In China, the government claims the right to manage the healthcare decisions of its people. This was nowhere more blatant than in state management of childbearing. China’s infamous “one-child policy,” which was abolished in 2015 in favor of a “two-child policy,” was enacted without the consent of the governed and the reasons for enacting it were based on catastrophic projected outcomes.
Mothers were forced to abort their babies in the name of saving the country. Slogans such as “For China,” and “For the motherland” were common rallying cries to get women to abort their unborn children. Women had their menstrual cycles charted on public walls, were compelled to have IUDs implanted in their wombs, and were forcibly sterilized. If a woman became illegally pregnant without a birth permit from the state, she could be physically confined until she agreed to “voluntarily” abort her child. If a woman still fought for the life of her child, the child was often forcibly aborted.
Quotas were set for how many women in each Chinese province or compound could be pregnant. Fines, public shaming, destruction of property and livelihood, publicity campaigns to normalize the desired behavior, forced medical procedures, and armed enforcement were all employed to enforce a health outcome that the government mandated was necessary in order to “save lives.” Women who consented to abortion and sterilization early were praised for their compliance and touted as moral, caring, obedient, and selfless. Women who did not want to eliminate their children were berated as immoral, selfish, and disobedient.
Fast forward to 2020. In recent months, the governor of my conservative state of Utah (like other governors across the nation) has increasingly taken on the role of managing a range of healthcare decisions for his constituents. The reasons given are based on catastrophic projected outcomes and are propped up by the somber reasoning that we must “save lives.” A publicity campaign was mounted and slogans urging compliance were plastered on billboards across the state. Arbitrarily set quotas for how many COVID cases would be allowed at each high school have been set and children’s medical information is made available to school personnel so that students can be quarantined.
Forced medical treatment in the form of mandated weekly COVID testing for huge swaths of the asymptomatic population has now been mandated. $10,000 fines are in place for non-compliant behaviors including hosting social gatherings and allowing people to eat within six feet of each other. It has even been stated that the National Guard will be involved in contact tracing and perhaps other enforcement efforts in the state.
Public shaming — especially in schools — has begun in earnest. A letter went out to students and their parents from a local high school praising those who were “perfectly compliant” and framing non-compliant students as disrespectful, unkind, inconsiderate, uncaring about others, classless, and immoral.
The similarities between actions taken by the Chinese government and U.S. governors are concerning: Feared catastrophic outcomes (hospitals might become overcrowded, people might become ill, and people might die—none of which are threats unique to 2020) are used to justify new mandates. Fines, shaming, public acceptance campaigns, reverse morality, forced medical interventions, isolating the non-compliant, and even the threat of armed intervention are all on the table.
One might say that forced abortion is different than forced testing, forced quarantining, or forced vaccination. Very true. But the common denominator here is “forced.” And therein lies the problem. Once we concede that our government has the power to mandate healthcare and other procedures in the name of “saving lives,” we are on a perilous path. It might be hoped that one government-forced medical intervention will not lead to another and will certainly not end in forced abortion — the taking of a life to theoretically save others. But that is the ultimate end of this road. History shows how this has already happened and the course ahead has already been charted by those with aspirations for global dominance.
Here is one version of how this is primed to work. Environmental concerns based on catastrophic projected outcomes are already in place in the minds of world leaders and much of the populace. Global entities including the United Nations have set their sights on “saving the world” from feared environmental crisis no matter what “sacrifices” must be made. As part of this effort, the UN created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess climate issues and solutions. One supporter of the IPCC’s mission says current initiatives to combat climate change “clearly are not enough” and that “only time will tell whether the IPCC will seriously consider population control to mitigate the worsening effects of climate change.” Population control, of course, includes abortion. We are kidding ourselves if we think forced abortion and forced sterilization in the name of saving the world will not swell beyond the borders of Asia as the mantra to “save the world” grows louder and centralized government grows stronger.
The masses will be primed through COVID-19 directives and other gradually expanding initiatives to accept arbitrary mandates and to accept the rationale that no matter how inconvenient or tragic or amoral it may be, we simply must succumb to what the government says we must do in order to “save lives.”
The United Nations has set the bold goal to globalize its socialistic initiatives by the year 2030, including its health-based initiatives, which embrace abortion “for all.” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) — a global socialist at heart — has already trumpeted the line, “12 years to save the planet,” which is the global equivalent of “two weeks to flatten the curve.” I sadly predict that in the next 10 to 15 years, unless these international campaigns are derailed, coerced abortion and other initiatives to stop the birth of people will be normalized, incentivized, promoted, practiced, and labeled as “moral” worldwide.
A population official explained to a group of Chinese women:
China is a socialist country. This means that the interests of the individual must be subordinated to the interests of the state. Where there is a conflict between the interests of the state in reducing population and the interests of the individual in having children, it must be resolved in favor of the state. Socialism should make it possible to regulate the reproduction of human beings.
In step with this sentiment, the United Nations has already established a global “Human Reproduction Programme.” Make no mistake, the end goal of those higher up the line than local governors is to regulate the reproduction of people. To accomplish this, reigning regimes must control and dictate the health decisions of the populace, families must be secondary to the state, and abortion must be legal. The role of government is to protect the constitutional and God-given rights of citizens. The role of government is not to manage citizens’ health, finances, speech, movements, childbearing, beliefs, or medical choices without their consent. If we give an inch, those with global intentions will take much more than a mile. They will not stop short of claiming the right to take lives in the name of saving lives.
Kimberly Ells is the author of The Invincible Family: Why the Global Campaign to Crush Motherhood and Fatherhood Can’t Win and is a Policy Advisor for Family Watch International. Visit her at InvincibleFamily.com.
