Government controlled healthcare has always been a topic of interest for people within the United States. Critics are quick to point out that government-controlled healthcare takes the freedom of choice away from the people and places their freedoms in the hands of the government. But supporters of the plan always say every person will have healthcare and will be able to get the help they need to live better lives.
However, rarely do proponent of the kind of healthcare plan that Bernie Sander’s wants for America ever discuss the true cost of such a program. Bernie also doesn’t like to talk about what happens when the government denies treatment to a person because they have run out of money for the year or there aren’t enough doctors available. In a way, the government becomes the agency that chooses who gets to live and those that get to die.
This very scenario has been playing out in the United Kingdom over the last several years. The latest healthcare debacle there involves a young woman who is being forced by the government to abort her unborn child. The judge who decided the case said the mother has been classified as mentally disabled and would not be able to provide the care needed for the child to have. The judge also said aborting the baby would be less traumatic for the mother than childbirth.
The woman is currently about 19 weeks pregnant and has been ordered to have the abortion by week 22. It should be stated that at 22 weeks babies are able to feel pain and would definitely suffer during the procedure.
This is the kind of care that Democrats want to bring to America. The kind where the government gets to decide your healthcare options—whether you are allowed to have a baby or not, whether you get to have a procedure or not, whether you qualify for a transplant or not. Under government-controlled healthcare, this is exactly the choices that are being taken away from people needing critical healthcare.
Nathalie Lieven, who is the judge assigned to the case, has stated “I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion … [but] I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society’s views of termination.”
With such a ruling there is nothing to stop it from happening in another case where mental development is not an issue. The government can make a choice to begin to terminate the elderly in certain circumstances just because the care they need becomes too much of a cost to handle.
The disabled woman and her family are not in favor of the abortion ruling. The woman, however, is under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom’s National Health Services. Because she is currently under their care the issue has ended up in court. The Judge has also stated, “I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll.” The Judge has failed to realize that the mother still has the right to make the choice. But she is not seeing it that way.
The family is quick to point out through their lawyer that the court has violated their religious beliefs. One of the relatives has also agreed to raise the child so the mother would not be burdened with having to care for a child in her current state. The opposition believes that they are providing an act of kindness by having the baby killed before the baby is born. They have also pointed out that they believe her abortion recovery would somehow be better and easier to recover from than from being separated from the child.
There has been no discussion of the rights of the child in this case. The Judge appears to believe that the baby has no choice whether he/she gets to live or die. The court is basically promoting that if a mother cannot make a choice on her own pregnancy that the government has the right to make it for her. This kind of system takes away the rights of the unborn and will end up taking the rights of many other people that need to get the medical care necessary for life.
In the United States, this kind of system is currently being proposed by multiple Democrats trying to win the White House in 2020. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand…all of these Democrats want government run healthcare in America. They want to have the right of control to determine who lives and who dies.
One could ask the question of what happens to a person that would have opposing views to the liberal established system? What would happen to them if they decided to speak out against a government-controlled system? Will they be denied care?