She Brings Joy

Why Ben Shapiro Was Invited to The March For Life and You Weren’t 

A personal pro-life ethic may involve any number of issues not traditionally associated with anti-abortion/anti-euthanasia efforts. The Pro-life “movement”, in terms of political activism, however, does have an established platform which is focused on two issues: abortion and euthanasia. This is because ultimately, every single issue which affects human beings could be seen as a pro-life issue, but only two of the issues we fight to make/keep illegal involve actively ending the lives of voiceless, unarguably defenseless, innocent humans.

The reason mainstream pro-life groups don’t often utilize the resources of more progressive pro-lifers is because progressive pro-lifers can’t seem to resist bringing a variety of issues into their pro-life activism for which there are multiple viewpoints.





For example, the following are generally included in the progressive pro-life spectrum:

-expansion of social welfare
-single payer healthcare
-climate change
-social justice movements (BLM, Women’s March)
-capital punishment
-marriage equality
-anti-war efforts

And this isn’t the entire platform. The list of issues they feel should be addressed by the pro-life movement is variable and endless. And that’s fine on an individual basis. When I’m speaking for myself, I’m all over the place in my positions. This is because most of our personal positions rest on both our logic and our emotional responses.

I identify myself as (mostly) Conservative, but I have what would be considered more progressive views on a few of the subjects above- like this. We’re all different people with different ideas of what it means to be pro-life.

As a (mostly) conservative, though, my views on many subjects above don’t align with my more progressive friends & activists. I am virulently opposed to a single-payer healthcare system, for example.... I believe my position against it is more in-line with a pro-life ethic (here’s why ) just as fervently as those supporting it believe their support of it is consistently pro-life.

The difference between conservative pro-lifers and progressive pro-lifers seems to be that because progressives feel these other issues are so vital, they can’t not speak about them. This creates a problem when we’re speaking of large presentations for mixed groups.

The March For Life is a one-platform event, focused on abortion. There’s a reason it’s held in January. Because it’s commemorating the anniversary of Roe v Wade.  It’s not a platform for conservative or liberal ideals.

It’s about abortion.

Those complaining about not having a place at the table don’t seem to get this.

The fact that they continually grouse about it, and focus on what they see as undeserved censure, is part of the problem.

We’re not stopping you.

You’re stopping you.

The March for Life isn’t a rally for open borders or talks about the gender pay gap.

It’s about abortion.

Conservative speakers are not automatically gifted this platform because they’re Republican, or because they hate Democrats, or because they’re bigots. They’re given this platform because they stay on message.

Progressives aren’t often given a platform at events like this because they can’t stay
on message. It’s not because the March for Life hates them. It’s not because conservative pro-lifers can’t accept people who think differently than they do. It’s not because we’re married to the Republican Party (a good portion of conservative pro-lifers are actually libertarian). It’s not because the March for Life organizers hate undocumented individuals, non-binary individuals, or any individuals (they’re pro-life, after all. Just like you, their position is rooted in beliefs about the intrinsic value of all people.)

Ben Shapiro is an *excellent* choice for the March for Life, precisely because when asked about abortion... he focuses on abortion. He doesn’t branch off into why he thinks the welfare state is anti-life, or why he supports the death penalty (unless specifically asked about those subjects).

Every time I’ve seen a progressive pro-life activist speak about abortion, they’ve brought multiple other, loosely related, issues into the equation. This isn’t appropriate for the March for Life- which, incidentally, has never hidden its conservative, partisan viewpoints (yet even they still manage to stay on message.)

Maybe if there was a progressive pro-lifer who could speak on abortion as if it were a one-issue platform (which it is— not one other issue on the progressive platform allows private citizens to legally murder other citizens with no judicial oversight), not pull all of their other social justice ideals into their pro-life activism every.single.time you give them a platform, they would be invited to the table more often.

In addition: the March for Life is largely sponsored & attended by conservatives, church groups, & politically “right” individuals. We’re not going to attend rallies where we’re scolded for our lack of support for political goals of the left. And when you present yourself as the only “consistent” pro-lifers, and share videos about “GOP Jesus”… That’s what you’re doing. We’re not the bigots here. The idea we conservatives just need to be educated on the issues is also insulting to the vast majority of us.

We are educated.

We just disagree with you.

There’s a difference between the two.

The constant display of petulance from liberal pro-lifers about their exclusion from this movement shows a serious lack of introspection. There’s a constant display of outrage from liberal pro-lifers regarding conservative support for Republican candidates who may not be what they consider consistently pro-life.

Maybe if progressive pro-lifers focused more on listening to why conservatives disagree with their solutions to things like border policy and welfare reform, instead of just assuming we’re just inconsistent, or if they stopped asserting their “rights” based on emotional arguments and vilifying a movement which successfully raised up the Pro-Life generation, long enough to actually see us as people and not a monolith, they’d see there’s room for everyone at the table.

We’re closer to ending legalized abortion, in the US, than we have been since Roe v Wade was decided. This evolution was brought about by the Republicans you disparage. While your adherents vote for pro-abortion candidates (because you’ve leveled all social justice issues so they’re on equal footing), we’ve closed thousands of clinics thanks to our conservative legislators.

Expanded welfare isn’t limiting abortion.

Closing clinics is.

To end this: if you want to talk at an exclusively anti-abortion rally, maybe acknowledging that ending abortion is more important than any other issue we face, & separating your anti-abortion efforts from your advancement of a progressive political agenda would be a good start.

Sometime all we can give someone is our presence.



“Friendship is not to be sought, not to be dreamed, not to be desired; it is to be exercised (it is a virtue).” ~ Simone Weill.

I know this sounds nuts, but it seems to be that every year about this time a significant loss occurs in our family.

But it’s not nuts because this year has proven no different.

For the last twenty years our family has been close friends with a retired, local, bachelor doctor who never had children. For the last ten years we’ve taken care of our “doctor neighbor” — assuring he was tucked in at night, bringing him daily hot meals, etc. He’s been the only grandfather our younger children have ever known. Caring for him was a labor of love: he was family.

Our dear friend passed away last night, quietly slipping from this world to the next.

Over the last few weeks he had become less lucid as his disease came to its climax, but there were many small moments of clarity.

Yesterday when I visited him, his speech was unintelligible when I arrived. He was trying so hard to communicate his thoughts- I looked at him and said, “It’s ok Bill, I know you’re still in there”.

He winked at me.

Bill often winked at me when we were speaking. Most of the time it was because something he said had unsettled me, and he was trying to smooth over a rough patch in the conversation.

Yesterday we were going through a rough patch, as we both knew he was dying. His body was already showing the signs of shutting down, and his eyes were fixed on something I couldn’t see.

I sat with him yesterday, reading him poems from Sor Juana Inés De La Cruz, and selections from Simone Weill, knowing (because of that wink) whilst he was quiet, he was there.

At one point, when he was able to communicate with clarity, he reached his hand out and grabbed mine, looked me straight in the eye and said, “time is infinite, and there is just so much of it”. I must admit it was a bit of a startling pronouncement due to his demeanor, and the human mystic in me is probably lending too much meaning to this action. I’d like to think in those final hours he was already seeing the place he would go to, when his body stopped working here.

For the last few months, much of Bill’s conversation with me revolved around the nature of (the Judeo-Christian) God, and the lack of religion in his life: he would repeat that he’d been a greedy man, and had not helped people as much as he could. He would weep over this.

He asked me if God would still welcome him, knowing that he’d spurned Him for most of his life. He asked me the same about Christ, focusing on the plastic cross a priest had brought him earlier in his hospitalization.

I can’t know whether these conversations were the result of fear regarding his death, the slow depleting of oxygen to his brain as his body went through the process of dying, or a real reconversion.

I always treated them seriously, in hopes that they were genuine conversations. I know they were some of the only conversations he was having, and felt that if this was what he wanted to speak of during the short occasions he had for non-medical interaction, it must be of some importance.

Bill had no family, and the end of his life could have been so different: he would have been alone in his suffering if it hadn’t been for a small group of friends who wanted to assure he knew he was loved during his final days here.

This is just a reminder there are lonely people out there right now, dying in solitude- they may not be “worthy” of our affection and time, but once they’re gone, the opportunity to love them unconditionally is lost. Being there for someone isn’t about “us” or “them”, it’s about the symbiotic relationship humans need to develop in a society. Caring for someone in their bitter suffering transcends personal differences.

Bill and I disagreed on almost everything. In a heated discussion about abortion he once called Beatrix “defective”.

But loving people isn’t always about agreeing with them. Loving people isn’t even always about liking them. It’s about understanding everyone is made in the image of God, and in each human being there’s a longing for redemption. We fill the places left by the longing with television and sex and books and politics and mind-altering substances, but in the end, when we’re left without these stop-gaps, we must acknowledge the void. This is why deathbed conversions happen: not because people are deficient of reason, but because all of the other things we use to fill empty spaces are useless when you’re at death’s door.

Yesterday, when I was holding Bill’s hand, and unknowingly saying goodbye, he told me I would meet God (today). I conceded and told him I thought it was a very real possibility and when I told him I anticipated the meeting he was perturbed. He saw the prospect as a negative, I did not.

In the end I was given one last opportunity to share the “reason for my hope”.

When he again told me he was fearful of what was to come, I was able to hold his hand and remind him there was nothing to worry about. God doesn’t take account of how greedy we are in this life as long as we have faith in the Resurrection. 

He fell to sleep shortly after this.

I am hopeful he didn’t awaken, and his last human interaction was having his fears comforted, and the last words spoken to him were of reconciliation.

May we all have such an end.

Last week Oprah Winfrey fed into leftist rage by promoting the Shout Your Abortion movement in the "Inspiration" section of her magazine. For a few days all of Pro-lifedom was atwitter with moral outrage.... but the outrage fizzled out and was gone shortly after the story broke. 

People like Oprah just don't want to hear my shout.

I must admit, I’ve been all stopped up when it comes to writing.

I have been for almost a year now. The more I tried, the more overwhelmed I become.

Last year when the Charlie Gard story unfolded I began to feel a little lost.

You see — in the beginning, my writing had very little to do with abortion. It began as a grief journal for my little daughter. So when I saw Charlie’s parents fight so hard, and then lose, I was deeply affected. I felt like I’d lost my Bea again.

I stopped writing posts for other loss and/or pro-life advocates. I stopped working “behind the scenes” for any efforts at all. I stopped trying to push the message out there, even though it’s a message I believe so strongly in.

Charlie Gard’s story made me take stock of my position.

I understand he was not carried to term — his parents were unaware of his condition until after birth. They may even be pro-choice. But the situation they found themselves in was analogous to the situation many parents given prenatal diagnosis face, after their baby is delivered: doctors refusing to treat their child with a poor medical prognosis based on personal ideas about “quality of life”.

My own experience with carrying Beatrix led me into this part of the prolife realm. I was shocked and disappointed when my physicians showed little interest in giving her the best chance at living. However, my daughter's chances for survival were almost non-existent, so I (kind of) accepted this and moved on.

Then I read stories of children who were less-affected than my Beatrix being denied treatment, and I realized I was witness to a very subtle form of discrimination being cloaked under the umbrella of “compassionate” care, most often by people who had no understanding of what being the parent of such a fragile child, entailed.

Most disturbing were the stories of babies being denied care in one geographic location which was standard in another, based on their potential intellectual abilities.

In many cases, when a family learns their child will be born with a serious birth defect, but decides to continue their pregnancy doctors often encourage them to use palliative care only after birth — questioning whether curative surgical procedures are really necessary for a child who will never attend school, get married, or have his/her own children.

I learned that when families insist on treatment for their affected child, medical professionals may become passive with “slow codes” and DNRs placed in charts without parent’s knowledge. This enraged me, and my writing became a shout for babies with serious congenital anomalies. This is my passion.

Everyone has a right to their own life, lived on their own terms — no matter how long or short the life is, or what their intellectual capabilities are.

But I didn’t know how to write about this any more.

Because the only appropriate words to use are words like “euthanasia” and “eugenics”, and when people who are involved in this “branch” of the pro-life movement use these words, we’re ridiculed as crazy conspiracy theorists.... the words themselves have become linguistic kryptonite, effectively invalidating any rational argument we make.

This leaves me at a loss because these words have relevance. What do you call a philosophical system which places those with intellectual disabilities on a lower rung of the treatment ladder? What do you call a legal system which allows discrimination against those it seems less worthy?

Here in the US we watched as the NHS ended Charlie’s life, and the same people who fought for Charlie and screamed about the injustice of it all continued praising our American system for being more compassionate -- but it’s not.

Our laws allow physicians to override parents wishes for their children as long as they can keep it a secret.

In addition, a friend of mine who tracks state-level assisted suicide legislation, shares information showing that in nearly every potential assisted suicide law there is
a clause which would allow for the euthanasia of persons with disabilities.

I don’t know what to do with this reality; what words to use to avoid accusations of idealism.

What arguments can we use to avoid being called alarmists?

As the old saying goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you.

It’s disappointing.

Because in the last few weeks another similar situation had come to fruition in the UK (actually more than one situation like Charlie Gard’s is being fought in European courts right now. This refusal of service is common in the UK. Some families didn’t even make it this far before their children were removed from life-support, against their wishes).

The parents of baby Alfie Evans are being pulled through the legal system because doctors refuse to release him to another hospital, and his family refuses to give up. The proceedings have been stretched out long enough to endanger the child involved, so physicians can then claim he is too deteriorated to respond to any care. The judge has ruled against the parents, and everyone involved gets to go home while these poor parents are left alone with their son who they’ve got no right to even touch, in some instances.

If he does pass away, those in charge will mumble and shake their heads and talk about how unrealistic the child’s family is. Another family will go home with empty arms wondering why they weren’t allowed to treat their child.


This child has no official diagnosis, is responsive to stimulation, and has physicians in a different hospital willing to try an experimental treatment on him (see here what the term “experimental” means for a baby like Charlie or Alfie). This child is alive, and has already been denied medical care which could improve his situation.

It’s appalling.

I’ve asked before — who decides? While a physician may believe they are acting in a child’s best interests, who are they to decide no other physician may care for the child (especially against parents will)? These parents are asking for a medical transfer for their son. They’ve fulfilled every one of the hospital’s requests.... yet, just like with Charlie, Alfie remains in limbo.

How many children does it take before we wake up?

Or is it acceptable as long as it’s only disabled children?

Do we brush it under the rug and pretend it doesn’t happen, unless it happens to us?

Do we continue to turn away, convinced those who cry out against this are fanatics, or out-of-touch with reality?

As I said in the beginning, this last {almost} year left me heartbroken and completely disillusioned.

But — then I saw THIS!!

And this beautiful boy, who’s parents were told he would not thrive, is verbalizing and trying to walk.

Even seven years ago, when I was pregnant with Beatrix, I couldn’t find any children like him on the Internet. Whatever anyone says about Facebook and analytics and sharing secrets, social networking has built a vast “underground” of parents committed to seeing their children live the best life they’re capable of.

I am a part of that.

My daughter was one of their children, and whether people view it as nutty or not, her life was so much more valuable than to end up being the after-story of a sad pregnancy.

There is so much to do and say in terms of coming legislation, and fights going on all over the world- and I don’t really want to sit it out.

There’s something I’ve heard Jewish people say, when someone dies:

“May their memory be a blessing”.

I’ve never looked deeply into the deep implications of this statement, or what context it has in Jewish culture— but I will say that on its surface it speaks to exactly what I want for my Beatrix. Her memory should be a blessing, a deep and fruitful blessing, for anyone who comes into contact with her story.

So for Beatrix, Charlie, Simon, Cassie and all the other inspirational babies who have given up their valiant fights: I’m rededicating myself to working hard to making sure no parent ever feels the way I did when I said goodbye.

If you or anyone you know has an interest in learning more about current laws which put our most vulnerable as risk, please let me know.

If you have questions about how these laws {or how a lack of laws} in your area, affect your family, please let me know.

Lastly: Over the years I’ve tried to fit into many shoes- I thought it was my job to “create” something, like other writers do- a how-to book, some crafty remembrance item, etc. I’ve learned that the organization and planning involved with these things isn’t my forte.

But what I can do: collect your stories. I have access to more than one pro-life group who would be willing to share your and your baby’s stories.

If you know anyone going through a pregnancy who has been given no hope, if you know someone who lost a baby due to passive euthanasia, or if you know someone currently battling with doctors to assure proper care for their child- please let me know. I can help you find the aid you need.

When I started this, I noted that most loss blogs went on for about 5 years, and I was determined mine would last for longer so people could see the “after-after”.

Heading on Year 8!

I didn’t think I would survive this long without her. Now losing the battle for survival after loss would be an obscenity against her sweet little name.

I've written about Charlie Gard HERE
and HERE as well.

I know some people who've recently begun following my blog and liking my Facebook page are not loss parents, but people who've found me through pro-life advocacy groups.