Join us for this month's What's Trending episode as we discuss:
Postpartum depression isn't just a chemical imbalance—it physically changes women's brains. This startling discovery helps explain why so many mothers struggle after childbirth without even recognizing they're depressed. "It becomes your new normal," explains Pastor Jeff. "You're not really thinking 'I'm depressed,' you're just thinking 'I don't have a good life.'" The podcast explores how these physical brain changes reveal the profound impact pregnancy has on a woman's body and mind.
Meanwhile, a pivotal Supreme Court case could determine whether states can defund Planned Parenthood, potentially changing the landscape of reproductive healthcare across America. The hosts explore the complex implications of this case, where South Carolina's decision highlights the argument that money is "fungible"—even funding earmarked for non-abortion services indirectly supports abortion provision.
The conversation shifts to another legal battle where a Virginia judge ruled that frozen embryos cannot be treated as property during divorce proceedings. Drawing parallels to historical arguments against human commodification, this case adds to growing questions about how our society views and protects nascent human life. "You can't treat human beings as property," the judge asserted, creating a precedent that may eventually demand Supreme Court intervention.
The podcast concludes with a fascinating discussion about a new anti-aging pill for dogs that's received preliminary FDA approval—potentially foreshadowing similar interventions for humans. These ethical dilemmas reflect our society's evolving relationship with life, death, and the technologies that increasingly blur the boundaries between them.
Have questions or comments? We'd love to hear from you at lifechallenges.us or email us at podcast@christianliferesources.com.
SHOW NOTES:
- https://www.liveaction.org/news/scotus-case-states-defund-planned-parenthood/
- Frozen Embryos are Not Property: (Source: https://tinyurl.com/2bh6k84q accessed 3-18-25)
- Postpartum Depression and Changes in the Brain: (Source: https://tinyurl.com/22w9lcc4accessed 3-7-25)
- Anti-Aging Pill for Dogs: (Source: https://tinyurl.com/2cy68qkj accessed 2-28-25)
Start with God's Grace instead of effort! The Signpost Inn Podcast
Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jeff Samelson (00:18):
On today's episode cases of women who did
some horrible things or who justwent into almost a permanent
state of depression.
People didn't understand it sowell back then, but that's one
of the things about depressionis very often you can be in it
for a long time and not evenrealize you're in it.
It's just because this becomesyour new normal.
(00:39):
You're not really thinking, oh,I'm depressed.
You're just thinking I don'thave a good life.
Paul Snamiska (01:06):
Welcome to the Life Challenges podcast from
Christian Life Resources.
Not really thinking, oh, I'mdepressed.
Christa Potratz (01:09):
You're just thinking I don't have a good
life biblical perspective tothese issues and more.
Join us now for Life Challenges.
Hi and welcome back.
I'm Krista Potratz and I'm heretoday with Pastors Bob
Fleischman and Jeff Samuelson,and today we are going to be
talking about our current events, our April current events here,
and we are going to start withthe Supreme Court might look at
(01:31):
a case to defund PlannedParenthood.
Jeff Samelson (01:35):
Yeah.
Well, in this case it's whetheror not states have the right to
, on their own, decide to defundPlanned Parenthood for whatever
reasons they might have.
And by the time any of ourlisteners hear this episode, the
arguments will already havebeen heard and we'll be waiting
for a decision.
But it's scheduled for April2nd that the Supreme Court will
(01:56):
hear the case.
It's Medina versus PlannedParenthood South Atlantic, and
the basic idea is that SouthCarolina has said that well,
we're not going to give anymoney to Planned Parenthood
South Atlantic, and the basicidea is that South Carolina has
said that well, we're not goingto give any money to Planned
Parenthood anymore because toomuch trouble with too many
different issues, so we don'twant to give any money to that
organization.
It's basically South Carolinasaying what everyone on the
(02:18):
pro-life side has been sayingforever Even if you just give
Planned Parenthood money forfamily planning and you're not
saying we're paying forabortions, you're still paying
for abortions because money isfungible.
You're giving your money tothem for this one thing.
It's going to help them movemoney over to the other thing,
(02:40):
and so forth.
And the person in the case thatwas listed in the article was
basically claiming well, mypreferred provider for this
service and I think it was justfor obtaining birth control is
Planned Parenthood, and by thestate defunding this, they're
limiting my right to receiveMedicaid care from the
organization that I prefer, eventhough apparently this person
(03:05):
could travel just a mile furtherand get the same care from a
different provider.
It's basically a manufacturedcase, but it is a big one,
because if the Supreme Courtwere to decide that, yes, states
do have the right to decidewhere their federal Medicaid
funding can go, that they havethe right to decide that, then
it would open up to many otherstates that are more pro-life in
(03:26):
perspective to say, okay, yeah,we're not going to give any
money to Planned Parenthoodanymore, and they'd be safe from
suit in doing so go to thecourt.
Bob Fleischmann (03:40):
Because technically you know, counties
make this decision all the time.
They have to provide certainmandated programs under the
Medicaid rules and one isindigent birth control services.
They also do some other healthservices and Planned Parenthood
has kind of been the.
Regardless of how you feelabout them ideologically, they
(04:02):
were always like an easy choice.
They kind of were the fullservice shop and they can kind
of pick and choose what servicesthat you're looking for, and so
they were an easy choice foreverybody.
So I would imagine and I'm justprojecting out, but I'm
imagining the courts, even theliberal justices, saying
counties have the right to dothis, to do this.
(04:28):
What counties don't have theright to do is you cannot
deprive Medicaid patients fromthese mandated services.
That's an act of Congress.
So unless you've got somebodyelse to do it, the liberals, at
least on the court, are going toprobably want to say then you
have to use Planned Parenthood.
But I mean I can't imagine aviable argument being made that
the county can't pick and choosewho to do it.
(04:49):
The problem is is there's neveranother choice?
You know that I see.
Well rarely there are anotherchoice.
When I faced this 40-some yearsago, brown County up in the
Green Bay area, there wasapparently a nurses coalition
that was willing to provide this.
But you have to understand thatwhen the federal government
provides for mandating some ofthese services for the indigent
(05:11):
community, some of thoseservices are problematic, you
know, like birth control, you'renot going to get, you know, the
Catholic Nurses Group standingin line to do this, because the
Catholic Church has a problemwith birth control outside of
natural family planning, and soyou've got a problem there.
Now you have to go to theevangelical community, the
(05:32):
Protestant community, and someof us have a problem with some
forms of birth control.
So you know we're not going tobe standing in line to be doing
that.
And so it presents some realissues and it does seem to kind
of fit with the whole retoolingargument that seems to be going
on with the currentadministration.
And you know we just have tolook at a different way of doing
(05:54):
this stuff and, of course,maybe there's something
fundamentally wrong with the waythat we mandate some of these
Medicaid monies.
Jeff Samelson (06:03):
I suspect that the argument that would come
across on the other side therewould be that, well, part of the
reason that Planned Parenthoodis the only game in town is
because they're the only game intown.
If a decision at a state levelwere made was like no, planned
Parenthood isn't going to getany money from this, then maybe
somebody else would be steppingforward and saying, oh okay,
here's an opportunity, whereaspreviously they'd say, well,
(06:26):
planned Parenthood is doing it.
Why would we?
Bob Fleischmann (06:31):
get into providing birth control and
things like that.
Yeah, and the pro-lifecommunity would have a problem
with it, because pro-lifecommunity doesn't like forms of
birth control that have anabortifacient function.
So I mean just pro-life, even,regardless of religious
persuasion.
They're just going to havetrouble with it.
Christa Potratz (06:47):
No, it's really interesting, and I know we
talked about Planned Parenthoodtoo in our Planned Parenthood
episode as well, but they justreally have seemed to have just
done… maybe a great job over theyears, just with their
marketing and just how they areable to get their mark in what
(07:09):
they do.
Bob Fleischmann (07:11):
Planned Parenthood now has kind of
fallen victim to some bad press,with the whole business of
clinics being in poor conditionand so forth.
There was that huge New YorkTimes article which really was
an expose.
It just shows an organizationthat is really starting to
struggle.
So if they were to lose thiscase it very realistically could
(07:33):
be the demise you know thebeginning of the demise of
Planned Parenthood, becausepeople are going to be looking
for an alternative agency andright now this is the devil we
know and just to be clear, wewould shed no tears at Planned
Parenthood's demise.
Yeah, and the reason is is theystill remain the largest single
(07:54):
abortion provider in the UnitedStates, if not the world.
Christa Potratz (07:59):
Well, a lot to look out for and to watch how
that case goes and stuff too inthe future.
So the next article topic thatwe wanted to talk about is
frozen embryos and how they areconsidered.
Now I guess or a Virginia judgehas ruled that a divorce
(08:20):
happens and a couple has frozenembryos, that they can't be
considered property.
Can someone expand a little biton that?
Jeff Samelson (08:30):
Well, this is one of those cases that may very
well end up at the Supreme Courtsomeday, because different
states, different judges, havedecided things differently.
And there have been some othercases, the recent one in Alabama
, for instance, that got a lotof attention what is a year,
year and a half ago, somethinglike that.
But this was a case.
(08:50):
A couple had gone through IVF.
They had two frozen embryos andthen they got divorced and, as
it was, the wife was unable todo anything with those because
they were joint property and ifher ex-husband said, no, I don't
release those to you, she wasin a bind and her ex-wife,
(09:11):
basically, was suing.
She wanted to get possession ofthose two embryos so that she
could use them to possibly haveone or two more children, and
she was even willing to accept apartition, which would
basically be she gets one andthe husband gets the other,
which of course raises thequestion of what's he going to
do with it.
You kind of wonder what's goingon with the husband as to why
(09:35):
he would stand in the way ofthis in any way.
Although he says that I don'twant to become a father without
having a choice in the matter,we'd say, of course he already
is a father.
He had a choice that was madepreviously.
But anyway, the interestingthing about this was that the
judge in this case says no,these are not property.
And he actually referenced somestuff, going back to references
(09:59):
to slavery and slavery law, andsaying no, we can't treat human
beings as property.
Embryos are not property in thesame sense that a piece of land
would be or an automobile wouldbe.
These are not things to bedivided in that way, and so they
can't be decided in this way,because the way that she put
(10:20):
this suit forward was in termsof treating it as property and
not as, like a family court typeof situation.
And so it's a very interestingcase and it'll be very it looks
like it will probably beappealed and be very interesting
to see how far up the chain itgoes and what decision is made.
Bob Fleischmann (10:37):
And this is not the first time something like
this has happened.
I've been involved in caseslike this where they had frozen
embryos, a divorce occurred andagain the ex-wife wanted to
protect them, felt that theywere human life and the husband
wanted them divided.
And there were five embryos.
(10:57):
In the one case that I wasinvolved with which, of course,
raised the question about thefifth embryo and the husband the
ex-husband had made it prettyclear he was going to destroy
them.
Why?
Because he didn't want to havethis woman's children now that
he was divorcing.
And I remember invokingsomething a high-powered
(11:18):
attorney told me 25 years ago,and that is.
Everybody thinks thatadjudication's about justice.
He goes, it's not.
It's about winning.
You need to find the meanestlawyer, the most aggressive
lawyer, and so I did.
I helped the family findsomeone who was pro-life, who
understood, and this lady camein swinging because up until
(11:42):
then it looked like theex-husband was going to win the
day and the wife the ex-wifeended up getting possession of
all of them and I don't knowwhat happened since then.
But this happens and peoplehave—everyone kind of knows how
I feel about IVF.
You can even tease me about iton occasion here, but I've never
been a fan.
But this is one of the reasonswhy because when you understand
(12:06):
again, if you think simply aboutit, you're not going to get it
when you start thinking aboutthe complexities of it.
So now you've got embryos.
Now they develop to a pointthey're frozen.
All of a sudden there's afalling out.
The other falling out thatoccurs is even if the couple
stays together.
All of a sudden they realize Ican't handle more than one child
.
It was much more than Iimagined it would be.
(12:27):
Now, what do you do with them?
And I always thought Alabamajust said the emperor is naked.
That's really what happened in.
Alabama, and now you're seeingthese other cases.
So I agree with Jeff.
I think at some point theSupreme Court is going to have
to weigh in on it.
Christa Potratz (12:49):
Well, another thing that we wanted to talk
about today was an article, bob,I believe you had found it on
postpartum depression and theway it changes the brain.
Bob Fleischmann (12:56):
Well, first of all, I don't know maybe I'm
speaking for myself, but justany father never giving an ounce
of thought to postpartum All ofa sudden they have their first
child and they find their wifesitting in the tub crying and
they don't know what's going on.
That was my first introductionto postpartum, and when we
(13:18):
started New Beginnings back in93, postpartum was like super
real.
Not only super real, but superintense.
And we had a number ofresidents who would come to New
Beginnings, who were alsomedically diagnosed to be
bipolar.
And then it raises questionsabout should they be on the
medication, not on themedication?
(13:39):
Is the medication causing it?
So I found this article reallyinteresting in that there are
chemical changes that occur and,like we've talked about when
we've talked about hormonalbirth control or just medicines
in general, once your body'schemistry is tampered with in
one way, whether naturally orunnaturally, there's sometimes
(14:01):
unforeseen consequences.
And one of the difficulties ofdealing with the postpartum
topic I've had when I've spokenabout it publicly is you're
always going to get the peoplewho are going to come up to you
and go.
I didn't have a problem.
Therefore, why are they having aproblem?
You got to understand.
Everyone's chemistry isdifferent and we're on high
(14:23):
alert at New Beginnings, afterthere's been a delivery, because
, depending on the seriousnessof postpartum, it could become
dangerous for the mother, forthe child, for other people
around them.
And at New Beginnings, ourmothers room together.
Two mothers share an apartment.
We have to always be vigilantfor the safety of everyone, so
it's a real concern.
(14:43):
I'm happy when discoveries likethis are made and more research
is done, because in our worldthis is very real, very real.
Jeff Samelson (14:53):
Now, one of the interesting things about this
article was that it wasn't justtalking about chemical changes.
There was actual physicalchanges in the brain that were
displayed.
Things went back to normalafter a period of time or
whatever, but these were actual,lasting physical changes in
(15:13):
women's brains as a result ofpregnancy, delivery and then
postpartum period.
And it's just kind offascinating and I was thinking
as I read it all the people who,like the people, would say well
, I never had it, so why isanyone else having it?
The people would say just getover it.
To a woman who's experiencedpostpartum depression, it's like
, well, it is all in my head,physically in my head.
(15:38):
You just can't speak about itthat way or think about it that
way.
And it also underscores youknow pregnancy really is a big
deal.
You know it's not just becauseof the child that comes as a
result of pregnancy, that isborn as a result of pregnancy,
but everything about the processas God designed it.
It causes these changes.
It's a big deal, and bothmothers and fathers I think
(16:03):
perhaps fathers especially needto understand that these kinds
of changes are going on in thewomen that they marry and that
they are spending their liveswith, who have ended their
pregnancies with abortion.
Because you can't help butwonder if, okay, this change
happens as the pregnancyhappened, but then there was no
(16:30):
birth.
So what happened?
Did things change back?
Was something permanent happenas a result?
Be very interesting to see ifanyone ever follows that up.
I think it would be worthfollowing up.
Christa Potratz (16:41):
But I do think that is with some of the cases,
with people that say, oh, Inever experienced that.
You might have maybe forgottenin some ways that you kind of
experienced that too, because Iborn too and just how I was
(17:04):
dealing with things and just youknow, and sometimes what kind
of happens too is, I thinkwhatever situation you're in can
(17:25):
also amplify that too, or viceversa.
So I mean, when you were saying, bob too, I mean you know, in
New Beginnings you're dealingwith women that already don't
have the thinking of, on top ofwhat their body is going through
with the changes too, from that.
Bob Fleischmann (18:04):
You know, a number of years ago I did a
workshop on just the changesthat occur with pregnancy, how
pregnancy occurs, and it wasmajor detail and I use
PowerPoint so I had images and Icould describe and I can talk
about different thingstriggering and how it cycles
through and everything.
I got all done and I had anurse come up afterwards and she
(18:28):
said I have never heard thatthorough of an explanation.
I learned things I neverrealized and so a lot of times
you think that these things arecovered in detail.
I learn things I never realizedand so a lot of times you think
that these things are covered indetail.
But the point I want to make iswhat I found really interesting
about this.
As you might imagine, you knowin this household almost any
article that's dealing withchanges in the brain I'm paying
(18:49):
closer attention to, and thismorning actually, I was reading
an article on a new discoveryabout glioblastoma, which is
what my wife is going through,and in that story they just
discovered that the very thingthat they thought was the
problem is not the problem andthat there's something else that
(19:10):
was the problem and there'snothing that's going to help us
in the very short run.
But what I found fascinatingabout the article is just how
sensitive the brain is to eventhe mildest of changes, and
you'll hear stories of peopleall of a sudden acting unusual
and then they find that therewas pressure, there was a
(19:32):
buildup of fluid in a portion ofthe brain and just a little
pressure.
Find that there was pressure,there was a buildup of fluid in
a portion of the brain and justa little pressure.
And when you read this storyabout postpartum, the physical
changes of the brain has to haveconsequences, and I just found
it valuable for us to learn sothat it helps us understand when
people will argue well, becauseof these physical changes, they
(19:54):
do sinful things, so thereforewe've explained away sin.
No, you don't explain away sin.
You might understand why ithappens, but the kinds of things
that occur, with the massiveimpact that a pregnancy has on a
woman's body, does change thebrain.
Jeff Samelson (20:12):
There's just no doubt about it, and it affects
some more than others and,krista, what you were saying
about, you know your ownexperience.
You know, did I have this, DidI not?
It's like I'm pretty sure I'veheard this comment from somebody
.
Well, you know, back in my daywe were too busy as mothers to
have depression, andparticularly before birth
control, and you know familyplanning and things like that
(20:33):
it's like.
But when you look at history,there are plenty of
well-recorded cases of women whodid some horrible things or who
just went into almost apermanent state of depression as
people didn't understand it sowell back then.
But that's one of the thingsabout depression is very often
you can be in it for a long timeand not even realize you're in
(20:55):
it.
It's just because this becomesyour new normal.
You're not really thinking, oh,I'm depressed, you're just
thinking I don't have a goodlife.
You know, I'm busy, I'm gettingthings done, but it's just the
minimum and there's no joy in it.
Well, you know, that actuallykind of defines depression.
But if you don't stop and thinkabout it or you don't get any
kind of help that would help youdefine it you may not really
(21:21):
realize you're in it Right.
Bob Fleischmann (21:22):
The other thing too is we have so many other
chemicals that we ingest todaythat we didn't and I'm not an
anti-pill guy or anything likethat but when you look at the
chemicals we ingest and thechemicals they find in the house
, I was just watching anadvertisement yesterday saying
you know, have you had yourhouse checked for radon?
You know, nobody thought aboutradon, you know, years ago.
And there's just other.
(21:44):
You know things that are in theatmosphere and so forth?
Christa Potratz (21:47):
Yeah, how is this basement, Bob?
Yeah, I don't know.
I should probably have itchecked.
Bob Fleischmann (21:51):
I do know everything is sealed off, so
we're in good shape that way Ihave it checked, but I do know
everything is sealed off, sowe're in good shape that way.
But the point is that when Ireported this to my board about
the postpartum thing I just said, you know, at New Beginnings we
have a lot of mothers coming inwho are on different
medications and so forth, andour experience has been it seems
to magnify it to some degreewhen they get it.
(22:14):
You know, we put the doctors onnotice that we've had this
history of postpartum at thehouse and so forth, and so we're
especially vigilant on it, andso I think this was a giant step
in the right direction forunderstanding you know what's
going on and hopefully, what canbe done about it in the future.
Christa Potratz (22:33):
Well, the last article that we wanted to talk
about is this anti-aging pillfor dogs.
Well, maybe a little humorous,but we've talked about pets
before on the show and howpeople have kind of put their
just a lot of maybe importancein their pets, even to rival of
(22:57):
human importance as well, and sowhat do we kind of know about
this anti-aging pill for dogs?
Jeff Samelson (23:04):
Well, it's a biotech company doing this
called Loyal.
They're based, as so manystartups are, in San Francisco
and they announced that they'vedeveloped a drug to increase
canine lifespan and they'vepassed a significant milestone
on the way to getting approvalfrom the FDA for prescribing it
(23:26):
for dogs.
Let's see.
Fda certified the pill ashaving a reasonable expectation
of effectiveness at extendingsenior dogs' lifespans.
I didn't delve deep enough intoit to understand the actual
mechanisms of it, but it is kindof an interesting thought to
realize.
Wow, a pill can help extendlife.
It certainly raises somequestions, not just about well,
(23:51):
is this going to be a good ideafor my dog?
I really love my dog, do I wanthim or her to have this pill?
But, of course, if it's beingproved in concept with dogs,
then the question is is it goingto be then moved over into
humans with the same kind oftechnologies, and is that a good
(24:11):
thing, and what will theeffects of that be?
So it's one of those things.
It's an interesting newsarticle.
Perhaps more interesting iswhat it means.
Bob Fleischmann (24:21):
Well, and that's why I included it,
because I thought I've sharedwith my board a lot of articles
on efforts to increase thelifespan of humans and going all
the way from injectables usingplacenta and stuff like that.
There's all sorts of experimentsto try to kind of create a
fountain of youth for people andall the way to the extreme of
(24:44):
transhumanism taking yourconsciousness and putting it
into a machine.
There's a lot of that stuffgoing on, so I thought it was
only a matter of time that itwas going to affect animals was
only a matter of time that itwas going to affect animals.
And I think I've said, even ona previous podcast, that I don't
have any pets because I wouldget close to a pet, and so I
always said that the only petthat I think I would ever have
(25:06):
is like a tortoise, because theylive like 125 years.
They would outlive me.
I wouldn't have to mourn theloss of my pet, or it has to be
a pet I can flush down thetoilet, which is back when I
used to have tropical fish.
I found that I didn't getemotionally attached to any of
my fish, except maybe when I hada piranha.
But that's maybe a differentstory and a different
(25:27):
psychological discussion, butthe point is is that the idea of
life-enhancing medication foranimals is always a precursor to
what we can do with humans.
You know that they're workingon it and I found it fascinating
, so hopefully my board havefound it entertaining as well.
Jeff Samelson (25:49):
One of the things I picked up on it wasn't a
major point in the article wasthat I talked about.
You know a proven method iscalorie restriction.
You know they've establishedthat the kind of diet, well,
that that's normal for for dogsis is the kind that you know it
does eventual kind of long-termdamage, kind of on a genetic
(26:10):
level, to um, on a cellularlevel, and it?
Um decreases lifespan becausebasically it, it, it overworks
the system and you know.
But if you end up reducingcalorie intake and with the
right kind of calories it tendsto expend life.
And that that registers with mebecause my grandmother ate like
(26:32):
a bird, a tiny little thing,tiny appetite.
I didn't know her very well butparticularly toward the end of
my life, the few times I, youknow, I, you know, I had a
chance to, you know, share ameal with her or anything like
that, it's like that's allyou're eating.
She lived to 105.
Bob Fleischmann (26:49):
Yeah.
Jeff Samelson (26:50):
It's pretty easy because the statistics have come
out since then and I've seenwell, yeah, there is a
relationship between that kindof appetite or that kind of diet
and long life.
But again I look at that andsay I don't think I want to live
that way.
You know, I like food ownersare generally not going to be
(27:12):
comfortable reducing the calorieintake for their dogs because
they don't have the quote infront of me, but at the very end
of the article it quoted fromsomebody who was, I think what
(27:39):
was?
he wrote screenplays orsomething like that Successful
guy and he said everything thatI do, I do for my dogs.
Christa Potratz (27:47):
Yeah.
I mean, I definitely thinkthere is a market for this out
there.
Bob Fleischmann (27:53):
Well, just look at how the pet market has
exploded in the last I don'tknow four decades.
Pet insurance, right, all right.
Christa Potratz (28:01):
Well, thank you both for discussing these
articles and topics with ustoday, and we thank all of our
listeners, too, for joining us.
We encourage everybody to sharethis episode and subscribe to
the podcast.
If you have any questions onthis topic or any others, you
can reach us at lifechallengesus.
(28:22):
We'll see you back next time.
Bye.
Paul Snamiska (28:26):
Thank you for joining us for this episode of
the Life Challenges podcast fromChristian Life Resources.
Please consider subscribing tothis podcast, giving us a review
wherever you access it andsharing it with friends.
We're sure you have questionson today's topic or other life
issues.
Our goal is to help you throughthese tough topics and we want
you to know we're here to help.
(28:48):
You can submit your questions,as well as comments or
suggestions for future episodes,at lifechallengesus or email us
at podcast atchristianliferesourcescom.
In addition to the podcasts, weinclude other valuable
information at lifechallengesus,so be sure to check it out.
(29:09):
For more about our parentorganization, please visit
ChristianLifeResourcescom.
May God give you wisdom, love,strength and peace in Christ for
every life challenge.
On today's episode cases of women who did
some horrible things or who justwent into almost a permanent
state of depression.
People didn't understand it sowell back then, but that's one
of the things about depressionis very often you can be in it
for a long time and not evenrealize you're in it.
It's just because this becomesyour new normal.
(00:39):
You're not really thinking, oh,I'm depressed.
You're just thinking I don'thave a good life.
Paul Snamiska (01:06):
Welcome to the Life Challenges podcast from
Christian Life Resources.
Not really thinking, oh, I'mdepressed.
Christa Potratz (01:09):
You're just thinking I don't have a good
life biblical perspective tothese issues and more.
Join us now for Life Challenges.
Hi and welcome back.
I'm Krista Potratz and I'm heretoday with Pastors Bob
Fleischman and Jeff Samuelson,and today we are going to be
talking about our current events, our April current events here,
and we are going to start withthe Supreme Court might look at
(01:31):
a case to defund PlannedParenthood.
Jeff Samelson (01:35):
Yeah.
Well, in this case it's whetheror not states have the right to
, on their own, decide to defundPlanned Parenthood for whatever
reasons they might have.
And by the time any of ourlisteners hear this episode, the
arguments will already havebeen heard and we'll be waiting
for a decision.
But it's scheduled for April2nd that the Supreme Court will
(01:56):
hear the case.
It's Medina versus PlannedParenthood South Atlantic, and
the basic idea is that SouthCarolina has said that well,
we're not going to give anymoney to Planned Parenthood
South Atlantic, and the basicidea is that South Carolina has
said that well, we're not goingto give any money to Planned
Parenthood anymore because toomuch trouble with too many
different issues, so we don'twant to give any money to that
organization.
It's basically South Carolinasaying what everyone on the
(02:18):
pro-life side has been sayingforever Even if you just give
Planned Parenthood money forfamily planning and you're not
saying we're paying forabortions, you're still paying
for abortions because money isfungible.
You're giving your money tothem for this one thing.
It's going to help them movemoney over to the other thing,
(02:40):
and so forth.
And the person in the case thatwas listed in the article was
basically claiming well, mypreferred provider for this
service and I think it was justfor obtaining birth control is
Planned Parenthood, and by thestate defunding this, they're
limiting my right to receiveMedicaid care from the
organization that I prefer, eventhough apparently this person
(03:05):
could travel just a mile furtherand get the same care from a
different provider.
It's basically a manufacturedcase, but it is a big one,
because if the Supreme Courtwere to decide that, yes, states
do have the right to decidewhere their federal Medicaid
funding can go, that they havethe right to decide that, then
it would open up to many otherstates that are more pro-life in
(03:26):
perspective to say, okay, yeah,we're not going to give any
money to Planned Parenthoodanymore, and they'd be safe from
suit in doing so go to thecourt.
Bob Fleischmann (03:40):
Because technically you know, counties
make this decision all the time.
They have to provide certainmandated programs under the
Medicaid rules and one isindigent birth control services.
They also do some other healthservices and Planned Parenthood
has kind of been the.
Regardless of how you feelabout them ideologically, they
(04:02):
were always like an easy choice.
They kind of were the fullservice shop and they can kind
of pick and choose what servicesthat you're looking for, and so
they were an easy choice foreverybody.
So I would imagine and I'm justprojecting out, but I'm
imagining the courts, even theliberal justices, saying
counties have the right to dothis, to do this.
(04:28):
What counties don't have theright to do is you cannot
deprive Medicaid patients fromthese mandated services.
That's an act of Congress.
So unless you've got somebodyelse to do it, the liberals, at
least on the court, are going toprobably want to say then you
have to use Planned Parenthood.
But I mean I can't imagine aviable argument being made that
the county can't pick and choosewho to do it.
(04:49):
The problem is is there's neveranother choice?
You know that I see.
Well rarely there are anotherchoice.
When I faced this 40-some yearsago, brown County up in the
Green Bay area, there wasapparently a nurses coalition
that was willing to provide this.
But you have to understand thatwhen the federal government
provides for mandating some ofthese services for the indigent
(05:11):
community, some of thoseservices are problematic, you
know, like birth control, you'renot going to get, you know, the
Catholic Nurses Group standingin line to do this, because the
Catholic Church has a problemwith birth control outside of
natural family planning, and soyou've got a problem there.
Now you have to go to theevangelical community, the
(05:32):
Protestant community, and someof us have a problem with some
forms of birth control.
So you know we're not going tobe standing in line to be doing
that.
And so it presents some realissues and it does seem to kind
of fit with the whole retoolingargument that seems to be going
on with the currentadministration.
And you know we just have tolook at a different way of doing
(05:54):
this stuff and, of course,maybe there's something
fundamentally wrong with the waythat we mandate some of these
Medicaid monies.
Jeff Samelson (06:03):
I suspect that the argument that would come
across on the other side therewould be that, well, part of the
reason that Planned Parenthoodis the only game in town is
because they're the only game intown.
If a decision at a state levelwere made was like no, planned
Parenthood isn't going to getany money from this, then maybe
somebody else would be steppingforward and saying, oh okay,
here's an opportunity, whereaspreviously they'd say, well,
(06:26):
planned Parenthood is doing it.
Why would we?
Bob Fleischmann (06:31):
get into providing birth control and
things like that.
Yeah, and the pro-lifecommunity would have a problem
with it, because pro-lifecommunity doesn't like forms of
birth control that have anabortifacient function.
So I mean just pro-life, even,regardless of religious
persuasion.
They're just going to havetrouble with it.
Christa Potratz (06:47):
No, it's really interesting, and I know we
talked about Planned Parenthoodtoo in our Planned Parenthood
episode as well, but they justreally have seemed to have just
done… maybe a great job over theyears, just with their
marketing and just how they areable to get their mark in what
(07:09):
they do.
Bob Fleischmann (07:11):
Planned Parenthood now has kind of
fallen victim to some bad press,with the whole business of
clinics being in poor conditionand so forth.
There was that huge New YorkTimes article which really was
an expose.
It just shows an organizationthat is really starting to
struggle.
So if they were to lose thiscase it very realistically could
(07:33):
be the demise you know thebeginning of the demise of
Planned Parenthood, becausepeople are going to be looking
for an alternative agency andright now this is the devil we
know and just to be clear, wewould shed no tears at Planned
Parenthood's demise.
Yeah, and the reason is is theystill remain the largest single
(07:54):
abortion provider in the UnitedStates, if not the world.
Christa Potratz (07:59):
Well, a lot to look out for and to watch how
that case goes and stuff too inthe future.
So the next article topic thatwe wanted to talk about is
frozen embryos and how they areconsidered.
Now I guess or a Virginia judgehas ruled that a divorce
(08:20):
happens and a couple has frozenembryos, that they can't be
considered property.
Can someone expand a little biton that?
Jeff Samelson (08:30):
Well, this is one of those cases that may very
well end up at the Supreme Courtsomeday, because different
states, different judges, havedecided things differently.
And there have been some othercases, the recent one in Alabama
, for instance, that got a lotof attention what is a year,
year and a half ago, somethinglike that.
But this was a case.
(08:50):
A couple had gone through IVF.
They had two frozen embryos andthen they got divorced and, as
it was, the wife was unable todo anything with those because
they were joint property and ifher ex-husband said, no, I don't
release those to you, she wasin a bind and her ex-wife,
(09:11):
basically, was suing.
She wanted to get possession ofthose two embryos so that she
could use them to possibly haveone or two more children, and
she was even willing to accept apartition, which would
basically be she gets one andthe husband gets the other,
which of course raises thequestion of what's he going to
do with it.
You kind of wonder what's goingon with the husband as to why
(09:35):
he would stand in the way ofthis in any way.
Although he says that I don'twant to become a father without
having a choice in the matter,we'd say, of course he already
is a father.
He had a choice that was madepreviously.
But anyway, the interestingthing about this was that the
judge in this case says no,these are not property.
And he actually referenced somestuff, going back to references
(09:59):
to slavery and slavery law, andsaying no, we can't treat human
beings as property.
Embryos are not property in thesame sense that a piece of land
would be or an automobile wouldbe.
These are not things to bedivided in that way, and so they
can't be decided in this way,because the way that she put
(10:20):
this suit forward was in termsof treating it as property and
not as, like a family court typeof situation.
And so it's a very interestingcase and it'll be very it looks
like it will probably beappealed and be very interesting
to see how far up the chain itgoes and what decision is made.
Bob Fleischmann (10:37):
And this is not the first time something like
this has happened.
I've been involved in caseslike this where they had frozen
embryos, a divorce occurred andagain the ex-wife wanted to
protect them, felt that theywere human life and the husband
wanted them divided.
And there were five embryos.
(10:57):
In the one case that I wasinvolved with which, of course,
raised the question about thefifth embryo and the husband the
ex-husband had made it prettyclear he was going to destroy
them.
Why?
Because he didn't want to havethis woman's children now that
he was divorcing.
And I remember invokingsomething a high-powered
(11:18):
attorney told me 25 years ago,and that is.
Everybody thinks thatadjudication's about justice.
He goes, it's not.
It's about winning.
You need to find the meanestlawyer, the most aggressive
lawyer, and so I did.
I helped the family findsomeone who was pro-life, who
understood, and this lady camein swinging because up until
(11:42):
then it looked like theex-husband was going to win the
day and the wife the ex-wifeended up getting possession of
all of them and I don't knowwhat happened since then.
But this happens and peoplehave—everyone kind of knows how
I feel about IVF.
You can even tease me about iton occasion here, but I've never
been a fan.
But this is one of the reasonswhy because when you understand
(12:06):
again, if you think simply aboutit, you're not going to get it
when you start thinking aboutthe complexities of it.
So now you've got embryos.
Now they develop to a pointthey're frozen.
All of a sudden there's afalling out.
The other falling out thatoccurs is even if the couple
stays together.
All of a sudden they realize Ican't handle more than one child
.
It was much more than Iimagined it would be.
(12:27):
Now, what do you do with them?
And I always thought Alabamajust said the emperor is naked.
That's really what happened in.
Alabama, and now you're seeingthese other cases.
So I agree with Jeff.
I think at some point theSupreme Court is going to have
to weigh in on it.
Christa Potratz (12:49):
Well, another thing that we wanted to talk
about today was an article, bob,I believe you had found it on
postpartum depression and theway it changes the brain.
Bob Fleischmann (12:56):
Well, first of all, I don't know maybe I'm
speaking for myself, but justany father never giving an ounce
of thought to postpartum All ofa sudden they have their first
child and they find their wifesitting in the tub crying and
they don't know what's going on.
That was my first introductionto postpartum, and when we
(13:18):
started New Beginnings back in93, postpartum was like super
real.
Not only super real, but superintense.
And we had a number ofresidents who would come to New
Beginnings, who were alsomedically diagnosed to be
bipolar.
And then it raises questionsabout should they be on the
medication, not on themedication?
(13:39):
Is the medication causing it?
So I found this article reallyinteresting in that there are
chemical changes that occur and,like we've talked about when
we've talked about hormonalbirth control or just medicines
in general, once your body'schemistry is tampered with in
one way, whether naturally orunnaturally, there's sometimes
(14:01):
unforeseen consequences.
And one of the difficulties ofdealing with the postpartum
topic I've had when I've spokenabout it publicly is you're
always going to get the peoplewho are going to come up to you
and go.
I didn't have a problem.
Therefore, why are they having aproblem?
You got to understand.
Everyone's chemistry isdifferent and we're on high
(14:23):
alert at New Beginnings, afterthere's been a delivery, because
, depending on the seriousnessof postpartum, it could become
dangerous for the mother, forthe child, for other people
around them.
And at New Beginnings, ourmothers room together.
Two mothers share an apartment.
We have to always be vigilantfor the safety of everyone, so
it's a real concern.
(14:43):
I'm happy when discoveries likethis are made and more research
is done, because in our worldthis is very real, very real.
Jeff Samelson (14:53):
Now, one of the interesting things about this
article was that it wasn't justtalking about chemical changes.
There was actual physicalchanges in the brain that were
displayed.
Things went back to normalafter a period of time or
whatever, but these were actual,lasting physical changes in
(15:13):
women's brains as a result ofpregnancy, delivery and then
postpartum period.
And it's just kind offascinating and I was thinking
as I read it all the people who,like the people, would say well
, I never had it, so why isanyone else having it?
The people would say just getover it.
To a woman who's experiencedpostpartum depression, it's like
, well, it is all in my head,physically in my head.
(15:38):
You just can't speak about itthat way or think about it that
way.
And it also underscores youknow pregnancy really is a big
deal.
You know it's not just becauseof the child that comes as a
result of pregnancy, that isborn as a result of pregnancy,
but everything about the processas God designed it.
It causes these changes.
It's a big deal, and bothmothers and fathers I think
(16:03):
perhaps fathers especially needto understand that these kinds
of changes are going on in thewomen that they marry and that
they are spending their liveswith, who have ended their
pregnancies with abortion.
Because you can't help butwonder if, okay, this change
happens as the pregnancyhappened, but then there was no
(16:30):
birth.
So what happened?
Did things change back?
Was something permanent happenas a result?
Be very interesting to see ifanyone ever follows that up.
I think it would be worthfollowing up.
Christa Potratz (16:41):
But I do think that is with some of the cases,
with people that say, oh, Inever experienced that.
You might have maybe forgottenin some ways that you kind of
experienced that too, because Iborn too and just how I was
(17:04):
dealing with things and just youknow, and sometimes what kind
of happens too is, I thinkwhatever situation you're in can
(17:25):
also amplify that too, or viceversa.
So I mean, when you were saying, bob too, I mean you know, in
New Beginnings you're dealingwith women that already don't
have the thinking of, on top ofwhat their body is going through
with the changes too, from that.
Bob Fleischmann (18:04):
You know, a number of years ago I did a
workshop on just the changesthat occur with pregnancy, how
pregnancy occurs, and it wasmajor detail and I use
PowerPoint so I had images and Icould describe and I can talk
about different thingstriggering and how it cycles
through and everything.
I got all done and I had anurse come up afterwards and she
(18:28):
said I have never heard thatthorough of an explanation.
I learned things I neverrealized and so a lot of times
you think that these things arecovered in detail.
I learn things I never realizedand so a lot of times you think
that these things are covered indetail.
But the point I want to make iswhat I found really interesting
about this.
As you might imagine, you knowin this household almost any
article that's dealing withchanges in the brain I'm paying
(18:49):
closer attention to, and thismorning actually, I was reading
an article on a new discoveryabout glioblastoma, which is
what my wife is going through,and in that story they just
discovered that the very thingthat they thought was the
problem is not the problem andthat there's something else that
(19:10):
was the problem and there'snothing that's going to help us
in the very short run.
But what I found fascinatingabout the article is just how
sensitive the brain is to eventhe mildest of changes, and
you'll hear stories of peopleall of a sudden acting unusual
and then they find that therewas pressure, there was a
(19:32):
buildup of fluid in a portion ofthe brain and just a little
pressure.
Find that there was pressure,there was a buildup of fluid in
a portion of the brain and justa little pressure.
And when you read this storyabout postpartum, the physical
changes of the brain has to haveconsequences, and I just found
it valuable for us to learn sothat it helps us understand when
people will argue well, becauseof these physical changes, they
(19:54):
do sinful things, so thereforewe've explained away sin.
No, you don't explain away sin.
You might understand why ithappens, but the kinds of things
that occur, with the massiveimpact that a pregnancy has on a
woman's body, does change thebrain.
Jeff Samelson (20:12):
There's just no doubt about it, and it affects
some more than others and,krista, what you were saying
about, you know your ownexperience.
You know, did I have this, DidI not?
It's like I'm pretty sure I'veheard this comment from somebody
.
Well, you know, back in my daywe were too busy as mothers to
have depression, andparticularly before birth
control, and you know familyplanning and things like that
(20:33):
it's like.
But when you look at history,there are plenty of
well-recorded cases of women whodid some horrible things or who
just went into almost apermanent state of depression as
people didn't understand it sowell back then.
But that's one of the thingsabout depression is very often
you can be in it for a long timeand not even realize you're in
(20:55):
it.
It's just because this becomesyour new normal.
You're not really thinking, oh,I'm depressed, you're just
thinking I don't have a goodlife.
You know, I'm busy, I'm gettingthings done, but it's just the
minimum and there's no joy in it.
Well, you know, that actuallykind of defines depression.
But if you don't stop and thinkabout it or you don't get any
kind of help that would help youdefine it you may not really
(21:21):
realize you're in it Right.
Bob Fleischmann (21:22):
The other thing too is we have so many other
chemicals that we ingest todaythat we didn't and I'm not an
anti-pill guy or anything likethat but when you look at the
chemicals we ingest and thechemicals they find in the house
, I was just watching anadvertisement yesterday saying
you know, have you had yourhouse checked for radon?
You know, nobody thought aboutradon, you know, years ago.
And there's just other.
(21:44):
You know things that are in theatmosphere and so forth?
Christa Potratz (21:47):
Yeah, how is this basement, Bob?
Yeah, I don't know.
I should probably have itchecked.
Bob Fleischmann (21:51):
I do know everything is sealed off, so
we're in good shape that way Ihave it checked, but I do know
everything is sealed off, sowe're in good shape that way.
But the point is that when Ireported this to my board about
the postpartum thing I just said, you know, at New Beginnings we
have a lot of mothers coming inwho are on different
medications and so forth, andour experience has been it seems
to magnify it to some degreewhen they get it.
(22:14):
You know, we put the doctors onnotice that we've had this
history of postpartum at thehouse and so forth, and so we're
especially vigilant on it, andso I think this was a giant step
in the right direction forunderstanding you know what's
going on and hopefully, what canbe done about it in the future.
Christa Potratz (22:33):
Well, the last article that we wanted to talk
about is this anti-aging pillfor dogs.
Well, maybe a little humorous,but we've talked about pets
before on the show and howpeople have kind of put their
just a lot of maybe importancein their pets, even to rival of
(22:57):
human importance as well, and sowhat do we kind of know about
this anti-aging pill for dogs?
Jeff Samelson (23:04):
Well, it's a biotech company doing this
called Loyal.
They're based, as so manystartups are, in San Francisco
and they announced that they'vedeveloped a drug to increase
canine lifespan and they'vepassed a significant milestone
on the way to getting approvalfrom the FDA for prescribing it
(23:26):
for dogs.
Let's see.
Fda certified the pill ashaving a reasonable expectation
of effectiveness at extendingsenior dogs' lifespans.
I didn't delve deep enough intoit to understand the actual
mechanisms of it, but it is kindof an interesting thought to
realize.
Wow, a pill can help extendlife.
It certainly raises somequestions, not just about well,
(23:51):
is this going to be a good ideafor my dog?
I really love my dog, do I wanthim or her to have this pill?
But, of course, if it's beingproved in concept with dogs,
then the question is is it goingto be then moved over into
humans with the same kind oftechnologies, and is that a good
(24:11):
thing, and what will theeffects of that be?
So it's one of those things.
It's an interesting newsarticle.
Perhaps more interesting iswhat it means.
Bob Fleischmann (24:21):
Well, and that's why I included it,
because I thought I've sharedwith my board a lot of articles
on efforts to increase thelifespan of humans and going all
the way from injectables usingplacenta and stuff like that.
There's all sorts of experimentsto try to kind of create a
fountain of youth for people andall the way to the extreme of
(24:44):
transhumanism taking yourconsciousness and putting it
into a machine.
There's a lot of that stuffgoing on, so I thought it was
only a matter of time that itwas going to affect animals was
only a matter of time that itwas going to affect animals.
And I think I've said, even ona previous podcast, that I don't
have any pets because I wouldget close to a pet, and so I
always said that the only petthat I think I would ever have
(25:06):
is like a tortoise, because theylive like 125 years.
They would outlive me.
I wouldn't have to mourn theloss of my pet, or it has to be
a pet I can flush down thetoilet, which is back when I
used to have tropical fish.
I found that I didn't getemotionally attached to any of
my fish, except maybe when I hada piranha.
But that's maybe a differentstory and a different
(25:27):
psychological discussion, butthe point is is that the idea of
life-enhancing medication foranimals is always a precursor to
what we can do with humans.
You know that they're workingon it and I found it fascinating
, so hopefully my board havefound it entertaining as well.
Jeff Samelson (25:49):
One of the things I picked up on it wasn't a
major point in the article wasthat I talked about.
You know a proven method iscalorie restriction.
You know they've establishedthat the kind of diet, well,
that that's normal for for dogsis is the kind that you know it
does eventual kind of long-termdamage, kind of on a genetic
(26:10):
level, to um, on a cellularlevel, and it?
Um decreases lifespan becausebasically it, it, it overworks
the system and you know.
But if you end up reducingcalorie intake and with the
right kind of calories it tendsto expend life.
And that that registers with mebecause my grandmother ate like
(26:32):
a bird, a tiny little thing,tiny appetite.
I didn't know her very well butparticularly toward the end of
my life, the few times I, youknow, I, you know, I had a
chance to, you know, share ameal with her or anything like
that, it's like that's allyou're eating.
She lived to 105.
Bob Fleischmann (26:49):
Yeah.
Jeff Samelson (26:50):
It's pretty easy because the statistics have come
out since then and I've seenwell, yeah, there is a
relationship between that kindof appetite or that kind of diet
and long life.
But again I look at that andsay I don't think I want to live
that way.
You know, I like food ownersare generally not going to be
(27:12):
comfortable reducing the calorieintake for their dogs because
they don't have the quote infront of me, but at the very end
of the article it quoted fromsomebody who was, I think what
(27:39):
was?
he wrote screenplays orsomething like that Successful
guy and he said everything thatI do, I do for my dogs.
Christa Potratz (27:47):
Yeah.
I mean, I definitely thinkthere is a market for this out
there.
Bob Fleischmann (27:53):
Well, just look at how the pet market has
exploded in the last I don'tknow four decades.
Pet insurance, right, all right.
Christa Potratz (28:01):
Well, thank you both for discussing these
articles and topics with ustoday, and we thank all of our
listeners, too, for joining us.
We encourage everybody to sharethis episode and subscribe to
the podcast.
If you have any questions onthis topic or any others, you
can reach us at lifechallengesus.
(28:22):
We'll see you back next time.
Bye.
Paul Snamiska (28:26):
Thank you for joining us for this episode of
the Life Challenges podcast fromChristian Life Resources.
Please consider subscribing tothis podcast, giving us a review
wherever you access it andsharing it with friends.
We're sure you have questionson today's topic or other life
issues.
Our goal is to help you throughthese tough topics and we want
you to know we're here to help.
(28:48):
You can submit your questions,as well as comments or
suggestions for future episodes,at lifechallengesus or email us
at podcast atchristianliferesourcescom.
In addition to the podcasts, weinclude other valuable
information at lifechallengesus,so be sure to check it out.
(29:09):
For more about our parentorganization, please visit
ChristianLifeResourcescom.
May God give you wisdom, love,strength and peace in Christ for
every life challenge.
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com