Promoting infanticide, proving their indifference to human life
WASHINGTON: It is hard to believe, but our political arena now includes advocates of infanticide. Even harder to understand is that these are some of the same people that criticize other human rights abuses, such as separating parents from children at the border. Yet some of these same people promote infanticide while self-identifying as progressives.
However, how the murder of viable babies is progressive is hard to fathom. Even in the case of a child born with “defects”.
New York – The Rotten Big Apple
In mid-January, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the Reproductive Healthcare Act. This act allows abortions up to 40 weeks up to and after birth. They claim this is to protect the woman’s physical or mental health. The law also opens the doors to abortion clinics whose staff are not doctors, but abortionists.
To celebrate his states sliding back to medieval days, Gov. Cuomo ordered the building at One World Trade Center to be lit in a strange milky pinkish glow. All to commemorate the state’s new law permitting viable, healthy babies to be killed. Killed on the very day their birth, in a civil society, would be cause for celebration.
Celebrating infanticide. Think about that. For just a minute.
Difficult to watch, as Gov. Cuomo signs the death warrant for countless babies, the malevolent New York State Legislature erupts into cheers.
The enthusiasm over the cessation of life
What does it tell us when men and women are so enthusiastic about a law which, permits abortion at any time, for any reason, through the ninth month of pregnancy?
Similar legislation was introduced in the Virginia legislature later in January by Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax). A video was widely circulated indicating that her bill would allow abortions up to the point of delivery in cases where the life of the mother or health, including mental health, was at serious risk.
Late-term abortions when the mother’s life is at grave risk are now permitted in Virginia. Tran’s bill would lift some restrictions to make it easier for a woman to kill her child. Instead of requiring three doctors to sign off on the procedure, under the bill it would take only one doctor. It also would remove language requiring that the danger to the mother be “substantial and irremediably.”
Inconvenience causing mental duress could be a valid reason.
Asked if her bill would allow abortion even after a woman was dilating, Tran replied, “My bill would allow that, yes.”
Virginia Governor Northam supports the bill
Virginia’s governor, Ralph Northam, himself a pediatric surgeon, appears to support the bill. He initially misrepresented its contents, first stating that it would require more than one physician to agree, and saying it would only apply where “there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that is unviable.”
When he became aware of what was actually in the bill, Northam maintained his support. In the end, a House subcommittee voted 5-3 to table the bill, with all Democrats voting against the bill.
Responses to the Virginia and NY Abortion Bills
Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin called it a “sad commentary on the culture of death that continues to creep insidiously into the laws of our country.”
Writing in The Washington Post, Bethany Mandel, an editor of Ricochet, notes that,
“The ‘safe, legal and rare’ disclaimer that was once on pro-choice messaging has disappeared. There are more abortions after 20 weeks than gun homicides in the United States, and according to research from the Planned Parenthood-affiliated Guttmacher Institute, ‘data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.’ Rolling back restrictions further on these abortions will increase these numbers.”
This issue will be with us for some time. Rhode Island and New Mexico are debating bills that would ban the government from “restricting an individual person from terminating that individual’s pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to preserve the health or life of that individual.”
In Vermont, lawmakers are advancing a bill that would enshrine the right to abortion in state law.
The practice of infanticide and child sacrifice is nothing new.
It was rampant in the ancient world. With the advent of religion, this slowly declined in what we think of as the civilized world. Judaism prohibited infanticide.
The Roman historian Tacitus wrote that
“The Jews regard it as a crime to kill,late-born children.”
The ancient Jewish historian Josephus wrote that God
“Forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten or to destroy it afterward.”
Christianity shares this view and rejects infanticide.
The Teachings of the Apostles declares,
“Thou shalt not kill a child by abortion neither shall you slay it when born.”
Infanticide is explicitly forbidden in the Koran:
“And do not kill your children for fear of poverty; we give them sustenance, and yourselves too. Surely to kill them is a grave wrong.”
This subject, unfortunately, has become a partisan political issue with hypocrisy and double standards on all sides.
Many conservatives, those who would make all abortion illegal, seem to be concerned with the child in question only before birth. They oppose legislation for government-subsidized daycare and parental, leave which would make it easier, particularly for single parents, to raise their children.
Moreover, liberals, who use the term “right to choose,” ignore that choice at any stage involves the death of a potential human being. In the case of New York’s new law, an actual human being. Which indicates a strange set of priorities on the part of progressive left.
They are rightly concerned, for example, about the potential danger to human life from climate change, but seem able to embrace infanticide at the same time.
Abortion has been a contentious issue for many years and is likely to continue to be so.
Some say the fight over abortion leaves America as divided as the fight over slavary. Some years ago, the Lutheran theologian Richard John Neuhaus noted :
“We have procedures for making adjustments between different and even conflicting evaluations. A statement of moral truth is much more inconvenient to the political process. We do not have procedures for dealing with truths, for truths are presumably objective and universal and not amenable to negotiation. From time to time the polity is confronted by issues which cannot conceal the questions that generated them. Slavery was such an issue. The question was whether those of African descent belong to the community of persons who possess rights that we are bound to respect. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 tried to handle the issue by answering the question one way. The Civil War reversed that decision.”
Today’s question is whether the unborn or, in New York, the just-born, has any rights?
“The question posed in the abortion debate is fundamental and it is therefore understandable that courts and legislatures might prefer that the issue …would go away.”
The issue, however, will not go away—precisely because it confronts us with the fundamental question of our respect for human life. Do Americans want to embrace infanticide? The legislation adopted in New York and rejected in Virginia is a wake-up call for our society. The choice before us, really, is life or death. Hopefully, we will choose life.
LMP- Calculates the beginning of pregnancy from the woman’s last menstrual period. States that do not explicitly enumerate the manner in which gestational age should be determined are labeled as “LMP” in keeping with standard medical practice.
Postfertilization- Calculates the beginning of pregnancy from the date of conception; 20 weeks postfertilization is equivalent to 22 weeks LMP.
Post-implantation- Calculates the beginning of pregnancy from the date of implantation; 24 weeks implantation is equivalent to 27 weeks LMP.
▼ Enforcement permanently enjoined by a court order; policy not in effect
* Based on the assertion that the fetus can feel pain at 18 or 20 weeks postfertilization.
† Also permitted in case of rape or incest.
‡ Also permitted in case of fetal abnormality; in Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia the law applies to a lethal abnormality.
Ψ The exception permits abortions when the woman suffers from a condition that risks “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
£ A 2016 New York Attorney General opinion determined that the state’s law conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court rulings on abortion, and that abortion care is permissible under the U.S. Constitution to protect a woman’s health, or when the fetus is not viable.
€ A court has permanently blocked enforcement of a Mississippi law that would have banned abortion at 15 weeks after the patient’s last menstrual period.