MFL / MARCH FOR LIFE: JOIN US ON JANUARY 24, 2025 IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
The right to life is a human right. Our defense of that right is a joyful witness to the beauty and dignity of every human person. https://marchforlife.org/national-march-for-life/
FEBRUARY 2022:
Robert wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:57 pmOne can march FOR things, not against things.
I would be very comfortable in a Pro Peace, Pro Life, Pro Freedom march or rally.
JANUARY 2025:
JUST IN: President Trump Signs Pardons For 23 Pro-Life Activists / 1min
.. personally, i’m pro life, not part of any organized group, political or not. i’m aware others are. i don’t march.
i’m aware the Catholic Church does monumental things for pro life, pro traditional marriage, which i appreciate, they do loads for adoptions and care of pregnant women, teens and children in need. pregnancy does not transform a teen or child into a woman.
i’m not for the death penalty of those found guilty of heinous crimes, BUT AS IT STANDS IN THE U.S., it’s a minor problem in the giant shadow of (esp wholesale, for-profit execution of innocents) - those without voice, without legal representation.
Father Fidelis Moscinski, a Franciscan Friar of the Renewal, is seen leading fellow pro-life advocates in prayer Sept. 19, 2020, outside a Planned Parenthood center in Hempstead on Long Island, N.Y. He was among 23 pro-life activists pardoned for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act, by President Donald Trump Jan. 23, 2025.
(OSV News/Gregory A. Shemitz, CNS)
On the eve of the [2025] national March for Life rally in Washington, President Donald Trump announced Jan. 23 he was issuing pardons for 23 protesters arrested for violating the federal Freedom of Access to Clinics (FACE) Act.
Trump signed the pardons in the Oval Office.
"They should not have been prosecuted. Many of them are elderly people," he told reporters. "This is a great honor to sign this."
The Thomas More Society, the Chicago-based public interest law firm, had earlier in January announced it had submitted formal requests to pardon 21 pro-life activists convicted under the FACE Act. They included Joan Bell, Coleman Boyd, Joel Curry, Jonathan Darnel, Eva Edl, Chester Gallagher, William Goodman, Dennis Green, Lauren Handy, Paulette Harlow, John Hinshaw, Heather Idoni, Jean Marshall, Father Fidelis Moscinski, Justin Phillips, Paul Place, Paul Vaughn, Bevelyn Beatty Williams, Calvin Zastrow, Eva Zastrow, and James Zastrow.
The two other convicted pro-life activists pardoned by Trump are Herb Geraghty of Pennsylvania and Jay Smith of New York.
Many are still incarcerated.
Lauren Handy, a Catholic convicted for her participation in a 2020 abortion clinic blockade in Washington, has been serving the longest sentence: 57 months.
text continues ..
Yet biden, pelosi, durbin, other representatives are reported to be devout Catholics.
- - - - - - -
Things are changing quickly:
Jan 24 2025 / DOJ orders prosecutors to cease FACE enforcement https://reproductiverights.org/doj-orde ... forcement/
(i don’t believe those pardoned were doing anything more “aggressive” than offering advice, help, prayers.)
0 x
i’m perfectly comfortable with an older, wiser, more docile Trump.
”Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.” Robert Martz
Well... here is an outcome I did not expect... In general, Plain Anabaptists are sympathetic to those who chose to take their loved ones off of life support. Without understanding all the science, keeping a brain-dead mother on life support for 4 months in order to birth a 1 pound baby that didn't have emotional connection with its mother seems too artificial for me.
0 x
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
Well... here is an outcome I did not expect... In general, Plain Anabaptists are sympathetic to those who chose to take their loved ones off of life support. Without understanding all the science, keeping a brain-dead mother on life support for 4 months in order to birth a 1 pound baby that didn't have emotional connection with its mother seems too artificial for me.
Want to know what makes this even more morally ambiguous?
The family of Adriana Smith now faces a ruinous $800,000 medical bill for keeping her on life support in the ICU for over 90 days which was a choice that they objected to and had no part in making. They State of Georgia which went to court to make this happen is not going to pay a dime of the expense. Neither is her insurance company because they don't cover medical care after a person is dead and Adriana Smith was declared brain dead. So the bill is going to fall onto the family who had no say in the matter. Their credit will potentially be ruined, they may not be able to ever retire. There are also going to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional medical bills. Who covers those?
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Well... here is an outcome I did not expect... In general, Plain Anabaptists are sympathetic to those who chose to take their loved ones off of life support. Without understanding all the science, keeping a brain-dead mother on life support for 4 months in order to birth a 1 pound baby that didn't have emotional connection with its mother seems too artificial for me.
Want to know what makes this even more morally ambiguous?
The family of Adriana Smith now faces a ruinous $800,000 medical bill for keeping her on life support in the ICU for over 90 days which was a choice that they objected to and had no part in making. They State of Georgia which went to court to make this happen is not going to pay a dime of the expense. Neither is her insurance company because they don't cover medical care after a person is dead and Adriana Smith was declared brain dead. So the bill is going to fall onto the family who had no say in the matter. Their credit will potentially be ruined, they may not be able to ever retire. There are also going to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional medical bills. Who covers those?
How does that work, anyway? Is the medical bill considered a joint liability between her and her husband? But then, is he actually married to her if she's dead? Or is this his medical bill because it's his child that was born? In which case how does insurance figure they don't have to pay for the child's medical bills?
Well... here is an outcome I did not expect... In general, Plain Anabaptists are sympathetic to those who chose to take their loved ones off of life support. Without understanding all the science, keeping a brain-dead mother on life support for 4 months in order to birth a 1 pound baby that didn't have emotional connection with its mother seems too artificial for me.
Want to know what makes this even more morally ambiguous?
The family of Adriana Smith now faces a ruinous $800,000 medical bill for keeping her on life support in the ICU for over 90 days which was a choice that they objected to and had no part in making. They State of Georgia which went to court to make this happen is not going to pay a dime of the expense. Neither is her insurance company because they don't cover medical care after a person is dead and Adriana Smith was declared brain dead. So the bill is going to fall onto the family who had no say in the matter. Their credit will potentially be ruined, they may not be able to ever retire. There are also going to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional medical bills. Who covers those?
How does that work, anyway? Is the medical bill considered a joint liability between her and her husband? But then, is he actually married to her if she's dead? Or is this his medical bill because it's his child that was born? In which case how does insurance figure they don't have to pay for the child's medical bills?
I don't know. From the coverage it doesn't appear that she was married. From the news coverage it appears that under Georgia law the family (parents) are going to be liable for the medical bills.
The child was not on her health insurance because she was not alive when the child was born. Her medical policy expired when she was declared legally dead months ago. That is how most health insurance policies are written. Coverage ceases when you die.
Michelle Oberman, lawyer and legal scholar at the Santa Clara University School of Law focusing on the intersection of sex, pregnancy, motherhood and criminal law, says Smith’s situation raises questions about the financial responsibilities for Smith’s family. The costs for keeping Smith on life support — and caring for her fetus if it survives delivery could cost upwards of $800,000.
The financial costs “look to be devastating, and they look to be borne by a family that didn’t want this at all. This is unwanted treatment. It’s a battery for a dead person,” she tells Women Rule.
Health insurance does not generally cover care after death if the patient is declared to be in a vegetative state with no potential for recovery.
“Dead bodies are not a property of the state to be used to maximize life,” Oberman says.
I don't have a strong opinion here, except that if the state is going to step in and take over decision-making then the state should also absorb the costs of its decisions. Which doesn't seem to be what is happening.
1 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Well... here is an outcome I did not expect... In general, Plain Anabaptists are sympathetic to those who chose to take their loved ones off of life support. Without understanding all the science, keeping a brain-dead mother on life support for 4 months in order to birth a 1 pound baby that didn't have emotional connection with its mother seems too artificial for me.
Want to know what makes this even more morally ambiguous?
The family of Adriana Smith now faces a ruinous $800,000 medical bill for keeping her on life support in the ICU for over 90 days which was a choice that they objected to and had no part in making. They State of Georgia which went to court to make this happen is not going to pay a dime of the expense. Neither is her insurance company because they don't cover medical care after a person is dead and Adriana Smith was declared brain dead. So the bill is going to fall onto the family who had no say in the matter. Their credit will potentially be ruined, they may not be able to ever retire. There are also going to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional medical bills. Who covers those?
Georgia doesn’t make parents liable for an adult child’s medical bills. What are you talking about?
Well... here is an outcome I did not expect... In general, Plain Anabaptists are sympathetic to those who chose to take their loved ones off of life support. Without understanding all the science, keeping a brain-dead mother on life support for 4 months in order to birth a 1 pound baby that didn't have emotional connection with its mother seems too artificial for me.
Want to know what makes this even more morally ambiguous?
The family of Adriana Smith now faces a ruinous $800,000 medical bill for keeping her on life support in the ICU for over 90 days which was a choice that they objected to and had no part in making. They State of Georgia which went to court to make this happen is not going to pay a dime of the expense. Neither is her insurance company because they don't cover medical care after a person is dead and Adriana Smith was declared brain dead. So the bill is going to fall onto the family who had no say in the matter. Their credit will potentially be ruined, they may not be able to ever retire. There are also going to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional medical bills. Who covers those?
Georgia doesn’t make parents liable for an adult child’s medical bills. What are you talking about?
I'm simply citing the news coverage including the Politico article above. The State of Georgia has no intention of covering the costs and neither does the insurance company. And so it seems it will fall to the hospital, family, and her estate. And probably ultimately the local citizens of Atlanta who will pick up the costs in the form of higher billing rates.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
While I would not wish the child to have died, I carry suspicions regarding the motivations of the hospital staff person or whoever made this decision on their behalf. I suspect that someone simply saw an opportunity to 'missuse' this deceased woman and her unborn child to make a political statement.
Again, I would not wish the death of the child, but the woman's parents, IF they had any legal authority to act on behalf of their adult daughter, should have gone to a lawyer, to challenge the hospital's decision. I think there are some details missing in this news report, revealing an unspoken political agenda.
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 1:17 pm
I'm simply citing the news coverage including the Politico article above. The State of Georgia has no intention of covering the costs and neither does the insurance company. And so it seems it will fall to the hospital, family, and her estate.
The patient involved is now deceased. The family of a deceased person has no obligation to pay their medical bills; Georgia isn't a community property state, and I'm not even clear on if this woman was married in the first place. As far as the "$800,000" quotation, I highly doubt the hospital's actual costs were $800,000. That just sounds like an absurdly inflated medical bill. For comparison, I myself have generated north of $2 million of medical billing in the last 3 years; the actually amounts paid out were around $20,000, because medical bills have wildly ridiculous numbers in them. (My favourite example was my wife getting billed $40.00 for a pregnancy test when she said she was already pregnant. A 2 pack of tests is $1.25 at Dollar Tree.) We can assume the actual expenses the hospital probably had were closer to $8,000.
As far as the baby, Medicaid will be paying for the child as they almost always do in these NICU cases unless the living parent or other guardian of the child has a job with a health plan that covers dependents. Nearly all NICU babies are covered by Medicaid, even in non-expansion states.
And probably ultimately the local citizens of Atlanta who will pick up the costs in the form of higher billing rates.
Do you share equal concern the good citizens of local communities having to pay "higher billing rates" due to another class of people who tend to consume a lot of medical services, often via emergency rooms, with no intention of paying for them?
