Quick Takes – Killing Babies: Leviathan Takes Baby From Parents To Kill; Flanders Kills 10% Of Its Babies; Euthanasia Saved Babies?

     Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.

     The focus this time: Moloch must feed.

     First, a little mood music:

     Carrying on…

     Screw medicine, just let the kid die, says Leviathan.

“Keaton Crull was born in June with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) Type 0, a disease that causes progressive muscle degeneration with no cure. Doctors have told his parents, Kyle and Jennifer Crull, Keaton won’t live much longer, but the Crulls aren’t ready to give up.

“However, Keaton could soon be pulled off life support without their approval.

“…

“‘If we knew that there was no chance of him ever having quality of life, then no, we wouldn’t continue on, but because there is a chance that he could have quality of life, we want to at least try to give him a chance at the Zolgenama and see,’ Jennifer Crull, Keaton’s mother says.

“Zolgensma is a one-time medication used to treat SMA. The Crulls say the cost is around $2 million.

“When asked if the Crulls’ insurance would cover that, Kyle told us, ‘We’re in an argument now fighting about that.’

“…

“And currently, the Crulls currently don’t have a say in their son’s treatment.

“‘They took custody of him on… I want to say the 22nd (August),’ Kyle says.”

     Belgium, one of the most fervent supporters of killing babies, now sees 10% of all babies in Flanders euthanized.

“Belgium has no age limit for its euthanasia. Now, a letter published in a British Medical Journal publication reports that 10 percent of babies who died from 2016 to 2017 in Flanders — up to age one — were given drugs by their own doctors with ‘an explicit life-shortening intention. In other words, they were euthanized, a.k.a., infanticide.”

     Oh, the irony of the Supreme Court’s ruling back in the 1990s about abortion resulting in Roe v. Wade being aborted, so as to speak.

“Back in the ’90s, the assisted-suicide movement tried to convince the Supreme Court to impose a Roe v. Wade–style decision for their cause that would circumvent the democratic process by imposing doctor-hastened death as a constitutional right. (Full disclosure: I wrote and filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court against that effort as a lawyer for the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force, now the Patients Rights Council.) The effort failed, with the Supreme Court ruling 9–0 in Glucksberg v. Washington (1997) that there is no right to be found in the United States Constitution to assisted suicide.

“Now, in a turn that could not have been anticipated at the time, Glucksberg provided the primary precedent for striking down Roe as bad constitutional law! From Dobbs v. Jackson (my emphasis):

“‘We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’ Washington v. Glucksberg. . .”

     TTFN.

Tweet