients to give birth to a live baby. Then he would snip the baby’s spinal cord to kill it.

Gosnell faces murder charges for allegedly killing live newborn babies. Would he be on trial for the murder of these babies if he had instead killed them while they were still inside the womb? Maybe for performing illegal late-term abortions, but not for their murders. (Gosnell also faces an eighth murder charge in the death of a female patient. Read more about her here.)

This doesn’t seem right if you think about it. In its mother’s womb, a baby does not have a right to life, but move the baby several inches and suddenly our laws require that it be protected. Why should a human being’s location determine whether it has the right to life?

Meanwhile, in Florida, legislators have proposed a new law to protect infants born alive after a failed abortion. According to Florida Right to Life:

“The debate lingered as many stated, ‘It was a woman’s right to choose, even in a case of a botched abortion.’ Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, League of Women Voters, United Women’s Organization, and others spoke to OPPOSE treating infants that are born alive during an abortion procedure.”

Here, pro-abortion groups base the baby’s right to life on its wanted-ness. But this argument doesn’t make sense either. If the mother of a 3-month-old infant decides that she no longer wants her baby, she cannot choose to kill it, either by force or neglect. Why should it be any different for a baby born alive after a failed abortion attempt? Or the baby still in her womb?

Most arguments for legalized abortion become pretty shallow when we cut them down to the core. The only logical and scientifically-based answer to the question “At what point should humans’ right to life be protected?” is the moment of conception.