Medical Aid in Dying Deconstructs Family Restoration

The New York State Assembly has just passed the most lenient and unchecked euthanasia bill not just in America, but throughout the world. Awaiting Senate approval and signature by the governor, the bill seriously lacks safeguards, instigating a bipartisan effort that saw 20 Democrats break ranks to vote with the Assembly’s 47 Republicans against the bill – entitled Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) – while 81 remaining Democrats voted for passage.

The bill fails to require patients to be psychiatrically evaluated before opting for suicide, and does not outline a mechanism for recovery of the lethal drug from those who request it but then later decide against its use. Furthermore, while two physicians are required for the fatal prescription, they may be consulted virtually – no in person meeting is required. Most significant is that MAID sends a troubling message that life can cease to be worth living.

Those most vulnerable to this fatal influence will consist of those too poor to obtain adequate medical care, the marginalized, and research reveals that women are a particularly vulnerable segment of this group.  See Women and Assisted Suicide: Exposing the Gender Vulnerability to Acquiescent Death, 4 Cardozo Women’s L. J. 241 (1997). Your family members could be at risk without you ever realizing it.

Finally, while a few other state jurisdictions have some type of assisted suicide allowance, New York’s legislation requires no waiting period whatsoever – turning suicide into a spur of the moment decision and a medical treatment option.

While some may argue in favor of euthanasia as an individual choice, it does not accomplish family restoration. Rather, as Madeline Kearns of The Free Press (June 8, 2025) notes, there exist some very authentic concerns for the individual and for society:

The assisted suicide advocates I spoke with have many admirable qualities. Chief among them is their strong will and clear-mindedness. But they risk assuming that everyone facing a devastating diagnosis is of a similar disposition. What they might not appreciate is that in insisting on control at the end of life, they are chipping away at the agency of those who have so little to begin with and whose motivations may be compromised by depression, uncertainty, loneliness, ambivalence, grief, poverty, or despair. We owe these New Yorkers more than we currently give. And much more than a cocktail of barbiturates.

Are Christians Failing to Preserve Marriage?

 

This guest post is from Sean O’Dea, Regent Law 3L & Family Law student:

Marriage rates have continued to decline with increasing rapidity in the United States since the mid-20th century. Christians are rightly concerned about these developments, as marriage has historically served as the institution best oriented to aid in child-rearing. While Christian marriage advocacy efforts have attempted to reverse current trends, little has been accomplished. Why? Christian advocacy has failed because it has ignored the growing issues inside of marriage itself that have rightfully begun to discourage participation in the institution.

Marriage is no longer a Christian institution. The State has usurped the power of the Church, effectively replacing the Church as the arbiter of marriage. This has eroded the power of the Church to regulate divorce and has led to the widespread proliferation of no-fault divorce. While the Catholic and Orthodox Churches still maintain some control over marriage, having retained the authority to deny communion to those who obtain a divorce without ecclesiastical authorization, most Protestant denominations fail to even exercise this level of control. Christians should ask themselves, “Who has the authority to end my marriage?” If your answer is “me” or “my spouse” or “the State,” your marriage is institutionally indistinguishable from a secular, state-granted marriage. Marriage has been reduced from a binding religious covenant to a secularized contractual relationship that can be unilaterally terminated anytime by either spouse. When Christians blindly advocate for marriage, they advocate for a diseased version of the former religious institution.

Due to the role feminism has played in transfiguring Christianity, traditional spousal duties inside of marriage have been completely eroded. The battle over reproductive rights has resulted in diminishing the blessing of bearing children. In fact, the act of terminating one’s pregnancy is now considered by our culture as an act of female empowerment. The unfortunate result is a below replacement birthrate and the necessitation of mass immigration to make up for the shortfall. Too many see marriage as a form of patriarchal oppression, rather than understanding the biblical mandate that husbands have the ultimate duty to lay down their lives for their wives. The erosion of spousal sharing of duties has led away from the team concept in marriage and parenting as well. The societal stigma attached to abandoning one’s wife and children is not completely gone but is eroding and becoming more common. The rationalization is often that if women have a right to have their children killed, men should at least have the right to abandon their children. Our society’s social cohesion will continue to unravel unless Christians can return to the biblical design for marriage, with oneness in marriage enshrined in hearts and minds.  That mindset always translates to family blessings beyond measure.

If Christians can return their marriages to reflect traditional biblical conduct and lifestyle rather than reflecting worldly standards promoted by secular society we can make a difference.  Christians and Christian institutions ought to strive to be distinct from society, not conform to society. We are called to transformational living, where husbands and wives honor and love each other for a lifetime, and pass those values on to their children.  If that can be accomplished, the institution of marriage will not only not die inside the United States, but can thrive and change the world for good.

Every Child is a Wanted Child

 

This guest post is From Hannah Holmes, Regent Law 2L & Family Law student:

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger once stated, "Each and every unwanted child is likely to be in some way a social liability. It is only a wanted child who is likely to be a social asset." But is that truly the case? Are unwanted children a social liability?

 

Time and time again, pro-choice advocates argue that abortion is necessary to prevent unwanted children from ending up in a broken system. While the foster care system undoubtedly has challenges, is it accurate to assume that placing a child for adoption means they will be lost in the system? The reality is quite the opposite—newborns placed for adoption are overwhelmingly welcomed into loving homes.

In fact, demand for adoption far exceeds supply. While the numbers are not exact some studies show that approximately 2 million couples are actively waiting to specifically adopt a newborn, yet only 18,000 newborns are voluntarily placed for adoption each year in the United States.

 

Furthermore, infertility rates continue to rise. According to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 9% of men and 11% of women (around 3 million women) in the U.S. face infertility. Women between 18 and 44 with fertility challenges are four times more likely to consider adoption as their path to parenthood. One study even said that about 50% of women who experience infertility will turn to adoption. This means the women wanting children will continue to rise.

 

If you are facing an unplanned pregnancy, adoption empowers you with choices. Unlike the common misconception, you have the ability to select the perfect family for your baby, ensuring they grow up in a loving and stable home. The fear that a child will be lost in foster care simply does not align with the facts.

 

The real issue is lack of information. Many expecting mothers are unaware of their options, believing that abortion is their only choice. Fortunately, numerous resources exist to guide and support women in finding the best possible future for their child. Below are some reputable organizations dedicated to helping mothers make their next choice and perhaps connect with hopeful families ready to provide love, stability, and a bright future.

Your choice matters. Your child is wanted. The perfect family is waiting.

Options for Pregnancy at https://optionsforpregnancy.com/about-us/ 

Adopt Help at https://www.adopthelp.com/pregnant-we-can-help/

Radiance Foundation at https://radiancefoundation.org/sallyslambs/. 

Embrace Grace at https://www.embracegrace.com/about-us/our-story 

Birthright at https://birthright.org/learn/ 

Project Cuddle at https://projectcuddle.org 

Adoption for my Baby at https://adoption-for-my-baby.com/adoption-by-state/.

Do All (Red, White, &) Blue States Think Alike on Marriage? You Might Be Surprised...

 

This guest post is from Cameron Wall, Regent Law Family Law student:

One would think the state of California and the state of Illinois, both of which share a lengthy history of voting “blue,” would have a near synonymous historical recognition of marriage- after all, it was only within five months’ time that both states legally recognized same-sex marriages as legal (Illinois in November of 2013 and California in June of 2013). Despite similar rulings on same-sex marriages, these heavyweight states, often toted as “champions of the left,” quite fascinatingly, hold incredibly differing perspectives on the recognition of marriage and property rights associated with marital contracts.

In California, for example, the case Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal.3d 660, 665 (1976), established state-wide precedent that recognized marital property rights of couples that did not, in fact, possess a legally recognized marriage at the time. This was a landmark case for the people of California, as it recognized two individuals, who were not married according to the letter of California law, as enjoying the same property rights of those who were lawfully married. The Supreme Court of California reasoned this was a just determination because, in reality, these individuals held an implied marriage by contract- they acted like they were married, relied on each other for support, orally agreed to combine their efforts and share in the equity of their combined property, and lived together for nearly seven years. The court therefore held that partners in non-marital relationships may, in fact, bring claims of property division based on rights assigned by implied contracts, ultimately siding with the plaintiff’s quantum meruit argument and definition of marital rights under common law.

In a surprise twist of events, as California began to liberally extend their definition and recognition of marital rights, the Illinois courts stood stoic, doubling down on the more conservative understanding and recognition of marriage and marital property rights associated with marriage. For example, in the landmark case Hewitt v. Hewitt, 77 Ill. 2d 49 (1979), property claims by unmarried couples who were living together in a “marriage-like relationship” were held as invalid and unenforceable. The court determined these pseudo-marriages (implied marriages by contract) went against Illinois public policy, citing principles deeply rooted within the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which emphasized the preservation of marriage and explicitly rejected common-law marriages (implied marriages by co-habitation).

All in all, although it may seem like traditionally blue states may always vote the same and honor other blue states laws/policies, history shows us that this is not always the case, even with respect to hot-button topics like marriage rights and fairness in the distribution of property resulting from that particular state’s definition of marriage. Although Illinois and California often vote similarly, enact similar laws, and similarly lean to the left, Hewitt still remains controlling law in Illinois, and Marvin still remains good law in California today.

Should the Law Protect the Dignity of the Human Body?

 

 This guest post is from Regent Law 3L Braden P. Murphy:

On March 20, 2025, Selena Chandler-Scott was arrested in Georgia. She was charged with concealing the death of her child, and with throwing away its body in a dumpster. Had the child been ten years old, there would be no controversy. However, the child in question was a 19-week-old fetus. The charges were dropped because a medical examiner determined that Selena had naturally miscarried.

This situation raises an important question about the enforcement of abortion laws and the rights of humans at different stages of development: at what point does the law protect the dignity of the human body when it comes to the treatment of human remains?

Ideally, law would protect every human body according to its inherent dignity after conception. However, this is not always feasible. For example, a fertilized egg can fail to implant. In such circumstances, no civilization has ever required that women disclose the baby’s death or properly dispose of the remains of a human zygote because of the obvious practical obstacles. However, to protect human life and dignity, the law must at some point prohibit the concealment and improper disposal of human remains. Otherwise, no law penalizing a person for abortion would be enforceable.

The answer to the question, practically speaking, is that the law should protect the dignity of the human body when it reaches a form such that its disposal cannot be attributed to mere negligence.  In unfortunate cases like that of Selena Chandler-Scott, individuals should be prosecuted for the intentional improper disposal of human remains because a 19-week-old fetus has attained a form that cannot be negligently tossed in a dumpster.  As a matter of policy, this is not to penalize grieving mothers or mothers who did not know that they were in possession of a human body. Rather, this is to protect the dignity of the human body and to ensure that in cases when a mother intentionally murders her child, authorities are not impeded from carrying out investigations.

 

(image of 19-week old baby, taken from What to Expect, https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-19.aspx)

Devastating Families of Color in Connecticut

 

A few years ago the Regent University Journal of Global Justice and Public Policy published The Intersectionality of Race and Class in Bioethics, 7 J. Global J.& Pub. Pol’y (2021). That article considered how legal racial inequality, even racial discrimination, intersects with class and legal status in human reproduction, by applying critical race theory to reproductive choice in the context of race. Download it right now at SSRN to read more.

 

The State of Connecticut is considering several bills that will effectively enshrine that racism, and other aspects of legislation against protecting women and children in abortion, particularly targeting, albeit possibly unintentionally, unborn babies of color. Here’s a recent summary from the Family Institute of Connecticut that explains how this could happen:

HB 7213 will hide evidence that Planned Parenthood targets Black communities in Connecticut. Abortion extremists within the Democrat Party voted "nay" on Amendment D to HB 7213 which would have reinstated reporting requirements on abortion in Connecticut.  HB 7213 will remove all reporting requirements for abortion providers to report their disproportionate and discriminatory outcomes on abortion.  Black and Hispanic people accounted for 57% of abortions in Connecticut but only accounted for 19% of the overall population. This is what abortion extremists in Connecticut want to hide, and voted to hide, with HB 7213.  An amendment to bring back these reporting requirements was defeated by a majority of Democrats in the Public Health Committee. We must stop this bill before it gets to another vote. Regulations adopted in response to "fetal experimentation" are at risk in HB 7213. In 1973, Yale-New Haven Hospital was accused of performing "fetal experimentation" on infants born alive during abortion.  A scandal erupted. Public hearings were held.  The next year, in response to the scandal, Connecticut adopted a regulation provision which requires all doctors to "support life" when an infant is born alive during an abortion (Sec. 19-13-D54(g) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies).  That regulation has been the law for 50 years. It has been followed by hospitals, surgical centers and outpatient clinics alike.  For 50 years, infants have had this layer of protection against being experimented with if they survive abortion.   Don't believe it couldn't happen again.  Planned Parenthood, universities and other organizations are regularly exposed for trafficking in fetal body parts, some harvested while the infant's heart is still beating.  We must protect our laws against this inhuman and demeaning practice because it HAS happened in the past and can happen again today in Connecticut without restrictions.   Abortion extremism on display at the Connecticut State Capitol in debate on HB7213. Notwithstanding these long-existing safeguards, on Wednesday night, March 26, all except one Democrat on the Connecticut Public Health Committee, voted to delete the "infants born alive" protection with their vote on House Bill 7213.  What is worse . . .  legislative dirty tricks. That regulation - the one in response to the Yale scandal - was only added for removal that morning (LCO 6886)!  It never got a public hearing. The proposed deletion was completely excluded from the bill during the public hearing a week earlier (LCO 5865).   In fact, it was denied during the hearing that the regulation (Sec. 19-13-D54) would be a target for erasure.  It is disreputable and outrageous to proceed with a bill even though there was no public notice or hearing.  And an unbelievable slap in the face of common sense and against people who want infants born alive to receive care.  We must resist this abortion extremism.   Longstanding conscience protections also voted to be removed. All Democrats, except two, would not even budge on exemptions for conscience protections during the 12 hour debate.  The bill, based on a change the morning of the vote, would now also remove Connecticut protections for persons who refuse to participate in abortion based on their judgment, philosophical, moral or religious beliefs.  We need you to contact your legislators and demand that they protect doctors, nurses and staff who refuse to participate in the evil of abortion. HB 7213 skirts the Regulation Review Committee process where it belongs. This bill subverts the Legislative Regulation Review Committee process outlined in the Connecticut Uniform Administrative Procedures Act that started in 2023 for this regulation. The legislature should allow that process to continue instead of rushing - in the dead of night - to delete reporting requirements, conscience protections, and protection of infants from our Connecticut laws. Demand that parental notification be added to HB 7213 Parental notification for minors seeking abortions protects victims of sex trafficking and our young people. It is time for legislators to seek an amendment to HB 7213 that requires parental notification.  Recall that the West Hartford Planned Parenthood performed an abortion and released Adam Gault’s 15-year-old victim who was kept hidden in a closet for almost a year.  Other victims were suspected, and Adam Gault is now serving a 25-year sentence along with others who were involved in the crime.  Adam's crimes against a 15-year-old child went undetected at Planned Parenthood.  Instead of deleting our abortion regulations, they should be enhanced with more reporting, more vigorous counseling, better informed consent for minors, and also a parental notification provision for minors.

 

Rather than advancing family restoration, these laws will devastate families of color and other families in Connecticut. If you want to do something about it, contact the Family Institute of Connecticut.

Families & Pediatric Sexual Assault - What You Need to Know

 

On January 15, 2025, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Free Speech Coalition vs. Paxton. This case will determine the fate of 19 state laws protecting children from access to online pornography through mandatory age verification requirements.   Truth Exposed is a podcast of the Family Policy Alliance. This episode posted below is about the tragedy of pediatric sexual assault. There’s no question that exposure to pornography, particularly for minors, is a risk factor for sexual violence to minors. In this episode, Joseph Kohm, the policy director at Family Policy Alliance, is joined by Heidi Olson, a registered nurse and the founder and president of Paradigm Shift Training and Consulting, which equips healthcare workers with skills-based training to identify human trafficking and exploitation.   As a nurse Heidi has personally examined and treated numerous victims of pediatric sexual assault, and she courageously uses her voice to raise the alarm about the disturbing relationship between pornography exposure and these heinous crimes, aspects that definitely destroy families. Truth Exposed: The Connections Between Pornography and Pediatric Sexual Assault

Audio podcast available here.

April is Abortion Recovery Awareness Month

 

Study shows nearly twice the risk of suicide for abortive women – April can bring help

Are women who have experienced abortion at higher risk for suicide? Can anything be done to experience recovery and restoration from that experience?  The answers to both of these questions are yes, and April is Abortion Recovery Awareness Month.

A new study considered suicide risks associated with pregnancy outcomes.  According to MSN’s report on that study, women who had abortions or experienced natural pregnancy loss were twice as likely to attempt suicide compared to women who successfully delivered their babies. These higher rates of suicide are traced in the study entitled “Suicide risks associated with pregnancy outcomes: a national cross-sectional survey of American females 41-45 years of age,” from the collaborative effort of the Elliot Institute and the Charlotte Lozier Institute. 

The study was a topic-blind study which surveyed 2,829 American women between the ages of 41 and 45 about their reproductive histories and any past suicide attempts. Scholars and researchers who designed the study consulted with experts in abortion and mental health research in preparing a questionnaire on the prevalence and effects of abortions that conflict with women’s own maternal preferences and moral beliefs.

The participants who consented to take part in the survey understood that “sensitive info” may be addressed, though opportunities to complete surveys did not disclose the subject or content of the surveys. Respondents were free to cease participation in any given survey at any time, making their participation clearly and completely voluntary and deliberate. To a degree, the results reveal that participants wanted to tell their stories to researchers, even though they were “completely in the dark as to what the purpose of the research was.” Concurrently, the researchers learned that while “all forms of pregnancy loss may involve feelings of loss and grief, case reports indicated that at least a subset of women who have had abortions reported feelings of guilt and self-hatred” which tended to fuel “their subsequent suicidal thoughts and behaviors.”

Published in the January 2025 issue of the Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, these groundbreaking results reveal that women who have experienced pregnancy loss are at a higher risk of suicidal and self-destructive thoughts and behaviors. These women were twice as likely to have attempted suicide compared to women who successfully delivered their babies.  Most compelling was the fact that women who were exposed to abortion, especially when the abortion was contrary to the values and preferences of the pregnant women, experienced higher rates of suicide attempts, suicidal thoughts, and self-destructive behaviors.  Here’s what it found:

A history of attempted suicide was highest among women who have undergone abortions. Over one-third (35%) of the post-abortive women surveyed reported that they had attempted suicide. Women who only had successful deliveries of their children had the lowest suicide attempt rate at 13%.

Furthermore, women who were coerced into having abortions had the highest rates – 46% of whom tried to end their own lives. The study concluded, “Aborting women, especially those who underwent coerced or unwanted abortions, were significantly more likely to say their pregnancy outcomes directly contributed to suicidal thoughts and behaviors compared to women in all other groups.”  Abortion was the cause of harm to these women, creating a very real higher risk of suicide. This news is disturbing and tragic.

The study concluded: “These findings should be used to improve both pre-abortion screening and counseling and post-abortion care.”  So, can anything be done to experience recovery and restoration from the abortion experience? While this study covered the experiences of less than 3,000 women, millions of women in America have been harmed by abortion, severely damaged by the “devastating psychological consequences” of abortion as stated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).  In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) the Supreme Court of the United States noted: “…some women come to regret aborting the infant life they once created and sustained… Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision, fraught with emotional consequence.” The Court also noted that “severe depression and loss of esteem can follow” an abortion.

Something can be done to bring help, healing, and restoration to women who have experienced abortion, and it can be done right now. April is Abortion Recovery Awareness Month.  Supported by Operation Outcry and The Justice Foundation, Abortion Recovery Awareness Month offers anyone an opportunity to promote abortion recovery programs across America, in churches, schools, workplace wellness centers, campuses, and communities.  A quick internet search of the term “April is Abortion Recovery Awareness Month” reveals at least 10 organizations already working toward abortion recovery for women, men, and families.  The Abortion Recovery International Network (ARIN) is ready to serve you or anyone you may know who can benefit from abortion recovery services, helping to find safe, healthy alternatives to abortion.

Women who have experienced pregnancy loss through abortion are at twice the risk for suicide as a woman who has not experienced an abortion. Help someone you know who has been a victim of abortion to experience recovery and restoration from that experience, today, this month. Yes, there is help.  April is Abortion Recovery Awareness Month.