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.

Woman loses custody of child for five years for refusing C-section

Article can be found here.

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

March 17, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey woman has lost custody of her child for the past five years for refusing to sign a consent form permitting a C-section during her child’s birth, according to an exclusive report published by Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper.
 
The Daily Mail reports that the woman, whose initials are given as VM, was accused of child abuse by staff of St. Barnabas Hospital of New Jersey for refusing to sign the document, despite the fact that VM agreed to submit to the operation if it later became necessary.

Although VM’s judgment turned out to be correct, and she gave birth naturally through her birth canal to a healthy baby child, her child was taken away by authorities.

After years of judicial proceedings, in which the trial judge and an appellate court upheld the decision to deprive VM of her child, she finally received a favorable ruling on a second appeal. The case was remanded to the lower court judge, who still must issue a revised ruling.  VM’s husband, whose initials are BG, has also been deprived of custody.

In overturning the lower court ruling, the New Jersey Superior Court reportedly stated, “Termination [of parental rights] is among the most extraordinary remedies that can be exercised by a court. We must insist that the remedy be reserved for those instances where the state meets the extraordinary burden imposed by the law.”

It adds: “That burden has not been met here.”

Wow. So much to say on this one. In a country that allows the unborn child to be murdered up until the moment of birth, under the guise of "a woman's right to choose" and "my body, my choice", this is a disgusting display of hypocrisy. So it's not okay to have a natural birth, if a doctor considers it dangerous, even though his true and only concern is a malpractice suit, and his insurance company dropping him. But killing the child is fine if the parents don't want it.

Having a repeat cesarean has a greater risk of mortality and morbidity than the minute chances of uterine rupture. If there is a dead or injured mom or baby, traditionally, courts have ruled in favor of physicians if they performed a c-section, and against them if they instead cautiously observed and waited. So in spite of the fact that performing the surgery leads to more harm done than not performing the surgery, the first is considered "doing everything in their power to save the baby/mother", and therefore usually is ruled in the physician's favor. The health of mother and baby is not the main concern - the doctor's medical license is. Erring on the side of caution to them means performing an almost always unnecessary cesarean, whereas erring on the side of caution regarding the mother/child would be to observe and wait.

This is not an isolated, rare case. I have blogged on court-ordered cesareans before. There was a case like that in Arizona a little over one year ago, and another one of a mother whose baby was taken at birth after she refused to sign the consent form for the surgery (her baby was eventually returned to her - I was unable to retrieve the news article on that). It goes back to government officials thinking that they know better what is in the best interest of our own children, even though they would never have a fraction of the love that normal parents feel for their children toward those same children. Are there parents who hate and abuse their children? Certainly. However, they are not the kind who fight tooth and nail to protect their unborn child from the risks of unnecessary surgery. They are more likely the kind who will get an abortion, which of course, is not only legal, but funded by the government. 

Sadly, this further proves my point that the hospital is the worst place to have a baby. Is it sometimes necessary to transfer to the hospital, or even to have a cesarean? Certainly, but those life-or-death cases are very, very rare. Do you think all elderly people should live at a hospital in case they suffer a heart attack? That would be silly. Yet, labor offers many more warning signs of things turning in an undesired direction, so there is time to transfer if necessary. It's not like at the hospital, the surgical team is just standing by every laboring woman's bedside, scrubbed clean and suited up for surgery, with the OR clean and available, and the team of nurses ready and waiting, just in case something should go wrong. If there is a need to transfer, the midwife usually calls when the parents are getting in the car and leaving home, and likely they will arrive at the hospital before the surgeon and OR are even ready for them. Cases like this, however, will make parents LESS likely to transfer, worsening the situation if there is a true medical emergency. Going to the hospital is so dangerous, it becomes a last ditch, desperate effort when pretty much all other options have been exhausted. It ought not be like that. Women should make the choice to birth at home because of preference, not because going to the hospital is such a dangerous option.

Click here to read about another case of a newborn baby being stolen from the parents by government officials at the hospital.

This post is not about the question of home vs. hospital birth. It is about government overstepping their bounds and abusing their power to prove a point, intimidate, coerce, harass, and injure (both physically, and emotionally). 

What are your thoughts on this?

Some interesting vaccine links

Please check out the information presented on the websites below. Whether you are for or against vaccines, you owe it to your child to make an educated decision, rather than to leave his/her wellbeing in the hands of a third party who has a vested interest in "modern" medicine.

Bovine Derived Materials Used in Vaccine Manufacturing

Vaccines that contain bovine-derived (cow) materials: DTaP, HiB, Hepatitis A, Twinrix (Hep A+HepB), Polio, Prevnar and adult pneumonia vaccines. And remember: All of these are given in multiple doses, usually 5 shots of each per child. The FDA says admits that the serum and cells just might contain a BSE agent (suspected to cause Mad Cow).


Aborted Fetal Vaccines

Chart of vaccines that have human cell lines: Polio, Hep A, chickenpox, MMR, rabies, shingles vaccines.

Study Confirms Link Between Autism and Use of Cells From Abortions in Vaccines

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."

Important information regarding miscarriage

First of all, I would like to say that I will make every effort to be very sensitive about such a painful subject. I myself have spontaneously miscarried twice, once just days after finding out I was pregnant, and once around 8 or 10 weeks. The second time, I actually passed a little sac with the baby and all, and it was heartbreaking. I understand the heart of a mom who has suffered miscarriage, and I am in no way trying to be insensitive. I did not need a D&C either time, and suffered no ill after-effects.

This subject has weighed on my mind since a young lady (an old school acquaintance of my husband) contacted me through my blog to ask my advice. She had been told by her doctor that she had a blighted ovum, and needed a D&C. Her question was whether I would recommend the procedure or not.

Ever since then, I have wanted to share the information I found on my blog here, because I think this affects many women. Every time I set out to write about it, someone would write to me saying they either were having or just had a miscarriage, asking for my advice and/or prayers. I receive about a dozen emails a day from readers all over the world asking me all sorts of things, but the last thing I wanted was for them to think I was singling them out and addressing them indirectly through a blog post. Nothing could be further from the truth. My goal with this post is simply to present information so that women who find themselves in this situation in the future can make their own, informed decisions.

Before I responded to my husband's childhood friend, I spent several hours that night researching the subject on the internet. What I found was shocking. I had never been in favor of routinely performing D&Cs after miscarriage. A friend of mine once was thought to have miscarried, because she was early on and had a period just a few days after finding out she was pregnant. She was told by the doctor that there was no heart beat and that she needed a D&C because her body was not naturally expelling the baby, but she waited for weeks for it to happen naturally, thinking her baby was dead that whole time. Lo and behold, weeks later it was found out that she was still pregnant, and the baby is now a healthy 4 year old.

When faced with a miscarriage, a woman has three choices, called expectant management, medical management, and surgical management. Expectant management means the mother does nothing and waits for her body to spontaneously expel the baby, which in very rare cases could take weeks. Medical management is taking certain drugs to induce labor and/or cause the shedding of the uterine lining (these are higher doses of the same drugs as "morning after"pills and birth control pills). Surgical management is usually carrying out a D&C - the cervix is mechanically dilated and the womb scraped out. It is the same procedure as early abortion. In cases of an ectopic pregnancy, sometimes the fallopian tube is surgically removed.

Even in cases of absolutely certain miscarriage, a routine D&C is dangerous business. It could lead to severe complications such as a punctured uterus, but even when it goes well, the uterine lining will have been stripped to the point where another pregnancy is not safe for several months following, after the uterus has had a chance to build a layer thick enough to sustain a new pregnancy. Unless the mother has a fever and is showing signs of infection, or is losing dangerous amounts of blood, there is no reason to do a D&C, and it is only every risky. Of course, doctor use fear to try to push this procedure, as they do with most anything relating to obstetrics. There just isn't a whole lot of work or money in doing things naturally.

That aside, I do not believe that most cases of miscarriage are really "absolutely certain". During the first trimester, no ultrasound or doppler can ever with 100% certainty say that the baby has died based on the fact that no heart beat was detected. A much more reliable test would be to check the mother's hcg levels twice within a span of several days, and see if the levels have dropped (which would indicate a miscarriage).

What I found so shocking in my research into this subject is how many times women are wrongly diagnosed with a blighted ovum. Sometimes, it is just because the person doing the exam does not know how to use the equipment very well, the dates are off, or the woman has a tilted uterus (this is very common), all of which could lead to there being "no heart beat". In other cases, doctors are simply misinformed, such as telling a woman that a blighted ovum means she was never really pregnant and there never was a baby, when in reality there was a fertilized ovum, but for whatever reason it did not survive. This may seem like an insignificant detail, but for Bible believing Christians it means that they had a child whom they will meet when they get to Heaven.

In fact, there is a whole website dedicated to this subject, The Misdiagnosed Miscarriage. There is much great information, and stories of women who were diagnosed wrongly.

I am sure that most women are diagnosed correctly. Nevertheless, I have felt greatly urged to share this information. If your feelings were hurt or you are upset by this post, I sincerely apologize. Every mother who has miscarried struggles with guilt and the question "Did I do anything to cause this?" The last thing I want to do is contribute to that. At the end of the day, all any of us can do is try our best, to the best of our knowledge.

Court-ordered Cesareans

In keeping with my last post - have you ever thought about what happens when an expectant mother and her physician disagree about what course of medical interventions are necessary? What if the doctor wants to do a Cesarean, and mom thinks it is unnecessary? I mean, we do KNOW that 1 in 3 women do NOT need to have major abdominal surgery in order to deliver their baby. What if the mother does not want to be sliced open and risk her life and health and that of the baby just to fit the doctor's schedule better?

Wonder no more. Just search Google for the term "court ordered cesarean sections" and you will read one bizarre case after another. While such cases are certainly the exception and not the norm, it is not because courts are not all too happy to order them, but because most Moms in labor cave in long before the issue becomes a legal matter. 90% of requests for court-ordered Cesareans are granted, and the majority of those within a matter of hours.

There have been cases of doctors being deputized by the local sheriff over the phone so the doctor would then legally be able to apprehend the mother before she could leave the hospital against medical advice. Court proceedings are usually held right in the labor room, with court-appointed attorneys representing the unborn child and no such representation for the mother.

Some good books that deal in part with this subject are "Pushed" and "Born in the USA".

This is such a complex issue because no legislation in the world can ever ensure both the mother's autonomy to make decisions concerning her health care, and the baby's well-being. If it the government's job to make sure women take proper care for their unborn children, where would the line be drawn? What about mothers with unhealthy habits such as smoking/drinking? What about those who do not eat enough during pregnancy because they worry about their figure? What about women in the workforce who may not be getting enough rest or proper nutrition?

This leads to the logical inconsistency of rulings such as that of the Utah Supreme Court, that the state's criminal homicide statute applies to unborn children at all stages of development, yet exempts the killing of a fetus during an abortion. And while the decisions in Roe v. Wade clearly state that the unborn are not human persons, and imply no ethical duty on anyone to rescue them, contradictory legislation has been passed. A new federal law signed by President Bush on April 1, 2004, makes it a separate and distinct federal crime to end the life of a fetus—defined as “a member of the species [H]omo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”— during a violent attack on the mother. Here again, though, prosecution is specifically excluded when a legal abortion is performed. Pregnant women in South Dakota who abuse alcohol or other drugs now face involuntary detention in treatment facilities, and a law in Wisconsin allows juvenile court judges to intervene on behalf of the unborn to detain and restrict the liberty of such mothers. In 2003, Regina McKnight, a homeless drug addict with an IQ of 72, who abused cocaine during pregnancy and whose child was stillborn, lost a bid in the United States Supreme Court to reverse her conviction. She is now serving a 12-year prison sentence for homicide.

Certainly, as a Bible-believing Christian, I have no doubts whatsoever that aborting an unborn child at any time is murder, and should be punished as such. But I find it ridiculous that the abortion crowd do not seem to see the difference between somebody who intentionally wants to kill their child and somebody who does not want to "treat" a real or perceived medical issue the way the doctor sees fit. God causes the child to grow in the womb, and He knows a lot more about it than the doctor. No doctor in the world would ever have as much loving concern for an unborn child than its mother who has been looking forward to meeting her child. There is a big difference between intentionally killing somebody and situations taking their own, natural course, between somebody who wants to harm their child and somebody who wants to protect it the way they see most fit. No mother has ever refused a Cesarean because they wanted their child to die, but because they wanted what they thought was best for him/her.

Personally, I would most certainly seek the best available medical options to ensure the health and wellbeing of my children, but that decision should ultimately be mine and mine only to make.

Following are some cases to get you thinking. There is not doubt whatsoever in my mind that if you are enjoying a low-risk pregnancy, midwife-attended home birth is the best choice because you as the mother are respected, and the decisions and responsibilities are left in your hands.


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


Angela Carder struggled with cancer since the age of 13. After years of remission, in 1987 she decided to get married and have a baby. From conception, Ms. Carder made it perfectly clear to her treating obstetrician at George Washington University Hospital: she wanted to be sure her own health was not compromised because of her pregnancy. Sadly, during the 25th week of her pregnancy, she was diagnosed with a lung tumor. Her doctors said that the baby was too premature to have a good chance of survival, and that she would have to wait until her 28th week. Fully knowing the increased risks to her pregnancy, they agreed on a treatment schedule of chemotherapy and radiation to prolong her life. When her condition deteriorated the next day, it never even occurred to her doctors to intervene in an attempt to save the fetus.

Ms. Carder lapsed into unconsciousness. Her parents, husband and medical team all agreed that she would not have wanted any intervention, but the hospital administrators disagreed. The hospital was concerned because the fetus was potentially viable, so it petitioned the court for an order to determine what was best for the fetus. The hasty hearing at the hospital focused only on the fetus’ chance of survival. The court ordered that she be given a Caesarean section and a staff obstetrician grudgingly agreed to perform the surgery, because her treating doctors refused. In the meantime, Ms. Carder came to and was informed of the court ordered cesarean by the staff obstetrician. When she was told that she might die from surgery, Angela Carder said over and over, “I don't want it done.” Despite this, a quickly assembled panel of the appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision, and the hospital charged forward with surgery, against the patient’s clearly expressed wishes.

The baby died within two hours of delivery, and Angela Carder lasted another two days. There is no doubt that the surgery hastened her death.

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

Washington, D.C. - 1986

A 19-year-old college student was admitted to labor and delivery at 1:45 a.m. experiencing normal contractions; her membranes had ruptured two days earlier at noon. By 11:00 a.m. she was 7 cm dilated but had made no further progress by 10:30 that evening. Because an external electronic fetal monitor was attached, she had to lie in bed, on her left side, for extended periods of time. When she asked to be allowed to walk around to help with her natural delivery, she was advised that hospital regulations and city statutes required her to remain in bed on the monitoring device. The chief of obstetrics examined the patient at noon the following day and reported that there was no evidence of infection or other abnormality. Later that evening the resident in charge wanted to administer pitocin to help speed up the delivery, but he would not do so without her consent to a cesarean delivery should he deem it advisable She refused and requested that she be allowed to continue her natural childbirth in accordance with her Muslim religious principles. Shortly thereafter the physician telephoned a local judge, who convened a hearing at the hospital to determine whether to order the section. The judge appointed attorneys for the parents and the fetus; the hospital’s attorney was also present. The parents were not given an opportunity to confer with their attorney before the hearing, nor were they able to secure the services of a medical expert to counter the testimony of the hospital’s physician. A fourth-year obstetrics and gynecology resident testified that he thought the fetus was in danger of infection because of the length of time since the patient’s membranes had ruptured. On cross-examination, he admitted that there was no objective evidence of any fetal distress. Nevertheless, at 1:05 a.m. the judge ordered surgical intervention. The parents attempted to appeal the ruling but at 2:08 a. m. two appellate justices affirmed the judge’s order. The cesarean delivery was immediately performed; no infection or injury to the fetus was discovered.

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

January 1996

After having a Cesarean Section with her third birth, Laura Pemberton, a born-again Christian who believes in the blessing of children, wanted to attempts a VBAC with her fourth child. There was no physician in the city where she lived that was willing to take her on, so she decided to have a midwife-attended home birth instead.

Please click here to read what happened after that. The news report fails to mention that when Mrs. Pemberton was transported back to the hospital against her will, the sheriff who "arrested" her tied her legs together on the gurney because she was dilated to 7 cm at this point and he was worried that she might give birth naturally before they had a chance to cut her open.

It should also be mentioned that after this experience, Mrs. Pemberton moved to a different state, where she has had four unattended home births since then, one including twins.

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

March 2009

Samantha Burton (mother of two young children) had developed signs of miscarriage early in her pregnancy, and was ordered to permanent bed rest by the hospital. She objected, stating that with two children to support, permanent bed rest wasn't possible. When she asked to be discharged or transfered to another hospital, the hospital REFUSED the request because "it was not in the best interest of the fetus," essentially committing Ms. Burton involuntarily to their care.

The move was upheld by the Circuit Court of Leon County who, in addition to committing her against her will, ordered her to undergo any and all medical treatments deemed necessary by the "treating physician of her unborn fetus" to save her fetus, holding that "the ultimate welfare of the fetus overrode Ms. Burton's constitutional right to make medical decisions for herself."

After three days of forced medical confinement, doctors performed an emergency Cesarean section on Ms. Burton and discovered her fetus had already died in utero. She was released shortly after the surgery.

Read more here.

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.

Vaccines and Population Control

We do not allow any of our children to be vaccinated. This decision was not based on emotion, but on studying the issue in depth over the course of several months.

I am well aware of the reactions this causes in some people. Ironically, those who have accused me/us of being irresponsible and crazy have themselves never educated themselves on the subject, other than maybe asking their child's doctor about it (who obviously has a vested interest in this issue).

This post is not intended to conclusively show how and why vaccines are detrimental, because that would take too long. I hope to expose several problems with vaccines in different posts over the next few months.

Today, I would like to draw attention to the fact that as parents, we really do not know what our children are being injected with, some of which will stay in their blood stream for the rest of their lives. I do not trust our government with its anti-God agenda and our modern medical establishment that knows next to nothing about health with my child's lifelong wellbeing.

As a sidenote, I read an interesting statistic this week. It said that the number 1 cause of unnatural death worldwide is being murdered by one's government. Shocking, isn't it? It also went on to say that while there have been thousands of dictatorships worldwide throughout history, there have been less than 10 nations who have enjoyed freedoms like the ones the United States had when the country was founded. Sadly, our freedoms are falling by the wayside quickly as a fabricated "war on terror" is ushering in a one-world government that will oppress humans worldwide, but I do believe that we are still the freest and therefore greatest nation on the face of the earth today.

This is an interestig article about the WHO's mass tetanus vaccination program in the 1990s in developing countries. It raised suspicions because only women of child-bearing age were vaccinated. After the vials were tested, it was found out that they were contaminated with hCG, a hormon women produce in order to sustain their pregnancy. After being vaccinated with it, women then developed anti-hCG, with the result of repeated miscarriages due to the anti-hCG in their blood stream.

The following is a video clip by Alex Jones on the same subject:



Parents, please think twice before blindly subjecting your children to vaccines without doing any research. The government does NOT have your best interest at heart.