Socialized healthcare is a truly wicked system.
While its proponents (many of whom are currently running for president, Lord help us) tout a universal healthcare system controlled by the state as the ultimate cure for the many ills of healthcare as we now know it, there is a deeply sinister side to such a system that they refuse to address.
Whether it’s unreasonably long wait times to see a care provider, “healthcare rationing,” or “death panels,” there are far too many terrifying consequences to universal healthcare for any honest person to even entertain the thought.
When it comes to abortion, socialized healthcare takes things to a whole new level.
It’s already bad enough that the laws of our death-loving culture allow doctors to slaughter children in the womb (and earn a huge salary doing so). Under government-controlled healthcare, abortion won’t just be “safe, legal, and rare.” Under circumstances that the government decides, it can be mandatory.
A Catholic woman in the United Kingdom may have experienced this firsthand when a judge ruled in favor of a team of doctors who wanted to abort her perfectly healthy, 22-week baby. The doctors argued that it will be in her “best interests” to abort her child due to her developmental disabilities and mood disorder, according to the Catholic News Agency.
The unidentified woman is in her 20s and reportedly has the mental capacity of a grade school-aged child. Whether she became pregnant as a result of consensual sex or not is unknown and still under police investigation.
According to The Blaze, “The pregnant mother is under the care of the United Kingdom’s National Health Service under an NHS trust, and her doctors have said the abortion would be less traumatic for the woman than giving birth and giving up the child to foster care.”
Justice Nathalie Lieven agreed, giving the woman’s doctors the green light to proceed with the abortion under the premise that it would be less traumatic for the mother to have her unborn baby murdered than to give birth to a “real” baby who will then be taken away from her and put into foster care.
“I think [the pregnant mother] would suffer greater trauma from having a baby removed [from her care],” Lieven said. “…it would at that stage be a real baby.”
How incredibly wicked.
“I think [the pregnant mother] would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll,” Lieven also said, taking a heartless jab at the woman’s cognitive disabilities.
Although the mother’s ability to care for her child may be subject to debate, her own mother, who happens to be a registered midwife, has testified that she is ready and capable of taking care of her grandchild.
Justice Lieven, however, believed that caring for her new granddaughter as well as her disabled daughter will be too much of a responsibility. How sickening that this judge believes she has the right to determine the lengths a mother can go to in order to help her own daughter?!
Although Justice Lieven did acknowledge that her ruling was an assault on the pregnant mother’s rights, she argued that the necessity of an abortion overruled the rights of this entire family.
“I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion,” Lieven said. “I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society’s views of termination.”
For a country like China with a long, violent history of human rights abuses, forced abortion is still a horrific tragedy, but it’s nothing new. In the UK, this is simply the next logical step for a socialist government.
After a massive backlash and an appeal from the pregnant woman’s mother, however, the court did overturn Lieven’s ruling—praise God!
According to The Guardian, the three appellate court judges have not yet provided a statement on their decision to overturn Lieven’s order.
Thank the Lord for his incredible mercy on this precious family, and continue in fervent prayer for Him to have mercy on America as our culture continues down a similar path.
While miraculous that this decision was overturned, it is nonetheless chilling that it ever came to this point. Are Britons truly at the mercy of social welfare that the law decides whether or not their babies live or die?
Sadly, we learned this all too well with the tragic death of young Charlie Guard, the baby that the British government deemed undeserving of the right to life due to his mitochondrial disease, and Alfie Evans, the beautiful little boy with a neurogenerative disorder who was taken off life support by a health care system uninterested in saving the lives of its citizens most in need of care.
Is this the kind of system that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders think is a “human right”? One that, first and foremost, eliminates the most basic of human rights…the right to life?
The sad reality is, yes. Yes, they do.
If you appreciate the work we are doing to fight the leftist assault on our values, please consider a small donation to help us continue. Thank you so much!