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, @03:51AM (9 children)
"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."
I made the mistake of opening the bill in the browser, and began parsing the language of the bill. That would take much more time than I have right now since work calls. I looked back at the journal entry, and there is the answer, staring me in the face.
1. the infant would be delivered
2. the infant would be kept comfortable
3. the infant can be resuscitated
4. then a discussion takes place to determine if the mother wants to keep the child
5. is unstated - the infant can be put to death if that's what the mother decides
Note the use of the term "infant". The authors are perfectly aware that they have moved from the legal gray areas of abortion, into infanticide.
If/when we legalize infanticide, how long until we legalize human sacrifice more generally?
I note the use of "40 weeks" in the title of the article. A very quick search offers 38, 39, and 40 weeks as typical lengths of human gestation, and one link suggests that pregnancies vary as much as 5 weeks. That matters little though, as few women can determine with accuracy exactly when they were impregnated. What matters is, the infant might be a week old, or two weeks, maybe even a month old, when someone decides to put it to death.
This is most definitely infanticide, and not embryocide.
Is this where our society is going? I don't really believe in hell, but I sure hope that Margaret Sanger is burning in hell.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @05:36AM (1 child)
Infanticide, eh? Guess I must have missed this part:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @03:29PM
And then a discussion will ensew
What about?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @05:56PM (5 children)
https://reason.com/blog/2016/10/21/late-term-abortions-in-america-2016 [reason.com]
They rag on Trump a little bit but that is fair since he stuck his fat face out there spouting anti-abortion propaganda to pander to his base. Most other sources are christian sites with more uninformed propaganda and I wasn't going to spend all morning looking for one without any political mentions.
Aside from the political angle the article goes over the stats and brings some more common sense into the discussion.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 31 2019, @07:07PM (4 children)
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.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Thursday January 31 2019, @11:11PM
The statistic references all abortions put together that occur after the 20-21st week (see here [wikipedia.org]). The extremely low number is because those are virtually always where the mother finds out that the fetus/infant will die during birth or shortly after being born due to catastrophic malformations. In those cases, intact D&E ('partial birth' abortion) [wikipedia.org] is often used so the mother can hold the fetus/infant to help her grieve the loss. The head is only collapsed (in which case it's partial) if hydrocephalus or other malformations make it too large to pass through the birth canal.
Are mothers "monstrous" for deciding to not spend weeks or months carrying a terminal fetus that is guaranteed to either be stillborn, die mid-birth, or die shortly after birth, and that they fear will suffer in the process?
Considering the woman's phrasing, it sounds more to me like she's referring to the terminal cases like those: parents who choose to continue the pregnancy to the end and give birth then decide how much medical intervention to allow, or whether to go with palliative care only. (I mean, think about it: if you are going to abort a pregnancy, why on Earth would you go through the 7-9 miserable months of being pregnant, give birth, then kill it and debate whether to resuscitate it? There's just something too logically flawed about that sequence to make any sense.)
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 01 2019, @08:09AM
Canada has no abortion laws (besides the usual about practicing medicine and such that cover all medical procedures) and fetuses have no rights, and I've never heard of late stage abortions though they may happen with really deformed fetuses. Just because it is legal doesn't mean Doctors are going to do it or hospitals/private clinics are going to allow it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 01 2019, @06:00PM (1 child)
Anyone who's spent time around other people's crotch-spawn knows that children are not human.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 01 2019, @06:08PM
Does that mean fucking a child is mere bestiality?
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Tuesday March 26 2019, @12:04AM
The Government is a Bird