Archives

The Chicago Tribune
THE RIGHT TO MEDICAL CARE

See also at:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/article/0,2669,SAV-0104090174,FF.html

Dennis Byrne. Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and public affairs
consultant.

April 9, 2001 Here's a new low: Give birth to a kid; let it die. It's
deformed. It's ugly. It's not needed. It's not wanted.

It's called infanticide, and we moderns cluck over how primitives left their
deformed, sickly, wrong-sex or other unwanted newborns exposed on mountains
to die.

How superior of us.

Except that we aren't. The practice is going on all over the country, except
that we cloak it in euphemisms to avoid thinking that we're using death to
solve our problems. But the fact is that we are using death as a way to clear
out a batch of children who are born with too many problems for us to worry
about.

It was brought to Chicago's attention by Jill Stanek, a nurse at Christ
Hospital and Medical Center in Oak Lawn, where children who are meant to be
aborted, yet (oops) arrived alive, are wrapped in a blanket and
left--sometimes for hours--to die.

To combat such brutality, what could be more reasonable than to legally
require that such an infant receive medical care, just as any other person?
After all, if you are born in this country you are a citizen in possession of
all attendant rights.

Well, Illinois senators recently were tested on this question, and many
failed miserably. It came on a vote on Senate bills 1093, 1094 and 1095,
sponsored by Sen. Patrick O'Malley (R-Palos Park), that would give all
"born-alive" infants a reasonable right and the appropriate means to survive.
The package of bills would require that any abortion procedure that might
result in a live birth (called an induced-labor abortion) be attended by an
independent physician to assess the infant's viability and provide medical
care for the baby if necessary.

It would create a civil cause of action if a surviving born-alive child's
health is harmed or neglected by a doctor or health-care provider, with
damages to be set aside for the child's life, health and safety. The
legislation defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant who is born
alive at any stage of development.

The package passed by just a few votes more than the required 30 and now goes
to the Democratic-controlled House where it is expected to receive a chillier
reception. What is so remarkable about the Senate vote was the extraordinary
number of senators who were recorded as voting "present" or "not voting."
Only five could face their constituents with a no vote. The remaining 20 or
so cowardly legislators ducked a recorded vote, in effect casting a vote
against the legislation.

Why hide? Because most of them are caught in the embrace of the extremist
abortion-rights proponents lobby, who see any such legislation as a threat to
the abortion industry. Here is some of the opponents' reasoning: The children
are allowed to die only because they are burdened with "very severe and
complex anomalies" that are life-threatening, even though Stanek testified
that some can live (without any help) for hours after they are born. Others
say the legislation would require "futile and expensive" care when the
"fetus" is doomed to die anyway. Or that the legislation is unconstitutional
because it would impose "an undue burden" on a woman's right to choose. Or
that it would give to "previable fetuses" the same rights and protections
provided to a child delivered at term.

Some observations on these arguments:

- Sometimes a life isn't worth saving, opponents say. It's just too
expensive. How compassionate of these abortion-rights proponents.

- Notice the abortion-rights proponents call an unwanted, but living, newborn
a fetus (even though by every definition it is a baby, an infant and an
honest-to-God person. Reporters and editors who refer to the baby as a "live
fetus" are not just sloppy, but inaccurate and biased. Civil libertarians who
don't rush to the protection of this new person are hypocrites.

- Also notice the pro-choice logic that you cannot require efforts to
preserve the lives of born "viable fetuses" because that would restrict the
"right" to abort "non-viable" fetuses. Consequently, those with a chance at
life are required to be sacrificed to the theory that early-term abortions
are an absolute right. That's something the U.S. Supreme Court never said in
Roe vs. Wade.

- Abortion-rights proponents now are trying to recast the abortion debate,
but not so cleverly. The abortion-rights argument had centered on the right
to privacy and for a woman to "control her body." O'Malley's legislation,
however, would not violate the privacy of a woman's body, because the baby
has been born and is no longer a part of that body. Yet, the woman still has
the right to "choose" whether that baby will live or die. Even though it now
is endowed with inalienable human rights possessed by every newborn. Indeed,
the abortion-rights argument now is not about privacy, but fully about choice
(the right to choose to let a child die even after it is born alive).

If you think about it, this is a shattering realization. If anything, it puts
to rest abortion-rights claims to superior compassion and caring for the baby
after it is born. A theory--about choice--now trumps real, living persons

Media Coverage 
St. George Pro-Life | Parkview Christian Church