wouldn't want to be them on judgement day...
Posted on 07/17/2018 1:04:13 PM PDT by Morgana
Equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of our government—but one group of humans doesn’t get the same treatment as everyone else.
What does being born change about a child? Speaking strictly scientifically, nothing of consequence. A child minutes before birth is the same as a child minutes after birth: same physical capabilities, same level of development, both highly dependent on others, they even look more or less the same. Both dream, suck their thumbs, respond to mom’s voice, and feel pain.
But when it comes to both federal and state law, the difference between an unborn baby and a born one is huge. For example, how we prosecute cases of wrongful infant death.
Last week, the Washington Post gave an example that breaks my heart for many reasons. Sarah and Travis Mitchell of Oregon were sentenced to six years in prison for criminally negligent homicide because they refused to seek medical care for their premature baby girl, Ginnifer. Born at just 32 weeks, at just 3 pounds 6 ounces, Ginnifer died hours after birth of fully treatable complications. Her twin survived and is now in foster care.
See, her parents are part of a Pentecostal faith-healing sect that teaches members to pray instead of securing modern medical treatment. Clackamas County officials say the Mitchells are the fifth family in their church in nine years to face similar criminal charges for failing to take a sick or injured child to the hospital.
One former member of the church told the Oregonian newspaper that “they have their own graveyard, and it’s just full of children,” children who, by all accounts, would still be alive if their parent had sought the help of doctors.
Now, this story brings up many tough issues. For example, being well-intentioned and sincere—as I’m sure the Mitchells are—is not enough. It cost their baby her life. And there are limits to religious freedom. The government is right, in this case, to intervene so that children do not continue to die.
And we could also talk about how or when or why God heals, sometimes through doctors and other times in ways we would call miraculous.
But there’s another angle to this story that I don’t want to miss—where it happened, and the incredible hypocrisy it reveals. You see, Oregon is the single most pro-abortion state in the country. It has absolutely none of the abortion restrictions on the books elsewhere, like mandatory waiting periods, parental consent laws, or a ban on late-term abortions. In fact, the state legislature is only now considering a very narrow restriction on late third-trimester, sex-selective abortions. So if you want to kill a baby for being the wrong sex, you’ll have to do it early. And to top it all off, last November the governor of Oregon signed a law mandating that insurance companies fully subsidize all abortions, including for illegal immigrants.
Now let me be clear, the Mitchells were rightly prosecuted for allowing their baby girl to die, even though they prayed for her to live. But had they wanted to kill Ginnifer, they could have driven to the nearest abortion clinic an hour before her birth—and get this—the state of Oregon would have paid for it.
This legal doublethink is mind-boggling. It means that a baby just out of the womb has the legal rights of a person and deserves protection and help, but just moments earlier is a non-person whom the state will pay to have killed!
As Scott Klusendorf with the Life Training Institute teaches, there are only four differences between unborn and born babies, which you can remember with an acronym: S.L.E.D.: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. None of those things are valid reasons to kill an unborn child.
But Oregon will facilitate and subsidize some killing, while prosecuting others. It’s the height of hypocrisy, it’s insane, and it shows what a monstrosity legal abortion really is. If we value a premature baby after birth, we should value that same baby just as highly before birth. Because, in every important sense, it’s the same baby.
And yet it would have been legal to “choose” to kill the baby moments before being born prematurely.
Luke 4:12
And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Granted, in some cases it could be a hard line to draw. That's what juries are for.
My rights (and yours) stop at the tip of our neighbor’s nose or their property line. Children however, are not property. So the question is, what are the boundary lines between parental rights, in this case the right to raise their children according to the tenets of their religious faith, and the child’s basic rights to be protected from harm, including what most reasonable people might label a form of reckless endangerment? As a general rule I lean heavily towards parental rights. But I draw the line at endangering the physical safety of your child.
In the case of a grave and/or life threatening illness or injury, failing to seek competent medical attention, or interfering in measures necessary to save a child’s life is a step too far. You do not have the right to let your child die in the name of your religious beliefs.
Not enough info. How was the baby not in the hospital in the first place? Was the birth at home?
The sentence does seem disproportionately harsh compared to what people have done to cause baby deaths outside a religious context.
——After all Muslims can now mutilate the female parts of little girls in the name of Islam there in America.——
They can ? Since when....
I thought that was illegal?
I agree.
From my perspective the parents inadvertently wrongly tested G-d by limiting how G-d could answer their prayers about their child.
In other words, regardless that Romans 13:1 indicates that G-d has established all governing authority, they the ignored legal consequences established by G-d for not getting professional medical help for their child.
This has been an on going thing for years with this Followers of Christ Church in Oregon City, OR.
It’s sad that this is still happening.
But according to Comey, Mrs. Bill Clinton did not intend the outright harm her country, and she got a pass.
This is a sad situation and a tricky legal question. While I am shocked and disgusted at their choice not to seek medical treatment, I would not have sent the parents to prison. There is a huge difference between actively taking steps that kill an innocent child and passively failing to take steps that would probably save that child. The details might change my view, but I don’t think their blend of bad theology and general stupidity crossed the line into criminal.
Let’s view this a different way: What if it was about cost instead of religious convictions? What if the parents said, “I have no insurance, and I cannot pay for the life-saving measure?” Would they still be in the wrong?
While the life-saving measures are available, they are not necessarily cheap. If I didn’t have insurance, I don’t know what I would have done when my daughter was born premature. Her bill was nearly three time the cost of my house.
Also, instead of religious convictions, what if was about location? If this happened in a country with poor neonatal care, the child most likely would have died, and the parents would not be charged with a crime. But, because the technology exists here, they should prosecuted?
My point is life is precious, but where do we draw the line on what we *MUST* do to save a life? Who gets to decide, and why?
wouldn't want to be them on judgement day...
If you would like more information about what's happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me.
“But according to Comey, Mrs. Bill Clinton did not intend the outright harm her country, and she got a pass. “
No comparison whatsoever. Those two don’t even believe in God, at least Clinton doesn’t, am not sure of Comey.
The very beautiful Jean Harlow was a Christian Scientist. She died because she would not seek medical attention. She was rich enough to afford it, was at the peak of her acting career but held to her beliefs.
I didn’t know the Christian Scientist faith had been around quite that long. Harlow was active about the same time Theda Bara was big. Theda was another Silent Movie Star, albeit lesser known.
That kind of *faith healing* has cost many children their lives.
We cannot blackmail God into doing what we want by throwing the amount of faith we have in Him up into His face.
If there were no kidneys, there may have also been no plumbing to hook the circulatory system up to so the kidney could purify the blood.
And surgery on a newborn probably could not have been done soon enough to help anyways.
I’m guessing that neonatal kidney transplant doctors are not a dime a dozen.
I’m sure you’re right.
I never did ask for details. It was awful enough for them as it was. :(
Does Oregon have a faith-healing exemption from its manslaughter laws? If not, nuff said. Prosecute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.