The ruling requiring a mentally disabled woman to abort her 22-week-old baby is shocking, and a glimpse into a certain future should we allow a socialized healthcare system in America.
“Intrusion” is an interesting way to describe forced late-term abortions.
The woman’s mother offered to raise the child, but a court decided it would be better for her mental health to deliver a significantly developed aborted fetus than a live baby. In other words, it's a government-mandated abortion.
The ruling judge herself called the decision an “immense intrusion,” but it is only the most recent culmination of the increasingly intrusive role the British judiciary is playing when it comes to the healthcare decisions of individuals.
“Intrusion” is an interesting way to describe forced late-term abortions.
Abortions at 22 weeks involve major surgical procedures and, even in cases where the abortion is wanted, they often leave mothers traumatized, depressed, or anxiety ridden. The procedure is so controversial and risky that those in America who seek it out have extremely limited options when it comes to facilities that will perform it.
The argument has been made that the mother is not mentally fit to raise a child. The problem here is the precedent this sets.
It was only two years ago the world was abuzz over the horrifying story of Charlie Gard, a British infant with a rare genetic disorder.
Charlie’s parents had raised enough money to fly him to America for experimental treatment that could possibly have saved his life, but Britain's nanny state barred them from removing their child from the hospital.
Less than a year later, we were faced with the similar case of Alfie Evans, a baby boy with a neurological disorder rendering him semi-vegetative. Alfie’s parents hoped to take their son overseas for treatment but were denied that right by London’s Family Division of the High Court, essentially determining the Evans’ parental rights surrounding their son’s healthcare ended the moment they admitted him to the hospital.
The parents attempted to appeal the decision, but the European Court of Human Rights found the case to be inadmissible.
[caption id="attachment_178979" align="aligncenter" width="1920"]
Flickr. Creative Commons.[/caption]
Inch by inch over the past few years, the British government has been establishing itself as not only its citizens’ healthcare provider, but also its healthcare decision maker.
When the government controls healthcare, it controls healthcare decisions.
This was inevitable, as the two are one and the same, but these stories that shock Americans provide a unique window into the future that advocates for socialized healthcare seek to establish for Americans.
Government funded healthcare may sound compassionate, but it ends up being the opposite. Judges make cold decisions about the lives of children according to whether or not they will be a burden on the state.
When the government controls healthcare, it controls healthcare decisions.
Questions like whether or not people are “mentally fit” or are living off government funds become integral in whether or not people are allowed by the government to birth children they have conceived, or to seek international medical treatment for children they have birthed.
This is the current reality in Britain.
To Americans, it seems spooky, but each time we entertain a conversation about “Medicare for All,” we are led closer and closer to this reality.
In the U.K., this pattern started with the most defenseless victims: sick children. Now they have moved on to the next level: the mentally handicapped. The already tried to come after the elderly.
In the latest instance, an appeal's court threw out the forced abortion for the disabled lady.
But once the window shifts to where the public accepts forcing abortions on disabled mothers, anyone becomes dispensable if they are no longer beneficial to the state.
Death would obviously be in grandma's “best interests”.
Celine Ryan is an American journalist who reports on politics, culture, and the state of higher education.
