Abortion Survivor Shares Her Moving Story
Source: May 30, 1999, North Hills News Record
Pine, PA -- A 22-year-old woman who survived a saline abortion in her mother's womb but was disabled for life as a result shared her story - and faith - at North Way Christian Community in Pine.
Gianna Jessen, a singer and speaker living in Nashville, Tenn., said she was able to forgive her biological mother even though the teenager sought to abort her in a Los Angeles abortion facility in 1977.
"I was aborted, actually," said Jessen, who uses her background as a springboard to talk to teenagers about maintaining sexual purity and overcoming obstacles.
"I'm not angry. I really have forgiven her," said Jessen. "I guess it would sound odd. It's because I'm a Christian that I'm able to forgive her for what she's done."
Jessen, who grew up in San Diego and has appeared in pro-life television commercials, lived with foster parents until she was 3, when Diana DePaul of San Clemente, Calif., adopted her.
Jessen said the birth trauma left her with cerebral palsy. She walked with leg braces until she was 9. Her intellect, however, was unaffected. She anticipates a normal lifespan.
"I was never supposed to sit up," said Jessen, who credits God with a miracle. "They said all I would ever be was a vegetable," she said. "Not only did I survive this procedure, I also can take care of myself and can walk, with a slight limp."
Jessen's life began with a one-night stand. Her biological mother was 17 and from the San Diego area. The father 19 or 20. It was not a serious romance. The father left town before his daughter was born, DePaul said.
The mother, seven and a half months pregnant, was referred to an abortion facility by Planned Parenthood, DePaul said.
At the abortion facility, a salt solution was injected into the teen's womb, which usually results in a stillbirth, causing the abortion and death of the child.
Jessen survived. A nurse called a paramedic, and she was transferred to a hospital, DePaul said. At birth, she weighed 2 pounds, 1 ounce, DePaul said. She was in intensive care for three months.
DePaul said she told her daughter about her origin when she was 12. Oddly enough, because the baby was born alive, the birth mother was required to name the baby. She named her Giana. DePaul added an extra "n" later.
"I told her at that time that she shouldn't look at the circumstances of her birth," DePaul said. "Many people have traumatic births. I told her to look at the fact that God, in his grace, allowed her to live."
In 1992, DePaul hired a private detective to find the birth mother. DePaul knew her name because she had acquired the state's foster care records. The two women met for four hours and the woman told DePaul she had another abortion.
"She never said, `Oh, I hope Gianna forgives me for this.' " DePaul said. "She did say she was glad that Gianna was making the best of her life."
The woman, whom DePaul has not seen since, could not be reached. DePaul would not reveal her name. Jessen said she does not want to meet her.
Amy Scheuring of Richland, a member of North Way, said she admires Jessen, who she read about in an article. "You're looking at a young woman who in a way represents every aborted child," Scheuring said. "She just is very clear about the fact that there is forgiveness and healing. You can move on."
Because Jessen wants to practice what she preaches, she said she took a vow of chastity until marriage. "All I can say is that I'm so thankful for my life," she said.
"Your life can be taken away by bitterness, anger. If I just sat around and wallowed in self pity, I'd never get anything done."
STOP THE MADNESS!!!
Nonsense! There are many characters on the international scene who should not be breathing.
Gianna is a GIFT -- and an example of extraordinary courage.
God help us.
Years ago I read a letter to an editor in which the writer thanked her birth mother for "allowing her to live" and letting her be adopted even though her mother had been raped. She was now a wife and mother of two.
Thackney: Ping!
How can a civilized, intellectual and educated society of people, made up of individuals presumably with consciences and souls just like everyone else, choose to systematically target and eliminate another group of individuals in cold blood, without mercy or a second thought?
There is no argument that the Nazis used a variety of methods to thwart resistance to their goal, the annihilation of every Jew in Europe. However, even with our democratic government, we do not really have freedom to choose freely. System-regulated propaganda is so pervasive that individuals who initially support certain causes can eventually fall victim to the lies built within, with devastating consequences (Norma McCorvey is one example; she was deceived by the feminist pro-abortion propaganda machine. Let's not forget the many women who, seduced by "choice," opt for abortion and suffer from post abortion syndrome later on). Indeed, in a democracy, good people who mean well and want the best for everyone are not always prepared to acknowledge their own errors in judgment, until it is too late. That's the downside of freedom, which if left unguarded, can lead to government abuse that will destroy the foundation of our Constitution along with the moral principles upon which our country was founded.
When the Supreme Court declares open season on babies, nullifying state rights they themselves set forth in the former Casey decision, it's time for all Americans to take notice. Unless there is political intervention now, soon, to stop our progression into complacency, we will one day seriously regret our error. We'll be killing living children with resignation and acceptance, perhaps even glee, along with other members of our society deemed unfit or inconvenient. By then, deformed thinking will be the norm and people will have so acclimated themselves that they will no longer be able to distinguish the difference in value between a living human being and a dead one.
Mom Gets Away With Murder, But No One Else Does?
Key Facts on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act -- January 8, 2004
The bill would establish that if an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of an already-defined federal crime of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child. The exact charge would depend on which federal law is involved, the degree of harm done to the child, and other factors. The bill would apply this two-victim principle to 68 existing federal laws dealing with acts of violence.
The bill explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself (legal or illegal), or to any form of medical treatment. Nevertheless, the National Right to Life Committee supports the bill because it achieves other pro-life purposes that are worthwhile in their own right: The protection of unborn children from acts of violence other than abortion, the recognition that unborn children may be victims of such violent criminal acts, and the punishment of those who harm unborn children while engaged in federally prohibited acts of violence.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would not supersede state unborn victims laws, nor would it impose such a law in a state that has not enacted one. Rather, the bill applies only to unborn children injured or killed during the course of already-defined federal crimes of violence.
Moreover, in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to invalidate a Missouri statute that declares that "the life of each human being begins at conception," that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being," and that all state laws (including criminal laws) "shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state," to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. A lower court had ruled that Missouris law "impermissibl[y]" adopted "a theory of when life begins," and blocked its enforcement, but the Supreme Court nullified that ruling, allowing the law to go into effect so long as the state did not use it to restrict abortion.
Yet, on July 25, 2000, the House passed on a vote of 417-0 a bill that contained the same definition of "child in utero" and that embodied the same basic legal principle. That bill, the Innocent Child Protection Act, said that no state or federal authority may "carry out a sentence of death on a woman while she carries a child in utero. . . .child in utero means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." The principle embodied in the Innocent Child Protection Act was obvious carrying out the execution would take two human lives, including one convicted of no crime.
State Homicide Laws that Recognize Unborn Victims -- June 23, 2003
As of January 5, 2004, twenty-eight (28) states have enacted laws which recognize unborn children as human victims of violent crimes covered by state laws. Fifteen (15) of these states provide this protection throughout the period of in utero development, while the other 13 provide protection during certain specified stages of development. These laws are sometimes referred to as "fetal homicide" laws.
One Victim or Two? Results from Three National Polls
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (S. 1019) would recognize as a legal victim an unborn child who is injured or killed during commission of a federal crime against the baby's mother. A substitute amendment to be offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein would increase penalties for federal crimes against pregnant women - but would recognize only one victim, the mother, and without recognizing any loss of human life if the mother survives the assault. Sharon Rocha, mother of Laci Peterson and grandmother of Conner Peterson, has called such a single-victim proposal "a step away from justice, not toward it." But what does the general public say? If a criminal assaults a woman who carries an unborn child, does that crime have two victims, or only one? Here are three recent national polls on that issue.