MCCL GO argues that Dutch euthanasia violates human rights

GENEVA, Switzerland — Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Global Outreach (MCCL GO), an international non-governmental organization working to secure human rights for all human beings, has submitted a written contribution to the Human Rights Council's upcoming review of the Netherlands. The submission argues that the Dutch practice of euthanasia violates human rights protected by international treaties.

"Thousands of Dutch patients are intentionally killed by euthanasia or assisted suicide each year," says Scott Fischbach, executive director of MCCL GO. "Some are killed because they have dementia or psychiatric problems, like depression or post-traumatic stress. And some mentally incompetent patients are killed even though they have made no request to die."

The practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands threatens to deny patients their right to health. A 2016 study published in JAMA Psychiatry, for example, found that a majority of patients euthanized for psychiatric reasons were described as socially isolated or lonely. "The mental health of some Dutch patients has not been adequately addressed," Fischbach observes.

The Human Rights Council, an inter-governmental U.N. body founded to promote and protect human rights worldwide, conducts a Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of all nations to determine whether they are fulfilling their human rights obligations and commitments. The Council will review the Netherlands during the 27th UPR Working Group session next spring.

MCCL GO's contribution—which is available online—explains how the Netherlands' euthanasia policy violates the "inherent right to life" of every human being guaranteed under international law. It also violates equality and non-discrimination. "The right to life belongs to not only the young, healthy and able-bodied," says Fischbach, "but also the elderly, sick and disabled."

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities calls on nations to "take all necessary measures to ensure [the] effective enjoyment [of the right to life] by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others." The euthanasia of disabled infants, which is accepted in the Netherlands under the Groningen Protocol, is an especially clear violation of this requirement.

MCCL GO's contribution also notes that U.N. treaty bodies have criticized euthanasia in the Netherlands. The Human Rights Committee has called for the Dutch law to "be reviewed in light of the … right to life," and has condemned the Dutch practice of infanticide. The Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed concern that euthanasia may (under Dutch law) be applied to children as young as 12 years old.

"To fulfill its international human rights obligations," Fischbach concludes, "the Netherlands should prohibit euthanasia and assisted suicide."

MCCL GO is the U.N.- and OAS-accredited global outreach program of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Education Fund. Our goal is to protect as many human beings as possible from the destruction of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Learn more at www.mccl-go.org.

Safe Place for Newborns bill to protect newborns in danger of harm approved by Senate panel

The following news release was issued on April 13, 2015.

ST. PAUL — A state program offering a lifesaving option to women in danger of harming their newborns would receive much-needed funding under legislation approved today by the Health and Human Services Finance committee of the Minnesota Senate. This protective measure is strongly supported by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL).

The Safe Place for Newborns program is a last alternative for mothers who feel desperate, and their babies who are at risk of harm or abandonment. Resources and funding are needed to expand awareness of the program statewide.

The bill approved today would appropriate funds enabling the Department of Human Services to distribute information about the Safe Place option. Increasing public awareness in this way would help to prevent unnecessary tragedies. The chief author of S.F. 796 is Sen. Kent Eken, DFL-Twin Valley.

"This law is intended for those rare and heartbreaking instances where the mother either was not aware of, or was unable to cope with, her pregnancy or plan for the birth," said MCCL Legislative Director Andrea Rau in her testimony on behalf of the measure. "S.F. 796 seeks a one-time appropriation for the Department of Human Services to increase awareness of this law."

Minnesota enacted the Safe Place for Newborns law in 2000. This program aims to prevent infant abandonment or infanticide by allowing a mother to anonymously surrender her newborn at a designated "safe place," no questions asked. Several cases of infanticide have occurred in the state in recent years.

MCCL helped to amend the law in 2012 to expand the number of safe places and the length of time women have this option. Under the amended law, a mother, or someone acting with her permission, may leave her newborn at a hospital, an urgent care facility, or an ambulance dispatched in response to a 911 call within seven days of birth. Personnel at the safe place immediately begin arrangements for care for the child.

"A new generation of women needs to be made aware of the existence of Minnesota’s Safe Place for Newborns law," Rau added.

Bill to protect newborns in danger of harm approved by House panel

The following news release was issued on Feb. 26, 2015.

ST. PAUL — A state program offering a lifesaving option to women in danger of harming their newborns would receive much-needed funding under legislation unanimously approved today by the Health and Human Services Finance committee of the Minnesota House of Representatives. This protective measure is strongly supported by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL).

The Safe Place for Newborns program is a last alternative for mothers who feel desperate, and their babies who are at risk of harm or abandonment. Resources and funding are needed to expand awareness of the program statewide.

The bill approved today would appropriate funds enabling the Department of Human Services to distribute information about the Safe Place option. Increasing public awareness in this way would help to prevent unnecessary tragedies. The chief author of H.F. 825 is Rep. Roz Peterson, R-Lakeville.

"This law is intended for those rare and heartbreaking instances where the mother either was not aware of, or was unable to cope with, her pregnancy or plan for the birth," said MCCL Legislative Director Andrea Rau in her testimony on behalf of the measure. "H.F. 825 seeks an appropriation for the Department of Human Services to increase awareness of this law."

Minnesota enacted the Safe Place for Newborns law in 2000. This program aims to prevent infant abandonment or infanticide by allowing a mother to anonymously surrender her newborn at a designated "safe place," no questions asked. Several cases of infanticide have occurred in the state in recent years.

MCCL helped to amend the law in 2012 to expand the number of safe places and the length of time women have this option. Under the amended law, a mother, or someone acting with her permission, may leave her newborn at a hospital, an urgent care facility, or an ambulance dispatched in response to a 911 call within seven days of birth. Personnel at the safe place immediately begin arrangements for care for the child.

"A new generation of women needs to be made aware of the existence of Minnesota's Safe Place for Newborns law," Rau added.

Safe Place for Newborns bill would strengthen efforts to protect newborns in danger of harm

ST. PAUL — A state program offering a lifesaving option to women in danger of harming their newborns would receive much-needed funding under legislation introduced today in the Minnesota Senate and House of Representatives. This protective measure is strongly supported by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

Minnesota enacted the Safe Place for Newborns law in 2000. This program aims to prevent infant abandonment or infanticide by allowing a mother to anonymously surrender her newborn at a designated "safe place," no questions asked. Several cases of infanticide have occurred in the state in recent years.

MCCL helped to amend the law in 2012 to expand the number of safe places and the length of time women have this option. Under the amended law, a mother, or someone acting with her permission, may leave her newborn at a hospital, an urgent care facility, or an ambulance dispatched in response to a 911 call within seven days of birth. Personnel at the safe place immediately begin arrangements for care for the child.

The Safe Place for Newborns program is a last alternative for mothers who feel desperate, and their babies who are at risk of harm or abandonment. Resources and funding are needed to expand awareness of the program statewide.

"No troubled mother needs to resort to abandoning or killing her newborn child," said MCCL Legislative Associate Andrea Rau. "Safe Place is a wonderful program that many more people need to know about."

The measure introduced today would appropriate funds enabling the Department of Human Services to distribute information about the Safe Place option. Increasing public awareness in this way would help to prevent unnecessary tragedies.

The chief author of S.F. 796 is Sen. Kent Eken, DFL-Twin Valley. In the House of Representatives, the chief author of H.F. 825 is Roz Peterson, R-Lakeville.

Lessons of Gosnell: 'The real trial has only just begun'

Philadelphia abortion provider Kermit Gosnell was convicted yesterday on three counts of first-degree murder (of newborn babies), one count of involuntary manslaughter (of a pregnant woman), 21 counts of illegal abortion (of unborn babies over 24 weeks) and more than 200 other crimes. He will spend the rest of his life in prison. Eight other members of Gosnell's staff pleaded guilty to various charges, four of them to murder.

According to the grand jury investigation and several weeks of court testimony, Gosnell routinely delivered living newborn babies and then killed them by jabbing surgical scissors into the back of their necks and severing their spinal cords. (The grand jury said Gosnell killed hundreds of infants this way, but he destroyed most of the records, so only three first-degree murders were proved in court.) The conditions of his clinic were disgusting and unsanitary; women were overdosed with drugs and treated by unlicensed staff, and at least two women died; aborted babies' bodies were stored in the refrigerator next to employee lunches, and severed baby body parts were collected in jars.

Gosnell's "house of horrors" was allowed to operate for many years because state officials turned a blind eye and chose not to inspect abortion facilities for political reasons (according to the grand jury report). Here in Minnesota, state officials do not license or inspect abortion centers at all, and MCCL-backed legislation to license abortion facilities in the same way as other outpatient surgical centers was vetoed in 2012 by Gov. Mark Dayton. This status quo has never been more indefensible. In the wake of Gosnell (as well as problems uncovered in numerous other abortion facilities around the country, including Texas-based Whole Woman's Health, which recently came to Minnesota), will pro-choice advocates like Dayton accept reasonable health and safety standards in abortion clinics? How could they not?

Abortion defenders say the lesson to be learned is that pro-life restrictions on abortion drive women to "back-alley butchers" like Kermit Gosnell. This argument is difficult to take seriously in an era of abortion on demand. And no one could have been driven to Gosnell had proper oversight shut him down or forced him to abide by the law—oversight that was obstructed by pro-choice politicians. (Regardless, the fact that submitting to the killing of an innocent human being may be hazardous to one's health provides no moral justification for making such killing easier.)

The Gosnell case also shines a light on the dark reality of late-term abortion in the United States, and reveals the need to ensure protection for infants and enforce the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. And it points to the graphic nature of killing babies, before birth or after, and the logically tenuous boundary between abortion and infanticide. As Princeton professor Robert P. George explains:

Dr. Gosnell is only the front man; and the real trial has only just begun. The defendant is the abortion license in America. The Gosnell episode highlights the irrationality of the regime of law put into place by the Supreme Court in 1973 and fiercely protected by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the politicians they and other "pro-choice" advocacy groups help send to Washington and the state capitols. Something as morally arbitrary as a human being's location—his or her being in or out of the womb—cannot determine whether killing him or her is an unconscionable act of premeditated homicide or the exercise of a fundamental liberty. Yet something like that is the prevailing state of American law under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Its incoherence and indefensibility have been laid bare by the prosecution of Dr. Gosnell. Whatever now happens to him, it will no longer be possible to pretend that abortion and infanticide are radically different acts or practices. If we are to condemn snipping the neck of a child delivered at, say, twenty-four or twenty-six weeks to kill him or her, how can we defend dismembering or poisoning a child in the womb at twenty-six, thirty, or even thirty-four weeks? And even more fundamentally, if we are bearers of inviolable dignity and a basic right to life in virtue of our humanity, and not in virtue of accidental qualities such as age, or size, or stage of development or condition of dependency—if, in other words, we believe in the fundamental equality of human beings—how can a right to abortion (where "abortion" means performing an act whose purpose is to cause fetal death) be defended at all?

The real trial has only just begun.

Pro-choice tension, the moral irrelevance of birth, and three possibilities

Consider the following three stories:

1. Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell is currently on trial for delivering viable babies and then killing them by severing their spinal cords (he is also charged with the murder of a pregnant woman). 
2. Last week a Planned Parenthood lobbyist testified against a Florida bill to protect babies born alive after failed abortions. The Planned Parenthood representative said that "any decision that's made [about the fate of the living newborn child] should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician." She objected to transporting the infant to a hospital for possibly-lifesaving care because in "those situations where it is in a rural health care setting, the hospital is 45 minutes or an hour away," so "there's just some logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about." (President Obama, as an Illinois state senator, repeatedly voted against legal protection for already-born abortion survivors because such protection would undermine the logic of "abortion rights.")
3. Last year two bio-ethicists argued in the Journal of Medical Ethics for the moral permissibility of "after-birth abortion" (the killing of human infants), a position that has been expounded for decades by leading pro-choice philosophers like Michael Tooley and Peter Singer.

These stories point to a tension inherent in the standard "pro-choice" position (that abortion is permissible, but not infanticide): Birth doesn't matter morally. A change in location doesn't change the nature or moral status of the developing human being. If a newborn baby has a right to life, then she had a right to life moments earlier in the womb; and if a full-term fetus has no right to life, then she has none moments later after birth. Because a trip down the birth canal cannot make a moral difference.

So here are three possibilities:

1. We may deny rights to the voiceless and powerless human beings in utero (and ex utero) according to our own preferences, according to what we think is best or most convenient for us. Might makes right. This seems to be the Planned Parenthood/Kermit Gosnell position. 
2. Our rights are based on possession of certain acquired properties (usually higher mental functions) that some human beings have and others lack, that can be gained and lost throughout the life of a human being, and that some have to a greater degree than others. Human equality is a myth. And since both unborn and newborn children fail to meet the criteria, both abortion and infanticide are okay. This is the Peter Singer/Michael Tooley/Journal of Medical Ethics position. 
3. Our rights are based on what (the kind of being) we are. So all human beings by nature—irrespective not only of race, gender and social status, but irrespective also of age, size, location, ability, stage of development and condition of dependency—have an equal fundamental dignity and right to life. This is the pro-life position. 

Which one of the three options is true? And which one will win the day?

Barack Obama and infanticide

Then-state Senator Barack Obama publicly argued in 2001 that babies at this age, even ones who have already been born, should not receive legal protection.

Barack Obama is so committed to unlimited abortion that he voted repeatedly to condone a form of infanticide. He is so committed to winning elections that he spent years misrepresenting those votes.

From 2001 to 2003, as an Illionois state senator, Obama was confronted with legislation called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). The bill simply defined "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development" to be an individual protected under the laws of the state. That's it. So legal protection applies to any baby who has been born ("the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother") and is alive -- even if that baby was born as a result of a failed abortion rather than natural labor. The only point of the legislation was that we shouldn't kill or abandon living, already-born human beings. They are persons who deserve to be treated as such. The bill had no affect on the legality or availability of abortion. A federal version of BAIPA passed Congress in 2002 without a single dissenting vote in either house; even NARAL chose not to oppose the bill.

What prompted BAIPA? Many babies have been born alive during labor-induction abortions and then set aside to die, sometimes without assessing whether they are capable of long-term survival (with the appropriate medical assistance) and without even providing basic comfort care (regardless of whether they have good prospects for survival). Former nurse Jill Stanek helped uncover this practice at a Chicago hospital. In testimony before an Illinois Senate committee, Stanek explained: "It is not uncommon for live aborted babies to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital one of these babies once lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift." One night Stanek found an aborted Down syndrome baby left to die, she explained to a Congressional committee. "I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old." BAIPA would ensure that newborn babies who are born alive prematurely because of abortion are treated with the same care and respect as babies at the same age who were not marked for abortion.

Then-state Senator Obama voted against BAIPA four different times. In 2001 he was the only state senator to speak out against the legislation. In 2003 he led the committee he chaired in killing the bill. BAIPA finally passed after Obama left for Washington.

Expanded Safe Place for Newborns law will protect infants who are at risk

This spring, in response to cases of infant abandonment in recent years (including a baby left in the Mississippi River last fall), the Legislature revised the state's Safe Place for Newborns law, originally enacted in 2000. The expanded policy goes into effect this month.

The Department of Human Services (DHS) issued a news release this morning:

Enacted in 2000 and amended in 2012, the law allows a mother, or someone acting with her permission, to safely surrender her unharmed infant born within the past seven days to a designated safe place. A safe place includes a hospital, an urgent care facility during its hours of operation, or an ambulance that is dispatched in response to a 911 call. Previously, the law allowed for the safe surrender of infants born within 72 hours, and designated safe places were hospitals only.

Click to enlarge

"This amendment strengthens our law, ensuring children are safe, and giving frightened, sometimes distraught mothers an option if they are unable to care for their newborns," said Minnesota Department of Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson.

The law protects the newborn, the parent and the individual leaving the baby. Upon receiving an infant, personnel at the safe place must not try to determine the identities of the people involved. Nor can they call the police. Safe place providers arrange for immediate medical care of the baby and must contact social services for assistance within 24 hours of receiving an infant.

"As a mother, I understand what a woman goes through post-delivery, especially when she feels she has no options or hope," said the bill's chief Senate author Sen. Michelle Benson. "This law expands the window to seven days and broadens drop off locations. It also allows mothers the additional option of requesting an ambulance to come get the baby without facing the threat of prosecution. The law focuses on doing what is best for babies and their mothers."

"This is a great example of the good work that can be done when elected officials and department staff put politics aside and work together," said the bill's chief House author Rep. Jim Abeler. "Because of this collaboration, some children will get the chance to experience life with one of the many families that are waiting to open their homes and hearts to a child."

Information about this lifesaving option should be widely disseminated across Minnesota. DHS has provided a fact sheet (available online here) and a poster display (available here, and shown above).

Legislature expands safety net for newborn babies

The following news release was issued today, April 25.

ST. PAUL — Legislation expanding options for mothers at risk of harming their newborn babies was signed into law on Apr. 23. The lifesaving efforts of the bill's authors and the Legislature were praised by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

"This is common-sense, compassionate legislation that will actually save precious lives, and we applaud the Legislature for passing it almost unanimously," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach.

The legislation was authored by Sen. Michelle Benson, R-Ham Lake, and Rep. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka. MCCL worked closely with the Minnesota Ambulance Association, which also provided significant leadership in drafting the changes. MCCL, the Minnesota Ambulance Association and others plan to publicize the law's new provisions.

A handful of women are vulnerable to abandoning or harming their newborn children in cases of severe stress or mental instability. Several newborn babies have been found in recent years after being drowned in the Mississippi River near Red Wing, for example.

Minnesota's Safe Place for Newborns law (Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 145.902) originally provided a woman, after giving birth, a three-day window in which she is allowed to place her newborn baby at a hospital and walk away, no questions asked. The newborn must be unharmed. Several babies have been presented at hospitals under the Safe Place for Newborns law.

The 2012 "Give Life a Chance" legislation widens the options for mothers of newborns under the state's Safe Place for Newborns law. A newborn may now be placed at a hospital, urgent care provider or with ambulance personnel (by calling 911) by the mother or a person with the mother’s permission. The law expands the relinquishment time period to seven days from birth.

"Give Life a Chance will save more lives, thanks to these greater accommodations for mothers who are at risk," Fischbach added. "No newborn baby in Minnesota should ever be harmed because the mother is not able to provide care."

Following the logic: 'After-birth abortion'

A new article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics has already received a good deal of attention, and the title explains why: "After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?"

Two Australia-based ethicists, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, argue that infanticide is morally permissible in the same circumstances as abortion (that is, for elective reasons, including the convenience of the parents) because a newborn baby, like a fetus, is not yet a "person" with a right to life. The authors prefer to call infanticide "after-birth abortion" to "emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which 'abortions' in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child," though they concede "the oxymoron in the expression." (Matthew Cantirino at First Things calls after-birth abortion "the euphemism of the decade.")

Giubilini and Minerva correctly acknowledge that "both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings," but claim that "neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life.'" "Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life," they explain. "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual."

Time to consider abortion?

So what are those properties that serve as criteria for having a right to life? "We take 'person' to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her." So "many non-human animals ... are persons, but ... all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons."

And that's why it is okay to kill newborn babies. The authors "do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible ... as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess."

The article hardly argues (presents and defends reasons) for grounding moral worth in the ability to value one's own existence -- a view that is not at all new or original. Rather, the authors simply draw out its disturbing implications regarding the status of newborns. Well-known philosophers such as Michael Tooley and Peter Singer have come to similar conclusions.

And in drawing out these implications, Giubilini and Minerva -- like Tooley and Singer before them -- are surely correct. After all, birth is not a morally significant milestone. And the same "personhood" criteria that pro-choice thinkers use to exclude unborn human beings (thereby justifying their killing by abortion) also exclude newborns (justifying infanticide).

The mistake is not in the reasoning, but in the starting premise: that each of us has a right to life, and merits full moral respect, by virtue of acquired (accidental) properties, such as developed mental capacities (e.g., the present ability to value one's own life). This view, as Giubilini and Minerva explain, entails that not all human beings have a right to life. But it also entails that human beings can gain or lose rights as they gain or lose the requisite properties (via growth, old age, injury, disease, temporary coma, etc.). And it entails that those who do have a right to life have that moral status in varying degrees, since the properties said to confer it come in varying degrees. (Even the valuing of one's life is a degreed property.) So there is no human equality; nor is there equality even among those who are deemed rights-bearing "persons." Some people are just superior to others.

The only way to avoid these implausible and morally unacceptable conclusions -- including the conclusion that infanticide is permissible -- is to reject the above premise (held by virtually all pro-choice philosophers and bioethicists) that basic rights apply to only some human beings on the grounds that they possess characteristics we (that is, "experts" such as Giubilini and Minerva) decide are relevant. Rather, basic rights apply equally to all members of the human family by virtue of the fact that they are human beings, the unique kind of being who by nature possesses the inherent capacities (whether developed and actualized or not) for rationality, choice, the valuing of one's own life, etc. In other words, there really is such a thing as human rights -- had by humans by virtue of being human -- as affirmed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and every just and decent society.

But if this is true, then not only infanticide but also abortion is wrong, for both are the intentional killing of innocent human beings who as such deserve to be respected and protected.

The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, writes: "The authors [of "After-Birth Abortion"] provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible."

Thus the authors, committed to abortion, conclude that infanticide is permissible. But the obvious moral fact that infanticide is not permissible should lead us to reason in the other direction. Since there are no morally relevant differences between unborn and newborn human beings, and since newborns have a right to life, it then follows that unborn humans also have a right to life.

So if infanticide is wrong -- and it is -- so is abortion. That is the unintended pro-life apologetic of Giubilini and Minerva's "After-Birth Abortion."

Infanticide of disabled newborns: Issues and options

Back in 1991, J.P. Moreland wrote an article in the Criswell Theological Review titled "Infanticide: Issues and Options," which can be read online here. Moreland is a prolific author (his many books include The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism and Body & Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics) and is currently Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology.

From Moreland's article:

Infanticide is not new; various cultures throughout history such as China, Greece, and India have permitted it. Historically, a number of reasons have been offered to justify infanticide: 1) the absolute authority of the father over his family, 2) an abnormal child facing little prospect for a happy life, 3) an unwanted female child, 4) economic considerations, 5) social pressures (e.g., the child was conceived and born out of wedlock) and 6) a child not judged fully human (e.g., seen as a subhuman parasite).

While infanticide has been considered morally permissible in various cultures down through history, it still could not be practiced without justification, and there was a general respect for the human life of infants. This is especially true in cultures which were affected by the Judeo-Christian faith. The first century Jewish philosopher Philo was an opponent of infanticide, and the coming of Christianity, with its emphasis on the inherent value of all human beings since they are made in the image of God, moderated much of the infanticide in the cultures it penetrated.

Today, most of the moral dilemmas regarding the treatment of defective newborns occur in the neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) of hospitals. Increased medical technology has heightened our ability to sustain life and increased the need to sharpen our moral focus regarding the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment from newborns. ...

Two main issues are involved in the debate about infanticide. First, is it morally permissible to allow a defective newborn to die, and under what conditions is this permissible? Second, if it is morally permissible to permit a defective newborn to die, then is it also morally permissible actively to take the life of that newborn? ...

This article will focus on the first question. Is it morally permissible to permit a defective newborn to die, and if so, what conditions make such an act morally permissible? There are five major views which present different answers to this question. In what follows, each view will be presented followed by an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses.

The five views regarding the treatment of disabled newborns are these: (A) withhold treatment in light of third-party harms, (B) withhold treatment in light of quality-of-life judgments, (C) withhold treatment judged not in the child's best interests, (D) withhold treatment for defective nonpersons (i.e., newborns are not "persons" and so they do not have a right to life), and (E) treat all nondying infants.

As Moreland shows in his critiques, the first four views suffer from tremendous difficulties and ought to be euthanized. Only the fifth, what Moreland calls the "sanctity-of-life view" (i.e., the pro-life view), withstands serious scrutiny. This position "holds that all infants have equal intrinsic worth and dignity simply because they are human beings, that if it would be wrong to withhold a treatment from a nondefective infant then it is wrong to withhold it from a defective infant, and the only cases where foregoing treatment is justifiable are those where [withholding treatment] in general would be justifiable."

Moreland further explains:

[C]hildren should not be judged as to whether they are defective or not; rather, treatments should be judged as to whether or not they are effective and beneficial. If [withholding treatment] were justifiable in general, then it would be justifiable for a defective newborn: if an infant is terminal or death is imminent; if treatment is judged excessively burdensome, heroic, and extraordinary; and if death is not directly caused or intended, it can be permissible to allow an infant to die. [In such cases we do not kill, but rather allow someone to die a natural death while respecting his or her human dignity.] However, we should not ground nontreatment decisions on the basis of a handicapped condition by itself. That would be discrimination of the worst sort.

The pro-life view, notes Moreland, "preserves our intuition that all human beings have equal and intrinsic worth and dignity by grounding that intuition in membership in the natural kind, humankind"; "avoids the counterexamples, vagueness, and subjectivity inherent in the quality-of-life and the nonperson views"; "places the proper focus of infanticide on the infant alone while preserving the principle of justice which requires that we not discriminate against the weak and helpless"; "accords with the basic conviction that it is simply wrong to kill infants"; and "preserves the respect for life in the family, medicine, and society at large."

Let me briefly mention the second question Moreland posed, which he does not address in his article: whether it is permissible to actively kill a disabled newborn. Given the impermissibility of causing the death of newborn babies by withholding care/treatment on the grounds of disability (explained above), it is clear that actively causing death (such as with a lethal injection) is also impermissible. This second practice, though obviously wrong, is actually advocated for by a number of thinkers, and is disturbingly and openly used in the Netherlands.

Both practices -- killing disabled infants both passively and actively -- are a form of infanticide that is sometimes called child euthanasia. And both are grave moral wrongs in light of the equal dignity and fundamental rights of every member of the human family, regardless of health, disability or "defect."

I recommend reading Moreland's helpful ethical analysis of this crucial life-or-death issue in our culture.

Local infanticide case highlights importance of Safe Haven law, tragedy of abortion

The Mississippi River baby, named Angel by local authorities, was wrapped in this T-shirt.

From a story last week in the Pioneer Press:

The body of a newborn baby girl was recovered Monday from the Mississippi River near Winona, the fourth time since 1999 that an infant has been found dead in a stretch of the river south of the metro area.

The Winona County sheriff's office said an infant weighing about 7 pounds was found floating downstream in a plastic bag about 2:20 p.m. and was taken to the Dakota County medical examiner's office in Hastings for an autopsy.

Each of the babies was found four years apart. The other three were all discovered along the river's banks in Goodhue County, about 60 miles to the north. Their deaths remain unsolved.

A boater discovered the first infant in 1999 near a Red Wing marina. The little girl was wrapped in a towel, and her umbilical cord was still attached.

A newborn boy turned up in 2003, floating along the edge of Lake Pepin's Methodist Beach in Frontenac.

In 2007, dock workers at Treasure Island Resort and Casino found a baby girl floating in the casino's marina. ...

Under the state's Safe Place for Newborns law, enacted in April 2003 [actually 2000], a mother or immediate family member of a newborn can place the unharmed child into the hands of a hospital employee on hospital grounds with complete anonymity during the first three days of the child's life.

A horrific tragedy. (Recent developments here.) As the story notes, Minnesota (and other states) has a law in place to help prevent newborn abandonment. From the Minnesota Department of Health:

Safe Place for Newborns Law—Minnesota Statutes 145.902—The law allows a mother to leave her newborn baby, within seventy-two hours of birth, at any hospital in the state. The newborn must be unharmed and left with a hospital employee on the hospital premises. The hospital cannot inquire as to the identity of the mother and cannot notify the local social services agency of the newborn until the mother has left the hospital. This law was passed for mothers of newborns who are in crisis and at risk for abandoning their baby. Additional information can be obtained at www.safeplacefornewborns.org or call 1-877-440-BABY (2229), a 24-hour toll-free crisis hotline.

It is important that pregnant women who feel that they are in desperate circumstances know that this option exists. The abandonment or killing of newborn babies should never, ever happen. Learn what you can do to spread the word here, and learn more details about the law here.

Stories like this also provide an opportunity for pro-life advocates to make the case against abortion. Everyone (well, almost everyone) knows that dumping a newborn baby in the river is wrong. But there is no morally relevant difference between a newborn baby and her younger, unborn self; both are living members of our species, and human beings deserve respect and protection irrespective of age or stage of development. Moreover, infanticide cases effectively put the lie to sophisticated bodily autonomy arguments for abortion (see my discussion here)—our obligations to these little human beings are so obvious!

Infanticide is tragic. But it can help clarify for us the tragedy of abortion, which is ongoing and happening on a much, much larger scale.

Peter Singer: Taking the abortion ethic seriously

When the principle of fundamental human equality is implicitly or explicitly rejected in order to exclude unborn human beings from equal respect and protection, various criteria -- always arbitrary, changeable, degreed, without a firm foundation -- are proposed to determine which members of the species Homo sapiens should count as rights-bearing persons deserving of respect, and which should not. Those criteria inevitably have horrifying implications (beyond the horror of abortion itself).

Peter Singer

According to Princeton philosopher Peter Singer, for example, unborn human beings are not "persons" (and therefore may be killed) because they lack certain acquired properties that he deems morally relevant. (This is the standard approach of philosophers or ethicists who defend the moral permissibility of abortion.) But already-born infants -- and some severely disabled human beings -- also lack those properties. So, Singer concludes, it may be permissible to kill them as well.

It seems to me that our society can go one of two ways: (1) We can choose to follow the abortion logic where it leads -- infanticide, euthanasia, ongoing debates about when a child is really a "person" (what characteristics should make the difference?), debates about when a disabled or elderly human being no longer merits equal respect, etc.; or (2) The self-evident moral horror of such practices can drive us to reassess the "pro-choice" view of human value from which they stem, leading us to affirm respect and restore protection for every member of the human family, at every stage of development and in every condition.

Philadelphia abortionist charged with eight counts of murder

From the Associated Press:

A doctor accused of running a filthy "abortion mill" for decades in an impoverished Philadelphia neighborhood delivered babies alive, killed them with scissors and allowed a woman who had survived 20 years in a refugee camp to be overmedicated and die at his clinic, prosecutors said.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, was charged Wednesday with eight counts of murder for the deaths of seven babies and one patient. Nine employees also were charged, including four with murder.

Prosecutors described the clinic as a "house of horrors" where Gosnell kept baby body parts on the shelves, allowed a 15-year-old high school student to perform intravenous anesthesia on patients and had his licensed cosmetologist wife do late-term abortions. A family practice physician, Gosnell has no certification in gynecology or obstetrics. ...

Gosnell made millions performing thousands of dangerous abortions. ...

Authorities who raided Gosnell's clinic early last year in search of controlled drug violations instead stumbled upon a stench-filled clinic with bags and bottles of aborted fetuses scattered throughout the building. ...

Gosnell typically worked weeknights, arriving hours after his unskilled staff administered anesthesia and drugs to induce labor. He then "forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord," [Philadelphia District Attorney Seth] Williams said.

In addition to the two women who died, scores more were injured from perforated bowels, cervixes and uteruses, authorities said. Some were left sterile at the clinic, which had no trained nurses or medical staff other than Gosnell, they said. ...

Few if any of the unconscious patients knew their babies had been born alive and then killed, prosecutors said. Many were first-time mothers who were told they were 24 weeks pregnant, even if they were much further along, authorities said.

From National Right to Life:

This tragic report once again reminds us that the purpose of each abortion – no matter how it is performed – is to deliberately and brutally take at least one innocent human life. The victims are helpless little members of the human family, and this is equally true whether the killing is completed inside or outside of the womb. And tragically, in this case, it is reported that a mother also lost her life. If the reports prove true, these individuals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Frank Pavone responded:

Having dealt for 30 years with the abortion industry and abortionists, both practicing and converted, I am not in the least surprised by this development, and neither should the American people be surprised. This is happening every day across America.

If you read the medical textbook Abortion Practice and the sworn court testimony in which abortionists describe the procedure, you will read about how babies are dismembered limb from limb every day legally in America.  

There is a silver lining to the cloud of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, namely, that we will finally wake up to what is happening. It is the norm and not the exception. 

The historical struggle to protect children

"The study of history ... shows us that abortion law [laws against abortion] is simply another chapter in the struggle by society to protect its children from abuse by their parents. The point is worth emphasizing: abortion is not merely similar to infanticide, it is infanticide. This is more than merely a rhetorical flourish. History demonstrates that abortion was a direct replacement of the prior practice of infanticide, and infanticide is merely the most egregious form of child abuse. One should no more applaud a woman's right to privacy in making the abortion decision than one would acclaim a woman's right to privacy in deciding to abuse her three-year-old physically and irreparably. ...

"Viewed in the context of the history of infanticide, attempts to suppress abortion are neither aberrations nor based on unworthy motives. Rather, the crusade against abortion is integral to, and the highest expression of, a crusade against child abuse and in favor of feminism."

-- Joseph W. Dellapenna, Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law

Aborted baby left to die, survives for two days

In a labor induction abortion (used later in a pregnancy), labor is induced and the unborn child is expelled from the mother. This usually results in a dead baby (killed by the force of the contractions) or a baby too young to survive outside the womb. According to the Minnesota Department of Health, "There is a small chance that a baby could live for a short period of time [after the abortion] depending on the baby's gestational age and health at the time of delivery."

Sometimes babies who survive these abortions are simply neglected and left to die -- a practice that is more accurately described as infanticide. (The Born Alive Infants Protection Act, opposed at every turn by now-President Barack Obama, was designed to fix this problem by ensuring protection for any already-born human being.) An April 28 story from Italy shows that "live birth abortion" is still very much a horrifying reality:

The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her [22-week old unborn] baby was disabled.

However, the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabro hospital, and was left by doctors to die.

He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body.

He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing.

The priest raised the alarm and doctors immediately arranged for the infant to be taken to a specialist neo-natal unit at the neighbouring Cosenza hospital, where he died on Monday morning.

Italian police are investigating the case for "homicide" because infanticide is illegal in Italy.

Jill Stanek, who uncovered the infanticide of abortion survivors while working as a nurse at an Illinois hospital, says the practice is still happening here in the United States.

The [Italian] story was heartbreaking, more so because I know without a doubt babies his age are surviving their abortions every day across America and getting similar treatment. I would even venture to say this is a worldwide epidemic.

For instance, only last week I spoke at length after a pro-life event with an L&D RN who told me babies survive their abortions at her hospital, and doctors pressure nurses to give them 0-0 APGAR scores, in other words, chart that the babies were born dead when they were not. ...

We have a Born Alive Infants Protection Act that is not being enforced, incredibly frustrating and painful.

The baby in the photo above, of Minnesota, was born prematurely at 21 weeks -- younger than the Italian baby left to die -- and is now a healthy child.

The threats to human dignity

Wesley J. Smith explains how our society's commitment to "human exceptionalism" -- "the unique moral value and importance of human life" -- is under attack like never before. Some excerpts:

Most people still believe in human exceptionalism and are unaware that powerful social and cultural forces are working diligently to dismantle the sanctity of life ethic as the fundamental value of our social order. But the time has come to pay attention. If human life is knocked off the pedestal, universal human rights will be impossible to sustain. ...

The bioethical mainstream disdains the sanctity of life ethic as irrational and based on religion. In its place, they promote "personhood theory," that equates moral value with cognitive capacities such as being self aware over time. This "quality of life" ethic, as it is sometimes called, creates a two-tiered system in which some humans have greater value than human non persons [e.g., the unborn killed by abortion or embryo-destructive research]. ...

Personhood theory also denies the equal value of newborn infants. ... Infanticide isn’t just a theoretical. Baby euthanasia is commonplace in the Netherlands. ...

Personhood theory also threatens those who have lost capacities. Thus, people with profound cognitive impairments like Terri Schiavo are increasingly being looked upon as potential sources of organs even though they are clearly not dead.

The animal rights movement goes even farther, fabricating an explicit moral equality between humans and animals ...

Materialistic Darwinists also deny human exceptionalism based on their belief that since all life evolved randomly out of the same primordial ooze, species distinctions are morally irrelevant. This view has potentially deadly implications to the sanctity of human life ...

Radical environmentalism is even more alarming, taking human unexceptionalism to the next nihilistic level. Under this view, we are life's villains whose pillaging threatens the earth. In order to "save the planet" our prosperity must be sacrificed and our population strictly controlled. Some radical environmentalists even look to China's tyrannical one child policy as a model—even though it uses female infanticide and forced abortion as demographic weapons. ...

These, and other, attacks on human exceptionalism are profoundly dangerous to human life and liberty. It is our unique moral status in the known universe that gives rise to both universal (human) rights. It is the sanctity of life ethic that compels us to care for the weak, vulnerable, and elderly among us.

Either we all matter equally, simply and merely because we are human—or our value becomes relative, our rights, and indeed, our continued existence—determined by the reigning power structure of the day. After all, if we are merely another animal in the forest—or worse, the planet’s enemies—why should any of us be treated as if we have any special meaning at all?