The state of Oregon has long since been ground zero for radical, end-of-life ideology and legislation. It was the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide two decades ago, and since that time, the practice has grown in both social acceptance and legislative momentum. Sensing a momentum toward a more universal acceptance of physician-assisted suicide, and building on the success of the “right to die” movement, advocates are setting their sights on the as-of-now prohibited practice of euthanasia. To that end, legislators in Oregon have introduced two new bills, Senate Bill 494 and Senate Bill 893, that would create ambiguity in their end-of-life statutes and allow for legal euthanasia in some cases. This is not a surprising development, but for those who thought euthanasia would never rear its ugly, loathsome head in the United States, it’s here. I wrote a post for Crisis Magazine explaining these two bills and why they are dangerous, and why we should think long and hard about espousing the values of the culture of death.
Last week on the radio show I was joined by Josh Brahm, founder and president of the Equal Rights Institute. We tackled the two most common forms of the bodily rights argument – the “sovereign zone” argument and the “right to refuse” argument. Very few people defend the pro-life position better than Josh Brahm, and this interview was especially insightful:
Oregon recently released in annual end-of-year report on physician-assisted suicide. The report documents that of 133 patients that received prescriptions for life-ending medication in 2016, only 5 of them were referred for counseling beforehand. The rates are about the same in the most recent report from Washington state. The laws themselves do a dreadfully poor job of prescribing protocol for handing mental health problems in patients with terminal illness, and doctors are under no obligation to request a mental health assessment unless they see fit. I wrote a post for Crisis Magazine discussing the failure of physician-assisted suicide laws to address mental health problems both in the laws themselves and in practice.
In this episode, I discuss refugee programs as a pro-life issue. I also tackle the Johnson Amendment, and what a new bill proposed in both houses of Congress would mean for religious freedom and the free speech of churches and pastors.
I am joined on the show this week by Timmerie Millington to discuss the history of feminism, how the modern feminist movement has distorted the goals of the original feminists, and whether a pro-life person can be an authentic feminist.
I’m joined by Reagan Barklage, coordinator of the midwest chapter of Students for Life, to talk about her experiences in Washington DC over the last two weekends with the Women’s March and the March for Life. Reagan also shares some of the great things that Students for Life is doing on college campuses around the country.
Time for some truth about what Planned Parenthood does and does not do.
Last week, the University of California, San Francisco, released the results of a study that claimed to show that abortion has no impact on a woman’s mental health. I wrote a response to the study for Crisis Magazine. In short, the study was flawed for several reasons, not the least of which is that it ignored the complexity of the post-abortion experience and the psyches of women who choose abortion. Studies such as this marginalize women who do suffer emotional anguish after abortion and attempt to delegitimize their experience. One look at the testimonies shows that many women do indeed suffer emotional anguish after an abortion.
Autonomy is the rallying cry for advocates of physician-assisted suicide. But for every story of someone whose autonomy is enhanced by this practice, there is another story of someone whose autonomy was taken away. I wrote a post for the Washington Examiner on the false promise of autonomy and the dangers of making death a medical option.
The state of Texas recently enacted some new rules about the handling of fetal remains after abortions, miscarriages, and stillbirths. I wrote a post for Crisis Magazine refuting some of the dishonest claims being made by abortion advocates in the wake of these new rules.