Sarah, the Healthy Home Abortionist

As someone who is interested in natural health, I occasionally enjoy reading on the website of Sarah, "The Healthy Home Economist."

Therefore it was rather shocking for me to discover a post by Sarah titled "Natural Birth Control Using Herbs," dating back to October of last year. My shock was not rooted in the fact that she was entirely and utterly wrong on something, but that she was ignorant of the most basic of science underlying the issue of "birth control."

Lest any of my health-conscious friends and readers are deceived by her lingo, this post is intended to expose the abortifacient nature of the herbs Sarah is recommending, as well as her ignorance (or intentional deception) on this topic. Many of the comments on her original post expressed the same sentiments I am about to share, and yet Sarah has refused to take correction, so my goal is not to change her mind, as that is a lost cause. My goal is to show you the truth.

First off, the entire concept of "healthy infertility" is an oxymoron. Not being able to conceive children is the opposite of health, an indicator that things are not working as they in their most natural state should.

Nor does the fact that women have been using these methods for hundreds and thousands of years make them any more safe, healthy, or morally justifiable. Of course selfish mothers have been killing their own offspring since the beginning of time - duh! One need only crack open a Bible and read about heathen nations sacrificing their own children to false gods. 

Herbs and other "natural" substances are extremely potent drugs - just as their synthetic, big-pharma counterparts. Arsenic is a natural substance, too - but consumed in the right quantities, it will lead to quick (albeit very "naturally induced") death.

Sarah breaks her post into two main parts:

1) Sterility promoting herbs: Again, the entire concept of being healthy by disrupting the most basic and important aspect of human health - reproduction - is moronic to say the least. Infertility is ALWAYS a sign of less than ideal health in one aspect or another, whether that be age, weight, fibroids, diet, toxins, etc. - the list is endless. 

Sarah fails to explain just how these herbs cause infertility, sometimes even permanently. Which of the body's many intricate systems do they mess with to disrupt fertility, sometimes permanently? What is being poisoned to the point that the incredibly smart human body decides it is too hostile of an environment for new life? Besides Sarah's anecdotal usage suggestions, what studies prove the safety of these "natural" infertility-causing herbs?

2) Implantation preventers: This is the second, and much more grievous point that Sarah expounds upon. Before we delve into it, here is a basic lesson in reproduction for those who don't know:

Source

About midway through the monthly cycle, a woman's body will release an egg from the ovary (called ovulation). This egg then travels down the fallopian tube. About two more weeks later, if fertilization of the egg did not occur, this microscopic egg is shed along with the lining of the uterus - the monthly cycle. Women are born with two ovaries, one on each side, and they normally alternate each month on releasing an egg. If a woman for some reason loses an ovary, the other will often take over by releasing an egg every single month.

However, if seed from a man is present in the roughly 48 hours following ovulation, under normal, healthy circumstances this will lead to fertilization of the egg, also called "conception." Please take note of this because modern science is changing these terms in order to make early abortion more palatable. 

The fertilized egg, unlike its unfertilized counterpart, immediately begins the process of cell multiplication, even as it still travels down the fallopian tube. The newly conceived child has its own set of DNA, entirely different from his father or mother. This is an incredibly critical time, and an intrinsically hazardous journey.

If the rapidly growing egg were to get trapped by tissue in the fallopian tubes, or were to accidentally attach to the lining of the tube, it would lead to an "ectopic pregnancy," which almost universally leads to the loss of the still growing baby, as well as the likely rupture of the fallopian tube in the mother.

Sometime around 8 days after conception (fertilization of the egg), the developing baby has arrived in the mother's uterus, and burrows deep into the uterine lining where it attaches and later "taps into" mom via placenta and cord. Unlike the fallopian tube, the uterus is a muscle that has the capability to expand incredibly to support, protect, and nourish the child until it is ready to be born 9 months later. 

Some doctors and scientists (though the minority) are attempting to spin the medical terms by referring to this implantation of the baby in the uterus as "conception," because it is at this point that the child (which again, is unique in his DNA and very much different from either of his parents) arrives at a certain benchmark destination. By the same logic, one could refer to birth itself as "conception," since that is when the baby first makes his visible appearance in the parents' arms.

The Bible is clear that a woman "conceiving seed" is the same as her being "with child.", seed being the Bible term for a man's contribution to this matter. But even if we left the Bible out of this, science has proven over and over that by definition, life begins at the point of fertilization (i.e. conception), as that is when the egg starts multiplying and developing.

Please also note the following terminology: if the fertilized, growing egg were to implant someplace other than the uterus, this is called an ectopic pregnancy. By Sarah's logic, which she shares with Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion doctors, the mother is not even pregnant until the child arrives in the uterus. I guess she would call this an ectopic pre-pregnancy?

Source

So back to the "implantation preventers" - as even the name suggests, they are not to stop a woman from conceiving, they are simply designed to prohibit something from implanting that naturally is intended to implant. Notice, the unfertilized egg needs no such attention - it will never attempt to implant of its own accord. That's the difference between a living human being, bent on survival, and an unfertilized egg that is not a living organism.

All the herbs Sarah is suggesting are to be taken "until menstruation begins," or to "bring on menstruation if necessary" if "an 'oops' occurs and unprotected relations take place during the fertile time." Nice! In other words, you are making your own herbal concoction for "morning after" or early chemical abortion. The way they work is by poisoning and/or destroying the lining of the uterus, so that the newly conceived baby cannot implant deeply, and is shed with the onset of the monthly cycle. These herbs also induce shedding of the uterine lining even if the child is fully implanted, but defenseless and unable to "hold on." 

Furthermore, there is a real chance that this regimen is not going to be fully "successful" (for those defining success as the murder of their unborn), and will rather lead to a poorly implanted child which can bring about a host of issues down the road, such as placental abruption, low birth weight, etc.

Sarah is, in fact, sounding every bit as the founder of Planned Parenthood, and birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger, who made it clear many times that making sure menses would resume, "brought on" if necessary by the use of bleach and other similar methods, was the responsibility of every woman, and part of reproductive hygiene. 

Many, many comments on Sarah's post stated what I am writing here, and she listened to none of them. She repeatedly reiterated the greater importance of the mother's health, with the example of her gut flora. Dear Sarah, I am infinitely more concerned about my uterine flora, than my gut flora. But neither comes close to my concern with right and wrong, or what God thinks of all this.

Please beware of Sarah's scientifically inaccurate, anecdotal, unsafe, toxic, and morally reprehensible "natural" ways to kill your own babies. 

Monsters, Incorporated

In the news last week, I read a story about the "wrong twin fetus" having been "terminated" in Australia. The staff "treating" the woman accidentally killed the healthy baby, not the one who had a congenital heart defect. Notice the demented wording to make more palatable the fact that a mother KILLED her own CHILD in her WOMB, which should be the safest place on planet earth for any baby, but is the most dangerous.

Abortion Practitioner Loses Medical License for Killing Wrong Twin in Failed Abortion

As found on LifeNews:

Miami, FL (LifeNews.com) -- A Florida-based abortion practitioner lost his medical license this weekend after the state medical board evaluated his license. Matthew Kachinas was supposed to do an abortion on one of the twin babies who had Down syndrome but wound up killing the other baby in the failed abortion.

Kachinas injected a chemical to kill the baby in the abortion, but the injection ultimately killed the healthy unborn child.

The Florida Board of Medicine met over the weekend, according to the Miami Herald, and revoked Kachinas' license for that and other cases that have come to its attention where Kachinas engaged in shoddy medicine.

Immediately after the hearing, Kachinas said he would kill himself and was hospitalized at a local mental health facility out of concerns of his well-being, the newspaper reported.

Kachinas was one of the few abortion practitioners in Florida to engage in second-trimester abortions or the practice known as selective reduction, whereby one or more unborn children are killed when a pregnancy involves more than one baby.

The pregnancy in question involved unborn children conceived through in-vitro fertilization. Records show that after the "wrong" baby was killed in the first abortion, a second abortion was done to kill the disabled unborn child as well. The babies were 15 weeks along at the time of the abortion.

The twin who was considered healthy was a girl while the twin diagnosed as having Down syndrome, was a boy.

[...]

There are so many things wrong with this it's hard to say where to start.

1) The hypocrisy of the Florida Board of Medicine to revoke a doctor's license for killing a "healthy" child, but for not even frowning upon the intentional killing of a "disabled" child.

2) What does a "Board of Medicine" have to do with overseeing intentionally taking human life? Isn't medicine about healing people, rather than eugenics and "ethnic cleansing"?

3) The gall of the parents. The article does not say whether or not they still went through with aborting the disabled twin even after the death of the healthy child, but my guess would be they did, since they never wanted him to begin with. To not even be ashamed to come forward with a story like that - "We wanted him to kill our son, but instead he killed our daughter, so now we want to press charges". Chances are, they are trying to recover the money they spent on IVF so they can afford to pervert nature again in the future.

4) This story once again proves my opinion that people who use IVF are obsessed with having a perfect token child to add to their perfectly planned out life, without any regard to the moral implications. Anyone who would intentionally kill most their children just so they can maybe have one, rather than to seek God's blessing in this area, is selfish and unfit to be a parent. This is proven by the fact that these people in cold blood were going to "reduce" their not-so-perfect offspring. This all reminds me of the story I blogged about here (an update on which is soon to come).

5) This was not the first time the doctor "messed up". My guess is that maybe it wasn't accidental. Maybe someone who kills little babies for a living enjoys it so much that sometimes he likes to kill even the ones who were supposed to "make" it.

6) Why does Sarasota Memorial Hospital carry out second trimester abortions for "medical" reasons? Isn't a hospital there to help people? It's amazing how they think size determines whether or not someone is a human being.

This story reminded me of an unrelated case I read about online of a 19-year old girl with Down Syndrome who died following what was likely an illegal, forced late-term abortion at George Tiller's abortion clinic. You can read about this very sad case here.

God help those mothers who have made their womb the most dangerous place in the world for their child to be in. One cannot pervert nature much more than that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edited to add: I received a comment from someone preferring not to have their comment published who pointed out to me that the article does, in fact, make mention of the fact that the parents ultimately aborted the second baby as well.

"Records show that after the "wrong" baby was killed in the first abortion, a second abortion was done to kill the disabled unborn child as well. The babies were 15 weeks along at the time of the abortion."

The Mona Lisa Project

In recent months, LiveAction.org secretly videotaped patient consultations at various Planned Barrenhood facilities, pretending to be a young teen who got pregnant by her much older boyfriend, asking how to go about getting an abortion without her parents' knowledge or getting the guy in trouble.

By law, these clinics are required to report such cases as child abuse/rape, but - surprise, surprise - they instead cover them up. The PP employees in these clips are sick and disgusting. When I think of those involved in making abortions possible, I think of this passage in the Bible:

Psalms 109:7-16
(7) When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
(8) Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
(9) Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
(10) Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
(11) Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
(12) Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.
(13) Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
(14) Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
(15) Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
(16) Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.

Just to let you know, I refuse to publish any comment condoning abortion, so save yourself the trouble of leaving one if you disagree with me.

What is selective reduction?

I copied the following article from here. My comments are added in brackets in red italics.

What is Selective Reduction?

by Pattie Hughes

Selective reduction is a procedure used to reduce the number of embryos in a multifetal pregnancy. This procedure is sometimes used when too many embryos implant in a pregnancy that is achieved with assisted reproductive technology. When too many embryos implant successfully the chance of carrying the pregnancy to term drops significantly. [I agree. Which is why I am against assisted reproductive technology in the first place. It creates pregnancies with an unnaturally high number of babies, which leads to a number of related problems both physical and ethical. However, if someone still goes ahead and goes through with the procedure, I am certainly in favor of keeping all babies. The same technology that got "parents" in this predicament in the first place has become very sophisticated at ensuring relatively safe outcomes even for those pregnancies. There were two sets of sextuplets born at a hospital in our city in the last year. The babies in both cases were well and healthy. I think parents who chose S/R are not so much concerned about the wellbeing of the children as simply not being willing to take home 3, 4, or more babies at the same time. Also, having a baby that needs to be cared for in the NICU is not the glamorous picture of a bouncing pink baby that selfish IVF parents were hoping to show around.]

Selective reduction is generally used for pregnancies with more than two fetuses. [I hope that doesn't mean some people actually choose to kill one of two twins. But nothing surprises me any more.] Preventing medical problems in the pregnancy or the loss of all the fetuses is the reason for the procedure. In some cases, fetuses that are considered to be at greater risk for defects are selected for reduction. [Yeah, because who would willingly pick a lesser, i.e. potentially disabled child? Why take the "greater risk for defects" when you can get a perfect specimen? Are these parents being judgmental of their offspring???]

The procedure is done during the first trimester, prior to the twelfth week of pregnancy. If no abnormalities are present in any of the fetuses, the ones that are easiest to reach are selected for reduction. [Does reading this make you sick?] A chemical, usually potassium chloride, is injected into the selected fetuses.

Following the procedure, the fetuses are usually absorbed by the mother's body. [How can you go to sleep knowing that your body is absorbing the children you killed?] The procedure is not without risk. In some cases, one or all of the remaining fetuses will die as well. This happens in about five percent of cases. Preterm labor is another possible side effect of this procedure. [Wow, that kind of sounds exactly like what happened to Tortua. What a shock! So we aren't allowed to feel bad that she killed 2 babies, but we do have to pity her for the other 2 dying as well or we will be called heartless, cruel, and judgemental. I feel bad for mothers who legitimately lose a baby through miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm labor, or other complications, but not for women whose babies died as a result of their siblings being poisoned in utero.]

Some patients have issues with this procedure, usually for ethical or religious reasons. [That's me!] Selective reduction is a form of abortion. Pro life patients may object to this procedure for this reason. Even pro choice patients may have problems with selective reduction. A couple who has gone down the long, painful road of infertility may not be able to bear the thought of aborting some of their babies. [Well, apparently, some can.]

There are some things you can do to avoid the need for selective reduction. [It's called being normal and doing what married people do.] You can find a pro life infertility specialist. These doctors don't use selective reduction and avoid implanting more embryos than could be carried to term. Discuss this possibility with your doctor if you are a pro life infertility patient. The best way to avoid the need for this procedure is to avoid becoming pregnant with too many babies in the first place. [Translation: You would have to start thinking about someone besides yourself.]