Sofia Vergara wants to kill her daughters - where are the pro-life Latinos?

I am a Latina.  I am fighting for my frozen babies.  I wasn't always pro-life.  I'd say in the past decade my mind changed.  Once I saw my two boys, who started as embryos, grow inside me and be born, it changed my whole perspective.  But there are many in the Latin community that have a deep seeded view of life beginning at conception.  It is rooted in religion.  A religion that, in my estimate, still runs through the heart of most Latinos.  So now we have Sofia Vergara.  A self-proclaimed Catholic, Latina and a superstar.  But, when it comes to her daughters (frozen ones), she wants them dead.  And the Latino community seems to back her.  Why?  Is it her money?  Her looks?  Her popularity?  Are these things really important when a person's character is one of destruction of her own offspring?  Nick Loeb, who is fighting for his daughters, is an unlikely hero in all of this.  He is a rich man.  Jewish.  And has a checkered past, like me, where he wasn't always pro-life.  I'm mystified by the lack of real discussion in the Latino community about this issue.  Most publications I read seem to back Vergara, saying she shouldn't be forced to be a parent.  Okay, but what about life beginning at conception?  Where did that go in the Latin community?  I hope as Latinos we are not being selective on when the rules apply.  They apply to everyone.  And Nick Loeb should have our respect, not our scorn, for trying to knock down the Latina princess who has been on a pedestal, all the while trying to keep her daughters in their frozen prison.  And just because she says she wants to keep them frozen indefinitely doesn't make anything better.  Um, they will die and she knows it.  So, keeping them frozen is paramount to killing them.  Get a clue Latinos.  You are backing the wrong horse.

Can a State Order the Death of Someone's Offspring? Apparently, yes.

It's Thanksgiving day and although I am grateful for all the blessings in my life, I am also reflecting upon the appellate court's decision to sentence my embryos to death.  I finished reading a very cold and disheartening article by Above the Law called "Cold Leftovers: Can a State Require that Extra Embryos Be Implanted?"  It reveled in the fact that the court didn't force my poor, defenseless ex-husband to have to bring the embryos to birth, even though we had an agreement, even though we went through the IVF process to expressly bring the embryos to birth, even though I consider them my children.  This poor man with a Master's degree who attended all the doctor's appointments and agreed to bring two or the four embryos to birth (who are our twins) and agreed to cryofreeze the others with the intention of having more children, now is allowed to walk away and leave these other two siblings of my children to rot.  I think it's amazing how this court's decision is being hailed as a victory for "individual's rights" and preventing "government intrusion" when it is actually the opposite.
First of all, the individual's rights who have truly been trampled on is my rights to have my OWN offspring and my embryo's rights (as living human beings).  It was not their fault that we decided to combine our DNA voluntarily and with deliberate thought to bring them to birth through the IVF process.  The court summarily dismisses any rights they may have or that I may have under Missouri Law and says they are not interfering by NOT enforcing the agreement, which leads me to my next point.  NOT enforcing an agreement that is signed by both parties (under the law that is acknowledgment of the agreement) is actually the definition of "government intrusion" into private agreements.
For those of you who are not convinced that the court didn't go to great lengths to undermine a private decision (made, by the way, when everything was going swimmingly), consider this: The court created new law (yes legislating from the bench) in order to NOT allow me to have my embryos.  Under Missouri law, if they were really considered property, then factors such as who was maintaining them and who wanted them would've been taken into consideration.  But NOOOO, they instead created a new category of property called "property with special character" in order to not give them to me.  If we were talking about any other property, I would've received them no problem, because I could've shown I paid for their maintenance and I wanted them and my ex didn't want them.  So, the Missouri Court of Appeals gave themselves a black eye on this one.  Not only did they say that Missouri's law to protect life "at conception" (when sperm hits egg) was not applicable, they also went to great lengths to invalidate a VALID agreement and sentence by two innocent babies to death.  Way to go Missouri Court of Appeals.  I am sure they are eating turkey today and are with their "loved ones" without a thought to how they deprived me AND my sons of ours.

Human Lives or Clumps of Tissue?

Okay people let's get serious.  Are human embryos "human lives" or "clumps of tissue"?  Let's evaluate that for a moment.  When I was in high school biology class, I remember learning that life begins when a sperm and egg combine.  You simply CANNOT skip that step and have a full grown person.  Hence, it's the beginning.  I hope we can all agree on that much.  I think most of us can remember that if we were half way paying attention.  So, when did this clump of tissue or cells argument come into play?  First of all, what does that mean?  I think it's double-talk, since all human lives are basically clumps of tissue or cells.  I mean aren't we all just walking talking clumps of cells?  Of course we are.  But, I believe when people say "clumps of tissue or cells" they mean that it is like your liver or kidneys or heart, etc.  In other words, not a WHOLE human being.  [clearing throat]  Okay, that can't be the definition of an embryo, simply because everything that you are is self-contained the moment the sperm hits the egg.  Let me say this another way for people who still believe an embryo is like your liver.  Any organ in your body is a "piece" of who you are.  It is by no means the whole person.  So, your liver does not contain the appropriate cells that make up your heart or other organs, such as your brain.  But, an embryo contains all the information necessary to create and contain the WHOLE of you.  So, to say it is just a piece of you or "a clump of tissue or cells" is beyond ridiculous.

We know that killing human lives is wrong.  Saying embryos are clumps of tissue is just a way by which we can justify and dehumanize what we are doing when we kill them.  Like I said, let's get serious on these definitions and quit playing games.  No one can really believe that a little human embryo is anything else other than a human life.  If you do, you're living in dreamland.  A dreamland where killing human lives is a-ok.


Jalesia “Jasha” McQueen is a Mother of 3 boys (one who has Down Syndrome), Veteran, Attorney, Entrepreneur and is currently in the Missouri Appellate Court seeking custody of her embryos, Noah and Genesis. “My dear Noah and Genesis, may you survive and be born.”  Jasha is co-founder and Director of Embryo Defense, a Missouri nonprofit organization dedicated to educating and providing resources for anyone who believes in saving human embryos. www.embryodefense.org. 

Roe v Wade v Frozen Embryos

So, I watched the Special Report with Brett Baier the other day when they discussed frozen embryos.  The problem I have with these reports is that they are leaving out a HUGE missing piece from the national discussion.  Judicial injustice (I think that's what I'll call it from now on).  In most every case, the courts bend over backward and do hand springs NOT to give the embryos to a partner, no matter what.  They hide behind the 14th Amendment and claim right to privacy (right not to procreate).  This same argument was used in Roe v Wade; however, now with a twist.  Now,  the right to privacy essentially is the right to break a binding agreement, to override a mother's right to bring her child to term and basically, the court deciding to terminate the child over the mother's protest.  Huh?  How is that "right to privacy"?  In Roe v. Wade they wanted the government to keep their hands off of decisions made by women who were carrying a baby?  That seems like hands on to me.  In fact, it seems like meddling to the 14th degree.  In Roe v. Wade, they actually said the right for a woman to have an abortion must be balanced against the state's interest to protect women's health and to protect human life.  Hmmm.  I guess I get it.  The embryo is in the woman's body and there would be no way to retrieve it, so the government shouldn't decide what to do with it (this is regardless of whether you believe in abortion or not).  The court made a decision to protect that personal right.  For argument's sake, I will concede this issue.  But what about frozen embryos?  So, where two people deliberately contemplate and execute actions to conceive, where they more than likely have a written agreement as to disposition, where they pay thousands of dollars to create life, the mother goes through countless needle pricking, countless appointments and create life in the most deliberate way, all of a sudden the court can decide to terminate your unborn at a whim?  Sorry people, even if you believe in abortion, this should make no sense.


Jalesia “Jasha” McQueen is a Mother of 3 boys (one who has Down Syndrome), Veteran, Attorney, Entrepreneur and is currently in the Missouri Appellate Court seeking custody of her embryos, Noah and Genesis. “My dear Noah and Genesis, may you survive and be born.”  Jasha is co-founder and Director of Embryo Defense, a Missouri nonprofit organization dedicated to educating and providing resources for anyone who believes in saving human embryos. www.embryodefense.org. 

Rosie O'Donnell - Are we that far gone?

Rosie O'Donnell recently said that she wanted to smear her period blood on the faces of pro-lifers.  Really?  I understand that she is a celebrity.  I even understand that she is pro-choice and that she probably believes all pro-life people are religious zealots and trying to take away her personal rights.  However, what makes someone say something like that?  Is it a reflection of how far gone our society is?  Granted, some of it might be just for shock value.  I mean, after all, Rosie is a comedian.  But, it made me reflect a little.  There is some true "anger" by pro-choice advocates centered around pro-lifer's attack on someone's personal right to kill their unborn.  Nobody likes to be told that what they are doing is wrong or have something taken away from them that they believe is rightly theirs.  I think this is the biggest bone of contention between the two groups.  And just like a child being scolded for doing something wrong or being threatened that a toy might be taken away, pro-choice people may bubble over at the thought of being challenged by anyone on a right given to them by the law.  But, I say this: Rosie and anyone else who is feeling angry at pro-lifers, calm down.  The law is on your side currently.  Pro-lifers are trying to save lives with their message.  Surely, that deserves some respect and understanding.  Surely that isn't something that should provoke such anger.


Jalesia “Jasha” McQueen is a Mother of 3 boys (one who has Down Syndrome), Veteran, Attorney, Entrepreneur and is currently in the Missouri Appellate Court seeking custody of her embryos, Noah and Genesis. “My dear Noah and Genesis, may you survive and be born.”  Jasha is co-founder and Director of Embryo Defense, a Missouri nonprofit organization dedicated to educating and providing resources for anyone who believes in saving human embryos. www.embryodefense.org. 

Pro-lifers need to get with the program

I was on pro-choice advocates the other day, now it's my turn to get on pro-life advocates.  When I was on my journey to try and find help for my frozen embryo issue, I encountered something I never thought I would - pro-life advocates turning their backs on me.  Huh? People would secretly say they would help me but did not want anyone to know it in their pro-life circles.  Say what? I will say that I have had some individuals who are pro-life support me outwardly, but not many.  Apparently, staunch pro-lifers do not believe in IVF, the procedure that allows infertile couples to conceive.  Ok, I kind of understand that.  They believe that if God did not make you fertile that you should just deal with it and not take advantage of science to allow you to conceive.  They see it as "playing God".

Well, first of all, I have a problem with that reasoning, since sometimes when a sperm and egg get together, life is being created inside of a woman.  And every time, we have sex we have the possibility of creating life.  In my opinion, God determines which lives survive and which do not.  The IVF process, in my case, started off with 10 eggs and only 4 embryos were created.  The other 6 did not survive.  That's God.  Science cannot replace that.  Also, what if you needed a liver or kidney transplant?  Just because God gave you a bad organ, do you just have to deal with it and die?  I think not.  In my opinion, God gave us a brain to use and create things.  And he gave us guidance in that great book called the Bible to be ethical.  We have free choice and how we handle these issues are all choices we make.

Secondly, isn't the pro-life movement about saving lives?  Regardless of where you stand religiously with IVF, does it really matter HOW the lives were created?  Of course not.  If you are pro-life, you would not ask every woman going into an abortion clinic if she was a prostitute and if she was, you wouldn't say "oh okay, it's okay for you to kill your unborn because I don't believe in how you conceived your child."  Of course you wouldn't.  So, why do it for those who chose IVF?  It simply makes no sense.  Bottom line, this is the next pro-life issue on the horizon and the pro-life movement needs to get with the program if they want a front seat to save some lives.  Otherwise, they will be holding up signs at cryobanks, just like they do at abortion clinics and that will be it.


Jalesia “Jasha” McQueen is a Mother of 3 boys (one who has Down Syndrome), Veteran, Attorney, Entrepreneur and is currently in the Missouri Appellate Court seeking custody of her embryos, Noah and Genesis. “My dear Noah and Genesis, may you survive and be born.”  Jasha is co-founder and Director of Embryo Defense, a Missouri nonprofit organization dedicated to educating and providing resources for anyone who believes in saving human embryos. www.embryodefense.org. 

Pro-Choice Should Mean You Can Choose Life

Having been pro-choice for years, the focus was always on the right to an abortion.  The choice of life was somewhat overshadowed.  However, now that I am older, I often wonder about those loaded terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life".  What do they really mean?  And do they create more of a wedge between us than anything else?  In my mind, pro-choice means you can choose either life or death for your unborn.  And pro-life means you believe in choosing life.  So, why this wedge?  Why are pro-choice advocates upset about the organization Rebecca and I started?  Embryo Defense

I think it's because pro-choice advocates don't like to be told that choosing death for your unborn is wrong.  I get it.  Pro-choice women normally don't believe it's anyone's right to point out that a woman's choice to kill her unborn is unacceptable.  Pro-choice advocates also are normally not religious or if they are, it is private for them.  I get that as well.  I'm not going to beat anyone over the head with a bible.  That's the last thing anyone will see me do.  I practice my religion privately as well.

But I do believe there is room for a real conversation about what abortion is and should be considered, and where our society is headed.  I also believe that the caselaw surrounding frozen embryos is very telling on how our society views the value of life.  The only choice that is being protected is the choice to kill the unborn.  Unlike abortion, where the mother decides whether the baby lives or dies based on her desire to carry the baby to term, embryos are created through the IVF process by both parties, either of which could bring the child to term (through the marvel of surrogacy).  And by the way, these are "wanted" unborn children.  There is no doubt by looking at the court cases that one of the parents is fighting for their embryos, at all costs.  And yet, you would think, using the same logic of "choice" in abortion that the parent wanting the child should have his/her "choice".  Is the only choice protected to kill the unborn, in a case where one of the parents "wants" the unborn and is willing to bring the child to term?  Apparently, according to the case law on embryos, society doesn't care about a woman's (or man's) right to choose unless it's to kill the baby.  Something is awfully twisted about that.


Jalesia “Jasha” McQueen is a Mother of 3 boys (one who has Down Syndrome), Veteran, Attorney, Entrepreneur and is currently in the Missouri Appellate Court seeking custody of her embryos, Noah and Genesis. “My dear Noah and Genesis, may you survive and be born.”  Jasha is co-founder and Director of Embryo Defense, a Missouri nonprofit organization dedicated to educating and providing resources for anyone who believes in saving human embryos. www.embryodefense.org.