Eugenics and the genetic testing of embryos and fetuses

In a recent article in the Australian media Julian Savulescu, a noted Oxford ethicist who is a visiting professor at Monash University in Melbourne, makes the contention that selecting which babies are born by doing genetic testing on embryos or fetuses and only allowing those that are desired to live to birth in the way that it is allowed in Australia shares the moral problems of past eugenics programs that we have rejected. His point is that the current practice in Australia allows selection of embryos by preimplantation genetic diagnosis and fetal testing with selective abortion only for diseases and not for sex selection or other non-disease characteristics. By allowing selection based only on diseases the society is saying that “lives with disability are less deserving of respect, or have lower moral status.” That is why we rejected the eugenics programs of the past.

Savulescu points out that “If either the embryo or the fetus has a moral status – then it would be wrong to kill either, whether or not a disability is present. If the embryo or fetus does not have a moral status, it should be permissible to destroy an embryo or abort a fetus for any reason. In this way, paradoxically, allowing testing for diseases, but not for other genes, is eugenic in objectionable ways.”

It would be easy to go from there to saying that genetic testing of embryos and fetuses for the purpose of selecting who will be allowed to be born should not be done based on the principle of the value of all human lives underlies our rejection of eugenics, but he does not go that direction. Instead he moves toward the permissibility of all embryonic and fetal testing by saying that lifting the restrictions on personal liberty imposed by limiting genetic testing of embryos and fetuses to testing for disease would resolve the moral objection that the current policy involves morally impermissible eugenics. He gets there by saying that since most people already accept the testing of embryos and fetuses for diseases, we should not say that all such selective testing is wrong based on the moral status of embryos and fetuses and the way to validate people’s acceptance of testing for diseases is to allow testing for non-disease characteristics.

Savulescu’s means of getting to his conclusion is an interesting and commonly used one to justify things that have previously been understood to be wrong. Rather than giving arguments for why we should believe that a human embryo or fetus does or does not have full moral status, he says we have already accepted a limited practice that would otherwise have been considered immoral, so we should accept a broader version of the same sort of practice. This is the process by which immoral behavior takes over a society, and also the process by which an individual falls into immorality. First justify a very limited violation of morality, and then once that is accepted use that to justify further immorality.
That is why we need to stand firm on basic moral values such as the dignity and value of every human life. Defending the moral status of the weakest and most defenseless human beings is essential to avoid the acceptance of things like aborting fetuses because they are female that currently seem obviously wrong, but may become accepted by a gradual breakdown of moral values.

Moral status vs. moral agency

A recent post about the personhood of human embryos made me think about the distinction between moral status and moral agency. Moral status relates to how we should treat an individual who has it or does not have it. Moral agency has to do with whether the individual is capable of making decisions or doing actions for which the individual is morally responsible. Both are characteristics that an individual being or type of being may or may not have. Most would say that any being that is a moral agent should be considered to have full moral status. That means that any being who is able to be held morally responsible for its choices and actions should be treated as having the same moral value as myself. However, there may be some individuals who have full moral status, but are not moral agents. That would mean that such an individual is a person who should be treated by me as having the same moral worth that I have even though that person is not morally responsible for his or her own actions. Some examples of those who we commonly understand to have full moral status, but who are not moral agents, include young children, those who have a mental disability that makes them unable to understand the difference between right and wrong, and those who have dementia or even temporary incapacity to make moral decisions.

When we as Christians take the position that a human embryo has full moral status because that embryo is a member of the human family who has been made in the image of God, we take that position understanding that an embryo is not a moral agent. I think that one of the reasons for the problems with capacity definitions of moral status like the one used by May Ann Warren is that it confuses moral status and moral agency. Being a moral agent is totally dependent on the capabilities of the individual. It depends on having the ability to understand the concept of right and wrong, the reasoning capacity to determine what actions are right, and the ability to control his or her actions. If one assumes that moral status is similar to moral agency then it makes sense for there to be similar capacities that determine who has moral status. But moral status is a totally different type of thing. It has to do with the nature of a being not its capabilities. How we treat something morally has to do with what kind or category of being that the individual is and that is not dependent on its capabilities. That is why we treat children and the disabled as full human beings even though they are not moral agents. That is why we should treat human embryos the same way.

Eugenics in Our Day

Researchers have now developed a technique for doing genetic testing of a fetus by using cells circulating in maternal blood, avoiding the more invasive and dangerous technique of amniocentesis.   These new technical capabilities hail the dawn of a new age of eugenics, or the pursuit of “good (eu) genes.”  With these new technical achievements, physicians can gain knowledge of the child’s genetic makeup as early as 7 weeks after conception.  This can mean a new opportunity for interventions earlier in the pregnancy for the sake of the health of the child or it may provide doctors with more information to inform a decision to abort the child.

Arthur Caplan helped develop guidelines for organ transplants in the 1980s and has for some time pressed for similar oversight of the “wild west” of reproductive medicine, largely because of its eugenics implications.  He is very aware that genetic testing could be used for selecting athletic ability, eye color, or gender.  Sex selection using abortion is already something practiced in countries like India and China, and genetic testing using maternal blood would only make it easier.  However, Caplan is firmly pro-choice, saying that there are good and bad reasons for an abortion.  As Caplan puts it,“Sexism is not a good reason for ending a pregnancy.”

What is missing in this discussion is our response to those with diseases and abnormalities.  To many, a chromosomal defect like Down Syndrome or a physical abnormality like malformed limbs is a good reason for ending a pregnancy.   Too often our attitude to those with abnormalities and diseases is to consider them as unfortunate mistakes rather than opportunities to live in fellowship with another human being.  We think getting rid of the mistake solves the problem, especially when it involves fetal tissue out of our line of sight.  If our drive for perfection bumps into human autonomy, we back off.  If it does not, we proceed in getting rid of the patient if we can’t get rid of the disease.  This is a serious misunderstanding of the ethos of medicine.  An improvement in our ethical strategies will not come from a new set of protocols to use in the clinic.  It will only come about if physicians adopt a new value system concerning the purpose of medicine and develop their character accordingly.

Henri Nouwen, well-known for living in the L’Arche community for adults with disabilities, articulated  a vision of such an ethic when he said, “When we honestly ask ourselves which person in our lives means the most to us, we often find that it is those who, instead of giving advice, solutions, or cures, have chosen rather to share our pain and touch our wounds with a warm and tender hand.”

Click here for a video of Art Caplan discussing gender selection.

Finding the right ethical boundaries

In last week’s blog I mentioned that once an ethical barrier is broken we tend to pursue the breach as far as we can. I was trying to say that our nature as fallen human beings requires ethical boundaries to keep us from doing things we should not. Another example of that comes from Israel where a person is undergoing sex reassignment surgery to be changed from being female to being male. This person has requested the preservation of ovarian tissue for future reproductive use. Since this was denied by the Israeli Ministry of Health it has been appealed to the Israeli Supreme Court.

Ravitsky and Heyd argue in a commentary in Bionews that the reproductive rights of transgender individuals and their reproductive autonomy through the use of available fertility preservation techniques should be acknowledged. They base their argument on this case not being significantly different from things that have already been ethically accepted. They note that the Israeli Ministry of Health already considers sex reassignment surgery to be a legitimate medical procedure and that they allow IVF with donor gametes and surrogate mothers. They argue that having the social father of a child be the genetic mother of the child would not be ethically different than those situations that have already been accepted. They do express concern that there could be some psychological impact on the child, but suggest that having your social father be your genetic mother is no more confusing than having two male or two female parents. The door has been opened, so why not go through as far as possible?

It is interesting to think about what ethical boundaries have been broken to get to this place. One has to do with the acceptance of gender reassignment. If we see ourselves as people who have been created by God who has known us before we were born and loves us just as we are, it is hard to justify surgically altering our sexual identity. If the sexual reassignment is not permissible then the rest of this does not come up. Another has to do with our concept of procreation. If we see children as a gift from God, intended to be given to a husband and wife as a result of the physical expression of their love, rather than the result of a person’s presumed reproductive rights, then the use of third party gametes and surrogate mothers are outside of the permissible ways if creating children and the rest is not an issue as well. If we clearly draw the ethical lines on more basic issues then it is not hard to see that it is wrong to create a child whose father is also the child’s mother.

Where end-of-life and beginning-of-life considerations collide

This month’s issue of Sexuality, Reproduction & Menopause, the journal of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), carries an article  entitled “’Last-chance kids’: A good deal for older parents – but what about the children?” The article discusses the growing number of older, post-menopausal women giving birth through assisted reproductive technology (ART), and gives a thoughtful analysis of the ethical points surrounding the use of assisted reproduction in women past childbearing age.

As my clinical ethics professor always said, good ethics begins with good facts. The authors of the article provide good, pertinent facts: data not just on life expectancy at various ages, but – just as important when considering the energy needed for parenting – actuarial data on how many of those years are likely to be spent in good or excellent health. (Should we use ART to give a child to a woman who statistically has very little chance of staying healthy enough to raise the child through high school?)

The article continues by asking, “Is reproduction a right?” Remarkably, instead of invoking the free-for-all autonomy that plagues attempts at ethical analysis of reproductive rights, the authors quote an ASRM Ethics Committee’s report that “Reproductive rights protected under the United States and state constitutions are rights against state interference, not rights to have physicians or the state provide requested services … It is also important to recognize that constitutional rights to reproduce are, like all rights, not absolute and they can be restricted or limited for good cause.” Refreshing, to say the least.

The authors continue with a surprisingly candid evaluation of the consequences for the children of these older parents. They conclude with strong cautions about the use of of ART in the elderly which, while falling short of prohibiting the practice, nonetheless give the overzealous practitioner of such techniques reason to pause and consider.

I can understand why a woman might desire to have a child in her older years. However, the inability to conceive a child in one’s 6th or 7th decade of life can hardly be regarded as a disease, and I cannot see any compelling reason why medical technology should be used to treat it. As Dr. R. Landau wrote, “Childlessness is a complex concept, and children are neither medicine nor therapy. They should not be used as means to other people’s ends.” (Quoted in the linked article.)

 

 

Life unworthy of living

Sometimes we need to remember the past. Of course that is what historians try to teach us. The recent translation into Italian of the 1920 German book Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Living by Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche prompted a reminder by Italian historian Lucetta Scaraffia about how the central idea of the book played out over the next few decades in Germany (see Washington Post article).

She suggests that the history of that idea is relevant to current bioethical issues. Some of those have been discussed recently on this blog. A few days ago Joe Gibes wrote about decisions to abort fetuses found to have major abnormalities such as Down syndrome. Back in December Jon Holmlund wrote about the use of PGD to diagnose embryos with major genetic disorders so that parents at risk for having a child with such a disorder could choose to give birth to a child without the disorder and not bring embryos with the disorder to birth.

Both the practice of aborting fetuses with a major disorder and doing PGD to choose which embryos should be brought to birth to avoid giving birth to a child with a genetic disorder involve the concept of a life unworthy of living that Binding and Hoche wrote about. If we make a decision to abort a fetus with Down syndrome or even one with a more serious disorder we are making a decision that the life of the person who that fetus will be is not worth living. If we choose to create multiple embryos and choose to implant those who do not have a serious genetic disorder so that they can live, but choose not to implant those who have the disorder so that they will not live we are saying that the lives that would be lived by those embryos who are discarded are not worth living. Whether one believes that and embryo or a fetus has full moral status or not they are unique individuals who have live that they would live if they are allowed to. Not allowing them to live those lives due to the presence of a disorder is saying that those lives are not worth living.

Remembering what happened in Germany helps us remember what a serious thing it is to say that a person’s life is not worth living. The idea that Binding and Hoche wrote about began as a philosophical concept, but it was embraced by the German government under Hitler as a reason for German physicians to put to death mentally deficient children whose lives were thought to be not worth living. Later that was expanded to large numbers of Jews and others whose lives were not thought to be worth living. The experience in Germany helps us to see that the idea that there are people whose lives are not worth living depends on a negation of the fundamental idea that every human life has inherent value. As Christians we understand that this value is due to our being created in the image of God. Even for those who do not have that understanding the inherent value of every human being underlies the concept of universal human rights that has become the foundation for global justice.

The German experience reminds us that there are some lines that we must not cross. One of those is saying that another human being has a life that is not worth living and using that as the justification for ending the life of an embryo or fetus.

Embryos from laboratory produced eggs

The London newspaper The Independent recently reported that a researcher at Edinburgh University is ready to seek permission to try to produce human embryos by the fertilization of mature egg cells that have been produced from ovarian stem cells in the laboratory. The research team has taken immature human egg cells produced from ovarian stem cells by as researcher at Harvard and transformed them in the laboratory into cells that appear to be mature human eggs. The proof that they are mature eggs will be obtained by showing that they can be fertilized to produce human embryos. The embryos will then be frozen or destroyed since they are being produced for research and English law requires that they not be allowed to develop past 14 days.

The obvious ethical question is “Should we do this?”

Those who support doing this see the ability to develop fully functional human eggs from the stem cells found in the ovary as a way to provide the ability to have children for women who are past the time that their ovaries naturally produce eggs. They also express hope that the ability to produce new egg cells might be a way around the loss of ovulatory function that is associated with the development of menopause and its attendant problems. It would also be a way of producing a much less limited supply of eggs to use in research including cloning.

But should we do it?

Ethical concerns abound. Is it worthwhile to create and destroy human embryos to prove that a scientific technique is doing what it was designed to do? Is there any way to determine whether children born with the use of eggs developed from stem cells in the lab are at increased risk for defects without subjecting some children to those risks? How could you justify doing safety studies on children produced by this technique who could not give their consent? Would attempting to delay menopause by inducing the production of new eggs within aging ovaries be a good thing to do? Is it really good to make it easier to do things like human cloning?

For those of us who conclude that human embryos have full moral status it is clear that producing human embryos in the laboratory to confirm that this technique is successful and then destroying those embryos is wrong. Even those who do not think that human embryos have full moral status have reason to think that this is not a good path to start down from concern about the safety of the people who could be born using this technique.

This is one of those things we should not do.

Religious freedom and health insurance

On January 20, 2011 the department of Health and Human Services announced its ruling regarding a controversial part of the current administration’s healthcare plan. The health care plan includes a provision requiring all insurance providers to cover contraception at no cost to those who are insured. There is a religious exemption in the plan that allows churches who are morally opposed to contraception to offer insurance to their employees which does not provide this coverage. However, this exemption does not include church-affiliated organizations such as schools and hospitals. After the original requirement was made public last August, many church-affiliated organizations had requested that they be included in the exemption. The announcement a week and a half ago stated that such church-affiliated organizations would not be included in the exemption and would have to provide the coverage even if it violated the moral convictions of the organization. Those organizations were given an extra year before they have to comply with the regulation, but their compliance will be required.

This ruling is a significant attack on religious liberty in the United States. Religious liberty should include protection from being forced by the government to violate one’s moral values. It should include more than just the freedom to have beliefs. It must include the freedom to live in a way that does not violate those beliefs. Since the primary religious organization that has taken a moral stand against the use of contraception is the Roman Catholic Church, many see this is a purely Catholic issue, but it is much more than that. I do not happen to agree with the Roman Catholic position that says that all contraception is morally impermissible, but it is a well reasoned position based on fundamental parts of the Roman Catholic faith. As such their position should be respected, and they should not be forced by our government to violate their moral beliefs.

One part of the ruling impacts many non-Catholic church-affiliated organizations. The requirement for covering contraception includes drugs such as Plan B and Ella that are used after unprotected sexual intercourse to prevent a pregnancy from continuing if one has occurred. These medicines are not actually contraception because they do not work primarily to prevent conception, but to prevent the continuation of a pregnancy before the pregnancy is known to exist. Many of us to come from an evangelical Christian position find being forced to pay for these medicines just as morally objectionable as the Roman Catholic Church views other types of contraception.

It is interesting that when Robert George, Timothy George, and Chuck Colson drafted the Manhattan Declaration back in 2009 they chose to affirm three foundational moral principles which Christians from the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Evangelical traditions all supported. Those three principles were the inherent dignity of every human being, marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, and religious liberty. I think there are many who may have wondered why they included the third principle as something on which Christians needed to take a stand. This ruling by HHS helps to make that more clear.

Eight is Enough

 

In response to a family’s having eight babies by IVF and gestational surrogacy:

“In this society, if you have money, you can have miracles!”

“Having children is now a luxurious game for the rich!”

“This completely topples the traditional meaning of parents.”

“From the sound of it, they just tried to have some kind of baby machine.”

“Gestational surrogacy is the business of renting out organs.”

“Why did they have to hire so many people to have babies for them? Did they think they had the right to bear children just because they were rich? Secondly, what respect to life did they show? Multiple pregnancies are super risky.”

These are reactions from the public, press, and government officials to a wealthy couple having two sets of triplets and one set of twins via IVF and two surrogates in China, where there has been an official one-child-per-family policy since 1978. Last month a southern Chinese newspaper broke the story of this family, and you can sense the angry reaction of their society in the quotes above.

(There is apparently a large surrogacy industry in China, despite a 2001 ban on Chinese hospitals doing the procedures. The manager of one surrogacy agency reports being overwhelmed with applications from aspiring surrogate mothers, most of whom are having emergencies and “need a large sum of money.”)

In the uproar, we can see erupting some of the tensions surrounding these technologies that are still somewhat under the surface in our own society: What about the divide between those who can and can’t afford reproductive technology? What does it mean to be a parent, especially where surrogacy is involved? Is surrogacy the commodification of women, the reduction of woman to womb?

There is a lot of worrying that China will catch up and surpass western economy and culture. It seems that in some areas they have already caught up with us: pushing the envelope of societal norms with the use of reproductive technologies, and the commodification of women in the process. In another area they are still far behind us: they have not yet lost the ability to be uncomfortable, shocked, even a little disgusted at the ethical implications of these technologies for families and society.

 

(Sources: Here and Here)

Q&A: On the Observance of Sanctity of Human Life Sunday

 

 1) What do we mean by the phrase “Sanctity of Human Life?”

Specifically, we mean to communicate the biblical truth that each and every human life, being made in the very image of God, is a special object of God’s love and concern (Gen 1:26-27; 9:6; James 3:9).

God is no respecter of persons, and so we ought not to be either. Every human life, no matter how young or old, no matter how functional or dysfunctional, is truly worthy of our love and deepest respect. While human life is not to be worshipped, it is to be valued greatly and protected.

 

2) What is the origin of the practice of observing a “Sanctity of Human Life” day each year?

President Ronald Reagan began the annual tradition. By his proclamation, January 22, 1984, the 11th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, marked the first national observance of the Sanctity of Human Life. That tradition has been continued by some, but not all, presidents since Reagan.

Political observances aside, Christians across the denominational spectrum have annually been calling attention to the tragedy of abortion on demand ever since the Roe v Wade decision (Jan 22, 1973).

Roe v Wade was a wake up call. Specifically, it awakened evangelical Christians in America to the responsibility of being salt and light (Matt 5:13—16) in a culture that was growing increasing callous towards human life.

 

3) What does it mean to be “salt and light?”

Being salt and light entails bringing the gospel of Jesus Christ to bear on a lost and dying world. Preaching and personal evangelism are of paramount importance to the task, but they are incomplete and often rendered ineffective if our words are not matched by lives radically altered by the Gospel.

A life radically altered by the Gospel is one that is no longer controlled by fleshly desires and worldly thinking, but rather, it is in tune with God. It values what God values, and it finds deep and abiding joy in obeying His commands.

What is it, then, that God commands of His people?  Here is the answer He gave through the prophet Micah:

He has told you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justice, to love kindness,
And to walk humbly with your God?   (Micah 6:8, NASB)

 “Doing Justice” – that is what Sanctity of Human Life Sunday is about.

Among other things, “doing justice” demands that we advocate for those who cannot advocate for themselves, that we uphold the interests of the weak over and against the schemes of those who would oppress them.

Human Life is under attack, and doing justice demands that Christians concern themselves with the problem and minister accordingly.

 

4) In what ways is human life under attack today?

Human life is under attack across its entire spectrum. On the back end, it is threatened by the evil of euthanasia. The notion that killing can be a genuinely compassionate ministry to the aged, disabled, and/or infirm is a lie borne straight from the pit of Hell.

Even towards the healthy, we see in our culture a blatant disregard for the value of human life. Murder and violent crime are the obvious signs, but no less concerning is the disregard for human life that permeates much of what passes these days for entertainment.

For the Romans, the sinful appetite for violence was satiated at the Coliseum; for Americans, the appetite is no less strong though the venue for its satisfaction may be different. Yes we have our sports arenas for modern-day gladiatorial contests that feature all the violence without, it is hoped, the killing (e.g., UFC);  but we also have our television viewing rooms, our video game stations, and comfortable cinemas where, for our viewing pleasure, human bodies are violated, desecrated, and discarded like rubbish.

Now, what generally gets the most attention at Sanctity of Human Life observances is the assault on human life on the front end, and elective abortion in particular, which has claimed over 50 million lives in the US since Roe v Wade.

Many, frankly, have grown tired of the public controversy over abortion and just wish it would go away. But, absent a mass awakening in our country to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the killing will continue. As the Christian’s charge to protect the innocent and vulnerable is neither optional nor in harmony with the worldly ethos of our day, we may expect that the controversy will continue.

We can take heart, however, in the fact that we stand in good company for Christians have been battling the evil of infanticide from the Church’s earliest beginnings. In Roman culture, it was socially acceptable for fathers to abandon unwanted babies on the doorstep of the family home – death by exposure largely served the same purpose that abortion does today. Convinced, however, that all human life is a gift of the Creator God and thus to be valued and protected, early Christians not only refused to participate in the horrific practice, but even more, they rescued many an abandoned child.  As they did so, they provided a powerful witness to the love of God and his gracious salvation extended to helpless sinners.

Human life on the front end is also threatened in our day by the effort to control reproductive outcomes and, in particular, the attributes of our progeny. Whereas the Romans had to wait and see what “nature” delivered, nowadays we have the increasing capacity  to determine what first goes into the womb.

Implicit to the drive to select children of a specific type or kind is the judgment that some children are not worth having.

In China, that judgment has manifested in a higher abortion rate for female offspring that has left the population with an enormous gender imbalance. That imbalance poses for China serious threats to peace and order – both internally, and with its neighbors.

Here in the U.S., gender selection is occurring, though not on the same scale as in China. Its not that we are any more humane, however, its just that our focus has been more on the elimination of babies perceived as defective.

And so, for example, those among us who lived in the days prior to pre-natal testing recognize that we have in our midst fewer children with Down’s Syndrome. Current estimates are that somewhere close to 90% of children identified through pre-natal tests as having Down’s Syndrome are now aborted.

 

Reproductive medicine has not only yielded an increasing capacity to control the makeup of our children, it has also created a huge “surplus” of human embryos. Most of these embryos have been consigned to the freezer. Few will ever come to occupy a womb, but instead, most will either expire on the freezer shelf or be dissected and destroyed in a medical laboratory.

To assuage the conscience uneasy about embryonic experimentation, researchers and their supporters tell us that these embryos are not really human beings or “persons,” but we know better. We were all embryos at some point, just as we were infants, and then toddlers, and then children, and so on.

From conception onward, we are who we are: individual persons known and loved by God and, thus, to be loved according to His command: as neighbor. Neighbor love is sacrificial, but note, it sacrifices not the interests of the one being loved, but rather, those of the one who loves. Killing an innocent neighbor can never be a genuinely loving thing to do.

 

 5) So, what is the Christian to do?

First, we must recognize the assault against human life for what it is. Most fundamentally, it is spiritual warfare. We face an enemy, Satan, whom the Scripture describes as a “murderer” (John 8:44) who “prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour (1 Pet 5:8).

Second, we must then utilize spiritual weapons.

1)    The Gospel Truth

The Gospel of Jesus Christ calls sin for what it is, but doesn’t leave the matter there;

It also proclaims in Christ Jesus redemption and forgiveness to all who would repent and place their faith in Christ Jesus;

It is lived out through daily ministry to neighbor – word and deed must be in sync.

2)    Prayer

Much prayer is required. We are up against a mighty foe, and so, we must call upon the Most High God

3)    Guarding our hearts and minds

We must take care to not let that which is unwholesome and impure to capture our hearts or minds;

This is not a call to disengage from culture, but rather, a reminder of the need to filter it and deny it a controlling influence.

 Third,  we get involved  i.e., we seek to be salt and light.

1)    Through personal evangelism

Hearts and minds must be transformed by the Gospel. Yet, as the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans declared, “how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?”

2)    A personal, social ministry – several avenues exist

Making other people’s problems our own; sharing burdens

Working with agencies whose aim it is to uphold the value of human life

Advocacy in the Public Square: telling the truth in love, pointing our culture to God’s vision of the good life