The Biden Administration’s 1st act: Nix the National Sanctity of Human Life Day

Jan 20, 2021 |
National Sanctity of Human Life Day

National Sanctity of Human Life DayIn his first hour as President of the United States, Joe Biden called for national unity. In his second hour, he eliminated the National Sanctity of Human Life Day from the White House website.

Here is what the expunged proclamation from his predecessor said:

Every human life is a gift to the world.  Whether born or unborn, young or old, healthy or sick, every person is made in the holy image of God.  The Almighty Creator gives unique talents, beautiful dreams, and a great purpose to every person.  On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we celebrate the wonder of human existence and renew our resolve to build a culture of life where every person of every age is protected, valued, and cherished.

This month, we mark nearly 50 years since the United States Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.  This constitutionally flawed ruling overturned State laws that banned abortion, and has resulted in the loss of more than 50 million innocent lives.  But strong mothers, courageous students, and incredible community members and people of faith are leading a powerful movement to awaken America’s conscience and restore the belief that every life is worthy of respect, protection, and care.  Because of the devotion of countless pro-life pioneers, the call for every person to recognize the sanctity of life is resounding more loudly in America than ever before.  Over the last decade, the rate of abortions has steadily decreased, and today, more than three out of every four Americans support restrictions on abortion.

Since my first day in office, I have taken historic action to protect innocent lives at home and abroad.  I re-instituted and strengthened President Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Policy, issued a landmark pro-life rule to govern the use of Title Ten taxpayer funding, and took action to protect the conscience rights of doctors, nurses, and organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor.  My Administration has protected the vital role of faith-based adoption.  At the United Nations, I made clear that global bureaucrats have no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that protect innocent life.  Just a few months ago, our Nation also joined 32 other countries in signing the Geneva Consensus Declaration, which bolsters global efforts to provide better healthcare to women, protect all human life, and strengthen families.

As a Nation, restoring a culture of respect for the sacredness of life is fundamental to solving our country’s most pressing problems.  When each person is treated as a beloved child of God, individuals can reach their full potential, communities will flourish, and America will be a place of even greater hope and freedom.  That is why it was my profound privilege to be the first President in history to attend the March for Life, and it is what motives my actions to improve our Nation’s adoption and foster care system, secure more funding for Down syndrome research, and expand health services for single mothers.  Over the past 4 years, I have appointed more than 200 Federal judges who apply the Constitution as written, including three Supreme Court Justices — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.  I also increased the child tax credit, so that mothers are financially supported as they take on the noble task of raising strong and healthy children.  And, recently, I signed an Executive Order on Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children, which defends the truth that every newborn baby has the same rights as all other individuals to receive life-saving care.

The United States is a shining example of human rights for the world.  However, some in Washington are fighting to keep the United States among a small handful of nations — including North Korea and China — that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks.  I join with countless others who believe this is morally and fundamentally wrong, and today, I renew my call on the Congress to pass legislation prohibiting late-term abortion.

Since the beginning, my Administration has been dedicated to lifting up every American, and that starts with protecting the rights of the most vulnerable in our society — the unborn.  On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we promise to continue speaking out for those who have no voice.  We vow to celebrate and support every heroic mother who chooses life.  And we resolve to defend the lives of every innocent and unborn child, each of whom can bring unbelievable love, joy, beauty, and grace into our Nation and the entire world.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 22, 2021, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day.  Today, I call on the Congress to join me in protecting and defending the dignity of every human life, including those not yet born.  I call on the American people to continue to care for women in unexpected pregnancies and to support adoption and foster care in a more meaningful way, so every child can have a loving home.  And finally, I ask every citizen of this great Nation to listen to the sound of silence caused by a generation lost to us, and then to raise their voices for all affected by abortion, both seen and unseen.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fifth.

In his call for unity, President Biden excludes our unborn brothers and sisters in his program for unification, evidently disagreeing with the American value that ‘every human life is a gift to the world.’

Mourning the loss of a child through miscarriage

Jan 19, 2021 |
loss of child through miscarriage

By MB Beacom

loss of child through miscarriageToday’s society seems full of dichotomy.  A world where up is down, and down is up, wrong is right, blue is red, private is public, sad is happy. In this environment, we recently watched celebrities John Legend and Chrissy Teigen blow up social media with intimate photos of grief, immediately during and after the loss of their unborn child through miscarriage.  This came against the backdrop of their ongoing vocal advocacy of the right to abortion on demand, and the contrast seemed stark and incongruent.

We’ve grown accustomed to these contradictions.  We all know friends and family who repeat the phrase, “I would never abort, but can’t tell another what to do”, or might even know someone who unapologetically aborted a child conceived at an inconvenient time, and later mourned a second or third child she had miscarried. In the latter case, it’s perhaps clearer and less confusing: the miscarriage has given the mother, and perhaps the baby’s father, an opportunity to mourn both of her lost children.

A generation or two ago, a woman was not allowed to publicly mourn her child lost through miscarriage.  The secrecy surrounding miscarriage, and even early pregnancy, made it difficult to navigate those feelings of loss – but also made it possible for charlatans and thieves to illicitly sell potions and tinctures meant to end pregnancies, often with dangerous and disastrous results for both mother and baby.  Then, and now, regardless of the circumstances, a mother’s grief can be intensely lonely – in part because she has been the only one to have met her own child, by carrying him under her heart.  And in it.

Some years ago I worked with a group of parishioners to host a nationally known priest who spoke on death and dying. Providentially, he was also allowed to speak at the university hospital in the town in which we lived at that time.  On the night of his talk, the large lecture theatre was filled with staff and medical personnel alike. Father approached the dais and began his prepared talk on caring for those in their last moments of life and for their families. About ten minutes in, he said, “ you know, I have a strong feeling I need to discuss an area of loss we aren’t often allowed to mention.” He proceeded to talk about his experiences ministering to families who had lost a child through miscarriage or stillbirth. He ended his comments this way:

“Whether through miscarriage or abortion, there is only one name for a man and a woman who’s child dies during pregnancy: that name is Parent.  Name that child, and claim that child. When you die, your child who preceded you, will claim you as his mother or father, and introduce you, saying: this is my mom, this is my dad – they gave me life.”

The theological details of that statement might be arguable, but the biological and anthropological facts are not: when a man and a woman engage their cooperative reproductive systems, and that combined system is successful in its primary function (reproduction), those two people undeniably become parents.

And the resulting child is no longer a theoretical or potential human being, he IS.  And he is forever the child of the two people who cooperated in his creation, knowingly or unknowingly, planned or unplanned.

It’s also a truth at the core of our humanity. Our emotions, though often dulled by a barrage of marketing and political rhetoric, are meant to build upon that primal instinct to care for the young that we, together, produce.  As parents. 

When Father ended his talk with those words, there were grown men in the room who were weeping. As people silently filtered out of the room, others approached Father, some pulling him aside to give their non-sacramental confessions. A woman in her 70’s approached me near the door, her eyes glistening.  She reached for my elbow, and told me how she had miscarried her first child many, many years ago. “ I couldn’t tell anyone, “ she said, “but I named him.”

“Please, tell me his name, “ I asked.

“Gregory,” she said without hesitation, tears now spilling down her cheeks,” thank you. I just wanted someone to know.”

There’s an ugly voyeurism that’s attached to much of social media.  Many times, it doesn’t bring out the best in people.  But at the heart of any sharing is a primal need to be known.  To have a name, and some confirmation that we exist and that what we see and feel and think is real. Social media didn’t exist back when Father gave his talk at the hospital years ago, but he understood the need to share life, death, and grief. It’s why so many responded to John Legend and Chrissie Teigen when they shared their own personal experience, and presumably it’s the reason they shared it themselves.

In part two of this essay I’ll talk more about where we go next with that need, both personally and as a pro-life movement, in an age of dichotomy, noise, and yet, ultimately, hope.

[MB Beacom is a wife, mother of ten, grandmother of seven, and freelance writer. She writes from her home in central Iowa on matters of faith, family, eldercare, obstetrics, art and design, sometimes rural life, and rarely politics.]


 

Maggie DeWitte’s testimony in support of The Protect Life Amendment

Jan 19, 2021 |
Maggie DeWitte testifies at the State Capitol

Maggie DeWitte testifies at the State CapitolMy name is Maggie DeWitte and I am the Executive Director of Iowans for LIFE and the spokesman for the Coalition of Pro-Life Leaders.  I am speaking to you this morning in support for HSB 41.

Thank you for bringing this amendment forward and so quickly in the session, which shows your true commitment to the protection of Iowans.

I believe the people of Iowa and NOT unelected judges of the State Supreme Court should decide how Iowa regulates abortion.  These radical judges took the rights away from ALL Iowans and thereby preventing commonsense protections for women and children.  What these judges did was even more extreme than Roe v. Wade.  And Iowa isn’t alone in trying to pass an amendment to the constitution; four other states (Alabama, West Virginia, Tennessee, Rhode Island) have restored legislative authority.  Iowa needs to follow the example of these states and put creating law back into your hands:  our elected legislators.

This amendment will simply restore our state constitution back to what it was; it will not prohibit abortion, but rather allow our elected representatives and the people of Iowa to make decisions regarding the health, safety and well-being of its citizens. Because without the Protect Life Amendment, there is no protection for women and unborn children from abortion, abortion even up to the point of birth.

This is an amendment that should have bipartisan support; regardless of your party affiliation, no legislator would be in favor of the judicial branch taking away what we elected you to do- create law.  It’s time to take back the rights of the legislature and the rights of ‘We the People,’ by passing this amendment.  Thank you.

The National March for Life in Washington DC goes virtual

Jan 15, 2021 |
March for Life

March for LifeWe just received this notice from Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life:

The protection of all of those who participate in the annual March, as well as the many law enforcement personnel and others who work tirelessly each year to ensure a safe and peaceful event, is a top priority of the March for Life. In light of the fact that we are in the midst of a pandemic which may be peaking, and in view of the heightened pressures that law enforcement officers and others are currently facing in and around the Capitol, this year’s March for Life will look different.

The annual rally will take place virtually and we are asking all participants to stay home and to join the March virtually. We will invite a small group of pro-life leaders from across the country to march in Washington, DC this year. These leaders will represent pro-life Americans everywhere who, each in their own unique ways, work to make abortion unthinkable and build a culture where every human life is valued and protected.

We are profoundly grateful for the countless women, men, and families who sacrifice to come out in such great numbers each year as a witness for life – and we look forward to being together in person next year.  As for this year’s march, we look forward to being with you virtually.

For more information, visit our website for answers to some frequently asked questions.

REGISTER HERE FOR VIRTUAL MARCH FOR LIFE COVERAGE

By RSVPing using the button above, you will receive links to access our March for Life livestreams directly to your inbox on the morning of January 29th. Please be sure to share this email with anyone who you think might also be interested in participating!

ACTION ALERT: Your voice is needed to protect life in Iowa!

Jan 14, 2021 |
Your voice is needed to protect life in Iowa!

Your voice is needed to protect life in Iowa!Dear Iowans for LIFE Supporter:

You have an opportunity RIGHT NOW to help save mothers and babies from abortion extremism in Iowa!

This coming week, the Iowa House of Representatives will be convening a subcommittee to advance the Protect Life Amendment. The amendment allows We the People to put a stop to radical, unelected judges’ efforts to expand abortion to the day of a baby’s birth and even make YOU pay for it.

And that’s where you come in. The subcommittee is accepting public comments on the issue.

Please join us in protecting life by submitting YOUR public comment here.

In your comment, we’d encourage you to:

  • Thank our legislators for making the Protect Life Amendment a priority this session.
  • Thank them for working hard to give We the People a voice when judges abuse their power to try to rewrite our Constitution.
  • Thank them for working hard to protect mothers and children from efforts to expand abortion, even to the day of a baby’s birth, and even making Iowans pay for it.
  • Urge them to pass the best possible Protect Life Amendment, because that little child in her mother’s womb, she’s a baby.

You can be sure Planned Parenthood and other abortion extremists will be flooding the subcommittee with radical, pro-abortion comments. We can’t let our legislators hear only the voices of death – they need to hear voices of life. Iowa’s mothers and children urgently need YOU to speak up for them, to defend them, against Planned Parenthood’s extremism.

Please take just a few moments to submit your comment today.

In addition, because of COVID precautions, the Iowa House will be making the subcommittee process public electronically. Right now, the meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 19, at 9:00 a.m. You can watch the subcommittee at the following link, or through the teleconference number below:

Watch virtual meeting on WebEx

Or Call: 1-408-418-9388

Access code: 1461483295

At the virtual meetings, you will not be able to make comment, but you can comment through the submission form linked above. Please take a few minutes to submit your comment and join us in defending life!

For Life,

Maggie DeWitte

Executive Director

The Supreme Court rules against mail order abortion pills

Jan 13, 2021 |
mail order abortion pills

Last year, Iowans for LIFE mailed President Trump a letter in conjunction with the Iowa Coalition of Pro-Life Leaders opposing mail order abortion pills (RU-486).

Here was our letter:

July 16th, 2020

The President of the United States

THE WHITE HOUSE

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The Iowa Coalition of Pro-Life leaders needs your immediate assistance. A pilot project called TelAbortion was recently launched in Iowa, along with a dozen other states, which allows Iowa women to obtain abortion pills via the mail.

We are concerned that this program poses grave risk to Iowa women and especially teen girls.

RU-486 (mifepristone and misoprostol) is a dangerous medication that kills unborn children in the womb and harms women both physically and emotionally.  The idea that girls and women across Iowa could receive this dangerous drug through the mail without ever seeing a physician in person causes grave concern among Iowa parents and grandparents and religious and pro-life leaders. We are especially concerned that school-aged teen girls could obtain these abortion pills without a parent’s knowledge.

The Food and Drug Administration hasn’t allowed RU-486 to be distributed via the mail in the past. The side effects are profound, according to their website. However, the FDA under the guidance of the previous administration made an exception, allowing the New York based Gynuity Health Projects to initiate a study. This study has now reached Iowa.

Iowa had enjoyed a two decade decline in human abortion, until the advent of chemical abortions. The uptick we are now experiencing will only increase with the availability of mail order abortions.

You have been the most pro-life president in history. You recognize that humanity is a scientific fact at the instant of fertilization.

Mr. President, can you ask the FDA to withdraw support from this reckless study? It is unconscionable that any woman could take this deadly medication without seeing a physician in person.

Respectfully,

Maggie DeWitte, Chairperson

THE IOWA COALITION of PRO-LIFE LEADERS

The Trump administration opposed mail order abortion pills

On August 26th last year, the Trump administration appealed a decision made by a federal judge that allowed abortion facilities to mail drugs to women, even without ever seeing a doctor.

A U.S. District Judge, Theodore Chuang of Maryland, had caved to a lawsuit filed by pro-abortion groups that demanded that the dangerous drug be allowed to be mailed, despite U.S. Food and Drug Administration safety rules to the contrary.

The abortion groups argued that the relaxing of safety protocols was necessary to protect women from possible exposure to COVID-19 in abortion clinics.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump Administration, 6-3 in Food and Drug Administration v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (FDA v. ACOG).

You can read more about the decision at LifeNews.

Does this impact the Iowa situation where mail order abortion pills are permissible under a test program? Check back later this week for an update. Be sure to subscribe to our blog so you don’t miss out.


 

How the new Congress threatens the pro-life movement

Jan 7, 2021 |
new Congress

new CongressWe live in volatile times. The new Congress splits down the middle with 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans. Since the Vice President breaks ties, the party of abortion has the power to radically change our country.

President-elect Joe Biden has been clear of his intent to undo pro-life executive-branch policies enacted by outgoing president, Donald Trump. A few examples:

  • Under Trump, providers of Title X can’t tell patients how they can access abortion services. Under Biden, that will change back to Obama policies.
  • Trump supports the Hyde Amendment, which prevents taxpayer money from being used to pay for abortions. Biden has vowed to end it.
  • Trump stopped the use of taxpayer dollars to fund overseas abortions. Biden plans to start up the practice again.
  • Trump reduced taxpayer dollars going to Planned Parenthood.
  • Trump canceled a contract for Taxpayer-funded experimentation using body parts of aborted babies.
  • Trump became the first sitting president to address the annual March for Life a year ago.

Biden will most likely reverse all of these policies.

Taxpayer-funded abortions

Even more, incoming members of the abortion party call for taxpayer-funded abortion for all nine months of pregnancy and ‘pre-clearance’ by the attorney general on pro-life legislation passed at the state level, an obstacle that will surely halt the pro-life movement in its tracks.

All of this is bad news for the pro-life movement, but it’s not the worst of it. Democrats are focused on making changes in our process of governance via the new Congress to give them a permanent majority in the Congress and perennial control of the White House.

Process changes

Notably, Democratic legislators are pushing Chuck Schumer to scrap the filibuster, which would allow the Senate to make sweeping changes in process with a simple majority voter (rather than 60), with VP Kamala Harris casting the deciding vote.

Notably, they call for statehood for Washington DC, a district of which 76% of registered voters are Democrats compared to just 6% Republican. DC statehood would give the abortion party a permanent two extra Senate seats and one additional representative in the House of Representatives.

Notably, they credibly threaten to pack the Supreme Court with activist judges of the ilk who gave us Roe v Wade.

A one-party nation

According to Issues & Insights, the endgame for the activist wing of the abortion party is to turn the U.S. into a one-party country, along the lines of California where Democrats have controlled the legislature for half a century.

Iowans for LIFE is a non-partisan organization. Sadly, one political party is solidly pro-abortion. The changes in process advocated by Democrats threaten to block the good work at the state level, where pro-lifers have made tremendous gains in the past decade.

Pro-life gains

In our recent election, Republicans came into the election controlling both houses of 28 state legislatures. But the November elections showed their numbers increased to 32 states now controlled by the pro-life party, the most ever by Republicans.

Iowa Republicans increased their advantage in the Iowa House from 53 to 47 to 59 to 41, as they picked up six seats, while maintaining their whopping 32 – 18 advantage in the Senate.

Suddenly, the possibility of passing a Protect Life Amendment is back on the table. Iowans for LIFE will be at the forefront of this movement.

The abortion party pursues topdown policies that stifle state rights. The pro-life party counters with sensible bottom-up legislation supported by a majority of voters. The new Congress threatens this good work.

[Be sure to subscribe to this blog. It’s not too late to make a tax-deductible donation to IFL’s pro-life outreach. Thank-you.]


 

The Day of the Holy Innocents

Dec 28, 2020 |
The Day of the Holy Innocents

The man was a monster even Isis could appreciate, but for the fact that he was a Jew.

King Herod the Great was the Roman client king of Judea at the time Christ was born. Jewish prophesy stated that a new king, a Messiah, would be born in Bethlehem, threatening the reign of Herod.

When Herod was told that the time had come, that his rival had been born, Herod sent his soldiers to Bethlehem to kill all boys under the age of two. This day, known as The Day of the Holy Innocents, is commemorated in the Catholic Church today.

It is recounted in Matthew 2:16-18:

Ruben''s painting of the

Ruben”s painting of the “Massacre of the Innocents”

16 Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi. 17 Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:

18 “A voice was heard in Ramah,
Weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children;
And she refused to be comforted,
Because they were no more.”

The event was dramatically portrayed by the great Peter Ustinov as Herod in Franco Zeffirelli’s 1977 mini series, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Watch the clip above to get a sense of the horror of the Massacre of the Innocents.

The massacre continues today in the guise of human abortion.

The number of innocents slaughtered in our country today makes Herod’s atrocity seem like child’s play, except for one thing: the value of a human soul is beyond calculation.

The death of a single innocent is a tragedy.

[The pandemic impacted Iowans for LIFE’s fundraising activities in 2020. Please support our pro-life educational outreach with your donation today. Thank-you.]

Vaccine skepticism

Dec 22, 2020 |
vaccine skepticism

vaccine skepticismThe COVID-19 vaccine has been politicized, praised, and pilloried by disparate groups from both sides of the political aisle. This dissonance has fostered vaccine skepticism in many pockets of the country.

Candidate Kamala Harris told a national television audience:

“I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability” of a vaccine.

Former Representative, Katie Hill tweeted out:

“I’m a big fan of vaccines but DAMN I’m skeptical of one that‘s supposed to have been developed, tested, produced, and distributed in 6 months — right in time for the re-election of our very own dictator.”

Iowans for LIFE conducted a survey that revealed a great amount of vaccine skepticism from pro-life Iowans.

We live in an age of skepticism. Iowans for LIFE exists to protect human life by informing, educating, and inspiring society to value the sanctity of human life from its conception to natural death. This blog addresses recurring vaccine concerns and questions voiced by our supporters.

Was the vaccine rushed at the expense of safety and efficacy?

Many people who responded to our survey shared Ms. Hill’s concerns about the record-breaking speed with which the first two vaccines were developed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) assures Americans that no corners were cut:

The vaccines being considered for approval “are being held to the same rigorous safety and efficacy standards as all other vaccines in the United States.”

Even more, the FDA stated:

“the pre-licensure safety database for preventive vaccines for infectious diseases typically consists of at least 3,000 study participants vaccinated with the dosing regimen intended for licensure.”

Pfizer’s trial used 44,000 participants, far exceeding FDA standards. They monitored post-inoculation reactions and reported:

“a favorable safety profile, with no specific safety concerns identified that would preclude issuance of an [emergency authorization].”

The vaccine uses new mRNA technology. Does this alter our DNA?

Dr. Dan Culver of the Cleveland Clinic says no, that mRNA:

“cannot change your genetic makeup. The time that this RNA survives in the cells is relatively brief in the span of hours. What you are really doing is sticking a recipe card into the cell making protein for a few hours.”

So how is this different from ordinary vaccines? The CDC explains:

“To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies. Not mRNA vaccines…

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines give instructions for our cells to make a harmless piece of what is called the “spike protein.” The spike protein is found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are given in the upper arm muscle. Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the muscle cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them.”

What happens next?

“Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface. Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn’t belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19.

At the end of the process, our bodies have learned how to protect against future infection. The benefit of mRNA vaccines, like all vaccines, is those vaccinated gain this protection without ever having to risk the serious consequences of getting sick with COVID-19.”

Many people responding to IFL’s survey voiced concerns over the use of an abortion-derived cell line used in lab testing by the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Although these cells are not used in the actual development, production, and manufacturing of these two vaccines, conscientious pro-lifers are concerned that they may be colluding with evil should they take the vaccine.

This raises new questions.

Was actual fetal tissue used in testing the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines?

No. Dr. Tara Sander Lee, a senior fellow at the Charlotte Lozier Institute and director of its life-sciences program, explains that

“a fetal cell line is not the same as fetal tissue.”

It is believed that the cell line used originated from kidney cells from a 1973 abortion in the Netherlands. Recent tests don’t use the actual cells, since cells used for research were “multiplied into many cells of the same kind.” Dr. Lee said that Pfizer and Moderna haven’t trafficked in babies’ body parts as did Planned Parenthood. Nonetheless, the abortion connection exists.

Is anyone pressing pharmaceutical companies to cease the use of abortion-derived cell lines in the testing of vaccines?

Yes. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued the following statement on December 14th:

“It is because of this respect for the human person that the USCCB, in collaboration with other organizations working to protect human life, has been engaged in a campaign advocating for the development of a vaccine for COVID-19 that has no link to abortion.

For example, in April 2020, four USCCB bishops, the Chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, the Chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, the Chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health Care Issues, along with representatives of twenty other organizations, wrote to the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration asking it to help ensure “that Americans will have access to vaccines that are free from any connection to abortion.” The signatories pointed out that there is no need to use morally compromised cell lines to produce a COVID-19 vaccine, or any vaccine. Other cell lines or processes that do not involve cells from abortions are available and are regularly being used to produce other vaccines.

While some pharmaceutical companies have been working on a vaccine for COVID-19 without using morally compromised cell lines at all, others have been using such cell lines in either the design and development phase or the production phase or in both. Still others have been making use of a morally compromised cell line only for a confirmatory test of the vaccine’s efficacy. This leads many people who are concerned for the sanctity of human life to ask if it is ethical to accept any of the vaccines that have some connection to abortion.”

What is Iowans for LIFE doing to end the testing of abortion-derived cell lines?

IFL will be mailing a letter to each of the eight major pharmaceutical companies in the days to come asking them to cease the use of these cell lines in testing. We will encourage fellow members of the Iowa Coalition of Pro-Life Leaders to do the same.

Ultimately, is it ethical for conscientious pro-lifers to receive this vaccine?

It comes down to each person’s own conscience. The USCCB says yes, it is ethical, in light of the gravity of the pandemic:

“In view of the gravity of the current pandemic and the lack of availability of alternative vaccines, the reasons to accept the new COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna are sufficiently serious to justify their use, despite their remote connection to morally compromised cell lines.

In addition, receiving the COVID-19 vaccine ought to be understood as an act of charity toward the other members of our community.

In this way, being vaccinated safely against COVID-19 should be considered an act of love of our neighbor and part of our moral responsibility for the common good.”

IFL understands vaccine skepticism. We hope this blogpost addresses your concerns.

[COVID-19 has cut into Iowans for LIFE’s fundraising events this year. We need your help to continue our pro-life educational outreach. Support our efforts with your donation today. Thank-you.]


 

Results of Iowans for LIFE’s COVID-19 vaccine survey

Dec 17, 2020 |
COVID-19 vaccine survey

COVID-19 vaccine surveyWill you take a COVID-19 vaccine? Yes? No? Undecided? This is the question we asked of Iowans for LIFE supporters via email and Facebook. Here are the results of our COVID-19 vaccine survey:

YES  22%

NO 68%

UNDECIDED 10%

The ‘no’ responses were forceful, typically in all caps and/or exclamation points. Dissent fell into three categories:

Ethical considerations

Many survey responders refuse to take a vaccine that used abortion-derived cell lines in testing, such as Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines, and especially if they are used in production, as in the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca products. Here are some comments we received:

“The vaccines were made with a fetal cell line.  Regardless of how far removed this vaccine is from the cells it has the “original sin” of fetal cell use.”

“No— look at the ingredients. Not putting aborted baby tissue in my body.”

“I definitely won’t be taking a vaccine I know was manufactured with aborted fetal cells.”

“I will not receive any vaccine that uses embryonic stem cells in any part of the production process.”

“Emphatic NO. In the words of Bishop Strickland, I will not use the life of another to save my own.”

“NO! And no good, faithful Christian should. The only way we will EVER stop the continued use of aborted fetal products in research is to say No to All of their products, especially ones that have skipped steps of the safety process and for a disease that is no deadlier than a bad influenza year. There should be No reason to get this and to inherently support the companies who continue to use and desecrate the lives of children sacrificed for abortion is appalling and needs to stop.”

“No. As a rule there must be good reason for injecting chemicals into one’s body, and I don’t think a vaccine is necessary for a virus with a more than 99% survivability rate. And even taking the specter of a vaccine tainted with the cells of aborted children out of the equation – a deal breaker – I find the circumstances surrounding the development and promotion of the vaccine to be suspect.”

As you can see, some of the concerns expressed above begin with ethical considerations, but also touch on a second reason these people refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine:

Reliability concerns

Many responders believe the process to develop a vaccine was rushed, and that side effects are not fully known:

“No. I want to see more data on effectiveness and side effects, peer-reviewed and not from the vaccine manufacturers. How can we give this to our children and elderly without more data. This is why I will not be giving the vaccination to my kids. So far from what I have seen I would rather take my chances with a 99% recovery rate.”

“No, absolutely not. I am young and healthy and am breastfeeding. It’s completely untested as far as long term side effects. It’s also a completely new type of vaccine (mRNA) that has never been used before. It’s only been through 2 months of clinical trials. And the CDC also says this won’t make masks go away.”

“This means vaccinated people who carry the virus might still be infectious to others. Moderna’s chief medical officer Tal Zaks made that point clear in an interview, saying that the data can’t yet prove that a vaccine will stop individuals from spreading the disease.”      

“Both Pfizer and Moderna are based on genetic altering deliverance.  We have no idea the results of such vaccines.  A major question to ask…why would someone who has had Covid 19 need a vaccine?   Why would a vaccine provide more immunity than having had the disease? 

“My sister-in-law had to be vaccinated for the Army and received a bad batch which left her with multiple health issues and now 100% disabled.”

“We refuse to be a guinea pig for this drug.”

“Considering the rapid rate at which the vaccines have been developed I prefer to wait to be vaccinated until I see what side effects may appear. At the age of 69 I am considered elderly, but I also have MS and am concerned about how the vaccine may affect me in that regard.”

“We’ve never had a mRNA vaccine (DNA altering!), and certainly not a rushed one with hardly any study on side effects, let alone long-term effects. There are far too many specialists voicing concern over female sterilization.”

“The testing samples are very low.  Besides very vulnerable people, with 99% plus recovery, it may be a solution in search of a problem.”

Finally, vaccine detractors question if there is even a need for such a vaccine:

Necessity

Here are some typical comments we received:

“I will never take a vaccine for a malady with a 99%+ survival rate.”

“No!!! And I will not be giving the vaccination to my kids. I would rather take my chances with a 99% recovery rate, then having another person in my family get vaccine injured (which is a life sentence).”

“I am a healthy person so I would not put an unknown, unethical substance in my body when I have a 99.95% of recovery if contracted corona.”

“No. As a rule there must be good reason for injecting chemicals into one’s body, and I don’t think a vaccine is necessary for a virus with a more than 99% survivability rate.”

Reasons to take the vaccine

Keep in mind that the audience Iowans for LIFE canvassed was comprised of pro-life supporters, 22% of whom said they would take the vaccine. Here were some of their reasons:

“Our Archbishop Jackel put out a memo assuring us Catholics that we could take the shot in good conscience so my answer is “yes”. I will take the shot when it becomes available for those of us who are elderly when it gets to be our turn. However, if I do test positive and survive, I will count on immunity and will not take any vaccine.”

“Yes, I plan to take the vaccine as long as its manufacture complies with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

“Yes, I will be receiving the vaccine, from either Pfizer or Moderna.  Our Bishop, the USCCB and the NCBC all tell me it’s allowed under our Catholic beliefs.”

“I will take either the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccine. I will not take the AstraZeneca or the Johnson & Johnson vaccine if alternatives are available; if no alternatives are available, I will probably take them.”

“Yes if possible I’d be first in line, I am still recuperating from this horrible disease in almost a month, you don’t want this.”

“Yes, without hesitation…..I don’t want that virus and it is my responsibility to protect others too. It is safe!”

In all, Iowans for LIFE heard from 289 pro-life leaning respondents.

[Be sure to subscribe to our blog. Be sure to donate to help us expand our pro-life educational outreach.]