Colorado leftists would take all rights away from entire class of living beings

It was April 25, 1967, that Colorado took the lead in the race to promote abortion, to make sure that unborn children could be killed at will, by adopting America’s first abortion law.

It wouldn’t be until six years later that the Supreme Court fell into line with the plan promoted at the time by Dick Lamm, then a Democrat legislator and later a governor whose philosophy of life was typified when he told senior citizens, “We’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way…”

Now its Democrat-majority legislature is planning another precedent-setting move – the removal of all rights from an entire class of living beings in order to make sure abortion remains available at any time for anyone.

Already, James Dobson of James Dobson’s FamilyTalk radio is urging residents to contact their representatives and senators about HB22-1279.

He said the Democrats are “on the verge of passing the most radical abortion law in the country.

“If it goes through, this law will legalize abortion through all 40 weeks of pregnancy. It will also prohibit requiring abortionists to give notice to parents of minor daughters, and even forbid any statute or regulation limiting abortion rights based on the concern for the health of the woman or the baby.”

Live Action also was raising the issue.

The pro-life organization explained Democrats in the majority in Colorado – and Democratic homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, could “legalize a woman’s right to leave her newborn child to die or allow for the acting ‘doctor’ to take action to kill the child. This has far-reaching, horrific consequences.”

The report continued, “House Bill 22-1279 is known as the ‘Reproductive Health Equity Act,’ but it has nothing to do with health; intentionally killing a preborn child is never medically necessary. As reported by Axios, the bill is a direct response to the pro-life bills that have passed in states like Texas, Mississippi, and Florida, which restrict abortion access to different points in the pregnancy. Mississippi’s law to restrict abortion to prior to 15 weeks is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court. When the decision is handed down in June, it could mean that Roe v. Wade is altered, overturned, or left in place.”

Live Action explained, “Though abortion proponents have long mocked the idea of abortion survivors, the reality is that babies do survive abortions. Some are saved by compassionate medical professionals, while others are left to die.”

But lives wouldn’t be saved in Colorado, the report explained, saying, “Colorado’s bill would legalize the deaths of these newborns by both inaction and action. In addition to prohibiting anyone from ‘restricting, interfering with, or discriminating against an individual’s fundamental right […] to have an abortion,’ the bill would prohibit state and local public entities from: Depriving, through prosecution, punishment, or other means, an individual of the individual’s right to act or refrain from acting during the individual’s own pregnancy based on the potential, actual, or perceived impact on the pregnancy, the pregnancy’s outcomes, or on the pregnant individual’s health.”

“In short, this bill could force medical professionals to commit or participate in abortions, and let a newborn baby die if the mother wishes. Of course, a common, natural ‘outcome’ of pregnancy is that a person is born alive. This wouldn’t necessarily affect abortion survivors alone, but could also affect babies born with a disability or genetic condition that had not been discovered during pregnancy. Wrongful birth lawsuits have been filed against doctors who did not accurately diagnose a child while she was still in the womb, and therefore, the parents felt they lost the opportunity to abort their child. This bill could allow those parents to ‘abort’ their child after birth — infanticide.”

Further, the bill specifically denies any rights at all to a “a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus,” by stating they do “not have independent or derivative rights under the laws of the state.”

“Colorado is in position to deny all rights to an entire group of human beings. The bill also includes a safety clause that states the legislators believe ‘this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety,'” Live Action confirmed.

Axios reported the move is in response to proposed laws in other states that “add restrictions on abortion.”

But Colorado’s law would have no impact on others states’ laws, and its only effects would be to make the state a magnet for the lucrative abortion industry.

Axios said the American abortion industry is concerned the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade this year, and its key players want to embed their revenue stream in state law at least, state constitutions if they can.

In fact, Democrats in Coloardo are discussing a constitutional amendment to put before voters in 2024.

State Sen. Julie Gonzales, a Democrat from Denver and a sponsor of the new death law, said, “In a world in which Roe v. Wade falls we want to make it clear … that access to abortion care in Colorado is protected.”

Also in the race to promote abortion at the state level is Maryland.

WND reported this week on plans there to allow babies to die after they are born.

The concept actually isn’t new. Every few months or years, some extremist brings up the idea of allowing abortion after birth. It’s relatively easy to discard when some loner at a university on the other side of the world discusses a wild-eyed plan.

Or when, as WND has reported, paramedics in one region of Belgium say it would be all right to end the life of a baby born with a “serious” defect.

That’s been a recurring theme, with medical ethicists Francesca Minerva and Alberto Guibilini in 2012 claiming doctors “should be allowed to end the lives of disabled, and even unwanted, newborn babies because they are not ‘actual persons.'”

Former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, once discussed on radio a controversial 40-week abortion bill.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” he said, alluding to a discussion about whether an infant should be allowed to live or die.

But now, the American Center for Law and Justice said that an American state is considering the idea.

According to the team of legal experts, “The Maryland legislative session is in full swing, and once again, abortion advocates are pushing their radical abortion agenda. Recently, we told you about the testimony we presented against Maryland House Bill 1171, which is attempting to codify Roe v. Wade in the Maryland constitution. Now, we’re preparing to submit testimony on Maryland Senate Bill 669 – also known as the Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act of 2022.”

That bill, at first glance, looks like it simply changes “woman” to “pregnant person” in its references.

But its provisions to prevent a “pregnant person” from being investigated for “terminating or attempting to terminate” her own pregnancy is where the plan gets lethal.

“The bill also proposes a revision of the fetal murder/manslaughter statute that would serve to handcuff the investigation of infant deaths unrelated to abortion. In other words – this bill will effectively legalize infanticide,” the ACLJ reported.

“The exact language of the bill states: ‘This section may not be construed to authorize any form of investigation or penalty for a person . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death related to a failure to act.’ (Emphasis added). In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death, and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death,” the organization’s report explained.

“The bill also includes a section that would allow ‘a person [to] bring a cause of action for damages if the person was subject to unlawful arrest or criminal investigation for a violation of this section as a result of . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death.'”

So, the ACLJ reported, “if a baby died because it was abandoned and police investigated and eventually arrested the person responsible for the baby’s death, then the woman could sue the police and get monetary damages for having been investigated and arrested.”

The report said even worse is that the language in the bill “is without clear definition,” so “the bill could prevent any investigations into the death of infants at least seven days AFTER their birth, and may extend to infants as old as four weeks!”

It’s because “perinatal” isn’t defined in the bill and medical tomes say it starts at the “20th to 28th week of gestation and ends 1 to 4 weeks after birth.”

Since the state already has a “safe haven” law, allowing a mother to give up an infant without penalty, “there is absolutely no reason for Maryland Senate Bill 669’s attempt to prevent someone who lets their baby die from being investigated.”

The ACLJ reported that because of concerns that it raised, the “perinatal” language is being removed from the S.B. 669 plan, but an identical bill still is pending in the Maryland House.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts