Blog

Deny Healthcare to the Unvaccinated?


Some are suggesting a “compromise” between those who vaccinate and those who don’t: Deny healthcare to the unvaccinated.

This suggestion varies regarding the players (doctors, ER workers, nurses, clinics, hospitals, individual employees) and the details (deny all healthcare in any form, deny only treatment for vaccine-preventable diseases, or some combination), but in essence, it would force the unvaccinated to “suffer the consequences” for their choices. Besides the glowing discrimination in this suggestion, there are four main reasons to oppose it: 1) It is unethical. 2) It is impossible to implement consistently. 3) It is based on fear and hate; not truth or tolerance. 4) It is won’t actually solve any problem.

→ Click to Continue Reading →

Print

Minnesota Legislature Threatens to Eliminate Parental Choice in Vaccination Mandate


Quick Summary

Current Minnesota law generally requires K-12 students to receive a standard vaccination schedule, but allows an exemption when parents object on conscientious grounds. A recently introduced bill would revoke the parental choice exemption from current law.

Legislative Analysis

Current Law

  • MN Rev. St. 120A.22 Subd. 5 requires: “Every child between seven and 17 years of age must receive instruction unless the child has graduated.”
  • MN Rev. St. 121A.15 Subd. 1 requires: “Except as provided in subdivisions 3, 4, and 10, no person over two months old may be allowed to enroll or remain enrolled in any elementary or secondary school or child care facility in this state until the person has submitted to the administrator or other person having general control and supervision of the school or child care facility, one of the following statements [verifying vaccination compliance].”
  • MN Rev. St. 121A.15, Subd. 3(d) allows the following exemption from compulsory vaccination (emphasis added): “If a notarized statement signed by the minor child's parent or guardian or by the emancipated person is submitted to the administrator or other person having general control and supervision of the school or child care facility stating that the person has not been immunized as prescribed in subdivision 1 because of the conscientiously held beliefs of the parent or guardian of the minor child or of the emancipated person, the immunizations specified in the statement shall not be required. This statement must also be forwarded to the commissioner of the Department of Health.”
  • MN Rev. St. 121A.15 Subd. 9(a) applies the preceding requirement and exemption to private schools and home schools as much as to public schools, by defining “elementary or secondary school” as “includ[ing] any public school, nonpublic school, church, or religious organization, or home school in which a child is provided instruction in compliance with sections 120A.22 and 120A.24.”

Proposed Bill

  • SF 1520, as introduced on February 21, 2019, would amend current law by striking MN Rev. St. 121A.15, Subd. 3(d)—the section quoted above that currently protects a parent’s right to conscientiously object.
  • In view of the other sections of current law quoted above, this revocation of parental rights obviously intends to apply to children ages 7 through 17, regardless of whether they are enrolled in public, private, or home schools.

Call to Action

Get Informed

  • There are at least 16 good reasons why a parent might conscientiously object to mandatory vaccination—including reasons supported by peer-reviewed medical research as well as reasons recognized by federal court rulings that have awarded monetary damages to families who suffered vaccine-induced injuries.

Stay Informed

Share Your Concerns

  • Contact members of the committee(s) identified under “Stay Informed” (above) by clinking the link(s) above.
  • Contact legislators from your own district, using this handy directory.
  • Borrow some talking points from the 16 good reasons why parental choice makes sense for vaccine policy, or follow the research links in that article in order to discover additional talking points.
  • Tell your friends through social media: “I am not anti-vaccine; rather, I am pro-freedom. I oppose vaccination mandates, while remaining open to individuals’ choices of whether to vaccinate themselves and their children.”

 

Dr. Ryan C. MacPherson is the founding president of Into Your Hands LLC and the author of several books, including Rediscovering the American Republic (2 vols.) and Debating Evolution before Darwinism. He lives with his wife Marie and their homeschooled children in Mankato, Minnesota, where he teaches American history, history of science, and bioethics at Bethany Lutheran College. He also serves as President of the Hausvater Project, which mentors Christian parents. For more information, visit www.ryancmacpherson.com.

Print

16 Arguments against Mandatory Vaccination


I am not anti-vaccine; rather, I am pro-freedom. I oppose vaccination mandates, while remaining open to individuals’ choices of whether to vaccinate themselves and their children. I support the ideas of training one’s immune system and of building one’s immunity. The science and history of inoculation and immunization theory is fascinating, but beyond the scope of this post. Here, I will simply cover my reasons against government coerced, mandatory vaccination. Please keep in mind,  I am not a medical professional and what I write should not be considered medical advice. Do your own research, make your own choices, and consult your medical experts, as needed.

vaccinechoicepic

Mandatory vaccination should be opposed for three main reasons: 1) it strips a person of liberty, 2) it is established on unethical foundations, and 3) there are good reasons to question the safety of vaccines. (To read the full report, click here.)

I. Liberty: Mandatory Vaccination Strips a Person of Liberty

A. Mandatory Vaccination Is a Human Rights Violation.

B. Mandatory Vaccination Is an Affront to the Constitutional Rights of Religion and Conscience.

C. Mandatory Vaccination Disregards Biomedical Individuality.

D. Mandatory Vaccination Victimizes the Poor.

E. Mandatory Vaccination Opposes the Right to Privacy and Equal Access to Education.

F. Mandatory Vaccination Uses Coercion Rather Than Education.

G. Mandatory Vaccination Restricts Parental Responsibility.

H. Mandatory Vaccination Refuses to Learn from Thousands of Years of History.

II. Ethics: Mandatory Vaccination Is Established on Unethical Foundations.

A. Pharmaceutical Companies Are Exempt from Liability for Damage from Their Products.

B. America’s Vaccination Paradigm Is Rife with Conflicts of Interest.

C. Doctors and Vaccine Companies Do Not Provide True Informed Consent.

III. Safety: The Safety of Vaccines Is Questionable.

A. Vaccines Contain Controversial Ingredients.

B. Vaccine Testing Procedures Are Questionable.

C. The Federal Claims Court Admits Thousands of Vaccine Injuries.

D. Other Countries Are Rejecting Mandatory Vaccination.

E. Mandatory Vaccinations Are Not Necessary for “Herd” Immunity.

Full Report

To read the full report, click here.

 

Mrs. Marie K. MacPherson, vice president of Into Your Hands LLC, lives in Mankato, Minnesota, with her husband Ryan and their children, whom she homeschools. She is a certified Classical Lutheran Educator (Consortium for Classical Lutheran Educators), author of Meditations on the Vocation of Motherhood (2018), and editor of Mothering Many: Sanity-Saving Strategies from Moms of Four or More (2016).

Print

Afternoon on a Snowbank (A Poem)


Afternoon on a Snowbank

Adapted from Edna St. Vincent Millay

 

I will be the saddest thing
Under the sun!
I will shovel a hundred snowflakes
And not move one.

I will look at curbs and banks
With quiet eyes,
Watch the plow bow down the pile,
And the pile rise.

And when the lights begin to show
Through from the storm,
I will mark which must be mine:
Minnesota’s norm.

 

 

Mrs. Marie K. MacPherson, vice president of Into Your Hands LLC, lives in Mankato, Minnesota, with her husband Ryan and their children, whom she homeschools. She is a certified Classical Lutheran Educator (Consortium for Classical Lutheran Educators), author of Meditations on the Vocation of Motherhood (2018), and editor of Mothering Many: Sanity-Saving Strategies from Moms of Four or More (2016).

Print

How to Boost STEM Education with PHLEGM


STEM education is all the rage these days, and why shouldn’t it be? Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics are closely related to one another, and jointly useful to society. The market knows this, and lucratively rewards those who pursue careers in these areas. Guidance counselors have compelling reasons to encourage students to pursue STEM studies.

However, STEM may disappoint its followers unless it is supplemented with, well, PHLEGM. This suggestion may not sound appealing at first, but that’s part of the point. PHLEGM represents those subjects that seem, shall we say, worthy of being spat out and left behind in the fast-paced world of the 21st century. However, PHLEGM remains as relevant and as useful as ever.

Permit me to explain.

Philosophy, History, Literature, Etymology, Geography, and Music—to name just a few of the forgotten arts—deserve to be preserved in our educational programs. PHLEGM provides a strong foundation for STEM, and a strong foundation for much else as well.

→ Click to Continue Reading →

Print

Pro-Choice Fallacies Exposed


My heart hurts for women considering abortion as their best or only option, and for the dear little ones they will never hold if they believe that lie. The abortion world-view holds some glaring errors and perhaps some women would choose life, if only the falsehoods of pro-choice rhetoric could be exposed. Of course, the abortion-minded need more than just logic; they also need love. Some people will never change their minds about abortion because their hearts are hard, yet I encourage my readers to approach any conversation about abortion with love while speaking the truth, sharing with listeners the forgiveness we all have in Christ. I write these answers to fallacies to give you a starting point for your conversations. Let’s show the love of Jesus to others, supporting those who choose life with our prayers and actions, working towar dmaking abortion not just illegal, but also unthinkable.

Fallacy 1: The embryo/fetus isn’t a human.

Embryos and fetuses are humans, albeit small and underdeveloped humans. These medical names are given to certain stages of development prior to birth, not to non-human parasites. Every adult human being was once an embryo. We follow predictable life-cycles: conception, in-utero growth, birth, toddlerhood, adolescence, adulthood, old-age. If it is illegal to hunt eagles, it follows that it would be illegal to smash eagle eggs: the eggs contain young eagles. The embryo is not an adult, but that doesn’t mean it is not human. Who would want to give birth to a full-grown human, anyway? With today’s ultrasound technology, even most leaders of the pro-abortion movement concede that the embryo is a human being.

Fallacy 2: Abortion shows love to the woman! or You only care about the baby!

We don’t have to choose between showing love to the baby and love to the woman. We can show love to both! Obviously, abortion is not loving to a baby (because it is murder), but it is not loving to a woman, either. Abortion is not a choice at all, but a desperate attempt at control, made out of fear.

There are grave physical risks to the mother from abortion, as well. There are grave emotional, mental, and spiritual risks from abortion. Abortion is not a loving choice for mother or child. True love does not take the easy way out. I won’t deny it: pregnancy, childbirth, and child-rearing (or adoption) are one of the hardest things a woman will ever go through. But good things never come easy. All mothers admit that our lives are richer because of the trials we’ve gone through on behalf of our children.

No one ever needs to choose between loving a woman or loving a child. Both can be loved, and neither needs abortion. Women need support in choosing life, and certainly pro-lifers could improve at this. Supporting an abortion-minded woman is never loving her: instead, it is ditching your responsibility to help and sacrifice for her and child, allowing her to put herself and her baby in harm’s way. That is not love, it is convenience and selfishness.

Fallacy 3: Legal abortion allows equal access to safe abortion.

Equality should be championed. But not if equality means equal ability to murder one’s offspring. It is impossible to have equal access to safe abortion because abortion is inherently risky, even when done in a sterilized room by a trained physician. The "successful outcome" of an abortion is the death of a human, and therefore is never safe.

Legal or illegal, some women will still seek abortion. Sadly, women with lesser financial means might be at greater risk for medical complications on the black market. That does not mean abortion should be legal. Street drugs are illegal. Rich women can buy them with less personal risk than poor women, but they are still illegal. The government does not exist to legislate equality through the death of innocent citizens.

On the topic of equality, we need to discuss the inherent inequality of abortion. Two humans with two heartbeats walk into the abortion clinic. Only one human with one heartbeat walks out. Where is the equality for the individual inside the womb?

Birth-control and abortion were originally championed by euthanists who wanted to “purify” society from “unfit” individuals, including ethnic minorities and the poor. Even today, higher percentages of minorites are aborted overall. Anyone truly wanting to stand for equality in our nation should be pro-life and give women of all races and ages equal opportunities.

Fallacy 4: If abortion were not an option, there would be loads of unwanted and neglected children.

Nothing moves a person’s heart more than an unwanted and neglected child. But abortion doesn’t eliminate this; instead, abortion replaces potential neglect with death. In fact, it’s fair to say that access to abortion undermines the inherent value of children which makes them all the more likely to be neglected. The abortion world-view sees children as a commodity, only something to live if they are wanted. Rather, babies have value regardless of the circumstances of their conceptions because they offer hope for the future of the world.

Laws have been, and ought to be, passed to provide for and protect unwanted and neglected children, not to eliminate them. Laws should not be passed that allow murder for unwanted children any more than they should be passed to allow murder for any other undesirable group that adds a burden to society—the poor, the mentally-ill, or the incarcerated.

In fact, many mothers who have chosen life instead of abortion (even after rape) have found themselves in love with and very much protective of their child. These ideal and model mothers never would have had the chance to know how very much they would want their child, had they been persuaded by this argument.

For those mothers who cannot raise a child in good conscience, thousands of families are waiting and wanting to adopt. Of course, adoption is a difficult road, but can be easier with the education and support of a quality adoption agency. Let’s not pretend abortion, a major surgery with a lifetime of physical and emotional scars, is an easy alternative.

No child needs to be unwanted or neglected. True concern for the well-being of a child (and her mother) necessitates the chance for them both to live.

Fallacy 5: The government ought to protect a woman’s right to her own body.

First, as established in 1 above, a baby is in a woman’s body, but is a human in itself. Making decisions about her own healthcare is one thing; allowing a woman to kill her child is no longer a right to her body, but her child’s body. When a mother’s choices cross over the placenta into her womb, it’s no longer just her body. The government ought to protect is a woman’s right to choose and access appropriate and safe healthcare for herself and her child while pregnant. Abortion is neither safe, nor healthy, nor caring. It is abandonment of both mother and child.

To appeal to the government to protect abortion is abandoning one’s personal responsibility to those in their midst. Parents should support (and forgive) their unexpectedly expecting daughters. Parents should encourage (and forgive) their unexpectedly expecting sons to be active fathers. Neighbors, friends, churches, and communities can offer encouragement and resources. Abortion, doesn’t free a woman to do anything; rather, it frees those who fight for abortion to forsake a lonely and vulnerable woman and her child for their own convenience and ease.

To make abortion illegal does not take away a woman’s right to her body; it establishes a baby’s right to her own body. It does not necessitate that a woman raise a child; it establishes that she must not murder the citizen in her womb.

Fallacy 6: Abortion is necessary to protect the health of mother.

Our society should value women’s health. But, as established in 3 above, abortion is neither healthy or safe for women.

Pregnancy has inherent risks. Thus, before anyone consents to sex, she should be educated that pregnancy and motherhood are very real possibilities, birth control or not. Therein exists a true “right to choose”: abstinence or sex. For pregnancy risks relating to non-consensual sex, see 7 below.

As for physical risks early in pregnancy, a mother might be encouraged to have an abortion due to an ectopic pregnancy. With advancements in research and medicine, this is no longer considered necessary. The baby can be moved via surgery to the uterus! While not always a successful surgery, the object of the procedure is preservation of life for both the mother and child. As for third-trimester risks in pregnancy, many noted doctors profess that late-term abortion for the life of the mother is never necessary. A c-section can be performed to save them both.

Mental and emotional health risks are certainly real. Many a mother feels overwhelmed with the daunting tasks daily life while pregnant or raising a child. Thankfully, there are medications and therapies available to all women, even low-income. Even having a friend or lay-counselor to talk to about her concerns can alleviate fear. Mental and emotional issues attached to pregnancy do not need to be a reason for abortion, and in fact, can surface years later as a consequence of abortion.

A woman’s health is important and we should do all we as a society should support her in making healthy decisions, for both herself and her child. Abortion is not healthy for either.

Fallacy 7: Abortion needs to be legal for women who are pregnant through rape or incest.

I cannot begin to imagine the horror a rape victim has gone through, but abortion will neither correct nor erase her experience. Abortion does not bring the rapist to justice; instead, his innocent child pays his death sentence and is slaughtered.

A woman deserves our support and concern after such horrific experience, through her pregnancy, and beyond. But allowing her the physical and mental atrocities of abortion does not do her, or her child, any favors. Abortion will only kill her child and leave additional scars on her body and heart.

Many women have found healing after rape through motherhood. If a woman, understandably, cannot raise the child, many families are available for adoption.

Fallacy 8: A woman’s health decisions should be between her and her doctor.

America’s Declaration of Independence states that people have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As important as healthcare decisions are, the government must prioritize a child’s right to life over and above a woman’s patient/doctor relationship.

In addition, most abortions aren't decided or done between a woman and her doctor. Her primary care doctor who knows her medical history might not ever be informed. Abortion is likely done in strange facility that she will never again go to. The physician who performs the surgery is not likely to follow up with her to sympathize with the horrendous physical and emotional aftermath. Some doctors don't even provide informed consent of what could happen to a woman and her child during and after an abortion. Let’s not pretend that abortion clinics have a woman’s well-being in mind. Pills that can be taken privately and quietly are not exempt from side-effects. Neither do they leave a woman supported, but secretive and alone.

Even if healthcare decisions were the most fundamental human right, doesn’t if follow that a pre-born woman has the right to consult with a physician about her health and future? Tragically, abortion strips that right from her. Thus, this one of the few times the government ought to be involved in healthcare: to protect its most vulnerable citizens when neither their mothers nor doctors will.

Abortion wouldn’t even need to be broached between a woman and her physician if she is offered unconditional love, support, and HOPE from the world! A new life does NOT have to be perceived as the end of a woman’s own life! It’s not her life or the baby’s life. It can be both lives! A baby, even conceived in the worst of circumstances, is a gift to the world. A woman is a vessel of that human potential in her baby, even if she cannot provide for the child long-term. Neither the government nor a doctor can have a bond with a woman more meaningful than that of mother and child.

Fallacy 9: Abortion is sad, but it still needs to be a choice for a woman.

Everyone knows that the death of a baby is a tragedy. And yet, our culture and media celebrate abortion, which isn’t just the death of a baby, but the right of a mother to murder her child.

No women gets an abortion for fun. I have great compassion for any women who finds herself with an unplanned pregnancy. But the fundamental difference between the pro-choice camp and the pro-life camp comes down to truth. Murder is always wrong, even if that murder ends with a “successful outcome” from someone’s viewpoint, whether the mother who can “get on” with her life, the abortion clinic whose income is higher, or the society who doesn’t have the expense of caring for another mother and child on welfare.

Truth is truth. It isn’t always pleasant. In fact, it’s mostly not pleasant. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore it or argue against it just because we don’t like it. It is always wrong to hurt others for one's own benefit, particularly the weak and vulnerable. Even if we think our reality would be better with them out of the picture.

All women should have the right to choose life and truth; sadly, many are coerced into abortion for a variety of reasons. In fact, those who are champions for “choice” usurp that very “choice” altogether from a particularly large group of females, the next generation of women whose future will never be due to this generation’s selfishness. They also take strip a father’s choice to raise and care for his children. The "Right to Choose" is a very powerful phrase, but in truth, it means the “right to choose” for only a select group of people, and the “right to murder on demand” at that.

Conclusion:

A woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy may feel manipulated by the pro-choice rhetoric above. This life within her may frighten her and and she may rightfully be concerned for her future. But she doesn’t need to feel alone: God doesn’t make mistakes. Every child is a blessing, and she has been uniquely chosen by God to be the vessel of life for this unique person. Her life may not look like what she expected, but that doesn’t mean this child will be her undoing. There is hope! And for any woman who has had an abortion, forgiveness in Christ is hers!

 

Mrs. Marie K. MacPherson, vice president of Into Your Hands LLC, lives in Mankato, Minnesota, with her husband Ryan and their children, whom she homeschools. She is a certified Classical Lutheran Educator (Consortium for Classical Lutheran Educators), author of Meditations on the Vocation of Motherhood (2018), and editor of Mothering Many: Sanity-Saving Strategies from Moms of Four or More (2016).

Print