Guest Column: The Slippery Slope Keeps Slipping

If killing critically ill newborns isn’t the line, where is it for medically assisted suicide?

Back in April, a reckless assisted suicide bill looked like it was going to pass and be made British law. Instead, it was shut down by the House of Lords. Then, in May, the Irish parliament rejected an expanded abortion bill by a vote of 85-30. On this side of the Atlantic, things are headed in the opposite direction. 

Like all such “mercy” killing laws, Canada’s MAiD was promised as an option only for those facing imminent death and who could consent. Things are long past that and will likely go even further. Recently, a Quebec physician suggested that the nation’s already draconian MAiD program be expanded to include babies. In response, Brandan Tran of Canada’s Campaign Life Coalition said

Canadian law currently permits the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for critically ill newborns. This medical practitioner’s proposal goes further. He calls for the calculated killing of an infant. These are patients, babies, who cannot speak, cannot consent, and cannot ask for help. If we cannot draw the line here, I am not sure where medical professionals imagine the line to be. 

Physician-assisted suicide is always sold to the public as a “compassionate” measure, necessary to spare those with no reasonable chance of recovery fromunbearable pain and suffering during the last days of their lives. In every context in which it has been made legal, however, assisted suicide has never remained limited to the rare instances for which it was sold.  

There are reasons this slope has proven so slippery everywhere it has been made legal. Once it’s decided that certain lives are not worth living, the list of people eligible for assisted suicide inevitably grows. It becomes easier to re-evaluate lives based on some criteria other than intrinsic value, such as convenience or financial costs. It’s a small step indeed from “eligible to die” to “expected to die.”  

That’s why, wherever physician-assisted suicide has been legalized, it happens by a series of bait-and-switch claims to the public. “Terminal” illness is often expanded to include “chronic” illnesses and permanent disabilities. In Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada, even mental illness and depression are considered sufficient justification for suicide. Given this trajectory, it’s only a matter of time before the requirement of an actual illness is dispensed with. 

For example, the original promise was that only those certifiably in their right minds could be euthanized. But that was always a lie. Anyone who goes into an American emergency department claiming they want to die would be diagnosed with “suicidal ideation,” admitted, and put on a psych hold. To not do so, in fact, would be medical malpractice. Suicidal ideation is rightly regarded as a symptom of an underlying mental disorder. People with untreated mental illnesses are not allowed to make life-and-death decisions. 

Or at least they weren’t. In Oregon, for example, since physician-assisted suicide was legalized, over 96% of people given lethal drugs did not undergo a psychiatric evaluation. This is why, as a “What Would You Say” video on the topic so clearly explained, there’s nothing compassionate about physician-assisted suicide. In fact, it is the exact opposite of compassion, the abdication of a civilized society’s responsibility to offer care to those who need it most when they need it most.  

In his book The Thanatos Syndrome, Walker Percy described how a society devolves to the point of thinking that killing patients instead of healing them is compassion. A psychiatrist, Percy wrote of well-trained and exquisitely credentialed doctors who “turn their backs on the oath of Hippocrates and kill millions of old useless people, unborn children, born malformed children, for the good of mankind.” What Percy wrote in 1987 has become reality. Some form of assisted suicide is now legal in 13 states and the District of Columbia.  

Like abortion, the legal fight against assisted suicide is only part of the battle. It must become unthinkable to strip away the intrinsic and indelible dignity every human possesses, no matter their life condition. Otherwise, there is no way to stop from sliding down a slope so slippery.

Copyright 2026 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.

Fidelity Month, EFA Rules, and More from the Week

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is weekly-rewind-banner-corrected-1024x165.png

Here’s a quick recap of the week’s top stories from Family Council and our friends:

From Family Council

💰 Little Evidence New EFA Rules Will Save State Money. Family Council has recently spoken to a few policymakers who believe Arkansas’ Educational Freedom Account (EFA) program needs to cut costs. Some hope a new set of rules from the Department of Education will do that. But Family Council has analyzed the rules, and there is very little evidence the new rules will help the State save money. Keep Reading.

💍 Governor Sanders Declares June “Fidelity Month” in Arkansas. Last week, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders issued a proclamation declaring June “Fidelity Month” in the Natural State. The governor’s proclamation says: Keep Reading.

🏥 Texas Hospital Opens First-Ever Detransition Gender Clinic: A Texas hospital has opened a “detransition” gender clinic following a $10 million settlement with the Trump Administration. Keep Reading.

💉 Suicide Advocates Continue to Promote “Medical Aid in Dying” in U.S. and Abroad: In Ohio, legislators recently introduced an assisted suicide measure, arguing that “medical aid in dying” provides terminally ill people with a compassionate option. But our friends at the Center for Christian Virtue (CCV) rightly called the legislation “a Trojan horse for mandated death” that would pressure vulnerable people to end their lives via assisted suicide. Experiences elsewhere have shown CCV’s concerns about assisted suicide are spot on. Keep Reading.

From Our Friends

Gallup Data Reveals Support for LGBT Ideology is Declining. From Daily Citizen.

Another Male Won Awards at Another Girls Track and Field Championship. From Daily Citizen.

“Help Me!” Cries From Canadian Man in Botched Euthanasia are Haunting. From LifeNews.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

Little Evidence New EFA Rules Will Save State Money

Family Council has recently spoken to a few policymakers who believe Arkansas’ Educational Freedom Account (EFA) program needs to cut costs. Some hope a new set of rules from the Department of Education will do that. But Family Council has analyzed the rules, and there is very little evidence the new rules will help the State save money.

Arkansas created the EFA program in 2023, making it possible for students to use public funds to pay for an education at a public or private school or at home.

Most students in the EFA program are eligible for up to 90% of the State’s per-student “foundation funding” that it spends on public school students each year. Generally speaking, this means each EFA student gets between $6,000 and $7,000 per school year.

Thousands of homeschool students have taken advantage of this great program and test scores show they are excelling.

But the Arkansas Department of Education has approved new administrative rules restricting how EFA funds can be spent on extracurricular activities, establishing complicated preapproval and reimbursement requirements for EFA funds, and reducing the maximum balance families can carry in their EFA accounts.

Our team has put together a brief overview explaining some of the ways the new rules make the EFA program worse for homeschoolers. You can download it here.

The State’s transparency website reports that since July 1, 2025, Arkansas has spent over $245 million on the EFA program. We believe that money is a good investment in students and families across Arkansas, but some people may feel the State cannot sustain the program every year without cutting costs.

Here is a brief look at some of the reasons why the State of Arkansas won’t save money by restricting homeschoolers in the EFA program.

1. Most EFA money goes to private school students and private school tuition.

Since the program began in 2023, most EFA money has paid for private school tuition.

In fact, state reports show that last year, four out of every five EFA dollars went toward private school tuition and fees.

Homeschoolers spend a fraction of the EFA money that private school students do — which means the State would save very little money by restricting homeschoolers.

2. Of the EFA money that homeschoolers spend, 90% of it is on core educational expenses.

Some people believe the State could save money by preventing homeschoolers from spending EFA money on athletics and extracurricular programs, but state law already caps spending in these areas.

Last year homeschoolers spent only 8% of their EFA money on “enrichment” activities like PE and athletics, music and art, or other extracurricular activities. The rest of the money paid for homeschoolers’ educational supplies, curriculum, class fees, tutoring, and other educational expenses authorized under the LEARNS Act.

Preventing homeschoolers from spending EFA money on certain athletic programs is unfair. It fails to track with state law, and it would save the State very little money.

3. The new preapproval process in the EFA rules adds bureaucratic barriers for families spending Educational Freedom Account money on legitimate expenses, but those barriers won’t help the State save money.

State law and state rules already outline approval and reimbursement processes for EFA spending. The new rules add bureaucracy that will make those processes slower and more frustrating for homeschool families.

Homeschool students often must itemize their EFA transactions for approval, because one family may use multiple curriculum providers, tutors, or suppliers. Each of those transactions may be handled separately.

EFA funds used for private school supplies and equipment do not have to be preapproved by the Department of Education.

Many homeschoolers tell us the current approval process for their EFA spending can take weeks or even months. The new preapproval requirements in the EFA rules would simply slow that process down even more.

There is little reason to believe that making the process slower or more cumbersome would save the State money.

4. Reducing an Educational Freedom Account’s maximum balance won’t change the amount of money that the State awards to EFA students each year.

Under the LEARNS Act, most students in the EFA program are eligible for up to 90% of the State’s per-student “foundation funding” that it spends on public school students.

Practically, this means each EFA student gets between $6,000 and $7,000 per school year.

Currently, if students don’t spend all of their EFA money, the surplus can roll over from year to year. Unspent EFA money can grow to a maximum balance of $20,000. This helps families with young children save EFA money for future educational expenses.

The new rules reduce that maximum balance from $20,000 to $8,500.

Reducing the EFA account balance might sound like it would save the State money, but the rules only apply to surplus EFA funds that families don’t spend by the end of the year.

That means it won’t save the State any money if students spend all of their EFA funds each year, and it won’t reduce the amount of money that the LEARNS Act allocates for each student every year.

If the State of Arkansas is concerned about EFA spending, there may be ways to adjust the EFA program and cut costs. Unfortunately, these new rules fail to do that.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.