One thing we know about progressive ideas is that they must always advance. It’s the very meaning of progress – it must always be moving forward, although the “forward” part is debatable.

And so it is with progressive legislation, or regulation. Progressive legislation passed or regulations mandated never begin as onerous as the author envisions, or first reveals.

The eventuality is always worse than its commencement. This is the progressive modus operandi. American history is replete with examples of this progress, like Social Security, welfare, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

All of these initiatives were originally proposed as “common sense” and “limited,” only to morph and multiple over time into massive and burdensome programs, stretching well beyond their initially intended scope.

I bring this up because just a few days ago, on Jan. 22, 2019, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the bill/amendment to legalize abortion on demand all the way up until birth. In other words, full-term abortions. It appears that now that a doctor can literally destroy an infant as the baby is passing through the birth canal on his or her way out, and worse. This amendment to the New York State Constitution also repeals protections for babies born alive due to botched abortions. And there will be more of those, as the amendment also permits non-doctors to perform abortions. What could go wrong?

Margaret Sanger, the racist founder of Planned Parenthood, would rejoice in this news, as already, “More African-American Babies are Aborted Than Born Alive in New York City.”

If this weren’t perverse and demonic enough, progressive doctrine dictates that it cannot, and therefore will not, end there.

The next step should then be obvious – infanticide. And for those who think this can’t possibly happen, think again. The groundwork has already been laid.

It’s called “after-birth abortion” and was postulated back in 2012 by two radical leftist philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

In a publication laughingly named the Journal of Medical Ethics, the two proposed:

“[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”

This is another thing progressives excel at – renaming things to make the abhorrent appear more palatable, like the aforementioned “after-birth abortion” in lieu of what it is – homicide of an infant.

These monsters justify the act by claiming that a newborn isn’t really a person yet.

“[I]n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.”

Congratulations, New York and all the legislators who gave a standing ovation during the signing ceremony. Murder is now a state constitutional right. You all must be so proud.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.