A Heart Beat Away from Death, Sen. Bill 669

Laura Garcia

See the picture of this adorable baby? This little miracle of life is around three to four weeks old. Sweet, right? Examine the picture again before you read on. See every detail of that face and those tiny hands. What comes to your mind? Maybe: Precious. Adorable. Darling. A miracle.
Besides the above, my thoughts are I want to smell that baby's head. Oh, I love the smell of a newborn baby. Don't you?

Now please let me convey my burning thoughts against a possible death sentence for some infants under the disguise of the Pregnant Person's Freedom Act of 2022 in Maryland.

I've not written about my pro-life beliefs for many years. I don't know where you stand on the issues. You are respectfully entitled to your opinion on a woman's "choice" for abortion. However, I appeal to your common sense and heart to read on. Thank you. 

I heard a new Maryland legislation titled Sen. Bill 669. Of course, I needed to fact-check the unbelievable claim of this new bill. I read only a few lines which ignited my righteous indignation, causing my blood to boil beyond the boiling point. I cannot be quiet. I will speak on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves.

"Pro-abortion" politicians disregard the Sanctity of the unborn and it is those type of people who will perpetrate such bills. Yet, we as a Nation will and are paying a high cost. That, in itself, would be a whole other dissertation. Our Nation is reaping the ill-judged seeds we've sown for the cause of one's right to decide for another—one who cannot speak for themselves, whether their heart will continue to beat after birth.

Lines have been moved through the years from abortion in the first trimester, to the second trimester, and into and up to the third trimester in some states. If a baby is aborted, no matter if the child is viable, the infant will be left to die. The line has been moved again. And this is just as disturbing.

A new bill titled SENATE BILL 669 is hideous, shameful, and unspeakable. Sen. William Smith (D-Md.) has proposed this new legislation for Maryland in light that Roe vs. Wade could be losing ground.

THERE IS NOTHING RIGHT OR GOOD ABOUT BILL 669.

Americans, I appeal to you that there is a right and a wrong. Some issues cannot have a gray area. 

Quoted from bill 669, speaking of an infant child. "Nothing in this section shall be construed to confer personhood or any rights on the fetus."

We have gone beyond a slimy-slippery-slope in our free world when an unborn baby and a newborn is not personified, and has no rights. If this law passes, an infant up to twenty-eight days old is in danger. There will be no justice or concern for its early demise. Maryland, or any other state, proposing such hideous criminal legislation toward helpless infants will not recover from such a repugnant law. People in Maryland should be fully awake and muster a holy reverence and fear of the Almighty God, the AUTHOR of LIFE. 

A nation that continues a path of devaluing life in or outside of the womb or through out a life span, is indeed facing God's judgments and sentencing of such lawlessness as He is the Ultimate Judge of all lawlessness. In God's Ten Commandments, Thou shall not kill, is not optional. No matter how one would like to spin it.

Here is a little knowledge of the things God hates if you have not heard.  

God says:
"These six things the LORD hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren," Proverbs 6: 26-19; NKJ.

I wonder what web is weaved in Senator William Smith's soul. Perhaps moral depravity and disobedience toward the things of God. But I'm sure he's a nice guy and on his campaign trail kissed a baby or two.

The proposed bill is to protect a mother from criminal charges. For example, suppose her baby passes soon after birth, delivered outside of a hospital, maybe in a bathroom. In that case, she could dispose of her child in any way she chose. Or if she decided she did not "want" her child and allowed the infant to die, no investigation into the circumstances would be pursued. Such an infant would be classified as baby Doe.

There is much darkness around us as we live in a fallen world. We must question, do we add to this darkness? Should we allow a mother who might suffer from severe postpartum depression (see note below) to do as she thinks to her child? Is it okay that she's decided her three to four-week-old baby is too much for her? She can now leave her infant anywhere like a dumpster, abandoned building, a field to freeze, starve, and be unprotected from the elements and harshness of their surroundings. And said mom would be free from all charges of child abandonment, neglect, and the intentional murder of human life if she were found out. If we are civil human beings, then the answer is NO! NO! NO!

Let me tell you a personal story I've not shared with anyone but my son. I felt shame for a long time about this. When my son was three weeks old, we moved back to California from New York. We stopped at Niagara Falls on the way. I remember standing there watching the falls and hearing the rushing sound of the water. A thought crossed my mind to throw my three-week baby boy into the torrent of water. Thank God I didn't!

My son and I joke about it now; however, postpartum depression can be overwhelming, and some women feel as if they are going crazy. If this type of law was in place anywhere in the USA, and I acted upon the impulse, I'd be free from charges because he was only 15-days old. Postpartum depression is some scary stuff, and so is Sen. Bill 669.

The fact that 62 million unborn children have died at the hands of our laws for "rights" and "freedom of choice" and "My body, my right" since 1973 is sad enough for a civilized country. Mr. Smith, who was voted by the people, is creating a law that essentially would legitimize the disposal of an infant up to twenty-eight days old, without an investigation, without penalties, without justice. How is this acceptable? It's not!

I hope you will take 5 minutes to educate yourself on the Pregnant Person's Freedom Act of 2022. The link is below. The article, posted here, is by Steve Warren, senior multimedia producer for CBN News.

 I hope you will be horrified, as I am, that this would even be a proposition here in the United States.

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2022/march/aclj-warns-proposed-maryland-senate-bill-could-legalize-infanticide-up-to-28-days-after-birth

Stand up for truth. Stand up for what is right. Stand up and be heard for values that matter.

 

Note: Postpartum depression is a real thing. Many woman suffer from depression after having a baby due to hormones.  I know I did. Postpartum depression does not lead mothers to kill their babies. Though there have been cases where postpartum depression has led a mother down that sad path.

 

Pictures brought to you by: Pexels, royalty free

Headlines that Create Frenzies and Words like Equity

Here’s a headline that will spin your head: 

“Op-ed: California parents should be forced to swap their kids.” 

I heard about this while listening to an influencer on Facebook. His headline read “Left pushes Universal Orphanhood.” I said to myself, what? That’s not for real, is it? Universal Orphanhood! I listened.

Then like any writer bent for the search of truth, I Googled the title. Ah! The big bold headline, “Op-ed: California parents should be forced to swap their kids.” Curious, I listened on. This writing is attributed to Joe Mathews who writes for the Connecting California column for Zócalo Public Square.

Misleading Information

I must say, I’ve witnessed both sides of the political spectrum exaggerating issues. This amplification constructs—I think, division, angry faces and words, pointing fingers, and a cause to insult others. I’m not saying we can’t be outraged by things happening in our world. But honestly, what spun in your head when you read: “California parents should be forced to swap their kids.” Or “Left pushes Universal Orphanhood? You’re prepared for a fight, right? Especially if the headlines are your only main course. Both headlines suggest a removing of your freedom and parenthood. That's a fight in the making.

Facetious Statement

As I read and reread Mr. Mathews’ piece, I got it. Sometimes my synapses fire too slow. My first clue Mathews was being facetious was when the broadcaster interviewing him mentioned Johnathan Swift, who was an Anglo-Irish satirist in 1700. As my older daughter pointed out, this should've clued me to the tone of his opinion piece on his radical proposal. Although, when he mentioned that Swift was about--eating our children, Mr. Mathews stated he wouldn’t go that far. Hence, leading to his intentions in aiming as a facetious mess-with-your head observation.

Sometimes people provocatively use words or phrases to make a point. To wake up the masses so to speak. To joggle their narrow thinking about a topic or word usage or confront the stupidity of some rational.

Investigate

As I read, I discovered “equity” was his topic. And it seemed to me he felt the need to jar selected people who have double standards about the word equity. Let’s define equality and equity as I believe the words are often linked or confused. You probably know what they mean but for my expose’, let’s clarify.

Equity and equality are words we’ve heard a heaping portion of at the beginning of 2020.

Equality is about fairness. Everyone deserves to have the same opportunities and chances to rise above or advance their life—you know the American dream.

Equity is according to the dictionary, “recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.” [Italics mine for emphasis].

To me, this means no matter how hard or little one works, we all reach the same results. All is fair and evenhanded. Equity does not care if you worked hard to get where you are or if the drug addict, whose wasted his life, becomes financially stable despite his laziness and addiction. Equity says we all acquire the exact outcome. Hmm?

Swap Kids Proposal

From what I ascertain is Joe Mathews believes the word equity is spoken carelessly and without understanding; therefore, his proposal for parents to swap kids with the less fortunate would be a fair and equitable trade. I interpret this as put action to your words.

He wrote:

"Today’s Californians often hold up equity — the idea of a just society completely free from bias — as our greatest value. Gov. Gavin Newsom says he makes decisions through “an equity lens.”

Therefore, Mr. Mathews produced a proposal, which would cause both political parties to be content. I think on one’s first inspection of Joe’s headline, you’re like, is this guy out-of-his mind? But wait before you jump off the cliff of psychosis. I think he is trying to make a valid point.

Here are a few highlights from Joe’s opinion piece. He wrote:

“For Californians to triumph in true equity” by which he means something needs to happen, like parents relinquishing their pride and joys “for the State to raise.”

“Institutions from dance ensembles to tech companies have publicly pledged themselves to equity, along with diversity and inclusion.” He cites, Plato who adopted Socrates recommendations children should “be possessed in common so that no parent will know his own offspring or any child his parents.”

He elaborates on this unifying proposal.

Mathews says, “[This] should be politically unifying, fitting hand-in-glove with the most cherished policies of progressives and Trumpians alike.”

“. . . anti-racism and gender identity in schools face a bitter backlash from parents. Ending parenthood would end the backlash, helping dismantle white supremacy and outdated gender norms.”

“. . . Republicans are happy to jettison parents’ rights in pursuit of their greatest passions, like violating migrant rights. Once you’ve gone so far as to take immigrant children from their parents . . ., it’s a short walk to separating all Americans from their progeny.”

On the idea of “Safe haven” laws, which allow women to give their newborns “over to authorities after birth.” He explains, “My proposal would merely make mandatory such handovers of babies to the state. Perhaps such coercion sounds dystopian . . . imagine the solidarity that universal Orphanhood would create. Wouldn’t children, raised in one system, find it easier to collaborate on climate change and other global problems?

Rushing to Opinions

I’ve witnessed people who’ve rushed to opinions on a matter, a meme, or a talk show without fully investigating what the meaning of the writer and or speaker is conveying. We, as people, tend to filter words through our scrutiny of what we think is right. We are lazy in acquiring facts over fiction. I’m guilty as the next.

As understood, the conquest to swap children would usurps parental rights, defeat nepotism, eliminate family wealth that’s passed on, and cultivates offspring“loyal only to society.” If we are spouting equity, then Mr. Mathews asserts, “The rich should give their children to the poor, and the poor should give their children to the rich.”

I submit, Mr. Mathews is painting a picture worth more than a thousand words. What if? What if we put our actions behind the word equity? What would that look like? I think Joe outlined well what that would look like in his proposal to make all things equitable for everyone.

Essentially, he is saying, if we’re going to shout “equity” we better think about what that means in all facets of our lives. He states, “. . .our relentless pursuit of equity might birth a brave new world.” Of course, he is being tongue-in-cheek. [Italics mine for emphasis].

I believe he sums his discourse by saying,

“Now, I don’t expect universal support for universal orphanhood. A few contrarians, lost in the empty chasm between American extremes, might object to this rational proposal on emotional grounds. They might argue that pursuing your own conception of family is fundamental to freedom.” [Italics & bold type mine for emphasis].

Now we come to the climax of Joe Mathews’ proposal to pursue universal orphanhood. If you only fixed on the headline or that of the Facebook influencer, you might be fuming. Just another freedom “they” are trying to seize to take over the world. You know I’m right! (FYI: I'm not saying there are people out there trying to undo our democracy).

Close the Gap

Thank you for reading my expose', I hope I've contributed to a clearer understanding on the writer’s intent for his headline exposing “equity.” Also, to show how incorrect the title by the influencer, “Left pushes Universal Orphanhood” lead to a confusion and misrepresentation of his meaning.

I say, if we are serious about equity, put action to your words. If you believe in “equity,” are you ready to allow a parent swap? Will you forfeit what you have worked for in providing a safe loving home to make it more equitable for children who are unfortunate?

I didn’t think so. Although sometimes we would love to give our children away.

So, to lessen the gap of misinformation, before jumping to conclusions, or riding the wild horse into battle--seek the truth, speak the truth, and get the facts. Just because I’m a conservative, I don’t have all the answers, nor am I always right (though I'd like to think I am!). And vice-a-versa. Let’s make a constructive effort to critically think and research before we open our mouths or type a reply to a post. I believe this will bridge the gap to misinformation and rantings, which is a waste of our time.

Think. Speak. Truth. Be kind.

Joe Mathews’ article can be read here: https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/zocalos-connecting-california/california-children-swap-orphans-equity