Posted in Believe it or not!, Health, Who's the mom here?, Womanhood

The Anti-Woman “President”

Not long after the Planned Parenthood abortion business endorsed our presumed president in his bid for re-election, the White House pledged its opposition to a common sense bill that would ban sex-selection abortions. Why? Because the “president” is more concerned about subjecting abortion practitioners to prosecution than targeting gendercide.

“The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters,” the White House said.

Private family matters? Personal medical decisions?

In China and India, millions of baby girls are killed in the womb, in grisly infanticides, or even sold not long after their birth by couples who don’t want a girl baby and can’t try for another child under the one-child policy. Those practices have resulted in a huge gender imbalance in those nations.

But when pro-life advocates in the United States sought to prevent such practices here, our “president” told us it’s not our business whether girls are killed specifically because they are girls since it’s a “private family matter.”

What kind of family makes murder a private family matter, anyway?

Read more here.

Posted in Believe it or not!, Health, Inspiring, Photos, Scripture

Sunday Scriptures – Today

English: Joshua commanding the sun to stand still
Joshua commanding the sun to stand still (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Now then, just as the Lord promised,
he has kept me alive for forty-five years
since the time he said this to Moses,
while Israel moved about in the desert.

So here I am today, eighty-five years old!

I am still as strong today as the day Moses sent me out;
I’m just as vigorous to go out to battle now as I was then.

— Joshua 14:10-11

Posted in Believe it or not!, Health, Who's the mom here?, Wisdom, Womanhood

Our Tax Dollars at Work

BREAKING: The House of Representatives failed to pass a bill that would ban sex-selection abortions. With a 246-168 vote, the bill did not obtain the two-thirds majority necessary to pass. Republicans voted for the bill on a 226-7 margin while Democrats opposed banning sex-selection abortions on 161-20 vote margin.

The bill would have made it a federal offense to knowingly do any one of the following four things: (1) perform an abortion, at any time in pregnancy, knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child; (2) use force or threat of force . . . for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection abortion; (3) solicit or accept funds to perform a sex-selection abortion; or (4) transport a woman into the U.S. or across state lines for this purpose. However, a woman upon whom a sex-selection abortion is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable for any violation.

Just thought you ‘d like to be up to date on what our options have become. Not life, of course, not if we’re female, that is.

Posted in Health, Inspiring

Unchained and Lyrical

An amazingly poignant post from a young lady who had fought an uphill battle against Lyme disease for so many years . . . to find the thrill of victory. Savor the sweetness here . . .

dizzygrl05's avatarI'm in the Lyme-Light

Those are the words that my LLMD said to me last week. “We’re finally winning.” I can’t even begin to describe what hearing that was like. I heard the words; I smiled. But those fantastic words didn’t sink in right away. I felt… like I was staring down a beautiful cliff, unsure of what I was doing there and what I should be feeling – awe from the spectacular view or fear from being so close to the edge.

I was talking to another Lyme friend of mine recently about how hard it is to trust those words I was told. Here’s a snippet of what I said, “I haven’t ever lost hope of recovery, but somehow this feels different now. It’s not sometime in the future. It’s starting right now. I want to accept that gratefully, but I’m still protecting myself from the possibility I’ll get worse again. It’s…

View original post 433 more words

Posted in Believe it or not!, Blessings of Habit, Health, Photos, Who's the mom here?, Womanhood

Not Enough Mothers’ Days!

Flag

Do you know any Japanese people? If you do, I’m surprised, because they’re an endangered people group.

The United Nations statistics show that, every day there are 720 fewer Japanese in the world. By the end of this year, Japan will be missing 200,000, and by the year 2050, Japan will have lost nearly a quarter of its population.

The reason? Embracing materialism and the Culture of Death.

Japan is invaluable to demographic scientists as a demographic laboratory because it is practically a closed system. She allows almost no emigration or immigration. It is a  99% ethnically homogenous population, and in that way can give a rare glimpse of the future of the entire world.

Japan’s problem is simple: Her women have virtually stopped having babies.

The total fertility rate (TFR) is the number of children each woman must have in order for a nation to have a stable population. For an advanced nation like Japan, where infant mortality is low, the TFR is a low 2.1 children per woman. However, Japan’s population was the first in the world to dip beneath replacement fertility half a century ago (in 1960), and its TFR has continued to plunge. It now stands at an astonishing 1.1 children per woman (half that required for replacement), and will continue to decline to 0.6 children per woman by 2050.

When women stop having babies, the result is unavoidable: the nation’s population briefly peaks, then declines. Japan’s population reached a maximum of 126.5 million two years ago, and is now one million less. This downward trend will spiral and accelerate until the nation is losing a million people a year.

A declining native population is not inherently a critical problem if a steady stream of immigrants is helping to replace the younger age groups. However, Japan has always been extremely reluctant to allow foreigners to live within its borders, and makes it nearly impossible for them to live and work there. Less than 1% of foreigners who wish to live in Japan pass the mandatory language proficiency exams.

The result is that Japan is severely pinched at both ends of the age spectrum. The numbers are stark in their ominous simplicity:

  • The number of Japanese children under 15 has declined for thirty consecutive years, from 24% of the population to its current 13%. Japan now has fewer children than it did a century ago, in large part to the forty million abortions it has suffered since it legalized the practice under the Eugenic Protection Law in 1949. Due to the strong government push for women to enter the workforce in response to the economic downturn, fully 70 percent of single Japanese women now say they do not want to be married. The Japanese “business first” mentality sees having a child as a career-ending decision.
  • The number of people over 65 has increased for sixty consecutive years, from a mere 5% of the population in 1952 to its current 23%, and is projected to increase to 43% by 2050. Japan is currently the oldest nation in the world, with an average age of 45, and this will increase to an incredible 60 years old by 2050.
  • Thus, Japan has the greatest percentage of people over 65 of any nation in the world, and the lowest percentage of children under 15 of any nation in the world.

The combination of a shrinking young population and an exploding elderly population inevitably has profound economic implications.

There are fewer and fewer workers supporting more and more retirees. In 1950, there were ten Japanese workers supporting each retired person. Now, there are just 2.5 workers supporting each retiree, compared to China’s 8:1 ratio. By 2050, each Japanese worker will have to support one retired person, the lowest worker/retiree support ratio in the world.

Japan’s inverted population pyramid (more elderly than young) means more pension and health care spending. Baby boomers are retiring now, and by 2025, 70% of government spending will be consumed by debt service and social security spending.

Fewer young people means less tax-derived income for the government. More spending plus less tax revenue means an increase in the public debt.

People concerned about the economy delay marriage and childbearing, and so a kind of demographic negative feedback loop, or “vicious cycle,” continues.

For  SEVENTEEN YEARS, the Japanese government has tried everything to get women to have more babies, including greatly increased child care benefits, but without any result. In 2006, the “Year of the Dog,” former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi even tried calling for “lots of puppies” implying that labor pains would then be easy. The government has even gone so far as to pay for so-called “speed dating.”

But once you convince people to be addicted to things and tell them for decades that babies are a burden, that they interfere with your wants and your needs, and they are bad for the environment, your nation is doomed. No nation in history has EVER recovered from a total fertility rate as low as Japan’s.

The Lesson

What can we learn from the ongoing, slow-motion Japanese disaster?

1.  Just as Japan is a closed system, so is the world.

2.  Just as Japan’s population leveled out and began to plunge, so will the world’s, and very soon.

3.  This will lead to gigantic economic consequences and human suffering on a scale never before known.

I wish a Happy Mother’s Day to those who value it!

And read more here.

Posted in Believe it or not!, Health, Who's the mom here?, Womanhood

Is This Happening in the USA? YES.

More from Michael Farris:

I am not content to sit on the sidelines while the government gradually usurps the very essence of parental rights.

I hope you share my determination.

We need to stand with people like Scott and Jodi Ferris (obviously no relation to someone named Farris).

Here’s their story: Jodi went into labor a bit earlier than she had expected—and the baby was coming rapidly. Given their location and other factors, the midwife they had hoped would deliver the baby at their home encouraged them to get in an ambulance and head to the hospital.

Their baby, whom I will call “Annie,” was born in the ambulance in the parking lot of the Hershey Medical Center—a government hospital in Pennsylvania. Hospital personnel arrived very quickly and took charge of both baby and mom.

As any mother would do, Jodi immediately began to ask the nurses and attendants how her baby was doing. The hospital staff was utterly unresponsive. When they started to give Jodi an injection, she asked what it was and what it was for. They gave her vague answers like, “It’s just to help.”

Only after giving her the injection of oxytocin did they tell her what it was and then asked, “You aren’t allergic to that are you?”

Jodi persisted in asking about Annie. No one would tell her anything other than “she’s in good hands and you’ll be able to see her soon.” Eventually a doctor told her that Annie scored a 9 on a physical exam applied to newborns known as the APGAR test. A score of 8 or higher is considered healthy. (It is unclear when the score was given since she was in the ambulance at birth.) But shortly after this a different doctor told Jodi that Annie was “very sick” and would need to stay in the hospital. This doctor’s comments were accompanied by an explanation of his disdain for midwives saying, “Too many people think they know what they’re doing.”

About an hour later, another hospital staffer finally brought Annie to Jodi and said, “The baby is doing good. She will be able to go home in no time.”

Legal Requirements?

However, several hours later yet another staffer told Scott and Jodi that Annie would have to stay in the hospital for 48 to 72 hours for observation. Even though they persisted in asking why Annie would need to stay, his only answer was that “the law requires us to keep the baby for 48 hours.”

When they asked for a reference to this supposed law, he answered, “you’ll have to get that from risk management.” (By the way, there is no such law in Pennsylvania.)

The risk management staffer eventually told them that even though they saw nothing wrong with the baby, they just like “to keep babies like this” for 48–72 hours. The Ferrises were told that Annie would not be released for this period since it was “unsafe for her to leave the hospital.”

Eventually, a risk management staffer admitted that the risk that was being managed was not the health of Annie but the risk that the hospital might get sued if something went wrong after she was discharged. Ultimately, risk management said that they would be satisfied with a 24-hour stay and that Jodi and Scott could remain with the baby overnight.

You have been Accused

Late in the afternoon, a government social worker named Angelica Lopez-Heagy came into Jodi’s room announcing that she was there to conduct an investigation. Jodi asked to know the allegations. The social worker claimed that it would be against the law for her to show Jodi the allegations. Jodi replied that she would not be comfortable answering the questions if she couldn’t know the allegations.

Immediately the social worker proclaimed, “Since you’re not going to cooperate, I’ll just go and call the police and we can take custody of the baby.” Fearing that the social worker would carry out her threat, Jodi replied that she was willing to cooperate.

The social worker soon intimated that the issue was Jodi’s refusal to consent to medical treatment for the baby. Jodi replied that she had no idea why anyone would say that. The social worker claimed that she had refused to allow a Vitamin K shot for Annie. Jodi replied that no one had asked her about such a shot. Moreover, she had overheard hospital staffers saying that they had already given Annie such a shot.

Neither the social worker nor any hospital staffer ever gave Jodi or Scott any example of any medically necessary treatment that they had refused for Annie.

At this point, Scott left the hospital to tend to their older children who were staying with friends.

Ordering Tests

Shortly after this, the hospital asked to check Annie’s white blood cell count and to perform a strep test. Jodi agreed to the testing. Then the hospital demanded that they give a Annie shot for Hepatitis B. Jodi said that she would agree only if they tested her or Annie to see if either of them were positive. If so, then she was quite willing to have the shot for Annie.

The hospital claimed that they had forgotten about this earlier when it was still possible to test that day, and that they needed to give the shot anyway without any testing. When the social worker pressed her to make an immediate decision about this shot, Jodi asked her if they could simply wait until Scott got back before they decided.

Put yourself in Jodi’s shoes at this moment. You gave birth that morning in an ambulance. The hospital has made wild and conflicting claims about your baby’s health all day long. You are exhausted. You are in pain. Your husband has gone to check on your children. And a social worker who has threatened to take your baby into police custody is standing in your hospital room demanding that you make an immediate decision.

Jodi simply said, “Please can’t this wait until my husband gets back.”

The social worker renewed her threat. If Jodi would not answer her question right then, she would call the police. And then the social worker started adding conditions. She and Scott would have to agree to sign a safety plan before she could conclude her investigation. Jodi said that she wanted her husband and an attorney to look at the plan. She felt she was in no position to read such a document and really understand what she was being pressured to sign.

Thrown Out

And then the story turns ugly.

The social worker left the room and called the police.

Without a court order they took custody of Annie, immediately claiming that she was suffering from illness or injury—a patently false claim.

The social worker consented to the administration of the Hepatitis B shot even though no blood test had been done.

The police made Jodi Ferris get up out of her hospital bed and escorted her to the entrance—they were expelling her from the hospital because she had not signed the “safety plan.”

Scott met her at the entrance to the hospital. The police escorted them both off of the grounds of the hospital.

Jodi was told that she would be allowed to return every three hours to nurse the baby through the night.

Jodi and Scott were forced to spend the night that she had given birth in their car in the parking lot of a nearby Wal-Mart.

You read that right.

They kicked this mother out of the hospital, and in order to be close enough to feed her child, she had to sleep in the car.

To add insult to injury, Jodi was given access to Annie only sporadically and not every three hours.

Read more here.

Posted in Believe it or not!, Health, Who's the mom here?

DHS Appeals Stieler Medical Decision-Making Case!

by Michael P. Farris

Ken and Erin Stieler are the mom and dad of Jacob—who has been cancer-free since his PET scan in early July. He has had two clean PET scans since then—the most recent in January.

Despite all of this, the Michigan Department of Human Services continues to attempt to prosecute this family for medical neglect. If they succeed they will force Jacob to resume chemotherapy despite the fact that the drugs in question are not FDA approved (either for children in general or for this particular cancer). Moreover, these drugs do not promise anything close to a guaranteed cure. And, the FDA requires the drug manufacturers to disclose that these drugs cause new cancers to form, heart disease in children, failure to sexually mature, and many other serious side effects in some cases.

The Marquette County Probate Court has twice ruled against the Department. Yet, the department keeps on fighting against these parents.

Just this afternoon, the Department’s appeal was filed in the Michigan Court of Appeals. The irony is that the Department has alleged that this case should be expedited because the situation is urgent. If it was urgent, why did the Department wait 55 days from the initial hotline call until filing its complaint? Why did the Department and a consulting doctor call two local judges trying to influence them to prosecute the Stielers—despite the fact that such out-of-court calls are clearly unethical? These calls required the case to be re-assigned twice—wasting another two months.

If it was urgent, why did the Department ask for a continuance of the December trial date by almost a month? If it was urgent, when the Department lost why did it seek a motion for rehearing, a step that is rarely granted and which took another two months to resolve? And when they filed this motion for rehearing, why did they wait until the very last day—21 days—before filing the motion? And when it came time to appeal, why did they wait until the 20th day—beating the deadline by a single day?

The Department’s actions prove that they don’t really believe in the medical urgency theory—they only believe in hassling parents that have the courage to tell them “no.”

Please commit to pray for this family and this case. And pray that Jacob will remain cancer free.

Read more here.