Life’s Silver Linings, Inc.

Chapter 7, Part VI: Heavenly Paper (True Story)

?

?

rea school districts were distributing a little directory to students, called the Youth Yellow Pages, which listed community resources.? It was small enough to fit nicely into the pocket of a pair of jeans, and was widely distributed free of charge to students through local schools.? While the booklet had lots of helpful community information, it is likely that school administrators did not realize that the “Pregnancy” section of this little resource referred minors? to clinics? in the “village” that distributed contraceptives? to minors without parental consent, and provided abortion? referrals.?

Listings included the state’s largest abortion? clinic under the name of Adoption Services, the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights? was listed as the Clergy Counseling Network.? Planned Parenthood? and Title X? clinics? were listed which provide contraceptives? to minors? without parental consent? and abortion referrals.

When this was brought to the attention of a school administrator, the parent was advised to talk to the publisher of the directory.? Upon doing so, the director said to the parent “Obviously YOU aren’t pro-choice” and requested that the parent put the concerns in writing.? The parent did so, listing concerns about the dishonesty of the listings, and wrote, “I am not pro-choice for abortion? in the same way and for the same reasons I’m not pro-choice for drugs.? Drugs kill sometimes, abortion kills every time.”

These disguises were documented and included in packets sent to those interested, with a request to contact and boycott the sponsors of the directory.?

For two years parents asked the school district to discontinue distribution of the biased resource booklet.? Parents wrote letters to the paper, and formally requested the school board to add the issue to the agenda of its board meeting.? Administration declined to have the item added to the agenda, explaining that there was fifteen minutes at the end of each board meeting for parental input.?

At the end of the board meeting, a parent read a prepared statement.? The school board president assured those present that during the closed executive session following the board meeting, the board “would come right back and discuss it.”? It was later learned that this discussion did not take place.?

Four days later, a letter was sent to the school board president requesting the outcome of the board’s discussion of the matter.? Nine days later the school board president called the parent and said the board had not taken action since there had been no official request to do so.? When asked, “what constitutes an official request?” the board president responded, “one that comes from administration.”

A letter was then written to the board president requesting an explanation of the procedure to be used by the community to have the board address a concern from the community.? No response was received.

Even though Missouri’s Sunshine law says all school meetings are open to the public (except for those dealing with contracts, personnel, discipline, etc.), parents were discouraged from attending the advisory council? meetings when the directory was on the agenda because “when parents come, the meetings have a tendency to become unfocused.”?

The “consensus” varied from meeting to meeting regarding the manner in which the directory would be distributed, and each time the consensus was violated.? From the administration’s point of view, the question was not WHETHER the directory would be distributed, but a consensus on HOW it would be distributed.

At one point the advisory council’s consensus? was to send a letter home to parents prior to distributing the directory to students.? Later, when a letter was sent home with students stating that the directory had been distributed to the students, it was learned that the consensus had been violated.? The next consensus was to have the directory mailed to the parents with a note stating that the directory contained sensitive information.? The consensus of the final advisory council? meeting of the year was to have the directory distributed to parents during parent/advisor conferences.? At the beginning of the next school year parents reminded administrators of the consensus of the previous year. The administrators explained that the previous consensus was not to be followed because not enough parents attended the parent/advisory conference.?

When administration was asked what guarantee parents have that a consensus? would be honored (since the past one was not honored), the reply was “parents have no guarantee since things happen administratively that cause change.”

Parents informed administration that they had a right to be informed that these listings were not who they appeared to be, and that these agencies had a reputation for sending Missouri minors? to Illinois? where they could obtain abortions without parental consent.

The district arranged an open meeting before a “panel” of appointed members to hear information regarding the directory. Two representatives of the agency which produced the directory, and one parent representing parents concerned with the directory’s distribution to school children, stated their cases and answered questions from the panel. Parents distributed a packet containing documentation showing that the sources listed in the directory were biased in favor of abortion.? Parents who opposed the directory knew of the death of at least one teen at the hands of an abortionist who worked at a facility listed in the directory.

To obtain the needed documentation of the death, a Kansas? City? paralegal was contacted who sent the appropriate court case numbers.? However, there wasn’t enough time to go to the courthouse to do the needed research in time for the meeting.?

In that day’s mail was delivered an issue of a paper whose subscription the family had discontinued over four years earlier.? The subscriber had since moved to another part of the state, had not received an issue in all that time, and had not provided the paper with a forwarding address.? It was assumed that SOMEHOW the paper had relocated the family (since the name, address, and zip code were perfect), to send a complimentary issue in the hope that they would re-subscribe.?

As the paper was opened, page one contained a huge spread titled “Amid Other Abortion Tragedies–Teenager Dies At Hands Of Houston? Abortionist.”? The article was about the VERY abortionist for whom documentation was needed!? This abortionist travels a circuit of clinics? between Kansas? City, St. Louis and Houston.? The article gave the particulars surrounding the death of the 19-year-old girl who died as a result of an abortion? provided at the St. Louis clinic listed in the directory!!!

This had to be more than a coincidence! Overwhelmed with awe and full of goose bumps, the parent knelt in prayer of thanksgiving to God.? Another issue of the paper has never arrived.?

In time, the printing of the directory was discontinued but the “victory” was short lived.? Soon afterward, the publisher of the directory was awarded a $100,000 grant from the Missouri Department of Mental Health, Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse? to write the Missouri Student Assistance Program state model for teaching schools all over the state how to identify students with “behaviors? of concern” and refer them to local agencies and clinics.? See the chapter titled “What Is a ‘SAP’?”