Matt Lowell

Abortion never had a chance with us: our experience having a disabled child

Matt Lowell
By Matt Lowell
Image

August 17, 2011 (HLIAmerica.org)- Let me just start off saying that abortion never had a chance with us.

We found out in November 2005 that we were going to have a baby. I had just gotten out of the Army, and we had settled in Cibolo, Texas - right near San Antonio.  When we first started trying to have a baby, we were surprised at how long it took.  I have always joked about my little “swimmers,” and how they were probably swimming in circles.  So we prayed, and we told Jesus that if he blessed us with a baby, we would educate our child about Jesus and raise him/her Catholic.  Shortly after, we learned that Becky was pregnant.

Becky was the office manager for an Ear, Nose, and Throat doctor and she continued to work.  She had always eaten well, and maintained a very active lifestyle of running, walking, biking, and working out; so we felt very good about everything.  Around March 2006, however, we went in for a sonogram and our entire happy existence came crashing down around us.

Becky’s doctor said that it was hard to tell, but she thought that she saw a cleft lip and palate.  But just to be sure, she was going to send us to a specialist, who told us that not only did our baby girl have a cleft lip and palate, but she also had no stomach, and problems with her heart.  He needed us to come back in a week to try another test.

After a very difficult week of waiting, the doctor reaffirmed his earlier suspicions ended the visit telling us we had “options.”  We asked, “What do you mean, options”?  And then it clicked.  He was referring to abortion.

We asked the “specialist” if we would lose our baby prematurely due to the seriousness of the problems. He said that that would more than likely happen, to which we replied that if this baby wasn’t going to make it, it would be God’s decision to terminate, not ours.  We had, after all, made a promise to Jesus.

I think we went back for one more visit, where the specialist saw the stomach.  He had to wait for Laci to open her mouth and swallow some of the amniotic fluid, and he saw it.  So now all our little girl had was a common facial birth defect. Why would a doctor suggest abortion on such a preliminary diagnosis?

But soon after, in July, Becky developed preeclampsia and was put on bed rest on a Wednesday with a stress test set up for that Sunday.  During the appointment, the doctor said that Laci was in distress, and he needed to pray about what to do.  So he left the room for about 20 minutes, came back and said we were going into surgery.  About half an hour later, Laci Faith Lowell was born.  She was about one month early, and weighed 3lbs. 15oz, and she had the most beautiful bilateral cleft lip - it was perfectly symmetrical.  About an hour later she had problems breathing and was on a MEDEVAC to Christus Santa Rosa, where she would stay for two months.

Once at Santa Rosa we started to learn of some other health problems Laci had going on. In addition to the cleft lip and palate, she was deaf, possibly blind, and had heart problems (ASD, VSD, PDA, pulmonary stenosis).  We were very concerned with her brain function, and a CT scan proved “all the parts to be there” for which we were very grateful.

When we first learned about all of her problems, I was very angry.  Not with Becky, or with Laci, but with God.  And I said it … out loud.  We even went to our church to chat with our priest.  I pretty much demanded answers from him.  I now realize that I wasn’t really rational at that point.

We visited Laci every single day she was in the NICU, and we stayed as long as they would let us.  I slept on her little table with her, Becky held her “kangaroo style” (skin to skin), we talked to her and kissed her, and held her.  As time progressed, we realized that this was a little human, despite all the issues, and she needed us to hold and love her, to be her everything.

We left the NICU in September with the order to get our baby up to 10 lbs, so she could have heart surgery.  We did, and her surgery was a success; however, she was left with a leaky pulmonary valve, which will have to be replaced periodically throughout her life.

We enrolled Laci in a place called Sunshine Cottage, a school for the deaf in San Antonio, TX, where we learned that Laci was in fact deaf in her left ear, but that she did have some hearing in her right.  Basically, she could hear anything louder than a jet engine from her right ear.  Furthermore, we learned that Laci did have some sight out of her right eye.  There was no telling how much, but she was recognizing our faces and reaching for toys.  Laci was fitted with hearing aids while we waited for her to get old enough for a Cochlear Implant.

At this point Becky and Laci were heavily involved with ECI (Early Childhood Intervention- a Texas based program).  We had a couple surgeries to fix her cleft lip and palate, and then we got a Cochlear Implant!  What a change that made!  She started crawling soon after and became very interested in communicating with us.  That little brain was working.  She started Preschool at Sunshine Cottage, and has just graduated Pre-K, getting ready for Kindergarten next year.  She is doing well, keeping up with her classmates both orally and visually. In some cases, being the youngest in her class, she is doing more than expected of her!

So here we are today with our beautiful Laci Faith Lowell.  We are thankful that God never took her from us.  We are thankful that she is doing so well.  We are amazed by Laci every day.  Laci says and does things that other kids don’t do.  She just turned 5, and she commonly uses the following words correctly: great, fabulous, delicious, amazing, thanks, no thanks, and many, many, more.  Her favorite color is any shade of green, and she loves TinkerBell and princesses.  Laci is learning to fish with me, and has no fear of the bait, or the fish itself - although we are working on patience. We are so blessed to have her in our lives.  The way we look at it, God gave us Jesus to be closer to Him, and Jesus gave us Laci so we could be closer to Jesus.

Abortion never had a chance.

Reprinted with permission from HLI America

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, , , ,

The first pro-abortion Republican enters the 2016 presidential race

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

EXETER, NH, May 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The large and expanding field of would-be Republican presidential candidates grew by one today, as George Pataki became the first GOP presidential hopeful this election season to openly support abortion-on-demand.

The 69-year-old long-shot candidate also has a history of supporting homosexual legislative causes.

In the weeks leading up to his formal announcement, George Pataki took out TV ads asking Republicans to refrain from talking about abortion and gay “marriage,” branding them “distractions.”

“In 12 years [as governor], I don’t think I talked about that issue twice,” he once said of abortion.

On same-sex “marriage,” he says, “I think, leave it to the states. I don’t think it’s a role in Washington.”

However, Pataki has a long history of enacting the homosexual political agenda as governor of New York from 1994-2006. He signed a “hate crimes” law that added the words “gay” and “lesbian” to New York state law for the first time.

He signed the Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Act (SONDA), which prohibits business owners from “discriminating” against homosexuals in housing or hiring, with an exemption only for religious institutions.

He also added sexual orientation to state civil rights laws, alongside such immutable characteristics as race and sex, in an apparent quid pro quo for a gay activist group's endorsement in his last run for governor. The New York Times reported that, under pressure from Pataki, the then-Senate Majority Leader “shifted his position on the bill as part of what is tacitly acknowledged, even by Senator [Joseph] Bruno's senior aides, to have been a deal to win an endorsement for Governor Pataki from the state's largest gay rights group, the Empire State Pride Agenda.”

After the LGBT activist group endorsed Pataki in 2002, citing a long list of his service to the homosexual political cause, Pataki personally lobbied senators for the bill's passage, then signed it into law that December.

Coupled with his stance on gun control, environmentalism, and other issues, he stands well to the left of the Republican mainstream.

The three-term governor of New York, who belongs to the Roman Catholic Church, took his own advice by largely avoiding social issues today. The closest he came was his vow, “I'd repeal oppressive laws like ObamaCare and end Common Core.”

He added that he would “fire every current IRS employee abusing government power to discriminate on the basis of politics or religion. That is not America!”

Otherwise, Pataki's announcement speech hewed to stand pat Republican issues like reducing taxes, shrinking the number of federal employees, increasing military spending, and supporting entrepreneurship.

He began by thanking his supporters, in English and Spanish.

Smiling, his head pivoting between twin teleprompters, he said, “Let me tell you some of the things I'd do right away to get oppressive government off the backs of Americans.”

He would institute a lifetime ban on congressmen acting as lobbyists after they leave office. “If you ever served one day in Congress, you will never be a lobbyist,” he said. He favors forcing Congress to live under the laws it passes, so there will be “no special rules for the powerful.”

He cited his history of cutting taxes, reducing welfare rolls, and leaving his state with billions of dollars in surplus. “That's what our policies can do,” he said. “I know we can do the same thing for the United States.”

In recent weeks, he has called for a more interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East. Today, he reminded his audience that he was governor of New York in 9/11. “I will not fear the lesson of September 11,” he said. “To protect us, first we must protect the border,” he said – an unexpected phrase, as Pataki supports amnesty for the at least 11 million illegal immigrants already in the United States.

“We will stand with our ally, Israel, a democracy on the front lines of terror and barbarism,” he said.

Like former Sen. Rick Santorum, who announced he is running for president yesterday, Pataki agreed that “if necessary, American forces will be used to actually defeat and destroy ISIS on the ground” – although he promised not to become “the world's policeman.”

Some of his campaign promises drew skepticism, such as seeking to develop self-driving cars and to cure Alzheimer's disease and cancer within the next decade.

The speech's venue was chosen deliberately by Pataki, who considered entering the presidential race in 2000, 2008, and 2012. The town of Exeter, New Hampshire, claims to be the founding place of the Republican Party. (Ripon, Wisconsin, makes a similar claim.)

More importantly, the first-in-the-nation primary skews more libertarian on social issues than evangelical-dominated Iowa and South Carolina, so Pataki has essentially staked his candidacy on doing well in New Hampshire. Fellow pro-abortion Republican Rudy Giuliani made a similar bet in 2008, banking on a good showing among transplanted New Yorkers in the Florida primary. He left the race after finishing a distant third.

Short of a stunning upset in the Granite State, Pataki has little chance of breaking through the pack this year. A Fox News poll ranks him dead last among 16 announced and potential candidates. Holly Bailey of Yahoo! News said, “George Pataki would never say this, but you do have to wonder if he's sort of, maybe, gaming for vice president.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Pataki is not the first “pro-choice” Republican to run for president.  Giuliani (who supported partial birth abortion) and Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore (another potential 2016 candidate, who supports abortion during the first trimester) ran in 2008. Twelve years earlier, both California Gov. Pete Wilson and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter supported abortion-on-demand. Arlen Specter later left the party and became a Democrat.

In 1988, General Alexander Haig opposed a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So did Texas Gov. John Connally in 1980.

George H.W. Bush supported abortion and voted for Planned Parenthood funding early in his career but changed his position by the time he ran for president the second time, in 1988.

President Gerald Ford was the last Republican nominee to proclaim himself “pro-choice.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Steve Jalsevac / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

, , , ,

Ireland ‘defied God’ by voting for gay ‘marriage’: Cardinal Burke

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

OXFORD, May 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Cardinal Raymond Burke lamented how formerly Catholic Ireland has gone further than the pagans in the pre-Christian days of old and “defied God” by calling homosexual behavior “marriage” in the referendum last week.

“I mean, this is a defiance of God. It’s just incredible. Pagans may have tolerated homosexual behaviours, they never dared to say this was marriage,” he told the Newman Society, Oxford University’s Catholic organization, in an address Wednesday about the intellectual heritage of Pope Benedict XVI. The Tablet, Britain’s liberal Catholic newspaper, reported his remarks.

On Friday, 1.2 million Irish people voted to amend the country’s constitution to say: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” A little over 734,000 people voted against the proposal. 

Burke said that he could not understand “any nation redefining marriage.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

The cardinal also emphasized the important role that parents play in protecting their children in a culture increasingly hostile to God’s laws. “The culture is thoroughly corrupted, if I may say so, and the children are being exposed to this, especially through the internet,” he said. One practical piece of advice that he offered families was to put computers in public areas to prevent children from “imbib[ing] this poison that’s out there.”

During the same Oxford visit, but during a homily at a Mass the day before, Burke called marriage between a man and woman a “fundamental truth” that has been “ignored, defied, and violated.”

Burke warned during the homily of the dangers of “various ideological currents” and of “human deception and trickery which strives to lead us into error.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
John Stonestreet

,

Why young Christians can’t grasp our arguments against gay ‘marriage’

John Stonestreet
By John Stonestreet

May 28, 2015 (BreakPoint.org) -- For five years, Dr. Abigail Rine has been teaching a course on gender theory at George Fox University, an evangelical school in the Quaker tradition.

At the beginning of the semester, she tells her students that “they are guaranteed to read something they will find disagreeable, probably even offensive.”

Writing at FirstThings.com recently, she related how five years ago it was easy to find readings that challenged and even offended the evangelical college students “considering the secular bent of contemporary gender studies.”

But today, things are different. “Students now,” she says, “arrive in my class thoroughly versed in the language and categories of identity politics; they are reticent to disagree with anything for fear of seeming intolerant—except, of course, what they perceive to be intolerant.”

And what do they find “intolerant”? Well, in her class, an essay entitled “What is Marriage?” by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson, which was the beginning of the book “What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense.”

In their article, Girgis, George, and Anderson defend what they call the conjugal view of marriage. “Marriage,” they write, “is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other … that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together.” They defend this view against what they call the “revisionist view” of marriage, which redefines marriage to include, among other things, same-sex couples.

“My students hate it,” Dr. Rine wrote. They “lambast the article.” “They also,” she adds, “seem unable to fully understand the argument.” And again, these are evangelical students at an evangelical school.

The only argument for conjugal marriage they’ve ever encountered has been the wooden proof-texting from the Bible. And besides, wrote Rine, “What the article names as a ‘revisionist’ idea of marriage—marriage as an emotional, romantic, sexual bond between two people—does not seem ‘new’ to my students at all, because this is the view of marriage they were raised with, albeit with a scriptural, heterosexual gloss.”

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

As Rine points out “the redefinition of marriage began decades ago” when “the link between sexuality and procreation was severed in our cultural imagination.”

And if marriage “has only an arbitrary relationship to reproduction,” then it seems mean-spirited to Rine’s students to argue that marriage by its very nature excludes same-sex couples.

And where do students get the idea that marriage “has only an arbitrary relationship to reproduction”? Well, everywhere—television, church, school, their homes, in youth groups.

Rine writes, “As I consider my own upbringing and the various ‘sex talks’ I encountered in evangelical church settings over the past twenty years, I realize that the view of marital sex presented there was primarily revisionist.”

In other words, once you say, “I do,” you get “the gift” of sex which is presented as “a ‘gift’ largely due to its [erotic], unitive properties, rather than its intrinsic capacity to create life.” Even in the Church, children have become an optional add-on to married life rather than its primary purpose.

What can we do to win back our children, our churches, and the culture? In our recent book “Same Sex Marriage,” Sean McDowell and I lay out a game plan. We offer strategies for the short-term and the long-term, with the ultimate goal: re-shaping the cultural imagination towards what God intended marriage to be, starting with the church. Come to BreakPoint.org to pick up your copy.

As Chuck Colson once said in a BreakPoint commentary about marriage, “We Christians are very good at saying ‘No.’ But we’ve got to get better at saying ‘Yes’: showing how God’s plan for humanity is a blessing. That His ways, including faithful, life-giving marriage between one man and one woman, lead to human flourishing physically, emotionally, and spiritually.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Reprinted with permission from Break Point.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook