Saturday, September 16, 2017

Eliminating Downs Syndrome or eradicating the people with Downs Syndrome?

Iceland has claimed that they have eliminated what causes Downs syndrome, while not actually sharing the truth, that in fact they have eradicated the people with Downs syndrome.  Did you know that this is systematic eugenics.  In America and Iceland and MANY OTHER countries people have targeted people groups because of their location? YES! There is a systematic eugenic plan to take out the preborn for any reason, specifically sickness and through genetic testing.  This article talks not only about the starters of such a view but also the medical eugenics that has been tolerated by a so called "helpful" view for families!

Monday, September 11, 2017


Is abortion a sin?  Many Christians say that they are personally against abortion, they feel it is up to them i individual. If abortion is not a sin then the natural logic of such a conclusion is correct.

Yet if abortion is a sin then we are not allowed to suggest a choice for one to commit a sin is permissible as not for another because of choice.  God did not say if you feel like not obeying this law that I have set before you, it is your right to not obey and therefore you are intruding in my personal views as God.  No God never gave us an out with sin because of a "choice" and so why then do we justice such an act as a "personal view" rather than a morally flawed act against another.

Now speaking of "morally flawed act against another", does this mean that we are mad at a woman who had an this mean we don't believe that they can't be forgiven too? No... Does this mean that we shun a pregnant girl at a young age or a sick child in the womb or a child who has been conceived through rape or incest? NO!

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

New Technology!

I want to share with you a NaPro video by a wonderful pro life obgyn, Dr. Monique Ruberu.


Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Genetic (or Eugenic) Testing

 Image result for photo of eugenics
"Prenatal testing is a huge funnel that's wide at the top-- enticing and pressuring women and couples to agree to testing--and narrowly pointed toward eugenic abortion at the bottom."(meehanreports)

The foundation of genetic testing is not exactly what you would expect. Genetic testing is a way to test for different sicknesses in the preborn child.

Genetic tests unbeknownst to many are eugenically based. Genetic testing was praised by Frederick Osborn, the leader in the Eugenic movement after World War II.  Frederick Osborn was the man behind the curtain.  He came up with ideas to disguise his plan to annihilate the people group of the sick in the womb.  He greatly encouraged, "the influence of eugenics--a political ideology--on the science of genetics."  As society stood against the right to life, some came  together to contemplate how to change the world for the "utopian" society that they aspired to have, and  it caused medicine to falter, and even pro life medical people do not even know the trap they have been set up for.

As we learn more about Frederick Osborn, I must go back and share about Professor James Crow.  Professor James Crow was on the board of the American Eugenics Society.  His desire was to consistently implement eugenics into genetics. Professor James Crow was a consistent supporter to the eugenics movement with being the past president to two genetic groups.  There were other names who were admired such as Theodosius Dobzahansky with many other leaders. Frederick Osborn was wealthy and graduated from Princeton.  His passion was eugenics. says, "Osborn and his eugenics colleagues were deeply involved in efforts to prevent the births of people with disabilities. They encouraged the influence of eugenics--a political ideology--on the science of genetics. And they supported development of prenatal testing and eugenic abortion in the 1950s and 1960s. Prenatal testing is a huge funnel that's wide at the top-- enticing and pressuring women and couples to agree to testing--and narrowly pointed toward eugenic abortion at the bottom."

Osborn and the people he worked with had a passion to end the lives of sick children.  Osborn and his partners were influencing eugenics into the genetics of science!  They were huge proponents of abortion and prenatal testing.   He once told his colleagues in the American Eugenics Society: "The public will accept negative eugenics from the doctor in a way it would certainly not accept it from an organized but non-scientific movement." Or, as he later said, "Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics." "(19) His establishment connections helped him bring this about. As a trustee of a major foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Osborn wrote a 1940 memo on its funding of research in human biology. That included what he called a "small but fairly rounded program in medical genetics."(20) Around the same time, he wrote about a conference, funded by eugenics society members, of the "Committee on the Registration and Social Control of Subcultural and Defective Groups." The Rockefeller Foundation, a major funder of eugenics, was represented at the conference.(21) "

As we progress in our understanding about prenatal test,s I want us to dive into the underbelly of the eugenic movement and its strong supporters and the vocal hatred that now has been a part of the very life  for anyone who is walking through a sickness with your baby. says, "In The Republic, Plato endorsed infanticide under the euphemism of "put away": "...the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be." says, "English scientist Francis Galton invented the modern form of eugenics and in 1883 coined the actual word "eugenics" from Greek words that mean "well-born." He said eugenics "must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion." Alluding to his cousin Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, Galton claimed: "What Nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly."(6)

Friday, September 1, 2017

The Implications of a Prenatal Diagnosis on Obstetric and Neonatal Care

By Tracy Winsor, the co founder to a ministry that provides comprehensive support to parents carrying to term following a prenatal diagnosis.

"The infant diagnosed prenatally with a life-limiting disability which is considered to be lethal is not only vulnerable to abortion at diagnosis, but also vulnerable to medical neglect or futility care if carried to term and born alive.  

Sadly, the care of living infants with negative prognoses has been impacted by the medical community’s increasingly common perspective that abortion is a reasonable treatment option for infants identified prenatally as disabled.  Parents should understand that their decision to carry to term and what it says about their commitment to meet the basic needs of a medically fragile child may not in fact have any impact on the perspective of their medical providers.  

For those obstetricians, maternal fetal medicine specialists, and neonatologists who thought abortion was the best option, there may be the judgment that any care is futile because the baby will die anyway.  Disability bias can also impact the perspective of medical providers who may feel that the life of the frail infant is not worth saving because the baby’s life of disability is not worth living. In this environment, the willingness to offer and/or provide basic care in support of the life of a baby with a significant prenatal diagnosis must be asserted by the parents.

Following is a list of elements of basic care that may be withdrawn from a prenatally diagnosed baby:

  • A full range of treatment options associated with maternal complications of pregnancy such as pre-eclampsia may not be offered when the prognosis for baby is considered poor based on a prenatal diagnosis.  Rather than offering hospitalization for instance, parents may be encouraged to deliver early.

  • Commitment to a live birth cannot be assumed even if articulated by the parents.  Parents who want routine fetal monitoring during labor and delivery, and the option of a c-section in the event of fetal distress often must advocate for such to include changing medical providers and hospitals if necessary.

  • Typical resuscitative measures offered to infants not identified as disabled by way of a prenatal diagnosis are often not offered routinely for babies with a serious prenatal diagnosis.  Again, parents who want support for the frail baby who isn’t breathing well at birth and is perceived as having a condition “incompatible with life” will need to advocate for such.

  • Infants with genetic syndromes characterized as “incompatible with life” and/or serious brain anomalies are often not offered surgical treatment options for conditions such as heart defects or omphaloceles.  A handful of children’s hospitals around the country are willing to look past the diagnosis, and instead evaluate the individual child so as to best determine if such a surgery would be beneficial.

  • Lastly, feeding and hydration may be presented to parents as prolonging the inevitable if a living infant has a genetic syndrome characterized as “incompatible with life” and/or a serious brain anomaly, etc.  Similarly, such infants being fed who do not tolerate feeding well or for whom a specific formula is problematic for instance may be characterized as having an inability to be fed.  There may be no evaluation to determine if medications for reflux and/or a different feeding option (such as a nasogastric tube) and/or a different formula are more favorable for that baby.

Both birth planning and the establishment of a plan of care for medically fragile babies being carried to term following a prenatal diagnosis is imperative for parents.  Even if there is the expectation that a baby will not survive to birth or that a baby will only live briefly after birth, it is important that parents carrying to term have informed consent regarding the options they have for care during pregnancy, at labor and delivery, and in the newborn period.  While not all babies with serious prenatal diagnoses can be saved, parents have the fundamental right to direct the care of their babies no matter how frail or how brief their lives might be."

For more information regarding birth planning and perinatal hospice, visit

If the Medical Field only Knew.....

The medical field is to fight for life.  Medicine has been deceived that somehow "caring" and "fighting" for life means ending the life of the patient by taking their life, in that name of "ending their suffering."  Sick children can't be defined by their sickness because the automatic response will be treating such people from a utilitarian and eugenics view.  This view causes the natural fall out of certain people groups for medicine and government to desire to end their lives not "eradicate" the disease. Charlie Gard was taken off of life support through the government's lack of understanding to know that life is to be fought for due to innate value.  And isn't the point of medicine to care for people not to harm?  Children being sick and their lives possibly seeming without hope is NO reason to purposely take their lives.