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: 1) by Sulla on Friday February 01 2019, @12:08AM (2 children)
Interested in discussing this
How about
Abortion is fully deregulated
Hospitals/Physicians cannot be compelled to participate in an abortion or prevent an abortion from happening
Fetus can be aborted at any stage for any reason or no reason
Tax dollars can not go to fund abortion as you cannot compel a person to pay for something against their wishes
Insurance companies can choose whether or not they will provide coverage
Legal rights are granted upon exiting the womb
If a pregnant woman is murdered/involuntary manslaughter/etc, the charges can only be against the woman
I stumble with Human/God given rights. I was going to suggest the legal stipulation that Human Rights are granted when the fetus crosses the womb as a threshold. But I really hate the term "human rights" and man cannot stipulate "god given" rights. Seems dangerous to play with what is / when human rights can and cannot be extended, easier to go with "god given" even if I don't believe in a god because that takes it out of mans ability to change on a whim. I'll go with "legal rights" for now.
Thoughts?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Friday February 01 2019, @06:07AM
Human rights are the rights that the Declaration of Independence says are "endowed by their Creator." This is neutral or even Deist language, there is no presumption to tell us who or what is ultimately our Creator; the point is that given our form of existence, these things follow, so whomever or whatever gave us that form of existence, may also be said to have given us those rights.
Human rights, G_d given rights, whatever you want to call them, the point is that they are not granted by the legal system, not granted by the government, not granted by other men. They are inherent, they may be respected or violated, but no one can nullify them or revoke them.
I'll give you that if you think a fetus is a child, then they couldn't be waived. A mother can't consent to the murder of her child, it's absurd. This is what makes that misunderstanding a poison pill for the entire notion of rights. If you accept that equivalence then ultimately I don't see any way to hold onto what we think of as western civilization at all; the entire structure is ultimately rendered untenable as we go down the logical path from there.
But a fetus isn't a child. Any more than a caterpillar is a butterfly. I often hear the term "unborn child." A term invented by propagandists, it's a parallel construction to 'undead corpse' and one is exactly as likely as the other to occur in reality rather than a work of horror fiction. They are self-destroying terms. Corpses are dead, children are born, the human body becomes individual at birth, and ceases to be animate at death, only in between those two events can the notion of rights granted by the Creator really make sense.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 01 2019, @07:58AM
Canada has no abortion laws, well the regular laws about practicing medicine and such. Fetuses have no rights as they are not legally human until birth. Hospitals, along with the Provinces that run the hospitals do have regulations and can decide on which medical procedures they allow, for example my local hospital doesn't do births along with a lot of types of surgery, probably including abortion. It seems to work generally though there are Provinces (actually one I believe) where abortions aren't available, some Provinces are small. Never heard of late abortions, at least without a compelling reason and generally we don't have a large number of abortions due to sex education and birth control being available, 2.23/1000 compared to the US, 4.17/1000 in 2003, rates seem to be dropping in both countries.
Tax dollars do pay for many (most?) abortions, just like they pay for a lot of stuff against some tax payers wishes.
The courts do seem to frown on attacks on pregnant women and are likely to be harsher on sentencing but legally, it is the women attacked.
The reason we have no abortion laws is based on the Right of Security of Person, which is the right the Supreme Court used to strike down the abortion laws back in 1988. Governments are reluctant to even talk about abortion laws, we had some high profile jury nullification's on the subject back in the '70's and the people were very unhappy when the government appealed and over rode those nullifications (no double jeopardy right until '82 when we repatriated the Constitution and added the Charter of Rights)