It was the "hand of hope," a photo of an unborn baby's hand, that made its way around the world within days of appearing in USA Today. Taken by Michael Clancy, the color photo showed Samuel's tiny hand grasping a surgeon's finger during in utero surgery. See story, page 9 about Samuel's visit to a Senate Committee hearing. Photo above by John Imbody

Flashing an impish grin, three-year-old Samuel Armas quickly ducked behind a chair as a photographer tried to capture his picture at a recent Senate hearing in Washington, D.C. Samuel hadn't seemed quite so shy during his first photographic session. A photo of his tiny hand, grasping a surgeon's finger during in utero surgery, traveled around the globe and stunned a world that had tried to hide its face from the reality of life in the womb. (The photo can be viewed at www.michaelclancy.com.)

Samuel's parents, Alex and Julie Armas of Villa Rica, Georgia, testified September 25 before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space about the photo and their experience with in utero surgery. They were joined at the hearing by Dr. James Thorp, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Florida Pensacola, and by Michael Clancy, the photographer who captured Samuel's awe-inspiring grasp.

Dr. Thorp testified that in utero surgery, while still in the experimental stages and posing significant risks, offers incredible promise to parents of unborn children with birth defects. Alex and Julie explained that their surgery, initiated to treat spina bifida, remarkably changed the course of Samuel's life and of their own lives.

Alex testified, "Today, Samuel is nearly four years old and has not had to endure the surgeries that are common for most children with spina bifida. He's walking with leg braces, is cognitively normal, and loves looking for bugs."

Sitting behind his father who was testifying, Samuel wore a tee shirt displaying a few of those bugs. Committee chairman Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Ks.), himself the father of five children, called Samuel up to join his parents at the witness table for a few questions. He pointed to the large-scale version of the photograph and asked if Samuel knew what it was.

Asked what the doctors had done that day, three-year-old Samuel succinctly summarized the sophis-ticated surgery: "They fixed my boo-boo."

Julie recalled in her testimony the moment they heard the results of the pre-natal tests that revealed Samuel's "boo-boo."

In his testimony, Alex noted, "We were devastated. It's every parent's worst nightmare to learn that something is very wrong with your child. The doctor painted a grim picture for us and stopped just short of suggesting an abortion."

As Alex explained to NRL News after the hearing, "Our view was that after years of trying to conceive, this was the baby God chose to give us. Julie and I are both Christians. Scripture is clear on the sanctity of life in the womb, so ending the pregnancy was never an option for us."

Spina bifida, a sometimes fatal and typically severe brain and spinal cord anomaly, results from the spine failing to close properly during the first month of pregnancy. If the baby survives, spina bifida often leaves debilitating defects including accumulation of fluid in the brain (hydrocephalus), and a host of devastating secondary conditions.

Julie, an obstetrics nurse, decided after hearing the diagnosis to research treatments and discovered a pioneering program of maternal-fetal (in utero) surgery for spina bifida at Nashville's Vanderbilt University Medical Center. After intensive consultations with the medical staff, Julie and Alex not only gave the go-ahead for sur-gery on 21-week-old Samuel; they also agreed to let USA Today photograph the event as a way to increase awareness of the new procedure.

USA Today assigned photojournalist Michael Clancy to capture the surgery on film. Michael had no idea that the shoot would change his life forever.

As he explained to NRL News, "Before the picture, I felt that as a man I could never be pregnant and alone, so it wasn't for me to decide whether abortion was right or wrong. I was indifferent."

Michael described for the Senate hearing the details of his experience during the surgery:

"The tension could be felt in the operating room as the surgery began. The procedure would take place within the uterus, and no part of the child was to breach the surgical opening. The entire surgical procedure on the child was completed in one hour and 13 minutes. When it was over, the surgical team breathed a sigh of relief, as did I.

"As a doctor asked me what speed film I was using, out of the corner of my eye I saw the uterus shake, but no one's hands were near it. It was shaking from within.

"Suddenly, an entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand was showing. The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor's finger.

"As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist. Samuel held firm. I took the picture. Wow!"

When the USA Today photo editor later phoned Michael to confirm its publication, the editor declared, "It's the most incredible picture I've ever seen." The photo appeared in the newspaper in September 2000 and spread at warp speed across the globe - - leading USA Today to subsequently refer to it as the "hand of a fetus [that] touched the world."

Meanwhile, Samuel's surgery had delivered the results for which his parents had hoped and prayed.

"Immediately after surgery," Alex recalls, "the hydrocephalus stopped progressing and started to slowly decrease." By the time Samuel was born, 15 weeks later, his brain malformation had reversed and the hydrocephalus had mostly disappeared.

Alex and Julie shared with NRL News the impact the surgery and photo have had on their own lives.

"The combined trials of infertility followed by Samuel's spina bifida and fetal surgery made for a roller coaster ride that dramatically matured our marriage and each of us individually," Alex confided. "We've experienced God's hand at work in two ways. First, Samuel clearly benefited from the surgery, and we're thankful for his progress and the absence of many problems that typically accompany children with spina bifida.

"Second, we're humbled by God's use of the hand-photo as a ministry. The article and photo were shown all over the world and have been used extensively by pro-life and Christian organizations to illustrate life inside the womb."

Since the publishing of Samuel's "hand of hope," images recently published in Britain of the "smiling fetus" - - a remarkable image captured by a new ultrasound scanning machine - - are again challenging the world to open its eyes to the wonder and reality of nascent human life. The stunningly detailed four-dimensional images reveal developing babies smiling, blinking, sucking their fingers, scratching their noses, hiccupping, and crying.

As Sen. Brownback observed during the hearing, "There is little debate about whether the child in utero is alive; the debate is over whether or not the child is a life worthy of protection." By bearing witness to the divinely knit wonders within the womb, extraordinary scientific technology is challenging many to reconsider that question.

I googled “would you abort Beethoven” and got several the first is this: http://www.chick.com/bc/1999/abortion.asp

Would You Consider Abortion in These Four Situations?

Issue Date: January/February 1999

1. There is a preacher and wife who are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she is pregnant with her 15th. They are living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. They have 4 children. The first is blind, the second is dead. The third is deaf and the fourth has TB. The mother finds she is pregnant again. Given the extreme situation, would you recommend abortion?

3. A man raped a 13 year old black girl and she got pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She is not married. Her fiancee is not the father of the baby, and he is very upset. Would you recommend an abortion?

If you have answered “yes” to any of these situations:

In the first case you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists of the 19th century.

In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven.

In the third case you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer.

In the fourth case you would have recommended the murder of Jesus Christ.

With U. S. abortion deaths topping 30 million, only God knows what we have sacrificed in lost human talent and creativity.

As a nurse, now retired, I have worked with many different doctors. Many are good, kind, and clearly called by God. Others are arrogant, full of themselves, and may have been reared that way, pressured into the field, or are just jerks. Then, there are those who were called, and then gave into temptation, disappointing God. Clearly, many of us have not always acted the way we would have wanted to, looking back. What many people,"civilians", don't realize is that what Drs. say about patients, behind patients' backs are sometimes not what Drs. say to patients in the room. There are also numerous doctors that have excellent skills, yet a horrible bedside manner. Unfortunately, sometimes, it seems that when one needs a highly specialized Dr, it can be difficult to find someone with both skills. I have always said, if you want the best outcome, ask a nurse. If you want someone with a great bedside manner, ask a nurse. If you want someone with a good outcome and a great bedside manners, ask a nurse....but understand there may be 3 different answers to those questions! And, let us not forget hospital politics. What if, in this case (and I have no idea - I am just playing a "devil's advocate"), Dr. Bruner depended on financial support of his “new” surgery? What if he worried that upsetting the political applecart would affect this money? Which decision does he make? Is it best to have financial support so that these surgeries continue (because no insurance pays for ANYTHING experiemental) so that more children are helped and, eventually, it is no longer considered, “experiemental” thereby making it available to everyone (within parameters)? Or, does he upset the applecart who or that pays his salary, finances his desire to help others, and so he says was he is told to say?

I guess, what I am hoping to bring to one's mind, is that we never know the whole story, the whole person, and we can't possibly know what we would do, given an opportunity to be in the other person's shoes, with that person's experiences and knowledge.

It is so horrible to lie - and obviously, given Dr. Bruner’s statements, and Michael Clancy's, it does appear that he did. BUT, I KNOW MOST of us have lied, given an opportunity to: not hurt another person, further a "good" cause, or it seemed the best decision at that time. If Dr. Bruner agreed that the child reached out, he has to tell moms that their child will not be paralyzed during the procedure and may feel pain. He'd have to admit that anesthesia in such unique cases is also still experimental and not foolproof. Would this be something a parent would want to hear? He'd have to be open to questions about the other surgery, the one with the older baby being posed vs this one, and there begins a web of possibilities as to why someone would choose not to tell the truth. I am not saying it is the right thing. Afterall, I doubt the doctor would have realized that a photojournalist's career would be so devastatingly be affected....OR, he may have thought that one person's career may not be worth the loss of so many babies’ health....? Like I mentioned, I don't know any more about this case than what I have read on this site. But, I DO remember seeing the original picture when it was first published...and I felt blessed that God would allow it to be captured for EVERYONE to see...and realize that, yes, a baby is a baby - not just what Planned Parenthood or the abortionists say it is.

I worked in high risk labor and delivery for almost a decade, across from Dr. Tiller's clinic. Please understand, and do not believe for one minute, that just because abortion is legal (supposedly a pro-choicer's reason to contnue the insanity), that there are no infections, complications, loss of uteruses, or death. Do not believe for one minute that these girls/women are educated to what is REALLY happening with their babies. There are laws every doctor must follow when a baby is born alive (no matter what the gestational-how many weeks a woman is pregnant - age), whether a baby is stillborn or aborted beyond a certain gestational age, or if it weighs beyond a certain amount... and these laws do not impress him. He has an incinerator on site. I am only privy to what his patients have told us, but I don't know why a woman would lie about having been further along than she was or lie about what was told to her. Sometimes the only time a woman realizes the truth is when she carries a wanted baby beyond a certain point or it weighs beyond a certain amount, and she miscarries - and is shocked to discover the baby has to have a funeral, receives a death certificate, etc. and questions why, when she knows she didn't have to with her abortion - and that baby weighed more than this one, or she was further along than she was with this one... .

As someone caring for these women, and being very much a “prolife” advocate, I would like to take an opportunity to caution other “pro-lifers”, who I know mean well, but, can at times, come across judgmental to the women who aborted a child. I think there was only one woman I have cared for, who didn't express regret and shame. And, just because the one whose history I obtained, did not offer a remark, doesn't mean she didn't feel it either. I believe we need to talk more about trying to save women from the guilt, shame, and judgment they will feel - not from others, but, instinctively, from themselves, and the Holy Spirit. They will also regret it if they miscarry a wanted baby, have a stillborn, if a child of theirs in the future dies, if anything bad ever happens to them again - they DO perceive it as God's judgment. They also believe it when, because of the unstoppable bleeding, and/or DIC (a serious complication) occurs, resulting in the uterus having to be taken, meaning they will never carry a child they want. I believe it is a mentally, emotionally, and physically unhealthy act for the woman - not to mention what it does to the child, when a woman aborts a baby. If men really loved their wives, girlfriends, sisters, and mothers, they would never ask them to do go through an abortion. I think it is important to balance what we say to women who have made such a horrible choice, with God's forgiveness. And, for them to understand it is because we care not just for the unborn children, but also for THEM, that we try to educate them about their potential decision. I believe every person has the right for a fully disclosed, complete knowledge of the pros and cons in going through a procedure. And, whether it is an abortion or an elective surgery, one should know exactly what to expect and what alternatives there are. Far too many doctors leave that education to someone else and /or do not disclose everything. EVERY person has the right and SHOULD ALWAYS ask, “What are the pro's, the con's, and the alternatives to this procedure? I didn't mean to make this so lengthy, and I don't mean to say Dr. Bruner doesn't do fine work (he obviously has helped numerous families and children). I'm just saying that he, as well as all other doctors, are human. As humans, we sin. And, just because we have an experience with someone, I don't know that it is fair to think we know everything about their character. I know I have done things I thought I would never do - but felt I had to so I could protect my children...but when someone lies, they are always protecting themselves or someone else and possibly, a cause greater than themselves. It may not be right, but it is human. And, I hope, if this doctor is a Christian, he will ask forgiveness from God, Michael, and the public...and we would forgive him as we have been forgiven. No matter whether he did or didn't do or say, it might not (and probably doesn't) have any impact on his exceptional surgical skills and clinical expertise, and whether he is able to help others. Many patients don't and will never even know about what happened behind the scenes. Those that do, could always ask him, could always choose not to, or could decide that, for them, it doesn't matter and they'd use him anyway, or some may choose trust above all else...and unless they "feel" that from him, decide against using him. But, no matter what the real circumstances of that day the picture was taken, the doctor and Michael made it possible for all of us to be a witness to the miracle of life and God's blessing on a family who did as He asked. For this, I am grateful and also, blessed.

Samuel and Zachary, victims of spina bifida, answers to prayer

By J. Gerald Harris, Editor

Published January 19, 2006

Armas Family

Samuel Armas holds baby brother Zachary last summer. Both struggle with spina bifida, but have made gains in health since doctors’ early prognosis.

DOUGLASVILLE — Some folks have bedrock convictions that are unalterable and unshakeable. Alex and Julie Armas, members of Ephesus Baptist Church, are just those kinds of people, the kind that the Apostle Paul would call “steadfast and unmovable.”

Hilys Jasper once said, “It is not what happens to you, but the way you take it that counts.” This Georgia Baptist couple has had some formidable challenges hurled at them, but in spite of the heartache and pain, they have taken the challenges with faith and grace.

In an article that appeared in The Christian Index Oct. 23, 2003, the Armas couple was hailed for their decision to proceed with a pregnancy when the child Julie was carrying had been diagnosed with spina bifida. The doctors indicated that fetal surgery did not seem to be a viable option and that such surgery would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Julie remembers that he stopped just short of suggesting abortion.

Nevertheless, Julie and little Samuel underwent in utero surgery at Vanderbilt University Hospital on Aug. 19, 1999. She was 21 weeks pregnant. Samuel weighed less than one pound.

Free-lance photographer Michael Clancy was in the operating room to take pictures for USA Today and took the photo of Samuel’s hand as he grasped the finger of the surgeon. After taking that much-publicized photo, Clancy, who had been a pro-choice advocate, has become a champion of pro-life causes.

Nationwide impact

Samuel was born by C-section 15 weeks after the surgery and although he has had multiple surgeries since, he has avoided many of the more serious problems of spina bifida. Billy Godwin, the Ephesus pastor, reports, “Samuel is bright, extremely active and very gregarious.”

During the United States Senate debate on partial birth abortion, Alex and Julie were invited to Washington to testify before Kansas Senator Sam Brownbeck’s subcommittee; and once the bill was passed President George W. Bush invited them to attend the actual signing ceremony at the White House.

In November of 2003 the Armas’ were blessed with a second son, Ethan, who is as healthy and happy as you might ever want a child to be. Then in late 2004 the Armas’ found that they were expecting a third child. It was somewhat of a surprise, but they were excited about the prospect of another child to love and welcome into the family.

In February of 2005 Julie had an ultrasound which seemed to indicate that this child also had spina bifida. An emergency visit to Vanderbilt to see the doctor who performed Samuel’s surgery confirmed the diagnosis. The news was devastating, but once again Alex and Julie began to draw from the peace and strength of the Lord as they faced the reality of having another spina bifida child.

Armas Family

Julie and Alex Armas pose with sons Ethan and Samuel last fall. The Armas’ third son, Zachary, was born in February of 2005.

The Douglasville couple decided on Zachary as the name for the child Julie was carrying in her womb. The physicians determined that Zachary’s lesion level was at L4, the 4th lumbar vertebrae, which was very similar to the lesion level at the time of Samuel’s in utero surgery five years earlier.

Since Alex and Julie had experienced positive results with Samuel’s pre-natal surgery they hoped that the same kind of surgery would be available to Zachary, but discovered that the National Institute of Health is conducting a clinical trial (MOMS: Management of Myelomeningocele Study) on fetal surgery; and that they control all fetal surgeries and none can be performed outside of the study.

Alex stated, “To ensure a fair and unbiased population and process is used, the study randomizes eligible candidates into either an experimental group (pre-natal) or a control group (post-natal). For the pre-natal random selection, fetal surgery is performed at one of three designated hospitals. For the post-natal random selections, surgery is performed immediately after birth by the same doctors and at the same hospital.”

Fight for surgical candidacy

“Initially,” Alex continued, “the NIH denied us entry into the study due to the fact that we had a prior fetal surgery. We felt the choice was taken away from us and we fought to have the chance for the same surgery that Samuel had prior to the clinical trial. After six weeks of letters and phone calls to multiple congressmen and senators in Washington, the NIH reviewed our case and decided on medical grounds to allow us entry into the study.”

Alex explained, “We enrolled as eligible candidates. However, we were ultimately randomized to the post-natal group, which means we could not have fetal surgery. Instead, we traveled back to Vanderbilt University Medical Center in July 2005 to have the same team deliver Zachary and perform the necessary surgeries soon after.

“Since we are enrolled in the study,” Alex observed, “Zachary will be followed closely by the Vanderbilt team for a couple of years. Once the study is completed, the findings will be published in medical journals for objective review and consideration of the risks versus the benefits.”

“This will likely determine the future of fetal surgery for spina bifida.”

Armas Family

Left to right, Ethan, Samuel and Zachary Armas take time out earlier this month on a Disney cruise for a photo. The brothers attend Ephesus Baptist Church in Douglasville with their parents, Alex and Julie.

Zachary had surgery to close his back 24 hours after he was born. He had subsequent surgery to insert a shunt eight days after birth. One week after returning from Vanderbilt, Zachary showed signs of hydrocephalus and had to undergo a shunt revision at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta at Scottish Rite. His health condition has been uneventful since that time.

Only one option

The future of Zachary’s health is unknown, but comparative lesion levels and early upper leg function would indicate that he should be able to walk short distances with leg bracing. The added use of crutches, walkers or intermittent wheelchair use is unknown, but likely.

While some parents may chose to abort a spina bifida child, abortion was never an option for the Armas’. Alex affirms, “Our convictions are grounded in beliefs established through our upbringing and through what the Bible clearly says is wrong or right. Abortion is wrong. Life in the womb is God-created, even if with birth defects. God doesn’t make mistakes, whether creating a child with spina bifida, down syndrome or even more severe issues. It is still a life that has just as much a right to live as any ‘normal’ unborn child.”

Alex concluded, “Children are a true blessing from the Lord and have been an answer to prayer for us.”

The Armas couple contend that what was said about the blind man in John 9 is true of their situation – that Samuel and Zachary were given to them that “the works of God should be manifest in (them).”

I wanted to find something positive in Pro-Life to post for this Christmas season. I found some heartwarming updates on Samual Armas, The Hand of Hope, starting w post # 68.

God bless Free Republic and God Bless America.

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/May08/nv052208part2.html

Today's News & Views
May 22, 2008

Photo of Unborn Baby's Hand Continues to
Change Hearts and Lives -- Part Two of Two

By Liz Townsend

One moment can change your life. That's what Michael Clancy has discovered in the eight and a half years since he snapped the groundbreaking photo of an unborn baby clutching his doctor's hand during fetal surgery.

Clancy is now a fervent pro-lifer, spreading the message that unborn babies are precious human beings and deserve protection. He will be a featured speaker at the upcoming NRL Convention in Washington, D.C., July 3–5.

"It was the earliest human interaction ever recorded," Clancy told NRL News. "It proved that the child at 21 weeks in utero is a reactive human being."

Unborn baby Samuel Armas reaches out to his doctor during fetal surgery in August 1999. Michael Clancy, the photo-grapher who snapped the amazing image, will share his
first-hand witness to the humanity of the unborn at the
NRL Convention in July.

When he took the photo in August 1999, Clancy was a freelance photographer filming the fetal surgery procedure for USA Today. Unborn baby Samuel Armas had been diagnosed with spina bifida and hydrocephalus, which occur when the spinal column fails to fuse properly, leaving a lesion (or opening) that is highly susceptible to infection. Dr. Joseph Bruner and his team at Vanderbilt University were operating to close the lesion.

After the incision was made in mother Julie Armas's abdomen, her uterus was removed and laid on her thighs. An opening was made in the uterus, and the surgeons were supposed to operate on Samuel without any part of his body emerging from inside.

However, as Clancy eloquently describes on his web site, www.michaelclancy.com, "out of the corner of my eye I saw the uterus shake, but no one's hands were near it. It was shaking from within. Suddenly, an entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand was showing.

"The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor's finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist. Samuel held firm. I took the picture! Wow! It happened so fast that the nurse standing next to me asked, 'What happened?' 'The child reached out,' I said. 'Oh. They do that all the time,' she responded."

The amazing photograph of Samuel reaching out to his doctor appeared in USA Today and The Tennessean September 7, 1999. Although Clancy never sought notoriety, his work immediately caught the attention of the media and of people around the world.

Clancy was shocked, however, when fetal surgeon Joseph Bruner told USA Today in May 2000 that the photo did not show purposeful movement by Samuel. Bruner claimed that he saw the hand near the incision and he "reached over and picked it up. … The baby did not reach out. The baby was anesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on."

But Clancy posted on his web site the series of frames that depict the moment of contact between Samuel and Dr. Bruner, and they show that Samuel is moving his own hand, grasping the doctor.

"The doctor questioned my credibility," Clancy told NRL News. "But Samuel punched out, and even damaged the surgical opening. That 21-week-old child reacted to the touch of his surgeon."

Clancy went on to testify at a congressional hearing in 2003 along with then-three-year-old Samuel, who was born 15 weeks after his surgery. During the hearing, as reported in National Review, Sen. Sam Brownback pointed to a large copy of Clancy's photo and asked Samuel who it was. "Baby Samuel," he answered. Brownback then asked what was happening. "They fixed my boo-boo," said Samuel.

Although he considers himself "shy," Clancy agreed to speak at the annual banquet of a local crisis pregnancy center about two and a half years ago. After he spoke, "they gave me the first standing ovation I ever had," Clancy recalled. "Afterwards, 20 to 30 people were lined up to speak with me, and told me I need to continue telling my story."

Clancy listened to their advice, and is now telling people about his first-hand witness to the humanity of the unborn. He also encourages people to download the photo from his web site and distribute it far and wide.

"It changes one heart at a time, that's what this picture does," he said. "This is God's work. This is the youngest interaction with a child inside the womb ever recorded. As long as it keeps being put where people can see it, it can save lives."

Part One

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.