While the majority of us are experiencing a slow-down in every area of our lives, Satan is working overtime to advance his agenda while we are distracted with Covid-19. And I want to show you how he is using this virus to interject himself into the pharmaceutical and abortion industries, and how it all intersects.
I was greatly surprised to find that the celebrated medical journal, Lancet, featured a paper declaring that a “sexual and reproductive health and justice policy agenda must be at the heart of the COVID-19 response.” In an article on the website LifeSite, the paper is also quoted as stating, "Global responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are converging with pervasive, existing sexual and reproductive health and justice inequities to disproportionately impact the health, well-being, and economic stability of women, girls, and vulnerable populations".
My spirit became stirred up at the language in just these two sentences ... "health and justice policy agenda" and "pervasive, existing sexual and reproductive health and justice inequities" and "vulnerable populations". They don't exactly sound like they fit with my Biblical worldview. In fact the word pervasive refers to an unwelcome influence or physical effect -- you can interpret that to mean a live birth -- and justice inequities points to any governmental policy that bans abortion. But I didn't want to judge based on any false preconceptions I might have, so I decided to look into the medical and educational backgrounds of some of the nine women credited with the paper.
The first was Kelli Stidham Hall, an Associate Professor in the Departments of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Epidemiology, and Obstetrics and Gynecology at Emory University. Her long bio expresses her interests in the social, behavioral, reproductive, and physical health models of young women, which falls under a term I was not familiar with, "medical demography". But buried deep within her extensive and impressive credentials, the first clue to the purpose of this paper became clear -- She currently serves on the Executive Committee of the National Medical Committee of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
OK, let's move on to the next contributor to the paper, Goleen Samari. Here, we find a few more clues. Ms. Samari is also a public health demographer, whose research focuses on social inequities and health. Her bio says she largely focuses on "sexual and reproductive health and rights" and "her work also aims to bridge the gap between research and policy." Are you starting to pick up on the code words for abortion ... social inequities and health; reproductive health and rights; research and policy?
Now, I want to make sure I'm not being unfair to these brilliant young women and researchers, so I looked at the next two contributors, Samantha Garbers and Sara Casey. Ms. Garbers's bio says she works with the "Latina and Black communities, and individuals with limited health literacy" and she "directed the development and testing of a low-literacy, computer-based contraceptive decision-making tool". She also is credited with "evaluating innovative interventions to improve public health for diverse populations including sexual and gender minority youth and adults, adolescent males and women seeking reproductive health care". Now, all that is impressive but rather vague and the repeated use of the word "intervention" in the remainder of her bio again made my spirit sit up and take notice. So I asked the question, "What does the word intervention mean in the medical field"? The answer: "The act of intervening, interfering or interceding with the intent of modifying the outcome. In medicine, an intervention is usually undertaken to help treat or cure a condition." And just what do you think is the condition she might want to "cure and modify"? Pregnancy!
That leaves Ms. Casey. She doesn't even hide her agenda. Her bio reads, "Sara Casey, DrPH, is Assistant Professor and Director of the Reproductive Health Access, Information and Services in Emergencies (RAISE) Initiative. In this role, she collaborates with program partners to identify and respond to challenges to improve contraceptive and abortion-related services in countries whose health systems have been weakened by war or natural disaster." I think it's safe to say that the remaining five women are going to share the same agenda.
At the heart of this paper is a policy agenda that condemns the Trump administration’s ban on foreign aid to abortion groups, and also calls for expanding “telemedicine” abortions (dispensing abortion pills after communicating with a doctor via webcam), and eliminating “legal and policy restrictions to sexual and reproductive health service provision.” In other words, this paper, and therefore this medical journal, have gone beyond the scope of medicine and are promoting a social policy agenda [under the guise of reproductive health] for young people, disadvantaged youth, minorities, and war-torn countries and advocating abortion as a policy objective.
And in May, 2019, the Lancet chose to abandon its veneer of scientific objectivity in favor of endorsing legal abortion in strikingly partisan terms, declaring abortion a “settled, inviolable right that is central to achieving not only reproductive health goals but women's freedom over their own bodies”; and degrading pro-life legislation as “regressive, religious, and repressive law-making” that’s somehow inconsistent with being “advocates for women.” Their intentions, along with the research of these young women, are clear. But to take advantage of this Covid-19 pandemic to push this unBiblical social agenda is appalling to me. In essence, they lament that medical treatment for Covid-19 patients is limiting access to abortion, and they demand that the termination of a fetus should have as much priority as saving the live of a victim of the virus. How do they sleep at night?
As if this pandemic is not being co-opted enough, another article on LifeSite, reported that "Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director of Children of God for Life, a prolife organization whose mission is to end the use of aborted fetal material in vaccines and medicines" discovered that Moderna, the company that has been recently touted in news headlines for its development of the mRNA-1273 vaccine to fight the virus, uses aborted fetal cell lines.
In short, Moderna is promoting its development of the Spike (S) protein in its bid for a patent and to be among the first to develop an anti-Covid vaccine. Of course, there's big money to be made there, right? Wikipedia reports that in April 2020, the Moderna share price rose on news of imminent phase 2 human trials for its potential COVID-19 vaccine. That means that French businessman and CEO of Moderna, Stéphane Bancel's, stake of about 9% makes his net worth now over $1 billion. And all that money will be made at the expense of aborted babies.
Obviously referencing the Lancet paper, Ms. Vinnedge countered the accusation that the ban on the use of aborted fetal tissue was blocking important research and treatments for Covid-19 virus. “That accusation is laughable at best and nothing more than a political maneuver,” stated Vinnedge. “In fact, we have morally produced treatments for patients who are already infected, notably Hydroxychloroquine or Plaquenil. And there are more promising treatments on the way to prevent infection entirely... It is deplorable that anyone would want to exploit the remains of aborted babies for financial profit especially when so many people will refuse to use those products because of their deeply held religious, moral and pro-life convictions” she added. “We applaud the efforts of companies [such as Sanofi Pasteur] who are providing morally acceptable options!”
So, there you have it! Satan never wastes a good opportunity! And neither do those who can't see the heart of God for His creation. I know there will be those who shout for women's rights over their own bodies, but those fetuses are part of their bodies, created by God. And how do they rationalize that the created have any right to question or destroy what the Creator has made? It continues to sadden me that so many are confused over this issue of the rights of the unborn. And many are women who have children of their own that I know they love dearly. Can they not see that the social policy of abortion denies that their precious child was once the fetal cells that they now declare as disposable and expendable? Would they be willing to give up one of their children for the development of a vaccine? Because, in essence, that is what they are approving of by supporting this agenda.
Lord, the prophets are declaring that we will come out of this with a revival; a refreshed and renewed spirit will sweep the world. I pray that the Ecclesia rises up and governs from the perspective of Heaven's Kingdom and defeats this abhorrent practice once and for all. Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done!
Luke 17:2 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment