WTE: Pro-choice testimony raises troubling questions

Last week the Senate Labor Committee voted to advance SF 97 “Born-alive infant means of care.” The bill closes a loophole in Wyoming Statute 35-6-104 requiring that infants who survive an abortion be given the full protection of law.

The loophole permits an abortionist to satisfy the letter of the law by providing “comfort care.” This means that instead of placing the child in a life-saving, oxygen-rich incubator, it can simply be wrapped in a blanket and left to die.

Earlier in the week, the House Judiciary committee also advanced HB 197 “Abortion 48-hour waiting period” to be considered in the House. This bill is designed to relieve a patient from time-pressure after she has signed the informed-consent forms.

Both hearings were well-attended. Newcomers to the legislative process shared the room with veteran testifiers. Three veterans, in particular, gave testimony that should be heard by all.

In both hearings, a lobbyist from the Wyoming Medical Society (WMS) began by declaring that the Society does not take a stand on abortion, either for or against. Nevertheless, she opposed both pro-life bills on the theory that they burden doctors with unnecessary state oversight.

In the House hearing, Rep. Jennings inquired if the WMS was also opposed to all the existing laws that place requirements on doctors. The lobbyist did not deny it. The following day, Senator Bouchard asked, rhetorically, if the medical profession should be exempted from legislation altogether.

Dr. Rene Hinkle, co-founder of the Cheyenne Women’s Clinic, also spoke against HB 197. She made the stunning claim that viability, after which no child in Wyoming may be aborted, “is, right now, late 23 weeks.” Yet America only recently saw Ellie Schneider at the State of the Union Address. She survived birth at 21 weeks, 6 days. How could a doctor who sits on Wyoming’s Board of Medicine not consider Ellie “viable” at birth?

The lobbyist representing NARAL Pro-Choice also spoke at both hearings. He interpreted Wyoming’s law prohibiting abortion after “viability” to mean, that doctors “only are allowed to perform abortions up to twelve weeks of pregnancy.”

It is strange that the abortion rights lobbyist forswears abortion after 12 weeks while an officer on Wyoming’s Board of Medicine thinks that “late 23 weeks” is perfectly legal. Clearly Wyoming’s “viability” test needs definition.

Hinkle’s opposition testimony to SF 97 “Born alive infant—means of care” was the most electrifying of the week. “As a physician in this state,” she said, “we do, sometimes, induce labor on a patient whose baby is not…uh… whose baby would be non-viable outside the uterus.”

Her self-correction of the verb-tense was striking. A baby that is viable now, in the womb, would be non-viable if removed from the uterus. That is like saying: Joe is perfectly viable on the beach. But would be non-viable if he were dumped in the ocean.

Hinkle went on, “However, they [babies] do sometimes come out with breathing motions, and they do sometimes live for a few moments.” This is breath-taking! A Wyoming OBGYN testified that this is happening in Wyoming clinics.

Whatever the “breathing motions” indicate, Hinkle testified that “they do live.” This raises ghastly questions. How often is ‘sometimes’? How old might these children be? Who is present to advocate for their lives? Are all applicable laws being followed? How can we know? Does the state issue these babies birth certificates and death certificates?

These are not spontaneous miscarriages who die before delivery. These children are living in the womb, living through induced labor, and alive afterwards. The Wyoming Board of Medicine ought to be all over this. It should be able to assure every Wyoming citizen exactly what is happening in clinics across Wyoming and whether the law is being enforced.

Currently Wyoming forbids elective abortion after viability. It forbids the direct termination of the child, whether before, during or after an abortion. And, if the child is born alive, it requires that she should receive the commonly accepted means of care (W.S. 35-6-102, 103 & 104).

Last week’s testimony suggested either that laws are being skirted, or that there is a gap between what most Wyomingites believe our laws mean, and how the Board of Medicine interprets them. Two pro-choice witnesses interpreted the same law 98.8% differently. Wyomingites deserve better. They deserve laws that are objective and meaningful. And they deserve Board appointees who do not hold positions more extreme than NARAL.

Dr. Rene Hinkle has been nominated to another term on the Board of Medicine and is currently awaiting confirmation in the Senate. The senate should ask the governor for a better choice.

Also published in Wyoming Tribune Eagle, February 28, 2020

Pro-choice testimony on pro-life bills raises troubling questions

Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash

This pro-life writer just returned home from a week in Cheyenne. While the visit was planned weeks in advance, it happened to coincide with several important debates concerning the sanctity of life in Wyoming law. Readers who have never personally witnessed such debates should have a score-card to know the main players.

The first pro-life hearing of the week was held by the House Judiciary Committee on HB 197 “Abortion 48-hour waiting period.” It requires two days from the time an abortion patient has been given the legally required data until the procedure can be performed.

The second such hearing was not about abortion, but a measure to ensure that infanticide cannot take place in Wyoming. SF 97 “Born-alive infant means of care,” clarifies existing law to close a loophole. While current statute (W.S. 35-6-101-104), clearly intends to save the life of infants, it allows an abortionist to satisfy the letter of the law by wrapping a baby in a blanket and calling it “comfort care.” A baby that might be saved in an oxygen-rich incubator can legally be denied this life-saving care.

The Wyoming Medical Society typically sends its full-time lobbyist to speak at pro-life hearings. The speech always begins by formally declaring that the WMS does not take a stand on abortion one way or the other. Then it goes on to oppose the pro-life legislation—whatever it may be—on the grounds that it burdens doctors with unnecessary state oversight. This position is so extreme that the WMS even opposed a 2018 bill (SF 85) that would have allowed parents of a miscarried baby to ask for a certificate of non-viable birth.

After the WMS lobbyist made the usual speech at the hearing on the 48-hour waiting period, Rep. Jennings inquired if the WMS was also opposed to all the existing laws that place requirements on doctors. The lobbyist did not deny it. A ripple of snickers led to Rep. Burlingame coming to the lobbyist’s defense by observing that those laws were written before she was born. That may be true. But the WMS itself goes back to 1903.

Dr. Rene Hinkle, representing the Cheyenne Women’s Clinic, also spoke at against HB 197. There she made the stunning claim that viability, after which no child in Wyoming may be aborted, “is, right now, late 23 weeks.” Yet America only recently saw Ellie Schneider at the State of the Union Address. She survived birth at 21 weeks, 6 days. How could Hinkle, who also serves on Wyoming’s Board of Medicine, not consider Ellie “viable” at birth?

The lobbyist representing NARAL Pro-Choice also spoke at both hearings. At the hearing on SF 97, he interpreted Wyoming’s law prohibiting abortion after “viability.” He testified, “Doctors in Wyoming do not abort infants. They abort non-viable fetuses. And they only are allowed to perform abortions up to twelve weeks of pregnancy.” How can the age of viability vary from late 23 weeks to 12 weeks overnight?

Dr. Rene Hinkle

Dr. Rene Hinkle, who runs the Cheyenne Women’s Clinic, also makes regular appearances in opposition to pro-life legislation. This week was no exception. Her speeches typically begin by declaring that she is a life-long Republican and that she has been a practicing Ob/Gyn in Wyoming for 21 years. Like the WMS, she stands opposed to laws that make requirements of medical doctors.

In fact, during these hearings, it is often intoned that doctors are highly trained people with impeccable ethics. Thus, it is insulting to the medical profession to subject doctors to laws and state oversight. This theme is heard both from lobbyists and from pro-choice legislators. On this occasion, nobody seemed to notice that the other two doctors in the room testified in favor of state oversight, as did a long-time nurse.

Perhaps the most interesting testimony of the week came from Dr. Hinkle. During the born-alive infant hearing, she went into detail about what she and other doctors have experienced in actual practice. “What I’m concerned about as a physician in this state,” she said, “is that we do, sometimes, induce labor on a patient whose baby is not…ah… whose baby would be non-viable outside the uterus.”

This change of verb-tense immediately caught my attention. It indicates that a baby that is perfectly viable where it currently resides would be non-viable outside the uterus. That is analogous to saying: Joe is perfectly viable on the beach. But would be non-viable if I pulled him into the water.
That’s a curious way to define viability. But Dr. Hinkle’s next words were more revealing still. She said, “However, they [babies] do sometimes come out with breathing motions, and they do sometimes live for a few moments.” Mind you, this is testimony from a Wyoming Ob/Gyn about what happens in Wyoming hospitals.

This is breath-taking testimony. Whether the “breathing motions” are actual breaths or not, she expresses no doubt that “they do live.” This raises several questions. How old, exactly, was this child? Who was there to verify? Who was present to advocate for its life? Can the Wyoming Board of Medicine be sure that all applicable laws were being followed? Did the state issue this baby a birth certificate and a death certificate?

We are not talking about a miscarriage where a child who has died in the womb is delivered. We are talking about a child who not only lived in the womb but was both intact and alive after the induced labor. Clearly the induction of labor was not to preserve the life of the child—as Wyoming law allows. It was, rather, for another reason.

One would hope that the doctor induced labor to save the life of the mother. But that would be strange. Labor is one of the most dangerous times for both mother and child alike. It is also a process that takes hours or days. When there is immediate threat to the life of mother or child, the more usual practice would be to take the child by C-section. This allows the doctors to treat either the mother or child within minutes, rather than hours.

Of course, I am not a physician. C. Everett Koop, however, is. The former Surgeon General has written, “In my 36 years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted.” Of course, no doctor likes to be second-guessed. Still, shouldn’t Wyoming’s Board of Medicine be aware of Dr. Hinkle’s testimony and investigate whether or not such things are in keeping with state laws and the will of Wyoming citizens?

C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General

Current Wyoming law forbids elective abortion after viability. Further, it forbids the direct termination of the child whether before, during, or after an abortion. Finally, it requires that an infant born alive should receive the commonly accepted means of care (W.S. 35-6-102, 103 & 104).

Testimony from pro-choice organizations at the capitol is eye-opening, to say the least. If the practices they describe are not covered by these laws, that is reason enough to tighten their language. Perhaps, in addition, the state’s Board of Medicine should be required to ask some tough questions and get real answers.

WTE: Civil laws that punish sexual assault must walk a fine line

Sexual assault is an unspeakably heinous crime, second only to murder. Unlike thievery or slander, which attack a person’s possessions or good name, it is aimed at the body, the person himself. Sexual violence perverts love and tenderness into its opposite, letting hate and violence invade that which is holy.

Law should address assault, both by just punishment and strong protections. Lawmakers must make use of every tool at their disposal. That includes both criminal and civil statutes.

Currently, House Bill (HB) 10 “Human trafficking—penalty for subsequent conviction” has passed the House and is before the Senate. It establishes a minimum prison sentence of 25 years on a second conviction for the human trafficking of a minor. HB 68 “Sex offender—prohibited access to school facilities” is working its way through the House. Both bills use criminal law to increase punishment and protections.

Civil laws must also play a role. However, for different reasons, two attempts to do so failed introduction. HB 210 “Modifying termination of parental rights requirements,” and Senate File (SF) 12 “Child sexual abuse civil action statute of limitations” will both have to try again.

Last year Wyoming created a law (W.S. 14-2-309) that denies a convicted rapist any custody rights concerning a child thus fathered. By shielding a woman from an ongoing custodial arrangement with her rapist, this law has the dual effect of protecting both mother and child.

However, since the standard of proof for criminal conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the woman and her child may still be forced into a custody arrangement with her attacker if the state fails to convict. For this reason, the federal Rape Survivor Child Custody Act of 2015 encourages states to enact laws that terminate parental rights not only as a result of criminal conviction, but also as result of civil action.

Civil fines can be levied on “clear and convincing evidence.” This standard of proof is one step lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and easier to meet. HB 210 proposed that termination of custody rights be awarded as damages—in addition to fines--in the case of sexual assault.

SF 12 “Child sexual abuse civil action statute of limitations,” also turns to civil law to address the horrors of sexual assault. While Wyoming state law has no statute of limitations on sexual crimes, there is, currently, an eight-year window for filing a civil claim.

SF 12 would have extended that window to 35 years after the victim turns 18. Assault victims may take decades to come to terms with their ordeal. Child predators have skated because witnesses and evidence were lost with time. This extended statute of limitations can provide a way for victims to seek financial damages from perpetrators.

While civil damages are no substitute for criminal conviction, they nevertheless acknowledge the injustice and provide some remedy. A recent law in the state of Utah, dropped the statute of limitations altogether. However, two provisions in SF 12 differed from the Utah law and caused our legislators to hesitate. First, it was retroactive. Second, it was not singularly focused on the perpetrator.

SF 12’s 35-year retroactive provision would reopen cases in which the statute of limitations has already expired. That may run counter to Supreme Court precedent of Stogner v. California.

More concerning is that it would jeopardize not only the perpetrator but also any legal entity connected with the crime. So, for instance, if a teacher molested a student in 1977 and has since died, the student would be able to sue the school where it occurred.

This is unjust. While the school may have the same name that it had 43 years ago, almost everything else has changed. It has a completely new administration, a completely different Board of Education, altogether new staff, and—most of all—an entirely different group of parents whose tuition make the school an ongoing reality.

These present-day parents can be financially penalized for the sins of someone they never met. Alternately, their child may be deprived of his or her school. The costs of civil litigation can bankrupt even the innocent.

Just laws should bring the fullest possible penalties against the actual perpetrators of crime while taking care not to penalize the innocent. That’s why both SF 12 and HB 210 require careful deliberation and wise legislators who can strike the proper balance.

Civil action is a good way to extend the reach of the law to punish perpetrators and validate victims. It does, however, harbor the danger of punishing innocent parents and depriving children of their own rights. If civil laws are to be useful, they cannot be so broad as to punish the innocent with the wicked. Lawmakers must find a way to walk this line.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on February 21, 2020.

We must talk about sexual assault for the sake of the innocent

Photo by Sasha Freemind on Unsplash

There are some bills before the legislature this year that no one really wants to talk about. They are emotionally laden and speak of ugly things. But if no one talks about them, the problems only grow. Worse, those who are not so deeply affected by them, will be the only ones pushing an agenda that only makes matters worse.

Sexual assault is a heinous crime that is second only to murder. Unlike thievery or slander, which attack a person’s possessions and good name, assault is directed at the body. Since the body and the person are one and the same, the attack is direct.

Assault of a sexual nature is especially perverse. It twists the realm of love and tenderness into its opposite. Hate and violence invade the sanctuary of holiness. The soul is deeply wounded in ways that few, if any, truly understand.

For these reasons, our lawmakers must strive to punish offenders justly, with sentences that fit the crime. While doing so, they must do everything in their power to protect the innocent from future violations.

To punish the offender, they must make use of every enforcement tool at their disposal. To protect the innocent, they must honestly address the evil at its very root.

There are several bills before the legislature this year that address both the criminal and the civil penalties for sexual assault. HB 10 “Human trafficking—penalty for subsequent conviction” passed the House Friday and now goes to the Senate. It establishes a minimum prison sentence of 25 years on a second conviction for the human trafficking of a minor. For additional protection, HB 68 “Sex offender—prohibited access to school facilities” is being considered by the House Education committee.

Criminal law is an important tool for punishing perpetrators and protecting their victims. But civil law provides additional ways to accomplish these goals. Wyoming’s legislature is looking at changes to civil laws in two separate bills: HB 210 “Modifying termination of parental rights requirements,” and SF 12 “Child sexual abuse civil action statute of limitations.”

In 2019 Wyoming created a law that addresses children conceived by sexual assault. W.S. 14-2-309 denies the paternal rights of a convicted rapist toward the child conceived by that assault. By shielding a woman from an ongoing custodial arrangement with a convicted rapist, this law has the dual effect of protecting both mother and child.

However, since the standard of proof for conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the woman and her child may still be forced into a custody arrangement with her attacker if the prosecutor fails to meet that highest standard of proof.

For this reason, the federal Rape Survivor Child Custody Act of 2015 encourages states to enact laws that terminate parental rights not only as a result of criminal conviction, but also as result of civil action. The standard of proof in civil proceedings is “clear and convincing evidence.” This is one step lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and an easier standard to meet.

Grant money from the Violence Against Women Act (U.S.C. 3796) is made available to states that amend their custody laws to terminate parental rights with a civil action. That’s what HB 210 “Modifying termination of parental rights requirements,” proposes.

SF 12 “Child sexual abuse civil action statute of limitations,” also turns to civil law to address the horrors of sexual assault. While Wyoming state law has no statute of limitations on sexual crimes, there is a time limit for civil action.

Currently, a minor who has been sexually assaulted can file a civil suit up to eight years after his 18th birthday. SF 12 would extend that to 35 years. The additional time allows for the reality that many assault victims take decades before they are able to deal with the crimes they endured.

Many child predators have gone unconvicted because evidence was lost to time and witnesses became unavailable. But while prosecutors may not be able to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, civil attorneys may still be able to prove the assault by “clear and convincing evidence.” But if the statute of limitations for civil action has expired, even this remedy is denied the victim.

By extending the civil statute of limitations, SF 12 provides a mechanism for perpetrators to pay financial damages to their victims. This can vindicate to those who suffered and give just punishment to the perpetrator. A recent law in the state of Utah, did exactly this.

There are, however, two provisions in SF 12 that differ significantly from the Utah law. First, SF 12 is retroactive. The 35-year extension of time would reach backward as well as forward. Accordingly, it would be theoretically possible for an infant molested 52 years ago to still file a civil action in 2022.

That provision of SF 12 may run counter to a Supreme Court case (Stogner v. California) that prevented California from reopening the possibility of prosecution after a previous statute of limitations had expired.

More troubling is that SF 12 not only extends the statute of limitations for action against the perpetrator, it also exposes any legal entity connected with the crime to civil action. So, for instance, if a teacher molested a student in 1977 and has since died, the student would now be able to sue the school where it occurred.

This is unjust. While the school may have the same name that it had 43 years ago, almost everything else has changed. It has a completely new administration, a completely different Board of Education, altogether new staff, and—most of all—an entirely different group of parents whose finances support the school.

All of this raises the real possibility that parents who are only trying to provide the best education for their children will be financially penalized for the sins of someone they never met. More likely, they will see their child’s school bankrupted by legal fees even if it is ultimately vindicated by the civil court that tries the case.

Just laws should bring the fullest possible penalties against the actual perpetrators of crime while taking care not to penalize the innocent. That’s why both SF 12 and HB 210 require careful deliberation and wise legislators who can strike the proper balance.

Nobody wants to see children and their parents penalized for a crime that took place in their school before they were born. Nobody wants to see a father lose his parental rights for a crime that he did not commit. But within these parameters, everyone wants to see that a victim of sexual assault gets justice and will not spend the rest of her life in a custody battle with her rapist.

This year SF 12 failed to garner enough votes even to be considered during a budget year and HB 210 didn’t get a vote at all. Legislators in both chambers seemed reluctant to act rashly on such an important and momentous issue. Perhaps the Joint Judiciary Committee can use the interim to find a way forward that punishes offenders justly, while also protecting the innocent of every generation.

WTE: Every born alive infant has the right to the same care. Period.

Melissa Ohden is a survivor. She was born at 31 weeks of gestation, weighing just 2 pounds and 14 ounces. Severe respiratory and liver problems, along with seizures, made her doctors doubt she would survive. But she did survive.

Perinatal medicine in 1977 was primitive in comparison with today’s technology. The most important factor that gave her a chance to live was that nurses saw to it that she received the same care that any other child would have received. They were all that stood between Melissa and death.

Her mother, Ruth, was a nineteen-year-old college student who wanted to marry Melissa’s father. But her parents insisted she have an abortion and return to school. They made it clear that it was not her choice to make.

Caustic saline solution was injected into Ruth’s abdomen with assurance that the abortion would be completed in three days. Melissa was born alive five days later. She was terribly injured, but alive.

Ruth was never told that the baby survived. Drugged and dazed, she was rushed home—never to return to the University. Only the medical staff remained to protect Melissa. Thankfully, they did.

Melissa is a poised and strong woman. She found her birth mother, who was overjoyed to know that she survived. Today she has become a voice for others like her.

On Superbowl Sunday, Melissa was slated to appear in a commercial that was would reach 99.9 million viewers. She gazes at you and asks, “Can you look me in the eye and tell me that my very survival was a mistake?” She is joined by others—many others.

They ask, “Can you look me in the eye and tell me that I shouldn’t exist? …that I should be dead? …that I deserved to die that day? …that I am subhuman? …worthless?” Nearly five hundred faces appear. Theabortionsurvivors.com estimates that there are 44,000 others in the United States alone. Each is a valuable member of the human family. Each has a story to tell.

But Fox refused to broadcast the commercial. People who only want to be acknowledged were denied two minutes of airtime. Once more their voices were silenced, their lives devalued. When will it end?

How old does a person have to be before our society deems her fully human and worthy of compassion and protection? That is the question before us today.

This is not a question of abortion. Whatever position you hold on the issue, abortion has nothing to do with a person who is living and breathing and totally independent of her mother. This is a question of infanticide.

Melissa’s survival affected our entire world—even without her mother’s knowledge. She brought joy to her adoptive parents, love to her husband, life to her children and enlightenment to millions of people whom she has touched with her message. The same is true of every single person who ever lived. Each is a gift to the world.

That’s why we owe them the full protection of law. Every child born—whether premature, or full-term, whether injured before birth, or whole—should be given the same medical care regardless of what happened before birth. Our own humanity is at stake. Surely, we can all agree on that.

Sadly, some have been swept away by our culture of death. States like New York and Illinois have stripped out of state law many long-standing legal protections for newborn children. Even in Wyoming, we recently heard a reporter from the Casper Star Tribune confuse abortion and infanticide. When Representative Cheney said, “you cannot be for the people if you cannot protect the babies,” he counted the statement as “against abortion.”

There is a world of difference between infanticide and abortion. Cheney’s statement was about a federal bill to ensure that children like Melissa Ohden would receive the same medical care as any other child born at 31 weeks.

As long as it’s possible for even one public figure to confuse abortion with infanticide, the Wyoming legislature needs to act. Wyoming already holds that born infants—regardless of the circumstances of their birth—are entitled to the full protection of law. However, the language is unacceptably weak. Had Melissa been born in Wyoming, the law would not have protected her life.

Wyoming’s Constitution guarantees “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” But our resolve to protect a fellow citizen is only as strong as the actual laws that we pass.

Senator Cheri Steinmetz (R-Lingle) has introduced SF 97 “Born alive infant-means of care.” Unlike the legislators in New York and Illinois, ours can make it clear that Wyoming values every person born in Wyoming as a gift to Wyoming.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on February 14, 2020.

Every born child has the right to the same medical care. Period.

Photo by Alex Hockett on Unsplash

Melissa Ohden is a survivor. She was born at 31 weeks of gestation, weighing just 2 pounds and 14 ounces. Because of severe respiratory and liver problems accompanied by seizures, her doctors were unsure whether she would survive. But she did survive.

Melissa Ohden

Day by day her tiny body healed and grew. Perinatal technology in 1977 was primitive in comparison with today’s medicine. Her survival is not, primarily, the result of medical care. It is, rather, the result of doctors that protected her and gave her the chance to live.

At her most vulnerable moment, while she was newly born and crying for life, her mother, Ruth, was drugged and prevented from protecting her. Her grandmother had been desperately trying to kill her for the past five days. Only the doctors stood between Melissa and death. They recognized a fellow human being. She was horribly injured and fighting for her life. But it was her life and no one else’s.

Ruth was a nineteen-year-old student at the University of South Dakota. She and Melissa’s father wanted to marry but her parents forbade it. They insisted, instead, that she have an abortion. This was the last thing she wanted to do, but her parents made it clear that it was not her choice to make.

They believed the lie that abortion would make her life better. There has never been anything close to a clinical study that proves any medical or mental health benefits from abortion. But they forced her to the clinic anyway.

19-week premie

Once at the clinic, Ruth was told another lie. The abortionist told her that Melissa was only nineteen weeks gestation. Caustic saline solution was injected into her mother’s abdomen with the promise that the abortion would be completed in three days. Five days later Melissa was born.

Drugged and dazed, Ruth was never told that her baby was born alive. She was quickly separated from her daughter and taken home—never to return to the University.

A 31-week premie

Only the doctors were there to protect Melissa. Thankfully, they did. She has grown into a poised and strong woman. With a husband and children of her own, she was able to find Ruth and heal wounds that went far deeper than the skin. Today they enjoy a loving relationship that enriches both their lives and the lives of many in the extended family.

On Superbowl Sunday, Melissa appeared in a commercial that was slated to reach 99.9 million viewers. Her gaze looks straight at you while she asks, “Can you look me in the eye and tell me that my very survival was a mistake?” She is joined by others—many others.

Faces of Choice Superbowl ad

They ask, “Can you look me in the eye and tell me that I shouldn’t exist? …that I should be dead? …that I deserved to die that day? …that I am subhuman? …worthless?” Nearly five hundred faces appear. Theabortionsurvivors.com estimates that there are 44,000 others in the United States alone. Each is a valuable member of the human family. Each has a story to tell.

But Fox refused to broadcast the ad. People who only want to be seen and acknowledged were denied two minutes of airtime. Instead, the commercial was shared on social media. Once more their voices were silenced, their lives devalued. When will it end?

How old does a person have to be before our society deems her fully human and worthy of sympathy, compassion and protection? That is the question before us today.

This is not a question of abortion. Whatever position you hold on the issue, that has nothing to do with a person who is living and breathing and totally independent of her mother. As Melissa’s story demonstrates, her survival did not affect the mother in the slightest—she didn’t even know her daughter existed until years later.

Ruth and Melissa surrounded by her half-sisters.

Melissa’s survival did, however, affect our entire world. She brought joy to her adoptive parents, love to her husband, life to her children and enlightenment to millions of people whom she has touched along the way. The same is true of every single person who ever lived. Each is a gift to the world.

That’s why, for our own good, we owe them the full protection of law. Every child born—whether premature, or full-term, whether injured before birth, or whole—should be given the same medical concern regardless of what happened before birth. Our own humanity is at stake. Even those who claim a so-called “right to an abortion” surely can agree that every human being has this basic human right.

Sadly, we live in a time when politics has become so radicalized that some are returning to the barbaric practices of ancient Rome. There, born-alive children were left to die at the whim of their fathers.

Virginia Governor, Ralph Northam

Last year, Virginia’s governor, Ralph Northam, explained how a doctor might “have a conversation” and decide to leave a newborn to die. That was not a slip of the tongue. He still holds to that position. States like New York and Illinois have stripped long-standing legal protections for newborn children out of state law.

Mayor Peter Buttigieg, the recent winner of Iowa’s caucuses was asked, point blank, to reject infanticide. Both times he declined. Even in Wyoming, we recently heard a reporter from the Casper Star Tribune criticize Representative Cheney for “going so far as” to say, “you cannot be for the people if you cannot protect the babies.”

This he cited as evidence that Cheney is “against abortion.” For the record, it is a statement against infanticide. There is a world of difference between the two. Cheney made this statement about a federal bill to ensure that children, like Melissa Ohden would receive the same medical care as any other child born at 31 weeks.

Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney

Clearly, it is time for the Wyoming legislature to act. Current Wyoming Statute 35-6-102 clumsily but clearly states that a failed abortion should not affect the value of the born child. However, the only protection it stipulates is that the abortionist “shall not intentionally terminate” the infant that is born alive.

While the intent of the law is clear, its language is unacceptably weak. It allows newborn infants to die from exposure and neglect. Had Melissa been born in a Wyoming hospital, the law would not have protected her life.

Legislators who are serious about upholding the Wyoming Constitution's guarantees of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” should act to strengthen Wyoming law. Our resolve to protect a fellow citizen is only as strong as the actual laws that we pass.

Sen. Cheri Steinmetz

We must not kick this can down the road. Current events prove that the weak language of Wyoming law is no small oversight. It is an existential threat to our valued fellow citizens.

Today, I learned that Senator Cheri Steinmetz (R-Lingle) will introduce a bill to clarify our commitment to every born citizen. In order for this bill to be considered, it needs twenty senators to vote for its introduction. If you agree that every person born in Wyoming is a gift to Wyoming, ask your senator to protect her in law.

WTE: There is an antidote for our poisoned public discourse

Public discourse today is in a sorry state. Internet technology mixed with identity politics helps to drive its degeneration. Communication at the speed of light does not encourage thoughtful deliberation; and gazing at a screen cannot convey humanity like a living face. Ill-considered and intemperate words fly—words that would never be spoken face-to-face.

Add to this a growing party spirit that devours good will and civility with an insatiable appetite. From the opinion page to the front page, TV to Twitter, we are awash in a sea of seething rage.

Decent people on all sides of the debate recoil. They are faced with a devil’s choice of either leaving the conversation and letting the degeneracy accelerate or joining the scrum and being dragged into the mire.

This column is for those decent people. It is a word of encouragement and advice--encouragement to enter the fray; advice on how to stay above it. This balance is not easy, but it is necessary. Christian readers should recognize that this balance is precisely the life of faith and love.

Love looks always toward the good of your neighbor while faith looks to God. Both are necessary for civil discourse. Neither a loveless faith nor a faithless love will do.

Every fruitful conversation begins with an eye toward the neighbor. Selfishness driven by fear poisons the public square. Self-preservation chokes out selflessness. But love motivates engagement in a completely different frame of mind.

If you have ever participated in a March for Life, you know what that is. “Nobody in attendance is marching for themselves,” wrote Matt Walsh. “Nobody is demanding rights or privileges for themselves. Everyone is marching on behalf of those who cannot march.”

That’s why the March for Life is a great example of how civil engagement need not debase the participants. Rather, when focused on the neighbor, it is truly uplifting and a source of peaceful joy.

While anger breeds anger, love cultivates love. Caring about the weakest person opens hearts to ever more people. Such love does not need ideological agreement. It flows from a common humanity.

The terrible poison of identity politics is that it sorts people into a thousand different tribes and then demands that they hate one another. People are no longer viewed as people but as problems. Individuals are identified with their sins—whether imagined or real.

Identity politics invents new “sins” for the purpose of identifying and isolating political opponents by their sins. The invention of new sins is only part of the problem. The deeper problem is when people are identified by their sins. This makes respect and love impossible.

For this reason, Christian thought has always distinguished sin from the person. “Hate the sin but love the sinner,” is one way of expressing that distinction. This maxim has undergone withering attack in recent years. Purveyors of identity politics loudly claim that it is hateful and disrespectful even to think that something is a sin.

But not only is this distinction legitimate, it is vital to civil discourse. Without this distinction, lock-step conformity is required before love and respect are possible. Identity politics is an oppressive tyrant.

Freedom comes when an ideological opponent is no longer an enemy but a fellow traveler. Conversation is about helping one another see more, not less. That love, alone, will change the tone drastically.

What will change it even more is faith that looks to heaven. One reason that politics has become so caustic is that, for many, politics has become a religion. Every human psyche looks for an ultimate source of good, that is, a god. Those that reject a transcendent creator look, instead, to the power of government.

When politics becomes the end-all and be-all of life, desperation sets in. Political victory must come at all costs. Those, however, who believe that America is “one nation under God” can engage in the public discourse with a confident tranquility.

They can exercise their duty to speak and act for the neighbor without being burdened by a god-like need to right every wrong. Knowing that God will take care of the big picture also means that fear fades away. If your policy preferences do not come to pass, it is not the end of the world. It only means that God may have something even better in mind.

The peace that comes with such faith is truly freeing. It removes the anxiety of fending for one’s self and frees people to focus on their neighbors—both the weak and the strong, both those who love and those who hate. The eye of faith that looks to God in heaven enables an ever clearer and more loving view of the neighbor on earth.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on February 7, 2020.

How to walk through the swamp without falling in

Public discourse today is a fetid and bubbling swamp. Half-truths and outright lies have become the stock-in-trade of once-trusted news outlets. Trolls no longer confine themselves to online comments but spread their brutish distortions and angry accusations openly.

Like a virulent cancer, party spirit has metastasized from the opinion page to the front page. Television news seems designed to project seething rage. Decent people on all sides of the debate are disgusted just to be around it.

Multitudes of kind and gentle souls opt to seek escape in mindless entertainment. Valuable voices of reason have simply quit the conversation and left the field to the trolls and their handlers.

Many of these same decent people have discovered that, in their absence, the Overton Window has shifted. Public life has degenerated from perverse to insane. In a desperate attempt to re-enter the conversation, they find themselves sucked into the swamp. Breathing the poisoned air threatens to transform them into the very trolls that they came to battle.

This column is for those decent people. It is a word of encouragement and advice--encouragement to enter the fray; advice on how to stay above it. This balance is not easy, but it is necessary.

My Christian readers might notice that this balance is precisely the life of Christ in the world. There is a famous icon of Jesus--at which I am looking as I write these words--called “Pantocrator.” In it, Jesus holds a book in his left hand while his right hand is raised in blessing. But it is his eyes that draw my attention. His left eye gazes directly at me. But his right eye looks toward heaven.

This is the face of faith and love. Love looks always toward the good of your neighbor while faith looks to God. Both are necessary for keeping one’s footing while walking in the swamp. Neither a loveless faith nor a faithless love can keep him upright.

Anyone who would enter the public discourse beneficially, must begin with an eye toward the neighbor. Selfishness is poison in the public square. While there are certainly many valid reasons to fear the future, every thought of self-preservation must be driven from the mind. St. John the Evangelist wrote, “perfect love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18). Fear makes a person frantic. It paralyses the heart and blinds a person to the needs of his neighbor.

Love, on the other hand, motivates engagement in a completely different frame of mind. If you have ever participated in a March for Life, you know what that is. “Nobody in attendance is marching for themselves,” wrote Matt Walsh. “Nobody is demanding rights or privileges for themselves. Everyone is marching on behalf of those who cannot march.”

That’s why the March for Life is devoid of angry rhetoric. It is a great example of how civil engagement need not debase the participants. Rather, when focused on the neighbor it is truly uplifting and a source of peace and joy.

While anger breeds ever more anger, love brings ever more love. What begins as love for those too weak and small to speak for themselves, grows into a genuine love for every single neighbor that you have. This love is not based on ideological agreement. It is based on a common humanity.

The terrible poison of identity politics is that it sorts people into a thousand different tribes and then demands that they hate one another. People are no longer viewed as people but as problems. Individuals are identified with their sins—whether imagined or real.

In the world of identity politics, there is no such thing as a person who happens to espouse a certain idea. There is only a “deplorable,” or “Trumper,” or “Never-Trumper,” or “hater.” Identity politics invents new sins for the purpose of identifying and isolating political opponents by their “sins.”

In this caustic atmosphere, it is impossible to see people. The invention of new sins is only part of the problem. The deeper problem is when people are identified by their sins. This makes respect and love impossible.

For this reason, Christian thought has always distinguished sin from the person. “Hate the sin but love the sinner,” is one way of expressing that distinction. This maxim has undergone withering attack in recent years. Purveyors of identity politics loudly claim that it is hateful and disrespectful even to think that something is a sin.

But not only is this distinction legitimate, it is vital to civil discourse. It allows people who disagree to love and respect one another during the conversation. Lock-step conformity is not a prerequisite for respect. Rather, mutual respect is the meeting ground that allows for meaningful discussion.

The alternative is too terrible to contemplate. Without this distinction, opposing sides in every conversation are faced with an impossible choice. Either they must hate each another or have no conversation at all.

All this means that the first step for tranquil and fruitful engagement in the public square is to renounce every impulse toward identity politics. It is not about destroying the ideological opponent but helping him see what you see. That alone will change the tone drastically.

What will change it even more is the eye that’s turned to heaven. One of the main reasons that politics have become so caustic is that, for many, politics has become a religion.

It is impossible for human beings to exist without a god. Growing numbers of fellow citizens reject any notion of a transcendent creator who is the source of every good thing. As a result, they look more and more to the power of government as the source of every good thing. This is what makes politics a new religion.

Those who feel that political engagement is the end-all and be-all of life cannot help but feel desperate and frantic in the face of evil. But those who remember that America is “one nation under God,” can engage in the public discourse with a confident tranquility.

In love, all people have a duty to speak and act for the neighbor – especially those that cannot speak for themselves. But that duty is not burdened with the god-like need to right every wrong. Only God can do that. You do not carry the world on your shoulders. He does.

This means that you can sleep at night knowing that God will take care of the big picture. It also means that your worst fears of the future are only the product of an over-active imagination. If your policy preferences do not come to pass, it is not the end of the world. You can go to sleep knowing that God has something even better in mind.

This is true for both sides of every debate. It does not mean that the winning side is right in God’s eyes. Nor does it mean that God only cares for the godly. He rules the world with a perfect love for everyone whom he has created.

Knowing this enables people to focus on their neighbors—both the weak and the strong, both those who love and those who hate. The eye that sees God in heaven enables an ever clearer view of the neighbor on earth.