RE: “Lone Dem Senator Blocks Bill Banning Infanticide…” –Who are the Next Undesirables?

Phyllis Beveridge Nissila

Like all compassionate Americans (of all political stripes) who believe pre-born babies deserve to have their lives protected, I was shocked over Monday’s news (2/4/19) that due to a vote from one Democrat Senator, Patty Murray (WA), there may now be no protection extended to babies already born if the mother and her doctor deem the infant may be killed.

I refuse to use euphemisms.

This is infanticide.

From a report on this in yesterday’s Daily Wire, the entire headline reading, “Lone Dem Senator Blocks Bill Banning Infanticide For Babies Who Survive Abortion,” meaning babies who survive whatever means of abortion “failed” and they still struggle for life against chemical, scalpel, and/or suction device efforts to terminate their lives, or perhaps they are born with some handicapping condition, here is a summary of background information:

Last Thursday, Senator Ben Sasse (R-NB) requested the unanimous consent vote (for the Bill called “”Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” S.130) after Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, a pediatric neurologist, had made comments indicating he did not object to letting an infant die after its birth, indicating that a born-alive “infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired.” 

Few doubt the Democrat-controlled House will counter this legislative death-knell for newborns–a brand new group of abortion-on-demand victims now to also be deemed, one might say, “undesirable”.

I refuse to use euphemisms.

If some believe using the term “undesirable” is a “dog whistle” conjuring Nazi Germany, this would be an accurate, if very uncomfortable, use, even for those who would rather chant “It’s about a woman’s right to choose,” to drown out the silent screams, so to speak, of the babies chosen for the kill.


When most people think of the systematic murder of “JewsSlavs (mainly Poles), Roma, Soviet POWs, political opponents and others whom the Nazis considered “Untermenschen” (‘subhumans’)” they think of the concentration, or extermination, camp atrocities of the last several years of Hitler’s final solution. Few realize, however, the slaughter began several years’ prior with the first group of untermenschen, aka undesirables: babies in utero and handicapped people of any age.

From The Holocaust Encyclopedia, Euthanasia Program:

The goal of the Nazi Euthanasia Program was to kill people with mental and physical disabilities. In the Nazi view, this would cleanse the “Aryan” race of people considered genetically defective and a financial burden to society…

This group of undesirables began with children including newborns, but soon included adults suffering from any of the following:

  • …schizophrenia, epilepsy, dementia, encephalitis, and other chronic psychiatric or neurological disorders
  • those not of German or “related” blood
  • the criminally insane or those committed on criminal grounds
  • those who had been confined to the institution in question for more than five years

Regarding abortion, whereas Hitler was opposed to this practice, indeed, his policies criminalized it unless there was danger to the mother’s life, in his efforts to expand the “Aryan race,” it was not discouraged if the pre-born were deemed ‘lives unworthy of life’ at that stage of life, i.e., even if a handicapping condition was unknown, it was known they were “members of ‘inferior’ races” (source).

Although the term “Nazi” is slung around these days at will–and often without knowledge of and reflection on true Nazism and its roots and practices–history affirms that the effort to permit terminating babies’ lives before and even after birth were part of Hitler’s evil plan and execution of same.

Thus, considering the expansion of abortion-on-demand efforts in the United States of late, one can only wonder, what group of undesirables is next?

If there is no compassion for all victims of abortion  (not just for mothers, for most of whom this choice will always be very difficult and for whom there are other options such as adoption), how much further will glossing over the reality of what really takes place for the most innocent among us–and the most deserving of all of our legal protections–go?

Just how far will the killing go?

We had better all ask this question, and respond accordingly.

This entry was posted in Commentaries, most recent posts and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to RE: “Lone Dem Senator Blocks Bill Banning Infanticide…” –Who are the Next Undesirables?

  1. This is horrific news. Politicians have steered the culture of death in a new and sinister direction. Lawyers and medics will collude with compliant mothers to slaughter new-born babies. When a mother abdicates responsibility for her child the medical profession has a duty of care to protect and nurture it, but with this development there is not an iota of humanitarian concern. In the twilight world of left-wing politics, new-born babies have become disposable commodities, just as they were in the pagan and callous Rome of the ancient world. This is a black day for western culture which purports to represent advanced civilisation. The God-given uniqueness of human beings as body and soul, material and spiritual, is shattered on the anvil of human iniquity. As the tribunals of death convene we see the cold skeletal hand of evil triumph over compassion and human dignity. A line has been crossed, a threshold breached.


    • pbn says:


      And left out of virtually every conversation on the topic of abortion is the voice of fathers.

      Indeed, it is considered almost anathema in the religion of abortion to even mention that there are fathers who would choose life for their children, let alone, now, be considered as part of the decision-making process at all.

      Fathers have have long since been relegated to irrelevance by the nearly completed mind-bending force of political correctness that, by mere words alone, has spun whole societies around into thinking this is not about three people, but one, the mother, and the choice isn’t about literal life and death but about presumed “freedom to choose”.

      Problem is, of course, and can’t be said enough in the effort to literally save lives, the person the “choice” will kill not only has no choice in his/her death, but also no other advocate, not even his/her other parent’s.

      Those who, having been sufficiently ideology-controlled to think this is only a mother’s choice, and that men should just “shut up and sit down,” and, now, masculinity is all toxic, anyway, cannot in many cases even comprehend the bigger view–the view that celebrates saving, not destroying, lives.

      And it is fallacious to presume there are no other options for mother’s facing this often (but not always) heart-breaking decision and that pro-life advocates do not have compassion for mothers who choose abortion as well as a lot of programs to aid mothers and babies after birth.

      There is a lot of work yet to be done.

      There may be yet some minds not completely controlled by modern PC on this matter.


      • Yes, the father is all part of the equation. But as everything in this area is skewed, the mother’s wishes are paramount, even when the baby is born. The left cannot claim that this is merely an extension to abortion. It is not. The baby is now out of the womb and from the moment of birth must be cared for and nurtured. If the mother does not wish to fulfil her role, the father’s wishes must be taken into account. If the father is indifferent or nowhere to be found, it falls to the state to decide on a future, not an end, for the helpless infant. Orphaned babies are not unwanted kittens or puppies, yet that is where we seem to have arrived. This is a defining moment in human affairs.


      • pbn says:

        Yes X 7, particularly when it comes to the “state” making life and death decisions for completely helpless human beings, and given the number of “blue,” even “purple” states we have here in the U.S. Blue (and purple) states do not tend to have “pro-life” political platforms.


  2. Cathy says:

    THE Government is getting ready for DEATH PANELS!


    • pbn says:

      Hi, Cathy,

      Yes, the idea of “death panels,” an idea that seemed so “out there” not many years ago, is now much more believable when one considers the events of even just this past week as reported in the articles cited. Of course, there are still those who have been so ideology-washed (like brain-washed) to euphemize the whole pro-death culture, they won’t see this. Or cannot see it, just yet, anyway. The rest of us have a responsibility to do all we can to continue exposing the truth.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.