ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom® – News and Updates on Religious Liberty and Freedom

Category: Health

  • Public Funding for Faith-Based Schools? Supreme Court Takes on Oklahoma Case

    Public Funding for Faith-Based Schools? Supreme Court Takes on Oklahoma Case

    The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Charter School Board, a case addressing whether a religious charter school can receive public funding. The case centers around a proposed online Catholic charter school in Oklahoma that was denied authorization by the state’s Charter School Board. The board concluded that approving a religious charter school would violate both state law and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government funding of religious instruction.

    The Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa, which sponsored the school, argue that denying their application violates the Free Exercise Clause and the Supreme Court’s recent precedents in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makin. Both cases held that governments cannot exclude religious institutions from public benefits solely based on their religious status. Opponents, including the Charter School Board and advocacy groups, argue that publicly funded charter schools are a form of state action and must remain secular to avoid entanglement with religion.

    This case has broad implications for the separation of church and state and could redefine the legal framework for publicly funded education. If the Court sides with the school, it could pave the way for religious charter schools nationwide, significantly expanding the reach of taxpayer dollars to religious education.

    Many swear by Mitolyn for cognitive support and energy. The Purple Peel Diet adds a dietary twist for complete wellness. Explore Mitolyn reviews and see why these are a great health duo!

     

     

     

  • Justices Decline Abortion Law Case, Spotlighting Federal-State Conflict

    Justices Decline Abortion Law Case, Spotlighting Federal-State Conflict

    [dc]I[/dc]n June, the Supreme Court reversed its grant of certiorari and decided not to hear a case involving a major conflict between federal and state abortion laws. In Moyle v. United States (No. 23–726), the dispute centers on whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) overrides Idaho’s strict abortion law. EMTALA is a federal law that requires hospitals to provide emergency care to anyone in need, regardless of their ability to pay. In cases where a pregnant woman faces a serious health emergency, EMTALA mandates that hospitals provide treatment necessary to stabilize her condition. This can include performing an abortion if it is needed to protect her health, even if her life is not in immediate danger. However, Idaho’s abortion law is far more restrictive, allowing abortions only if the woman’s life is at risk, and not when the threat is merely to her health.

    The conflict between the two laws led the federal government to sue Idaho, arguing that EMTALA preempts the state’s restrictive abortion law. A lower court agreed, issuing an injunction to prevent Idaho from enforcing its law in situations where EMTALA would require an abortion to stabilize a woman’s health. Idaho appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to intervene. Initially, the Court granted certiorari, indicating that it would hear the case. However, after further consideration, the Court decided to dismiss the writ as “improvidently granted,” meaning the justices chose not to hear the case after all. This leaves the lower court’s injunction in place, meaning Idaho’s abortion law cannot be enforced in circumstances where EMTALA applies.

    The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case was met with disagreement from some of the justices. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, dissented, arguing that the Court should have resolved the issue. In his dissent, Justice Alito emphasized that EMTALA does not explicitly require hospitals to perform abortions and that the law mandates the protection of both the pregnant woman and her unborn child. He criticized the majority for avoiding what he saw as a straightforward issue of statutory interpretation. Alito also expressed concern that by not addressing the case now, the Court was allowing uncertainty to persist about how federal and state laws on abortion should be reconciled. He argued that Idaho had a strong likelihood of success on the merits and that the federal government’s interpretation of EMTALA was flawed, particularly because the law never explicitly mentions abortion.

    By declining to hear Moyle v. United States this term, the Supreme Court has left the issue unresolved for now, sending the case back to the lower courts to continue the legal battle. For the time being, hospitals in Idaho must follow EMTALA’s requirements, even if it means providing abortions in cases where the state’s law would otherwise prohibit them. This decision is one of several significant cases that the Supreme Court opted not to hear in the new term, leaving open questions about the future of abortion law in the post-Dobbs era.

    TLDR: The Supreme Court has declined to hear Moyle v. United States (No. 23–726), a case involving the conflict between Idaho’s restrictive abortion law and the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The case questions whether EMTALA, which requires hospitals to provide emergency care, including abortions to protect a woman’s health, preempts Idaho’s law allowing abortions only to prevent death. The Court’s decision leaves the lower court’s injunction in place, preventing Idaho from enforcing its law where it conflicts with EMTALA. Dissenting justices argued that the case presented important unresolved legal issues.

  • Religious Freedom or Christian Privilege? The Controversy Surrounding Project 2025

    Religious Freedom or Christian Privilege? The Controversy Surrounding Project 2025

    [dc]A[/dc]s the debate over the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 intensifies, it’s crucial to look beyond the heated rhetoric and consider the initiative’s aims in historical context. While critics decry it as a radical departure from church-state separation, a closer examination reveals a more nuanced approach that in some ways echoes mainstream political positions from the not-so-distant past.

    Project 2025’s emphasis on religious liberty and traditional values isn’t new to American politics. In fact, it bears resemblance to positions once held by prominent Democrats. In the 1990s, then-President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, championing protections for religious expression. Similarly, Senator Joe Biden supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.  [perfectpullquote align=”left” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Project 2025’s emphasis on religious liberty and traditional values isn’t new to American politics.[/perfectpullquote]

    The initiative’s call for a more significant role for faith in public life doesn’t necessarily equate to establishing a state religion. Instead, it can be seen as an attempt to recalibrate what its proponents view as an overcorrection in recent decades – a swing of the pendulum that they argue has marginalized religious perspectives in the public square.

    Project 2025’s education proposals, for instance, advocate for school choice and protection of religious schools’ autonomy. While this raises valid concerns about public funding, it also addresses the desires of many parents for educational options aligning with their values – a concern that crosses party lines.

    The healthcare conscience protections outlined in the project are framed not as a means of discrimination but as safeguards for healthcare providers’ deeply held beliefs. This complex issue requires balancing competing rights and hasn’t always fallen neatly along partisan lines.

    It’s important to note that Project 2025 doesn’t call for dismantling the separation of church and state. Instead, it proposes a reinterpretation of this principle, arguing for a view of secularism that is more accommodating to religious expression in the public sphere. This perspective contends that true religious freedom means not just freedom from religion, but also freedom of religion.

    To be sure, some aspects of Project 2025 push beyond traditional conservative positions and raise legitimate concerns about religious favoritism. Its frequent invocation of “Judeo-Christian values” does risk alienating those of other faiths or no faith. The project’s approach to social issues like abortion and LGBTQ+ rights aligns with conservative Christian doctrines, potentially conflicting with a pluralistic society’s needs.

    However, dismissing the entire initiative as an attack on church-state separation oversimplifies a complex issue. Many Americans, including some moderates and independents, share concerns about the diminishing role of faith in public life and the perceived hostility toward religious viewpoints in some quarters.[perfectpullquote align=”right” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Dismissing the entire initiative as an attack on church-state separation oversimplifies a complex issue. [/perfectpullquote]

    As we debate Project 2025, we should remember that the relationship between church and state in America has always been dynamic, not static. From the Founding Fathers to today, we’ve grappled with balancing religious liberty with other constitutional principles.

    The challenge is to engage in a thoughtful dialogue about these issues, recognizing valid concerns on all sides. How do we protect religious freedom while ensuring all citizens’ equal treatment under the law? How can we acknowledge the role of faith in many Americans’ lives without privileging one belief system over others?

    Project 2025 may not have all the right answers, but it asks important questions that deserve serious consideration. As we approach 2025, let’s move beyond knee-jerk reactions and strive for a nuanced understanding of religious liberty in our diverse, modern society. Our ability to find common ground on these fundamental issues may well determine the future of American democracy.

  • Balancing Faith and Public Health: The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling in Bacon v. Woodward on Vaccine Mandates and Religious Exemptions

    Balancing Faith and Public Health: The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling in Bacon v. Woodward on Vaccine Mandates and Religious Exemptions

    Analysis: Bacon v. Woodward, No. 22-35611 (9th Cir. 2024) (Decided 6/18/2024)

    Issue: The primary issue in Bacon v. Woodward concerns whether the City of Spokane’s implementation of Washington Governor Jay Inslee’s COVID-19 Proclamation, which required state agency workers to be fully vaccinated, violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as applied to Spokane firefighters who sought religious exemptions.

    Rule: The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from enacting laws that restrict religious practices unless the law is both neutral and generally applicable. If the law is not neutral or generally applicable, it must pass strict scrutiny, meaning it must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.

    Application (Majority Opinion):

    1. Neutrality and General Applicability: The majority, led by Judge R. Nelson, determined that the City of Spokane’s implementation of the vaccine mandate was not generally applicable. While the Proclamation required vaccination, Spokane exempted firefighters from neighboring departments that granted religious accommodations. This exemption for a secular group (neighboring firefighters) while denying the same for religious objectors showed a lack of general applicability. This inconsistency undermined the Proclamation’s stated goal of stopping the spread of COVID-19, thus triggering strict scrutiny.
    2. Strict Scrutiny Analysis: The majority held that the City’s application of the Proclamation was not narrowly tailored. It found that less restrictive means, such as testing, masking, temperature checks, and social distancing, could have been employed to achieve the same public health goals without infringing on religious rights. Moreover, the policy was underinclusive, as unvaccinated firefighters from neighboring jurisdictions, who were exempt, continued to work in Spokane, which undermined the City’s interest in mandatory vaccination for its firefighters.
    3. Retrospective and Prospective Relief: The majority also addressed the mootness issue, concluding that the firefighters’ claims for punitive damages and prospective injunctive relief were not moot despite the rescission of the Proclamation. The firefighters sought damages for past harm and reinstatement to their jobs, which the court could still grant, maintaining a live controversy.

    Application (Dissenting Opinion):

    1. Neutrality and General Applicability: Judge Hawkins dissented, arguing that the City’s uniform application of the Proclamation to its employees, treating both medical and religious objectors the same, demonstrated neutrality and general applicability. The existence of mutual aid agreements with neighboring departments did not, in his view, make the policy discriminatory against religious objectors within Spokane.
    2. Rational Basis Review: The dissent argued for applying rational basis review, under which the Proclamation would be upheld as long as it was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Given the compelling interest in stemming the spread of COVID-19, Judge Hawkins believed the City’s implementation of the vaccine mandate met this standard.
    3. Denial of Leave to Amend: The dissent also supported the district court’s decision to deny the firefighters’ request to amend their complaint, noting that the plaintiffs failed to justify their delayed request and lacked diligence, thus the court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.

    Conclusion: The majority reversed the district court’s dismissal of the firefighters’ Free Exercise claim, finding that the City’s application of the Proclamation was not generally applicable and failed strict scrutiny. The case was remanded for further proceedings, allowing the firefighters to pursue their claims for punitive damages and potential reinstatement. The dissent would have affirmed the district court’s decision, applying rational basis review and denying the request for amendment due to lack of diligence.

    This decision underscores the stringent requirements for laws impacting religious practices and clarifies the boundaries of religious exemptions in public health mandates during emergencies

  • Supreme Court Affirms Doctors’ Conscience Protections in Unanimous Decision

    Supreme Court Affirms Doctors’ Conscience Protections in Unanimous Decision

    While the spotlight has been on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling regarding continued access to mifepristone, an abortion-inducing medication, the unanimous verdict is a significant victory for the liberty of conscience for medical practitioners.
    Case:

    Food and Drug Administration vs. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine 

    (Decided 6/13/2024)

    [dc]I[/dc]n a ruling that will resonate through the annals of medical ethics and jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the federal conscience protections for medical practitioners. This decision is not just a legal triumph but a philosophical one, ensuring that doctors are not compelled to perform procedures that violate their personal beliefs. This has profound implications, particularly for those with moral or religious objections to treatments like abortions.
    Background of the Case
    At the crux of this judicial decision lies the FDA’s approval and oversight of mifepristone, a drug pivotal in medical abortions. Initially approved in 2000 under stringent guidelines, the regulations governing its use have since been relaxed. This relaxation prompted challenges from several pro-life medical groups and individual physicians, thrusting the case into the limelight.
    FDA’s Regulatory Changes
    In 2016 and again in 2021, the FDA eased the restrictions around mifepristone. These changes extended its use period from seven to ten weeks of pregnancy, reduced the number of required in-person consultations, and permitted non-physicians, like nurse practitioners, to prescribe it. The challengers contended that these relaxed rules could coerce doctors into participating in abortions against their conscience.
    Supreme Court’s Ruling
    Justice Brett Kavanaugh, penning the unanimous decision of the Court, declared that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the FDA. The Court underscored that federal conscience laws, such as the Church Amendments, robustly protect doctors who refuse to perform abortions on moral or religious grounds.
    Key Findings
    • Federal Conscience Laws: The Court emphasized that these laws protect healthcare providers from being forced into actions that violate their beliefs. “Federal conscience laws definitively protect doctors from being required to perform abortions or to provide other treatment that violates their consciences.” This legal shield ensures that doctors can refuse procedures that clash with their ethical or religious principles without fear of retaliation.

    • Emergency Situations: The ruling clarified that even in dire emergencies, doctors are not obliged to act against their conscience. “The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (or EMTALA) neither overrides federal conscience laws nor requires individual emergency room doctors to participate in emergency abortions.” Federal law protects doctors’ rights in all contexts, including emergencies.

    • Historical Precedent: The Court noted that since mifepristone’s approval in 2000, there has been no documented case of a doctor being compelled to act against their conscience due to FDA regulations. “The plaintiffs have not identified any instances where a doctor was required, notwithstanding conscience objections, to perform an abortion or to provide other abortion-related treatment that violated the doctor’s conscience since mifepristone’s 2000 approval.”

    • Hospital Policies: Hospitals must respect doctors’ conscience objections and be prepared to accommodate them. “Hospitals must accommodate doctors in emergency rooms no less than in other contexts.” This ruling mandates that hospitals plan ahead to respect diverse beliefs.
    Implications
    The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the delicate balance between public health regulations and individual rights. By affirming federal conscience protections, the Court ensures that healthcare providers can practice in accordance with their beliefs without fear of coercion.
    Impact on Healthcare Providers
    Pro-life healthcare providers can now be assured that their conscience rights are secure. This decision may also foster more open discussions and strategic planning within healthcare systems to respect the diverse beliefs of medical practitioners.
    Legislative Encouragement
    The ruling encourages those opposed to FDA regulations or similar policies to seek changes through legislative means. “Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions.” This underscores the significance of democratic engagement in resolving such conflicts.
    Conclusion
    The Supreme Court’s ruling on freedom of conscience provisions reaffirms the essential rights of healthcare providers to practice in line with their ethical and religious beliefs. This landmark decision not only protects individual doctors but also promotes a healthcare system that is inclusive and respectful of diverse viewpoints. As the Court indicates, these issues are best resolved through political and legislative channels, ensuring a balanced approach between public health and individual rights.
  • Live Hope

    Live Hope

    I wasn’t in Lanzhou for history, topography, industry, or even gastronomy. I was in Lanzhou to pick up my son, a beautiful little boy who had wondered all his life who his dad was. And, as a surprise to both of us, it turned out to be me.


    [dc]I[/dc]n 2018, my life changed forever in a most unlikely place. The city of over four million people had, until recently, been completely unknown to me. Surrounded by arid countryside that is reminiscent of the topography around Loma Linda, the city was one of the first in China to industrialize. Industrialization, along with its location in a valley, once made Lanzhou’s air the most polluted in China – no small achievement. But Lanzhou China has managed to clean up its act.

    Today it’s a city with a certain charm. The Huang He (Yellow) River flows majestically through its center, with beautiful parks on both banks. In one park are the most impressively, intricately engineered waterwheels built to the ancient designs of Duan Xu, who lived during the Ming Dynasty. Today the waterwheels harvest the river’s water for irrigation of the beautiful gardens just as they irrigated crops all those centuries ago. Another park opens onto an impressive public square with convention and performing arts spaces that would be a credit to any city.

    But none of those things make Lanzhou famous today. Everywhere you go in China, the minute you say Lanzhou, people smile and immediately reply, “Spicy beef noodles!” I can’t say with any level of assurance how good the beef noodles are, but I can say that their spicy noodles with vegetables are absolutely worth the trip!

    But I wasn’t in Lanzhou for history, topography, industry, or even gastronomy. I was in Lanzhou to pick up my son, a beautiful little boy who had wondered all his life who his dad was. And, as a surprise to both of us, it turned out to be me.1

    When my wife and I returned with our precious boy, we received an invite from the adoption listserv we are on to see a showing of an award-winning documentary entitled One Child Nation.2 Other adoptive parents who’d seen the documentary gushed about the enormous impact it had on them and how it helped them understand more fully the culture and circumstances their children grew up in.

    The Inhumanity of China’s One Child Policy

    If you’re looking for a little light entertainment, One Child Nation is certainly not it. The personal stories are gripping, almost unimaginably tragic, and immensely impactful. Two of them stick out to me.

    One day, artist Pang Weng was walking around his home city of Beijing, when he came across a yellow bag dumped under a bridge. What caught his attention was something dangling out of the bag. Could it be? He moved closer and was horrified to confirm it was a little human leg.

    With the curiosity that fuels artists, he looked inside, and there he discovered a perfectly formed little baby that looked just like his son when he curls up to take a nap. In the following months, he found yellow bag after yellow bag, all with the words “medical waste” carefully printed on them, all containing little dead babies. Someone, somewhere in the city had decided that under a bridge or by road or in a trash heap was as good as any place for this human “waste.” The inhumanity, the complete disregard for the dignity of these babies, the attempt to erase them forever, spoke to Peng. And so he began painting portrait after portrait of the babies he found.

    His efforts did not go unnoticed. His gallery was closed down. He was evicted. And to this day, he is persona non grata in China.3 If you want to see his paintings bestowing the dignity in art that life denied them, it’s not as easy as it sounds, as there’s scarce trace of them on the internet – possibly indicating that technology can censor artists just as effectively governments can. But it is still worth trying to find his paintings after you meet the other memorable character in the film, Huaru Yuan, one of the thousands of local midwives charged with enforcing China’s one child policy.

    In the documentary, she states she did tens of thousands of abortions. “I countered this out of guilt because I aborted and killed babies.” Now she helps infertile couples. When asked why she is treating infertile couples, she replies with abrasive honesty: “I want to atone for my sins, for all the abortions and killings I did. What goes around, comes around. There will be retribution for me… I’ve done so many bad things in the past. While some people may say these were not bad things because it was my job, I was the one who killed. I was the executioner. I killed those babies, didn’t I?”

    We left the documentary with so many questions. Maybe the most compelling was, how could Wang Peng and Huaru Yuan, bathed in decades of propaganda supporting abortion, grow to find it so morally objectionable? And maybe even more confounding, how could so many of our friends react so nonchalantly to the ongoing reality of abortion in America? Certainly, American abortion isn’t the same as China’s in many ways. We don’t find any little bodies in yellow bags discarded under our bridges. It’s all done out of sight, obscured from view, sanitized through euphemisms. And the government isn’t forcing it to happen. It’s boyfriends, parents, economics pushing the killing. But does our sanitation and the difference in force structures make the little dead bodies any less real? Does it make the little arms, legs, faces, and tummies disappear? Is our killing any different from their killing? Are we as individuals and as a society any less guilty than they are? [perfectpullquote align=”left” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]American abortion isn’t the same as China’s in many ways. We don’t find any little bodies in yellow bags discarded under our bridges. It’s all done out of sight, obscured from view, sanitized through euphemisms.[/perfectpullquote]

    These aren’t comfortable questions to ask. But for us as human beings with free agency in a democratic society, they are questions we cannot avoid. And there are other difficult questions we need to struggle with: the “Buts.”

    But … if China had not employed the one child policy, what then? It’s a question people ask in the documentary. Older relatives explain how tough times were for them. With additional mouths to feed in China, there could have been starvation. Maybe standards of living wouldn’t have increased so rapidly. Maybe the mass killing of the young was justified, necessary, even laudable? Maybe the Party was right?

    Like China, the U.S. has its own hard questions. If abortion were not available, would we have an epidemic of unwanted children? Would they grow up in unstable homes without parents around? Would they suffer mental abuse and the hopelessness that can come with it? Would crime increase? Would our rates of imprisonment explode as these unwanted children ran wild? Is aborting roughly a million American babies a year saving them from hellish lives, and our society from bands of unwanted youths committing all manner of ills?

    The Side Effects of Roe v. Wade

    It’s not a trivial consideration, and it turns out there’s data that provides strong indications toward the answers. In 1973, the year Roe v. Wade mandated the legalization of abortion across the United States, 8 percent of American children lived in a home missing either their mother or father.4 In 2022, more than 30 percent of American children are being raised in a home missing one or both of their parents.5 Just because a child is missing one or more parents doesn’t mean they weren’t planned and aren’t loved, but it does indicate that the availability of abortion hasn’t provided the promise of a stable home life for American children. Indeed, quite the opposite occurred in the Roe era. And that has consequences.

    But what about the improvement in mental health that might accompany eliminating undesired children? According to US Centers for Disease Control, the rate of suicide for Americans aged 15 – 19 increased 88% between 1970 and 1990, and the suicide rate for Americans aged 5 to 14 increased an astonishing 267% in the same period.5 Another indication of the state of mental health is drug overdoses. In 1979, there was just a little over 1 drug overdose death per 100,000 Americans. By 2016, that number had increased to almost 17 drug overdose deaths.[1] In 2020, the US experienced over 28 overdose deaths per 100,000 Americans.[2] From the end of the 70s to the beginning of the 2020’s, the drug overdose rate per 100,000 Americans increased roughly 2800%.

    Even if there are strong objective indicators that the nation’s mental health declined substantially in the years post Roe, some – including the team at Freakonomics – have made the argument that high rates of abortion led to a reduction in crime.[3] But American violent crime rates exceeded the violent crime rates of 1973 in 36 of the 46 subsequent years.6  In 1973, the violent crime rate was 417.4 violent crimes per 100,000 Americans. 20 years later, the violent crime rate had soared to 746.8 violent crimes per American – a 79% increase.[4]

    Only in the era of mass incarceration did the violent crime rate dip – but mass incarceration isn’t a solution; it’s a catastrophe in another form. The number of Americans incarcerated has risen from a little over 200,000 in 19737 to a staggering two million.8 The 1000% growth in the number of Americans incarcerated has far outstripped the 52% rate of population growth during the period.[5] Today, the “land of the free” has the highest incarceration rate in the world. It is costing us $80 billion a year to incarcerate this astonishingly large number of people.9 All this imprisonment, all the familial disruption, lost productivity, all the pain that goes with it, and yet today crime rates are surging, and mass shootings increased from an average of 12 a year when Roe was decided to an average of 160 per year from 2011 to 2020.10 Tragically, in 2022, we experienced surging murder rates and the highest number of mass shootings in American history.11

    In 1973 we made a Faustian bargain: permit the killing of our innocent but “unwanted” young and the ills of society will be mitigated. To say they haven’t been mitigated is an understatement. In the most important objectively measurable ways – parentlessness, youth suicide, drug overdoses, violent crime, incarceration rates, and the number of mass shootings – societal ills have intensified. [perfectpullquote align=”right” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]In 1973 we made a Faustian bargain: permit the killing of our innocent but “unwanted” young and the ills of society will be mitigated.[/perfectpullquote]

    In a world as complex as ours, there will always be arguments over why so many of the key indicators have gone in the wrong direction. The point isn’t that aborting 63 million young Americans since Roe is solely responsible for these trends, or even primarily responsible – though embracing killing other humans as a legally mandated option cannot help but pervasively influence the character of a society with all the associated impacts that go with it. The point is that the promise of legalized abortion has demonstrably failed to materialize.

    But … regardless of societal impact, or lack thereof, isn’t legalized abortion necessary to advance the rights of women? Early feminists didn’t think so. “Without known exception, our feminist foremothers opposed abortion, and – like Susan B. Anthony – sought to address the root causes that drive women to abortion,” writes Serrin Foster, the president of Feminists for Life.12 She goes on to provide the historical evidence that feminism and opposition to abortion were intrinsically linked. And for good reason. Contrary to the myth so often repeated, abortion is seldom based on a free choice. A 2017 study reports that in a nationwide survey of women who had an abortion, three-quarters felt some form of coercion from others to have the abortion. Sixty-six percent of those surveyed reported knowing at the time it was the wrong decision.13 Economics are also a widely reported force coercing abortion.14 When families, men, and societies don’t support women and children, many people feel pushed into a corner. But it’s a very dark corner. Researchers found that common negatives associated with abortion include “shame, guilt, depression, anxiety, compromised self-appraisals and self-destructive behaviors.”15

    “It Comes Back to Haunt You”

    Sharon Osborne, TV presenter and wife of rock singer Ozzy Osborne, provides an example of the coercive reality:

    I had an abortion at 17, and it was the worst thing I ever did. I was two months gone when I realized. I went to my mum and she said, without pausing for breath: “You have to get rid of it.” She told me where the clinic was, then virtually pushed me off. She was so angry. She said I’d got myself in this mess, now she had to get me out…. I howled my way through it, and it was horrible…. I would never recommend it to anyone because it comes back to haunt you.16

    Nicki Minaj, the rapper and singer, carries similar scars, rapping about the pressure she experienced to abort her child, and the grief that follows her:

    Please baby, forgive me, mommy was young
    Mommy was too busy tryna have fun
    Now, I don’t pat myself on the back for sending you back
    ’Cause God knows I was better than that (kyuh)
    To conceive you, then leave you, the concept alone seems evil
    I’m trapped in my conscience
    I adhered to the nonsense, listened to people who told me…

    Touchingly, she hopes for a reunion with her baby –

    Wish I could touch your little face, or just hold your little hand
    If it’s part of God’s plan maybe we can meet again17

    There’s an empowerment mythology, and then there’s this brutal reality of vulnerable women coerced into taking the life of their own baby.

    Disproportionate Effect on Baby Girls

    Another truth about abortion that proponents seldom acknowledge: it’s employed to selectively kill baby girls. The New Scientist reports that a large global study estimates that a staggering 23 million baby girls have been aborted after prenatal tests determined they were female.18 To put the scale of this wholesale killing of baby girls into perspective, that’s more baby girls killed specifically because they were girls than the entire female populations of Samoa, Iceland, Jamaica, New Zealand, Botswana, Ireland, Singapore, Israel, Nicaragua, Tonga, and Norway combined. That is a lot of missing girls. How can a policy that results in this kind of targeted violence against females be called female empowerment? It is Orwellian.

    And, of course, even when abortions aren’t deployed to kill girls specifically, roughly half of all other abortions are of baby girls. It is hard to credibly argue that society advances female rights by allowing the killing of baby females.

    Why Oppose Abortion?

    But … even if abortion hasn’t delivered the societal gains it promised, even if many women are routinely coerced into abortions and even if baby girls are killed specifically because they are girls, it doesn’t mean that abortion shouldn’t be legal. Many things in this world aren’t ideal. Free societies require space for human beings to make their own choices – even if they are bad for us and not ideal for others.

    So, can we have our cake and eat it too? Can we recognize that killing young human beings because they are unwanted is unethical – maybe, as Huaru Yuan put it, we can even believe killing babies is a “sin” – but in a free society, believe we should allow others the space to act sinfully, unethically, immorally. Although we find abortion personally objectionable, can’t we recognize others have different views? And shouldn’t we respect those views?

    The challenge of this compromise is that it forces us to ask why we oppose abortion. Most of us aren’t generally opposed to birth control. So, what is it about abortion that we oppose? The answer inevitably is that abortion involves taking the life of a young human being. Put another way, this isn’t just about someone making a bad decision for themselves. This is about a lucrative industry set up around killing other human beings. Whether we use the Latin word for our young (fetus), or the English word (baby), or any other term or euphemism, it all results in the same end: an innocent, defenseless young human being is deliberately targeted for killing. So, of course, outside the most extreme circumstances, we recoil at the thought.

    But is it ethical or moral, does it comport with our concepts of democracy and liberty to stop others killing innocent human beings? The answer must be, “Yes.” The first right enunciated in the Declaration of Independence is the “right to life,” from which flows the rights to “liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Every right we enjoy is predicated on the right to life. Once we take that right away from our fellow human beings, we have robbed them of every right promised in a liberal democracy. Abortion is the ultimate act against our concepts of liberty, not an expression of it. [perfectpullquote align=”right” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Every right we enjoy is predicated on the right to life. [/perfectpullquote]

    But do legal protections for our youngest and most vulnerable reduce the killings? The pro-Abortion Guttmacher Institute reports that in the years immediately following Roe, the total number of abortions – both legal and illegal – more than doubled, and remained at roughly twice the annual rate for the two subsequent decades.[6] Laws have consequences an in the case of Roe, that consequence can be measured in tens of millions of innocent lives. The number eventually dipped for a variety of reasons, including  legislation at the state level designed to protect life.[7] While the annual number of abortions per year has fluctuated since, there have always been substantially more abortions than there were when Roe was decided.  

    What About Rape and Incest?

    But … what about the most compelling instances that involve rape (1 percent of abortions), incest (less than 0.5 percent of abortions), or abortions necessary to save the life of the mother?19

    No protection is without exceptions. The right to life, whether it’s when we’re very young, very old, or in the prime of life, always has exceptions. The fact that we can enunciate the exceptions means that we’re capable of including them in our legislative frameworks. In democracies, we have a process to openly discuss how to do this, to change laws and regulations as we learn what works and what doesn’t. In Roe, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized this was already happening across the U.S. before the Court got involved. Roe greatly inhibited the democratic process by finding that the Constitution mandates all states legalize abortion in a specific way. The decision was widely critiqued at the time, and even many of those who support the outcome recognize the weaknesses in the legal reasoning that led to it. For example, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg speaking at the University of Chicago law school in 2013, critiqued the basis of the Roe decision and stated abortion should have been dealt with gradually in cooperation state legislatures.[8]

    The Dobbs Effect

    As previously noted, there is no debate that Roe had an immediate and significant impact. In the years immediately after Roe was decided, the number of abortions more than doubled. While the number decreased from its peak in the post-Roe years, it has remained higher than pre-Roe years every year since and is increasing again.[9]

    The Court’s recent Dobbs decision overruling Roe doesn’t ban abortion. Rather, Dobbs hands back to the democratic process all the complex questions associated with abortion. The decision is easy to read, and worth the time. Unlike the shallow caricatures presented in much of the media, Dobbs is thoughtful, thorough, and founded on sound constitutional reasoning.[10]

    After Dobbs, the democratic is once again the place we, as a free people, decide the parameters of protection for our young while weighing the needs and circumstances of mothers and society. There is good reason to believe legislatures are far better equipped to balance the complex questions and prepared the detailed guidance necessary than courts, which, by the nature of their periodic opinions, are ill-equipped to provide the level of detail necessary to ensure clarity. Further, legislatures are comprised of much broader cross sections of society and are in contact with a wider range of citizens. Further, the recent vote in Kansas to reject a proposal to overturn a state constitutional right to an abortion demonstrates citizens are able to engage on the issue at the ballot box.[11]

    Is Abortion a Religious Issue?

    But … as a Seventh-day Adventist, my church is very concerned about religious intrusion into our laws. Aren’t laws that protect human life a slippery slope leading to religious coercion?

    Early Adventists didn’t see it that way. James White published “A Solemn Appeal” against abortion, condemning the practice in the strongest terms.20 Similarly, the Advent Review & Sabbath Herald published pieces opposing abortion and supporting life. For example: “One of the most shocking and yet one of the most prevalent sins of this generation is the murder of unborn infants. Let those who think this a small sin read Psalm 139:16. They will see that even the unborn child is written in God’s book. And they may be well assured that God will not pass unnoticed the murder of such children.”21

    Ellen White reinforced the idea of the value of unborn young, stating, “God looks into the tiny seed that He Himself has formed, and sees wrapped within it the beautiful flower, the shrub, or the lofty, wide-spreading tree. So does He see the possibilities in every human being.”22

    The early Adventists reproduced the writings of members of the Physicians Crusade that worked to outlaw abortion.23 In doing so, they were following a long tradition among the followers of God. Josephus reports that, around the time of Christ, “The law moreover enjoins us to bring up all our offspring: and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten; or to destroy it afterward. And if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child; by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind.”24

    It’s true that any legal entity and every arm of the state can be used to violate our rights. But it is also true that life is the first of those rights, and laws to protect our rights are necessary to experience them. If, as early Adventists believed, killing a baby is a form of murder, and if, as we all believe, banning murder is necessary, it is perfectly consistent today for Adventists to support measures designed to protect human life. Not that we should do this in a thoughtless, careless manner. Life is complex. Rights must be balanced. Extenuating circumstances must be considered. Abortion by its nature is particularly complex. And yes, if we support life, we must support all that is necessary to allow children and their parents to flourish. Wholistic, thoughtful, careful protection of all human life – babies, children, youth, adults, the elderly – is not at odds with the Adventist dedication to liberty. Such protection is core to it.

    Conclusion

    Something lost in all the political sloganeering is a better option than killing our young. American reports that up to two million American families may be currently waiting to adopt – perhaps 36 families per child available for adoption.25

    It’s something my wife and I know about. Our journey started for us a long way from home, in a city we’d never heard of, with a precious little boy looking for his parents. Today our lives are filled with his love and joy and his excitement for life.

    Let’s not give up hope.

    Let’s give hope.

    Let’s not support taking innocent life.

    Let’s support everything necessary to provide an abundant life to every child.

    James Standish, JD, cum laude, Georgetown University, MBA, University of Virginia, bachelors degree, Newbold College, England, is principal of a consulting firm in University Park, Maryland. He is married to Leisa Morton-Standish, and together they have three children.

     

    ____________________________

    1. Why did we adopt from China? We were deemed too old to adopt domestically. We considered fostering, but with two daughters at home, we determined our ability to absorb new children at a moment’s notice as required by our county at that time, and then have them leave whenever the state deemed appropriate, was not consistent with our responsibility to provide a stable home for them.
    2. In July 2022, One Child Nation was streaming on Amazon Prime Video for free in most countries with a Prime subscription and may still be available.
    3. Grace Kei Lai-see and Yang Fan, “Chinese Artist Evicted Over Paintings of Abandoned, Aborted Babies,” translated by Luisetta Mudie, Radio Free Asia, July 8, 2014, https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/evicted-07182014115938.html.
    4. “Historical Living Arrangements of Children,” United States Census Bureau, November 2021, Figure CH-1, https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ch-1.pdf.
    5. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2017/030.pdf
    6. Sahil Kapur and Jon Schuppe, “ ‘Overall Crime Decreased in 2020’ in the U.S., Report Finds,” NBC News, Sept 12, 2021, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/overall-crime-decreased-2020-united-states-report-finds-n1278938 (citing FBI numbers).
    7. Patrick A. Langan et al., “Historical Statistics on Prisoners in State and Federal Institutions, 1925-86,” U.S. Department of Justice, May 1988, https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/111098NCJRS.pdf.
    8. World Population Review, “Incarceration Rates by Country 2022,” https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country.
    9. American Civil Liberties Union, “What’s at Stake,” https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/mass-incarceration#:~:text=Despite%20making%20up%20close%20to,outpacing%20population%20growth%20and%20crime.
    10. Jaclyn Schildkraut and H. Jaymi Elsass, “Mass Shooting Factsheet,” Rockefeller Institute of Government, https://rockinst.org/gun-violence/mass-shooting-factsheet/.
    11. Júlia Ledur, Kate Rabinowitz, and Artur Galocha, “There Have Been Over 300 Mass Shootings so Far in 2022,” The Washington Post, updated July 5, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/02/mass-shootings-in-2022/.
    12. Serrin M. Foster, “Feminist Foremothers,” Feminists for Life of America, https://www.feministsforlife.org/herstory/.
    13. Priscilla K. Coleman et al., “Women Who Suffered Emotionally from Abortion: A Qualitative Synthesis of Their Experiences.” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 22, no. 4 (2017): 113–118, https://www.jpands.org/vol22no4/coleman.pdf.
    14. Lawrence B. Finer et al., “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 37, no. 3 (2005): 110–118.
    15. Coleman et al., ““Women Who Suffered Emotionally from Abortion.”
    16. Jenny Johnston, “Sharon: The Rock of Osbournes unXpurgated,” Daily Mail, December 20, 2004, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-331265/Sharon-The-rock-Osbournes-unXpurgated.html.
    17. Nicki Minaj, “Autobiography,” track 21 on Sucka Free mixtape, Dirty Money Records (2008), https://genius.com/Nicki-minaj-autobiography-lyrics.
    18. Debra Mackenzie, “Sex-selective Abortions May Have Stopped the Birth of 23 Million Girls,” New Scientist, April 16, 2019, https://www.newscientist.com/article/2199874-sex-selective-abortions-may-have-stopped-the-birth-of-23-million-girls/.
    19. Finer et al., “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions,” 113.
    20. James White, A Solemn Appeal (Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press, 1870), 100, https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/1444.382.
    21. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, November 30, 1869, 184. I am indebted to George Gainer for bringing to my attention this and the following quotes. George Gainer, “Abortion: History of Adventist Guidelines,” Ministry, August 1991, https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1991/08/abortion-history-of-adventist-guidelines.
    22. Ellen G. White, The Ministry of Healing (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1905), 397.
    23. Gainer, “Abortion: History of Adventist Guidelines.”
    24. Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, trans. William Whiston (Auburn and Buffalo: John E. Beardsley, 1895).
    25. American Adoptions, “How Many Couples Are Waiting to Adopt a Baby?” https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families.

     

  • Analysis of AB 2098 and Its Potential to Suppress Free Speech of Medical Professionals in California

    Analysis of AB 2098 and Its Potential to Suppress Free Speech of Medical Professionals in California

    [dc]L[/dc]ast September, California Governor Gavin Newsom passed a new law, AB 2098, that could have the effect of punishing medical professionals who express doubts about the established Covid narrative. At first glance, this may appear to be a beneficial measure, as it could encourage medical professionals to provide factual information to their patients and avoid making unsupported statements. However, upon closer examination, this law raises a number of serious concerns.

    The language of the law is overly broad and vague – the term “misinformation“ on a new or unsettled area of medicine is open to interpretation, and could be used to target doctors who are simply asking questions or presenting alternative theories. This could have serious implications for patient care, as it could inhibit doctors from providing accurate information.

    Furthermore, this law fails to take into account the fact that many doctors have raised questions over the long–term effects of the virus, or the efficacy of certain treatments. By punishing doctors who express these doubts, this bill could have a significant negative impact on patients‘ ability to make informed decisions about their care.

    AB 2098 is a misguided attempt to suppress free speech and to punish doctors for questioning the official Covid narrative. It could lead to a dangerous precedent in medical research and public health, and could even extend to other areas of medicine, including psychology which already faces social criticism.

     

    The language of AB 2098 is as follows:

    (a) It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.
     
    (b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
     
    (1) “Board” means the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, as applicable.
     
    (2) “Disinformation” means misinformation that the licensee deliberately disseminated with malicious intent or an intent to mislead.
     
    (3) “Disseminate” means the conveyance of information from the licensee to a patient under the licensee’s care in the form of treatment or advice.
     
    (4) “Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.
     
    (5) “Physician and surgeon” means a person licensed by the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2000).
     
     
     
    Analysis:  This is an “intent” law meaning that the physician would need to know that the information they were providing was false and that they were giving that information with “malicious intent” or “intent to mislead.” It also has to be in the form of “treatment or advice,” which would imply a physician-patient relationship or specific advice. 
     
    Despite this language, detractors would likely argue that if anything that is said is outside of the official medical narrative, then it is automatically “misinformation” and therefore punishable to the point of loss of a professional license.  
     
    While medical boards should have an interest in preventing blatant quackery and fraud in doctor-patient relationships, the extension to emerging and unsettled areas of medicine is concerning.

    This law has the potential to have a chilling effect on the ability of medical professionals to provide accurate information to their patients, inquire into new treatments, and raise questions on emerging theories. Without protections in place to ensure that this law is not abused, it could have serious implications for free speech and medical research.
  • Idaho Supreme Court Denies Petition to Recognize Fundamental Right to Abortion

    Idaho Supreme Court Denies Petition to Recognize Fundamental Right to Abortion

    [dc]L[/dc]ast Thursday, the Idaho Supreme Court denied a petition to recognize a fundamental right to abortion in the state constitution. Petitioners argued that certain provisions within the Idaho Constitution implicitly enshrine abortion as a right entitled to heightened protection from the legislature’s broad power to regulate conduct.

    In a majority opinion, the court emphasized that it is the duty of the judicial branch to sustain the rule of law and not to promote personal policy preferences. The majority wrote that to read a fundamental right to abortion into the text of the Idaho Constitution, it must be determined whether the right is “deeply rooted” in the traditions and history of Idaho at the time of statehood.

    The court based its decision on a review of Idaho’s relevant history and traditions at the time of statehood, which showed that abortion was viewed as an immoral act and treated as a crime. Thus, the court concluded that the framers and adopters of the Inalienable Rights Clause did not intend to implicitly protect abortion as a fundamental right.

    The court also determined that the Total Abortion Ban, 6-Week Ban, and Civil Liability Law each pass the test for determining the constitutionality of most legislation and are rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in protecting prenatal fetal life at all stages of development, and in protecting the health and safety of the mother.

    The majority noted that the court’s decision does not prevent the voters of Idaho from answering the deeply moral and political question of abortion at the polls. He concluded the opinion by emphasizing that the court’s decision is based only on the constitutionality of the laws in question, not on whether they are wise policies.

    CASE

    Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky v. State of Idaho, (ID Sup. Ct., Jan. 5, 2023)

  • “Exploring the Alarming Rise in Canadian Assisted Suicide Deaths: Is it Here to Stay?”

    “Exploring the Alarming Rise in Canadian Assisted Suicide Deaths: Is it Here to Stay?”

     

    Trigger Warning: This article discusses suicide. 

    Many more Canadians are dying from assisted suicide as it expands beyond those experiencing terminal illness to include adults and minors experiencing depress or struggling with mental illness.

     

    [dc]W[/dc]ith the increasing acceptance of medically assisted suicide and euthanasia, the supply and demand of the practice are on the rise in Canada. Some people are concerned by the “slippery slope” that these policy moves present and the expanding definitions of who qualifies to die. Others argue that the right to a “death with dignity” should be extended to many more people, including minors and people with mental illnesses and depression.

    (Editor’s Note: The drug used by doctors to end patients’ lives is the same drug used in death penalty lethal injections.)

    Euthanasia, where doctors use drugs to end patients’ lives, is legal in seven countries: Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Spain. It is also legal in some parts of Australia. [i]

    During 2021 in Canada, for example, 10,064 medical assistance in dying (MAID) deaths were reported, making up 3.3% of all deaths in Canada. This number is a growth rate of 32.4% over 2020. Since 2016, when it was legalized, 31,664 reported deaths were from MAID in Canada.

    In Canada in 2021, 139 voluntarily euthanized patients were between 18 and 45.

    In the U.S., options for assisted suicide are available in Washington D.C. and in ten states, including California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Assisted suicide is different from euthanasia in that the patients themselves administer the fatal drugs, typically orally.

    Depending on how the question is phrased, a 2018 Gallup poll found that 65-72% of Americans believe medically assisted suicide should be legal. 54% said it was a morally acceptable practice, and 42% said it was morally wrong.

    While many might agree that sometimes the most humane course could be to give someone suffering from a terminal disease a fast and dignified end of life, suicide becomes increasingly controversial as it is made available to more and more people. 

    The controversial practice has faced increased scrutiny recently from cases in Canada and Europe.

    Broadening Availability in Canada

    In August 2022, a Canadian military veteran who has PTSD and a “traumatic brain injury” was asked by an employee of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) if he would consider MAID. The veteran and his family expressed outrage that this was suggested to him. The VAC confirmed that “[MAID] was discussed inappropriately” and “appropriate administrative action will be taken.”

    VAC said that “providing advice” on MAID is not a service VAC offers.

    It is unclear how often MAID was erroneously recommended to veterans before this.

    Of course, not only veterans have been affected. Since 2016 when MAID was legalized, the definition of who is eligible for MAID has expanded. For example, in 2019 the courts decided to remove the requirement that a person’s natural death must be reasonably foreseeable[ii] to be eligible for MAID. This means that younger people without terminal diseases qualified. And starting March 17, 2023, mental illness can be considered as the sole underlying justification for euthanasia programs. 

    According to the Canadian Government, there will be a requirement for “Ministers of Justice and Health to initiate an expert review panel tasked with making recommendations on protocols, guidance, and safeguards for MAID for persons suffering from mental illness.”[iii]

    To be eligible for MAID today: “an individual must experience intolerable physical or psychological suffering that is caused by their medical condition or their state of decline, and that cannot be relieved under conditions that the individual finds acceptable.” In 2021, the top reasons cited for applying for MAID in Canada were the “loss of ability to engage in meaningful activities (86.3%), followed by loss of ability to perform activities of daily living (83.4%), and inadequate control of pain, or concern about controlling pain (57.6%).”

    Besides the veteran’s case, outrage has been voiced over other cases, especially when applicants are not terminally ill or are young.

    Sixty-one-year-old Alan Nichols was admitted to a hospital in June 2019 for fears he might be suicidal. The family was horrified to learn that he chose euthanasia in the hospital, especially given Nichols even “asked his brother to ‘bust him out’ as soon as possible,” according to A.P. News.[iv] The only reason given on the application for death was “hearing loss.”

    Nichols’ family reported the case to the police and claimed the hospital improperly persuaded him to request euthanasia. “Alan was basically put to death,” said brother Gary Nichols. In Alan’s life, “he needed some help from us, but he was not so disabled that he qualified for euthanasia.”[v]

    The Associated Press reported that “the health minister, Adrian Dix, said the province’s oversight unit reviewed the case and ‘has not referred it for further inquiry.’ He pointed out that the euthanasia law does not allow families to review euthanasia requests or be privy to hospitals’ decisions.”

    The authorities concluded everything was in order.

    Trudo Lemmens, chair of health law and policy at the University of Toronto, said, “This case demonstrates that the rules are too loose and that even when people die who shouldn’t have died, there is almost no way to hold the doctors and hospitals responsible.”

    In another case, in July 2022, 23-year-old Canadian Kiano Vafaeian was approved for MAID. He had diabetes and onsetting blindness. He struggled with depression. The process was only stopped after his mother discovered what her son was doing. She took to social media: “Can you F….. believe it!!! The doctor literally has given him the gun to kill himself.”

    The social media attention led to a national outcry against the doctors who planned to facilitate his termination. In response, the doctors changed their minds and refused to cooperate with the planned suicide.

    But Vafaeian was disappointed when the doctors refused to assist him with suicide. “I was so ready,” he said. “I was actually very looking forward to ending my pain and suffering.”[vi]

    Other parents will support their child’s decision to end their life.

    In Belgium, 23-year-old Shanti De Corte survived a 2016 ISIS attack on a Brussels airport and was never the same after the attack. She suffered from anxiety and depression for years because of the attack. She attempted suicide in 2018 and 2020. She chose euthanasia because of this and was approved in 2022 by two psychiatrists.

    Her mother said she supported her daughter’s decision. She explained that Shanti was afraid of large crowds and that “Even balloons bursting at a birthday party scared her.” Her mother said ultimately, “It [euthanasia] was Shanti’s wish. I am convinced she is at peace now. It brings us comfort, makes it more bearable, to know that it is what she wanted.”

    Belgian prosecutors are investigating the case. The Christian advocacy organization Alliance Defending Freedom International (ADF) has issued a statement: “Once the laws are passed, the impact of euthanasia cannot be controlled. Belgium has set itself on a trajectory that, at best, implicitly tells the most vulnerable their lives are not worth living.”

    Euthanasia for Children

    Advocates, including Dying with Dignity, a Canadian organization, say euthanasia law is intended to be compassionate. They argue that even children should have the right to assisted suicide. Canada is considering legalizing euthanasia for “mature minors” in 2023, and children who are deemed mature could decide to receive euthanasia without the consent of their parents.

    Belgium and Dutch laws both allow minors to receive euthanasia or assisted suicide. The Dutch require a minimum age of 12 years old, parental consent, and the child must be “deemed to have a reasonable understanding” of his interests. Belgium’s laws are similar, including proof of a terminal or incurable disease.

    Dr. Derryck Smith, a psychiatrist at the University of British Columbia, said MAiD “is about relieving suffering, respecting human dignity, and recognizing the inherent right for individuals to make decisions affecting their health and even their death.” He has said, “Before MAiD, patients who were going to die were assisted along the way with high doses of narcotics.” “The rationale was to ‘make people comfortable.’”

    Smith never took the Hippocratic Oath because he thought it was “archaic.”

    Although some advocate for euthanasia, others believe that both children and adults with mental health issues cannot make such decisions and that providing care rather than euthanasia is the better path.

    Common Sense reports: “Dr. Dawn Davies, a palliative care physician who supported MAiD when it was first conceived, said she had ‘tons of worries’ about where this might lead. She could imagine kids with personality disorders or other mental health issues saying they wanted to die. ‘Some of them will mean it, some of them won’t,’ she said. ‘And we won’t necessarily be able to discern who is who.’”

    Oncologist Dr. Ellen Warner, a professor at the University of Toronto’s medical school, said, “My objection to MAiD, from day one, was that there was no way we would be able to avoid this slippery slope because these aren’t black and white cases,” she said. “I’m 100 percent against MAiD. I’m an old-fashioned Hippocratic Oath kind of doctor.”

     

    When You Can’t Afford to Live…

    Because of the increasingly open eligibility requirements of euthanasia in Canada, many people with moderate disabilities are considering euthanasia for financial reasons. [perfectpullquote align=”left” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Many people with moderate disabilities are considering euthanasia for financial reasons.[/perfectpullquote]

    Heidi Janz is an assistant adjunct professor in Disability Ethics at the University of Alberta. She said, “a person with disabilities in Canada has to jump through so many hoops to get support that it can often be enough to tip the scales.” Many choose euthanasia because they simply cannot afford to live any longer.

    The Canadian government includes euthanasia as part of Canadian medical insurance. Because the government has made it easier to die, some consider it a viable alternative to facing financial hardship.

    65-year-old Les Landry, who suffered from PTSD, epilepsy, and had three strokes, said: “There’s a tipping point where you can’t afford to live…MAiD is the new society safety net.”

    Studies, one by the Canadian government and another published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, find that MAID (including the more recent addition of mentally ill as qualifying cases) will save the government millions of dollars per year, even as high as $149 million. In essence, by eliminating the most financially, physically, and mentally vulnerable members of Canadian society, the government will not have to devote resources to support that group.

    In response to criticism about allowing access to those solely with mental illness, safeguards were added, requiring that patients be informed about all treatments, including mental health support and palliative care, before they may request euthanasia. Some are now calling for secondary panels to analyze borderline situations.

    At least three officials from the United Nations have expressed their concern about Canada’s permissive euthanasia stance. They said Canada’s willingness to euthanize patients with disabilities who are not terminally ill may “have a potentially discriminatory impact” and may “risk reinforcing (even unintentionally) ableist and ageist assumptions about the value or quality of life of persons with disabilities and older persons with or without disabilities.”[vii]

    Further Implications

    A recent study concluded that “legalization of euthanasia or assisted suicide is a threat to suicide prevention.”[viii] Normalizing suicide through advocacy for assisted suicide and euthanasia may encourage self-harm in those who don’t meet the requirements for legal euthanasia or assisted suicide.

    With the supply and demand for medical assistance in dying increasing due to broadening definitions of eligible users, hard questions will likely continue to be raised wherever it is used. People who might not otherwise ever consider committing suicide on their own are willing to die when it has the imprimatur of the government and medical establishment. The option of “do it yourself” suicide will inevitably increase.
    [perfectpullquote align=”right” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Is assisted suicide what people need to end their suffering, or is it the easy answer to costly and difficult treatment?[/perfectpullquote]

    With the increasing availability of government-funded medically assisted suicide, there is a strong likelihood that suicide will no longer be considered a social taboo. Now is the time to ask the tough questions – are advocates supporting MAiD because it is what people need to end their suffering, or is it because suicide is the easy answer to costly and difficult treatment? If people can request assisted suicide without the consent of family members, will the confused end up dead when their lives could have been saved? Or can family members who might gain from inheritance or the freedom from caring for an ill family member pressure them to commit suicide? Will insurance companies or government healthcare payers see it as a way to save money on costly end-of-life care? Will those who feel like they’re a burden be able to withstand the gentle pressure from family members or doctors who present it as a “compassionate” option? Finally, how can society balance the rights and autonomy of the individual while preserving safeguards and protections for the most vulnerable groups?

    Perhaps Marie-Claude Landry, the head of Canada’s Human Rights Commission, was right when she said, “In an era where we recognize the right to die with dignity, we must do more to guarantee the right to live with dignity.”[ix]

    If you or someone you know is having suicidal thoughts or struggling with mental health issues, please call the U.S. National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255 (or just by dialing 988) to speak with a counselor. In Canada, support is available 24/7 by calling Talk Suicide Canada (1-833-456-4566). In Canada, 988 will be available after November 23, 2023.

    Caden Benedict is a Senior at Pepperdine University majoring in Economics and minoring in Great Books. He is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of The Pepperdine Beacon, a media and news organization preserving and promoting the values and mission of the university through a relentless pursuit of truth. He plans to attend law school and enter the film industry after his education.

    [i] Canada’s New Euthanasia Laws Carry Upsetting Nazi-Era Echoes … – Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/gusalexiou/2022/08/15/canadas-new-euthanasia-laws-carry-upsetting-nazi-era-echoes-warns-expert/

    [ii] Second Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada 2020. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying/annual-report-2020.html

    [iii] Third annual report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada 2021. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying/annual-report-2021.html

    [iv] KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: Re-thinking end-of-life care | Opinion …. https://www.albanyherald.com/opinion/kathryn-jean-lopez-re-thinking-end-of-life-care/article_e0b09b12-222d-11ed-a202-ff2606e5f60b.html

    [v] ‘Disturbing’: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws. https://nypost.com/2022/08/11/disturbing-experts-troubled-by-canadas-euthanasia-laws/

    [vi] Scheduled to Die: The Rise of Canada’s Assisted Suicide Program. https://www.commonsense.news/p/scheduled-to-die-the-rise-of-canadas

    [vii] Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with …. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=26002

    [viii] New research finds legal euthanasia leads to increased ‘self-suicide’ rates. https://aleteia.org/2022/11/13/new-research-finds-legal-euthanasia-leads-to-increased-self-suicide-rates/

    [ix] Canada’s New Euthanasia Laws Carry Upsetting Nazi-Era Echoes … – Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/gusalexiou/2022/08/15/canadas-new-euthanasia-laws-carry-upsetting-nazi-era-echoes-warns-expert/

     

    Illustration:  Midjourney.com

  • Supreme Court Jeopardizes Unenumerated Rights to Block Abortion

    Supreme Court Jeopardizes Unenumerated Rights to Block Abortion

    Regardless of what you think about abortion, the Supreme Court’s rationale in Dobbs severely limits the scope of the Bill of Rights. What the Court could have done differently. 

    “(T)he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ‘liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms in the United States; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints.”
    — Justice John Marshall Harlan II, dissent in Poe v. Ullman
     
     

    [dc]I[/dc]n law, there is always a destination in the distance and a goal. But if, in taking the pathway there, you blow up all the bridges and crush all the tunnels along the way, then is the goal really worth it if you’re left stranded on a mountaintop? While protecting the life of the unborn in states that intend to block abortion, the option that the Court majority chose bombed the road and severely undercut other rights.

    The Bill of Rights was intended not to limit rights but to describe a baseline. When drafted, people were concerned that it would just be a list or “enumeration” of rights and that rights that they neglected or did not have space to mention would be excluded.

    But the counterpoint was that if at least some fundamental rights were not listed, they would never be upheld. So the drafters of the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, three years after the Constitution, wrote the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution using short sentences and clauses with the broadest meaning possible. Every single word drips with expansive meaning. They did not write the Constitution or the Bill of Rights to limit the power of the people – they wrote it to limit the power of the government.

    For instance, the entire First Amendment is one single, easily memorized sentence: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Yet each clause has libraries of court opinions and treatises about what they mean.

    Today, the Supreme Court overturned both Roe v. Wade (clear right to abortion in the first trimester, with increasing state interest in the second and third trimesters) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (drawing the line at “viability.”)

    There were three ways the Court could have chosen to address the Mississippi law that banned abortion for any reason after 15 weeks. The first would be to overturn the law. The second would be to draw a new line at the Mississippi 15-week standard. The third, which seemed impossible just months ago, would be to completely overturn Roe and Casey and let states each decide on their own.

    The Fourteenth Amendment

    The “due process clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment is the post-Civil War addition to the Constitution that applies the Bill of Rights to the States. If you have a right within the Bill of Rights, the states have to honor it. In case you’re wondering how that works, remember that before the Civil War, slavery was legal in many states – that’s because even though, at a national level, people loved to talk about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” individual states could control who got those rights.

    So after the Civil War, as a condition of rejoining the United States, Confederate States had to agree to the 13th Amendment that banned “involuntary servitude” (aka slavery), the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the states, and the 15th guaranteed the right to vote. The Fourteenth Amendment made news earlier this week when the same Court found that the 2nd Amendment right to “bear arms” (in this case, concealed weapons) overcame state laws via the Fourteenth Amendment in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

    So why didn’t the Supreme Court find that, like gun rights, abortion rights also filtered down to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment? Because abortion rights are not enumerated or specifically listed in the Constitution. Thus, because the Constitution is silent on abortion, the right does not exist.

    And it doesn’t stop there. As Justice Clarence Thomas recommended on page 3 of his concurring opinion, “[I]n future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’…, we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

    Justice Thomas then takes direct aim at the Fourteenth Amendment as being used as a pretext to form a non-existing “right of privacy.” He wrote, “The right to abortion is ultimately a policy goal in desperate search of a constitutional justification.”

    Some groups, including the Satanic Temple and Americans United, have signaled that they intend to try to attach abortion issues to religious liberty and claim that it is a free exercise of religion to have an abortion. In reality, Americans United has been weak on free exercise arguments, siding against cake bakers who did not want to bake cakes for same-sex weddings on religious grounds. Their free exercise arguments will likely not take them far at a federal level since there will be no federal law that is violating their rights since there is no underlying constitutional right given Dobbs.

    They may also seek to amend the Constitution to provide for abortion, but that could be decades out.

    What the Court Could Have Done

    So what was the alternative if the Court wanted to move beyond abortion? Since the Court went this far, it could have affirmed a finding of fetal personhood based on scientific embryological definitions coupled with a balancing of interests test between the parent and the unborn child. Speaking strictly in scientific terms, Scientifically speaking in terms of biology, life begins at conception. (See American College of Pediatricians – https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins ) Any dispute that contradicted the fact that a sperm and ovum combine to form a genetically unique cell differentiated from either mother or father would be classified as philosophical or religious.

    Then under laws across the country today, a person can be convicted of a double homicide if they kill a pregnant woman and the fetus living inside her. In California, a famous case involved Scott Peterson, who killed his pregnant wife Lacey and ended up on death row for committing first-degree murder of his wife and second-degree murder of their unborn son, Connor.

    In California, abortion is permitted as an exception in Penal Code section 187 dealing with homicide. It says, “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” But then it says that it does not apply if it was performed by a physician, if the life of the mother or fetus was “substantially certain or more likely than not,” or if “the act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.” https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-187.html

    So, there’s an implicit default that the unborn child, whether intended for abortion or to be born alive, is a human. Even Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority in Roe v. Wade, recognized that the fetus might have a Fourteenth Amendment right to life. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

    He wrote, “The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’s right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    The Science Points to Fetal Personhood

    The idea that to perform an abortion, the child must be dehumanized is not scientifically tenable. Humanity is established from 3d ultrasounds, complete imaging studies, responses to pain and other stimuli, prenatal surgery successes, and the wealth of biological evidence that has arisen in last 50 years. A secular biological overview will reveal that a fetus is a genetically unique human, dependent on oxygen and food sources, delivered through an umbilical cord, not unlike an adult human on life support. Outside the womb, a visit to a NICU and observation of premature babies who, if still in utero, would be candidates for abortion yields prima facie evidence of human life.

    The Dobbs Court could have followed this rationale to reach a conclusion of fetal personhood and a Fourteenth Amendment right to life and maintained federal jurisdiction.

    This would not necessarily have meant that all abortion was forbidden, but the Court could have put in place a balancing test between the interests of the parents and the child in a way that made sense nationally.

    Today, the Court threw the entire issue of abortion to the states to do as they wish. As a result, a pregnant teenager in Mississippi will have no exception for rape or incest and will be forced to carry the baby to term. If the baby survives a hostile pregnancy, the teenager would have to undergo a forced vaginal birth or c-section. If she attempted or threatened to have an abortion, she might spend the rest of her pregnancy in custody. In other cases in which the mother’s life is at stake, the life of the unborn will dominate and the mother may die as a result – with no say in the matter.

    Impact of the Dobbs Decision

    Other states will expand abortion rights to the point of birth, and maybe even beyond in the cases of “failed abortions” that leave severely injured children outside the womb to die. States that allow abortions will likely see an uptick in late-term abortions as women who have deliberated or had to raise funds to travel begin to arrive. In short, we are about to experience a lot of instability on this issue going back the other way.

    Enforcement is also a major problem. There is the undeniable cruelty of the state requiring an underage rape victim to carry a baby to term over 9 months and then force her to undergo a c-section and pay a $25,000 hospital bill. In reality, most who seek abortions will find a way to have them, either illegally or by crossing state lines. The untenable situation that led to Roe v. Wade, which itself was a compromise opinion, will return.

    Also, by throwing it back to the states, the Court sets a precedent that throws every other “right” that is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution back to the states. While the Court has seemed to view the Second Amendment in very broad terms, it is not clear that future decisions will protect other freedoms so carefully.