A door that shouldn’t be opened

Opponents of New Hampshire’s new 24-week abortion limitation – that is, fellow Granite Staters who support abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for one or another class of preborn children – finally resorted to what has always proven to be the most effective way of influencing life-issue policy: a personal story.

A Brookline woman is to give birth shortly to a child who is not expected to survive outside the womb. She stepped forward to tell her story, hoping that compassion would lead to weakening of the Fetal Life Protection Act. A heartbreaking situation, to be sure: the woman is pregnant with twins, only one of whom is deemed healthy. News reports indicate that the mother is now in the hospital awaiting delivery of her children. One of the children will go straight to NICU. The one who is reported to be medically compromised will be wrapped in a blanket and held by her parents until she passes on.

Ex-Governor Northam of Virginia explained the standard back in 2019: “There may be a fetus that’s non viable. If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” In the New Hampshire case, the discussions have already ensued.

The Brookline mother told her story to New Hampshire policymakers, who amended HB 1609 to add an FLPA exception for certain fetal anomalies. Governor Sununu supports the exception. “I do not live in extremes on either side of the issue.”

The same Union Leader article quotes Robert Dunn, public policy director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester, a gentleman who frequents the same sort of legislative hearings that draw me. “This would be the first time New Hampshire would designate a particular category of children to be liable for abortion, and that’s a door we don’t think the state should open.”

Remember, the Brookline mother had no abortion. She is simply urging that the option be there for someone else.

Mr. Dunn, speaking for Bishop Peter Libasci, is gently reminding us what that option means.

header photo: Charlie Griffiths/pexels.com

Next Stop For Assisted Suicide Legislation: Massachusetts

“This is life-or-death, people. Solidarity.”

John Kelly of Not Dead Yet has made his way to a lot of places – including New Hampshire’s State House – to fight assisted suicide bills. He has had to fight in his own home state, Massachusetts. He’s been successful. And still, the bills keep coming back. September 26 in Boston: I’ll be there.

From John Kelly’s recent Facebook post:

front facade, Massachusetts State House
Massachusetts State House. Ellen Kolb photo.

ASSISTED SUICIDE HEARING! Tuesday, September 26th, 10 a.m. or 11 a.m., Massachusetts State House. The Joint Committee on Public Health will be having a public hearing on assisted suicide bills H. 1194 /S.1225.
We win when we show up. All devalued communities are under threat: disabled people, people of color, old people, ill people, LGBTQ people, poor people, autistic people, people experiencing depression, abused people, and more. Even wealthy people are endangered because family might care more about inheriting an estate than caring for a seriously ill person. And everyone is at risk for misdiagnosis.
We need you to come testify for 3 minutes, or come and support people who are testifying . Everyone who comes will be making a difference!
Wealthy proponent group [C]ompassion & [C]hoices thinks they can pass the bill. Let’s say different with people power!
This is life-or-death, people. Solidarity.

Solidarity is right. I’ve worked against such bills in Concord. I’ve traveled to Boston and Hartford to stand by New England neighbors tackling their own state’s bills. The victories, meaning the defeats of assisted suicide legislation, happen after hearing rooms fill up with people who hate the better-dead-than-disabled ethic.

John wrote, we win when we show up. True, as is the reverse: the day we don’t show up is the day we lose.

Charlie Gard’s Human Rights

And now for something completely different, after a month filled with New Hampshire posts.

Read this from Aleteia: “Charlie Gard case raises questions about medical treatment and parental rights.”

Charlie Gard is an infant who at this writing is in a hospital in London, England. He was born severely ill with a “rare, fatal condition” (quoting the Aleteia post).

Charlie’s parents want to bring him to the United States for an experimental therapy. They are prepared to pay for the treatment. There’s just one catch: the hospital won’t release their baby to them, and the hospital’s been backed up by the European Court of Human Rights.

Time to let the little tyke “die with dignity,” say the experts. Reportedly, the hospital is now free to remove whatever life support is being used for Charlie’s benefit.

I believe that there is such a thing as burdensome care, and no one has a moral obligation to accept it. I also believe that when a government tells parents that they can’t take their sick child for care at a facility that’s not under the control of that government, something’s very wrong.

I have to wonder: if the parents wanted to hasten their son’s death via active euthanasia, would the hospital and the Court be resisting them?

This is a terrible situation, though I won’t say “terrible case” because Charlie’s a child, not a case. No happy outcome is likely, by any earthly measure. Aggravating the situation is the fact that it’s now been established that in England, a government-run health care facility can deny custody of a disabled child to parents who are willing and able to seek treatment for that child.

That’s enough to give government-run health care a bad name. One may hope such decisions would never be made here. I suspect Charlie’s parents didn’t think it would happen in England.

A veteran NH prolifer on end-of-life-study bill: “just a Trojan horse”

Nancy Elliott (photo by Ellen Kolb)
Nancy Elliott (photo by Ellen Kolb)

Earlier this year when SB 426 was introduced in the new Hampshire Senate, I asked Nancy Elliott about the bill. Nancy is a team member with the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and is a former New Hampshire state representative.

SB 426 is scheduled for a House vote later this week, with a proposed amendment that would remove the words “aid in dying” from the bill but would not rule out assisted suicide as a topic for study. [Update: the House rejected the bill.]

“The bill talks about end of life choices, but singles out ‘aid-in-dying’

Q: What’s wrong with simply studying end-of-life issues? How is that related to assisted suicide legislation?

Elliott: We have studied this topic extensively in New Hampshire. This bill [in its original form, without the proposed House amendment] talks about end of life choices, but singles out “Aid in Dying” – a  euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia.  It is apparent that the “choice” that this bill wants to promote is suicide.  By rolling this into a commission stacked with pro-euthanasia people, this idea can be foisted on the citizens of New Hampshire.  It gives a platform for pro-assisted suicide/euthanasia advocates to have a platform to push this with. Continue reading “A veteran NH prolifer on end-of-life-study bill: “just a Trojan horse””

Carson says remarks re Schiavo taken “out of context”

Dr. Ben Carson (photo by Ellen Kolb)
Dr. Ben Carson (photo by Ellen Kolb)

I wasn’t the only voter whose eyebrows went way up after Dr. Ben Carson’s made his recent remarks regarding Terri Schiavo. He gave an exclusive interview to LifeSiteNews earlier this week to address the furor.

“I am steadfastly opposed to euthanasia. I have spent my entire career protecting life, especially the life of children….I regret that my recent comments about Terri Schiavo have been taken out of context and misinterpreted. When I used the term ‘much ado about nothing,’ my point was that the media tried to create the impression that the pro-life community was nutty and going way overboard with the support of the patient.”

The article continued, “[Dr. Carson] told LifeSiteNews that his off-the-cuff remarks to a reporter from the Tampa Bay Times meant that doctors should allow terminally ill patients to refuse heroic medical treatment, not to deny food and water to someone diagnosed in a persistent vegetative state (PVS).”

I’m pleased that the good doctor acknowledged the concerns raised by his earlier remarks. My particular concerns expressed in an earlier post persist. If what he means is that he flat-out refuses to tolerate starvation for patients with brain damage, that’s good news.