Posted by: Scott | Tuesday, February 6, 2007

Rape Victim, Daughter, Say No To Abortion

I got my Adoptee’s Christian Fellowship e-mail digest this morning and was intrigued when I read about an ABC News feature that was going on the night before. The names rang no bells, but I was curious that an ABC News cast was being highlighted and figured the named persons must be connected to adoption somehow or another.

I went to the group site (it’s a private group, thus, I’ve not put in a link) and just got through reviewing the topic. Before I finished that task, I went to the ABC News site and did a search and found the story (printer friendly view). This is incredible!!!

Turns out one Julie Makimaa had a baby at 21. She always knew she was adopted, but there was one thing about her beginning that she didn’t know. After giving birth, she tracked down her birth mom, Lee Ezell, and told the new grandmother congratulations.

When [Julie and Lee] met for the first time, Ezell told [Julie] she was conceived when Ezell was raped by a colleague. “I was a virgin teenager, and I had just become a Christian, and I was so confused. … Why is God letting this happen to me?” Ezell said….

“I thought, ‘I can’t do it. If God’s real, he’s gotta help me out with this one. I’m going to give birth to this baby,'” Ezell said.

Then Makimaa’s faith was tested, learning that she was conceived as the result of a rape. “I believe that there is a divine purpose and plan for everyone, and now it was time for me to say, ‘Well, do you think that’s a nice saying or do you really believe it?'” she said.

The story develops. Now the mother and daughter are anti-abortion activists, addressing church groups, conferences, and state legislatures. They give absolutely no exception to the rule.

Makimaa opposes that exception for women who are raped or who are the victims of incest. “Because I am the exception and I think my life has value,” she said. “It wasn’t my fault and [I] shouldn’t be punished.”

She has hit the nail on the head folks! I’ll admit that it’s only been in the last couple years that I’ve solidified on the pro-life in all circumstances position (that the mother should not take her circumstances out out on her unborn child), and it is a huge blessing to see other advocates getting some national press coverage when the popular pro-life line is “except for rape or incest.”

The report closes with some incredible food for thought:

It’s a controversial argument amplified by a compelling personal story. Makimaa, who is now a mother and a grandmother, notes that three generations would have been lost had her birth mother made a different choice.

In a related story, check out this report of crisis pregnancy centers outnumbering abortion clinics, compassionately reaching out to confused mothers, and saving the lives of the unborn.

And for the Republicans that think abortion won’t be an issue in ’08, consider this interesting tidbit of info:

Last week, not a single presidential candidates showed up at NARAL Pro-Choice America’s annual dinner, which is tied to the anniversary of the passage of the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. At this same dinner before the 2004 elections, the six Democratic contenders appeared together in an unequivocal show of support and unity.

Granted, NARAL didn’t invite them this go around, but I’m not so sure that their reasoning of focusing on victories gained in ’06 is all that accurate. Besides, it’s all about who has the bigger tent now:

So in an effort to enlarge their tent, Democrats are using their newfound power in Congress to pursue legislation focused on preventing unwanted pregnancies and providing support for women who proceed with unintended pregnancies. Similar bills at the state legislature level are receiving support on both sides of the aisle.

This is why I say to the GOP leaders, strike the “big tent-ology” from the platform and define the positions clearly. Sure, we’ll debate where exactly we need to be, but I don’t think it helps when you have the both major parties nationwide blurring the lines.



  1. After all, abortion for rape is executing a bystander for a crime committed by somebody else. What society does something like that?

  2. One that is too focused on tolerance (in the name of peace and getting along), while being intolerant of a lack of tolerance (e.g. the personally opposed/support Roe V. Wade folk when questioned by the 100% pro-life crowd)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: