On November 1, Must Read Alaska published my article titled “State of Alaska Appeals to the Supreme Court, Challenging 2024 Planned Parenthood-backed Ruling.” When MRAK posted my article to Facebook, Facebook removed the ultrasound picture of my baby and replaced it with the MRAK logo. I chose to publish this image with my article for a specific reason: Jonah Paul is a real, living human person. As his mother, I will always defend his right to life, and I urge all mothers and fathers to do the same for their children.
The legal sanctioning of abortion is not a political issue; it is a moral issue. It is a horrendous humanitarian crisis. Millions of unborn babies are being killed under the disastrous misnomer “reproductive healthcare.”
One thing has always stuck out to me during my experience in the pro-life movement: the pro-choice side shuns images, videos, and real-life testimonies. In fact, organizations that benefit from the pro-choice movement have been caught multiple times in undercover investigations doing far worse than most people imagine would ever happen in the US.
I have seen videos of abortions being performed, images of thrown-away torn-up baby limbs, testimonies from women who underwent abortion surgery not because they felt they made the best choice but that they had no other choice, and an abortion survivor’s powerful testimony given before a U.S. Senate Committee in 2024. All these experiences created in me a strong conviction that abortion is a moral evil because abortion destroys human life. While these videos, images, and testimonies impacted me greatly, nothing has cemented my pro-life conviction as deeply as seeing the ultrasound image of my own son.
When I found out Facebook had censored Jonah Paul’s picture, I had two reactions. First, I had the emotional reaction of “how dare you?” My son has done nothing wrong! He is a beautiful little boy, and I am a proud momma. My second reaction was confusion. Hang on, from a pro-choice perspective, what exactly is wrong with a woman sharing a picture of “her own body?” If we accept that a fetus is a real, living human person, the picture should not have been removed. If we believe that a fetus is part of the mother’s body and it is therefore “my body, my choice,” then again, even with this logic, the picture should not have been removed.
The logical reason behind the removal of the picture is this: it speaks the truth that unborn babies are unique individuals to a culture lulled by the lie that abortion is “healthcare” and a “fundamental right.” If my unborn baby is truly my body, why can I not post a picture of my own body? Could it be because such a picture clearly reveals that Jonah Paul has his own little body, his own little arms and legs?
As an intern at Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI), I saw how major academic journals censor scientific findings in support of life and the humanity and dignity of unborn babies. I spent hours reading FDA reports, obtained by FOIA request, of clinical trials for the abortion pill. Not only did the FDA take two years to send the requested documents, but the FDA had also redacted all significant information in the reports. CLI is in the process of challenging the redactions, which could take another couple of years. Why redact the information from clinical trials?
The answers lie in the perpetual softening of the American moral conscience. Our culture is consequence adverse. Our culture demands consequence-free sex, and anything less is “oppression.” Our culture demands the “right” to pleasure without the hardship of responsibility. Abortionists have gotten away with 1984-esque language games that have convinced millions that two plus two does equal five. A baby in the womb is “the mother’s body.” It is time to call it what it is: abortion is murder.
Numerous women who underwent abortion have expressed that they felt unsupported by their partners, betrayed by medical professionals, and grieved for the loss of their child. Women facing motherhood during times of financial, relational, or emotional distress deserve genuine love and support just as much as their little babies deserve the right to life. Being a young woman headed into single motherhood, I cannot imagine the weight of being offered death rather than loving support as the solution to my situation.
The stakes being played by both sides are eternal. Many people are left with a God shaped hole in their lives after having gone through such an experience. We cannot forget, that just like each of the little babies who are created in the image and likeness of God, so too are the men and women who have experienced abortion and they need to know that God sees us in our brokenness. He puts us back to together and makes all things new. Powerful institutions and businesses may be able to censor the message but nothing will stop the truth of the testimony of what God has done in our lives for the cause of life.
Yes. A well written expose of our corrupted culture abandoning reason for the illusion of convenience. Abortion has become a euphemism for murder.
Just one of the reasons I deleted my facebook account 5 years ago.
A very intense and powerful article.
I’d guess they censor it because it makes some people feel bad (traumatizes as they say today) due to actions they may have decided to take themselves. Well, welcome to real life.
This is one of many extremely serious problems with Facebook and Zuckerburg investments in technology. The committee that investigated and took testimony found many criminal endeavors that have caused total harm to life and living and made the proposal to not only fine the corporation but open the regulation to law suits against Facebook a matter of fact and a tool to aid in control of Facebook’s illegal enterprise of censorship and activities of crimes against families and children. It appears to be hung up and not moved forward to create that purpose giving persons the avenue to seek justice. Sen. Hawley, Sen. Kennedy, Sen. Blackburn were on the committee. Write and call them and ask what happened to the effort under the 230 issue and where is it today? I have called, especially against efforts to victimize children by TikTok and Facebook. This issue fits in this category and needs a strong sense of justice directed action.
Amen
Facebook is corrupt as hell. Go to Truth Social! Much better and you never get photos removed. Especially photos of a beautiful life inside you. Take it as a lesson and just go elsewhere. You don’t want to be part of Zuckerberg and his Dystopian lie!
Government does not belong between any individual and their health care provider. If you dont like the Alaska Constitution, you are in the minority. Facebook can print/delete whatever they want, they answer to their shareholders not the Alaska Supreme Court.
“Government does not belong between any individual and their health care provider.”
Uhhhhh sure Frank. I guess in your advanced age you’ve already forgotten about the Biden administration forcing the vax onto working people. The school closures, gym closures, restraunt closures,etc.
Or maybe you forgot about the medical association refusing to give people alternative medicine to the vax, or how you couldn’t visit family in the hospital if you were not vaxxed. Getting between you and your doctor was one of the main tent poles of the Biden disaster. Do you even stop to think before you type this dreck, or do you just free form this specious drivel. Yeck.
????? It appears that you only like doctors that agree with your views. The AMA ( licensed medical doctors with real degrees) supported the Biden vaccination policies.
Hahahaha, no Frank. Plenty of real doctors disagreed. Maybe you forgot but they were fired or silenced by threatening to have their license revoked. There were plenty of articles right here on MRAK about this. I guess you only like the articles that agree with your views. Stick to blue sky, you fit in a lot better over there.
Bought into some lies have you frankie?? Who speaks for the baby? If the governments have any authority at all, protecting the rights of the most vulnerable among us should be their top priority – even libtards should be shouting “Amen!” from rooftops to defend the right to life of preborn humans.
Abortion is murder, and contradictory to the Hypocratic Oath that every doctor swears by, not healthcare.
You are entitled to your opinions, the Alaska Constitution protects anybody seeking healthcare from intrusion by others.
Well Frank, you may have to wake up to the fact that Big Pharma is the drug dealer arm of the Government and they all pat each others butts with the FDA. Why do you think that with all our sophisticated medicine that Americans are still so sick? Why are there so many toxic food additives we are authorized to consume when banned in many other countries? Why is alcohol so highly promoted instead of healthier outlets of the mind? Why are pharma companies allowed to advertise to us through every media possible, without a doctor as an intermediary? Because the government and the Sick Care society are all part of one big circle jerk.
Have you heard of childhood cancer? Why? Have you heard of an increase in autism (associated with increase in gender disphoria)? Why?
A simple suggestion for you. Breath more, breathe deeply. Grow your own food. Stop eating slop from corporations. Drink clean water.
The solution shall lead you to not having to have a relationship with a doctor at all. You can be free and healthy! Imagine that!
Your response has nothing to do with individual privacy rights under the Alaska Constitution.
Hello Frank, thank you for engaging with my article! Must Read Alaska is dedicated to promoting civil discourse and the open presentation of rational argument. I would like to point out that my argument is not that government should interfere in personal healthcare decisions. My argument is that abortion (the elective ending of fetal life) never should have been categorized as “healthcare” because healthcare should not promote death as a solution to a situation. The argument is about what can rationally be defined as healthcare. What are the limits? What about infanticide (the killing of a baby after it has been born), which is also being advocated in the U.S. There are U.S. States that legally allow doctors to neglect babies who are born alive after failed abortions. Should the government play no role in protecting those lives? Another corollary is assisted suicide and euthanasia, which Canada has embraced as “healthcare” and which is also being promoted in the U.S. as “healthcare.” My supposition: the law plays a critical role in determining what is healthcare vs what is murder performed by medical professionals. I believe we all ought to agree that the government is indeed responsible for the protection of its people’s lives (aka the inalienable right to life).
I miss your womb and the little fish.
“Rue was also known as an abortifacient herb in Elizabethan times, which adds layered meaning given Ophelia’s tragic situation.” Interesting that the AI would intwine abortion and sorrow, I assume of the loss of the child. Woe-man: Always has been tough for you.
Stop trying to impose your “morality” on others.
If you don’t believe in abortion, then don’t have them.
Just like, if you don’t believe in gun ownership, then don’t own one.
The list goes on. Mind your business.
Hello, Randy, thank you for engaging with my article. It is important to have these conversations. A couple of questions to generate further thought: how exactly is the taking of innocent human life comparable to the ownership of an inanimate object? Is it that you do not think that an unborn baby is alive? A fetus has all the scientific characteristics that categorize an organism as “living.” Or is that you do not think the baby is human? Again, science shows the baby has human DNA, and not only human DNA, but completely unique human DNA. What is your definition of morality? My idea of morality is based on the principle that harming a human being is immoral. Do you oppose standing up for the innocent?
What I oppose is a flawed system that allows a man of poor character and great wealth to achieve power by pandering to disparate segments of society (touting regressive and repressive ideas, including ones related to human sexuality and reproduction, none of which he believes in) to secure an electoral majority, and force these retrograde notions on a captive 350 million people.
Spaulding states that MRAK IS “dedicated to promoting civil discourse and the open presentation of rational argument”. I applaud that new approach which is consistent with the “parting of ways” with Suzanne Downing, a right-wing ideologue with an agenda who, from my experience with her material, was neither civil nor rationale.
MRAK, if they are dedicated to the principles you suggest, have a lot of damage to repair in the wake of Downing’s tenure.
The Taliban want Shariah law. Josh Hawley and his wife want a Christian nation, and the end of Plan B.
John Brown was a hero. Or maybe a terrorist. Both? My guess is old John brown would be against abortion.