Aha, caught in the act! But, then, for the New York Times the act never ends—defending abortion as a high and holy pursuit irrespective of anything else going on, such as the eradication of Down syndrome through eradication of future Down syndrome babies.

You always hope there’s some scruple the abortion lobby will exhibit when it comes to abortion; some twinge of horror over exercise, in some instance or other, of the Supreme Court-guaranteed right to an abortion.

Nope. Not so’s anyone can tell.

Here’s the faithful Times editorial page, keeping Roe v. Wade watch:

It is tempting to dismiss the latest anti-choice salvo from Ohio lawmakers, which would criminalize abortions based on a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome, as a blatantly unconstitutional ploy that would never been enforced.

That would be a mistake . . . These politicians routinely spout the virtues of limited government, and yet they are eager to place all manner of obstacles in the way of women trying to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion . . . [through] instilling guilt and fear in women making intensely personal and private decisions about their own bodies. In fact, a significant majority of women who receive a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to abort their pregnancv. A smaller percentage choose to carry the fetus to term. In both cases, it is a personal decision. (www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/opinion/abortion-and-down-syndrome.html)

        We’ve got that all right, haven’t we—personal, in the sense of attaching exclusively to the bearer of a life the Times finds of negligible importance? Clearly, no kid with Down syndrome is going to grow up to read the Times editorial page. That fact alone possibly rules him out of consideration for mercy.

That kids with Down syndrome can grow up to hold worthwhile jobs (as distinguished from the job of writing editorials for the New York Times); that they take profound pride in personal achievements that Times editorialists obviously see as unworthy of recognition, or find embarrassing; that they are known as exceptionally loving human beings; that they receive exceptional love from parents who trouble to bring them joy and fulfillment—well, you know, big deal!

All of this—big deal! Who cares, and why? No such life as I mention rates compassion or social concern. It’s Roe, Roe, Roe your boat, all the time, and into the twilight. To the Times’ deep thinkers, no moral consideration matches the right of unobstructed “choice.”

The marks of barbarism and moral degeneracy are all over judgments such as the Times’ editorial writers render concerning worth and value and respect for life. And who, at this civilizational passage, is at all surprised?

*     *     *     *

—William Murchison, a senior editor of the Human Life Review, writes from Dallas for Creators Syndicate.