USA Today ran an editorial about H.R. 1797, the pro-life bill that bans abortion after 20 weeks. In it, they acknowledged that something should be done to the Kermit Gosnells out there, but that this bill would do nothing to prevent those types of tragedies from happening. In fact, they argue, the bill would likely make those atrocities more prevalent. And not only that, what if a baby has Down syndrome or some other defect? Many times, those things aren’t able to be detected before 20 weeks, and then the mother won’t be legally allowed to terminate her pregnancy:
“[M]any grave, even lethal fetal anomalies aren’t discovered until or near 20 weeks, at which point some women decide to terminate a pregnancy. Bans will prevent reputable doctors from performing those abortions, leaving a void that criminals such as Gosnell will slither in to fill. While some genetic conditions, such as Down syndrome, can be detected with amniocentesis at 16 to 22 weeks, even then it can take two weeks to get results. Add specialists, research, and time to reflect, and a 20-week ban forces women and couples to make heartrending decisions against a ticking clock. In some cases, they’d have no opportunity at all. Some of the most serious impairments — the failure of kidneys to materialize, or the development of organs outside the body — aren’t discovered before couples at low-risk for problems have routine ultrasounds, at about 18 to 20 weeks.”
That’s their main concern? That a mother won’t be able to murder her unborn child in case the baby has something like Down syndrome? They argue that we shouldn’t be bringing these poor children into the world who suffer these types of anomalies, because they and the parents will likely be encountered with such pain as a result. There is no doubt that raising a child with Down syndrome is difficult compared with raising one without. But both are going to be painful at times. And that is no justification for murder. Life is pain.
The USA Today editorial concluded that the bill forces women to give birth to defected children:
“Should a politician in Washington or a state capital have the power to force a woman to carry a fetus that will be stillborn or die shortly after birth? Or order a woman to give birth to a baby she knows will suffer greatly? That’s a personal choice, best left to a woman and her doctor.”
In the UK, they’re already “euthanizing” infants (with parental consent) who doctors say are terminally ill. And the US already allows euthanasia of adults who want to “die with dignity.” It won’t be much longer before the US starts putting infants to death who the parents and doctors might argue should’ve never been born in the first place.