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: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @08:57PM (8 children)
This isn't "I don't want my child" and besides -
No post birth abortion, incredibly rare situations, and you're what? Asking women to deliver a baby even though it will likely ruin their own lives and impact the child's life as well? I understand the anger over killing an unborn child but in this case the reverse is true, you want to demand that a woman seriously endanger her own life.
This journal reminds me of the shop I went into that had a news article posted on the wall about doctors basically doing this. Upon digging into the actual story it was about a super rare occurrence and ending the baby's life was actually a bit of mercy.
Step 1. Use brain
Step 2. ...
Step 3. PROFIT!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @10:52PM (7 children)
Well, at least you're right about "impact the child's life". The kid dies.
Look, at that stage, abortion has the same physical impact as a normal childbirth. (procedure: inject baby with poison, induce childbirth, chuck baby in trash) There is no medical condition that requires abortion in the third trimester.
Adoption is possible, so this all boils down to wanting a baby dead, dead, dead. Nobody else can have it. It must die.
Meanwhile, New Jersey just passed a law to protect pregnant cows from slaughter. Cows!!! Baby cows have a right to life, but baby humans don't.
Reagan had a great observation: all the people in favor of abortion have already been born. Hmmm. Oddly, they aren't killing themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @10:59PM
Actually, suicide of the mother has long been an effective abortion alternative.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @11:42PM (5 children)
Incorrect, and after a few mins of search the more common reason is that the baby is severely deformed and not viable. Again, this requires oversight from at least two doctors.
Tell me, are you ready to adopt and foot the medical bills of all fetuses that will likely die? Are you prepared to at least support universal healthcare which might take some pressure off of such decisions? I don't think money is too big a part here, these situations seem more tied to actual MEDICAL conditions, but put up or shut up.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @02:48AM (2 children)
By doing that abortion, you don't save the mother. She still has to birth her child, now dead. If anything, birthing a dead child will be far more traumatic, especially as a willing accomplice.
By doing that abortion, you don't save her child. This should be damn obvious. Being "not viable" doesn't mean you have to kill her child. That is also not the norm for these late abortions; most are perfectly viable.
You're worried about medical bills? Oh really... so you support letting parents kill teenagers that become expensive? If so, congratulations on the consistency, and it will be entertaining to see somebody push to legalize that. If not, then you really aren't worried about the medical bills. You just want the baby dead, dead, dead.
This, BTW, is literally what led to the holocaust. Somebody wrote a letter to Hitler begging for euthanasia of a relative, and then all sorts of mentally disabled people got killed, and it snowballed after that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @03:49AM
whatever you say dr. doom
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @05:33AM
What are you talking about? The bill specifically says, "3. Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage
mustshall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability." Viability is legally defined as when a fetus has a 50% chance of survival outside the womb. In addition, from what I've seen, Virginia seems to continue to follow the duty/requirement distinction for shall vs must. This means the protection for the fetus is arguably stronger, at least until Virginia transitions to the more "modern" interpretation rule, which is unlikely in a case affecting this statute.(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @08:11AM (1 child)
People get abortions in the third trimester all the time. The worst part is that many aren't even done for medical reasons! Of course, polite society calls them "inducements" and hardly ever talks about those done merely for the mother's convenience of just being done with the whole pregnancy thing or those done so the doctor and most of the hospital staff doesn't have to work on the weekend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @09:18PM
Wow. I'm honestly surprised that was marked as "troll." I thought it was a well established fact. For example, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/why-are-so-many-babies-born-around-8-00-a-m/ [scientificamerican.com]
Sure, the language is a bit strong, but so is the reaction to this law that doesn't allow for "post-birth abortion," which I think they mean as murdering a viable child after it is born, and explicitly creates a duty to use life-saving measures in abortions that occur after viability. Not to mention that after viability, the doctor's ethical duty legally includes the fetus as well. Most doctors are going to error on the side of caution, as it only takes one family member to tie you up in civil, ethical, and criminal litigation for years.