The Family Policy Institute of Washington, an anti-abortion and anti-LGBT organization, attacked progressives, the UK government, and Europe on June 29 with the story of Charlie Gard (video below).
Charlie was born in August 2016 with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, which is a disease that leads to organ dysfunction, noted CNN.
Since October 2016, Charlie has been in intensive care at a children's hospital in London. Charlie's doctors want to remove the terminally ill infant from life support, but his parents -- Chris Gard and Connie Yates -- want to take their dying baby to the U.S. for an experimental treatment. The UK Supreme Court ruled against them (and for the doctors), as did the European Court of Human Rights.
Joseph Backholm, head of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, insisted that progressives were ultimately to blame for Charlie's dire situation in a video:
But this is more than an isolated sad story about a sick baby. This story is what progressives have been fighting for so hard. When you take the position that human life has value only to the extent it helps other humans, this is what you get.
As a matter of record, the courts did not rule on whether the infant could help other humans, but rather on Charlie's prognosis according to the doctors, who have asserted that Charlie's death is inevitable.
Backholm went on to blame the UK government for interfering in the welfare of children::
When the power to make life and death decisions about health care is taken away from families and given to government, this is what you get. When you are convinced that government is better at determining what is good for a child than the parents, this is what you get.
You get laws that give a mother the right to kill her child, but prohibit her from trying to keep him alive. This is Europe. This is progressivism. Don’t let it happen here.
Backholm made news in 2012 when he predicted that same-sex marriage would fail during an appearance on "The Janet Mefferd Show," noted Right Wing Watch:
The narrative on the other side of this issue has basically been, "good people support redefining marriage, bad people don’t; you’re a good person, so join us." So a bunch of people who -- generally we consider ourselves to be kind and thoughtful and "live and let live" kind of people, that’s kind of the American way -- and so by virtue of that people just migrate by default to where they perceive the people to be.
Their narrative depends entirely upon that, so logical discussions about this subject rarely take place with those folks. But when they happen, the logic behind their argument really does tend to fall apart. It’s also because that is what they depend on so heavily, it’s why I’m supremely confident that in the long term we win this discussion because you can’t rely on emotional manipulation forever.