Peter Baklinski

Miracle Joey: The boy who refused to die

Peter Baklinski
Peter Baklinski
Image
Image

OLNEY, Maryland, February 6, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Kristin Page woke up suddenly in the middle of a warm May night, feeling soaking wet. A few months ago, the mother of three had been afraid to take a pregnancy test when she missed her period. Kristin already felt stretched to the limit with her energetic children, aged 2 through 7, but her husband Matt had encouraged her that together they would “figure it out.”

Kristin vigorously shook Matt awake. Now 13 weeks pregnant, she had come to accept with joy the new life within her, wondering what this little bundle would bring into their blossoming family.

“My waters must have broken,” she whispered in a panic. 

On the phone, Kristin’s doctor advised her to visit the hospital first thing in the morning for an examination. He told her that such a young baby could not survive without any amniotic fluid.

An ultrasound revealed that there was no amniotic fluid, but surprisingly, the baby’s heart was still beating. The doctor told Kristin that her baby would die and instructed her to go home to rest, pray and wait for the baby to pass.

A few days later, Kristen returned for another ultrasound. To everyone’s surprise, the baby was still alive, and with a “super strong” heart beat.

A different doctor from the first told the parents exactly how dire the situation was. “No water, no lungs, no life,” she said, and encouraged Kristen and Matt to get an abortion and avoid running the increasing risk of serious infection.

A few days later, an expert in high-risk pregnancies told the parents flatly that the pregnancy would come to an end on its own. The expert counseled the parents to abort, suggesting that if waiting to miscarry seemed too unbearable for Kristen, then she could immediately opt for the dilation and curettage (D & C) procedure.

Now at 16 weeks, Kristen went to see a different specialist. Another ultrasound revealed a powerful heartbeat. The baby was thriving.

The specialist told Kristin that she was not being fair to her husband and other children if she were to leave them without a wife and mother all for the sake of a child that would not even survive more than a day. “Your only option is to terminate,” he said.

Kristen and Matt left in tears, devastated by the bleakness of their situation.

Google searches only made them more dismal. Everywhere they looked, they found that babies with no amniotic fluid had a zero percent chance of survival.

With nothing left to lose, Kristen and Matt decided to let God be in control. They told God that he could take their precious baby whenever he so wished.

“We felt that we were given no hope. Yet, against all odds, we found the strength to just say ‘so be it’ and allow what was certainly going to happen (at least in our eyes) happen,” they said.

“If He wanted him, then I would be at peace knowing it was God’s choice and not mine,” said Kristen.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

The tiniest ray of hope broke through the gathering darkness when the parents found out about Tepeyac Family Center in Fairfax, Virginia, where doctors believe in the right for all children to be born, even despite dire prenatal circumstances. It was here that Kristen and Matt found support for their decision to let God handle the pregnancy.

At 17 weeks, the bleak situation had not changed. But, defying all medical expectations, an ultrasound revealed a thriving baby who appeared to be simply content resting gently in the hollow cavity of Kristen’s womb. 

Kristen was ordered to a strict bed-rest except for weekly checkups at the family centre.

Weeks went by. At every ultrasound, Kristen expected to hear the news she dreaded the most, but the baby would not let go of its grasp on life.

“Every day brought tears to my eyes to think that I was lying there only for the baby to live a mere few hours, or couple of days at most,” said Kristen. 

At 26 weeks, Kristen was moved to Fair Oaks Hospital, an hour away from her husband and children, where she was continually monitored, administered various medicines, and hooked up to an IV machine. Her baby continued to thrive.

At 32 weeks and 3 days, the baby’s heartbeat suddenly changed. The doctors suspected that the baby was distressed, but waited a day before doing anything.

An ultrasound the next day revealed a lethargic baby with an irregular heartbeat. Kristen was immediately prepped for an emergency caesarian-section. She was scared about losing her baby.

“I knew he was safe inside me, but outside me he wouldn’t be able to breathe. I prayed for God to give us but two days with our baby so we could tell him how much we loved him.”

A completely blue boy was pulled from Kristen’s womb. He was immediately baptized by the Catholic doctor who delivered him. Kristen’s husband cut the umbilical cord. All had prepared for the worst, but not for what happened next.

“Then, we heard the screams,” said Matt - the beautiful thrilling screams of a child who is pitifully calling out for his mama.

Joseph Charles Page was born October 2, 2006, eight weeks premature.

“They let me see him and let Matt hold him for a brief minute and then whisked him away,” said Kristen. The baby had pneumothorax, a collapse of the lung, and needed to be put on oxygen. He also suffered damage to his right leg and foot, probably from resting on them exclusively during Kristen’s bed rest. 

Joey spent a total of seven weeks undergoing extensive testing in the hospital’s Neonatal Intensive Care Unit whereupon he was released with a clean bill of health.

“He is bouncing, funny, and so amazing! He brings the most joy to all of us!” said his parents. “He is so happy with us as he smiles and laughs. His brother and sisters adore him.”

Both Kristen and Matt believe that their son is “nothing short of a miracle.”

The happy parents know now with certainty that no one on earth can predict the future. “Evidence might show a nearly fatal diagnosis, but ultimately God decides. It is out of human control.”

“We look at Joseph everyday and thank God we chose to keep him! He is a blessing and a much-loved member of our family. We all know he is special.  You can still see how his face sinks in a bit from being squished and his nose is somewhat flattened.”

“But really, only we can tell.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Joseph, now five, recently started pre-kindergarten where his teachers told Kristen that she needs to stop spoiling him and give him more serious consequences for his actions. Kristen says that Joey is the opposite of a “serious” child, and that he is always being “super silly.”


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook