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.