BILL'S TWITTER PAGE

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Lynch: States Can't 'Insist' a Man is a Man and a Woman is a Woman, If Person Feels Otherwise

Lynch: States Can't 'Insist' a Man is a Man and a Woman is a Woman, If Person Feels Otherwise

Lynch: States Can't 'Insist' a Man is a Man and a Woman is a Woman, If Person Feels Otherwise

By Susan Jones | May 10, 2016 | 6:20 AM EDT
Attorney General Loretta Lynch speaks at the Justice Department on Monday, May 9, 2016, after North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory's administration sued the federal government in defense of a state law that says people in public facilities must use the restroom that corresponds with their biological sex. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Justice Department is putting the feelings of transgenders -- men who think they are women and women who think they are men -- above the privacy rights of the vast majority of people who don't contest the biological facts of who they actually are.

"And what we must not do, what we must never do, is turn on our neighbors, our family members, our fellow Americans for something that they cannot control and deny what makes them human," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Monday.

"[N]one of us can stand by when a state enters the business of legislating identity and insists that a person pretend to be something or someone that they are not."
But Lynch was referring to people who, in fact, are pretending to be something that -- biologically -- they are not. A man "identifying" as a woman is not a biological woman. And likewise, a woman "identifying" as a man is not a biological man. Until now, when the federal government has determined that biological facts matter less than wishes and feelings.

Lynch announced a federal civil rights lawsuit against North Carolina because of the state's new law (HB-2), which requires transgender people in public facilities to use the restrooms consistent with their sex "as noted at birth," rather than the restrooms that fit their "gender identity."

"We are seeking a court order declaring HB-2's restroom restriction impermissibly discriminatory, as well as a statewide bar on its enforcement," Lynch announced. She said the Justice Department also retains the option of "curtailing federal funding to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina as this case proceeds."

This came hours after North Carolina sued the Justice Department "for their radical reinterpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which would prevent plaintiffs from protecting the bodily privacy rights of state employees while accommodating the needs of transgendered state employees."

Lynch accused North Carolina and its leaders of creating "state-sponsored discrimination against transgender individuals, who simply seek to engage in the most private of functions in a place of safety and security, a right taken for granted by most of us."

(Much of the outcry over this issue comes from people who are not confused about their gender "as noted at birth," and who also "simply seek to engage in the most private of functions in a place of safety and security." Many women, in particular, object to sharing restrooms with men who supposedly "identify" as women.)

Lynch said the federal civil rights lawsuit "is about a great deal more than bathrooms."

She even invoked the nation's "founding ideals," although it's unlikely that the nation's Founders ever envisioned the concept of "gender identity" as being open to interpretation.
In fact, the law invoked by Lynch -- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- does not explicitly include gender identity in its list of protected bases. It bars discrimination on the basis of "sex," a term that has been stretched over the years to include gender identity.
 
"This is about the dignity and the respect that we accord our fellow citizens and the laws that we as a people and as a country have enacted to protect them, indeed, to protect all of us," Lynch said on  Monday.

"And it's about the founding ideals that have led to this country haltingly, but inexorably, in the direction of fairness, inclusion, and equality for all Americans."


Lynch said North Carolina's "discriminatory" response to transgenders is no different than discrimination against blacks and homosexuals.

"Now, some of these responses reflect a recognizably human fear of the unknown and a discomfort with the uncertainty of change. But this is not a time to act out of fear. This is a time to summon our national virtues of inclusivity, of diversity, of compassion and open- mindedness.

"And what we must not do, what we must never do is turn on our neighbors, our family members, our fellow Americans for something that they cannot control and deny what makes them human.

"And this is why none of us can stand by when a state enters the business of legislating identity and insists that a person pretend to be something or someone that they are not or invents a problem that does not exist as a pretext for discrimination and harassment."

Addressing her fellow North Carolinians, Lynch refuted those who say the bathroom law protects vulnerable populations (children and women) from harm (sexual predators posing as transgenders to get into the ladies' room).

"That is just not the case," she insisted. "Instead, what this law does is inflict further indignity on a population that has already suffered far more than its fair share.

"This law provides no benefit to society, and all it does is harm innocent Americans. And instead of turning away from our neighbors, our friends, and our colleagues, let us instead learn from our history and avoid repeating the mistakes of our past."

The Obama-Clinton Three-Card Monte | LifeZette

The Obama-Clinton Three-Card Monte | LifeZette

The Obama-Clinton Three-Card Monte

The closer the email investigation gets to the truth, the more evidence seems to disappear

The hits just keep on coming as the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server continues — the sheer ridiculousness of the twists and turns of the case would be laughable if national security hadn’t been jeopardized in the process.
“It seems his emails were either destroyed or never turned over, adding yet another layer to the secrecy surrounding Pagliano’s role.”
On Monday, it was discovered that four years’ worth of emails from Clinton’s head IT specialist, Bryan Pagliano, could not be located, according to the State Department. How convenient, since Pagliano was the staffer in charge of setting up and maintaining Clinton’s private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
In March, Pagliano was granted immunity by the Justice Department in exchange for his testimony on the installment of the server. That means he has information the FBI wants — and likely knows he has, or else it would not have granted immunity.
“The department has searched for Mr. Pagliano’s email PST file and has not located one that covers the time period of Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” said Elizabeth Trudeau, a State Department spokesman.
The missing emails were discovered through a Freedom of Information Act request filed earlier in the year by the Republican National Committee, which asked for any and all emails sent to, or sent by, Pagliano during Clinton’s four-year tenure as secretary of state.
The missing emails call into question whether Pagliano ever had any official correspondence with Clinton, if he also used a private account, or if he deliberately deleted his email communications.
"Such records might shed light on his role in setting up Clinton's server, and why he was granted immunity by the FBI," said RNC Deputy Communications Director Raj Shah. "But it seems that his emails were either destroyed or never turned over, adding yet another layer to the secrecy surrounding his role."
What's more, the State Department was only able to locate email correspondence from Pagliano's time as a contractor after Clinton stepped down as secretary of state.
Now, as the FBI investigation is reportedly coming to a close, it appears as though the investigation has hit a dead end. Without the email correspondence between Pagliano and Clinton, it would be hard to prove why the server was installed — meaning that the FBI and the American people would have to take Clinton at her word. But the missing correspondence also implies guilt and indicates an intent to cover up wrongdoing.
However, the American people shouldn't hold their breath that the FBI will see the suspicious activity for what it is — again, it's the Clintons and the Obama administration we are talking about. Both groups involved have a long history of delaying investigations and conveniently losing evidence central to investigations into their less-than-ethical practices.
Throughout every step of the investigation, it has become clear the extent to which the Clintons will go to make sure that they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Typical behavior for the Clintons, who make sure to always have a fall man and to run out the clock on another scandal.

Feds Promote Rainbow Badges for Teachers, Staff at Public Schools to Identify as LGBT ‘Allies’

Feds Promote Rainbow Badges for Teachers, Staff at Public Schools to Identify as LGBT ‘Allies’

Feds Promote Rainbow Badges for Teachers, Staff at Public Schools to Identify as LGBT ‘Allies’

By Penny Starr | May 9, 2016 | 2:16 PM EDT
 
The federal government’s anti-bullying website posted a blog last month touting the OUT for Safe Schools program started by homosexual activists in the Los Angeles, Calif., public schools where “rainbow badges” are worn by teachers and staff to identify them as “allies” of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender students.

“School continues to be a dangerous place for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth,” said the April 19 blog, which was written by staff from the Los Angeles LGBT Center and the Department of Education.

The blog said that 30,000 rainbow badges were provided to Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) teachers, administrators and staff “to wear voluntarily that proudly identify themselves as allies and protectors of students who are LGBT.”

“Despite increased public acceptance of LGBT people in general, many school campuses remain toxic environments for LGBT students, contributing to higher rates of suicide, depression, homelessness and HIV infection,” Lorri L. Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles LGBT Center.

"Since its launch, OUT for Safe Schools has enriched the lives of both students and staff members in the Los Angeles Unified School District,” LAUSD’s Board President Steve Zimmer is quoted as saying in the blog. “A whopping 30,000 of our employees—representing one-third of LAUSD’s entire staff—pledged to be visible allies of LGBT students by wearing the rainbow-designed badges.

“I have worn mine every day—there is nothing I am more proud to wear,” Zimmer said. “I applaud my district for stepping up to the plate and keeping all of our schools a safer space.

“No child should ever be bullied, taunted or harassed simply because they’re different,” Zimmer said.
The blog also quoted an 18-year-old “self-identified” “genderqueer” graduate of a Los Angeles high school.

“These badges are a visible reminder to LGBT students that we are not alone, and for many, this reminder will quite literally save their lives,” Noah Jenkins said.

The blog said that the program has now expanded to be included in public schools in New York, Chicago, Boston, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, Duval County, Florida and Washington, D.C. – “reaching 2.5 million students in grades K-12.”

“The OUT for Safe Schools badges were part of a larger comprehensive effort by these districts to support LGBT students that includes training teachers and school staff, supporting (Gay Straight Alliance) GSA clubs, and working to engage parents and families to increase support,” the blog said.

What about Eugenics and Planned Parenthood? | Answers in Genesis

What about Eugenics and Planned Parenthood? | Answers in Genesis

What about Eugenics and Planned Parenthood?

by Dr. Georgia Purdom on 

Share: 
Life is precious—no matter how short or how impaired that life may be.
In 1915 a baby boy was born to Anna Bollinger. The baby had obvious deformities, and medical doctor Harry Haiselden decided the baby was not worth saving.1 The baby was denied treatment and died. The story became national news and the cruelty of eugenic practices became public knowledge.
The year 1915 seems far removed from our modern times, but the concept of eugenics is alive and well. In 2005, two doctors from the Netherlands published “The Groningen Protocol—Euthanasia in Severely Ill Newborns.”2 This protocol was published to help doctors decide whether or not a newborn should be actively killed based on the newborn’s disease and perceived quality of life.3
In this chapter we will explore historical and modern perspectives of eugenics, how Planned Parenthood has played a role in furthering the cause of eugenics in the past and present, and what the proper biblical perspective on these issues should be.

What Is Eugenics?

The term eugenics was first coined in 1883 by Francis Galton, father of eugenics and cousin of Charles Darwin. The term comes from the Greek roots eu (good) and genics (in birth) to communicate the idea of being well-born.
The ultimate goal of eugenics was to create a superior race of humans.4 Many adherents believed in evolution by natural selection, but that natural selection was moving too slowly in favoring the best and eliminating the worst.5 They also believed that charity in the form of taking care of the poor and sick was prohibiting natural selection from working properly and thus the need to intervene with artificial selection.6
Artificial selection was accomplished through two types of eugenics—positive and negative. Positive eugenics focused on increasing the “fit” through promoting marriages among the well-born and promoting those fit couples to have multiple children. Negative eugenics focused on decreasing the number of the “unfit” through prohibiting birth (birth control and sterilization) and segregation (e.g., institutionalization of the unfit, marriage restriction laws, and immigration restriction).

History of Eugenics

Although many people associate eugenics with the late 1800s and early 1900s, it is an ancient idea that was in practice long before it was called eugenics. The Law of the Twelve Tables (449 B.C.), which served as the foundation of Roman Law, states “Cito necatus insignis ad deformitatem puer esto,” which means, “An obviously deformed child must be put to death.”7 Both Plato and Aristotle supported this practice8 and it was not uncommon for infants to be exposed or left outside the home for a period of time to determine if they were fit enough to survive. The Romans wanted only the most fit for their future warriors.
Francis Galton
Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin, promoted eugenic beliefs.
Francis Galton, upon reading his cousin Charles’s book Origin of Species, 9 decided to apply the mechanisms of natural and artificial selection to man. He stated, “Could not the undesirables be got rid of and the desirables multiplied?”10 Galton promoted the ideas that human intelligence and other hard-to-measure traits such as behaviors were greatly influenced by heredity (not the environment, which was the popular mindset of the day).11He advocated for a program of positive eugenics. His book Hereditary Genius (1869) was well liked by Charles12 and had a great influence on the ideas presented in his bookDescent of Man (1871).13
In the early 1900s the eugenics movement became well established in the United States. The movement was well-funded by men like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Kellogg. Eugenic societies, conferences, research institutions, and journals gave a façade of real science to the study of eugenics. This was further promoted by eugenic departments and courses at the university level.
The American eugenics movement focused heavily on negative eugenics.14 Ten classes of social misfits were determined upon which programs of negative eugenics were applied.
First, the feebleminded; second, the pauper class; third, the inebriate class or alcoholics; fourth, criminals of all descriptions including petty criminals and those jailed for nonpayment of fines; fifth, epileptics; sixth, the insane; seventh, the constitutionally weak class; eighth, those predisposed to specific diseases; ninth, the deformed; tenth, those with defective sense organs, that is, the deaf, blind, and mute.15
All of these traits were thought to be inheritable.16 Ten percent of the American population was thought to fit into these broad, ill-defined categories (sometimes known as the “submerged tenth”).17 Many of those people were forcibly institutionalized in asylums for the “feebleminded and epileptic.” Although not stated in the list, those of “races” other than the Caucasian “race” would also, by the mere fact of ethnic background, be placed into one or more of these categories. Unfortunately, the eugenics movement in the United States heavily influenced Hitler and his scientists and, in return, many eugenicists and eugenic publications supported the horrifying practices of Hitler’s Nazi regime. Negative eugenic practices were even sanctioned by the American government.
Eugenics Tree
Logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921

Forced Sterilization

In 1907, Indiana enacted the first forced sterilization law. The law would be applied to “mentally impaired patients, poorhouse residents, and prisoners.”18 Over 30 states enacted sterilization laws, and between 60,000 and 70,000 people were forcibly sterilized between 1900 and 1970.19 Most forced sterilizations were performed after 1927. In 1927 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck20 (in Buck v. Bell) with justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stating, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime . . . society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”21

Immigration Restriction

The Immigration Act of 1924 set quotas on the number of people allowed into the United States from other countries. Lawmakers were heavily influenced by “scientific data” presented to them by high-ranking members of the eugenics movement.22

Marriage Restriction Laws

These laws (which varied by state) were designed to keep the Caucasian “race” pure. The laws prohibited “mixed race” marriages (i.e., Negro and Caucasian) but also marriages with those considered defective (e.g., blind).

What Was the Christian Response to Eugenics?

The Christian response to eugenics was mixed. The Christian apologist G.K. Chesterton condemned eugenics in his 1922 book Eugenics and Other Evils. He saw how eugenics was being used in Germany to support Nazi ideals.23
However, some pastors used their pulpits to promote eugenics. The American Eugenics Society sponsored a sermon contest in 1926. Of the five sermons I read online, all were filled with popular rhetoric from the eugenics movement with little scriptural support given for eugenics. The pastors seemed to have accepted the “science” of eugenics without analyzing it in light of the Bible.24 This is very similar to the modern situation in which many Christian pastors accept the “science” of evolution, promote the idea in their churches, and don’t analyze the conflicts between evolution and Scripture.

History of Planned Parenthood and Its Relationship to Eugenics

Margaret Sanger
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, promoted birth control as a means of controlling the “unfit” in society.
The name most commonly associated with Planned Parenthood is that of its founder Margaret Sanger. Margaret was born in 1879, the 6th of 11 children in a poor family, in New York.25 She was initially quite committed to the Catholic faith but eventually became very cynical in part due to the influence of her “free thinking” father.26 Margaret married into money and eventually became an active member of the Socialist Party. She was attracted to the party’s fight for “women’s suffrage, sexual liberation, feminism, and birth control.”27 Sanger also became a fan of the concepts promoted by Thomas Malthus (who also heavily influenced Charles Darwin in the development of the concept of evolution by natural selection). Malthus was concerned that the human population was growing too rapidly (especially the poor, diseased, and racially inferior) and would outgrow natural resources. The solution proposed by his followers, like Sanger, was to decrease and eliminate the “inferior” population through birth control (including sterilization and abortion).28 Sanger stated, “The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it.”29
Sanger became one of the foremost champions of birth control and not just for the benign reason of helping poor women who could not afford large families, but also for “the liberation of sexual desire and the new science of eugenics.”30 In 1921 she organized the American Birth Control League. In 1922 she published the book The Pivot of Civilizationwhich “unashamedly called for the elimination of ‘human weeds,’ for the cessation of charity, for the segregation of ‘morons, misfits, and the maladjusted’ and for the sterilization of ‘genetically inferior races.’ ”31 Sanger stated:
The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. . . . Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.32
Her magazine, The Birth Control Review, contained many articles authored by leading eugenicists of her day. Sanger openly endorsed the concepts and methods of race purification carried out by the Nazis.33 Sanger believed sex was an evolutionary force that should not be prohibited because of its ability to create genius.34 In 1942, the American Birth Control League became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA).

Modern Perspectives on Eugenics and Planned Parenthood

Eugenics became associated with the horrors of the Nazi regime in the 1940s and so its popularity in the public arena began to fade. In addition, much of the so-called “science” of eugenics was shown to be false by increased knowledge in the field of genetics. It became almost laughable to think that the eugenic-defined trait of “sense of humor” (no pun intended!) could be associated with a particular gene and/or somehow quantified.
However, eugenic concepts and the eugenic ideals of PPFA didn’t die. Edwin Black states, “While human genetics was becoming established in America, eugenics did not die out. It became quiet and careful.”35 The eugenic agenda today is not different in principle or goal but only in name and methods. Eugenicist Frederick Osborn in 1965 stated, “The term medical genetics has taken the place of the term negative eugenics.”36 Genetic databases filled with individual genetic identities could now generate precise family genetic profiles as opposed to the subjective determination of non-measurable traits by self or other family members stored on millions of index cards that filled eugenic institutions in the early 20th century. In recent years, many feared the adverse use of genetic identities and profiles when applying for jobs and insurance.37
James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, stated in 2003, “If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease. The lower 10 percent who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what’s the cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, ‘Well, poverty, things like that,’ It probably isn’t. So I’d like to get rid of that, to help lower the 10 percent.”38The idea of the “submerged tenth” is still alive and well in the 21st century.
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows parents who have embryos created for use in in vitro fertilization (IVF) to check for genetic disorders and chromosomal abnormalities before the embryos are implanted. The “defective” embryos are destroyed. PGD is also being used for sex selection (only babies of the desired sex are used for IVF), disability selection (e.g., deafness), and predisposition or late-onset disease selection (i.e., predispositions to cancer and late-onset diseases like Alzheimer’s).39 Embryos are destroyed if they are not the desired sex, will have a disability, or may have cancer or disease later in life. PPFA endorses prenatal diagnosis procedures and genetic counseling.40 Eugenic concepts of prohibiting the birth of the “unfits” is still popular in the 21st century.
Planned Parenthood still endorses many eugenic ideas. This should not be surprising as the PPFA website “History and Successes” page clearly states, “Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is one of the movement’s great heroes. Sanger’s early efforts remain the hallmark of Planned Parenthood’s mission. . . .”41 Sanger’s efforts advocated sterilization, abortion, and infanticide of “defectives” in the name of eugenics. Further indicative of the promotion of eugenics, PPFA endorses abortion of deformed babies:
From 1956 to 1962, hundreds of women in the U.S. and Europe who took the drug thalidomide while pregnant give birth to children missing arms and legs. Sherri Finkbine, an American mother of four who used thalidomide, is refused an abortion. More than 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the refusal. Mrs. Finkbine flees to Sweden for a safe, legal abortion. (The fetus is gravely deformed.) Her case and others involving women who have taken thalidomide convince many Americans that anti-abortion laws need reform.42
Thus, those infants who are “gravely deformed” should have been permitted to be eliminated according to PPFA. According to the American Life League, in 2006 PPFA was directly responsible (through its clinics) for 289,750 abortions.43 Thus, PPFA was responsible for almost 25 percent of the abortions estimated to have occurred in the U.S. in 2006.44
PPFA also still advocates for sexual liberation by encouraging the concept that sex and sexual desire is part of a normal, healthy lifestyle.45 These concepts are in line with Sanger’s view of sex, which she wrote about in a letter to her 16-year-old granddaughter: “Kissing, petting, and even intercourse are alright as long as they are sincere.”46 Alan Guttmacher, former president of PPFA stated, “We are merely walking down the path that Mrs. Sanger carved out for us.”47 How true!

Biblical Perspectives on Eugenics and Planned Parenthood

When we start with the truth of God’s Word, we see that eugenics and the ideas promoted by Planned Parenthood do not align with the Bible.

The Bible Shows That God Considers All People Equal

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).
And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth (Acts 17: (26a)).
God doesn’t care whether people have dark brown skin or light brown skin, whether they are deaf or have perfect hearing — God does not show partiality.

The Bible Shows That Life Is Precious to God

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis 1:26–27).
For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them (Psalm 139:13–16).
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16).
God created each of us individually and we are His image-bearers on earth. He loved us so much that He sent His Son Jesus to die for us so that we might have eternal life.

The Bible Shows the Importance of Caring for the Needy

You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. If you afflict them in any way, and they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry (Exodus 22:21–23).
Then the King will say to those on His right hand, “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me” (Matthew 25:34–36).
God commands us to care for people no matter what their affliction.

Conclusion

My friends John and Tina were told after 19 years of marriage that they were going to have a baby.48 They were very excited and then the news came that the baby might have a chromosomal abnormality. Tina shared with me:
Our doctor advised us multiple times to abort our baby because she was considered high risk for chromosomal issues. We were never swayed because we knew that this surprise little bundle was a gift from God. We experienced sheer ecstasy when our eyes beheld Eden Lanay for the first time. Our seven days with her will no doubt be the highlight of our entire lives [Eden was born with Trisomy 18, Edward’s Syndrome]. We are so grateful to God for blessing us beyond measure with our beautiful baby girl.49
John said:
As difficult as Eden’s death was, we cherish our time with her. My heart breaks for those who lose their child before birth due to miscarriage or abortion. They have missed out on a marvelous experience with a new life.
The seven days we had with Eden were more glorious than I can describe. I will hold on to those precious memories for the rest of my life.50
Life is precious—no matter how short or how impaired that life may be. Contrary to the ideas supported by eugenics and Planned Parenthood, all human life has value because it comes from the Life Giver.