Late-term abortions and post-birth treatment refusals likened to infanticide
An opinion piece argues that recent legal changes and medical practices allowing late-term abortions and the withholding of life-saving care for newborns amount to a resurgence of infanticide.
The column contends that expanding abortion limits, exemplified by Massachusetts joining ten other jurisdictions in allowing terminations up to delivery, blur the line between abortion and infanticide. Dr. Warren Hern is quoted as confirming that second- and third-trimester abortions are performed routinely for non-medical reasons. The piece highlights the surrogate McKenna West, who was pressured to abort a fetus with a treatable heart defect, and the subsequent legal battle over the newborn’s right to care in Texas.
Federal civil-rights authorities have warned hospitals that withholding life-sustaining treatment for disabled infants breaches federal law. Additional anecdotes, including Cherry Paul’s experience with a fetus diagnosed with spina bifida, are used to illustrate a broader cultural shift that treats disabled newborns as expendable. The author calls for stronger protections for both prenatal and neonatal disabled children and for surrogate mothers facing coercion.
Why it matters
It highlights how expanding abortion rights and treatment refusals may endanger disabled infants and raise civil-rights concerns.
In this story
