The Life Challenges Podcast

What’s Trending? Xenotransplantation, IVF, Maternal Health, and Measles Outbreak

• Christian Life Resources

Share episode

In this month's What's Trending episode, we explore the cutting-edge frontier of medical science: xenotransplantation. Can animal organs save human lives? We discuss groundbreaking advancements in cross-species organ donation, particularly focusing on long-term survival rates of patients receiving pig organs. While this innovation presents a promising avenue for addressing the overwhelming shortage of human organs, it raises critical ethical questions about the implications of using animal DNA within humans.

We also delve into President Trump's recent executive order aimed at expanding access to IVF, reflecting on the implications for families hoping to conceive. This timely discussion examines the interplay between politics and health, offering listeners a comprehensive perspective on reproductive issues.

Additionally, we tackle the alarming resurgence of measles cases in Texas, raising essential conversations about vaccination practices and public health. As fear of the disease spikes again, we highlight the importance of maintaining public trust in vaccines and discuss how misinformation can influence individual health choices.

Join us as we navigate these vital topics weighing the medical, ethical, and societal dimensions of life challenges in today’s world. Be sure to engage with us, share your thoughts, and consider what these discussions mean for you. Don’t forget to subscribe for more captivating insights into life, faith, and health.

SHOW NOTES:

Support the show

Robert Fleischmann:

on today's episode, transplantation of well, this is actually the arena called xenotransplantation, which is cross-species transplantation presents its natural challenges. First of all, you've got the organ rejection and so forth which, by the way, you have even within same-species transplantation, like if you get a human kidney from somebody else. Rejection is always a problem and stuff, but it's a real problem with cross-species. But secondly, you've also got design issues. The way God designed a kidney for an animal and the way God designed it for a human are two different ones.

Paul Snamiska:

Welcome to the Life Challenges podcast from Christian Life Resources. People today face many opportunities and struggles when it comes to issues of life and death, marriage and family, health and science. We're here to bring a fresh biblical perspective to these issues and more. Join us now for Life Challenges.

Christa Potratz:

Hi and welcome back. I'm Krista Potratz and I'm here today with Pastors Bob Fleischman and Jeff Samuelson, and today we are going to tackle our March current events. The first topic that we wanted to talk about was the recent executive order that Trump has signed to expand access to IVF. So, jeff, can you fill us in a little bit about what that all entails?

Jeff Samelson:

But it is still pretty significant. It's an executive order that charges the guy in charge of these things at the White House to submit policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF and says basically they've got to produce all this plan within 90 days. Plan within 90 days and it is touted as something that is good for families that want more kids, good for reducing the costs of the process. It's even good for increasing fertility rates here within the United States.

Christa Potratz:

Just a question why make it an executive order? What is maybe the appeal of that, versus putting like a bill forth or just that like going through other channels?

Jeff Samelson:

Oh, that's.

Christa Potratz:

Is that not a good question?

Jeff Samelson:

No, no, that's a great question.

Jeff Samelson:

It's just one of those things that, well, I'll give you the simple answer.

Jeff Samelson:

But it's actually a much longer and involved thing, having to do with Congress giving up most of its rights and powers and abilities over the last 50 or 60 years or whatever. But basically what it is is it's easier for a president to say, okay, this is what I'm going to do with the authority that I have as the chief executive, but I'm not going to go to the trouble of trying to convince Congress that this is something that they need to enact a law about or that they need to provide funding for or whatever. And there is a lot that within the executive branch that can be done on these things, although, I mean, you asking this brings up good points like how much can it really accomplish? And there is a limit to that, unfortunately. Things like the ACA, the Obamacare Act and things like that that entrusted a lot more authority within the executive branch when it comes to health matters, health insurance and who pays for what, and things like that within the unelected bureaucracy and not within Congress.

Robert Fleischmann:

I see a lot of Elon Musk in this one because if you've ever read the bio on Musk, he's got all of these children I can't remember how many he has now.

Christa Potratz:

I think 13 as of you know, recent.

Robert Fleischmann:

Right, yeah, and someone had just. I just read the other day that someone wants another one, but he's very big on big families and so forth, but I believe nearly all of his children come through surrogates and IVF and so that's what I mean. It doesn't seem like something that would have naturally come up on Trump's radar, but there's a lot that we have been happy for, you know, like understanding correctly about gender and some pro-life stuff that the president's done about gender and some pro-life stuff that the president's done. This one I'm not comfortable with. Every child born is a blessing, whether it's come to us through surrogates or IVFs and so forth, but that doesn't mean that those are always the safest and the best way to approach it. But that doesn't seem to be a matter of concern for the administration in this regard. So I'm not happy with it, but the strategy is working.

Christa Potratz:

He's coming out with so many executive orders. It's hard. It tries to come off as being pro-family right, you know, giving access to IVF but from a life issue standpoint, we've talked about things that have raised concerns with that.

Robert Fleischmann:

But if we were to cast this in a really positive light, there is a legitimate concern. The fertility rate is below replacement level. So we have an infertility issue in the United States. So you know, hypothetically this would have more citizens to be born, more taxpayers. So in a sense that would be good. But also the idea is that I think it represents an effort of trying to get the government out of the bedroom on some things. But the problem is that it's a little bit of a shotgun approach. It's pursuing something without understanding the full ramifications of it and like, for example, if the majority of created embryos were not destroyed in a typical IVF procedure, I'd probably embrace this for one reason or another, help the infertile couples and so forth. But that's not reality. Reality is that somewhere between 70% and 80% of the embryos created to initiate the process is still lost in order to get one child in your arms, and I think most people, if they thought that through, would not live comfortably with those odds.

Jeff Samelson:

There are so many things that we would just say what's really good is for us to eliminate regulations and, just you know, free people up to act without having to deal with this, and that this from the government that slows them down and such. This is an area where, as pro-lifers, we'd actually like to have tighter regulation so that there is less of the wastage of unborn life. If it was put in so that these things would not be happening in that way, well then that we'd welcome. But what this is likely to end up in if it ends up in anything is actually loosening restrictions and making it easier and then adding costs on everybody, because if you end up saying, well, people's health plans have to cover the IVF, then that means everybody's premiums are going to go up.

Christa Potratz:

Yeah, I mean because it is still a very expensive procedure. Yeah, a very expensive procedure.

Robert Fleischmann:

Yeah, I mean it's still costing money and because it usually requires multiple cycles to make this work. So you're talking roughly $2,000 to $7,000 a cycle, depending on how far it goes. And you multiply that by two or three, if you can get it within that cycle, yeah, that's a lot of money.

Jeff Samelson:

That's $15,000 or more. Yeah, and I actually saw some research the other day that looked at other countries that have gone this route of really promoting at a governmental level promoting IVF and apparently it has had no discernible effect on their birth rate in those countries?

Jeff Samelson:

Oh, that's interesting had no discernible effect on their birth rate in those countries. And when you think about it, it kind of makes sense because the reason the birth rate is down is because people aren't getting married young enough and having children young enough and having big enough families. And adding IVF which is generally something only for people who are later in their marriage, later in life, who can't, you know, or who are having fertility problems, that's not really going to make the numbers budge much by promoting that.

Christa Potratz:

Yeah, and I mean I'll be honest with the people that I've known that have done IVF. I don't think there has ever been. I mean just I know this is anecdotal, but like more than two kids that in their family that have gone through, been through IVF, I mean it's just, it isn't something that you maybe would do IVF for like eight children or something Right, unless you're Elon Musk.

Robert Fleischmann:

Yeah.

Jeff Samelson:

Yeah exactly, or Octomom oh the Octomom.

Christa Potratz:

Yes, yes yes, yep, all right. Well, always fun to talk about IVF with Bob here. Yeah, so moving along to another topic, talking about the measles spike in Texas, recently there's been some measles spike cases in Texas. What do we know about that, jeff?

Jeff Samelson:

Well, it's, in a way, not all that surprising given some of the trends that we've been seeing in the United States recently, but this report I was looking at recently that says nearly 100 people across Texas and New Mexico have contracted measles.

Jeff Samelson:

This is shocking in a way or at least it should be because not too long ago the United States government had basically declared measles was conquered. It's been eliminated, it's not a problem anymore. There are always going to be a few cases here and there, which were usually because they were contracted overseas or it was an immigrant or somebody like that who had not been vaccinated or something like that, but as far as Americans went, it had been basically eliminated, and so the only reason that this is showing up now as an outbreak in this part of West Texas is that parents have not been getting their kids vaccinated, and once that germ gets in there it infects people and it spreads, and apparently some of the people who have been victimized by this are even people who have been vaccinated, but the vaccination effect wasn't as strong in them and they still managed to contract the disease which you know again.

Christa Potratz:

That's interesting to me, yeah. So I mean I guess I don't really understand that too much how that could happen. And you know, then I mean I could see other people listening and thinking, well, if they're getting it and they're vaccinated, then I for sure am not going to vaccinate my child.

Jeff Samelson:

I mean it's like if you're wearing a bulletproof vest and somebody shoots at you and they happen to hit you in the leg, you don't say it wasn't a good idea to wear the bulletproof vest. You just say I'm thankful it only hit me in the leg. And I think that that's a similar kind of thing here, and we've seen this with the COVID vaccine. Despite what was often said when it was first getting promoted, covid vaccine doesn't keep everyone from getting COVID. But if you've been vaccinated and you get COVID, the effect is not as strong, you don't get it as bad, and that's going to be the case with many other types of vaccines. Bob probably has more of the details there in memory than I do, but the idea is that at least you are, your body already has some antibodies against this and so the effect is not going to be as strong, whereas if you don't have any of the antibodies because you were never vaccinated, your body's not going to be able to adapt as well.

Robert Fleischmann:

You know, for years I've listened to people talk about well, I got the flu vaccine, then I caught the flu, you know, or something like that. You know people would complain that they had gotten treatment Like, for example, treating breast cancer. Right now is really one of the great turnaround stories for early diagnosis, quick treatment. There's been some wonderful things being reported but it doesn't work 100%. And none of these things work 100% and it's because everyone's biology and everyone's DNA makeup is a little bit different. You've inherited some strengths and weaknesses from your ancestors.

Robert Fleischmann:

But I get to read what people write when they say well, you know, some people who were vaccinated got it. Part of it is people who talk that way don't understand how vaccines work. There's vaccines out there that maybe on average show like a 60 or 70 percent, which is wonderful if you're in the 60 or 70 percent, not so great if you're in the 30 percent range. But people have to understand it's that higher percentage and that's kind of how they work and it was so effective. I think it was in 2000 when they declared measles eradicated in the United States Because it's a combination of that and what's called herd immunity that begins to build and it works.

Robert Fleischmann:

But other objections that people have had to the vaccines have been in the development process.

Robert Fleischmann:

There were fetal cells from aborted children that were involved and so forth, and someday we'll get into a deep dive on vaccines and we'll talk about that stuff.

Robert Fleischmann:

But the point is is that let's ignore all that. Let's ignore all of the stuff that gives you angst, and just think about it this way when you are running around with full-blown measles and we're suffering from a low fertility rate, as it is in the United States, and your aunt is showing up at your door with the exciting news that she's pregnant, you having measles creates a real, genuine threat to her and the well-being of her unborn child. Those are the kinds of things that people have to think about. When it comes to, you can isolate yourself, which would probably definitely be wise, but one of the problems is that you oftentimes are communicable when you're not aware that you've got it or it's not full blown yet, so there's risks to other people. Measles creates creates risk both in cognitive development later on in life and so forth. Those are all things that come in to play when you have an outbreak like this, and I'm sure that it'll be interesting when we come back to this podcast 20 years from now.

Robert Fleischmann:

And we will and we will yes Then we'll find out how those people, those children that got the measles, how they fared, Because I can guarantee you they're going to be tracked now because there's a lot of debate over you know what's reliable research, and so there's a lot of close scrutiny on stuff like this.

Jeff Samelson:

And part of this is the perils of success by eliminating so many of these childhood diseases and things like that, eliminating so many of these childhood diseases and things like that. There are generations that have been born with no memory of how bad they are and can be. I can't remember where it is. There's been a polio outbreak somewhere recently also, and that's again the kind of thing that people just did not realize how common it was that people would be paralyzed or end up, you know, very weak legs or something like that from having had polio as a kid and it happened all the time, and then they found a way to stop it, and so a lot of it's just keeping the memory of these things going and going to the effort of learning everything there is to know, rather than just latching onto one fact and saying, okay, this is the one that decides everything for me. But but, krista, you know, when you you shared an article on this about measles parties, is this something that you, as a mom, want?

Christa Potratz:

to send your kids to. No, I just I thought it was interesting. It came from the Austin American Statesman, which is the Austin newspaper, which I was familiar with, and yeah, it was just talking about. I guess, like when you have measles right, you just collectively get to get, or I guess if you don't have measles, you find somebody that does have measles right and then you're just trying to expose your family or your kids to the measles.

Jeff Samelson:

Yeah, that's essentially the idea, right, and it's something they used to do with chickenpox, but of course, chickenpox is not as dangerous as measles.

Christa Potratz:

I was about to say I don't think I would take my kid to a measles party. Chickenpox is one thing, but measles seems, like you said, more severe.

Jeff Samelson:

Yeah, yeah. And the idea is that you get the kids exposed, they develop the immunity and because it all happens at once, then you don't have to worry in the future about any of your kids mixing and picking it up. That way, you just get it all taken care of right up front.

Robert Fleischmann:

But again, it's a silly notion. It's like Mother Earth Jones version of medicine, because you know you're paying no attention to the fact that, oh good, okay, all of my kids got the measles at the same time. But there's consequences that go beyond them, and one of my frustrations and having gone through the vaccine wars in our circles, one of the frustrations has always been this incredible self-centered approach to looking at this stuff. Well, as long as my kids are covered, as long as we get it, you know, we're fine. But the problem with measles when you study it, is the damage it causes to others around you, and others who either don't have your immunity, others who don't have your health background.

Robert Fleischmann:

And so many times I've heard parents say well, my kids are fine, they've done that, They've grown up. Well, we got it when we were kids. We were fine. I got measles when I was a kid and from the measles I caught pneumonia and from pneumonia I almost died. Okay, so measles may have been a good idea for you, but it didn't fare so well for me, so I've always been. You know, people who talk that way just are being very with blinders on.

Christa Potratz:

It's just real interesting to just to keep an eye on with all that kind of stuff and get to well I guess maybe a few articles all under the topic of suggesting that states with abortion bans are seeing poor maternal health results.

Jeff Samelson:

Yeah, it's both maternal and infant health things. They're two different articles or whatever. They're both pulling the data from states, looking at the states that have abortion bans and comparing them to states that don't have the abortion bans, and basically the conclusions they're reaching are saying that there's higher infant mortality in the states with abortion bans and saying that there's also a higher instance of maternal ill health results from a pregnancy in those states as well?

Christa Potratz:

Is that particularly related to sepsis?

Jeff Samelson:

Okay, yeah, and sepsis is basically what you might call an all-body infection, so when something gets into your bloodstream goes through your entire body, which is a very, very serious kind of infection.

Robert Fleischmann:

Okay, you know, the subject of maternal health has been high on the radar for a while now, and should be, because the United States has a deplorable record in this regard for being arguably the most developed country in the world, and yet our maternal health, maternal mortality rate is embarrassing. So we already have a problem in this regard, and then you've got infant problems. So the problem I have with the articles is that they were tying a connection between, you know, abortion oh, now that you've tightened up, now that the state has restricted the number of abortions you can have, now we have all these other problems. Already a wound that was there. But secondly, you got to remember that, oh, so we did not abort 10,000 children this year and we've had 150 increased instances of infant and maternal health problems.

Robert Fleischmann:

You got to remember that abortion is always fatal. I mean it's always fatal to the child. So if you're going to compare, you better make it apples to apples, don't try to mix them up. But I strongly advocate greater study in good palliative care for both children and mothers when they give birth. The other argument that was made in the articles was that some of these children would have been aborted because they could have been diagnosed in the womb with some sort of fetal defect. So they'll say that's skewing the statistics also. Well again, just remember fetal defects are undeniable. There are those, and some of us carry our defects well into adulthood and into the end of a normal life. But there are never grounds for termination, you know, at least not biblical grounds. And to presume that authority against God still makes it wrong.

Christa Potratz:

When I hear the argument or the articles and what they have highlighted, first I just think like kind of how Bob says like okay, well, yeah, I mean all these children have been saved though. But then I mean I do just kind of wonder, you know, why is the health so bad? I mean I know Bob like highlighted some of that, but are there any other reasons, like as to why the numbers would show what they do?

Jeff Samelson:

Oh, first of all that ever since any of the pro-life or the abortion bans and things like that got passed, there have been people, far from being objective scientists, who have said we've got to find proof that this is a bad idea, and so they have a conclusion and go in search of the data instead of looking at the data and drawing a conclusion from it. And so a lot of this is kind itself an anomalous kind of statistic to be looking at. So you can't really and it. You know a smaller percentage of the total, and so you know any conclusions you draw from that are not necessarily going to map on to a larger population.

Jeff Samelson:

The case on maternal sepsis rates indicated that there seems to be an ethnic dimension to it, and it's not saying these people are because they're ethnic. They have this ethnicity. It's more just like that ethnicity, ethnic background, is closely related with poor health overall, and so therefore those people are more likely to get a sepsis infection, whether they're in the hospital for a pregnancy or they're in there for some other kind of surgery or procedure. And you know, by not drawing attention to that, they just take the facts out there. You know this statistic and they say okay, well then, this applies across the board, shows that there's a danger with all these procedures and things like that.

Jeff Samelson:

But again, as pointed out, why we're able to see some of these things that people are able to say, oh see, that's bad. It's because there are more kids being born, more pregnancies carried to term. That means because for every thousand pregnancies, there are going to be X percentage of problems. Well, if you have more pregnancies coming to term, you're going to have more of those. Abortion bans shows that over 22,000 lives have been saved by these laws. Those are babies that have been born that otherwise would not have been born. This is good.

Robert Fleischmann:

You know, one of the things that needs to be looked at is what is the implication of this? The implication is that if we allow those states to do more abortions again, the implication is that if we allow those states to do more abortions again, this number will go down. But it's ignoring the problem. The problem is the care that's being provided or not provided for the mothers and the children. In the first place, and before Dobbs, this was a problem. Before Roe v Wade in 73, it was a problem.

Robert Fleischmann:

The point is that maternal and neonatal, or newborn health has always been a concern. Now some of the other studies, the deeper medical journals, talk about the fact that you've got a contrast between city hospitals and rural hospitals. So maybe this shifted more attention to the rural hospitals, which are typically not as well equipped to deal with some of these medical complications as a city hospital. And there's other ramifications there which tells me well then, maybe we need to spiff up the rural hospitals a little bit. You know, the point is is that a biased media, which is what we've been dealing with here lately, will pick up a story like this, run with it with the implication that we've got to have more abortions, and then this will go back down completely ignoring the problem that was there before all that, and that is, we've got to tend to the health issues of the mother and the child.

Jeff Samelson:

A related issue I don't think we've talked about it here and this focuses mainly on some cases in Texas. There are people who are saying okay, this woman I don't know if there were actually any deaths involved, but definitely bad maternal issues or whatever had an ectopic pregnancy and because of Texas pro-life abortion bans, she did not get the care that she should have and bad things resulted from that. Press has made a really big deal about this, lawsuits have been filed and things like that, but the thing is that the laws in Texas do not in any way restrict proper care for any woman who has an ectopic pregnancy, which means that either you've got doctors and staff who are saying we're going to make a point out of this, which I certainly hope is not happening, or they are simply ignorant of the real status of things and they're making assumptions about what the law does and doesn't allow which are incorrect, which just checking would would would reveal for them. So that's again. These things get, get, get very much blown out of proportion to serve an agenda.

Christa Potratz:

Yeah, yeah, I think we're seeing a lot of that, all right, well, I wanted to hit one more topic here Back, I don't know, the first year of us doing the podcast we had Dr Rob Balza on and we talked about the first pig heart transplant. Since then they've, I mean, been, you know, trying to do more of those and I think was there now kidney transplants and they've done the fourth pig kidney transplant. Bob, can you tell us a little bit about what is being done now in the world of pig?

Robert Fleischmann:

transplants. All I can think of is bacon, bacon, bacon, bacon.

Jeff Samelson:

I found myself wondering what did they do with the rest of the pig? Yeah, I know we're having a potluck today.

Robert Fleischmann:

Transplantation of well, this is actually the arena of called xenotransplantation, which is cross-species transplantation presents its natural challenges. First of all, you've got the organ rejection and so forth which, by the way, you have even within same species transplantation, like if you get a human kidney from somebody else. Rejection is always a problem and stuff, but it's a real problem with cross-species. But secondly, you've also got design issues. The way God designed a kidney for an animal and the way God designed it for a human are two different ones. It's funny because in the early papers on early research in transplantation there's fascinating stories about trying something and not compensating for the fact that human blood pressure is higher than the blood pressure that was in the animal from which the organ was taken from, and so it would literally blow the organ out. Just things like that would occur. So those are all factors that come into play. But they actually have, over time, found out that certain pig organs work in humans. And once they've determined that certain pig organs work in humans, you move on to the next major problem, which is organ rejection. And what's driving all of this is a big shortfall of available organs to be used for transplantation. So they're trying to do this. There's another front out there where they're also working on trying to create, you know, re-engineered using a person's stem cells to then try to recreate organs that way, but right now. To then try to recreate organs that way, but right now using pig organs, and announcing these successes. This latest one was that the patient has survived the longest a few months now with it, and so forth. This is all good signs if you're into that.

Robert Fleischmann:

People have written me and talked to me after presentations asking are there problems with xenotransplantation? Are there problems with xenotransplantation? Personally, I would never recommend a xenotransplantation for anyone childbearing, anyone who plans to have children. You know, because the DNA runs into your system. You now have the DNA of a beast of some sort. I think that that's always a concern. I'm probably not as concerned for someone who is beyond childbearing years, which I don't believe. Any of these have been people who were looking to have children afterwards and it does have a way of holding out hope. Now people will say, well, isn't this wrong, isn't this terrible to be taking xenotransplant organs and so forth. I'm not sold that it's necessarily a problem. It gets to be a problem because we don't know if there is the carrying forward of the DNA that's going to be showing up later in the line. That is why I would stay away from procreative options in this, but I think as a life-saving measure, it's proving itself that it works.

Jeff Samelson:

Yeah, this is. You know, we hear so many nightmare stories about things that science is trying to do that it shouldn't. This is one where I'd say this is a good use of this. It's solving a real problem and it's not killing people, at least not deliberately.

Robert Fleischmann:

And don't let Hollywood distract you from this. I mean, you can make some great movies. Just let your imagination run, you know, all of a sudden, you know, uncle Charlie had a pig kidney put in. Every once in a while, he just goes outside and starts rolling in the mud. You know, but it doesn't quite work like that, although there have been fascinating studies about transplanted organs bringing along transplanted memories, but that's a topic for another day.

Jeff Samelson:

Yeah, I'm just imagining someone you know getting these transplanted memories of wallowing in mud or something like that.

Jeff Samelson:

I've been just longing for corn husks. Yeah, I mean, you know, and as pro-lifers, the need for donor organs, you know, available for transplant has been one of the things that's been pushing for euthanasia and assisted suicide. People saying, hey, if we open this up, then we can get their organs if they're willing, and things like that. It also puts pressure on either the patients themselves or, more likely, their families, if they've been in a horrible accident or something like that and they're alive now but they're not going to be for long, and the you know the transplant team comes in and says, hey, you know, we could really use dad's liver, you know, and that puts pressure there. And if this could relieve some of that kind of pressure by making, you know, the xenotransplantation option available again, that would be a good thing.

Robert Fleischmann:

One thing to keep in mind, too, is that our desire to make right choices on life and family issues is rooted in a desire to show gratitude to God for our salvation and what he's done for us. So when we look at things like this, where Scripture has not forbidden it, so it falls in that realm of freedom. So we look at that Within the realm of freedom, we look at what we can do, and so now you start paying attention to the other things, like will it create other health issues, will it, you know? And so, and those are the areas that you start focusing on. So I think it's an encouraging development. I think it's something that still has to be watched very closely, and especially if you get into the whole procreative thing, I think then we want to be concerned.

Christa Potratz:

Well, thank you both for today for tackling these topics for us, and if you are listening and have any questions on any of these, please reach out to us at lifechallengesus and we look forward to having you back next time. Thanks a lot, bye.

Paul Snamiska:

Thank you for joining us for this episode of the Life Challenges podcast from Christian Life Resources. Please consider subscribing to this podcast, giving us a review wherever you access it and sharing it with friends. We're sure you have questions on today's topic or other life issues. Our goal is to help you through these tough topics and we want you to know we're here to help. You can submit your questions, as well as comments or suggestions for future episodes, at lifechallengesus or email us at podcast at christianliferesourcescom. In addition to the podcasts, we include other valuable information at lifechallengesus, so be sure to check it out. For more about our parent organization, please visit christianliferesourcescom. May God give you wisdom, love, strength and peace in Christ for every life challenge.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Christian Life Resources

Host