Made by Peter Rex, Founder and CEO, of REX (which builds and invests in tech companies). He just wrote an opinion piece at Newsweek.com
Corporate America is fully on board the abortion bandwagon. In the wake of the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade, dozens of the country's biggest businesses announced plans to pay for employees to travel to obtain abortions. From Amazon to Bank of America to the New York Times and beyond, these companies are not only offering thousands of dollars or extra health insurance coverage to their team members, they're also picking sides in the abortion debate.
Yet why is there no corresponding policy to promote adoption? These businesses are ignoring the possibility that many employees may simply need a little more help to carry their baby to term. Instead of blindly paying people to end an unborn child's life, companies should consider paying them to welcome that life into the world. That's why my business has decided to give up to $7,500 to employees who want to have their baby and give it up for adoption. We're not alone—a Texas-based insurance company, Buffer, is also paying for adoptions as well as covering the full costs of birth for employees who keep their children.
Source: Newsweek.com
Rex explains his motivation and makes his case for A Culture of Life. Maybe you might agree.
“The affirm-or-suicide mantra has become the central strategy of contemporary transgender activism, and at times it would seem that activists have little else in their rhetorical arsenal.” So writes Leor Sapir, a fellow of the Manhattan Institute.
“337:365 – the lips, the teeth, the tip of the tongue” by cavale is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
We are constantly told that the Gender-Affirming approach is “life-saving.”
Transgender Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Services Rachel Levine used the same word to justify the federal government’s support for “gender affirming” interventions. Neither Levine nor President Biden, who has given his own imprimatur to the controversial practice, seemed to care much that Europe’s most progressive welfare states have been moving in the opposite direction, placing strict limitations on the use of puberty blockers to treat adolescents in distress presumably because of their “gender.” Scandinavians are not indifferent to teen suicide. Rather, they have examined the evidence behind the affirm-or-suicide claim and have found it wanting.
Despite the unwaveringly confident manner in which these claims are often asserted, there is no good evidence that failing to “affirm” minors in their “gender identity” will increase the likelihood of them committing suicide. As I discuss below, that claim is based on a small handful of deeply flawed studies that, at most, find loose correlations between “affirming” interventions and improved mental health. Some find no reduction of suicide at all, and a new study claims to find that puberty blockers actually increase the risk of suicide.
Not only is the empirical basis for the affirm-or-suicide mantra shoddy at best, but its dissemination is also profoundly irresponsible. Such extreme rhetoric limits our ability to better understand and respond to mental health problems in vulnerable youth, and may itself contribute to the real and documented phenomenon of “suicide contagion.”
Source: Leor Sapir
Sapir gives us a thorough rundown of the current science on gender-dysphoria and suicide. And calls on the Activists to stop the moral panic-mongering.
Hyperbolic rhetoric about suicide rates may do more to increase suicide than prevent it.
For over 50 years Americans have been told a false story.
So says Dr. Donna Harrison, OBGYN, executive director of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. And many more doctors (see below).
The false idea that late-term abortion is sometimes necessary for “health” reasons has been knit into American cultural discourse since 1973, when the Supreme Court decision in Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, introduced a definition of “health” so sweeping that it effectively eliminated all restrictions on abortion. Today, Americans are so used to hearing that abortion must be legal to protect the health of the mother that it may be difficult to fathom that there are truly no medical situations in which abortion, the direct, intentional killing of a preborn baby, is necessary to save a woman’s life.
------
What OB-GYNs who abide by the Hippocratic Oath and the signers of the Dublin Declaration understand is that in every situation where a pregnancy is endangering a woman’s life, what has to happen is that the mother and baby have to be separated. But the physician can separate the baby and do everything in his or her power to save that baby’s life. This is different from an abortion. The purpose of an abortion is to kill the baby before birth, giving him or her zero chance of survival.
------
Because of the law recently passed in New York, and the bills under consideration in Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia, the claim that abortion needs to be legal at any point in the pregnancy to preserve the life of the mother is likely to get a lot of play in the coming months. That claim, however, is not based in reality.
The reality is that, in an emergency, a physician can always separate the mother and the baby in a way that gives them both the best chance possible. Abortion is never about saving a life. It is about killing a human being, and it is never medically necessary to intentionally kill an unborn child in an abortion in order to save the life of its mother.
Source: Abortion is Never Necessary (read the whole thing!)
“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
Again. Here’s the thing. By the time the baby is large enough to pose a health risk to the mother, doctors can always separate the two by either inducing labor or performing a C-Section.
The purposeful destruction of the unborn child is not medically necessary.
The Hippocratic Oath says “first do no harm.” The premature baby may indeed die, but that will not be the intent of the mother or health care practitioners.
This distinction matters.
Why can’t we protect the most vulnerable among us? It would be the moral thing to do. We have options after all. The mother and child have options. As a society we should support those options. Before and after birth.
One more thing. The companion case to Roe, Doe v. Bolton, expandedthe definition of health to include emotional, psychological, and familial health. Because of that definitional expansion, there remained virtually no legal barrier to abortion for “health” reasons during the full term of the pregnancy.
In Doe, the Court defined the scope of Roe’s mandatory “health exception” (which must apply to restrictions on abortion at all gestational stages) to include not merely physical well-being but also “factors physical, emotional, psychological, and familial.”1“Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).”
In Roe and Doe, (I’ll discuss Casey at another time), the abortionist was given the sole authority to determine whether any such aspect of a woman’s well-being warrants an abortion. This essentially nullified the ability of states to restrict abortion even after a child could survive outside the womb.
Most people don’t know this.
Maybe you didn’t. But now you do.
Human Person 15 Weeks Old
I realize what I’ve written in this post is not sufficient to persuade everyone disappointed with the recent Supreme Court decision. Future posts will continue to make the case for LIFE. ‘Stay tuned.’ The ‘ball’ is in our court now. What will we do?
