By Theodore Shoebat
The government of Pennsylvania has ruled that taking drugs while pregnant is not child abuse. The premise of the argument entails the insidious belief that unborn children are not human beings and therefore have no rights. As we read in one report from the Daily Item:
A state lawmaker wants the Legislature to make drug use while pregnant child abuse after the state Supreme Court announced that existing law doesn’t allow county authorities to use drug use alone as the cause of an abuse determination.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 28 that mothers who use illegal drugs while pregnant cannot be charged with abuse of their newly born children under the state’s child protection law.
Sen. Donald White, R-Indiana County, called the court’s decision “truly disturbing. He said intends to get legislation correcting it passed in the new legislative session.
The court’s ruling essentially found that Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law does not recognize fetuses as children. Pennsylvania is one of 27 states that doesn’t consider drug use while pregnant child abuse, according to an analysis by the Guttmacher Institute, a think tank that studies reproductive health issues. Among nearby states, only Ohio treats drug use while pregnant as abuse, according to the group.
In the case at the heart of the December Supreme Court ruling, an unnamed Clinton County mother reportedly used opioid pain medication and marijuana during her pregnancy.
When the baby was born in January, 2017, the mom had marijuana and prescription medicine for treating opioid addiction in her system, according to a summary included in the Supreme Court’s decision. The baby ended up being in the hospital for 19 days, being treated for drug withdrawal.
In the decision, Justice Christine Donohue noted that under Pennsylvania’s child abuse law, “not every person who harms or injures a child is a perpetrator of ‘child abuse.’”
She added that the law specifically defines a child as an “individual under the age of 18.”
Her opinion concluded that under existing law, an unborn child doesn’t meet that definition and if the General Assembly had intended for unborn children to be included they would have passed legislation doing so.
“My bill will close the loophole in the law that was stressed by the Supreme Court,” White said in announcing his planned legislation. “A mother’s responsibility begins before her child is born and that should not be erased by a perceived ambiguity in the law.”
White has not formally introduced the legislation, but he’s indicated he intends to focus on illegal drug use. Critics of his plan suggested his proposal could open a Pandora’s box.
The legislation “would set a dangerous precedent wherein nearly any behavior while pregnant, from eating blue cheese to undergoing chemotherapy, could be considered child abuse,” said David Cohen, the attorney who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the mom.
Another concern is whether the legislation would include conduct by the mom before she realized she was pregnant, said Deb Beck, president of the Drug and Alcohol Service Provider Organizations of Pennsylvania. It would also be difficult to argue the state should make illegal drug use abuse without also considering the same approach for alcohol use while pregnant, she said.
Beck said she would rather see the state focus on efforts to get pregnant moms into treatment to overcome their addiction.
A number of advocacy groups have opposed the idea of considering drug use while pregnant a form of abuse. That opposition has largely out of concern that it would deter moms from seeking help if they fear repercussions from disclosing drug use.
Cohen said he doesn’t think the General Assembly should pass White’s proposed legislation. He noted lawmakers have had the opportunity to pass similar legislation in the past and declined to do so.
Forty-five years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide, abortion care is extremely challenging for patients to obtain and for providers to deliver. Increased state restrictions and an uptick in aggressive incidents at clinics have put safe legal abortions out of reach for many women. Compounding the problem, the majority of current abortion patients are poor: Nearly 50 percent have incomes below the official poverty line, and another 25 percent are classified as low-income.
Sanger argues that the I.Q. tests given to American servicemen during World War I gave “scientific” proof that blacks and Southern Europeans were near morons. Such individuals should submit to voluntary, or if necessary, involuntary sterilization. The American Birth Control League and Birth Control Review became the vehicles for Sanger’s eugenic cause. In the April, 1932 issue of the Review, she laid out her “Plan for Peace” which included mandatory I.Q. requirements for immigrants, sterilization and segregation for the “feeble-minded,” government work-camps for morons, illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, and drug addicts.
Sanger often included Roman Catholics in her catalogue of undesirables, but curiously spoke of them as if they constituted a distinct race rather than a multiracial, supranational Church. Far from conceding the absurdity of her assertions, Sanger defended them in an article for her Review.The Roman Catholic Church, she observed, handpicks its priests and nuns from among the most intelligent (i.e., genetically superior) Catholics, and then imposes a vow of celibacy on them. At the same time, the Church forbids the inferior remnant to use contraceptives, and in fact encourages them to breed like rabbits: The result, she concludes, is predictable. (It is not clear whether Sanger would have the Church recruit morons for the religious life, or require priests and nuns to breed like rabbits.) During the 1920’s, the eugenics movement gained increasing support, particularly in the upper strata of American society.
Cohen is simply following the very movement of eugenics amongst the most major advocates of which was Margaret Sanger, a hero of the “pro-choice” crowd for which Cohen is an acolyte. Cohen is possessed by the very spirt that was lodged in the souls of those Israelites who wanted to throw babies into the fires of Baal. As the Scripture writes of King Manesseh:
And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord. Also he made his son pass through the fire, practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft, and consulted spiritists and mediums. (2 Kings 21:5-6)
And as God told Jeremiah of the Israelites:
they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind (Jeremiah 19:5)
Why would a Jew support such an evil, when his people were butchered by the Nazis whose ways of thinking was no different from that of Margaret Sanger? As Christ was put on a Cross through the conspiracy of Jewish elites, so are many Jews today, possessed by the same spirit of antichrist, willing to put humanity — with which Christ became one in the Hypostatic Union — through horrific torments.