How we got to the point where the bodies of aborted babies are used to heat hospitals in the U.K.

 

By Dave Andrusko

worriedwomanI apologize for posting late on the ghastly news that the remains of over 15,000 aborted and miscarried babies were burned–like other “waste”—and in some cases used to heat hospitals in the United Kingdom.

“Ten NHS [National Health Service] trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat,” Sarah Knapton, a Science Correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, reported. “The Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr. Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’”

We’ll return to why this would be “totally unacceptable” in a moment.

The credit for this grisly discovery goes to Channel 4’s Dispatches. Ten hospitals confessed to burning the corpses of these babies “along with other hospital rubbish,” while two admitted the remains were used to generate power to provide heat.

Channel 4’s Dispatches found that Addenbrooke Hospital in Cambridge, “incinerated 797 babies below 13 weeks gestation at their own ‘waste to energy’ plant. The mothers were told the remains had been ‘cremated,’ “ Knapton reported.

“Another ‘waste to energy’ facility at Ipswich Hospital, operated by a private contractor, incinerated 1,101 foetal remains between 2011 and 2013.”

There were protestations of innocence galore and insistence that burning the bodies of aborted and miscarried children was not acceptable. “Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS Medical Director, has written to all NHS trusts to tell them the practice must stop,” according to Knapton.

Why?

The only answer we see in the stories is that such practices were not authorized by the parents and that (as one hospital bureaucrat put it) it “takes great care over foetal remains.”

So, informed consent/parental consent. Is that all?

There are obviously overtones that would make even those as comfortable with abortion as the United Kingdom unnerved. As Mollie Hemingway writes

“People are reacting to this story with the natural revulsion one feels for such callous treatment of humans, whether it’s evoking memories of crematoriums at concentration camps or promises made to mothers who miscarry about the treatment of their children who died.”

And that is a hugely important insight. What is the Abortion Establishment’s ultimate objective? Not just unfettered abortion—abortion for any reason, or no reason, up until birth—but many, many more abortions.

And that is not either hyperbole or to be unfair. A huge increase in the number of dead babies is absolutely inevitable if they are able to reach “under-served populations, eliminate parental involvement altogether, use legislation and the courts to paralyze women helping centers, and convince women to celebrate their abortions.

We fight all of those bizarre propositions. But what if—what if—the Planned Parenthoods and their counterparts around the world were able to eliminate what Hemingway rightly calls “natural revulsion”? What if people just accepted abortion as “just another medical procedure”?

What if the moral indignation were drained away? What if our hearts didn’t bleed for unborn babies and their often desperate mothers? What if we were as callous towards the most helpless of God’s creatures as the NARALs and PPFA and NOWs of this world are?

It can’t happen, and not just because we see–as we just have in the United Kingdom—what happens when we abort tens of millions around the world.

It can’t happen because of people like those who read NRL News Today every Monday through Saturday, who support National Right to Life, and whose inner moral compass always points True North.