By TOM QUINER, IFL Board President
If God is real, if God is Love, how can He allow so many innocent people to be butchered as happened on 9/11, two decades ago today?
That doesn’t seem very loving, does it?
St. Augustine formulated the dilemma this way:
If God is all-good, he would will all good and no evil.
And if God were all-powerful, he would accomplish everything he wills.
But evil exists as well as good.
Therefore, either God is not all-powerful, or not all-good, or both.
The key words here are that “evil exists.” But what is “evil?”
St. Augustine explains that evil is the absence of good. In other words, evil isn’t a created thing.
Christian apologist, Gregory Koukl, explained the Augustine philosophy regarding evil this way:
First: 1) All things that God created are good; 2) evil is not good; 3) therefore, evil was not created by God.
Second: 1) God created every thing; 2) God did not create evil; 3) therefore, evil is not a thing.
Augustine built on the premise:
“Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name ‘evil.’ All which is corrupted is deprived of good.”
Mr. Koukl clarifies:
The diminution of the property of goodness is what’s called evil. Good has substantial being; evil does not. It is like a moral hole, a nothingness that results when goodness is removed. Just as a shadow is no more than a “hole” in light, evil is a hole in goodness.
Augustine says we can’t choose evil, we can only turn away from the good:
“For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil–not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked.
When you think back to St. John’s description that “God is Love,” the possibility of evil makes sense.
If God is Love, and if He made us in His image, then He made us to love. Humanity has the potential to love. But love is a choice.
You can’t love if you’re lacking in free will. Otherwise, your existence would be defined as mind control. Your existence would be much the same as a puppet on a string.
God didn’t make us that way.
He allowed us the free will to turn away from goodness, and the encouragement not to.
Our time in this life is intended to be a time of moral growth, a turning toward the good.
In a perverse way, evil contributes to the greater good, according Mr. Koukl:
… certain virtues couldn’t exist without evil: courage, mercy, forgiveness, patience, the giving of comfort, heroism, perseverance, faithfulness, self-control, long-suffering, submission and obedience, to name a few. These are not virtues in the abstract, but elements of character that can only be had by moral souls. Just as evil is a result of acts of will, so is virtue. Acts of moral choice accomplish both.
There’s a sound reason why God has allowed evil. It doesn’t conflict with His goodness. God is neither the author of evil, nor its helpless victim. Rather, precisely because of His goodness He chooses to co-exist with evil for a time.
Let us together pray for the victims of 9/11. Let us pray for God to console their families, their friends, their communities, our nation. As C.S. Lewis reminds us above, let us remember the heroes of 9/11 and introduce a new generation to those who demonstrated courage, mercy, forgiveness, patience, the giving of comfort, heroism, perseverance, faithfulness, self-control, long-suffering, submission, and obedience as a result of this catastrophic event.
In this season when evil seems to hold sway, may the tragedy of 9/11 serve as a catalyst to turn us toward God. God is Love. May His Son, the Prince of Peace, dry our tears.
[Help Iowans for LIFE fight the evil of abortion. Donate today.]
The Supreme Court allowed a Texas law to stand that prohibits abortions after a heartbeat is detectable, approximately 6 weeks into a pregnancy.
New York Representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, immediately Tweeted that this meant the end of Roe V Wade:
Republicans promised to overturn Roe v Wade, and they have.
Democrats can either abolish the filibuster and expand the court, or do nothing as millions of peoples’ bodies, rights, and lives are sacrificed for far-right minority rule.
This shouldn’t be a difficult decision. https://t.co/GcEjkxt3gs
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) September 2, 2021
“Republicans promised to overturn Roe v Wade, and they have. Democrats can either abolish the filibuster and expand the court, or do nothing as millions of peoples’ bodies, rights, and lives are sacrificed for far-right minority rule. This shouldn’t be a difficult decision.”
Overstatement is a trademark of abortion zealots like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. The truth isn’t.
Missouri Representative, Cori Bush joined the chorus of lies:
“In the span of one week the Supreme Court forced 11 million households to face eviction and effectively overturned Roe v. Wade in the middle of the night. This is what far-right extremism looks like. We need to expand the court.”
Sadly, the Supreme Court did NOT overturn Roe despite assertions to the contrary, as the Court emphasized in their decision:
“In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit. In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.”
What Iowa readers may not understand is: if Roe WERE to be overturned next session, Iowa would be unaffected. As of this writing, abortion is only allowed in Iowa up to the point when the unborn person can feel pain, which is 20 weeks.
That law could fall with one lawsuit.
That is why Iowans for LIFE is so engaged in promoting the passage of the Protect Life Amendment. This Amendment simply makes the Iowa Constitution abortion-neutral, allowing Iowans through their legislators to prudentially regulate human abortion.
Iowa abortion activists have and will continue to assert that it bans abortion in Iowa.
It does not.
It simply undoes a 2018 Iowa Supreme Court decision that claims there is a fundamental right to abortion hidden within our state constitution, a breathtaking judicial overreach.
You are being lied to by abortion advocates at the local, state, and national level.
Stay informed. Subscribe to our blog.
Have you ever noticed that Big Abortion has special legal privileges unavailable to legitimate healthcare providers? And they’ve been granted by the Supreme Court under the guise that women have a fundamental right to abortion.
This perspective comes to us from Adam J. MacLeod writing in the National Review. His piece, “Roe v Wade granted special privileges to abortionists,” is worth the read. An excerpt:
Adam J. MacLeod
“Whatever advantages women may have gained from Roe and Casey are more than offset by the power those decisions conferred on the abortion industry. The Court’s abortion precedents immunize abortionists from basic legal accountability such as general medical regulations, professional oversight, common-law protections for bodily integrity, and other laws that would protect women and children from harm and which apply to all other medical professionals. In stages of pregnancy before the unborn child can survive outside the womb, the abortion industry’s special immunities are absolute, or nearly so.”
Mr. MacLeod teaches law at Faulkner University and has authored four books, including his most recent: “The Age of Selfies: Reasoning About Rights When the Stakes Are Personal.”
Fundamental Law
He points out that “fundamental law” forbids one party from “asserting the rights of another person.” But the Supreme Court did just that in the 1976 case, Singleton v Wulff, conferring upon Big Abortion special standing power denied other health-care professionals. For example, Planned Parenthood has spoken in court on behalf of women time and time again, even though they didn’t have standing by any rational interpretation of the law.
As Macleod says in his piece:
“Fundamental law prohibits a party from asserting the rights of another person. [Harry] Blackmun
[author of the Roe v Wade decision] succinctly explained why the Court refused to apply the law to abortionists: The abortion industry’s bottom line is at stake. If abortionists succeed in convincing courts to exempt them from medical regulations then “they will benefit, for they will then receive payment for the abortions.” The Court has not conferred this special standing power on other health-care professionals, nor on husbands or priests, though the law recognizes both marriage and religious ministry as relationships of profound privacy.”
This coming term presents the Court with an opportunity to eliminate the Big Abortion special privileges denied the rest of us, and to hold them to the same legal standard as the rest of the country.
By Maggie DeWitte
State Senator Jake Chapman participates in IFL’s ‘Corn Kernel’ Poll
It’s a wrap on the 2021 Iowa State Fair.
This year’s post-pandemic gathering was a kinder, gentler version of the one we experienced two years ago.
No one spat on us or ripped down our signage. Even more, our booth, which we shared with our allies, Iowa Right to Life, was an oasis for Iowans thirsting for someone to champion the rights of the unborn.
People flocked to us.
For example, we gave away an amazing 6550 babies at our booth this year. That’s 600 per day! If you have ever needed an example of IFL’s conscientious stewardship of the resources provided by our stakeholders, this is a perfect example.
These models reveal the beauty and humanity of our unborn brothers and sisters in convincing fashion. Young people take notice.
If you’ve ever wondered why the abortion rate has plummeted in the Hawkeye State over the past two decades, this simple outreach deserves some of the credit. Iowans for LIFE has handed out over a hundred thousand of these models over the years at the Fair and other events.
They work.
While kids oohed and aahed over our pre-born baby models, 1270 of their parents signed our petition to pass the Protect Life Amendment.
If you followed us on Facebook, you noticed our “Corn Kernel” poll. We asked people to vote on this proposition:
“To defend the dignity of all human life and protect unborn children from efforts to expand abortion even to the point of birth, we the people of the State of Iowa declare that this Constitution does not recognize, grant, or secure a right to abortion or require the public funding of abortion.”
The results were convincing: 4106 YES verses 259 NO VOTES.
That’s 94% for and only 6% against! What an encouraging indication of the pro-life leanings of this year’s 2021 Iowa State Fair attendees.
We get countless stories from the fair-goers who come to our booth. One story stood out. A gentlemen said he had seven siblings in his family. When his mother got pregnant the seventh time, certain she surely wouldn’t want another child, her employer offered to pay for her abortion.
He looked at me and said,
“I was that seventh child. And I have two children of my own that wouldn’t be here had she taken his offer.”
I said,
“I am so glad you were born!”
“He responded teary-eyed,
“Me too! Thank you for being here, I am with you!”
That is why we are at the fair: to be a witness, to be a listener, to be an educator, to be an advocate.
We had tremendous clout at the 2021 Iowa State Fair because of our stakeholders. Your financial support matters.
[Do you want Iowans for LIFE’s pro-life educational outreach to continue? It takes your financial support. Don’t wait. Donate today. Thank-you.]
[subscribe2]
Many pro-lifers refuse to get the COVID ‘jab’ due to conscience-protection issues. The issue has reached a fever pitch as many employers in the medical field have issued an ultimatum to healthcare workers: get jabbed or get fired.
All of the major anti-COVID shots used aborted fetal cell lines in the testing of their products; Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca use them in the actual manufacturing process.
If you have ethical concerns with these products, Iowans for LIFE is happy to provide you with a letter in support of your conscience-protections for you to provide to your employer.
Simply email our Executive Director, Maggie DeWitte, at: mdewitte@iowansforlife.org.
Here is what we would write:
***
To Whom it may concern:
Iowans for LIFE is the longest standing, non-profit pro-life organization in Iowa. Since 1972, we have been dedicated to protecting human life by informing, educating, and inspiring society to value the sanctity of all human life from fertilization to natural death.
We advocate at the state capital, in classrooms, and at events across Iowa (this week, the State Fair) on a range of life-related issues.
We are writing to you today on behalf of [name] in regard to the COVID inoculation. Like other medical workers, [she/he] is facing pressure to be inoculated as a condition for further employment.
We ask you to reconsider.
Iowans for LIFE is not insensitive to the unique medical environment wrought by COVID. Nor should you dismiss the legitimate ethical concerns your employees may hold regarding the development of a number of COVID preventatives.
Specifically, both AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson use abortion-derived cell lines in both the testing and manufacture of their product; Moderna and Pfizer both used abortion-derived cell lines in the testing of their product.
Many men and women of conscience believe that the use of products made on the backs of aborted babies make them complicit in grave evil.
Conscience-protections have been a fundamental part of the American experience for healthcare workers who want to provide excellent care for their patients without violating their own personal and professional integrity.
It is bad enough that aborted human babies are exploited by the medical community for profit, even if the ends seem to be good. But the ends never justify the means. The evil is compounded when good people striving to live intentionally ethical lives are coerced into participating in what they believe to be a gravely wrong act, in this case a COVID shot.
No one should have to make such a decision.
Abortion has scarred this country since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973. Its carnage continues with the development of morally tainted products developed on the backs of innocent, aborted victims.
I respectfully encourage you to honor America’s historic respect for conscience-protections for men and women of goodwill and find another path forward.
Sincerely,
Maggie DeWitte, Executive Director
***
We can adapt the letter to meet your situation if you need religious beliefs emphasized. Let us know if we can be of assistance.
What do the politics of climate change have to do the pro-life movement? Despite being seemingly separate issues, they do intersect. Some scientists and most of the media blame mankind as the root cause of climate change, necessitating disruptive public policy interventions.
Three years ago, a Wall Street Journal headline ran this alarming headline:
U.N. Panel Warns Drastic Action Needed to Stave Off Climate Change
The Washington Post intoned:
Climate Change is Real, and it’s Permanent
Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal’s front page headline said:
Climate Warning Prompts Calls for Action
Reporting by the Journal equates climate change with nuclear weapons:
“Inside the United Nations General Assembly this week, world leaders tackled the gravest issues facing humankind. Nuclear weapons. Tensions in the Persian Gulf. Fears of a climate apocalypse.”
Not climate change, climate ‘apocalypse.’
The popular culture doubles down on disturbing climate news with bits like this from Saturday Night Live:
“We don’t really worry about climate change because it’s too overwhelming and we’re already in too deep. It’s like if you owe your bookie $1,000, you’re like, ‘OK, I’ve got to pay this dude back.’ But if you owe your bookie $1 million dollars, you’re like, ‘I guess I’m just going to die.’” COLIN JOST, Saturday Night Live
Climate hysteria breeds contempt for humanity. Talk show host and columnist, Dennis Prager, wrote about a recent New York Times piece. The Times asked for feedback from readers about their reactions to the “existential” threat of climate change.
Here are a few responses, beginning with a woman from Maine named Sophia …
“I have one child, a daughter, who told me age 8 that she would never have a child because of global warming. She’s now 34 and has never changed her mind. So I will not experience a grandchild. For her wisdom, I am grateful. I would be heartsick if I did have a grandchild who would have to experience the onslaught of changing climate.”
Another …
“I completely agree. I have 6 grandchildren and weep inside for the calamitous life that is ahead for them.”
Another …
“I weep with you, Sophia. Whenever I look my 11 year old daughter in the eyes I feel so many emotions: guilt for bringing her into this dying world.”
Another …
“I feel your pain. I have 2 sons. Neither one will have children and their partners agree. I’ll never have grandchildren. But I also realize that their decisions have in some way been molded by me. I am proud of their decision.”
And one more …
“I, too, am coming to terms and accepting that my 36 year old son will not have a child as well — for stated reasons. It is painful for me when I watch other young men and women his age going about town with their children. But I understand, and concur, on an intellectual level, that of course they’re right. Bringing more children into the world these days is an existential worry. And irresponsible. So, as I grieve for our planet, I also grieve for the grandchildren that I will never have.”
We could quote more, but you get the idea. Climate change evangelists proclaim that climate change is driven by humanity and that the threat is “existential,” in other words, that our very existence depends on ‘doing something.’
In the case of SNL’s Colin Jost (above), his bit suggests that the cause is already lost. Interestingly, the party of climate change is also the party of abortion. One of their solutions is taxpayer-funded abortions for the full nine months of a pregnancy.
In other words, if mankind is viewed as the ‘disease,’ you can see how manipulative policy makers can justify anything when it comes to abortion. As proof, both political parties embraced the Hyde Amendment just a few years ago. Today, virtually all Democrats reject it, including Iowa’s Cindy Axne.
(The Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.)
Here’s what you may not realize: reputable climate scientists refute climate orthodoxy presented without debate in the mainstream press. Here is their counter argument to alarmist reporting, which we present in a Q & A format.
***
For starters, does the “conclusions” section of the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change align with the 4000 page report itself? No, according to Dr. Steven E. Koonin, a theoretical physicist and former member of the Obama administration:
“The summary of the most recent U.S. government climate report, for instance, said heat waves across the U.S. have become more frequent since 1960, but neglected to mention that the body of the report shows they are no more common today than they were in 1900.”
Dr. Koonin is author of “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters,” the latest book being suppressed on social media.
Are climate models reliable? Koonin:
“we are repeatedly told “the models say.” But the complicated computer models used to project future temperature, rainfall and so on remain deficient. Some models are far more sensitive to greenhouse gases than others. Many also disagree on the baseline temperature for the Earth’s surface. The latest models also don’t reproduce the global climate of the past. The models fail to explain why rapid global warming occurred from 1910 to 1940, when human influences on the climate were less significant.”
Are sea levels rising precipitously? Koonin:
“The Summary for Policy Makers section says the rate of global sea-level rise has been increasing over the past 50 years. It doesn’t mention that it was increasing almost as rapidly 90 years ago before decreasing strongly for 40 years.”
Are we really heading towards a climate apocalypse? No, says Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center think tank:
“The UN has a long history of claiming catastrophe is right around the corner: the first UN environment director claimed already half a century ago that we had just 10 years left, and the then-head of the IPCC insisted in 2007 that we had just five years left.”
Just two years ago, New York representative, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez claimed the earth would end in twelve years without radical intervention, which she outlined in her Green New Deal:
‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’”
She later backtracked, claiming that only those with a “social intelligence of a sea sponge” would believe such a claim. Sadly, they did. A Rasmussen Poll reveals that two-thirds of Democratic voters do believe the claim.
Why would Ms. Ocasio-Cortez make such a claim? In a word: politics. Although Ocasio-Cortez subsequently said she was employing “dry humor” with her shocking claim of the earth’s looming demise (now but a decade away), her chief of staff set the record straight. Saikat Chakrabarti said the Green New Deal wasn’t about climate; it was all about reordering the economy along socialist lines:
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
We’re being manipulated into believing that childbearing is “irresponsible,” as the woman above commented to the New York Times. The same people who “grieve for the planet” don’t grieve for the aborted child, who they view as a necessary casualty in the war to save Mother Earth.
The politics of climate change are toxic to the unborn.
DES MOINES – Today, Governor Kim Reynolds joined with 11 additionalgovernors to defend states’ authority to enact legislation that
protects the unborn.
“For years, democratically elected representatives in states like Iowa
have tried to defend innocent human life only to be stymied by the
Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade,” said Gov. Reynolds. “For too
long, this precedent has trampled on state sovereignty and destroyed
the lives of millions of unborn babies. I am proud to join with
governors from across the country to take a stand for life and
democratic self-government.”
Governor Reynolds signed onto an amicus brief, filed today, in Dobbs
v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The brief urges the Supreme
Court to reconsider its abortion decisions, including Roe v. Wade and
Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey, and instead
uphold the right of states to enact legislation on this important
matter.
“The Court should take this opportunity to correct the mistakes in its
abortion jurisprudence and recognize that the text and original
understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment have nothing to do with
abortion. Rather than creating a federal constitutional right, the
Court should leave regulating abortion to the States, where the people
may act through the democratic process. This Court should hold as
much—and in the process, help restore the constitutional (but
currently disrupted) balance between the Federal Government and the
States,” the governors stated in their amicus brief.
The following governors also signed onto this brief: Governor Henry
McMaster of South Carolina, Governor Kay Ivey of Alabama, Governor
Douglas A. Ducey of Arizona, Governor Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas,
Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, Governor Brian K. Kemp of Georgia,
Governor Brad Little of Idaho, Governor Michael L. Parson of
Missouri, Governor Greg Gianforte of Montana, Governor J. Kevin Stitt
of Oklahoma, and Governor Greg Abbott of Texas.
[You can read more about this important case here.]
Some people claim that it is unfair to bring a child into this world who would be unwanted, and that abortion is the answer. Why would someone think that violent death (which is what abortion is) is preferable to an opportunity to live life to the fullest? No, death isn’t the answer, adoption is the answer to abortion.
You undoubtedly know good people who have lived wonderful lives who were adopted. Most quietly raised their family and contributed to their communities in ways that never made the news.
Famous adoptees
Some had a big impact, such as the founder of Apple Computer, Steve Jobs; John Lennon of Beatles fame; and Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the United States.
Ironically, Mr. Clinton has been an advocate of abortions rights. However, his belief that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” is a far cry from his party’s current position that abortion should be unregulated for the full nine months of pregnancy; that Catholic doctors, nurses, and hospitals be compelled to provide them; and that taxpayers should pay for them.
A season of miracles
Perhaps the former president preferred rare abortions because he appreciated the value of adoption:
“We must work tirelessly to make sure that every boy and girl in America who is up for adoption has a family waiting to reach him or her. This is a season of miracles, and perhaps there is no greater miracle than finding a loving home for a child who needs one.”
The conversation that takes place in the video above provides you with a quick way to respond if you’re ever in that situation.
For the record, Iowa has an excellent track record when it comes to abortion. According to the National Council for Adoptions:
“In 2014, four states had Adoption Option Indexes three or more times higher than the national average-Utah (36.3), Arkansas (26.8), Montana (23.1), and Iowa (21.4). There were two to four adoptions for every 100 abortions plus births to unmarried women in these states. This suggests that in these states women may have more extensive counseling, services, and facilities to orient pregnant women towards adoption-among other factors.”
But at the national level, some 36 couples wait in line for every available infant child adoption, an especially tragic number in light of the millions of abortions that have taken place over the years in this country. Those children could have been adopted.
Adoption is the answer to abortion
Two million couples want to adopt a child and provide a loving home. And yet only 4% of women with an unwanted pregnancy place their children through adoption.
Interestingly, 61% of all children adopted by kindergarten were children of color, according to the Institute for Family Studies. In other words, familial love cuts across racial barriers.
The next time someone claims that it is unfair to bring a child into the world that is unwanted, remind them that two million couples are on their knees praying for God to bring them a child.
Adoption is the answer to abortion.
[Get all the answers to the most common pro-abortion arguments here.]
Should the Supreme Court or the legislatures of the 50 states determine the extent to which abortion is allowed … or restricted? A new Mississippi abortion law provides the Supreme Court an opportunity to reconsider Roe v Wade.
The Mississippi abortion law restricts abortions after 15 weeks of gestation, with exceptions for the mother’s health and in cases of severe fetal abnormalities that would prove fatal to the child.
A lower court struck down the law for violating Roe. In response, Mississippi turned to the Supreme Court to reconsider the case. In May, the Court said yes, they would reconsider whether pre-viability abortion laws are constitutional.
The case is reframed to question the underpinnings of Roe
However, Mississippi Attorney General, Lynn Fitch, reframed the case to focus on the viability of Roe as sound legal jurisprudence. Says Ms Fitch in her brief:
“On a sound understanding of the Constitution, the answer to the question presented in this case is clear and the path to that answer is straight. Under the Constitution, may a State prohibit elective abortions before viability? Yes. Why? Because nothing in constitutional text, structure, history, or tradition supports a right to abortion. A prohibition on elective abortions is therefore constitutional if it satisfies the rational-basis review that applies to all laws.”
She lays out 4 reasons why Roe and Casey v Planned Parenthood are unsound:
1. A “right to privacy” does not protect a constitutional right to abortion.
2. Roe and Casey “do not provide persuasive support for a viability rule.”
3. Scientific advancements have occurred since Roe and Casey were handed down that have overtaken Roe factual assumptions.
4. The doctrine of stare decisis shouldn’t save Roe and Casey.
She even lays out an alternative path the Court could pursue if they’re willing to uphold the Mississippi law without completely overturning Roe.
Her brief is compelling. It provides hope for the pro-life community, although there’s no guarantee the court will be swayed.
The National Review provides a closer look at Lynn Fitch’s brief for those interested in more legal insights into this exciting case.
Let us hope a Mississippi abortion law is the catalyst to topple Roe.
[subscribe2]
Abortion pill reversal is reality. Many women immediately regret their decision to abort their baby after taking the first of two ‘medications’ (RU486) designed to end the human life in a mother’s womb.
The first pill starves the baby of oxygen and nutrients. The second pill expels the body.
The video above tells the story of a woman who immediately regretted “every single moment” after taking the first abortion pill. Big Abortion tells women there’s no going back. Not true, as this woman attests. Abortion pill reversal is very possible, but don’t wait.
If you, too, regret taking the abortion pill, you may be able do something about it. If you’re near Des Moines, Iowa, contact InnerVisions HealthCare immediately: 515-440-2273 for compassionate, authentic women’s healthcare.
Outside of Des Moines, contact: AbortionPillReversal.com or call their 24/7 Helpline at 877-558-0333.
Don’t give up. There’s hope.
Talk to people who authentically care about you and your baby.
[Wanna dance? Be sure to get your tickets to our upcoming summer dance under the stars on July 23rd!]
[subscribe2]