New York Times IVF Article and Dr. Solenni's Responce

Lowering Odds of Multiple Births

By Laurie Tarkan
New York Times
February 19, 2008

In the complex, expensive and emotionally charged world of fertility treatment, doctors are sounding a call to arms to reverse the soaring rate of multiple births. The doctors are responding to an unintended consequence of the success of in vitro fertilization — that it is often too successful. Since 1980, when the technique became available in the United States, the rate of twins in all births has climbed 70 percent, to 3.2 percent of births in 2004. Much of the increase, experts say, is a result of in vitro treatment. The rate of triplets and higher-order multiples increased even more from 1980 to 1998. It is not that twins or triplets are undesirable, doctors say. But multiple pregnancies often lead to risky preterm births and other complications. With that in mind, fertility centers are trying to lower the odds of such pregnancies, even at a cost of slightly lower success rates.

Fertility Center in Boston. “Is it a pregnancy without regard to the number of gestations or a pregnancy with a singleton live birth?” “Now is the time for all of us to rethink what is the paradigm of a successful I.V.F. pregnancy,” said Dr. Aaron K. Styer, a reproductive endocrinologist at the Massachusetts General Hospital. In I.V.F., a woman is given ovulation-induction hormones to produce multiple eggs, which are retrieved, fertilized with her partner’s sperm and transferred back to her uterus. The more embryos transferred, the higher the likelihood of multiples.

To achieve the goal of a single healthy baby, clinics are focusing on transferring fewer embryos and on developing more sophisticated ways to identify the healthiest embryos with the greatest chance of success. “We have been getting better at I.V.F. over the years, and as success rates go up, the number we transfer has to go down accordingly,” said Dr. Judy E. Stern, director of the human embryology and andrology lab at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “Where three embryos used to work and give you mostly singletons, now we transfer two, because we’re making better embryos.”

The number of I.V.F. cycles in which four or more embryos were transferred has dropped sharply, to 21 percent in 2004 from 62 percent in 1996. Although the efforts have substantially lowered the rates of triplets born through in vitro fertilization, they have not made a dent in the twin rate. That is because many doctors and patients are reluctant to take the final step to ensure a single birth, a process called S.E.T., for single embryo transfer. From 1996 to 2004, the rate of such procedures rose modestly, to 8 percent from 6 percent.

The American Society of Reproductive Medicine now recommends that women younger than 35 with a good prognosis have just one embryo transferred. Women under 35 make up 44 percent of I.V.F. cycles. In women older than 37, who have a higher incidence of embryos with chromosomal defects, three to five embryos are still recommended, depending on the woman’s age.

The main obstacle to single embryo transfer is its lower success rate. Some experts ask women to agree to two cycles, first transferring one fresh embryo while freezing the others. If the first transfer fails, doctors transfer a single frozen embryo, a much less costly and onerous procedure. That approach yields similar success rates to transferring two at once while drastically reducing twin rates. With momentum building to transfer just one or two embryos, clinics focus on choosing the embryo most likely to succeed. Selecting embryos has traditionally been based on a visual examination of their morphology — shape, number of divisions and other physical factors. But morphology does not tell all, and many embryos that look great under the microscope have undetected chromosomal abnormalities like missing or extra chromosomes, called aneuploidy. One method used to weed out unhealthy embryos is to leave the embryos in a Petri dish for five days, two more than usual, to allow more time for hidden chromosomal abnormalities to show up.

Other researchers are looking at the traits of women at high risk of having multiples. In research presented at the reproductive society’s annual meeting last October, Dr. Stern linked a higher number of oocytes, or eggs retrieved from ovaries, with higher rates of single and multiple pregnancies. “This will change our practice,” she said. “If more oocytes are retrieved, we’ll want to transfer fewer embryos.”

Other experts are turning to genetic screening before transfers to cull embryos without aneuploidy. The screening is used to select healthy embryos in families with histories of genetic diseases. Because one or two cells have to be removed for analysis, there is some concern that the process can damage embryos, lowering pregnancy rates. Another screening, comparative genomic hybridization, can assess all 23 pairs of chromosomes, providing an 80 percent chance of a healthy embryo and a 60 percent chance of a live birth, says Dr. Geoffrey Sher, executive medical director of the Sher Institutes of Reproductive Medicine, a nationwide group of fertility centers.

But Dr. Sher, whose lab performs this procedure, has encountered the same obstacles as others. He has a very high twin rate, hovering around 60 percent, because although the technique yields a higher success rate, women are refusing to have just one embryo transferred. Many women in fertility treatment say that they simply do not view having twins as a risky situation and that they are willing, if not eager, to have them to speed the completion of their family, to avoid the high costs of future I.V.F. cycles or to ensure that their child has a sibling, among other reasons.

For a couple in Brooklyn who asked that just the woman’s first name be used to protect their privacy, six years of infertility and several failed procedures was enough. When the woman, Marie, was 28, they requested that three embryos be transferred, even though their doctor advised transferring two. “I wanted a set of twins,” Marie said. “It is such a complicated and sometimes painful thing to go through I.V.F., and to have to go through it all again for a second child was just a waste for me.” In the third in vitro cycle, last June, Marie became pregnant, with triplets. At four weeks, she lost a fetus. At four and a half months, she lost the entire pregnancy. She was devastated, she said, but she added, “I don’t regret my decision.”

Though it is widely accepted that carrying three or more fetuses can have serious complications, some fertility specialists do not view a pregnancy with twins as risky, as long as the patient is carefully monitored. “Yes, twin delivery has more risk than singleton delivery, but with good obstetrical care and educated patients, the risk of twin delivery is minimally higher,” said Dr. Norbert Gleicher, medical director of the Center for Human Reproduction in New York.

Carrying twins or higher-order multiples raises the risk of preterm births; low-birth-weight babies, with the possibility of death in very premature infants; long-term health problems; and pregnancy complications, including pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes and Caesarean section. Studies show that 56 percent of I.V.F. twins born in 2004 weighed less than 5.5 pounds, and 65 percent were born prematurely, before 37 weeks of gestation. Still, many patients take comfort in the improvements in neonatal care. The survival rate for newborns over 2 pounds 3 ounces is 85 percent. And many people just see the adorable twins cooing in the double strollers crisscrossing Central Park — not the ones that do not make it out of neonatal intensive care — or the fetus that was eliminated in a medical procedure called a reduction to improve the chance of survival for the remaining fetus or fetuses.

Along with changes to in vitro fertilization, experts say, physicians need to improve monitoring drugs used to enhance ovulation. “The biggest problem with high multiples is coming from ovulation induction,” said Dr. Richard P. Dickey, chief of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Louisiana State University Medical School in New Orleans. If ovaries are too aggressively stimulated with hormones, a woman can produce a nest full of eggs and increase her risk of having triplets, quadruplets and even sextuplets. All ovulation-induction cycles should be closely monitored, and the cycles that produce too many oocytes should be canceled, Dr. Dickey said.

The biggest obstacles to reducing twins in infertility treatment are not medical, experts said, but the lack of insurance coverage, as well as pressure from patients to be aggressive. “People have to recognize that there’s a connection between cost and how the treatment is going to play out,” said Barbara Collura, executive director of Resolve, a patient advocacy organization for people with infertility. “If you have $10,000 that you’ve begged, borrowed and stolen for this one I.V.F. cycle, you’re not going to say, ‘Please just transfer one.’" Even doctors in the vanguard of the trend face resistance from patients like Marie. Despite her pregnancy loss, she said, “With all the hard work I put into getting pregnant, I’d just rather have a set of twins than a singleton.”

Gimme, Gimme
Dr Pia de Solenni

When we go about having children the way we order a customized car, design a kitchen, or buy a wardrobe, maybe it's a sign that we should get a pet or stick to inanimate things like cars, clothing, and cuisinarts rather than babies.....

The New York Times has this piece on reducing the chances of multiple births for women who use IVF to become pregnant. Granted, infertility is a very difficult thing to deal with, but it doesn't follow that we can therefore use any means to achieve what we want - a child, our own child. This article raises some interesting points that deserve consideration. Here are a few:

"Women under 35 make up 44 percent of I.V.F. cycles."

- That's a lot of relatively young women. What IVF clinics won't tell women is that there are natural methods to overcoming many cases of infertility. Dr. Hilger's Pope Paul VI Institute is a very good place to start. Imagine treating women holistically and integrally - there's a revolutionary concept.

"But Dr. Sher, whose lab performs this procedure, has encountered the same obstacles as others. He has a very high twin rate, hovering around 60 percent, because although the technique yields a higher success rate, women are refusing to have just one embryo implanted." [emphasis mine]

- It's all about the baby, right? Yet people are willing to allow numerous embyros to die in the process of getting a "baby." Remember, that embryo is its own unique entity with it own DNA. It's not a clump of cells that will grow into a bit of hair or bone or any other isolated matter. Unimpeded, it will become the "baby" desperately desired by some. It will continue to become the screaming toddler, the morose teenager, the college graduate, the young spouse, and so on.

"Many women in fertility treatment say that they simply do not view having twins as a risky situation and that they are willing, if not eager, to have them to speed the completion of their family, to avoid the high costs of future I.V.F. cycles or to ensure that their child has a sibling, among other reasons."

- ["And I'll have one of those, and one of those, and that one, and that one, and one of those in every color, and...."] Sorry, not to trivialize infertility, but this sounds ridiculous. Only in a culture that has lost the sense of what gifts are (think of those endless registries for every occasion besides getting married; think of how acceptable it has become to buy gifts for ourselves or to select the gifts that other people will "give" us) would be so blind as to realize that we lose what it means for a child to be a gift. This is about having a baby my way, when and how I want it, without thought even for the well being of the baby that I want. Because, after all, I want it.

"And many people just see the adorable twins cooing in the double strollers crisscrossing Central Park — not the ones that do not make it out of neonatal intensive care — or the vanishing twin, a fetus that was eliminated in a medical procedure called a reduction to improve the chance of survival for the remaining fetus or fetuses."

- Need I say more? It's about getting what we want, no matter the cost to others.

"Despite her pregnancy loss, she said, 'With all the hard work I put into getting pregnant, I’d just rather have a set of twins than a singleton.'"

- Well, that's one way of looking at it.

Again, I don't intend to belittle infertility in any way. My only point is that maybe there are some good reasons for rethinking IVF. A friend of mine, faced with infertility, was ready to adopt. Her husband was completely opposed. But my friend reasoned, "Whether I have the baby or someone else does, there's no guarantee that he will be good, honest, intelligent, good looking, whatever." Even with all the choices that IVF offers, there are no guarantees of this kind. In the meantime, there are children who already exist and need homes. What about helping out one of them? Granted, it won't happen on our terms, but do we really think that having a baby on our terms with IVF will mean that everything will continue to be on our terms after that? That wouldn't really be life, would it?

The Truth About Birth Control 1 & 2

A Challenging Truth, Part One: How Birth Control Works

Patti Maguire Armstrong
Catholic Exchange
February 9, 2008

How can something be both immense and minute at the same time, something upon which all of human history depends, yet fragile and almost non-existent to the eye? It is the union of an egg and sperm — an embryo. Such is God's way. He takes something smaller than a mustard seed and brings forth all of civilization. After creating everything in the universe single-handedly, He created us in his own image and bestowed upon us the power to become co-creators with Him. Working in union with us, when the sperm unites with the egg, not only has a new human life been set in motion, but so too has a spiritual life. God places an everlasting soul into the being of every son and daughter.

Most of us rarely think that deeply about it all. In our worldly way, we forget eternity and begin to affix costs — physical, emotional and monetary. The costs can seem exorbitant when we focus only through the eyes of the world. And looking through those same worldly eyes, the way to prevent the miracle we clearly do not recognize as such is so easy, inexpensive, and ironically, also so small — the birth control pill. But the pill does not just prevent the miracle, it also destroys it, a fact that is often surprising to committed pro-lifers. This fact is true for all contraception that works through manipulation of hormone levels.

History

The pill has become a symbol of freedom to those who have been told they can "have it all". And it has become a symbol of destruction to those who support a "Theology of the Body," philosophy, the essence of Catholic teaching that artificial means must not disrupt God's natural order of things.

The first birth control pill received approval from the Food and Drug Administration in 1960. Using a synthetic estrogen hormone, the pill tricked a women's body into thinking it was pregnant. No egg would be released thereby preventing the opportunity for conception.

Although the pill was initially introduced with the idea of affording women a reliable way of limiting their family size, it soon became the ticket to the Sexual Revolution that began in the Sixties and never really ended. The pill promised something it's never been able to deliver: sex with "no strings attached". There are always emotional and moral consequences to thwarting God's purpose, but women discovered physical problems too. Blood clots, heart attacks and strokes were some of the side effects caused by the Pill's high estrogen levels. Drug manufacturers lowered these levels in order to reduce the side effects but that also increased the incidence of breakthrough ovulation. With the lower levels of estrogen, eggs would sometimes still get released and pregnancies resulted.

The drug companies tackled this situation by adding the synthetic hormone progesterone, which makes the uterine wall (the endometrium) inhospitable to implantation by an embryo. So if an egg was released and became fertilized by a sperm, thus creating life, the pill would have actually failed to prevent a conception, meaning it failed as a contraceptive. But, through preventing implantation of the embryo, the pill acts as an abortifacient and stops life from continuing to the next stage. (A clear and simple demonstration of this can be seen here.)

Since some women actually do become pregnant while on the pill, there are some embryos that manage to implant into the uterus. Whether it's RU-486, Norplant, Depo-Provera, the morning after pill, the Mini-pill, or the Pill, there is no chemical "contraceptive" that always causes an abortion. There is also none that never causes an abortion.

Ignorance

There is no way of knowing what percentage of pregnancies result in abortion through the pill. The woman using the pill with this scenario never even knows that she conceived a child. Her cycle will continue on schedule with no realization that an embryo is being flushed from her body. The Catholic Church has never wavered on the teaching that life begins at conception. Although Catholics are contracepting at rates parallel to non-Catholics, using artificial means to change our body's natural functions in order to block the potential for life has been recognized as rebellion against God's plan for humanity. However, using natural means to understand the rhythms of life and then to work in union with God is encouraged through Natural Family Planning.

The issue of birth control is a big one where misunderstanding and ignorance often misguide people. But when it comes to the pill, the ignorance that many women fall prey to is lack of understanding of its abortifacient properties. Most women don't consider that while taking their birth control, they may also be aborting a life within them. As Pope Paul VI predicted when he issued his encyclical Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life) in 1968, the use of artificial contraception would lead to abortions.

Although it seemed to many to be an overdramatic prediction, it proved to be prophetic. In hindsight, its logic in saying that widespread use of contraception would lead to "conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality" was prophetic. Since the Pill began to be sold in 1960, divorces have tripled, out-of-wedlock births jumped from 224,000 to 1.2 million, abortions doubled, and cohabitation soared 10-fold from 430,000 to 4.2 million.

Sex both inside and outside marriage ceased to be about a bond of marital love in which a couple became one in union with God. It became merely an activity for personal satisfaction devoid of anything more. The Pope predicted man would lose respect for woman, considering her "as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion."

Society as a whole moved from recognizing sex as something reserved for married couples to something for everyone, since the possibility for pregnancy was greatly reduced (although never completely removed). Thus, people completely opposed to having children could have sex with others whom they had chosen as bed partners but would never chose to co-parent their children. The most intimate experience intended to be shared in love and self-giving with the potential for creating life became merely a form of recreation. And if life sprang forth, such a life was easily regarded as nothing more than an unintended problem that could legally be disposed of through abortion.

But women choosing abortion and the men who either make that choice with them or plead for them to do otherwise, are very aware of the decision that is being made, whereas women who choose to take birth control pills are not so aware of the potential ramifications of their choice. There is not a baby with a heartbeat who must forcefully be removed, but unbeknownst to many, there is a baby. Since life begins at conception, a life, even though undetectable to us, is still a life. It is the way God chooses to begin things, small and yet mighty in its eternal existence.

In addition to the pill, IUDs, Depo-Provera and Norplant also cause early, undetectable abortions. Doctor usually fail to warn women of the abortifacient properties of the pill. I've heard some doctors admit they were not actually even aware of these properties. Women often choose contraception as a means to avoid pregnancy without realizing they are not actually stopping pregnancy, but quickly ending it.

Denial

In his booklet, titled Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?, Randy Alcorn states: "The question of whether it causes abortions has direct bearing on untold millions of Christians, many of them pro-life, who use and recommend it. For those who believe God is the Creator of each person and the giver and taker of human life, this is a question with profound moral implications."

Alcorn was a Protestant pastor who not only used the pill in his married life, but also counseled other married couples to do so. He had a vested interest in not recognizing the pill as an abortifactient. But when confronted with the facts through his own research, it demanded changes in his own behavior and philosophy. His booklet was written in 1998 to inform others of the truth.

Alcorn's booklet has met some opposition. According to him: "Despite evidence, some pro-life physicians state that the likelihood of the Pill having an abortifacient effect is infinitesimally low, or nonexistent. Though I would very much like to believe this, the scientific evidence does not permit me to do so."

Alcorn, surprisingly, found that the greatest resistance to recognizing the abortifacient quality of the pill comes from the Christian community. "Dr. Walt Larimore has told me that whenever he has presented this evidence to audiences of secular physicians, there has been little or no resistance to it. But when he has presented it to Christian physicians there has been substantial resistance. Since secular physicians do not care whether the Pill prevents implantation, they tend to be objective in interpreting the evidence. After all, they have little or nothing at stake either way. Christian physicians, however, very much do not want to believe the Pill causes early abortions. Therefore, I believe, they tend to resist the evidence. This is certainly understandable. Nonetheless, we should not permit what we want to believe to distract us from what the evidence indicates we should believe."

It's easier to be pro-life when we limit the discussion to the abortion industry. The inclusion of artificial birth control complicates and confuses people. With so many opinions even among Catholics, how is a person to know what to believe? I understand the confusion. While living in Montana, I had a doctor who was also a priest, who told me it was not realistic to expect a couple to follow the Catholic teaching on birth control. He prescribed birth control pills to many of his female patients. So, is it any surprise there are many Catholics, ones like me, ignorant of the true teaching?

Yet, we must cut through the false teachings and erroneous opinions to reach the truth. Our lives, our bodies and our souls are all we have. They are gifts that must be safeguarded. Christopher West, author and speaker, has written books and articles explaining the beauty and truth of God's plan for men and women. In his book, Good News about Sex and Marriage, he asserts that the Church's teaching on sex and marriage is good news because it's the truth about love and true love is the fulfillment of the human person. He also admits that the news is challenging. "This is so because the truth about love is always challenging."

A Challenging Truth, Part One: How Birth Control Works

Patti Maguire Armstrong
Catholic Exchange
February 12, 2008

"Everyone does it, so what's the big deal?" Taking the pill, getting "fixed", getting a shot of Depo-Provera...there's a myriad of choices for contraception. The expectation in today's modern society is that everyone uses artificial birth control at some point in their lives, be they married or not. Right?

Many years ago, I would have agreed with all of the above. I was not a rebellious Catholic, just an ignorant one. But the guilt of my ignorance rests on more shoulders than just mine. I was surrounded by contraception Catholics who discussed their birth control as easily as they spoke of which brand of toothpaste they used. And then there was the Catholic clergy. There was nary a homily I heard that even hinted of the Catholic teaching on human sexuality. Understandably, it's not an ideal topic for an audience of all ages. And, truthfully, I did not always make it to Mass, so maybe I missed the "Talk" one Sunday. Had I kept up on Catholic teaching, I would have been aware of the "Theology of the Body". This was the first major teaching Pope John Paul II gave in 129 short talks between 1979 and 1984. This project was a Biblical reflection on the meaning of human embodiment, particularly as it concerns human sexuality.

I was not aware of the "Theology of the Body" because I was not a good Catholic back in the day. Nor did I pay much heed to Natural Family Planning in which couples regulate births without recourse to unnatural methods that interfere with the way God designed our fertility. But I expected a popular priest at my parish in Montana to be up on all things Catholic. Unfortunately, he was not. As both a priest and doctor, his parishioners and patients looked up to him. He let them down by stating, "It's not realistic to expect couples to follow the Pope's teachings on birth control."

The Error of our Ways

I believed my doctor/priest and followed society. Not until I began to embrace my Catholic faith and trust its teachings to guide me did I come to trust that God's plan is always the best. When Mark and I married in 1981, I was not even aware the Catholic Church taught that contraception was against God's plan. We were both Catholic and occasionally went to Mass. It seemed like a good thing to do, but other weekend plans easily took precedence over Mass. Our Catholic faith was mostly on the back burner.

After the births of our three boys, I decided to have surgery for a tubal ligation. I loved my children very much, but three seemed like plenty. Mark said the decision was up to me. During the pre-op exam, the doctor explained the failure rate was only 1 in 500. Those odds were unsettling. "Not bad odds for a million dollar lottery," I thought. A failure could result in a tubal pregnancy, which could result in death. That thought weighed heavily on my mind. I canceled.

The next line of attack was birth control pills prescribed by my Catholic doctor/priest. (He had become a priest first then received permission to go through medical school and become a doctor.) When my cycle started up again halfway through the package of pills, it was obvious they were not working. My doctor/priest had explained they contained a low dose of estrogen to avoid common side effects. Obviously, the dose was so low that they were not preventing ovulation as intended. I tossed them out.

The following month I became pregnant. When Mark heard the news, he announced: "I've been praying for this." It turned out the big sneak had literally been praying on the sly. He liked the idea of having another baby and decided to pray rather than argue about it. I was actually happy about the news. A diehard baby lover like myself could not help but rejoice at another little one. This may seem odd from a person taking precautions against having more children, but as you can see, none of this was very well thought out.

Jacob was born on May 13, the anniversary date of Our Lady of Fatima's first appearance in Fatima, Portugal. It was also Mark's birthday and Mother's Day. Mark too had been born on Mother's Day thirty-three years earlier. Happy Birthday Mark — from God.

During this time in our lives, we began reading about various Marian apparitions and were inspired for the first time to pray the rosary. We stopped missing Sunday Mass and began learning more about our faith. Still, we were not fully converted yet — particularly when it came to family planning. There's always a learning curve and we did not go from A to Z overnight. After four children, I insisted Mark have a vasectomy. He resisted at first but finally relented.

Reality Hits

Initially, I was oblivious that we had done anything wrong. But gradually, as I grew to desire God's will in my life, started making visits to Jesus in the tabernacle and continued praying the rosary, a feeling grew in me. I realized that the Church, which Christ had founded to guide us until the end of time, had authority to teach on spiritual matters, including matters relating to sexuality. I had been given no such authority.

I shared my feelings of regret over Mark's sterilization with him. He was less than thrilled since he thought it was a bad idea to begin with. As a matter of fact, he accused me of being like Eve. "You are right," I agreed. "But remember, Adam was kicked out of the garden, too." We began praying that God's will would be done in our lives, including whether we would have more children. We determined that if it was God's will, Mark's vasectomy would fail.

But, one night, I had a dream in which I saw two babies — one blonde and one dark-haired. I felt an intense love for these babies as if they were my own. At the end of the dream, I was made to know that these were babies God had planned for us, but because we had not lived in union with His plan, they would never be born. I woke up feeling like a mother who just lost her babies. I knew the only way to get to them was to convince Mark to have a reversal of his vasectomy.

When Mark came home from work that day, I approached him with my idea for a reversal. He would have none of it. I barely got two sentences out of my mouth before he announced the subject was officially closed. Even if we could afford it, he was completely unwilling to subject himself to another surgery. Now, it was my turn to pray behind Mark's back. "Okay God," I prayed, "I want to do Your will but I am powerless to change Mark's mind. I'm putting everything in Your hands." Then, I just kept praying.

Of One Mind

Several months had passed when one morning after Sunday Mass, Mark casually wondered out loud how much a reversal operation would cost. "I know," I announced. Before Mark had shot my idea down, I had called the doctor's office to get all the information.

"I can't get off from work this month," Mark said, "but next month I could go in and get it done." I was both shocked and thrilled. We did not have the money to pay for it, but we determined we could probably make payments.

"What changed your mind?" I finally asked, wondering what had caused such a drastic change of heart. His answer took my breath away.

"I had a dream last night," Mark said. "I saw two babies that God had planned for us." I had never told a single soul about my dream.

Three months later, we were expecting a baby. I had a strong feeling that it would be our first girl and God wanted us to name her Mary after the Blessed Mother who had intervened for us. We had never considered the name with any previous pregnancy. I wrote on a slip of paper, "Yes, I think Mary would be a good name," and tucked it in my wallet. I figured that when God let Mark in on the plan, I would pull out the slip and show him.

Our blond-haired baby girl, Mary, was born on December 22, 1993. A few months before her birth, we inherited the exact amount of money we needed to pay Mark's reversal surgery in full. Dark-haired Teresa was born on my birthday, April 18, 1996. I thought we must be done now that we had the babies from our dream. Mark said he thought ten would be a good number of children. I did not actually take this seriously. I recalled that when St. Maximilian Kolbe was young, he had received a vision of Our Blessed Mother. She had shown him two wreaths of roses — one of red representing martyrdom, and one of white, representing purity. She asked him which he would like to choose. He chose both. I wondered if, like St. Maximilian, we should volunteer to take on more than God asked? We prayed for guidance.

John was born on August 31, 1999 and Isaac was born on his sister Mary's birthday, December 22, 2001. We are a family of twelve now, including two brothers who were AIDS orphans from Kenya. As of this writing, the ages range from 24 to 6. There could be no greater blessing on our family than our precious children. The kid's love for each other runs deep. I know that one of the biggest draws for my oldest sons to come home for visits is to spend time with their siblings.

The moral of this story is not that everyone must have a big family to do the will of God. No, my plan is not your plan. The moral of my story is that God has a plan for us all. To discern His plan and strive to live in union with it, we must learn and embrace the teachings He gives us through His Church. Nowadays, there is an abundance of authors, speakers and organizations that support and encourage couples in this way. I have no doubt that much of that information was available back when I first married, but I did not make it my business to learn about it. Make it your business to learn because, until your plan is God's plan, it's the wrong one.

Patti Maguire Armstrong is the mother of ten children including two Kenyan AIDS orphans. She is a speaker and the author of Catholic Truths for Our Children: A Parent's Guide (Scepter). She is also the managing editor and co-author of Ascension Press's Amazing Grace book series. Her website is RaisingCatholicKids.com

Some Thoughts on Pregnancy and Birth

The following is a post I found from my good friend Liz. She is a catholic mother of 4 and a strong advocate for natural home birth, attachment parenting, co-sleeping, breastfeeding, and homeschooling. I have always planned on raising my children in the same way and when I read her post I knew it needed to be shared. Hopefully after those who read this will be careful not to waist the perfect opportunity for penance that God intended through natural birth.


As a pregnant woman, I find I have little in common with certain other pregnant women. When I was pregnant with our oldest it was the fact that most of the other first time moms were a good ten years older than me. They were over thirty, had "lived" life and felt they were ready for parenthood.

I have always felt that the morons of the world are the ones who think they're ready. Guess what, you're never ready.

When I was prego with number two son, it was the other moms who were on their second child who would ask if I was going to have any more after that because God knows, that was it for them.

Now I find I'm just impatient with the pregnant women choose to be ignorant. The ones who I run into all the time who don't read anything have no idea what's going on with their bodies or their babies. It's enough to make me scream. I'm talking about usually college educated women who have careers. They're smart, they just choose to be ignorant when it comes to bringing their child into the world. And it's usually the ones who won't eat any kind of fish or avoid having even half a glass of wine during their whole pregnancy. They're very careful not to put anything into their bodies that could hurt the baby but when it comes time for the baby to come out they want to be pumped full of drugs and "delivered".

I'm not even saying you shouldn't ever have pain medication but don't you want to know what your options are? Don't you want to know what your body does during labor and delivery? What you can expect to happen, or what you have the right to refuse be done to you.

The attitude of being afraid to question a Doctor's decision regarding your care because you are afraid of offending him or because you think he's doing you some big favor by delivering your child is just silly. He's offering you a service, he's being compensated for that service. Yes you have a say in what happens, if you don't tell him/her what you prefer, then they'll do what is easiest for them. Why not, I would too. If you don't care how the job gets done, then I'll do what is easiest and most convenient for me.

You might not believe me that Doctors do what is most convenient for them or make a lot of decisions from a risk management position. You might say this is the United States, we have the technology we are the greatest country in the world. The safest place you could be to have a baby is in an American hospital with an American Doctor.

I would then tell you that you were crazy. If you did the slightest bit of homework you'd find that the great U S of A is number 34 on the infant mortality rate list. Yes, I'll say it again number 34. That means that there are 33 countries safer to have a baby in than America. Ok, there are some pretty tiny countries ahead of us but even if you knock off 5 or 10 countries from the list we would still be around number 24.

If you don't like what I've said so far, then you are going to hate it when I tell you that many of the countries that have a lower infant death mortality rate have a much higher instance of births attended by midwives. It makes sense though. If you ask anyone who has experienced both, a hospital birth attended by a physician or a birth attended by a midwife, you will find they will tell you the difference in care is remarkable.

I'll tell you a few of the reasons why. When you are in a hospital setting, you are surrounded by technology and they have all the equipment necessary for any situation that may arise, but they also set themselves up to need this technology by intervening in what is a natural process. For reasons like Doctor convenience and the need for them to speed things up so you'll stay on their schedule, they do all kinds of interventive procedures which necessitate the need for technology so they can know when their interventions are not working or are putting the mother and baby at risk.

During the normal hospital delivery, you don't see your doctor very often. He/She pops in for a minute or two during labor and then leaves you in the care of the nurses, who rely on the machines they have you (so conveniently for them) hooked up to to tell them when things are going south. So, yes you do need all that technology in that setting because by the time they catch something, the need to fix the problem is immediate. Contrast that to a natural birth with a midwife who is with you the whole time assessing the situation and is much more able to catch potential problems earlier on and address them or asses the need for medical intervention. It's just a completely different attitude about the birthing process.

The midwife approach views birth as a natural process which they assist and help with in case of problems. The obstetrical approach is more of a cure you of the sickness of pregnancy. That's why you go to a hospital right? Your sick and they make you better.

You wonder why it would be this way, why won't the Doctors take a different approach ? I'll tell you why, because no one requires it of them. Because they have tons of patients who take more time picking the right car seat to coordinate with their diaper bag than they do picking or questioning their Doctor.

I'll leave you with this:

"In the U.S. the national infant mortality rate was 8.9 deaths per 1,000 live births [in 1991]. The worst state was Delaware at 11.8, with the District of Columbia even worse at 21.0. The best state was Vermont, with only 5.8. Vermont also has one of the highest rates of home birth in the country as well as a larger portion of midwife-attended births than most states. . .

"The international standing of the U.S. [in terms of infant mortality rates] did not really begin to fall until the mid-1950s. This correlates perfectly with the founding of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist (ACOG) in 1951. ACOG is a trade union representing the financial and professional interests of obstetricians who has sought to secure a monopoly in pregnancy and childbirth services. Prior to ACOG, the U.S. always ranked in 10th place or better. Since the mid-1950s the U.S. has consistently ranked below 12th place and hasn't been above 16th place since 1975. The relative standing of the U.S. continues to decline even to the present."

("International Infant Mortality Rates--U.S. in 22nd Place," David Stewart, NAPSAC News, Fall-Winter, 1993, pages 36, 38.)

Since Liz wrote this in 2003 the United States has dropped 3 places to 37 in infant mortality rate.

Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day

Today is Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day so please take a little time to pray for those Holy Innocents lost to abortion, early infant death and miscarriage, as well as thank God for His unfailing mercy. I would especially appreciate prayers for the soul of my sister, Hannah Abigail.

The following is a prayer from St. Faustina that I found appropriate:

O Greatly Merciful God, Infinite Goodness, today all mankind calls out from the abyss of its misery to Your mercy - to Your compassion, O God; and it is with its mighty voice of misery that it cries out. Gracious God, do not reject the prayer of this earth's exiles! O Lord, Goodness beyond our understanding, Who are acquainted with our misery through and through, and know that by our own power we cannont ascend to You, we implore You: anticipate us with Your grace and keep on increasing Your mercy in us, that we may faithfully do Your holy will all through our life and at death's hour. Let the omnipotence of Your mercy shield us from the darts of our salvation's enemies, that we may with confidence, as Your children, await Your final coming - that day known to You alone. And we expect to obtain everything promised us by Jesus in spite of all our wretchedness. For Jesus is our Hope: Through His merciful Heart, as through an open gate, we pass through to heaven. Amen

More on Prenatal Testing

Here again the question of a vanishing line has arisen (see previous post on the issue), but now the risk is presented physically rather than solely mentally. Truly how many of the other invasive tests and procedures are necessary when it comes to the well being of our unborn children, in addition, how many of these everyday procedures have had harmful side effects without our knowledge? Just something to continue pondering. Thank you Colleen for bringing this article to my attention. Also below is a preceding and connected article that briefly addresses the subject matter.

160 Healthy Babies Lost for Every 50 Down's Cases Detected with Amniocentesis

Hilary White

LifeSiteNews.com
LONDON, August 21, 2007

The risks of amniocentesis to the unborn child have long been known but now a new analysis by a British doctor has shown that using the tests in seek-and-destroy missions for Down's syndrome and other genetic abnormalities results in the deaths of hundreds of healthy babies every year in Britain.

Dr. Hylton Meire, the retired physician and author of texts on ultrasound, calculates that for every 50 children with Down's Syndrome successfully identified and killed by abortion, 160 non-affected babies are lost by miscarriage after the test. His paper, published in the Journal of the British Medical Ultrasound Society, mainly emphasizes that the non-invasive test, called the foetal 'nuchal thickness' measurement, is not as useful as is widely thought because of the high incidents of false positives it gives.

In obstetrics, it is now standard practice to offer pregnant women the non-invasive test that measures the fluid at the back of the child's neck. Combined with the age of the mother, the test results in a number taken to indicate the possibility that the child has Down's. If the number is high enough, the mother is offered an amniocentesis, a test in which a needle is inserted into the abdomen and a sample of amniotic fluid is drawn off and analyzed.

With about one in every 1000 children conceived having Down’s syndrome, and with amniocentesis carrying a one in 200 risk of miscarriage, Dr. Meire, wrote in the Journal Ultrasound that if all pregnant women took the amniocentesis test as many as 3,200 healthy babies could die by miscarriage every year.

There are about 30,000 amniocentesis tests done every year in the UK.

In North America, earlier this year, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC) has recommended that all pregnant women, not just those over 35, should be screened, including with amniocentesis.


All Pregnant Women Should “Screen” for Down’s Syndrome – American and Canadian Ob Gyn Colleges

Hilary White

LifeSiteNews.com
OTTAWA, January 11, 2007

Canadian group admits screening intended to give women option to abort child with Down’s Syndrome

In the same month, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) are recommending that all pregnant women, not just those over 35, should be screened, including with invasive procedures such as amniocentesis, to discover whether they have a risk of bearing a child with Down’s Syndrome.

While the ACOG media release does not directly mention abortion as the usual fate of the “screened” babies, a SOGC official readily admits that the Canadian recommendation was specifically intended to give women the option to abort a child with Down’s Syndrome.

“Yes, it's going to lead to more termination, but it's going to be fair to these women who are 24 who say, 'How come I have to raise an infant with Down's syndrome, whereas my cousin who was 35 didn't have to?’” Dr. Andre Lalonde, the executive vice president of the SOGC, told the National Post.

Dr. Lalonde said the only ethical consideration is to ensure that an abortion is “what the woman wants”. “We have to be fair to give women a choice,” he said.

The National Post says that SOGC’s recommendation, to be released in the society's journal on February 1, is that pregnant women under 40 “be given” non-invasive screening and amniocentesis if their risk for Down's syndrome appears high. Pregnant women over the age of 40 should “automatically be given amniocentesis” the Post reports.

On January 2, ACOG’s media release said women should automatically “be offered” the option of “less invasive” screening, such as genetic counseling and ultrasounds, as well as the more dangerous amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) to detect any possible “chromosome abnormality or…inherited condition”.

Canada’s pro-life leaders expressed outrage at the eugenic implications of the recommendations.

Jim Hughes, National President of CLC responded to SOGC saying, “More than 3 million babies have already been killed by abortion. Sex-selection is quickly becoming an option and a threat to the unborn, and now the medical profession, that is supposed to save lives, is proposing to terminate lives based on its medical version of acceptability.”

Joseph Boyle, a professor teaching Christian bioethics at the University of Toronto told the National Post that though having more information is itself a good thing, the ethics depends upon what is done with it.

“Other than having an abortion if the child is discovered to have Down's,” he said, “what good is that information going to be?”

ACOG says the goal is to “offer procedures with “high detection rates and low false positive rates” and admits that the invasive amniocentesis and CVS procedures can result in what they call “pregnancy loss.”

Dr. James Goldberg, a former chairman of ACOG’s committee on genetics, told the New York Times that the recommendation to offer younger women the invasive procedures was worth the risk of miscarriage.

He said that for most couples, “losing a normal pregnancy secondary to the procedure is not as problematic as the birth of a Down syndrome child, so they’re willing to take that risk.”

The ACOG guidelines were published in the January edition of journal Obstetrics and Gynecology.

"Raising 14 Kids"

Raising 14 Kids

Michelle Duggar

Parent Magazine
September 2003

If you think your life is hectic, consider what it's like raising (and home-schooling) this many children! Here, one mom shares the story of her family -- and her faith.

Introduction
Compared with the average American family, ours is very unusual. My husband, Jim Bob, and I have 14 children. We've been blessed with nine boys and five girls, including two sets of twins. Our oldest son, Joshua, is 15. The youngest, Justin, is 10 months. We are evangelical Christians and decided to let God dictate the size of our family. To us, each child is a joy, a gift from the Lord.

We live in a part of the country where many people share our beliefs -- Springdale, a city of 50,000 in northwest Arkansas. Like many families we know, we home-school our kids. We feel it's the best way to teach our Christian values. Above all, we want to inspire our children to turn their hearts toward God.

Plenty of parents get frazzled with only a couple of children, so people wonder how we can possibly take care of 14. Believe it or not, I don't find it all that difficult. One key is organization. A huge master schedule for all the kids' activities nearly covers a door in our kitchen. I also keep a weekday schedule for each child. Jim Bob doesn't work a typical 9 to 5 job: He's a real-estate investor and is involved in local politics. He served in our state legislature for four years and last year ran unsuccessfully in the U.S. Senate primary. He's busy, but he manages to find time to come home during the day to help out

Our household runs smoothly because everyone pitches in. Each older child acts as a "buddy" to a younger one. In the morning, the older siblings make sure their younger buddies are changed, washed, and dressed. They watch over them at meals, help them with their schoolwork, and even put them down for naps. The older kids have other chores too, like cleaning the garage and helping prepare meals. We view chores as opportunities to serve the family -- and to serve God.

Our mornings are busy: I nurse the baby, get the kids breakfast, and then we come together for morning prayers. After that, the older kids might do schoolwork or practice the violin or piano. I do chores and try to keep the little ones occupied. In the afternoon, I conduct our school. We work on some subjects as a group, and I also give each child projects appropriate for his or her grade level. Our curriculum emphasizes character -- honesty, integrity, initiative, and responsibility. Our motto is "Joy" -- for Jesus first, others second, yourself last.

We usually all eat dinner together at around 5 p.m. The three oldest plan and prepare evening meals. They like to do that because they get to choose the menus! Our day ends with baths and then Bible study with Daddy. The boys sleep in the master bedroom, and the girls sleep in a room with bunk beds. (Jim Bob and I have a small room, but we're in the process of building a bigger house, so soon we'll all have more space.) Once the kids are in bed, Jim Bob and I have a little time alone together. Our schedule is less hectic on the weekends, with Saturdays for rest and Sundays for worship.

Everyday tasks like grocery shopping are more complicated when you're doing them for 16 people. We spend about $1,500 a month on food. The last time we went shopping, we filled five carts! Our dry pantry is stuffed with 50-pound bags of rice and beans. We've also got two deep freezers and an industrial-size fridge. When fruit goes on sale, we might buy seven bags of apples and five bags of oranges at a time. That fruit could be gone in two or three days.

For the laundry, I have a wonderful friend from church who comes by twice a week to help. We've got two washers, three dryers, and one giant closet where we store clothes for the entire family. When we go out to eat, it takes a couple of hours to get everybody ready. The kids sometimes dress in matching outfits to help us keep track of them -- they've got 10 matching sets. We also feel that dressing alike unifies us. As far as cars, we have a bus that seats 24. For smaller trips, we've got a 15-passenger van. And we also have a mobile home for vacations.

I know people wonder how we are able to support such a large family: For one thing, our real-estate investments have been successful. But we also live modestly -- and debt-free. Like the Bible says, "Let no debt remain outstanding except the continuing debt to love one another." Almost everything we buy is secondhand or from estate sales. I sew a lot of our clothing. We're saving for our children's education, but we figure only some will want to go to college. Others might go into the ministry or learn a trade. I really don't worry about money. God provides amazingly for us. If our children turn toward Him, I believe He will do the same for them. People also ask us what the children think about shouldering so much responsibility. I tell them that this is the only life my children have known. I don't think they resent their workload. The older ones like to be needed and looked up to, and the younger children love their buddies. The little ones always have someone to play with. When the kids fight, I usually encourage them to settle their problems on their own. If they can't, I'll take away the toy they're fighting over for a few days. They get a lot of opportunities to practice sharing and taking turns.

I realize our lifestyle isn't for everyone. Last year, I was pregnant, nursing a child, and looking after 12 more. A lot of people wonder, "How do you manage?" But this is my calling; this is what I love.

When Jim Bob and I got married 19 years ago, we didn't expect to have this many children: I'm the youngest of seven; my husband is one of two. But now, we think it's possible that we'll have even more. As far as we're concerned, that would be wonderful. We really desire to receive as many gifts as the Lord wants to give us.

The Duggars!!!

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar are my new heroes! I find this homeschooling, southern family of now 19, an inspiration! Currently living in Arkansas, the Duggars illustrate the fullness received by always remaining open to life. They proudly display to the world the joy and blessings of having, what some might suggest to be too many, children. I can only pray that Phillip and I would be so blessed.

A Caution Against Coveting Parenthood

Throughout all the scientific advances and research that aid our knowledge and further our understanding of God's ingenious reproductive process, this article serves as a reminder that we must evermore guard our hearts by prudently discerning even the noblest of our human yearnings.


A Theological Caution on NFP

Rev. Benedict M. Guevin, OSB., Ph.D., S.T.D.
Ethics and Medics September 2000
Volume 25 Number 9

In “The Science of Natural Family Planning” (Ethics & Medics [25:5] May 2000), Mary E. and Robert T. Kambic of The Johns Hopkins University of Public Health review the scientific findings that are the foundation of Natural Family Planning [NFP] in the hope that preachers and teachers will use the information to renew acquaintance with and commitment to its practice. Having described the various methods of NFP, their effectiveness and certain misconceptions surrounding them, they discuss the benefits that come from their use: increased intimacy, lower divorce rates, and the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Being a proponent of NFP in my upper level college course on sexual ethics, I laud the clear and accurate presentation of these two scientists.
Desire to Be a Parent
But I would like to issue a word of caution, not so much to the Kambics, but to those who may become or who are already committed to the use of NFP. This caution does not concern the practice of NFP itself, but rather what may be an unrecognized attitude toward future children that may be present in those who otherwise practice these methods in good faith. This unrecognized attitude can be stated as follows: to see future children not as a gift from the creative hand of God but as a means to satisfy the desire to be a parent.

Natural Family Planning is an effective method for spacing and limiting the birth of children. Such limiting and spacing is part of responsible parenthood when, for physical or psychological conditions of the husband or wife, or for external conditions (see Humanae Vitae [HV], n. 16) a couple decides to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth (HV, n. 10).
But, as the Kambics indicate, NFP may also be used to plan a pregnancy: either because the couple has decided that the time is right, or because previous attempts at becoming pregnant have failed. If there is no medical problem, the charting of the most fertile times, and the discovery of irregularities in the woman’s signs and symptoms, can help many couples achieve a pregnancy of which they once despaired.

The avoidance of a pregnancy, either now or for an indeterminate period of time, for the legitimate reasons stated above, generally marks the attitude of parents using NFP. It is a responsible exercise of parenthood.

But what about the attitude of a couple who is using NFP in order to conceive a child? Undoubtedly, many couples do so with an outlook that is theologically commensurate with the method. Others, however, with good faith, may harbor the view that sees children as a means of satisfying their desire to be parents. Is such an approach in harmony with the theology that lies behind Natural Family Planning?

Children as God’s Gift
It is, of course, legitimate for a couple to want to have children. Among the characteristic features of conjugal love—a love that is human, total, faithful and exclusive—is that it is also fecund (HV, n. 9). In other words, conjugal love is not exhausted by the union of husband and wife, but is destined to continue by bringing forth new life (HV, n. 9). Indeed, [m]arriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute substantially to the welfare of the parents (Gaudium et spes [GS], n. 50).

The Second Vatican Council recognizes that children are first and foremost gifts, indeed, the supreme gift of marriage. It recognizes, too, that children contribute to the welfare of their parents. But in what does this contribution consist? It consists, in the first instance, in the sanctification of the parents (GS, n. 48); second, “[w]ith sentiments of gratitude, affection and trust, they will repay their parents for the benefits given to them and will come to their assistance as devoted children in times of hardship and in the loneliness of old age” (GS, n. 48).

The gift of children can and, indeed, does bestow benefits on parents: sanctification and assistance in times of need. But nowhere is the satisfying of a couple’s desire to be parents a part of the Church’s understanding of the fecundity of conjugal love. Thus, while it is legitimate for a couple to want a child, a child, moreover, who may in fact, once conceived, satisfy a couple’s generative desires, it is not permitted for a couple to want a child in order to satisfy parenting needs. Such a desire would reduce the not-yet-born child to a means rather than an end. To avoid an attitude that may, unwittingly, reduce the not-yet-born child to a means rather than an end, couples should consider the extent and limits of their role in planning a pregnancy.

Planning a Pregnancy
Clearly, couples who use NFP in order to become pregnant are not leaving conception to chance. Among other things, responsible parenthood entails knowledge of and respect for the biological processes that make conception possible (HV, n. 10). Such knowledge and respect, as the Kambics point out, are gained by using NFP. But knowledge of and respect for these biological processes do not bring dominion over these processes with them. A conjugal act that “remains open to the transmission of life” (HV, n. 11) “capacitates” (HV, n.12) a couple for the generation of such new life. Couples are not the “arbiters of the sources of human life, but rather the ministers (emphasis added) of the design established by the Creator” (HV, n. 13).

Parents cooperate with God in the gift of transmitting human life by acknowledging the extent and limits of their role in planning a pregnancy. Such cooperation also acknowledges that God is the principle of human life which, from its inception, reveals the creating hand of God (HV, n. 13).

Parenthood is a worthy and God-given vocation which is rightly desired. This vocation allows husbands and wives to share in God’s own creative activity. NFP is a laudable means of sharing in God’s creation of new life. This new life is desired by God for its own sake and is sheer gift to be desired by parents for its own sake. The benefits such a new life bestow on parents are real, but such benefits should first be regarded as gifts from God.

Rev. Benedict M. Guevin, OSB., Ph.D., S.T.D.
Associate Professor of Theology
Saint Anselm College
Manchester, NH

A Vanishing Line

The following article calls into question the blurred line between sufficient prenatal care and eugenics in the secular field of obstetrics.

The question I pose is where do you halt your curiosity to maintain clear judgment in regards to your unborn child? This boundary, I'm sure, is different for everyone and difficult to be sure of until placed in a similar situation, however, I think it does deserve previous contemplation and spiritual preparation.

As an example, to completely circumvent any temptation of abortion in the event of tragic news concerning their unborn child, I know some who avoid all intrauterine testing including sonograms. Others may find the total hands off approach to be extreme, but that stance truly prevents any possibility for Doctors to suggest termination due to a diagnosed birth defect. Moreover and undeniably the process of procreation has become so intrusive as technology and science have progressed. In the fast approaching future, I don't doubt that, through In vitro fertilization, parents will be able to choose their baby's sex and other distinguishing characteristics such as height and intelligence level. In fact, as part of the currently ongoing embryonic pre-screening done for IVF, embryos with an affinity for certain cancers and other fatal diseases are deemed unacceptable and are therefore never given a chance for implantation. What these practices really come down to is that yet again man is attempting to take on the identity of God, and we all regretfully know where those actions lead.


When Expectant Parents Hear “Bad News”

Elias Crim
Catholic Exchange
July 18, 2007

Like many other laypeople who found a new ministry, Monica Rafie first had to undergo a personal trial by fire. On her website, BeNotAfraid.net, she recounts what happened at the clinic in suburban Chicago in June 2001, when her second child, Celine, was 22 weeks along.

The OB left us in the exam room for a very long time. I don't know whether she had ever delivered bad news before. I wonder what must have raced through her mind when she looked over the ultrasound. Eventually she did return to the little room where I sat with legs dangled over the examination table and my husband bobbed our squirmy ten-month old son on his knees...We were told that our baby had hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a condition incompatible with life.

A few days later, Monica and her husband talked with a maternal-fetal specialist and were given the same options: termination, comfort care, surgeries or transplant. "By then we had done some research and had a better understanding of the situation. We knew by then that 'incompatible with life' was not entirely accurate. We also knew that if our baby would survive, it would require that we fight for her. We didn't know yet exactly what we would do, although termination was out of the question."

Next, something fairly common in prenatal counseling occurred: these parents discovered that the first diagnosis was wrong. The baby had hypoplastic right heart syndrome, a very rare defect and one with a somewhat better prognosis than the first. When their daughter was born, she showed symptoms of heart failure within hours and required her first open-heart surgery at just barely one week old.

Many months of "fighting for her" followed, with little Celine doing a good deal of fighting herself, with two more surgeries to follow, and the unpleasant post-surgical experience which included dehydration, suture pain, IVs, chest tube removals, poking and prodding, not to mention simple boredom in the hospital bed. But, as her mother maintains, it was a matter of trading temporary discomfort in exchange for her very life.

Today, Celine is a normal five-year old with excellent heart function and no developmental delays. She may have a pacemaker in her future but her slapstick sense of humor gives no hint of discouragement.

During this experience, Monica's search led her to online sites that featured "termination message boards", where nobody was really allowed to offer hope or support. "They were little chambers of doom" she reports, places where parents were trying to cope with the advice to "say goodbye early."

Many women, she discovered, are willing to take the practitioner's advice at face value, "usually out of fear." One physician remarked to a mom with a difficult pregnancy that "it would be selfish and cruel to have this baby"! Such episodes are evidence of the degree to which eugenic thinking has seeped into American medicine today. Pediatricians are very familiar with the quest for the "perfect baby", the option to terminate and "try again". Many families, when caught up in the urgency and shock of the crisis, never think to question the authority of physicians who go beyond the medical realm to offer arbitrary assessments of the "worthiness" of a life, sometimes in stunningly insensitive language.

Monica's research also revealed that on numerous occasions ultrasounds and other prenatal technology can lead to misdiagnoses and over-diagnoses — which then lead not only to unfortunate decisions about terminating the baby's life, but also the emotional trauma of knowing it was all a terrible mistake.

She also discovered that there were very few websites devoted to collecting stories of women who had the courage to defy the experts, be they Catholic women or otherwise. After some advice from her husband, who owns a web development company, the BeNotAfraid website — a glossy, sleek-looking effort — was launched.

"Our site is not actually not about abortion, it's about what happens when you choose life", Monica explains. "And it's not just for faithful Catholics, although there are many great Catholic medical ethics resources which we selectively prefer", she adds, "nor is it a grief site" (it is full of incredible stories of hope and joy, in fact). "It's really for anyone open to — or even just willing to be open to — the idea that carrying the baby and facing whatever comes after with trust and gratitude to God is really the right way to go."

Then there's all the valuable information families will find on the site. With all the ill effects of the Internet, we can be grateful for its invaluable laser-like power to search out highly specific and needed information of this kind.

For example, in the pull-down list of some two dozen genetic problems covered on Monica's website, Pallister-Killian syndrome is one of the more obscure, with only some 200 known cases worldwide at the moment. Yet someone — possibly after an experience such as Monica's — has founded www.PKSkids.net to serve these families.

In addition to personal testimonies from families who have chosen to put aside their fears, the BeNotAfraid site contains a message board, where parents may find posted, say, the contact information for the best specialist physicians treating a certain condition. The board also serves for posting prayer requests, prayer support and other spiritual (mostly Catholic) resources.

Finally, the site's Resources area has a very extensive collection of links on topics like medical/financial assistance, groups specializing in a particular prenatal problem, fetal surgery, grief resources, future planning, and many more.

In some ways, this site for twenty- and thirty-somethings may typify the new face of the pro-life movement, especially in the fact that politics does not appear anywhere on it. "I'm interested in helping and supporting families who arrive at their own decision for life", Monica reflects. "There is a time and a place for discussing legislation and the awful injustice of abortion, but that's not what our outreach is about. I think that's one reason why some medical professionals feel comfortable sharing the outreach with parents."

Perhaps most importantly, all these stories end in joyful victory, even when a child is lost. If you've ever wondered what the statement "suffering is salvific" might mean, go to the site and read the story "Anouk" (under "Anencephaly") that begins: "On the 18th July 2000, our fourth child, Anouk, was born. Thirteen hours later she died. Today, I will try to write down what we lived through with her."

The visitor will find here many beautiful and extraordinary stories of harrowing fear finally overcome by joy. As one father states it, "We could choose to love this child (no matter what) or choose to be afraid of the future, of how this person would change and affect our lives. In choosing to have the baby, we did not think that God would magically 'rescue' us from difficulties now or in the future, but that He would give us the courage to learn how to love more deeply through whatever the future may hold."

Elias Crim is a publishing consultant who writes from Valparaiso, Indiana.

Two Exhortations to Keepers at Home

The following articles were in the May/June issue of Family Foundations. There is much to be said for those holy women that listen to God's call to give life and that do not let themselves be deceived by the secular media. Think where we would be if our Blessed Mother had not listened to her call and been fully submissive and obedient to God's will for her life of motherhood.

Motherhood Rewards for Going Against the Cultural Norm Are Great

Mary Ann Kuharski

I must confess, parenting a large family was never a premeditated plan on my part. I mean, who would deliberately set out to mother 13 children? In my young and carefree years I was the girl who cherished her freedom and independence. Working as a legal secretary, I enjoyed a modest wardrobe, drove a baby blue convertible, had a life of relative leisure, and dreamed of the day I would set sail and “see the world.” Little did I imagine then that I would end up married and viewing the world through the eyes of the seven kids born to my husband and me, and the six racially-mixed kids we adopted, (four of whom came from foreign shores – about as close as I’ll ever get to “seeing the world”).

Motherhood

Let’s be honest. It has its suicide moments. In fact, whether mom to one or to many, there are days when even the best of our ranks would eagerly trade places with a kamikaze pilot on a mission, rather than face another snarling teen, saucy 7- year–old, tantrummed and terrible toddler, colicky newborn – or the sheer boredom of doing the same monotonous chores done six times the day before. Yes, there have been times when I’ve been tempted to quit; to join an animal rights group, or just sit at home and study the crayon marks on Dominic’s bedroom wall, rather than go through another day of full-time mothering. But I’m willing to bet most everyone has had that “run-from-it-all” fantasy on occasion.

When I was a first time mother, I used to wonder how far parental love could stretch. How naïve I was! Shared love in a large family can best be described by the parable of the loaves and the fishes. The more passed around, the more there remains in the basket.

After 20-plus years of parenting, my husband and I have discovered that love does not always conquer everything – but it sure helps!

It’s hard to describe the added gifts that adoption brings to a family. We have all benefited so! When we first saw our 18-month-old Filipino throwing a temper tantrum as she spit at her brother and bit her new sister, I confess we may have wondered, “ Will it work?” The thrill of her first accepting smile and loving kiss was all it took to know “Of course, it will.”

Adoption is a privilege when the bed wetting, nightmares, stealing, and testing stop and the trust begins. A privilege? No, it’s a miracle! I cannot describe the joy at hearing our newly adopted Charlie (at age 5) speak his first English sentence or write his name for the first time.

No one will ever know the feeling of being handed a five-pound, 2-month-old boy diagnosed as “dying” form malnutrition, dehydration, and lack of stimulation, and then seeing that first family photo showing a chubby seven-pound bundle of love.

One of our sons came from war-torn Vietnam. At 5 years of age, he witnessed the loss of his whole family. Who can repair such hurt? We cannot, but God can.

Another son remembers a mother who abandoned him in the marketplace of India. After a series of jails, orphanages, hospitals, and street life, here he is. Who can heal those 10 years of scarred memories? We cannot. But with God’s help and prayer, we’ll not give up believing anything is possible.

There seems to be an intangible quality in a large family that cannot be documented or adequately portrayed. Call it a camaraderie of you will, but a certain common union works to knot us together even under the stormiest conditions.

Oh yes, we have our problems, just as all families do. But through illness, death, teen years, racial prejudice, financial worries, attacks from the outside, or rebellion from within, underlying is the knowledge that WE ARE FAMILY.

Next to the support for legalized abortion, perhaps one of the most shocking, if not repulsive, radical notions to come out of the feminist “liberation” movement is its wholesale rejection of the dignity and value of full-time motherhood. Even more appalling is the fact that this extremist element in American society, not only found a podium, but its dictates gradually became, first tolerated, then accepted, and then the “norm.”

Those of us who went against this “norm’ in choosing to have children and to nurture them full-time as stay-at-home mothers, found ourselves head to head with not only radical, anti-faith feminists, but – quite disappointingly at times – some members of our own faith and family.

For a time, the country was even brainwashed to believe that couples must limit the number of their children (no more than two), because there was an over-population crisis. The results of such propaganda were: an avalanche of school closings, “Help Wanted” posters displayed in most storefront windows today, and “below replacement level” U.S. Census Bureau statistics which reveal the top-heavy crisis approaching, with more elderly than employed to support them.

How and where along the way, did America – traveling its “progressive” and liberated trail to the 1990’s – abandon its once universal belief that children were a “blessing” – a gift from God?

It’s long past time that Christians band together in support of the unique role God bestows on married women, and to encourage those women, who, often at great personal and financial sacrifice, choose the career of full-time mother. Perhaps I’m just prejudiced, but I’m one of those homebound “traditionalists” who some would call outdated, out of step, or just plain old-fashioned.

My equality, and that of millions of homemaking professional moms like me, will never be measured on whether we can lift that fire hose, tote that barge, or achieve a corporate position, but rather in the mere fact that as women, we and only we, can bear the gift of new life within our womb, and can nurture our young at our breast.

By choice, I am a full-time wife, homemaker and mother, and I readily concede that – excluding flu season, car-pooling a Blue Bird troupe, spring cleaning our boys’ room, or enduring an out break of chicken pox – I love what I’m doing!

I admit, I would take in laundry, typing, other people’s kids, or a bunch of baby barracudas in order to stay home and care for my family. Sure, the work is tedious, uncreative, unfulfilling, downright boring, and financially unrewarding if measured by radical feminist standards, but not by my yardstick. It’s the most meaningful, creative, adventuresome, fulfilling, and rewarding thing this woman can do. I’m helping shape the future.

Because of popular folklore, a tragic stereotype has gone virtually unchallenged regarding the stay-at-home mother. Sadder still is the fact that much of the discrimination leveled at this chosen profession has come not from chauvinistic, unenlightened men, but from the very persons we thought would stand in out defense – “liberated” women who championed what they consider more “meaningful” outside-of-home careers.

To set the record strait, full-time homemakers, like myself, who deliberately choose the career of homemaker, are not overweight, overindulged, under-educated, uninvolved, or uninformed. The majority of us are not hooked on TV soaps, game shows, or re-runs of Lawrence Welk. We don’t sit around stuffing our faces with potatoes chips all day, mindlessly chattering for hours on the phone, or trying to “create a new me” at diet farms, “the club,” or spa.

No. Our exercise, stimulation, and “ladder of success” is measured by the smiles, snuggles, hugs, and love we give and receive from those we serve – our family.

Pope John Paul II, in an address to the United Nations (October 2, 1979) warned that “material goods by their very nature provoke conditionings and divisions; the struggle to obtain these goods becomes inevitable in the history of humanity. If we cultivate this one-sided subordination of man to material goods alone, we shall become incapable of overcoming this state of need.”

He reminds us too that the desire for spiritual goods “does not divide people, but puts them into communication with each other.” In his Apostolic Exhortation on the Family John Paul II insisted, “The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value.” The Holy Father challenges society to restore the superiority of the family and the individual over work. He suggests a “social reevaluation of the mother’s role, of the toil connected with it and of the need that children have for care.” He also proposed that there be “rants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their families.”

Don’t ya love it? Career moms themselves, know firsthand experience that no one – not a well-meaning relative, neighbor, friend or manufactured kiddie care – can do for hire what we do for free. Whether it’s an infant seeking the reassurance of a mother’s arms, an adolescent in need of a tender touch, or a struggling teen looking for a listening ear, a mother’s presence is vital.

After all, love builds like yeast. And love, like yeast, takes time, tenderness, aging and care. It can’t be scheduled, subsidized or put on hold. Three cheers for the mom who makes the choice for her husband and her young, to be a full-time homemaker and I’ll show you a woman of vision who is working to shape America’s future – for generations to come.


Vocational Call of Motherhood Is Far More than a Little Time Out

Carol Greer

A few weeks ago I came across a feature in the lifestyle section of our city newspaper about a local attorney who became a new mother. Unable to make it to the hospital in time to deliver, she had the baby at home. Described as a “super mom,” within an hour of giving birth she was back on her laptop, taking calls and assisting her associates with an important case they were working on.

I have to believe that lawyer’s behavior is an anomaly. Perhaps emergency situations make it impossible for some women to spend an hour or two bonding with their babies – I know, for example, that Queen Isabella of Spain was back on her horse pursuing the Moors shortly after delivering Katherine of Aragon – but at the risk of sounding judgmental, I found nothing admirable or super-mommish in this lawyer’s behavior. Good heavens, woman, you just had a baby! Take some time to recover and cuddle. Have someone hold your calls.

I don’t think the newspaper reporter shared my opinion. Have you noticed how frequently the media refer to Hollywood starlets – and even average career women – who begin families as “taking time out” to have a baby? I find this absurd. When I consider my many friends who have had children, some of whom have continued to work outside the home, I can’t imagine a single one of them describing pregnancy, childbirth and parenting as a time out! Whether at home full-time or not, the view of mothering as a pause in the pursuit of our “true” vocation diminishes the most important task most of us will ever know: nurturing our little ones and raising them up to be Godly people.

Motherhood is not something that any of us can “fit into” our full and busy lives, like finding time for workouts at the gym or swing dance lessons. Rearing our children dominates our time and thought. Motherhood deserves a place among the bona fide vocations of the world, right up there with the religious life, skilled craftsmanship and medicine. Like any true calling, it requires self-sacrifice, patience, the humility to admit mistakes and work to better ourselves, and an unyielding sense of purpose.

Especially for those privileged to be at home full-time with our little ones, switching gears from career to the intense privacy of our new vocation requires a drastic emotional and spiritual shift. It is in many ways a cloistered existence. There is more quiet – if we allow it – than we experienced in the workplace. There is a rhythm to our lives: waking, changing, feeding, washing. Those of us who experience the joy of nursing our little ones have a dozen opportunities a day to stop and meditate or pray; we wake at night to repeat our rituals as the rest of the world slumbers. It feels like a parallel universe to the rest of the planet sometimes – occasionally even lonely, but very special. It is probably the most demanding experience any of us willingly undertake as we trust on faith that all of the tears and hard work will have ramifications beyond what the world can see. It’s an opportunity to suffer and to experience intense joy and love simultaneously. It is a tremendous Christian experience; perhaps that’s why Saint Paul writes that women are saved through bearing children (1 Timothy 2:15).

A pro-life OB-GYN once told me that motherhood was really kind of crazy by the standards of the world: what makes a woman long for the discomfort of pregnancy, the trepidation and pain of labor, the exhaustion of endless hours in the rocking chair soothing a little one at our breast?

I would posit that motherhood is as close to an experience of the Last Things as a person can be privileged to enjoy here on earth; Christ Himself refers to the precursors of the Second Coming as birth pains. Through motherhood we experience fear, pain and self-doubt, and through our weakness, He is made strong. When we allow ourselves to undergo these trials in an attempt to abandon ourselves to His will, we are rewarded with indescribable love: ours for our spouse and children, theirs for us and, ultimately God’s boundless love and concern for us.

Further, through our care and affection we offer a glimpse of Paradise to our dear little ones: “As a mother comforts her son, so will I comfort you; in Jerusalem you shall find comfort.” (Isaiah 66:13). The vocation of motherhood is an invitation to heaven. That’s the call any mother really must take.