Peter Baklinski

Post-abortive woman finds closure after working in hospital where abortion happened

Peter Baklinski
Peter Baklinski
Image
Image
Image

CORNWALL, Ontario, 13 February, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Dale Barr, 50, always had trouble recalling the details that surrounded her abortion experience when she was 16. It was as if her mind would not let her mentally revisit that dreadful day of November 29, 1979. But all that changed when Dale started a new job in 2011 as a nurse at the very hospital where her abortion took place.

“In the first few weeks of my new job, I did not think about the abortion but in the weeks following, I found myself thinking about it more and more,” wrote Dale in a testimony to LifeSiteNews.com.

As a young teen, Dale had become sexually active and ended up pregnant at 16. The news rocked her family and they reacted with much “crying and yelling,” she said.

A panel of doctors — called the Therapeutic Abortion Committee — convinced Dale’s parents that abortion was the only choice for their daughter. Two weeks after the announcement, Dale was brought to the General Hospital in Cornwall, Ontario where, under general anesthetic, the life of her little baby was snuffed out. 

One of the last things Dale remembers prior to the abortion is lying on a stretcher in the hallway and hearing the nurses talking about her. “I felt helpless, afraid, confused and alone,” she recounted. From this moment on, Dale’s memories of her abortion experience had become fragmented. Yet she was sure that repressed memories “too painful to bear” were lurking in the depths of her unconsciousness. 

At her new job, Dale began to wonder where in the hospital her abortion had taken place. She desperately wanted to reconstruct the events of that fateful day, but she felt frustrated and defeated by her lapse of memory.

Then one night, Dale suddenly awoke from deep slumber and remembered a hospital record of her abortion experience that she had buried away. She dug out the chart and poured through the pages looking for any mention of room numbers. Finally, on the last pages of the chart she found the numbers 214 and 2. The first was her recovery room number, the second was the Operating Room (OR) number. 

During a break during her next shift, Dale made her way hurriedly to the hospital’s 2nd floor, which had now been converted into all-day clinics. She approached room 214. She hesitatingly turned the handle. The door was locked.

Suddenly, a forgotten memory surged into her consciousness.

“I suddenly remembered that after the abortion I was crying uncontrollably and screaming: ‘my baby’s dead, my baby’s dead.’”

Room 214 was hidden in a back hallway, just two doors down from the OR where Dale had lost her baby. She says she realized that doctors had put her in that room because it was so private, a place where her post-abortion hysterics would not be noticed. 

Dale was sure there were more memories to awaken. On her next night shift, a friendly security guard, whom she had never seen before, approached her and offered his help.

“He was very friendly and he told me that he would only be on duty this one night because of some schedule change. He said that if there was anything that he could do for me to just let him know.”

Dale asked the man if he might be able to show her a room in which she had recovered from a traumatic surgery many years ago.

The man agreed and followed Dale to room 214. He unlocked the door, and Dale stepped in. Then the memories came flooding back. 

“I imagined where the bed had been and I entered the very tiny bathroom where I recalled losing a large amount of blood, like I was hemorrhaging. I remembered that I had almost passed out.” 

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The guard then asked Dale if she would like to see the Operating Room suites. He opened the big automatic doors of the OR and led Dale to one particular room.

“I looked up at the big bold number above the door, which was the number 2. My heart was racing, as I stepped inside the very room where my abortion took place.”

“The room was empty and very cold and I found myself thinking, ‘that’s exactly how I felt on that day.’”

Dale returned with the guard to her unit, her heart and mind grappling to make sense of everything that had happened to her on that day so many years ago. She thanked the man for helping her. He told her that if he was ever on duty again when she needed help, to just let him know.

Now, more than three decades after her abortion, Dale was finally able to bring some closure to her emotional and traumatic experience.

However, she viewed this step as only the beginning of yet another chapter of the story of life’s journey. She began to share her abortion testimony with students, church groups, and at pro-life events in Canada and the USA. More than anything, she wanted to reach out to “people who are hurting after abortion, to love and encourage them”.

“I want to help others avoid the pain of abortion,” she wrote.

Dale says she has come to know that the pain and regret from abortion do not have to have the final word on one’s life. She is “constantly amazed” about how much good continues to come out of her “tragic event” that took place so many years ago. She has found “love and forgiveness” through the Church and through organizations such as Rachel’s Vineyard and Silent No More Awareness Campaign. 

Dale says that the healing and forgiveness that she experienced is a testament to the words of good news given by St. Paul in his letter to the Romans (8.28): “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.”

“So you see, having the abortion continues to affect my life, even years later. For 20 plus years it caused many damaging effects, but for the past several years God has transformed it into something good.” 

Dale Barr has shared her abortion testimony at the Washington March for Life and at the Ottawa March for Life. She is Silent No More Awareness Campaign’s regional coordinator for Eastern Ontario. She is married and a mother of four on earth, one in heaven.


Advertisement
Featured Image
A Nazi extermination camp. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Imagine the outrage if anti-Semites were crowdsourcing for gas chambers

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Image
A Nazi oven where the gassed victims were destroyed by fire. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Empty canisters of the poison used by Nazis to exterminate the prisoners. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Syringe for Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion AbortionInstruments.com
Image
Uterine Currette AbortionInstruments.com
Image

Imagine the outrage if the Nazis had used online crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment used to eradicate Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, and other population groups — labeled “undesirable” — in their large industrialized World War II extermination facilities. 

Imagine if they posted a plea online stating: “We need to raise $85,000 to buy Zyklon B gas, to maintain the gas chambers, and to provide a full range of services to complete the ‘final solution.’”

People would be more than outraged. They would be sickened, disgusted, horrified. Humanitarian organizations would fly into high gear to do everything in their power to stop what everyone would agree was madness. Governments would issue the strongest condemnations.

Civilized persons would agree: No class of persons should ever be targeted for extermination, no matter what the reason. Everyone would tear the euphemistic language of “final solution” to shreds, knowing that it really means the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction. 

But crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment to exterminate human beings is exactly what one group in New Brunswick is doing.

Reproductive Justice NB has just finished raising more than $100,000 to lease the Morgentaler abortion facility in Fredericton, NB, which is about to close over finances. They’re now asking the public for “support and enthusiasm” to move forward with what they call “phase 2” of their goal.

“For a further $85,000 we can potentially buy all the equipment currently located at the clinic; equipment that is required to provide a full range of reproductive health services,” the group states on its Facebook page.

But what are the instruments and equipment used in a surgical abortion to destroy the pre-born child? It depends how old the child is. 

A Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion uses a syringe-like instrument that creates suction to break apart and suck the baby up. It’s used to abort a child from 6 weeks to 12 weeks of age. Abortionist Martin Haskell has said the baby’s heart is often still beating as it’s sucked down the tube into the collection jar.

For older babies up to 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Curettage (D&C) abortion method. A Uterine Currette has one sharp side for cutting the pre-born child into pieces. The other side is used to scrape the uterus to remove the placenta. The baby’s remains are often removed by a vacuum.

For babies past 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortion method, which uses forceps to crush, grasp, and pull the baby’s body apart before extraction. If the baby’s head is too large, it must be crushed before it can be removed.

For babies past 20 weeks, there is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X) abortion method. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist uses forceps to partially deliver the baby until his or her head becomes visible. With the head often too big to pass through the cervix, the abortionist punctures the skull, sucks out the brains to collapse the skull, and delivers the dead baby.

Other equipment employed to kill the pre-born would include chemicals such as Methotrexate, Misoprostol, and saline injections. Standard office equipment would include such items as a gynecologist chair, oxygen equipment, and a heart monitor.

“It’s a bargain we don’t want to miss but we need your help,” writes the abortion group.

People should be absolutely outraged that a group is raising funds to purchase the instruments of death used to destroy a class of people called the pre-born. Citizens and human rights activists should be demanding the organizers be brought to justice. Politicians should be issuing condemnations with the most hard-hitting language.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Everyone should be tearing to shreds the euphemistic language of “reproductive health services,” knowing that it in part stands for the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction that include dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment.

There’s a saying about people not being able to perceive the error of their day. This was generally true of many in Hitler’s Germany who uncritically subscribed to his eugenics-driven ideology in which certain people were viewed as sub-human. And it’s generally true of many in Canada today who uncritically subscribe to the ideology of ‘choice’ in which the pre-born are viewed as sub-human.

It’s time for all of us to wake-up and see the youngest members of the human family are being brutally exterminated by abortion. They need our help. We must stand up for them and end this injustice.

Let us arise!


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Paul Wilson

The antidote to coercive population control

Paul Wilson
By Paul Wilson

The primary tenet of population control is simple: using contraception and abortifacients, families can “control” when their reproductive systems work and when they don’t – hence the endless cries that women “should have control over their own bodies” in the name of reproductive health.

However, in much of the world, the glittering rhetoric of fertility control gives way to the reality of control of the poorest citizens by their governments or large corporations. Governments and foreign aid organizations routinely foist contraception on women in developing countries. In many cases, any pretense of consent is steamrolled – men and women are forcibly sterilized by governments seeking to thin their citizens’ numbers.  (And this “helping women achieve their ‘ideal family size’” only goes one way – there is no government support for families that actually want more children.)

In countries where medical conditions are subpar and standards of care and oversight are low, the contraceptive chemicals population control proponents push have a plethora of nasty side effects – including permanent sterilization. So much for control over fertility; more accurately, the goal appears to be the elimination of fertility altogether.

There is a method for regulating fertility that doesn’t involve chemicals, cannot be co-opted or manipulated, and requires the mutual consent of the partners in order to work effectively. This method is Natural Family Planning (NFP).

Natural Family Planning is a method in which a woman tracks her natural indicators (such as her period, her temperature, cervical mucus, etc.) to identify when she is fertile. Having identified fertile days, couples can then choose whether or not to have sex during those days--abstaining if they wish to postpone pregnancy, or engaging in sex if pregnancy is desired.

Of course, the population control crowd, fixated on forcing the West’s vision of limitless bacchanalia through protective rubber and magical chemicals upon the rest of the world, loathes NFP. They deliberately confuse NFP with the older “rhythm method,” and cite statistics from the media’s favorite “research institute” (the Guttmacher Institute, named for a former director of Planned Parenthood) claiming that NFP has a 25% failure rate with “typical use.” Even the World Health Organization, in their several hundred page publication, “Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers,” admits that the basal body temperature method (a natural method) has a less than 1% failure rate—a success rate much higher than male condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps or spermicides.

Ironically, the methods which they ignore – natural methods – grant true control over one’s fertility – helping couples both to avoid pregnancy or (horror of horrors!) to have children, with no government intervention required and no choices infringed upon.

The legitimacy of natural methods blows the cover on population controllers’ pretext to help women. Instead, it reveals their push for contraceptives and sterilizations for what they are—an attempt to control the fertility of others. 

Reprinted with permission from the Population Research Institute.


Advertisement
Featured Image
United Nations headquarters in New York Shutterstock.com
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

New development goals shut out abortion rights

Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
By Rebecca Oas Ph.D.

Co-authored by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

A two week marathon negotiation over the world’s development priorities through 2030 ended at U.N. headquarters on Saturday with abortion rights shut out once again.

When the co-chairs’ gavel finally fell Saturday afternoon to signal the adoption of a new set of development goals, delegates broke out in applause. The applause was more a sigh of relief that a final round of negotiations lasting twenty-eight hours had come to its end than a sign of approval for the new goals.

Last-minute changes and blanket assurances ushered the way for the chairman to present his version of the document delivered with an implicit “take it or leave it.”

Aside from familiar divisions between poor and wealthy countries, the proposed development agenda that delegates have mulled over for nearly two years remains unwieldy and unmarketable, with 17 goals and 169 targets on everything from ending poverty and hunger, to universal health coverage, economic development, and climate change.

Once again hotly contested social issues were responsible for keeping delegates up all night. The outcome was a compromise.

Abortion advocates were perhaps the most frustrated. They engaged in a multi-year lobbying campaign for new terminology to advance abortion rights, with little to show for their efforts. The new term “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which has been associated with abortion on demand, as well as special new rights for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual (LGBT), did not get traction, even with 58 countries expressing support.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Despite this notable omission, countries with laws protecting unborn children were disappointed at the continued use of the term “reproductive rights,” which is not in the Rio+20 agreement from 2012 that called for the new goals. The term is seen as inappropriate in an agenda about outcomes and results rather than normative changes on sensitive subjects.

Even so, “reproductive rights” is tempered by a reference to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which recognizes that abortion is a matter to be dealt with in national legislation. It generally casts abortion in a bad light and does not recognize it as a right. The new terminology that failed was an attempt to leave the 1994 agreement behind in order to reframe abortion as a human rights issue.

Sexual and reproductive health was one of a handful of subjects that held up agreement in the final hours of negotiations. The failure to get the new terminology in the goals prompted the United States and European countries to insist on having a second target about sexual and reproductive health. They also failed to include “comprehensive sexuality education” in the goals because of concerns over sex education programs that emphasize risk reduction rather than risk avoidance.

The same countries failed to delete the only reference to “the family” in the whole document. Unable to insert any direct reference to LGBT rights at the United Nations, they are concentrating their efforts on diluting or eliminating the longstanding U.N. definition of the family. They argue “the family” is a “monolithic” term that excludes other households. Delegates from Mexico, Colombia and Peru, supporters of LGBT rights, asked that the only reference to the family be “suppressed.”

The proposed goals are not the final word on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They will be submitted to the General Assembly, whose task is to elaborate a post-2015 development agenda to replace the Millennium Development Goals next year.

Reprinted with permission from C-FAM.org.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook