Advocating For The Dignity of Human Life From Fertilization To Natural Death

Help IFL block the disposability doctrine

AlexaAbortion news hurtles at us at a frenetic pace. As the country becomes more pro life, left-leaning politicians have become shockingly more pro abortion, to the point of condoning infanticide and a frightening ‘disposability doctrine.’

We have reached the next phase in the natural progression of human abortion, a phase that accepts and promotes a second death sentence for babies who survive an abortion.

Roe v Wade introduced the disposability doctrine

Although Roe v Wade limited human abortion to the first trimester, the essence of the decision acknowledged that a person in the womb was disposable if inconvenient to the mother, father, or both. A companion decision, Doe v Bolton extended abortions rights to the third trimester.

With these decisions, the disposability doctrine was firmly established as a “Constitutional right.”

Things are happening fast

A quick recap of recent news reveals the volatility of abortion politics and the expansion of this disposability doctrine:

  • In January, an Iowa judge overturned the Heartbeat Bill, which protected human life at the point a heartbeat was detected. It is only a matter of time until the Fetal Pain Bill is thrown out, which will turn Iowa into New York.
  • Speaking of New York, the Empire State passed a law allowing human abortion right up to the birth of the baby. In doing so, they also struck section 4164 of the New York public health law that asserted that a child born alive (after surviving an abortion) enjoys the protection of New York laws. With the removal of section 4164, infanticide is now permissible in New York, a second death sentence, so to speak.
  • Virginia attempted to pass a similar law earlier this month. Their Governor, Ralph Northum, a physician, let the infanticide cat out of the bag. He glibly stated that the child who survives an abortion would be kept “comfortable” while mom and doc decide whether or not to terminate her life.
  • This week, Senate Democrats defeated the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act. The bill protects persons who survive an abortion attempt.

The language of the bill was straight forward:

“If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.”

Only three Democrats supported the bill. Every Republican supported the bill. Every presidential hopeful opposed the bill, sanctioning a second death sentence for kids deemed disposable.

We’ve barely scratched the surface, but you get the idea.

“Is it OK to still have children?”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

As shocking as all of these developments are, the most chilling development was a statement recently made by the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

“It is basically a scientific consensus that the lives of our children are going to be very difficult, and it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: is it OK to still have children?”

Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s statement is influenced by her faith in debatable claims that the world will end in 12 years if climate issues aren’t quickly addressed and her ‘Green New Deal’ implemented.

Are people a threat to Mother Earth?

If she believes as she does, her question will quickly morph into a statement, “it’s not okay to still have children.” After all, humanity and its carbon consumption, is a direct threat to Mother Earth, according to her creed.

The return of ‘The Population Bomb’

Her question is reminiscent of the concerns expressed by Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich in his best selling 1968 book, “The

Dr. Paul Ehrlich

Dr. Paul Ehrlich

Population Bomb.” Ehrlich called for coercive population control measures to save the planet from runaway pollution, mass starvation, and the destruction of civilization.

None of his prognostications came to pass, but he started a movement that thrives to this day.

The relevance of eugenics

The threat implicit in Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s question also brings to mind the chilling embrace of eugenics by Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger.

Ms. Sanger didn’t actually embrace a disposability doctrine. In fact, she surprisingly opposed abortion:

“… while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”

What Sanger advocated was the disposability of undesirable classes of our society. We quote:

Margaret Sanger

Margaret Sanger

“To insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born to feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

Even more, the whole dysgenic population would have its choice of segregation or sterilization.

No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.

“By all means there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness, mental disorders.”

No more children should be born to “morons, mental defectives, illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, and dope fiends.”

Hear Margaret Sanger “in person this Sunday!

Speaking of Ms. Sanger, you can hear her “in person” at our final performance of A CLASH OF CREEDS this Sunday. It features a conversation between Ayn Rand, Margaret Sanger, and St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta in their own words.

The disposability doctrine takes may forms

As you can see, the disposability doctrine takes many forms. It is defined by coercion and the devaluation of unwanted and undesirable human beings.

It opposes the American Creed which proclaims an immutable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The disposability doctrine opposes Christian teachings which define love as “willing the good of the other for the sake of the other.”

And it opposes science which acknowledges that human life begins at the instant of conception.

Most normal people oppose the disposability doctrine

Most normal people don’t embrace the disposability doctrine. This includes the millions of rank and file Democrats who support honorable economic and foreign policy positions on the left side of the political aisle. But these same people recoil at the thought of infanticide.

But the disposability doctrine is a reality, embraced and promoted by powerful politicians beholden to Big Abortion.

Iowans for LIFE and our allies in the Iowa Coalition of Pro Life Leaders are working on your behalf on a daily basis to oppose and block this powerful, inhumane movement.

[What can you do to help block the disposability doctrine? Support our Pro Life Billboard Campaign. Donate today!]

Support the mission. Please share.Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Pin on Pinterest
Email this to someone