By Dave Andrusko
As we often do the last post of the day I’d like to look at one item (abortion, in this case) through the lens of another (“assisted” suicide).
Way back in 2014, you’ll recall Brittany Maynard became the face of “assisted suicide.” It was no accident the assisted suicide movement, led by the vultures who nest at Compassion & Choices, put her front and center.
A beautiful young woman with a deadly brain cancer. Who would not be sympathetic? But as many people pointed out at the time, particularly Wesley J. Smith, why should someone who decided to leave her state where assisted suicide was (at the time) illegal to go to a state where it was legal, become the example of how we face terminal illness?
As Richard Doerflinger, then with the U.S. Bishops, testified
When we accept assisted suicide as a “good enough” solution for these patients, we preach a counsel of despair to all terminally ill patients. We tell them that we find it easier to kill them than to find ways to kill their pain. By rejecting the “quick fix” of assisted suicide, however, we reaffirm to ourselves and to the medical profession that these patients have lives worth living, and that they deserve real solutions for the pain, depression and isolation that they may experience.
My choice then and now for her courage in the face of Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma – the same brain cancer that Brittany Maynard suffered from–was Lauren Hill. I wrote about her many times.
Facing imminent death and battling the effects of a brain tumor the size of a lemon, her bucket list included playing college basketball. She did, to the amazement of everyone, except perhaps Lauren.
But, as Wesley wrote, the 19-year-old Hill “received far more subdued coverage. You see, she was less newsworthy than Maynard. She wasn’t transgressive. She intended to live until she died–play basketball, and raise money for research, not take poison pills.”
Likewise, who is the “face” of born-alive abortion survivors? Is it a real flesh-and-blood baby who miraculously survives the abortionist’s onslaught who should receive “the same degree” of care as a baby of the same gestational age who was “wanted”?
Or is it the hyperbole driven and wholly imaginary “direct attack on women’s health and rights”? That was the rhetorical paint-by-numbers response of PPFA president Dr. Leana Wen when her good Democratic buddies in the Senate defeated the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act by denying sponsors the 60 votes needed to proceed to a real vote.
Real babies, for whom sponsors wanted no more but no less medical intervention than any other preemies born at the same gestational age, or Planned Parenthood and its minions in Congress and the state legislatures who cynically perverted a rescue mission into an attack based on “lies and misinformation”?
Ohio Right to Life sent a link out today to an editorial that appeared in The Canton Repository, a daily local newspaper serving the greater Canton, Stark County, Ohio, area.
The Canton Repository is one of heartland publications too unsophisticated to understand that gross medical neglect ought to be understood as the abortion industry’s way of standing against those who are “chipping away at the ability to access abortion safely and legally” (to quote Wen again).
Never mind, of course, that the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act is not about abortion but babies who are survivors.
Under the headline, “Infanticide can never be acceptable,” the editorial writers tell us
Simply put, if we cannot, as a society, agree allowing the death of a baby already born alive and participating in that death is wrong, then maybe we need to consider the possibility we have reached a point of no return in our country.
Jonah Goldberg, of National Review Online (no hard core pro-lifer by any means), reminds us, “the new push for killing inconvenient babies — in principle — is a barbaric step backward to pre-civilized past.”
Think about that the next time Dr. Wen and her pro-abortion comrades begin hyperventilating over a “gross interference in the practice of medicine.”