Diane M. Bates is a resident of Magnolia.
In a recent post by Gov. John Carney concerning his position on vetoing House Bill 140, I take exception to his reasoning, as follows.
Gov. Carney: “I have consistently opposed a State law that would allow physician-assisted suicides.”
Where was your “moral compass” when you signed House Substitute 2 for House Bill 110, which states: “Title 31 is amended to require all health benefit plans delivered or issued by Medicaid to cover services related to the ‘termination of pregnancy.’ Coverage provided, under this section, is not subject to any deduction, coinsurance, copayment or any other cost-sharing requirement and must cover the full scope of services permissible under the law. This bill also extends these requirements to both individual and group health carriers to cover services related to the termination of pregnancy with identical cost-sharing prohibitions.” This substitute differs from the original bill for several reasons, one being that it requires federal funds to be used for Medicaid services whenever their use is allowed and specifies that state funds will be otherwise used for covered services. This bill further exacerbates House Bill 455, which you signed June 29, 2022, amending titles 24, 10, 11 and 18 relating to women’s reproductive health. The taxpayer-funded abortion bill puts Delawareans on the hook to pay for these services, regardless of what state a patient comes from to have them performed, including the illegal immigrants who have been placed not only in Delaware but elsewhere.
You further stated in your veto letter: “The (American Medical Association) reaffirms its view that physician-assisted suicide is ‘fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer.’” I guess the “physician’s role” in carrying out abortions is different. How can you justify one and not the other?
You also state that you are “fundamentally and morally opposed to state laws enabling someone, even under tragic and painful circumstances, to take their own life.” Yet, you agree with allowing a woman to take the life of her unborn, which is a separate human being living inside of the woman. Where is your moral compass here? Even Kamala Harris stated recently, “It is immoral to deny a person’s right to make decisions about their own body,” and called such an action a “violation”!
It appears to me that there are very little processes in place when it comes to abortions. Women can get this done at any number of facilities by any number of different providers. Are records kept by these facilities as to how many are being conducted? Since Delaware is paying for them, there must be some statistics/data being kept so that the state can be reimbursed. Where is this showing in the state budget or is this yet another area where you claim “executive privilege” and won’t provide the information to the taxpayers of this state?
I can only make an assumption here that there are way more abortions being conducted than there would be people who choose to end their “terminally” ill lives with dignity.
After reading HB 140 several times, it appears that the requirements in place to have this done are quite extensive. For instance, you must be diagnosed to die within a six-month period; the patient must request it; the attending physician must have a say in it; in some cases, a second opinion must be gotten; and a psychiatrist must attest to the fact that the person making the request is of sound mind. All this to ensure there is no abuse! In most cases, but not all, we are talking about older adults, who have lived long lives and who just want to stop their pain and that of those related to them, and to stop the financial bleeding that goes hand in hand with prolonging the inevitable. Or is that the real issue? How many people do you think would even take advantage of this law? I would venture to guess the numbers would be much less than the hundreds and thousands of unborn who die every year in Delaware, just because a person walks into a facility and decides to take the action.
Sir, if you truly believe that vetoing this bill was the right thing to do because you are following your “moral compass,” I suggest you get a new compass because you are not consistent in your decisions. A life is a life!
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org .
Local News
