Susan’s true story of abortion
Hi, my name is Susan. I am not only an adoptee, but was a birthmother in high school at 16 years old. Unfortunately, I am also a young woman who chose abortion just four years later in college. I knew I had made a brave, courageous decision with an unplanned pregnancy the first time and would never have done differently, but getting pregnant the second time was shocking. Pregnant, again?! I was so ashamed that I could find myself in the same situation. I was not going to place another baby in an adoptive home by a different father & I sure as heck wasn’t going to have my parents find out about this.
I remember vividly the day my boyfriend & I drove to the abortion clinic. We talked very little on the way there; he waited for me in the waiting room as I went in to end the life of our baby. I remember lying on the cold medical bed. The nurse told me I would feel some pressure & it would all be over soon. I will never forget the loud, hellish noise of the suction tube that sucked my baby’s life right out of me. It was surreal. Just a few minutes later the nurse told me we were all done & I was free to go. Free to go back to my normal life. I met my boyfriend (future husband) out in the waiting room; we drove to Wal-Mart to get my pain prescriptions and drove back to college in complete silence.
People always praised me for my choice of adoption as a teenager, and I always thought- “if you only knew who I really was.” I was a broken, hurt, young college student living in emotional pain every day of my life because of a life I chose to end.
If we had it to do all over again we would have made the courageous decision to give our baby life. At this point in our lives we would have personally chosen to parent our baby as a team. We may not have graduated “on time” and our parents may have been disappointed in us through their “short term lenses,” but we would be celebrating our baby’s life & praising God for the blessing of motherhood and parenting. Our daughter would be 14 this spring. If you are reading this and are pregnant or know of someone who is, please pass this story on and make a choice for Life for your baby.
According to CFAM, a friend of Hidden Choices, the definition of family, the social structure and fabric of society as historically stands between man and woman was reinforced in a UN commission this last week. Read the report below.
UN Commission Reinforces Role of Family for Development
By Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
NEW YORK, February 22 (C-FAM) Last week a UN commission that formulates social policies acknowledged the role of the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society, rejecting attempts by western nations to re-define the family.
The Commission on Social Development concluded its annual session by adopting a resolution observing the International Year of the Family in 2014 that highlights the importance of the family for social development.
The resolution, sponsored by Qatar, invites UN member states and entities to “concerted actions to strengthen family-centered policies and programs as part of an integrated comprehensive approach to development.”
It also recognizes the family “has the primary responsibility for the nurturing and protection of children and that children, for the full and harmonious development of their personality, should grow up in a family environment and in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.”
Not all UN member states were happy with the resolution. In December, the European Union (EU) and the United States tried to qualify the word “family” with the expression “various forms of the family exist” in a resolution of the General Assembly on observing the International Year of the Family. The Group of 77 and China, the 126 strong voting bloc of the developing world, rejected the new language as unnecessary. Because the General Assembly rejected it, the EU and the United States did not propose that language again but they repeated their discontent during negotiations on last week’s resolution.
Whether new language qualifying “family” is designed to recognize same-sex families or merely to acknowledge single-parent households, as its proponents contend, remains a subject of debate. It is unlikely that single-parent households were ever excluded from the definition of the family in UN treaties and resolutions.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN treaty on Civil and Political Rights provide that the “family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.” They both refer to “the right to marry and found a family” in reference to the union of a man and a woman, and exclude the notion of same-sex families.
The Commission also reaffirmed the General Assembly resolution titled “World Program of Action for Youth”, which includes the terms “sexual and reproductive health” and “comprehensive sexuality education.” The Holy See reiterated its reservations that these terms do not include a right to abortion, and that parental rights in education should not be overlooked in the course of implementing education programs.
The Holy See is one of several UN delegations paying special attention to the International Year of the Family, and hosted an event during the commission titled, “The Family, a Resource for Society.” Mons. Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, presented the Holy See Charter on the Rights of the Family to several ambassadors that attended.
Mons. Paglia, who smiled contagiously throughout the event, optimistically observed that despite “attacks” from recent cultural currents, the family “comes first in the hearts of the world’s peoples; and studies show that the great majority of young people look forward happily to marriage as a lifelong faithful union with their husband or wife.” He stated that the family as the union between a man and a woman is a “simple reality.”
Title: To Be Safe Is To Be Smart
I think I must have said, “to be safe, is to be smart” at least 100,000 times while my children were growing up. They probably thought it was overkill. I wanted to make sure their brains were penetrated with the phrase, just in case it was the only thing they could remember in a “situation.”
Hidden Choices, Inc. believes the safety and welfare of our children should be the top priority of every parent, grandparent, family member and every community in which we live. From the Internet, Computers and the Web - today’s parents, grandparents, and school guardians must be saavy, on high alert and have a knowledge base of the real issues our children are facing with an online world.
Let’s learn to be safe by being smart. NetSmartz411 is a FREE program of the National Center For Missing & Exploited Children. Ask an expert any question@1-888-NETS411 or on the web@www. http://www.netsmartz411.org
Most people I know agree that we need to do something. Public responsibility! Trillions upon trillions in debt for our grandchildren. In my most humble opinion and in the work I do for children at risk, the paradigm shift in our communities will take the resolve of every human being to provide successful solutions that work at every level of our society for youth! It is on their back now. Our youth. I do cry out for them. Today, I witnessed hundreds rioting over expensive basketball shoes that glow in the dark ( I thought we were in a recession and where do kids get this kind of money anyway? Why should sports shoes be sold in the hundreds of dollars and who would pay over $2,000 on the black market? Most likely made in China for $10 on the backs of child slave trade. Instead of throwing billions away in government bailouts for the bridge to “nowhere,” we could use that money to give law enforcement tools needed to fight human trafficking of millions of innocent children, instead of millonaire politicians taking insider trading with straight faces; we could teach character courses to politicians in jail, instead of tax payer MILLIONS paid out to unscrupulous executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Corporate Boards we could use that money to find ways to help recruit strategic smart teachers from lost corporate jobs; instead of the millions in pay outs to top employees working for bankrupt Solyndra we could use that money to change the foster care system( BTW did you know that 95% of prisoners are from the foster care system?). Quite frankly, we could use every penny of wasted money to do something positive in our lands and beyond. How about charities that raise millions of dollars from good people and exactly for what? Where does the money really go? How do we wrap our brains around current headlines: Fatherless, divorce, sexual abuse, drugs, alcohol, lack of fair adoption laws, slave trade, binging, overloaded prisons, child porn, harvesting of body parts, crisis pregnancy, single parenting, street children, girls needing a father figure, boys trying to fill that void, hunger, sexing, education systems that are laughable, same sex everything for pleasure, (at least animals know exactly what nature intended), Hollywood and the internet glamorizing sex, pro choice mania screaming for the murder of children in untold, staggering numbers in the name of women’s “rights”(forget the desire to extend human rights to the most vulnerable of our HUMAN RACE). How about saving the pre-born? Let’s face it. It’s depressing. We are in deep trouble and experiencing culture changes at a pace the U.S.and world has never seen. So, however unintended, as society spins out of control, aren’t we intellectual enough, with the resolve to be tough enough to do something? You’re right…everyone is going to have to do their fair share at that round table and that means everyone. bottom up, top down.
Founder & President
Hidden Choices, Inc.
OBAMACARE’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL COERCION
Andrew Napolitano: Mandate on Catholics is akin to compelling Jews to eat pork
When we were colonists and fought a war against the king and Parliament so that we could secede from the British Empire and be independent of it, we also fought for the value of personal freedom. That is the idea that in matters of personal choice, the government should play no role. The king only cared about the colonists’ personal choices if he could control or tax them.
One of the taxes he imposed was to support the Church of England. The Church of England that the colonists’ tax dollars supported was, of course, in England; it was not here. So, among the hateful taxes that impelled the colonists to revolt was this tax to support the king’s church.
When the Constitution was written, religious freedom was a principal matter for discussion and debate among the framers. They addressed this in the first clause of the First Amendment. Before the Constitution even protects the freedom of speech, it protects the natural right to worship or not to worship, free from the government. Here is what it says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. …”
That is very direct and clear. It was intended to prevent any tax money from going to a church, and it was intended to keep the government from using its coercive powers to influence or to punish religious institutions. For 125 years, most governments in America left churches alone.
Then along came the progressive attitude that some ethnic groups are superior to others. This is a damnable and racist view foisted upon the federal government by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, in direct response to the influx of southern European immigrants at the beginning of the last century, most of whom were Catholic. Roosevelt and Wilson and their progressive followers thought these immigrants had too many children, children who would grow up to be voters and vote out their nanny-state central-planning values. So they began to encourage birth control and sterilizations and even abortions.
The Catholic Church resisted this by its teachings on birth control. The Church had made its teaching on contraception a core part of its mission for 400 years, and Pope Paul VI reaffirmed these teachings in a permanent way in 1968. That the Church embraces these teachings is well-known, and equally as well-known is the policy of the federal government to resist them.
But that resistance reached unconstitutional proportions a few weeks ago when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, herself a Catholic, issued regulations that require all employers in America to provide health insurance that makes contraceptive materials and devices available to their employees. The “all employers” includes Catholic universities, Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools and even local Catholic churches. The failure to comply with this law will result in a fine to these institutions and the provision of contraceptive coverage to their employees by the government itself.
This is quite literally Congress making a law that interferes with the free exercise of religion. This is not about the morality of contraception. This is about the constitutionality of government coercion, coercion of religious institutions, coercion directly and profoundly prohibited by the Constitution itself. The motivation for the coercion – that Catholics have too many babies – is reprehensible, and those in government who embrace that and are willing to use the power of government to resist that should be voted out of office. But the coercion is the same as that faced by the folks who seceded from England because of the king’s tax to pay for his church.
We have a king today, and he wants a tax to pay for his church. The king is the president, and his church is called Obamacare. We can’t let this happen here. This is not just a Catholic issue. This is an issue about whether the Constitution means what it says. Does the Constitution let the government compel Jews to eat pork, or Protestants to genuflect, or Muslims to own dogs, or Catholics to pay for contraception? The answer is obvious.
Page 1 of 5