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) by urza9814 on Tuesday February 05 2019, @02:12PM
The best way to immediately fix many of the issues with child support is with improved access to all forms of birth control, including abortion.
If you hit someone with your car, even if it's an accident, even if you aren't the one who got injured, you're still going to be paying at least part of the medical bills. This is no different...even if the pregnancy is an accident, even if you want nothing to do with it, you're still part of the cause and therefore partly responsible for the effects. Now, IMO, "I'm willing to pay for an abortion" (while one is still possible of course) ought to be an out -- if she doesn't want one, that's her choice and her responsibility. But that requires specific legislation, and such legislation would be seen as encouraging abortion and therefore would probably be unlikely to pass.
Another option is child insurance...although I'm not sure that our economy is quite in a state where that would be a workable scheme yet. But if society agrees that we need to encourage people to have children -- and based on existing regulation, from abortion restrictions to tax benefits, it seems that we do -- then one logical solution would be a pregnancy insurance, paid by tax dollars, which would pay the costs of child care. Of course, seeing how badly the existing foster care systems get abused by people trying to take advantage of similar payment schemes, I don't think we can quite make that work yet. Then again, it has some added efficiencies -- both in terms of having a single payer system for things like early childhood education, as well as the potential to bypass certain legal issues that make it harder to detect child abuse -- if the government pays for everything for that child, then it seems reasonable that the government could mandate annual physical exams and such which could help detect abuse or neglect. And of course the system would be voluntary, but if that means foregoing free education, healthcare, childcare, possibly even food and housing stipends, then I doubt may would opt out. Or it could be as simple as a UBI where the child gets one too, but I think that has a bigger abuse potential.
I think the more long-term solution is just going to be reproduction or complete child care (if we're talking a future with no human wombs necessary) as a profession. That also would probably need to be tax-supported, but it would be more like Brave New World where parents get replaced by a class of certified teachers and child care specialists. I realize Brave New World itself was intended to show a dystopian future, but I really do think we can do better at raising children than whatever idiot happens to knock someone up. Most of us can probably identify at least one parent who *really* shouldn't be raising kids; and it's an important enough job that maybe it ought to be left to a professional.