The idiomatic expressions “lowering the bar” and its opposite “raising the bar” have their modern-day roots in pole vaulting competitions—although it’s unlikely many of us find our inner dictionaries turning to that reference page, so ingrained is that phrase in our minds that we accept it automatically. And it’s likewise unlikely we’ll reflect on the origins of that Track and Field event in ancient Greek, Egyptian, and Irish civilizations, where pole-vaulting began as a practical survival method. In Egypt it was used for scaling walls and crossing irrigation ditches, the Greeks used poles to leap over rivers and marshlands and in Ireland pole vaulting arose from the need to get over natural barriers in the countryside while making one’s way from one destination to the next. And you thought your daily commute was rough!

These uses by very early societies demonstrate an intuitive grasp of pole leveraging principles, how the vaulter’s body is a lever, the pole is the fulcrum, the height at which the vaulter grips the pole effects the leverage and ascent. Personally, when I visualize raising and lowering a bar, as often as not my mind goes to the Limbo, a Trinidadian dance craze from the ‘50s and ‘60s wherein one bends backward and passes under a bar: “How low can you go” defines success. I don’t have a particular interest in ‘50s and ‘80s dance crazes. More like . . . an intuitive sense of the modern-day practice of adjusting standards downward and calling it a win?

Another idiomatic expression, “it’s all relative,” is now so ubiquitous it’s easy to automatically accept it, in no small part because of simplistic examples such as: If you live in Maine forty degrees is a crisp, refreshing day, but if you come from Florida, it feels like you’re freezing. It’s all relative. No argument there. But the phrase has also come to mean comparisons dependent on personal comfort levels of every sort, suggesting moral equivocation. Moral relativism is most dangerous when we apply it to life itself, ours and that of others—and when the “bar” of our standards is systematically lowered to accommodate it.

“If you don’t like abortion, then don’t have one” is a heaping helping of second-hand autonomy. When New York State’s Medical Aid in Dying Act took effect August 5, 2026 Governor Hochul described it on her official website as “giving New Yorkers the choice to shorten not their lives, but their deaths.” (How comforting to have Tweedledum and Tweedledee explain Legislation S.138/A.136 to us.) “A fetus doesn’t feel pain until [fill in the blank] number of weeks,” so there’s no need to feel bad about dismemberment in the womb. Or its weird cousin: To be “humane” during fetal dismemberment, let’s give a lethal injection of potassium chloride to induce cardiac arrest.

When confronting such widespread and stubborn stupidity, we might wonder: How did ancient pole vaulters figure out how to use a rod to propel themselves over obstacles without possessing any formal knowledge of pole leveraging principles? Perhaps it was a matter of fortuitous accident meets human survival instinct. One day, an Irishman was running full speed with a long tree limb in his hand on his way to a bonfire when he tripped, the branch stuck in the ground, he hung onto it and found himself soaring through the air. When he landed, he realized he just covered a lot more ground than usual, and avoided a muddy puddle to boot. Resourcefulness tells him this could come in handy. He can cross a stream without dealing with slick rocks, if chased, he can leave his foe on the other side of a ravine and make his escape. His ingenuity kicks in. This pole jumping trick is a keeper! Whether it’s avoiding a life-changing injury on a slippery creek bed or saving his life from an enemy, the guiding principle is his wish to stay healthy and continue living. Of all God’s gifts, are any more loving than the survival instinct?

What happened to us? What happened to “…rage, rage, against the dying of the light?” Imminent death can be excruciatingly painful when the organs are in the process of failing. Palliative care when done at home may involve the family doctor administering pain relief, increasing the morphine dosage, even when at some point there comes a risk of overdose and death. Anyone who has had a loved one die at home is aware of this.

Why codify this in law? Why invite all the slippery-slope rationale that goes with it? An article in the August 8, 2026 New York Post by Mark P. Mostert, a senior researcher at the disability-advocacy group Able Americans, reveals that in 2025, doctors in the Netherlands euthanized a child under the age of twelve with the parent’s permission, and that details from the health minister “were sketchy, hiding behind . . . confidentiality and statistics.”

“Protections” in the New York State law include a requirement that two physicians certify the person has six months or fewer to live, and, when their moment comes, they must be able to administer the poison themselves. Does the six months’ time frame sound familiar? That was the original cut off date in Roe for obtaining an abortion, while at five months and twenty-nine days, you’re still good to go. Do the bureaucrats infecting the medical profession pull these numbers out of a hat? We’re being told that having the person “throw the switch” themselves makes it a dignified expression of their right to bodily autonomy. Oh. Not something the lawyers dreamed up so the suicide industrial complex can dodge liability, right?

What happened to us? How did our natural instinct to rage against the dying of the light, and with it, humane treatment of the vulnerable, slip away? What are we aspiring to? Who’s setting the bar?