SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Normally I don't like to talk about items that are going on in different US States than the one that I live in, but if something like this passes in Virginia I see no reason why it would not also pass in Oregon.
A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 16.1-77, 18.2-73, 18.2-74, 18.2-76, and 32.1-127 of the Code of Virginia, relating to abortions; eliminate certain requirements.
Link to the bill:
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+ful+HB2491
I found the changes and how they could be applied very interesting.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of § 18.2-72, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery, to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman during the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester of pregnancy provided such procedure is performed in a hospital licensed by the State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.
(b) 2. The physician and two consulting physicians certify certifies and so enter enters in the hospital record of the woman, that in their the physician's medical opinion, based upon their the physician's best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.
(c) 3. Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.
21. Shall require that each hospital that is equipped to provide life-sustaining treatment shall develop a policy governing determination of the medical and ethical appropriateness of proposed medical care, which shall include (i) a process for obtaining a second opinion regarding the medical and ethical appropriateness of proposed medical care in cases in which a physician has determined proposed care to be medically or ethically inappropriate; (ii) provisions for review of the determination that proposed medical care is medically or ethically inappropriate by an interdisciplinary medical review committee and a determination by the interdisciplinary medical review committee regarding the medical and ethical appropriateness of the proposed health care; and (iii) requirements for a written explanation of the decision reached by the interdisciplinary medical review committee, which shall be included in the patient's medical record. Such policy shall ensure that the patient, his agent, or the person authorized to make medical decisions pursuant to § 54.1-2986 (a) are informed of the patient's right to obtain his medical record and to obtain an independent medical opinion and (b) afforded reasonable opportunity to participate in the medical review committee meeting. Nothing in such policy shall prevent the patient, his agent, or the person authorized to make medical decisions pursuant to § 54.1-2986 from obtaining legal counsel to represent the patient or from seeking other remedies available at law, including seeking court review, provided that the patient, his agent, or the person authorized to make medical decisions pursuant to § 54.1-2986, or legal counsel provides written notice to the chief executive officer of the hospital within 14 days of the date on which the physician's determination that proposed medical treatment is medically or ethically inappropriate is documented in the patient's medical record;
Some key portions from the legislation are above, I neglected to bring in the stricken language about women needing ultrasounds and similar requirements because I think that is a separate issue.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/virginia-dems-attempt-to-pass-bill-allowing-abortions-up-to-40-weeks/ includes a video from the legislative proceedings with questions being asked of the bills sponsor Delegate Kathy Tran.
During Democratic Delegate Kathy Tran's presentation of the bill on Tuesday, Majority Leader Todd Gilbert (R.) asked her about the full extent of the bill's leniency.
"How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated that it would impair the mental health of the woman?" Gilbert asked.
"Or physical health," Tran said.
"Okay," Gilbert replied. "I'm talking about the mental health."
"I mean, through the third trimester," Tran said. "The third trimester goes up to 40 weeks."
"Okay, but to the end of the third trimester?" Gilbert asked.
"Yup, I don't think we have a limit in the bill," Tran said.
"Where it's obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she's about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified?" Gilbert asked. "She's dilating."
Tran replied that was a decision the woman and her doctor would have to make before choosing to have an abortion. Gilbert asked specifically if the measure would allow for abortion right before birth.
"My bill would allow that, yes," Tran said.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/virginia-dems-attempt-to-pass-bill-allowing-abortions-up-to-40-weeks/ has a video of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam being interviewed about the subject. The Governor says that if the woman so wanted an abortion and was certified
So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if thats what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
How can there be any discussion about this after the baby is already born?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 31 2019, @07:07PM
Good article. A couple things though. First, progressives continue to push for ever more liberal laws. In this case, with the bill in Virginia, they are most definitely trying to eliminate any need for a doctor to get a second and third opinion. A single doctor's opinion is sufficient to go through with the abortion. Enter a Doctor Kermit, and in effect, anytime, any reason, any means that works, including delivering the baby live, then bashing his head in. Or, in Kermit's particular case, snipping the spinal column with a pair of scissors. Just one doctor with a valid license, and morals and ethics skewed toward making a dollar.
Second, the Virginia bill specifically extends legal abortions to xxx weeks. Read the proposed law, and there is NO TIME LIMIT. In the interview quoted in TFS, it is specifically stated that there is no limit. No limits - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th trimester.
Going back to the article you link to -
Should we interpret that to mean that 1% occure in 40th week, 1% in 39th, etc? Thus, 20% of abortions take place after the fifth month? Maybe more precise language would make that clearer.
Yes - that's what this article is all about. Progressives want to loosen the laws, removing time limits, oversight, or any other minor little detail that might prevent a woman aborting her baby. There IS money to be made with abortion, after all.
This next bit helps to clear up my earlier question:
Trump supported abortion - until he found out exactly what a very late term abortion really is. Odd - the same can be said of many women, as well. Funny how that works. So long as the baby remains very tiny, very silent, and not-very-recognizably human, it's easy to pretend that you're not murdering a baby. Given a more-easily-recognizable human, it gets more difficult to pretend. Given a full-term baby, who only awaits the chance to draw his first breath, it's almost impossible to pretend that you're not murdering a human being.
And, that is pretty much the whole reason that most of the US has outlawed late term abortions, except in cases that threaten the health and welfare of the mother.
It takes a monster to murder babies.
Yet, here in Virginia, we see a bill to eliminate any language in the law that might restrict an any-time abortion. There is even the opening for rationalizing infanticide. And, again, that spokeswoman, in the interview, made it clear that she anticipated babies being put to death AFTER BEING LIVE BIRTHED!!
Progressivism, hard at work.