Mom Who Refused to Abort Survived Cancer – But Now Her Baby Is Fighting This Rare Disease

A miracle baby whose mom says saved her from dying of cancer is now fighting to live with a rare genetic condition that damages the immune system.

Single mom of two Katie Hanson shared her incredible story on radio Tuesday. Diagnosed with cervical cancer at age 21 while pregnant, Hanson was advised by doctors to have an abortion.

“You’re 21 years old, and you think you’re invincible. I remember being 21 years old and thinking, ‘Never going to die,’” Glenn said.

Today, Hanson is healthy, but Willow has since been diagnosed with a rare genetic disease that is terminal and affects the immune system. If Willow even gets a cold, she could die, so she requires around-the-clock care just to stay alive. Diagnosed with inclusion-cell (I-cell) disease at 8 months, 2-year-old Willow is one of just 72 people in the world believed to have the rare genetic disorder.

Hanson refused to undergo cancer treatments until she safely delivered baby Willow, saying her baby saved her life because cancer would have gone unnoticed without her pregnancy scans.

“I believe that God gave me Willow exactly when he knew that I needed Willow,” Hanson said. “Knowing the contents of my heart, that I would go through to see her life happen … then I would be there when she would need me.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So you're 21 years old, and you think you're invincible. I remember being 21 years old and thinking, "Never going to die." Now every day you get up, and you're like, "It could be today."

You're young. You're healthy. You have your whole life in front of you. And that is what Katie thought. She had no idea that anything was wrong with her, until she went in for a routine ultrasound with her second child Willow. And during the ultrasound, it was discovered that Katie had cervical cancer. And the doctor said, "You have to abort your child. You're going to die. The child is going to die." She said, "I won't abort my child." She had to start treatment right away. And the answer was, "No. I'm not going to kill my child."

She was determined to meet the angel that she says saved her life. If it hadn't been for Willow, she would have never known she had cancer. Katie carried Willow to term, and the doctors were able to remove the cancer. Katie was ecstatic. She was cancer-free and mom to a beautiful baby girl. And then trouble set in. Willow stopped eating a couple of months in. The little girl was rushed to the hospital. Stayed there for most of her first year. She dealt with pneumonia and heart failure and respiratory failure. It was one thing after the other. Weeks and weeks of testing. And finally she was diagnosed with a rare terminal condition called Inclusive-cell disease, which inhibits growth and breathing and heart function, digestion, everything. There are only 72 confirmed cases in the world.

And despite her ailments, Willow was finally released from the hospital just in time for her first birthday. And Katie was excited to finally have Willow home, where she could give her the support and love she needed most. While preparing for her birthday, Katie encountered another blow: She became the victim of domestic violence and found herself now a single mother of two young children. The reason why I'm telling you this story is because there is a remarkable person inside mom. Because Katie hasn't lost hope. She is now doing her best to provide for her son and Willow all on her own. And she says, "I am not going to let Willow down because Willow saved my life." And now she vows to save Willow's life. Katie joins us now. Hi, Katie, how are you?

KATIE: Hi, thank you. I'm good. And you?

GLENN: I'm good. This is a remarkable story.

KATIE: Thank you.

GLENN: How is -- how is Willow?

KATIE: Oh, she's doing great. She's still snoozing right now. She loves her sleep. And loves to sleep in. So...

GLENN: And she spent -- in her first year, she spent all, but 12 days in the hospital?

KATIE: From November 18th of 2016 -- or, sorry. January 16th to November 10th of 2016, all, but 12 days was spent between our tiny hospital back in Montana and Seattle children's hospital.

GLENN: So, Katie, what do you say to people who will make the case -- and I'm sure they've made it to you.

KATIE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: They'll make the case that, see, you would have been better off. She would have been better off had she never been born.

You know, I could imagine people even said, "God intended her -- you were supposed to do that. That's why she's suffering from all of this." Even though you didn't know.

KATIE: Yeah.

GLENN: How do you respond to that?

KATIE: We've gotten a lot of it and stuff. Especially with the articles going around. There's always those people who are like, "Oh, well, why bring a child into the world, knowing you have cancer, that your cancer is going to affect them, or knowing that something is wrong with your baby and so on and so forth?"

And I take it as an educational moment. Because, one, my cancer did not affect Willow in any way, shape, or form. Cervical cancer has no way to affect an unborn child. Also, cervical cancer cannot cause a genetic mutation, which is what Willow has. And with I-cell being so, so, so rare, obviously -- most people in the world are not aware of it, and most doctors do not even know of its existence -- there's no way to test for it in the womb, unless, say, I have another child. Now we know Willow's exact DNA mutation. We would be able to check to see if that child also has that exact DNA mutation. But when it's your first go-around with a child that you've never had, you know, you didn't have a previous I-cell child, you're kind of in the blind of all of it. Willow was extensively monitored. She was very healthy. She developed totally normal and stuff. So, I mean, people call me selfish for not aborting and stuff. And I'm like, calling me selfish would be calling every other woman in the world selfish because we all put our children at the same exact risk while they're in the womb. There's over 7,000 other rare diseases and stuff that most of them cannot be detected until well after your child is born.

GLENN: Had you known what Willow is going through now, would your answer have been different?

KATIE: I don't think so. I mean, I would never judge on somebody else's choice of whether they keep or abort their child and stuff. But for me, that's just -- it's not in the cards for me. I don't think I could bring myself to do that. I believe that every life out there has a very divine purpose. And stuff. And I believe that God gave me Willow exactly when he knew that I needed Willow, knowing the contents of my heart, that, you know, I would go through to see her life happen and stuff. Then I would be there when she needed me and stuff.

GLENN: And Willow is not expected to live possibly past ten?

KATIE: Yeah. Prognosis, medical prognosis at best is ten years old. There have been a few -- very few kiddoes with this that have made it shortly past ten. But the average span of these kids is three to five years. Because there's no treatment at all whatsoever because there's so little funding happening. There's no government or federal funding like there is for cancer researches and that kind of thing. That doesn't happen. All of the research funding comes directly from, you know, the few families that have been affected.

GLENN: I -- Katie, I will tell you that I'm from a family that has a long history of abuse. And I --

KATIE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I commend you for getting out, especially in your situation, with two children. One of them is severely sick.

KATIE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: A lot of people will convince themselves that they either deserve it or it's the -- it's the pressure on him. Or, you know, whatever the excuse is.

KATIE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: How -- how difficult was the -- how difficult was it to make the decision, or was it strangely for you just obvious?

KATIE: Well, I mean, it was -- you're kind of in the situation for a while. Like, once Willow started getting sick, unfortunately, her father -- because of the way he grew up, the only way he knew how to cope was to have alcohol to drown out everything he needed to cope. So it was going on for a while. I repeatedly to try to find him help. Get him help and stuff. He would start seeing counselors. And it would get better. But then he would push off and fall back again. It's really true what they say when they say, you can't help somebody who doesn't want to be helped.

But after her terminal diagnosis, it really spiraled for a while. But after she came home, it seemed like things were getting better and stuff. Like, we got into a routine and everything.

I think probably -- he hadn't drank in a while even. But I think what spiked it was, you know, that -- it was Willow's birthday the next day, and even though every birthday just like for every family is a huge milestone, and like it's very exciting for us, it's also extremely, extremely bittersweet and stuff because we know we're not going to have very many of them. So I think that kind of got to him. And that's what stemmed his drinking afterwards that night. For when he came home. And, you know, I don't hold any bad blood for him because none of us know how we're going to cope with something like this. You know, none of us are going to say what's going to happen or how we're going to handle a situation like this, until we're all on the front line of it. And we all have different coping mechanisms. That doesn't mean that what he did was okay. That there's any excuse for it. But once things became physical and once things posed risks to my children and stuff -- again, my life is for my children, just like when I was pregnant with Willow. Like, I will not let anything in the pathway of harming them. So when it became --

GLENN: Go ahead.

KATIE: Yeah. When it became physical, it was -- you know, at that point and stuff -- like obviously police were called. And he was removed from the house.

GLENN: Easy.

KATIE: And since then, we haven't had contact with him.

GLENN: So when I saw your story online, Willow is dependent on 24/7 feeding tube. She's on heart and oxygen monitors. Medication from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. BiPAP at night. Requires what is called deep suctioning, threading of suction catheter through her nose and the airway. This is so -- so harsh for you.

You -- you list all the things that you have to do. And now that you are -- you are out -- you can't go to a shelter because --

KATIE: No.

GLENN: -- you -- you can't -- you can't bring Willow into the shelter. She gets a cold, and she can die.

KATIE: Uh-huh. Yes.

GLENN: You've been accepted on a housing wait list. Which you said, "Could lift our biggest stressor from our shoulders." And the list is long. And we're close to the end and not likely to receive some help until at some point next year. We're just doing all we can for a roof over our heads. You had a goal of $5,000. And you were -- last I checked, you were at $2,900.

KATIE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That doesn't seem like an awful lot of money to believe just to keep the roof over your head. It seems --

KATIE: It's not. Yeah, it's not the -- I'm one of those people, I have a very hard time asking for help as it is. And like, I don't really set my goals too big because I don't want to be disappointed. And I don't want to come off like I'm asking for a handout. You know, I'm asking the world of people. That's not the person I am. So...

GLENN: You're remarkable, Katie. You're remarkable.

KATIE: Thank you.

GLENN: And I applaud you for your strength. And expect miracles because they will happen. Thank you, Katie. God bless.

KATIE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Wow can we change her life.

STU: Yeah. Really have a chance to do something for somebody. Katie Hanson and her daughter Willow Ray Porter. They're up on YouCaring.com. Actually, let me send it right now. Just posted on Twitter @worldofStu, if you want to donate and help. I mean, she only needs a couple thousand dollars. This audience can do that in like nine seconds.

GLENN: Let's change her life. Did you hear her, the way she spoke, I don't want to ask for help. I mean, holy cow, let's change her life. We just tweeted how you can help. Join us on that, will you?

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

EXPOSED: Why the left’s trans agenda just CRASHED at SCOTUS

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

Insider alert: Glenn’s audience EXPOSES the riots’ dark truth

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

EXPOSED: Your tax dollars FUND Marxist riots in LA

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Protesters wore Che shirts, waved foreign flags, and chanted Marxist slogans — but corporate media still peddles the ‘spontaneous outrage’ narrative.

I sat in front of the television this weekend, watching the glittering spectacle of corporate media do what it does best: tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

According to the polished news anchors, what I was witnessing in Los Angeles was “mostly peaceful protests.” They said it with all the earnest gravitas of someone reading a bedtime story, while behind them the streets looked like a deleted scene from “Mad Max.” Federal agents dodged concrete slabs as if it were an Olympic sport. A man in a Che Guevara crop top tried to set a police car on fire. Dumpster fires lit the night sky like some sort of postapocalyptic luau.

If you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

But sure, it was peaceful. Tear gas clouds and Molotov cocktails are apparently the incense and candles of this new civic religion.

The media expects us to play along — to nod solemnly while cities burn and to call it “activism.”

Let’s call this what it is: delusion.

Another ‘peaceful’ riot

If the Titanic “mostly floated” and the Hindenburg “mostly flew,” then yes, the latest L.A. riots are “mostly peaceful.” But history tends to care about those tiny details at the end — like icebergs and explosions.

The coverage was full of phrases like “spontaneous,” “grassroots,” and “organic,” as if these protests materialized from thin air. But many of the signs and banners looked like they’d been run off at ComradesKinkos.com — crisp print jobs with slogans promoting socialism, communism, and various anti-American regimes. Palestinian flags waved beside banners from Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador. It was like someone looted a United Nations souvenir shop and turned it into a revolution starter pack.

And guess who funded it? You did.

According to at least one report, much of this so-called spontaneous rage fest was paid for with your tax dollars. Tens of millions of dollars from the Biden administration ensured your paycheck funded Trotsky cosplayers chucking firebombs at local coffee shops.

The same aging radicals from the 1970s — now armed with tenure, pensions, and book deals — are cheering from the sidelines, waxing poetic about how burning a squad car is “liberation.” These are the same folks who once wore tie-dye and flew to help guerrilla fighters and now applaud chaos under the banner of “progress.”

This is not progress. It is not protest. It’s certainly not justice or peace.

It’s an attempt to dismantle the American system — and if you dare say that out loud, you’re labeled a bigot, a fascist, or, worst of all, someone who notices reality.

And what sparked this taxpayer-funded riot? Enforcement against illegal immigrants — many of whom, according to official arrest records, are repeat violent offenders. These are not the “dreamers” or the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These are criminals with long, violent rap sheets — allowed to remain free by a broken system that prioritizes ideology over public safety.

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg | Getty Images

This is what people are rioting over — not the mistreatment of the innocent, but the arrest of the guilty. And in California, that’s apparently a cause for outrage.

The average American, according to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, is supposed to worry they’ll be next. But unless you’re in the habit of assaulting people, smuggling, or firing guns into people’s homes, you probably don’t have much to fear.

Still, if you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

The left has lost it

This is what happens when a culture loses its grip on reality. We begin to call arson “art,” lawlessness “liberation,” and criminals “community members.” We burn the good and excuse the evil — all while the media insists it’s just “vibes.”

But it’s not just vibes. It’s violence, paid for by you, endorsed by your elected officials, and whitewashed by newsrooms with more concern for hair and lighting than for truth.

This isn’t activism. This is anarchism. And Democratic politicians are fueling the flame.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.