Colorado Dems Embrace Their Eugenicist Roots
Canada continues to expand its medically assisted in dying rules (MAiD) on a path that was easy to predict. I saw it coming, so how difficult could that have been? Any system with limited resources will protect itself at the expense of all else. Government-paid doctors and therapists are encouraged to counsel a growing list of conditions as grounds for medical suicide.
When they are also the political descendants of social engineers, eugenicists, and depopulationists, discussion is limited to how it gets done without sparking more outrage than they can manage.
Canada has gone off the rails, considering everything from economic status to mental health, homelessness, Autistic kids, and nearly any expensive medical condition that would be easier and cheaper if the patient just let the government kill them. Sorry, I meant permit them to ask a medical professional for the drugs to commit suicide with decreasingly less oversight with regard to protections to prevent this very thing.
Meanwhile, in Colorado…
Colorado Democrats are touting a new reason why the state’s taxpayers should pay for low-income women’s abortions. Not only would it support “equity and fairness in health care,” they say, but aborting more babies is good fiscal policy, too.
“A birth is more expensive than an abortion,” Colorado House Speaker Julie McCluskie said at a committee hearing this week, touting a legislative fiscal analysis that claims taxpayer-funded abortions could save the state a half million dollars or more annually.
So good of Speaker McCluskie to put a price on life, especially when economic circumstances are increasingly the result of other Democrat meddling. One might almost feel inclined to suggest that Democrats ruined the economy so it could kill more babies. Primarily black and immigrant, by the way – which is another homage to their eugenicist predecessors.
There’s nothing far-fetched about that. The same party that thinks there are too many people is convinced they have too much wealth and live too comfortably. The Green New Deal was written to erase the middle class, limiting access to comforts to the ruling class. Absent near or total success, it facilitates social and economic ruin that leaves people destitute and alone, eager for dependency and subsistence living at the leave of those who govern, or more open to the idea (as in Canada) to shuffle off their mortal coil.
To die—to sleep, No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to: ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub:
To die, not with Hamlet’s curiosity, but to save taxpayers money that the government should not be spending to create or subsidise the misery by which it can advance other anti-human agendas.
In a similar vein, Vermont’s equivalent of Child and Family services has been fingered for following the pregnancies of poor women, not to abort their babies, though surely it has to be on the table. The Green Mountain State Democrats are cut from the same cloth and allow suicide tourism. The contention is that it seeks to deprive the moms of their babies at or shortly after birth because they are economically incompatible with child rearing (again, a situation that may be the result of other Democratic priorities).
Canada doesn’t just counsel suicide to people on a growing list of situations, it also likes them to sign off on being organ donors beforehand. Does Vermont have a plan to profit from adoption services for the babies they “save” from economically disadvantaged moms? Or will they go the way of Colorado, if the bill passes and becomes law? Is abortion (medically assisted suicide without the consent of the person being killed) cheaper, or should I say, more balance sheet positive, than any other course?
As I am fond of saying, it’s all a slippery slope, and Democrat legislators keep showing us why. It is also why we should not let governments deal death to improve the bottom line. Regardless of the stated intentions at the onset, it creates opportunities that inexorably lead to abuses detrimental to life and liberty.
And while easing the discomfort of the terminally ill sounds like something we should let the government “allow,” it can’t not want to manage it. The State has been coming between you and your health care long before ObamaCare. It licenses doctors and therapists. They want more control, not less (remember COVID?).
There is no more significant threat to rights and liberty than state-managed suicide based on notions of caring or empathy. Governments are incapable of either, and will dispense with them at the earliest convenience for a growing list of reasons that benefit those in power.
Just look at Colorado and Canada. Life is an inconvenience they are more than willing to address by force of law.
