This week I talk euthanasia in Canada and check in with US Senator Ben Sasse on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Take a listen:
This week I was joined by Kristan Gray, Executive Director of Nebraskans United For Life, to discuss the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and her book No One Could Know.
The recent passing of Charlie Gard has left many people around the world wondering what might have come from an experimental treatment that for various reasons was continually denied by courts in the United Kingdom. Shortly before Charlie’s passing late last week, The Guardian published an op-ed from emeritus professor Ian Kennedy defending the process of the courts in the United Kingdom. Kennedy claimed, among other things, that children do not belong to their parents and that parents do not have rights regarding their children. The implications of the idea that children do not belong to their parents are dire and pose a profound threat to the future of civilization. I wrote a column for Catholic News Agency discussing these implications and why we should be concerned with how the courts acted in the case of Charlie Gard.
It doesn’t make sense from any angle.
The state of Oregon is in the process of enacting a law that would force taxpayers to fund abortions. HB 3391, The Reproductive Health Equity Act, passed the Senate last week on a party-line vote and aims to counteract the potential repealing of the Affordable Care Act. Planned Parenthood is one of the main sponsors of this legislation, and it’s clear that a substantial amount of this money would be allocated to the nation’s largest abortion provider. Yet individuals who reject government funding of abortion do so with good reason. While abortion advocates maintain that abortion is a woman’s right, it’s clear that the objective of every abortion is terminating a human life. Abortion is a direct violation of the innocent preborn child’s right to live and be safe from harm. The right to life is the first and foremost right given to all human beings, and as such, abortion is a human rights violation of the highest magnitude. The fact that abortion violates the rights of preborn children is exactly why no government has any business forcing taxpayers to violate their consciences to subsidize it. Founding Father James Madison called conscience an inalienable right, and the most sacred of property. Conscience rights matter, and taxpayers in Oregon are now being forced to violate their consciences and become complicit in a human rights violation. I wrote a post for The Federalist making the point that forcing taxpayers to participate in a human rights violation against their will is itself a human rights violation.
My takeaways from the 2017 National Right to Life convention:
In the latest episode, I wrap on the discussion on Primal Loss and provide a reminder, in case you forgot, that Planned Parenthood is nothing short of an evil empire.
Award -winning author and world-renowned anti-euthanasia expert Wesley J. Smith joined me last weekend to discuss trends in the healthcare field and why we should reject euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide at all costs.
Last weekend, the New York Times published an op-ed on abortion titled “Who Should You Listen to on Abortion? Women Who’ve Had Them”. As the title suggests, the idea is that as we form our opinions on the issue of abortion, we should give first consideration to those women who have actually had abortions. The premise underlying this idea is that if we knew or understood the reasons why women have abortions, we might realize that a woman taking the life of her child is really not as bad as we think. There are countless problems with the column published by the New York Times, but the biggest problem is that it fails to explain why a woman’s circumstances, difficult as they may be, should justify the taking of her child’s life. The truth is that in developing an understanding of why women choose the option to abort, we still will not find a good explanation of why that option should be legal. I wrote a response to this op-ed for The Federalist explaining that while women who’ve had abortions certainly deserve the opportunity to share their stories and experiences, the focal point of the abortion discussion is, and always should be, the unborn child.
A petition has been circulating recently asking for the signatures of mental health professionals who believe that Donald Trump is mentally unstable. Started by Dr. John Gartner, the petition now has almost 60,000 signatures. It seems that the infusion of political ideology into fields that have nothing to do with politics has reached a climax. Leftist mental health professionals are now weighing the ethical concerns of whether they have a “duty to warn” the world about how dangerous Donald Trump is. I wrote a post for The Federalist addressing these concerns and why ultimately, the Left has done nothing to earn our attention when it comes to ethical discussions.