Monday, February 11, 2019

Big Bad Cows and Cars

Green Utopianism & Environmental Outcomes 
Herescope Vintage Article Series[1]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez launches her Green New Deal (Source)

The following 1993 article explains the contents of the proposed Green New Deal in the United States Congress by the newly-elected Rep. Acasio-Cortez {AOC]. There has been considerable debate already about its controversial FAQs which will have global repercussions.

This vintage 1993 article[2] describes how the education reform agenda, including Outcome-Based Education (OBE) of the late 1980s through the 1990s, integrated and infused a radically new spirituality-based environmental agenda into academic curriculum and assessment tests. Young adults in America who attended public schools have been inculcated with this eco-spiritual worldview.  Perhaps this fact explains AOC's current proposal.  

Many Christian parents, while concerned about the environment, have opposed the extreme tenets of global education, which taught students a New Age New World Order. [3]

By Sarah H. Leslie, 1993

The Green Future Envisioned
The problem with cows and cars, it seems, is with their... well, er... emissions. Both are supposedly responsible for wreaking havoc on the planet Earth (spelled with a capital "E" to suggest respect and "reverence") because of their CO2 output--for one a matter of life, for the other a manner of mechanization.

They both have to go. This means tractors, too, of course. The goals for sustainability, according to the latest environmental craze (which we have dubbed "Green Utopianianism"), requires an abandonment of modern material affluence, a transfer of wealth to third world countries and, unmistakably, a return to the manual plow accompanied by a vegetarian diet.

Where can one find such utopian nonsense? It is popping up with increasing frequency in mainstream publications and credible-sounding scientific documents. Jeremy Rifkin's "Beyond Beef" campaign and Al Gore's recent book, Earth in the Balance (1992), have lent the necessary pizzazz to launch a massive public relations campaign about the environmental hazards of these CO2 emissions (that's "gas" for the folks in Rio Linda, California).

The education establishment, prone to jumping on the latest bandwagon, is going great guns for environmental education. Educators are frequently puzzled and amazed when parents object to environmental and global curriculums and outcomes. What could be wrong with that, they ask. We recommend they read the literature.

The Rave Review
We found the abolishment of the cow and car through reading an Iowa Department of Education document. Several years ago, in a publication entitled Social Studies Horizons (Fall 1990), just such a utopian book was given a rave review. This book, originally entitled The Future as if it Really Mattered, was recently re-issued under a new title--Toward A Sustainable Society: An Economic, Social and Environmental Agenda for Our Children's Future by James Garbarino. The title says it all. It is quite an agenda!

Here is the rave review from the Iowa Department of Education:

Excerpts from a book that is a class of practical wisdom on what a sustainable society is, why we need to move to a sustainable society, and what a sustainable society might look like. It is this kind of thinking we need to consider as we move toward transforming the social studies. It seems to me that teaching the "transformational economics" of sustainability would be a much more empowering and enlivening process for our students than the textbook-mired "dismal science" approach to economics that has been the norm. (Iowa DE, Social Studies Horizons, p. 4) 

If you think sustainability is just a nice new term to describe more environmentally responsible farming methods, think again. Sustainability, at least to the new Green Utopians, is an entire restructuring of the way humans live on the planet, and is the new prime directive for the survival of species (man only somewhat included).

The 1990 Iowa Department of Education publication quoted Garbarino, who claimed:

"This enjoyment of owning, having, spending, buying, and consuming is a serious threat. It threatens our relationship with the Earth and our relationships with each other, particularly in our families and in our efforts to preserve the resources necessary for social welfare systems. It cannibalized the planet, undermines the spiritual order, and leaves us scrambling to fill the social and spiritual void with positions. It is an addiction pure and simple... and our chances of making the transition to a sustainable society depend upon our overcoming it." (Social Studies Horizons, p. 4) 

The major chore for humans on Garbarino's anthropomorphic Earth is to make the transition to sustainability. But, just what does HE mean by this? What is the agenda of the new Green Utopians?

Utopian Sustainability 
Garbarino's transition to sustainability is a process long on ideology and short on specifics, in typical utopian fashion. Garbarino states:

Our goal, remember, is the creation of a more SUSTAINABLE human community based on competent social welfare systems, just and satisfying employment, reliance on the nonmonetarized economy for meeting many needs, and a political climate that encourages cultural evolution and human dignity. (Towards a Sustainable Society, p. 162) 

Garbarino identifies himself as a utopian throughout the book. His optimistic view of the future is dependent upon his faith that the human race will accept stringent population control measures, severely limited transportation and trade, earth-friendly housing, local neighborhood food and energy production, and government-regulated health and social welfare services. The seriousness of our common future is enough to warrant this massive overhaul of the Western lifestyle.

Our Not-So-Rave Review 
The preface of Garbarino's book (page ix) gives credit to Aurelio Peccei and the Club of Rome for the "wealth of ideas and information about the prospects for a sustainable society." The Club of Rome is best known for its earth-shattering GLOBAL 2000 report, Limits to Growth, issued in 1972 calling for massive world-wide population control measures and many other controversial plans. The Club of Rome is one of those international organizations that the extreme Left esteems (including the national media) and the extreme Right views as one of "those" conspiratorial groups.

The Club of Rome does not advocate for a mainstream, reasonable approach to environmental stewardship. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It is an indisputable fact that the Club of Rome is tied closely to the wacky international New Age groups known as Planetary Citizens. Planetary Citizens sponsored a "1990 World Symposium on Interspecies & Interdimensional Communication." (This means communicating with species not of this world!) Aurelio Peccei's name has appeared on Planetary Citizens letterhead.

A Return to the Plow
Tractors will go the way of the car and the cow. Manual high-tech plows are the wave of the new utopian future.

The plow developed by the Schumacher-inspired Intermediate Technology Group is a good example [of appropriate technology]. It relieves the backbreaking burden of working an oxen-powered plow, but it is not a conventional tractor. In their clever arrangement, a small engine pulls a plow across a field using a wire, while two farmers use their skill and strength to guide it. The result is better plowing with a less expensive tool and provision of meaningful work. (p. 223) 

This utopian vision of a new society includes agricultural cooperatives, a cashless economy, and women working at home at gardening chores to provide food for their households and communities. "Household and community gardens can successfully produce fruits and vegetables and in some cases even grain." (p. 231-2) Concurrent with these recommendations is the elimination of most global trade because of its relationship to transportation (which produces CO2). Everything must be produced locally.

Eating meat is not included in the book. "The massive concentrations of cattle excrement produce large amounts of methane," claims Garbarino in Rifkin-like fashion. Presumably the cow is regulated to a position of prominence in society, perhaps even veneration. If the cow isn't good for food, and not an "appropriate" technological substitute for the tractor for use with plows, then perhaps the Green Utopians of the future will hang garlands of flowers about their necks!

Car Crimes
Garbarino wrote:

"Using a car to accomplish daily tasks that could be done without one is a misdemeanor against the Earth and posterity. Social policies that encourage driving and discourage walking are crimes against the planet." (p. 221) 

The term for this new kind of crime in Green Utopia is "bioeconomic crime" according to Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, who is further quoted on the matter of automobiles:

"Every time we produce a Cadillac, we irrevocably destroy an amount of low entropy that could otherwise be used for producing a plow or a spade. In other words, every time we produce a Cadillac, we do it at the cost of decreasing the number of human lives in the future." (p. 135) 

This type of logic, which ties Western consumption to the future destruction of the Earth, is the drum-beat of Garbarino's book. It explains the reasoning behind the original version of the Iowa Department of Education's controversial Catalogue of Global Education Classroom Activities, Lesson Plans, and Resources (1990). This curriculum manual, in addition to containing a reference to James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis (that earth is both an entity and a deity), included a Social Studies exercise for grades 4-6 which linked eating red meat to the destruction of the tropical rainforest:

Calculate the amount of meat eaten by a person in the U.S. per year; translate to number of animals. How much energy and grain are used to produce this meat? How many trees in the tropical rainforest are destroyed to produce this meat? (Catalogue, p. 26) 

For Garbarino and the Green Utopians, automobile-based urbanization is a major culprit in the anti-sustainable modern lifestyle. "Suburbs are not conducive to sustainable patterns." (p. 166) Suburbs allow people to live far away from where they work and shop. Suburbs depend upon the car, or other forms of transit. Suburbs are not an acceptable alternative. So what, then, is the utopian alternative?

The Abolition of Patriarchy 
Garbarino would like to redefine the family in the context of community, what he terms social welfare systems for a sustainable society. His ideas parallel those of the social engineers. He would make community be parent:

Communities should share joint custody of children with parents... we can require `registration and inspection' of young children so that the community can monitor child development and not lose track of the children for which it is responsible. (p. 245) 

Garbarino also calls for a parenting license. Family roles are redefined, too.

We need to end masculine domination both in the family and in society, so that we can create a cultural climate in which the sustainable society can exist. (p. 66) 

Patriarchy is a threat to the planet, according to Garbarino. He devotes and entire chapter to this subject because he believes we need to have a more feminine ethic to survive. His book has probably never been fully embraced by the feminists, however, because he believes women should be out working in the gardens and fields producing the household's food!

Garbarino's design for sustainable social welfare systems for families are nearly identical to the education reform efforts, including parents as "partners", a "community level organization... for transportation systems, formal education, industrial enterprise, and the like." (p. 222) Although he does not specifically identify the school as the "hub" of the community structure (as we have seen in other education reform writings), it is clear that the new environmentally-correct society will be managed by grouping people into small neighborhood communities--almost completely self-sufficient in food production and other life needs, but requiring intimate governmental managing of their personal and family lives.

Mandatory Population Controls 
Garbarino writes:

To achieve a stable population, countries will have to establish a comprehensive and pervasive family planning program and carefully monitor immigration. At minimum, accomplishing this will require incentives for keeping family size at the replacement level, penalties for exceeding that level, and complete access to contraception. It will mean that family size will be limited to two children. (p. 228) 

Family planning, the obligatory two children, is the cornerstone of Garbarino's sustainable society. He lauds the Chinese example, despite its oppressiveness (penalties) and slaughter (mandatory abortions). In fact, rewards and penalties for ecologically responsible procreation are a key component to Garbarino's ideal society. He views children as consumers of scare resources, more mouths to feed on a crowded planet.

Garbarino consistently speaks of children in terms of economics (human capital?):

Children are the currency of family life..." (p. 180) 

Limiting the size of specific families may turn children into an economic commodity, if people can sell their rights to bear them. (p. 84) 

Children are an economic benefit in the households, neighborhoods, and communities that rely upon human labor rather than non-renewable energy and materials to produce food and provide utilities. (p. 79) 

Cashless Economics
A radical new economic order is interwoven throughout the entire text of the book. Garbarino's economics calls for a cashless society and a new kind of economics that accurately accounts for the damage done to the environment. The price of every item must calculate the cost in terms of environmental destruction, especially nonrenewable resources like gasoline and oil.

Free enterprise is the villain to the world's environmental woes. It is responsible for the destruction of the planet according to Garbarino and he utterly dismisses it as an option or a solution. The current "economic order and its cultural baggage are major obstacles in the transition to a sustainable society." (p. 116) Reading Garbarino does not make one feel comfortable about Gorbachev heading up the new world effort for this Green Utopian (his international Green Cross environmental effort). The abolishment of free enterprise has always been at the forefront of the communist agenda.

Severe limits to world trade are called for by Garbarino:

"In a sustainable system, world trade would be limited to two domains. The first is ideas, technology, and artistic creations and the people necessary to communicate them. The second is material goods needed to meet basic human needs or to dramatically enhance human experience in ways unavailable locally. Most world trade today fails to meet either criterion." (p. 152) 

It is not clear why artistic creations are given such a high priority for trade! The National Endowment for the Arts will appreciate this recommendation.

Voluntary Poverty 
A total and complete reduction in the modern American affluent lifestyle is called for. "A relatively poor American family typically uses less of the world's resources than an affluent American family, but it still consumes much more than an Indian family that lives at subsistence level." (p. 85) Therefore, Garbarino concludes, that only reasonable solution is this: "as the world's leading consumer.... [the United States] has a special obligation to reduce its demands for resources to a level that is domestically sustainable." (p. 89-90)

Garbarino's ideas about what constitutes "sustainable" and the average American's are radically different. He links American consumerism to every threat to the planet. It is not unlike the Iowa Global Education exercise for Home Economics students grades 9-12: "Seek connections between U.S. consumer and eating habits and the presence of malnutrition worldwide." (Catalogue, p. 36)

A Riceville, Iowa, sophomore English class was given a "Simplicity Survey" as part of The Thoreau Project. The test sheds considerable light on the extent to which Garbarino's radical ideas about sustainability have infiltrated classroom curriculum. Here are a few sample "commitments" that students had to make on the survey:

  • I and/or my family will own no more than three sets of clothes and three pairs of shoes per person. 
  • I and/or my family will own only one automobile. 
  • My family and/or I will eat less meat, more vegetables and fruits, and no white sugar. 
  • My family and/or I will make our own simple personal products--such as, deodorant, soap, toothpaste--from old historical recipes. 
  • My family and/or I will learn to do almost everything for ourselves: cleaning, baking, repairing, building, etc. 

This survey is a good indication of how Outcome-Based Education will function. If the child dos not score at a high enough "committed" level, the "teacher may ask you to retake this survey in order to see if the unit changes your commitment." In other words, if the child doesn't display the correct attitudes about this radical form of sustainability, they may have to re-take the test to see if their attitudes were changed!

The New Religion 
To break our addiction to free enterprise, material consumption, and freedom in general, Garbarino calls for some new values. It is here that we begin to see the link between his Green Utopian view of a sustainable society and the strange-sounding ethical values contained in the new educational outcomes being promoted across the country. Garbarino cites Amitai Etzioni, saying that he "links consumerism, the work ethic, and cultural patriotism. This is a linkage we must break, replacing it with a combination of passionate commitment to a humane social environment and rejection of materialism as an end rather than a very limited means." (p. 100) The old values have to go, to be replaced by a new ethic. These new values necessarily entail a new religion.

You may have guessed it--we need to form a relationship with the Earth. We are not told exactly HOW one goes about forming this new "relationship." Hugging trees is good for a start--we need to "speak to the trees and listen to the birds." (p. 226) Presumably, this new anthropomorphic view of Mother Earth is the new religion. Garbarino describes it this way: "A reformed human family emphasizing equity and harmony... is a good model to follow in establishing our relationship with the Earth." (p. 99)

Like many of the other new Green Utopians (Al Gore, especially), Garbarino denigrates Christianity because it elevates man above nature:

"...Christianity was an ecological regression compared with the primitive animist impulse that emphasized the spiritual integrity of existence, the commonality of being, which demanded respect for the trees, the waters, the plants, the animals--for the Earth as a whole." (p. 98) 

Garbarino would replace big, bad Christianity with eastern mysticism.

"Buddhism teaches that material goods are only a means of achieving personal well-being. Consuming for its own sake has no value." (p. 99)

And, here is a big admission: "Primitive animism has more in common with emerging ecological science, although other religious traditions can also accommodate it." (p. 98-99) This admission may serve to explain the recent upsurge of religious indoctrination in environmental and global education curriculums. It also explains the including of native American Indian ritualistic rites in children's curriculums.

Garbarino advocates for this new (old) earth-centered religion. But what of other religions? What will happen to freedom of religion under this utopian system? "Freedom will be absolute in the realm of ideas and expression but minimal in the domains of environmentally threatening behavior." You can believe whatever you like, but your actions cannot harm the environment, however that comes to be defined. In fact, the environment reigns supreme in Green Utopia. The Earth's needs (real or perceived) are paramount to human needs and human rights.

The New Green "Outcomes" 
To achieve this Green Utopia requires that human beings accept a new system of ethics, one that values the Earth. Garbarino suggests that if "we can forge this link between personal and public concerns, we will be able to harness the motivating power of the family in transforming Spaceship Earth." (p. 67) The current classroom emphases on environmental and global education are prime examples of this. Making small children feel responsible for the survival of the planet is one of the mechanisms for forging this link. "Children... need... to develop a sense of kinship with nature." (p. 169)

Reversing biases "that currently discourage reusability, manual labor, and self reliance" (p. 205) is one of the goals for educating the public. This means that it is absolutely essential that public attitudes and values be altered to fit the new environmental crisis worldview of the future, complete with utopian solutions.

Amazingly, Garbarino's book contains language almost identical to an outcome seen state by state across America in the new push for outcome-based education. "Socialization to adulthood means acquiring the skills and attitudes necessary to assume full responsibility in the work place, the home, and the community." (p. 206) Iowa's World Class Schools document states: "A world-class education will equip students to live, work and compete as successful citizens in a global society." (p. 5)

In light of Garbarino's Green Utopia, state by state comparisons of nearly identical outcome-based language takes on new significance. The language that educators are struggling to define is easily managed by the environmental fringe. In fact, William Spady, the father of modern OBE, has written "A fragile and vulnerable global environment... requires altering economic consumption patterns and quality of life standards, and taking collective responsibility for promoting health and wellness." (Spady and Marshall, 1990)

In the new Green Utopia, social abilities are of prime importance. Garbarino gives primacy to social development rather than technological issues: "social changes, not technological fixes, are the primary vehicle for averting disaster and placing humanity on sustainable ecological and socioeconomic footing." (p. 21) Because of this de-emphasis on technology, he believes that children

must become adept at language, body control, morality, reasoning, emotional expressiveness, and interpersonal relations. Unless they do, they become a burden--to their families, to our society, and even to themselves. (p. 105)

The belief system of the Green Utopians explains the national pressure to have attitudinal, behavioral and value-laden outcomes. It also explains the vacuum of solid academics. Reading, writing and arithmetic will no longer solve the world's problems. The crisis is too complex. Humans must be taught to adjust and adapt instead. Garbarino does not stake his future hopes in technological development and man's potential to develop scientific solutions for the complex environmental crisis. The only hope that he sees is sustainability.

Another nationally popular outcome has to do with diversity. Garbarino explains why this is so necessary: "Cultural diversity is as important as biological diversity in enhancing evolutionary resilience and human progress." At least for some, "diversity" has much more to do with their religious beliefs in evolution of mankind than it has to do with protecting the human rights of religious and ethnic groups. Cultural diversity, in the form of multicultural education, often promotes ritualistic pagan practices that enhance a feeling of connectedness with the Earth.

Those who oppose the teaching of this new religion of interconnectedness with nature are labeled "racists." When Davenport, Iowa, school board member Elaine Rathmann challenged a "Multi-Cultural Week" as mere "political indoctrination and social reform" she was publicly charged in the local press with racism.

The New Green Utopian Classroom 
A recent article by Barbara Melz of the Boston Globe appeared in the Des Moines Register (6/6/93, p. 3E). Melz details the vulnerability of children to emotional manipulation in areas of environmentalism. She quotes from a book by Lynne Dumas (Talking with Your Child about a Troubled World, Fawcett Columbine): "Everything becomes a personal issue for kids, everything gets related in their minds to their own safety."

The article goes on to give a poignant example of how vulnerable children can be to this type of education:

This is especially true of environmental issues, she says. From the earliest ages, children relate to animals and nature in a kind of magical way. `TV shots of oil-soaked birds and seals, whales trapped on a beach, endangered dolphins all these kinds of things can be very upsetting to them. They can react with an intensity that surprises parents,' she says... solid waste disposal is an issue many school-age children glom on to in a very concrete way. `They see how much trash they produce in their own house. So here's their worry: If everyone's house makes this much trash, what will happen? Will there be enough room for me to live in the world?'"

Are children being educated or indoctrinated? Is it fair to burden them with feelings of guilt and responsibility based on the perceived crisis of the Green Utopians?

Only One Choice 
A thorough reading of Garbarino's book, especially in the context of other works by the new Green Utopians, creates the crisis and then presents the solution. His crisis is an out-of-control world population problem compounded by scarce resources. His worldview is clearly founded on the Club of Rome Global 2000 report. Garbarino has a limited view of human potential, technological innovation, the value of free enterprise, or ingenuity. However, there are serious questions about the scientific and rational validity of the entire so-called species.

The only politically-correct technology for the Green Utopians is apparently the computer, probably because of its ability to control human behavior through the charting actions and attitudes. The greater good of society and the seriousness of the threat against the planet would likely justify a central data bank to monitor each citizen according to the logic of Green Utopians.

Garbarino's solution is a return to third-world subsistence living. Garbarino doesn't say this directly. One must read between the lines and come to understand that abolishing cows and cars, transportation and trade, free enterprise and a market economy, and certain basic human freedoms in matters related to religion and procreation can only mean an international totalitarian society. Granted, Garbarino, the consummate Green Utopian, objects to this (totalitarianism) and feigns to distance himself from the nastiness of it all. Yet his proposals can mean nothing else.

The New Green World View 
To explain sustainability, Garbarino gives an extensive quote from Voluntary Simplicity by Duane Elgin, in which Ram Dass--"a Western-style intellectual turned Eastern-style mystic"--tells a story about an ideal society. It sheds much light on what Garbarino means by a "sustainable" society. Here are a few highlights:

I look out over a gentle valley in the Kumoan Hills at the base of the Himalayas. A river flows through the vallye, forming now and again manmade tributaries that irrigate the fertile fields. These fields surround the fifty or so thatched or tin-roofed houses and extend in increasing narrow terraces up the surrounding hillsides.  

In several of these fields I watch village men standing on their wooden plows goading on their slow-moving water buffalo who pull the plows, provide the men's families with milk, and help to carry their burdens. And amid the green of the hills, in brightly colored saris and nose rings, women cut the high grasses to feed the buffalo and gather the firewood which, along with the dried dung from the buffalo, will provide the fire to cook the grains harvested from the fields and to warm the houses against the winter colds and dry them during the monsoons. A huge haystack passes along the path, seemingly self-propelled, in that the woman on whose head it rests is lost entirely from view.  

It all moves as if in slow motion. Time is measured by the sun, the seasons, and the generations. A conch shell sounds from a tiny temple, which houses a deity worshiped in these hills. The stories of this and other deities are recited and sung, and they are honored by flowers and festivals and fasts. They provide a context--vast in its scale of aeons of time, rich with teachings of reincarnation and the morality inherent in the inevitable workings of karma. And it is this context that gives vertical meaning to these villagers' lives with their endless repetition of cycles of birth and death. (p. 36-37)

The Other Side of the Story 
This scene is seductive, rich with description of people living in a sustainable society close to the Earth. However, there is another side to this story. It would burst the bubble of the utopians to hear it. Further, it would give great credence to Christianity as a potent force for personal freedom in the world. This alternative account comes from a humble missionary story, The Bamboo Cross (1964), by Homer Dowdy:

Just over beyond the mountains which surrounded the Sixteen Peaks lived the Tring. They were the most difficult of all the mountain tribes that Sau had tried to reach. They were shy. When strangers approached they scurried into the forest. The Tring were the poorest, most fear-ridden tribe of all. If Sau's people often went hungry, the Tring lived always on the edge of starvation. 

They did not live in villages. 

The spirits that ruled them forbade one family to dip water from another's source; one of them could not even live across the stream from an in-law. So Tring houses were spotted sparsely for long distances along the mountain rivers, each a desolation picture of isolation. 

Clinging to the steep, stony sides of mountains for mere existence, the Tring shivered in the ceaseless cold of the wind. Often gusts broke down the corn before it could come into ear. The wet monsoon blew when they needed it to be dry, and when it was dry for too long they suffered from the drought. 

The demons, too, kept them hungry. If a man went to his field in the morning and found dew on the ground, he returned home without working that day to avoid a curse. 

If fortune kept him away from his field beyond the planting season--well, it was evident that the spirits did not want him to find his food in such an easy way. 

And if he did plant, he was careful not to plant enough to satisfy his needs. The spirits always demanded of him that he search in the forest for roots and leaves to eke out his diet. For this reason he was inclined to plant just enough mountain rice to keep his alcohol jars full. (p. 72) 

The Bamboo Cross is a descriptive account of how people's lives in this tribe and others were truly transformed when they were released from the spiritual bondage to their demons and fat sorcerers (who exacted large amounts of material goods from their subjects to relieve them of supposed curses).

New Green Utopia 
Green Utopia, then, may be a place--several generations hence--where people living in a "sustainable" society strongly resemble more primitive cultures with one notable exception. There will be a little box that does things, and people talk on it, and you have to push the correct buttons for food and medicine. No one knows the complicated math and science required to program this box because shopkeeper math and logic are not taught anymore. The little box is, therefore, an object of great superstition and magic. It accurately predicts the weather and seems to know almost everything.

The little box is the computer.

Garbarino's book was probably never a best-seller. But for those who are seeking to understand the rationale, worldview and justification for such a radical education reform proposal, it just might provide a few unexpected answers.

1990 Iowa Department of Education documents
with Gaia worship included.

"The earth is the LORD'S,
and the fulness thereof;
the world,
and they that dwell therein."

(Psalm 24:1)
1. Before Herescope was a blog it was a column in a monthly magazine during the mid-1990s called The Christian Conscience published by Iowa Research Group, Inc. In the months to come we will resurrect some of these original articles and republish them, including many articles that were authored by what is now known as the Discernment Research Group.
2. Copyright Sarah H. Leslie, 2993, 1999, 2019. This article was originally written in June 1993. It was originally published the Free World Research Report and later republished as Appendix XXVII in the original edition of Charlotte Iserbyt's book the deliberate dumbing down of america (1999). Charlotte's book is now available as a free download online at The Social Studies Horizons newsletter quoted in this article can be found described on pages 275-277 of this book.
3. Before there was a Discernment Research Group it was called the "Iowa Research Group." From 1989-1999 a group of Christian mothers (and fathers) researched New Age/New World Order elements inherent in education reform plans across America and published their warnings in periodicals, newsletters, and on the Internet. Berit Kjos was one of the foremost researchers and her website is a treasure trove of many articles on the history of education reform. See especially her books Brave New Schools and Under the Spell of Mother Earth. Many links in this article go to her website.

The two cartoons were drawn by a 11 year old Iowa homeschooled boy and were published with the original article. 
Several exhibits in this post come from websites concerned with poverty in india.

Thursday, February 07, 2019


A Stand Against Legalizing Infanticide
From the Heart of a Mother of Handicapped Children

“For You formed my inmost being;
You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Marvelous are Your works,
and I know this very well.
My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in secret,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all my days were written in Your book
and ordained for me before one of them came to be.”

(Psalm 139:13-16)

Exhibit A

Surely conservative pulpits can no longer remain muted when the barbaric but euphemistically titled Reproductive Health Act treats abortion as a “fundamental right,” allows non-physicians to perform abortions, allows abortion through the third trimester—including up to birth, and removes protections for babies who survive an abortion—meaning they could be left to die after birth?
~Jules Gomes, "The silence of the shepherds on the abortion of the lambs"

By Gaylene Goodroad


neonaticide (nē″ō-nāt′ĭ-sīd″) [″ + (hom)icide]
Killing of a newborn child, usually during the first day of life.[2]
On January 22, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the Reproductive Health Act, which permits women to have an abortion after 24 weeks (in the third trimester), if she or her doctor determines that her ‘health’ might suffer were she to deliver a live infant. This sinister new law also erases the ‘personhood’ of the unborn, defining a ‘person’ as a “human being who has been born and is alive.” Sarah H. Leslie wrote about the passing of this ominously historic law as well as the sins that proceed abortion in the previous Herescope article “The Revival of Molech: and the Return of Bloody Barbarism.”[3]

Within days of this dubious NY law, the Virginia state legislature introduced the Repeal Act, which eliminates all abortion restrictions up to the point of birth, and allows non-physicians to perform the grisly and murderous procedure. Thankfully, the bill was defeated by a vote of 5 to 3, but is sure to be reintroduced in a future session.[4] Incredibly, on the same day this bill was introduced to the Virginia assembly, the co-sponsor of the bill, Kathy Tran, also introduced a bill to preserve cankerworms! Take note that cankerworms were sent as a sign of God’s judgment in the Scriptures (see: Joel 1:4; 2:25; Nah. 3:15-16; Isa.14:11; 51:8; 66:24; Mk.9:48; Acts 12:23).
Exhibit B: From a video HERE.

On the same day that the Repeal Act was brought to a vote, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam appeared on a radio station to not only endorse and promote the wicked legislation, but to advocate for infanticide! Note the chilling comments the governor made (in a very compassion and deliberate voice) as reported in National Review:

“This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved,” Northam said. “When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physician — more than one physician, by the way — and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s non-viable.” 

Northam is either unaware of the specifics of the bill, or he’s lying about them. Tran’s legislation explicitly removes the current requirement that three physicians agree that a woman is in need of a late-term abortion. The new bill would require only the consent of the mother and of the physician performing the abortion. But he went on to say something even more heinous. 

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he continued. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” 

He added that he thinks the furor over the bill and Tran’s comments “was really blown out of proportion.”[5] [bold, underscore added] 

Given the context of the governor’s statements, the only conclusion one can draw is that “once the infant (and he uses the word ‘infant’) is “delivered”, it would be up to the woman and her physician to decide whether or not to murder the child. One can only imagine how the horrible act would be carried out. In an amazing turn of events, a few days after this story came to light, the governor came under fire for a racist photograph that appeared in his 1984 medical school yearbook. An immediate cacophony of calls for his resignation began and continue as of this writing.[6] As terrible as racism is, it’s troubling that the governor’s endorsement of infanticide did not draw the same indignation.

Late term abortion and infanticide are both grisly to describe, which is one reason why the media glosses over it, covers it up, or ignores it altogether. The gruesome graphic image below depicts just one of the brutal procedures to exterminate a baby's precious life:

Exhibit 2: Illustration of a Partial-Birth Abortion [7]

A pro-choice nurse named Brenda Pratt Shafer watched the partial birth abortion of a 26-and-a-half-week-old baby with Down's Syndrome. Note her horrifying observations:

Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up so that he could see the baby (then 26 1/2 weeks into pregnancy.) On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating. I asked Dr. Haskell and he told me that “Yes, that is the heartbeat.” As Dr. Haskell watched the baby on the ultrasound screen, he went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and brought them into the birth canal. Then he delivered the body and arms, all the way up to the neck. 

At this point, only the baby’s head was still inside. The baby’s body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. All the while his little head was still stuck inside. Then Dr. Haskell took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby’s head. Then he stuck a high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby’s brains out. I almost threw up as I watched him do these things. 

Next, Dr. Haskell delivered the baby’s head, cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he’d used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just “reflexes.” 

The woman wanted to see her baby, so they cleaned up the baby and put it in a blanket and handed it to her. She cried the whole time, and she kept saying, “I’m sorry, please forgive me.” I was crying too. I couldn’t take it. In all my professional years I’d never experienced anything like this.” [8][underscore added] 

Twelve times this pro-choice nurse used the term “baby” to describe the tiny boy who she referred to several times as a “he”. She obviously could see his fully formed body parts, as she recalled “the heartbeat,” “the legs,” “the body,” “the arms,” “the neck,” “his little fingers,” “his feet,” “his little head,” and finally, “his brains.” Dr. Haskell did not murder a dog, or a cat, or a rat, but a beautiful baby boy who had the misfortune (in the killers’ estimation) of being a Down infant. Tragically, his mother knew that she had allowed his precious life to be snuffed out with a pair of scissors and a high-powered suction tube.
Pamela Conway*

As I read this sobering account, I remembered an incident several years ago while I was attending a women’s discernment conference in Lafayette, Indiana. I was beaten down by circumstances at home, weary, and in need of encouragement. The Lord answered my prayer, but in a way I never anticipated. From the moment I arrived at the church, I was warmly embraced by the daughter of another researcher, Susan Conway. Her daughter Pamela Conway was born with Down's Syndrome.

I can’t fully explain it, but it was as though Pamela knew what I lacked that weekend, even though I’d never met her prior to this event. Pamela was a delightful shadow, a bright light, and a special blessing God sent my way.
Exhibit C: A father holding the hand
of his tiny preemie baby in a NICU

As grisly as a partial-birth abortion is, abortions done before 24 weeks involve dilating the cervix and using sharp instruments to dismember the baby while it is still in the uterus. A myth widely disseminated concerning this ghastly procedure, is that the fetus cannot feel pain. A student pathologist, charged with disposing aborted remains, dispels this myth in a post he made on a university comments board:

One incident really freaked me, it was a boy fetus, at least 3+ pounds, around 24+ weeks. It sat decomposing because the rest of the staff was AFRAID of it… I went to work. Pulled out 2 well formed [sic] arms and then the torso, headless. The head was at the bottom of the container, when I pulled it, he had this expression of such utter horror it flipped me wayyyy out… It was like a headless screaming baby, like it had been born at least for a split second to realize it was screwed and let out one agonal yelp. The story of this reverberated around the department…. [9][bold added] 

At least this student pathologist was disturbed by what he observed. Another budding doctor made these chilling comments dealing with the disposal of human baby parts on the same message board:

In any case, no, abortions don’t freak me out whatsoever… no amount of googly eyeballs or tiny jaws dislocated “mid-scream” does anything to humanize the little sacks of neverweres for me. There are quite a few things that I find disturbing, but few of them spill directly out of the womb. [10][bold, underscore added] 

These “little sacks of neverweres” are precious in the sight of God. God's Word warns about those who so callously disparage human life:

“Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood:
their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity;
wasting and destruction are in their paths.”

(Isaiah 59:7)

Exhibit 3: A 20-week-old baby in the womb [11]

These recent examples of lawmakers rushing headlong to legalize outright infanticide did not occur overnight. Since Roe v. Wade, progressive activists have been propagating their sinister doctrines of death in American colleges and universities across the country. A case in point is the philosopher and animal rights pioneer Peter Singer.[17] He is a bioethicist at Princeton University at the Center for Human Values. Note his alarming sentiments (that once appeared on his faculty page) on killing infants with disabilities: 

...“Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents. 

“Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies,” Mr. Singer continued. 

“My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life support — which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection — but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.[13] [bold, underscore added] 

Singer is not advocating for pre-birth abortion—but outright infanticide—the willful murder of a viable human baby! Not only does this university professor on ethics dehumanize these unwanted infants, but states that killing them is only “terrible” because it harms the parents, not the baby who must endure unspeakable violence before death.

Singer’s twisted morals are startling considering that his parents were Austrian Jews who escaped Vienna in 1938 following its annexation by Nazi Germany. His paternal grandparents were seized by the Nazis, never to be seen alive again, and his maternal grandfather later perished in in the Theresienstadt concentration camp.[14] They weren’t disabled babies, but a group of people deemed “non-persons” by Hitler and his evil regime.

In menacing irony, as a bioethicist Singer has been loudly advocating for the killing of innocent, yet undesirable human beings for decades—from fetal abortion to adult euthanasia. Singer spells out his pragmatically evil and immoral philosophy in his 1980 book, Practical Ethics. Below is an excerpt from Chapter 7, Taking Life: Humans:

[T]he fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. This conclusion is not limited to infants who, because of irreversible intellectual disabilities, will never be rational, self-conscious beings…. No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.[15] [bold, underscore added] 

In other words, according to Singer, human beings deemed to lack “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness” are ‘abnormal’ humans subject to elimination by subjective arbiters overseeing their demise. In this view, unborn infants, handicapped children, adults with dementia—and everyone in between who has been afflicted with a debilitating malady are subject to wholesale slaughter as an “ethical” prescription for the betterment of society.
Exhibit 4[18]

As I continued to read through this passage, I was alarmed and greatly disturbed to stumble upon a lengthy section dealing directly with killing disabled children under the guise of human compassion. One birth defect caught my attention; spina bifida:

One relatively common birth disability is a faulty development of the spine known as spina bifida. Its prevalence, varies in different countries, but it can affect as many as one in five hundred live births. In the more severe cases, the child will be permanently paralysed from the waistdown and lack control of bowels or bladder. Often excess fluid accumulates in the brain, a condition known as hydrocephalus, which can result in intellectual disabilities. Though some forms of treatment exist, if the child is badly affected at birth, the paralysis, incontinence, and intellectual disability cannot be overcome. 

Some doctors closely connected with children suffering from severe spina bifida believe that the lives of the worst affected children are so miserable that it is wrong to resort to surgery to keep them alive. Published descriptions of the lives of these children support the judgment that these worst affected children will have lives filled with pain and discomfort. They need repeated major surgery to prevent curvature of the spine, due to the paralysis, and to correct other abnormalities. Some children with spina bifida have had forty major operations before they reach their teenage years. 

When the life of an infant will be so miserable as not to be worth living, from the internal perspective of the being who will lead that life, both the 'prior existence' and the 'total' version of utilitarianism entail that, if there are no 'extrinsic' reasons for keeping the infant alive - like the feelings of the parents - it is better that the child should be helped to die without further suffering.[17] [bold, underscore added.] 

“Then said He unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” 
(Luke 17:1-2)

Exhibit 5: My brother Marvy and me with our father in 1963


My oldest brother was born in 1961 with spina bifida—a birth defect that (according to Singer) marked him and others afflicted with it for extermination. I was born 11 months later. My parents nurtured and loved him through his earliest days, when others would have left him to die. He wasn’t expected to live, but he did. He spent his early months in a traction device, following years of painful surgery, heavy leg braces, and life confined to a wheelchair, but he could walk on his hands for short periods of time when he was small. He attended a crippled children’s hospital school, where he received medical care and schooling. He excelled at wheelchair basketball and was even featured in the local newspaper. His pictures still adorn the wall of this school. He was my best friend during much of those early years.

I was ten years old before someone outside of our family enlightened me to the reality that Marvin was “disabled”. I didn’t see the differences between walking or not walking, because we both adapted to the daily obstacles together as time went by. Our dad often made modifications to things in our home to make life easier for Marvy (as I called him), like fashioning a tummy seat on a tricycle so that we could go riding together.

Marvy died in 2014 at the age of 53.

 “… He who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
Who gives breath to the people on it
and life to those who walk in it.”

(Isaiah 42:5)
Exhibit 6: Marvy in the 1970s

A growing number of other bioethicists from around the world agree with Singer. Some are even open to eliminating age restrictions for countries that have already legalized euthanasia, like in the Netherlands, where children from ages one to twelve can be legally killed. One writer, sounding the alarm, links other forms of ‘compassionate killing’ like the acceptance of assisted suicide to child euthanasia:

The U.S. assisted-suicide movement pretends to want a limited legalization of assisted suicide to competent adults with a terminal illness. That’s not true. It’s just the expedient to persuade us to accept the premise that suicide or killing is an acceptable solution to human suffering. 

If we ever do that — the jury is still out — then, the killing license thereby granted will not only expand far beyond the terminally ill, but will eventually also include children and the incompetent….

It’s a very big deal that a respected Dutch medical journal such as Pediatrics hosted a debate on the ethical propriety of child euthanasia without international criticism. It means that among the medical intelligentsia, child euthanasia has become a respectable proposition. [19][bold, underscore added] 

Just like the muffled or non-existent protests regarding the recent late-term abortion laws in America, barely a yelp is heard when medical professionals discuss infanticide (child euthanasia) as an ethical practice. Contemplating the potential adoption of a universal Medicare plan for all Americans, as has been promoted by several 2020 U.S. presidential candidates, brings even greater ominous implications for the death industry. We are no longer on the top of the proverbial ‘slippery slope,’ but are soaring headlong down the mountainside anticipating a crash at the bottom of biblical proportions.
Exhibit D: A mother tenderly holding her preemie's little feet

“I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”
~ Peter Singer[20]

In Singer’s many published writings and lectures, he lays the semantic, pragmatic, and philosophical groundwork for the pervasive human death industry by issuing a full-frontal assault against the sanctity of human life—a sacred precept given by God, not man. Provocatively, Singer admits to the evil progression that begins with abortion and ends in euthanasia but attempts to neutralize his critics’ objections to such “unequivocal evil” as these various methods of murder dictate. Unbelievably, Singer tries to assuage his reader’s fears and ease their horror over the extermination of innocent human beings—by death judges given “state power”. Anticipating pushback to his dialectic death dance, Singer defends his wicked gospel, attempting to dispel any analogy of it to the Nazi extermination program that his own parents escaped decades ago, by simply stating that such a comparison is “utterly misleading”:

[W]e have already looked beyond abortion to infanticide. In so doing we will have confirmed the suspicion of supporters of the sanctity of human life that once abortion is accepted, euthanasia lurks around the next comer - and for them, euthanasia is an unequivocal evil. It has, they point out, been rejected by doctors since the fifth century B.C., when physicians first took the Oath of Hippocrates and swore 'to give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel'. Moreover, they argue, the Nazi extermination programme is a recent and terrible example of what can happen once we give the state the power to MI innocent human beings. 

I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show… this is not something to be regarded with horror, and the use of the Nazi analogy is utterly misleading. [21][bold, underscore added] 

But the Nazi analogy is indeed fitting for what Singer and others like him sponsor. While not seeking the wholesale extermination of Jews, these death advocates, like the Nazis before them, demand the murder of any human being, regardless of age, who is unwanted, unfit, or judged undesirable—those they determine to be ‘non-persons’. Those on the elimination list include the unborn, the infirm, children with Down's Syndrome, the blind, the deaf, those physically handicapped, dementia patients (my mother had Alzheimer’s until her death in 2014), autistic children, and the mentally ill. These are the ones our Lord Jesus Christ healed during His earthly ministry (Matt. 4:23). But unlike the Nazis, modern death proponents not only want to normalize such dark deeds but legalize them and carry them out in public—as compassionate, caring, and humane service providers.

 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them...
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient [not proper]; Being filled with all unrighteousness… inventors of evil things… without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

(Rom. 1:18-32)
Exhibit 7: Josef Mengele in 1944 [22]

One of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, who evaded capture for over three decades until his death, was the evil Dr. Josef Mengele—known as the “Angel of Death”. Schooled in eugenics, Mengele selected Auschwitz Jews for medical experimentation or the gas chamber. He conducted gruesome experiments on his subjects, mostly children; especially twins. Most of those who initially survived his barbaric treatment, which included tissue and body parts harvesting, did not live very long. Some were killed outright for the purpose of performing a post-mortem. Perhaps to remember his many murdered victims, Mengele kept a personal collection of human eye balls.[23] 

Mengele escaped human justice, making his way into Argentina in 1949 using a Red Cross passport. Records recovered after his death show that he made his living as an abortionist during the 1950s in South America, which was unlawful at the time.[24] He escaped apprehension again after a woman died following one of these abortions. He was apparently able to pay for his freedom by paying off the local authorities in Buenos Aires. He reportedly suffered a stroke and died while swimming in Brazil in 1979. He had been living under an assumed name.[25]


“… Suffer the little children to come unto Me,
and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”

(Mark 10:14)
Exhibit 8: My sons in 1993

Little did I know during my childhood, uniquely paired with my brother Marvy and both of us fathered by a compassionate man who silently suffered from mental illness, that the Lord had been preparing me to mother, not one, but two sons with special needs. Their impairments are not immediately obvious, but nonetheless have proven to be lifelong disabilities. My oldest son Jimmy is on the high end of the autism spectrum, and my youngest, Dana, has battled several neurobiological disorders since he was 7 years old, including Tourette’s Syndrome and epilepsy. He was also born prematurely.

It was this detail that struck me when I watched the movie about convicted baby killer/abortionist Kermit Gosnell. I wrote a review of it entitled, “Innocent’s Lost.” Below is an excerpt from that article centering around an unnamed child who was killed in Gosnell’s murder factory. Prosecutors called him “Baby Boy A,” a 30-week old infant who was kicking and breathing when his spine was savagely snipped to end his short life:

This precious child was abused, murdered, and discarded—but not forgotten. I sat in silence for several minutes as I looked at his image recalling that my youngest son, born premature, was much smaller and frailer than this child had been. It is inconceivable that any human being, much less a doctor, could shamelessly “snip” his precious life away so callously, so coldly, so completely. Instead of a grave to mark his passing, the only evidence to show that Baby Boy A even existed was that crude photograph taken by a clinic employee—that had become a court exhibit. He was unceremoniously laid to rest in a plastic shoebox. Babies B, C, and beyond, undoubtedly left this world in a red medical waste disposable bag.[26]

As I would discover, some of these murdered babies also end up in the landfill, flushed into the sewer system, stored in the freezer, burned in bonfires[27] —and sold to the FDA.[28] This last item might explain why there is a growing market for larger, more intact infant corpses, requiring a late-or-post-term abortion. Planned Parenthood recently came under fire when the Center for Medical Progress released a series of undercover videos showing that the taxpayer-funded abortion provider was also engaged in organ harvesting and the selling of human baby parts.

When I became pregnant with my first child in 1985, (the same year that my father died), my obstetrician recommended that I undergo genetic testing so that I could schedule an abortion if tests showed spina bifida, or any other abnormality. I refused, knowing that the tiny life within me was a gift from the Lord.

Without doubt, the struggles have been enormous parenting such children, but through them, I’ve grown closer to the Lord, developed His patience, understood His direction for my life, and have been given His grace to demonstrate unconditional love for them—all with the Lord’s enabling. I also have a godly husband who not only stayed, but supported and loved us through it all. Both sons are adults now and continue to struggle through their respective deficits. I could fill volumes describing the difficult obstacles we’ve endured spanning three decades, but that is for another time. My sons, like Marvy, have adapted to the ubiquitous challenges they still face. But the world is a better place because of them; the world needs people like them. I am greatly blessed to be their mom. 
Exhibit 9[32]

Last year, I was appalled to learn that Hans Asperger, “the pioneer of autism and Asperger syndrome,” a man who has been lauded for his benevolent accomplishments to support disabled children, “was not only involved in the racial policies of Hitler’s Third Reich, he was complicit in the murder of children.”[30]

Historian Edith Sheffer published Asperger’s Children: The Origins of Autism in Nazi Vienna in 2018. Here is the synopsis from inside the book’s jacket:

As the Nazi regime slaughtered millions across Europe during World War Two, it sorted people according to race, religion, behavior, and physical condition for either treatment or elimination. Nazi psychiatrists targeted children with different kinds of minds—especially those thought to lack social skills—claiming the Reich had no place for them. Asperger and his colleagues endeavored to mold certain “autistic” children into productive citizens, while transferring others they deemed untreatable to Spiegelgrund, one of the Reich’s deadliest child-killing centers.[31]

Sheffer shares the horrific details of the children selected for extermination at Spiegelgrund with the approval of Hans Asperger. Five-year old Elisabeth Schreiber was one such child. The young girl couldn’t speak and was physically restless following a short illness, a treatable condition that was to become her death sentence. I wept as I read the following narrative:

Elisabeth arrived by group transport at Spiegelgrund on March 23, 1942. She looked calm in her photograph, with close-cropped hair and bangs matted in a crooked line on her forehead. At Spiegelgrund, Elisabeth was eager for connection. One nurse wrote in a daily report that the girl could only speak a single word, “mama,” but tried to communicate with other vocalizations and sign language. Elisabeth had “a friendly nature, very affectionate and flattering with caregivers.” 

She was “very sensitive and moved easily to tears and if treated strictly, cries and hugs the nurse.” Yet the girl was embracing her killers. Her caregivers gave hugs, it seems, alongside lethal doses of barbiturates. [Dr Heinrich] Gross had reported Elisabeth to the Reich Committee in Berlin for killing, diagnosing her with “congenital feeble-mindedness of the highest order.” Elisabeth was subjected to multiple lumbar punctures, likely a subject of Spiegelgrund’s medical experiments. She then died quickly. Her physical restlessness abated and, on September 13, her chart stated she “slept the entire day, waking only for meals.” 

She was diagnosed with pneumonia on September 19 and died the next day. Her brain was harvested, jarred, and kept in Dr. Gross’ collection of four hundred children’s brains in Spiegelgrund’s cellar.[33]

Seventy-seven years after this precious child was murdered by her heartless killers disguised as compassionate caregivers and physicians—the United States of America—the country that liberated Hitler’s death camps!—has elected two state governors who are now openly endorsing partial-birth, up-to-birth, and post-birth abortion (infanticide)! Many state and federal legislators, following New York’s lead, also support these murderous and barbaric acts—promising to make them legal across the land.

A few nights ago, my youngest son, after reading that second trimester abortions involve ripping the infant limb-from-limb, wept, then hung his head and made a perceptive comment: “If these people had their way, they’d execute me too.”

Edith Sheffer asks some hard and sobering questions that are profoundly relevant in light of the dark and deadly trajectory America is headed at a frightening pace:

Where, if anywhere, can one draw lines of complicity for ordinary people in a criminal state? In marginal and major ways, conscious and unconscious, people became entangled in systems of slaughter. Asperger was neither a zealous supporter nor an opponent of the regime. He was an exemplar of this drift into complicity, part of the muddled majority of the populace who alternately conformed, concurred, feared, normalized, minimized, repressed, and reconciled themselves to Nazi rule. Given these inconsistencies, it is all the more striking that the accumulated actions of millions of people, acting for individual reasons in individual circumstances, added up to a regime so thoroughly monstrous.[34]

Will America continue to “drift into complicity”—become "entangled in systems of slaughter?” Will the “accumulated actions of millions of people” in this nation add “up to a regime so thoroughly monstrous” as the Third Reich? These are chilling questions for which I have no definitive answer.

My brother Marvy as a baby in 1963


“To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light,
and from the power of Satan unto God,
that they may receive forgiveness of sins,
and inheritance among them
which are sanctified by faith that is in Me [the Lord Jesus Christ].”

(Acts 26:18)

No amount of persuasion, political action, or regulation will ever change the heart of person bereft of a conscience, lacking godly compassion for innocent life, or having a lust for human blood. Only the Holy Spirit can transform a lost soul through the saving Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ (see: Jn. 3:16; 6:40; 1 Cor. 15:1-8; Acts 2:38-39; 16:31; Rom. 10:9; Col. 1:20-22). We are to be about our Father’s business in these last days, witnessing, rescuing, praying, and speaking out against these horrific things—while we still have opportunity. May the Lord have mercy on us all.

Jonathon Van Maren, a writer for the Canadian Center of Bioethical Reform, was aghast at what he read on a student pathology message board regarding aborted baby remains. He sums up the predicament of the hour:

These people [pathologists who dispose of aborted remains] work in the dark underbelly of our society, where the corpses of the inconvenient arrive to be disposed of. They see the rotting bodies brought about by the narcissism of our culture’s rotting soul. No sacrifice is too great for the right to live how we want, even if it means others cannot live at all. A culture basing its collective lifestyle on killing is unsustainable. We may not be able to revive the skeletons in our closet. But we can at least open the closet.[35]

"Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents;
I have not found it by secret search but upon all these."

(Jeremiah 2:34)

"...[They] have filled this place with the blood of innocents;"
(Jeremiah 19:4)

"There shall not be found among you any one
that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire...."

(Deuteronomy 18:10a)

Exhibit E

1. Jules Gomes, "The silence of the shepherds on the abortion of the lambs," Anglican Ink, February 1, 2019, This is a must-read article.
2. For Farlex Medical Dictionary: neonaticide. (n.d.) Medical Dictionary. (2009). Retrieved February 5 2019 from 
3. Sarah H. Leslie, “The Revival of Molech: and the Return of Bloody Barbarism”, Jan. 26, 2019;
4. Valerie Richardson, “Virginia Republicans defeat Democratic bill allowing abortions up to birth,” The Washington Times, Wednesday, January 30, 2019;
5. Alexandra DeSanctis, “Virginia Governor Defends Letting Infants Die,” National Review, January 30, 2019;
6. Alan Suderman, “Blackface photo stirs calls for Virginia governor to resign,” AP News, February 3, 2019;
7. Sarah Terzo, “Nurse witnesses partial-birth abortion on baby with Down syndrome: ‘I still have nightmares’,” Live Action website, April 7, 2014;
8. Ibid. Sarah Terzo. 
9. Jonathon Van Maren, “What Happens to Unborn Babies After Abortion? Pathologists Share the Horrors”,; See: See also the Student Doctor Network website:
10. Ibid. Van Maren. 
11.  Image taken from the WebMD website:
12. See Singer’s website: 
13. Jessica Chasmar, “Peter Singer, Princeton bioethics professor, faces calls for resignation over infanticide support”, The Washington Times, June 16, 2015. 
14. See Wikipedia: Singer is an avowed atheist who advocates Marxist philosophies. He is also an ardant animal rights advocate. See Singer’s current faculty page at Princeton:
15. Peter Singer, Taking Life: Humans, excerpted from Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217; see:
16. Book image taken from Wikipedia:
17. Ibid. Singer, Taking Life: Humans. 
18. “Child Euthanasia: U.S. Bioethicist Supports It,” Wesley J. Smith, Evolution News & Science Today, March 6, 2018; see: 
19. Ibid. Wesley J. Smith 
20. Ibid. Chasmar. 
21. Ibid. Singer, Taking Life: Humans
22. Photo taken from Wikipedia; see:
23. See the Holocaust Museum website:
24. Nathaniel C. Nash, “Mengele an Abortionist, Argentine Files Suggest,” Feb. 11, 1992, The New York Times; see:
25. Ibid. Nash. 
26. Gaylene Goodroad, “Innocents Lost: Reflections on the Case of Kermit Gosnell,” Herescope, Oct. 28, 2018;
27. Cassy Fiano-Chesser, ““What does Planned Parenthood do with the bodies of babies they abort?”, the Live Action website, March 8, 2017;
28. Patrina Mosley, “The Remains of Aborted Babies are Now a Commodity to the FDA, the Family Research Council website, Aug. 9, 2018;
29. The Pro-Life Action website, “Planned Parenthood Harvest Baby Parts”;
30. Edith Sheffer, Asperger’s Children: The Origins of Autism in Nazi Vienna, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, 2018, inside book jacket. 
31. Ibid. Asperger’s Children, inside book jacket. 
32. Book image taken from{creative}&hvpos={adposition}&hvnetw=o&hvrand={random}&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl={devicemodel}&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4584138858005849&psc=1
33. Ibid. Asperger’s Children, pp. 146-147. 
34. Ibid. Asperger’s Children, pg. 21. 
35. Ibid. Van Maren. 

Exhibit A:  Graphic taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "What We know about Zika and Pregnancy,"

Exhibit B: Alex Pappas, "Outrage as video shows Virginia abortion bill sponsor saying ;lan would allow termination up until birth, Fox News, January 30, 2019. This is a screenshot from a video embedded at the top of this article which depicts VA Rep. Kathy Tran being asked the key question by VA Rep. Todd Gilbert.

Exhibit C: Graphic image illustrating a father's love for a tiny premature baby: 

Exhibit D: ibid.

Exhibit E: Graphic image illustrating love for a tiny baby, "What Every New Parent Needs to Know about Caring for a Premature Baby,"

*Pamela is the daughter of Susan Conway of the Discernment Research group. The monograph The Pied Pipers of Purpose: Human Capital Systems and Church Performance (2004) by Lynn D. Leslie, Sarah H. Leslie and Susan J. Conway was dedicated to Pamela Conway (Down's Syndrome), Ace Williams (Autism) and Andrew Miller (Down's Syndrome): This monograph may explain why the church's ability to stand against this tide of horror has been utterly compromised by accepting a utilitarian worldview about the dignity and value of human life.