There has been a lot of discussion about the abortion bill passed by the NY legislature and signed into law by Governor Cuomo. There is no shortage of emotional diatribe from either side of the issue, so let's try to take a less emotional look at not only what this bill does, but let's also go down the path where its supporters want to take us.

Basically the bill allows the baby to be aborted up to the time of delivery. If the attempts at aborting the baby prior to birth are not successful, the baby's life can be terminated outside of the womb, as long as it was the mother's intent to abort the baby prior to birth.

An interesting side note; most supporters of aborting human babies even after they are clearly viable human beings will ask that you be strung up and quartered if you harm the eggs of a sea turtle. Interesting juxtaposition, don't you think?

But the clear disregard for human babies using the excuse of the mother's rights taking precedence over the rights of a baby brings us to a discussion of when do the rights of a baby begin? Most jurisdictions around the world have recognized that someone can be charged with murder of an unborn baby if it has reached a certain stage in the pregnancy. That means that science and law have shown through a preponderance of the evidence that the baby is a viable life form with the right to life. That concept now comes into question.

Yes, I know that most women would not seek a third trimester aborting unless their life or health were severely threatened or if the baby's health was not viable, a term used by VA Governor Northam in an interview that has been used by anti-abortion advocates to say that he supports killing babies outside the womb. The Governor denies that claim but did say that a baby with severe birth defects or other problems would be made comfortable if born alive and would be resuscitated if the family desired. He didn't specifically say that they would kill the baby, but the inference is clear, the baby would be allowed to die at the very least if the family did not request resuscitation.

All of that said, the vast majority of babies carried into the third trimester are viable life forms. Science and history prove that to be true. They can be delivered and have an excellent chance of survival and many will have a good quality of life, if not a normal existence.

So doesn't that baby have a right to life? I would argue that they do and the law should protect that life as much as it protects sea turtle eggs. Or in the way that we protect adults who have terminal illnesses or are in a coma. Most states do not give terminally ill patients the right to take their own lives through medical means, even though their quality of life is clearly and demonstrably deteriorating. Why not give the same protection to babies?

In the bigger picture, this is not the end game. Ezekiel Emmanuel was the primary author of Obamacare. He included in the bill what became known as 'death panels.' President Obama even discussed the cost/benefit analysis of providing treatment to terminally ill people. The idea being that at some point it does not make economic sense to treat someone, tying up tens of thousands of dollars, if that treatment would not predictably result in recovery or a significantly improved quality of life. Simply keeping someone alive could not be justified when that money could be used to treat others with a much better chance of recovery.

That is the next step for those supporting unrestricted abortions and quite frankly by those advocating for single payer healthcare, aka Medicaid for all. They want to devalue life so that they can pass legislation that allows the government to decide when you no longer deserve treatment and that becomes an acceptable proposition to the citizens of this country.

When we've had this discussion in the past, most people think of the elderly being denied treatment, because that's the way it's been framed. It's not so bad to think of denying cancer treatment to an 85-year-old that has lived a 'full' life. If medical providers agree for the most part that any treatment will not likely cure the cancer or improve the quality of life, the decision would be made to have palliative modalities administered to make their last days comfortable.

Now picture those kids in the St. Jude's commercials. Often we hear parents tell of how doctors didn't give their child a chance to recover but the staff at St. Jude's cured their child. It's likely that a cost/benefit analysis done prior to treatment would have resulted in a denial of treatment for that child. We've already seen that happen with Baby George in England. The government decides if you get treated or not. Is that what you want in America? Giving up on anyone that is in a bad situation simply because it will cost a lot of money?

That is where the new Democrats want to take us as a nation; total government control over you. When they get control of your health care decisions, they have complete and total control. This bill in NY is just the next step in the process towards that total control. It's also happening right here in New Mexico. It's time to stand up and say no.

Content on the Beat

WARNING: All articles and photos with a byline or photo credit are copyrighted to the author or photographer. You may not use any information found within the articles without asking permission AND giving attribution to the source. Photos can be requested and may incur a nominal fee for use personally or commercially.

Disclaimer: If you find errors in articles not written by the Beat team but sent to us from other content providers, please contact the writer, not the Beat. For example, obituaries are always provided by the funeral home or a family member. We can fix errors, but please give details on where the error is so we can find it. News releases from government and non-profit entities are posted generally without change, except for legal notices, which incur a small charge.

NOTE: If an article does not have a byline, it was written by someone not affiliated with the Beat and then sent to the Beat for posting.

Images: We have received complaints about large images blocking parts of other articles. If you encounter this problem, click on the title of the article you want to read and it will take you to that article's page, which shows only that article without any intruders. 

New Columnists: The Beat continues to bring you new columnists. And check out the old faithfuls who continue to provide content.

Newsletter: If you opt in to the Join GCB Three Times Weekly Updates option above this to the right, you will be subscribed to email notifications with links to recently posted articles.

Submitting to the Beat

Those new to providing news releases to the Beat are asked to please check out submission guidelines at https://www.grantcountybeat.com/about/submissions. They are for your information to make life easier on the readers, as well as for the editor.

Advertising: Don't forget to tell advertisers that you saw their ads on the Beat.

Classifieds: We have changed Classifieds to a simpler option. Check periodically to see if any new ones have popped up. Send your information to editor@grantcountybeat.com and we will post it as soon as we can. Instructions and prices are on the page.

Editor's Notes

It has come to this editor's attention that people are sending information to the Grant County Beat Facebook page. Please be aware that the editor does not regularly monitor the page. If you have items you want to send to the editor, please send them to editor@grantcountybeat.com. Thanks!

Here for YOU: Consider the Beat your DAILY newspaper for up-to-date information about Grant County. It's at your fingertips! One Click to Local News. Thanks for your support for and your readership of Grant County's online news source—www.grantcountybeat.com

Feel free to notify editor@grantcountybeat.com if you notice any technical problems on the site. Your convenience is my desire for the Beat.  The Beat totally appreciates its readers and subscribers!  

Compliance: Because you are an esteemed member of The Grant County Beat readership, be assured that we at the Beat continue to do everything we can to be in full compliance with GDPR and pertinent US law, so that the information you have chosen to give to us cannot be compromised.