News articles such as these are frequently making the rounds into our media feeds. In this article, I want to call particular attention to the instances being used by secular media to promote abortion as healthcare, usually citing cases of fatal prenatal abnormalities.

Riding on the waves of sentimentality, mainstream media is promoting abortion as the best available choice for women. But the fabric of humanity is not made entirely of emotions alone. It is a tapestry of physical, emotional, psychological, moral and spiritual components weaving together, every part as important as the other.

Medical science is greatly helpful in diagnosing the condition of a baby in utero. It is a shame when medical professionals presume to use this knowledge to tell parents they can now decide to actively “terminate” their baby. To offer parents the sole choice of suffocating or dismembering their non-viable baby, in order to alleviate the temporary emotional distress they might be experiencing is exposing them to long lasting psychological and emotional trauma.

Death of a child is extremely traumatic for parents. Counting down the days, knowing that your baby won’t make it can be understandably agonizing. Grieving is a necessary part of dealing with that trauma. But to be responsible for inducing an early death by cruel and painful methods is a burden that parents should not be forced to carry.

With Planned Parenthood and pro-abortionists selling the lie that it is a quick in and out procedure with no details of what the procedure really is, I truly believe that most parents given a limited time to make a life or death decision are choosing abortions ignorant of what it entails.

I hold no judgement towards parents who choose abortion in a period of great vulnerability. But to those who provide this as the optimal solution, what do we say? Isn’t there anything to be said for the morality of the act or the humanity of the child? To put parents in the position of having to kill their own babies, babies they had dreams and hopes for? And to journalists and media personalities who uphold abortion as “the ultimate savior of women”, what do we say? Of course, these emotionally charged stories strike a note with readers (because who among us haven’t experienced loss and suffering?) but they are also what drive mobs beyond the realms of rationality! They can be a powerful tool to evoke empathy but they must never be used to dull consciences and sway us away from reason.

For the sake of simplicity, I refer to this article, where two arguments are made: first, carrying the baby to term put (mother’s) life at risk because of preexisting conditions. I expect this would have been a concern even if the baby was completely healthy. Isn’t this a risk that was taken into consideration early on in the pregnancy? Wouldn’t appropriate medical attention and care be extended to her if her baby didn’t have the diagnosis? So why is that choice withheld from her in this situation?

Some other articles mentioned doctors not fearful of treating at-risk women due to abortion laws. Unfortunately, medical professionals have been trained and empowered to take the lives of the unborn in such cases. Abortion law does not prevent a mother whose life is in danger from receiving the treatments she needs even if it results in the loss of the baby’s life. This is done by inducing labor or delivering the baby alive through medical interventions. The difference may seem subtle but has enormous weight in the decision making. Perhaps this is an invitation for those in the medical field to grow in their competency and discretion by reviewing case by case. Abortion has been the norm for far too long.

The second reason cited was, “to prevent (the baby) suffering”. Studies show that babies in the womb as young as 15 weeks can feel pain. If the baby could speak for himself, I’m certain that the comfort of their mother’s womb in their suffering would be greatly preferred to the methods used for abortion. But of course, “fetuses” can’t speak and hence we assume that they would choose death for themselves if they could.

I reckon it is far easier living with the natural death of a child than having to live with deliberately choosing to end your child’s life.

Most of us are capable of rational, moral decision-making no matter how deep our emotions may run. (It’s probably the only thing keeping many of us from prisons!) This is precisely why when parents are faced with the discovery of their child’s fatality, we as a community including family and friends, medical professionals, media persons, spiritual leaders, and everyone involved, must rally to support them emotionally and rationally in the midst of a crisis instead of pushing them to make choices they may come to regret with time. And there are other choices! I contend that a truly compassionate approach would be to give the choice of living out their parenthood in the brief time they have with their baby than to rip that privilege away from them.

It is still their baby, viable or not. If non-viability is what determines the choice for abortion, perhaps it is because we have told them that the child is of better value to them dead than suffering – physically, financially and emotionally. Would we take this approach with babies outside of the womb? Would we kill a child who was dying just to spare parents emotional anguish?

Currently, 80% of parents with fatal prenatal diagnosis abort their babies. When offered the right kind of perinatal hospice care, 75-85% of parents are likely to carry their babies to term despite the circumstances.

Parents have a right to be allowed to grieve while also acting humanely towards their unborn. I would argue that those in the medical field have a duty to expend all options of real healthcare for women in difficult pregnancies without offering abortion first. To not do so is to unnecessarily make their non-viable baby a threat to the parent’s well-being.

When the fatal instruments have been put away, when the news story has run its course and all is silent, will their grief echo consolation or despair at what was chosen?

Remember I said there are other options? Be Not Afraid (BNA) offers support to parents carrying to term following a prenatal diagnosis. BNA along with Heartbeat Int’l, Charlotte Lozier Institute and Her Plan is working on a national initiative to create a prolife network of service providers who can offer case management support to parents carrying to term following a prenatal diagnosis. They offer training to organizations in developing their own BNA-modeled service. Find more information on www.prenataldiagnosis.org.  

            It had been a difficult week. A local news operation had produced a glowing report on the abortion pill known as mifepristone, without any discussion of the drug’s inherent dangers. Another media outlet was citing a poll purporting to show that the number of Americans who believe that it is important to have children had dramatically dropped since the late 1990s. Media bias and misinformation seemed to be the order of the day.

            Then, out of the blue, I received a phone call which rocked my world.

            A faithful pro-life advocate was calling on behalf of her four-year-old great nephew. He had seen an image of the baby in the mother’s womb and was fascinated by it. As a result, he wanted a soft-touch fetal model to call his own.

            I gladly complied with his request, thinking to myself that there is always hope in the next generation. That little boy recognizes the preciousness and humanity of the child in the womb—so much so, that he wants to be constantly reminded of it.

            The brilliant songwriting team of composer Richard Rodgers and lyricist Oscar Hammerstein II once composed a song called “Carefully Taught” for the hit musical “South Pacific.”

            It speaks of discrimination—and that you have to be taught to hate and fear. It’s so true, isn’t it? For instance, it seems as if we are born with a natural affinity for babies. But, by adopting abortion culture, our society teaches us to turn our backs on the most vulnerable among us.

            In that four-year-old’s plea for a model of a preborn baby to call his own, I see a flicker of hope. If children can be taught to hate and fear, they can also be taught to love and accept. Never underestimate the power you have in influencing the next generation. They are eager to hear a life-affirming message and to carry it out in their young lives.

The champagne carpets were rolled out.

The stage was set.

The winners were decided.

The Oscar ceremony unfolded in a celebration of fashion, culture and talent on Sunday.

Amidst the glitz and glam, the audience witnessed a number of what I believe to be pro-life moments on and off stage.

(Did you notice how many mothers were thanked at the Oscars???)

One among the winners who walked up the stage to receive the honor of the coveted golden statue was James Martin. Surrounded by the directors and a co-actor of An Irish Goodbye, he was celebrated on stage with these heartwarming words by Tom Berkeley, “This award is actually the second most important thing about today because it’s this man’s birthday… We’d love to use the rest of our time up here to sing for him.” They proceeded to sing Happy Birthday to him as the audience joined in.

What is striking about this scene is that the world is full of praise for this man who made history as the first actor with Down Syndrome to win an Oscar while also holding strongly to the conviction that the law must allow children with disabilities to be aborted.

Ironically for James Martin, the United Kingdom, from whence he hails, has a law that permits abortion up to birth when “there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped” which includes Down’s Syndrome.

Last year, Heidi Crowter, a 27 year old woman with Down’s Syndrome, appealed over this law and lost. When asked to comment, the chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Services, Clare Murphy is reported to have said, “There is no contradiction between a society which champions the rights of disabled people and one which allows women to make difficult decisions in heart-breaking situations.” She is reported to have further commented that the case was an attack on pregnant women’s rights – “not just to abortion, but to making their own decisions during childbirth”.

But I ask, isn’t there a contradiction? How are we championing the rights of disabled people if we are also championing mothers who end these very lives?

The argument is always that the woman’s right to be able to live a fulfilling life would be significantly crippled by having a child that needs special attention, that a Down Syndrome child will make life more difficult for her than a normal child, that the child will not have “the quality of life” he deserves. And hence, must be allowed by law to “terminate the baby”. There is little to no threat to the mother’s life or health in these circumstances, not any more than in the usual cases. To promote the idea that any child, able or disabled, needs to die for a woman to live as she wants is greatly misguided.

According to United States Congress Joint Economic Comittee, up to 60-90 percent of babies predicted to be born with the condition is lost to abortion in the US. If given a chance who knows what beautiful things they might go on to do. Of course not every person with Down Syndrome will make it to the Oscars or make it big in the world. But if we were to put people in categories of abled and disabled, I’m sure the statement will remain true for both. On what basis do we decide which ones to terminate and which ones to keep?

Interestingly, gong back to the Oscars, a lot of the winners in their acceptance speeches, spoke of struggles, of failures and almost giving up, of family and friends who supported them. Many of them also spoke of their mothers. Acknowledging the sacrifices they made for them, grown men and women talked about bringing their winning trophy home to their mothers.

Human beings have always been a species of resilient creatures. Struggling is how we’ve made it. When a new life comes into being, it is important to recognize that challenges will arise. And how we make it through them determines so much of the outcome. We are capable of creative problem solving, of rising above our circumstances and finding ways for both mother and child to live extremely fulfilling lives. But if the first choice offered is to take the easy way out, where does that leave them both?

By pushing abortion in any case is to limit the endless possibilities that can be. One family’s choice to explore their options led to medical history. Adiah Laelynn and Adrial Luka Nadaraja were born at just 22 weeks, according to Guinness World Record, the world’s most premature twins. And now history is being made in the entertainment industry by someone who would have been a “choice”. When will the world that celebrates the successes of people it qualified for abortions, wake up to the paradox of its own making?

On a parting note, kudos to the team of An Irish Goodbye for recognizing that even winning the Oscar comes only second to the person of James Martin as they celebrated his birthday.

Praying. Protecting your son. Helping women in crisis.

             These are now actionable offenses under the brave new world in which our Department of Justice operates. My friend and fellow Catholic University alum Mark Houck was recently acquitted in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on charges stemming from these “offenses.” These are now considered federal criminal acts under Merrick Garland’s tortured interpretation of the Freedom of Access to Clinics (“FACE”) Act. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe through last June’s Dobbs decision, the Biden Administration vowed to restore “women’s health access” through abortion. While not enforcing the law of the land is a curious exercise of executive power, we now know that at least they were not bluffing.

             While its consequences are mind-boggling, the actual incident giving rise to the trial was simple enough. Approximately a year and a half ago Mark Houck was observing his weekly vigil outside the Planned Parenthood center at 12th and Locust Streets in Philadelphia, praying the rosary and passing leaflets to women approaching the facility. One of the center’s “escorts,” Bruce Love, took it upon himself to leave its grounds, bypass his ostensible clients and intimidate both Mark and his son, Mark Jr. Despite violating the clinic’s own policies prohibiting contact with protestors, Mr. Love’s harassment continued unabated, resulting in Mark pushing him to the sidewalk. Mr. Love subsequently filed a private criminal complaint against Mark which was later dismissed under bizarre circumstances. This did not stop the DOJ from authorizing an armed predawn raid of Mark’s Kintnersville home last September, resulting in his arrest in front of his wife and seven children. This was despite the fact that Mark’s attorney had previously informed the US Attorney’s office that his client would peacefully surrender should they intend to prosecute – 6 months after Dobbs dropped. Coincidence?

             The ensuing trial at the end of January was just as dystopic. As I sat in  court, I marveled that tax dollars were fashioning a literal federal trial out of what was at most a simple assault. While the FACE Act was itself a largely cosmetic holdover from the Clinton era, it aims to protect pregnant women from their purported “harassment” by abortion protestors. It was never intended to protect escorts and certainly does not license those same escorts to harass protestors or their children. One of the most surreal moments at trial came from a fellow escort who saw the push. She attested to her “fear” regarding the “violence” she had witnessed. Apparently she was not familiar with the practices of the facility at which she volunteered.

             In many ways we can all relate to the spiritual agony Mark underwent – being pilloried for doing what is right, facing the  charges of a hateful mob and recognizing the dissonance between God’s law and man’s. As a fellow worker in this vital mission I can only hope to emulate his example in the work before me, at a time where the pro-life message has never been the object of more blind, insensate rage. In the same way, I urge all chapter leaders and members to draw inspiration from Mark’s example. One person can truly make a difference in this great fight. Dobbs has cleared the way for us to follow in his footsteps across our great Commonwealth. From Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, from Scranton to Erie, let us pick up the torch and never lose faith in this great spiritual, political and human battle!