A 17-year old girl recently diagnosed with lymphoma is being forced to undergo chemotherapy by the state after she decided that she did not want such treatment. She is apparently informed of her options and she discussed her decision with her mother, who has supported her decision. Why she has decided this, why her mother supports her is not stated, and whether this is wise or not doesn’t matter. I suspect that the silence about this in the news report is because the decision might involve a thing called Christian faith, but I am only speculating. If the decision involves a matter of her religious sensibilities, that would only complicate the story and make it more difficult to present the state in a favorable light.
However, the state did not like her decision or her mother’s and brought her and her mother to court, where a judge gave the state custody over her and cut off her right to make her own decisions and her mother’s right to make decisions for her child, trampling their right to privacy from state intrusion.
The irony is that Connecticut is one of those proud bastions of liberalism. If this young lady had wanted an abortion, she would have been defended by the state based upon her right to choose what she does with her own body. Had her mother tried to stop her, they would have proclaimed that the girl was old enough to make her own informed decision, and that she had a right to privacy. Somehow, she does not have this same capacity when it comes to refusing poisonous treatment when the state decides it knows better. The state is “pro-choice” until they don’t like the “choice”, and they support a women’s “right to choose” what she does with her own body until they don’t like what she “chooses” and likely why she chooses. Then, the state becomes “pro-life”, even if the measures they force on her poison her, violates her, splits her family apart and takes her from the arms of her mother, and maybe even kills her.
She is now in a hospital being forced to undergo chemotherapy while her case progresses to a higher court.
I can only imagine what that looks like. Is she being strapped down or shackled to a bed? Is she being heavily sedated so she can’t fight them off? Are police officers posted outside her door to prevent her mother from being at her side to comfort her? If she has a priest, is he also prevented from praying with her?
In 1965, one of the court decisions leading to the “right” to abort children in the womb came from Connecticut. The state then had a law that prohibited contraception. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the United States Supreme Court decided that the United States Constitution contained a right to privacy and the states could not have laws preventing contraception, which then became a precedent that was used to allow for abortion in later cases.
The liberal citizens of the state have elected abortion-supporting politicians regularly, and the state is one of the “progressive” bastions in the country. A law to permit assisted suicide was recently proposed and, though not yet passed, no doubt, is still being pursued as a worthy “progressive” goal. Yet, today, the right to choose and the right to privacy are being trod upon by the government there. Citizens have a right to choose death, but only if it’s a baby’s life. Citizens have a right to privacy in matters concerning their own bodies, but only if . . . what and when? When the state says so. Just what the state is “progressing” to looks an awful like the fascist and communist totalitarian states we thought were consigned to the dustbin of history.
But, there’s a big difference, we say. We have “freedom”. Here’s one look at our freedom today. How free does this girl feel today?
No, Connecticut is not “pro-life” at all.