FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
To Be A Mother: Adopting God’s Heart
The Aftermath of Abortion and the Power of Redemption
August 24, 2009, Raleigh, NC and Denver, CO – When a woman chooses abortion, the lingering psychological effects can be devastating. Deanna Jones, author of To Be a Mother, knows too well the grief and guilt that can haunt these women. As a teenager, an abortion seemed the only answer for Deanna, but the decision caused her great pain afterward. Finally, by opening her heart to Jesus Christ, she was able to transcend her grief and forgive herself. Her memoir, published by Outskirts Press, is a story of hope that will resonate with many women, and inspire all who read it.
Deanna Jones found herself pregnant at the age of 19. In an unstable relationship, and with a musical career starting to take off, she decided she was not ready for motherhood. “No way,” she said. “This is my life, my body.” And so she made an appointment at a local clinic. But she was not prepared for the overwhelming despair that would result. After the abortion she was left with a feeling of emptiness and loss. “Legalized abortion denied me a beautiful gift from God,” she says. “The desperation post-abortion far outweighed the desperation during my brief, unplanned pregnancy, and I was so off balance that I felt as if I would never be able to hold onto anything ever again. A part of me was missing and I would never get it back.”
There is a happy ending, however. To Be a Mother is not focused on Deanna’s loss, but rather, it is a story of redemption, resurrection, God’s grace, and His extravagant blessings. Deanna found that by facing her actions and calling out to the true Father, she would be transformed, forgiven, and enlivened. With the Lord by her side, she was able to move from a difficult childhood and a painful abortion decision to the miraculous redemption of Christ and the healing joy that came from the birth and adoption of her six children.
“The poignant and compassionate words of Deanna Jones articulate America’s latent sorrow in the aftermath of our abortion culture. Deanna’s sympathetic perception is borne from a personal
encounter with grief. Listen to her and be illuminated, healed, and refreshed.”
—Troy Newman
President, Operation Rescue
“To Be a Mother truly highlights the healing presence of Christ in Deanna’s life. She eloquently travels from her painful past to her redemption and new life in Christ. This book would be an inspiration to any woman, or man, who has suffered, as Deanna has, and is searching for healing.”
—Theresa Burke, PhD
Author of Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion
Founder, Rachel’s Vineyard Ministries
“Finally, in To Be a Mother, Deanna beautifully redefines the term pro-life—pro-life and pro-adoption become one. An elegant portrayal of the choice to give redeeming love that makes receiving it in turn so much sweeter.”
—Carolyn Twietmeyer, Founder/Executive Director, Project HOPEFUL
This true story shows us firsthand that God is compassionate, illustrating the relentless nature of His pursuit to save and claim His children and allow them life everlasting. The Bible declares that the Lord will turn our mourning into gladness and our despair into praise (Is 61:3), and for Deanna Jones, this has become truth. Follow her inspirational story as she is lifted from a wounded child to a place of understanding and joy as a woman of God. To Be a Mother is a celebration of life, of motherhood, and the sanctity of life itself.
ISBN: 978-1-4327-3839-6 Format: 5.5 x 8.5 paperback
Genre: Christian Life / Women’s Issues
PURCHASE ONLINE AT AMAZON or http://www.tobeamother.com
About the Author: Deanna Jones was born and raised in Rockford, Illinois, and is currently a bandleader and singer for the New York based band The Deanna Jones Orchestra. She considers her greatest assets to be her six children—two by birth, and four by miraculous adoption. Her web site (www.tobeamother.com) is dedicated to the miracle of motherhood, and she and her husband, Mark, are active pro-life, adoption advocates. For more information or to contact the author, you may also visit www.outskirtspress.com/tobeamother.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Diocese of Charleston Bishop Robert E. Guglielmone has spoken on Health Care Bills
Bishop has released a statement to help clarify the Church's teaching on the Health Care Bill proposals. Read it here!
Let us try to engage more of our Catholic brothers and sisters to take our Catholic message to the public square with confidence and charity. We need to provide information about how to contact our area representatives and provide the times and dates of any town hall meeting. The health care bills that are being proposed do not protect the most vulnerable and do not respect the dignity of every human person. Let's speak out.
God's peace.
Let us try to engage more of our Catholic brothers and sisters to take our Catholic message to the public square with confidence and charity. We need to provide information about how to contact our area representatives and provide the times and dates of any town hall meeting. The health care bills that are being proposed do not protect the most vulnerable and do not respect the dignity of every human person. Let's speak out.
God's peace.
Friday, August 28, 2009
A Favored Life - September 19th, 2009 6:00pm - 8:30pm
Want to make sure you've heard about an amazing upcoming event at Good Hope Baptist Church in Cary....called "A Favored Life. " www.goodhopechurch.org/home/favored-life.aspx
The event will feature a play about adoption from the perspective of the birth mother including a gospel choir. There will also be representatives present from Birthchoice Crisis Pregnancy Center, Bethany Adoption Center, 40 Days for Life, and Triangle Right to Life.
September 19th, 2009
6:00pm - 8:30pm
Childcare provided for children through 5th grade.
A Favored Life
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Praying for the soul of Ted Kennedy
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord; and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. Amen.
Proponent of 18 year old vote:
Senator Kennedy was a long proponent of the 18 year old's right to vote. He demonstrated his support in his testimony in front of the Subcommittee for Lowering the Voting Age to 18. During his testimony he stated: "Long ago, according to historians, the age of maturity was fixed at 21, because that was the age at which a young man was thought to be capable of bearing armor. Strange as it may seem, the weight of armor in the 11th century governs the right to vote of Americans in the 20th century."[46] Senator Kennedy continued to support this initiative until it was realized with the signing of the Twenty-sixth Amendment on July 5, 1971.
Pre Roe Vs Wade made this beautiful remark:
"While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized – the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old."[1] Ted Kennedy writes in a letter dated August 3, 1971
Proponent of 18 year old vote:
Senator Kennedy was a long proponent of the 18 year old's right to vote. He demonstrated his support in his testimony in front of the Subcommittee for Lowering the Voting Age to 18. During his testimony he stated: "Long ago, according to historians, the age of maturity was fixed at 21, because that was the age at which a young man was thought to be capable of bearing armor. Strange as it may seem, the weight of armor in the 11th century governs the right to vote of Americans in the 20th century."[46] Senator Kennedy continued to support this initiative until it was realized with the signing of the Twenty-sixth Amendment on July 5, 1971.
Pre Roe Vs Wade made this beautiful remark:
"While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized – the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old."[1] Ted Kennedy writes in a letter dated August 3, 1971
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Bishop of Sioux City speaks succintly about the Health Care Reform...
This note of the Most Reverend R. Walker Nickless of Bishop of Sioux City comes from his website....
HEALTH CARE REFORM
The current national debate about health care reform should concern all of us. There is much at stake in this political struggle, and also much confusion and inaccurate information being thrown around. My brother bishops have described some clear “goal-posts” to mark out what is acceptable reform, and what must be rejected. First and most important, the Church will not accept any legislation that mandates coverage, public or private, for abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem-cell research. We refuse to be made complicit in these evils, which frankly contradict what “health care” should mean. We refuse to allow our own parish, school, and diocesan health insurance plans to be forced to include these evils. As a corollary of this, we insist equally on adequate protection of individual rights of conscience for patients and health care providers not to be made complicit in these evils. A so-called reform that imposes these evils on us would be far worse than keeping the health care system we now have.
Second, the Catholic Church does not teach that “health care” as such, without distinction, is a natural right. The “natural right” of health care is the divine bounty of food, water, and air without which all of us quickly die. This bounty comes from God directly. None of us own it, and none of us can morally withhold it from others. The remainder of health care is a political, not a natural, right, because it comes from our human efforts, creativity, and compassion. As a political right, health care should be apportioned according to need, not ability to pay or to benefit from the care. We reject the rationing of care. Those who are sickest should get the most care, regardless of age, status, or wealth. But how to do this is not self-evident. The decisions that we must collectively make about how to administer health care therefore fall under “prudential judgment.”
Third, in that category of prudential judgment, the Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care. Unlike a prudential concern like national defense, for which government monopolization is objectively good – it both limits violence overall and prevents the obvious abuses to which private armies are susceptible – health care should not be subject to federal monopolization. Preserving patient choice (through a flourishing private sector) is the only way to prevent a health care monopoly from denying care arbitrarily, as we learned from HMOs in the recent past. While a government monopoly would not be motivated by profit, it would be motivated by such bureaucratic standards as quotas and defined “best procedures,” which are equally beyond the influence of most citizens. The proper role of the government is to regulate the private sector, in order to foster healthy competition and to curtail abuses. Therefore any legislation that undermines the viability of the private sector is suspect. Private, religious hospitals and nursing homes, in particular, should be protected, because these are the ones most vigorously offering actual health care to the poorest of the poor.
The best way in practice to approach this balance of public and private roles is to spread the risks and costs of health care over the largest number of people. This is the principle underlying Medicaid and Medicare taxes, for example. But this principle assumes that the pool of taxable workers is sufficiently large, compared to those who draw the benefits, to be reasonably inexpensive and just. This assumption is at root a pro-life assumption! Indeed, we were a culture of life when such programs began. Only if we again foster a culture of life can we perpetuate the economic justice of taxing workers to pay health care for the poor. Without a growing population of youth, our growing population of retirees is outstripping our distribution systems. In a culture of death such as we have now, taxation to redistribute costs of medical care becomes both unjust and unsustainable.
Fourth, preventative care is a moral obligation of the individual to God and to his or her family and loved ones, not a right to be demanded from society. The gift of life comes only from God; to spurn that gift by seriously mistreating our own health is morally wrong. The most effective preventative care for most people is essentially free – good diet, moderate exercise, and sufficient sleep. But pre-natal and neo-natal care are examples of preventative care requiring medical expertise, and therefore cost; and this sort of care should be made available to all as far as possible.
Within these limits, the Church has been advocating for decades that health care be made more accessible to all, especially to the poor. Will the current health care reform proposals achieve these goals?
The current House reform bill, HR 3200, does not meet the first or the fourth standard. As Cardinal Justin Rigali has written for the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-life Activities, this bill circumvents the Hyde amendment (which prohibits federal funds from being used to pay for abortions) by drawing funding from new sources not covered by the Hyde amendment, and by creatively manipulating how federal funds covered by the Hyde amendment are accounted. It also provides a “public insurance option” without adequate limits, so that smaller employers especially will have a financial incentive to push all their employees into this public insurance. This will effectively prevent those employees from choosing any private insurance plans. This will saddle the working classes with additional taxes for inefficient and immoral entitlements. The Senate bill, HELP, is better than the House bill, as I understand it. It subsidizes care for the poor, rather than tending to monopolize care. But, it designates the limit of four times federal poverty level for the public insurance option, which still includes more than half of all workers. This would impinge on the vitality of the private sector. It also does not meet the first standard of explicitly excluding mandatory abortion coverage.
I encourage all of you to make you voice heard to our representatives in Congress. Tell them what they need to hear from us: no health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform. Insist that they not permit themselves to be railroaded into the current too-costly and pro-abortion health care proposals. Insist on their support for proposals that respect the life and dignity of every human person, especially the unborn. And above all, pray for them, and for our country. (Please see the website for the Iowa Catholic Conference at www.iowacatholicconference.org and www.usccb.org/healthcare for more information)
HEALTH CARE REFORM
The current national debate about health care reform should concern all of us. There is much at stake in this political struggle, and also much confusion and inaccurate information being thrown around. My brother bishops have described some clear “goal-posts” to mark out what is acceptable reform, and what must be rejected. First and most important, the Church will not accept any legislation that mandates coverage, public or private, for abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem-cell research. We refuse to be made complicit in these evils, which frankly contradict what “health care” should mean. We refuse to allow our own parish, school, and diocesan health insurance plans to be forced to include these evils. As a corollary of this, we insist equally on adequate protection of individual rights of conscience for patients and health care providers not to be made complicit in these evils. A so-called reform that imposes these evils on us would be far worse than keeping the health care system we now have.
Second, the Catholic Church does not teach that “health care” as such, without distinction, is a natural right. The “natural right” of health care is the divine bounty of food, water, and air without which all of us quickly die. This bounty comes from God directly. None of us own it, and none of us can morally withhold it from others. The remainder of health care is a political, not a natural, right, because it comes from our human efforts, creativity, and compassion. As a political right, health care should be apportioned according to need, not ability to pay or to benefit from the care. We reject the rationing of care. Those who are sickest should get the most care, regardless of age, status, or wealth. But how to do this is not self-evident. The decisions that we must collectively make about how to administer health care therefore fall under “prudential judgment.”
Third, in that category of prudential judgment, the Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care. Unlike a prudential concern like national defense, for which government monopolization is objectively good – it both limits violence overall and prevents the obvious abuses to which private armies are susceptible – health care should not be subject to federal monopolization. Preserving patient choice (through a flourishing private sector) is the only way to prevent a health care monopoly from denying care arbitrarily, as we learned from HMOs in the recent past. While a government monopoly would not be motivated by profit, it would be motivated by such bureaucratic standards as quotas and defined “best procedures,” which are equally beyond the influence of most citizens. The proper role of the government is to regulate the private sector, in order to foster healthy competition and to curtail abuses. Therefore any legislation that undermines the viability of the private sector is suspect. Private, religious hospitals and nursing homes, in particular, should be protected, because these are the ones most vigorously offering actual health care to the poorest of the poor.
The best way in practice to approach this balance of public and private roles is to spread the risks and costs of health care over the largest number of people. This is the principle underlying Medicaid and Medicare taxes, for example. But this principle assumes that the pool of taxable workers is sufficiently large, compared to those who draw the benefits, to be reasonably inexpensive and just. This assumption is at root a pro-life assumption! Indeed, we were a culture of life when such programs began. Only if we again foster a culture of life can we perpetuate the economic justice of taxing workers to pay health care for the poor. Without a growing population of youth, our growing population of retirees is outstripping our distribution systems. In a culture of death such as we have now, taxation to redistribute costs of medical care becomes both unjust and unsustainable.
Fourth, preventative care is a moral obligation of the individual to God and to his or her family and loved ones, not a right to be demanded from society. The gift of life comes only from God; to spurn that gift by seriously mistreating our own health is morally wrong. The most effective preventative care for most people is essentially free – good diet, moderate exercise, and sufficient sleep. But pre-natal and neo-natal care are examples of preventative care requiring medical expertise, and therefore cost; and this sort of care should be made available to all as far as possible.
Within these limits, the Church has been advocating for decades that health care be made more accessible to all, especially to the poor. Will the current health care reform proposals achieve these goals?
The current House reform bill, HR 3200, does not meet the first or the fourth standard. As Cardinal Justin Rigali has written for the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-life Activities, this bill circumvents the Hyde amendment (which prohibits federal funds from being used to pay for abortions) by drawing funding from new sources not covered by the Hyde amendment, and by creatively manipulating how federal funds covered by the Hyde amendment are accounted. It also provides a “public insurance option” without adequate limits, so that smaller employers especially will have a financial incentive to push all their employees into this public insurance. This will effectively prevent those employees from choosing any private insurance plans. This will saddle the working classes with additional taxes for inefficient and immoral entitlements. The Senate bill, HELP, is better than the House bill, as I understand it. It subsidizes care for the poor, rather than tending to monopolize care. But, it designates the limit of four times federal poverty level for the public insurance option, which still includes more than half of all workers. This would impinge on the vitality of the private sector. It also does not meet the first standard of explicitly excluding mandatory abortion coverage.
I encourage all of you to make you voice heard to our representatives in Congress. Tell them what they need to hear from us: no health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform. Insist that they not permit themselves to be railroaded into the current too-costly and pro-abortion health care proposals. Insist on their support for proposals that respect the life and dignity of every human person, especially the unborn. And above all, pray for them, and for our country. (Please see the website for the Iowa Catholic Conference at www.iowacatholicconference.org and www.usccb.org/healthcare for more information)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
