NY Times Circles The Wagons Over Virginia’s Infanticide Bill

Fortunately, and at least for the moment, the Virginia bill which would have codified infanticide at the moment of birth has been defeated. Remember, these are the same types of people who got all squishy over treating stone cold Islamic terrorists meanly. Babies, though? The Democrats are just showing their true stripes on the issue. And along comes Michelle Goldberg in the NY Times, which has this as the featured opinion piece on the web front page

Fake News About Abortion in Virginia

Under current law in Virginia, third-trimester abortions are permitted when a woman’s physician and two other doctors certify that continuing a pregnancy would result in a mother’s death, or “substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.” This week Kathy Tran, a Democrat in Virginia’s House of Delegates, testified in favor of a bill that would end the requirement for two extra doctors to sign off on such abortions, and strike the words “substantially and irremediably” from the existing law. Similar legislation has been introduced in past years. Despite what you might have heard, at no point did Tran try to legalize infanticide.

When Tran appeared before a statehouse subcommittee, the Republican majority leader, Todd Gilbert, presented her with an outré hypothetical. Could a woman about to go into labor request an abortion if her doctor certified that she needed one for mental health reasons? Tran said that the decision would be between a woman and her doctor, but, evidently taken aback by the question, eventually allowed that it would be permitted under her bill.

Tran handled the moment poorly. She might have pointed out that legislation is not generally written with an eye to prohibiting ridiculous and unprecedented scenarios. It is inconceivable that a doctor would certify a need for an abortion while a woman is in labor; some doctors won’t even let a woman turn down a C-section if they think a baby’s health is at risk. But Tran’s impolitic answer to a ludicrous question gave abortion opponents grist for an explosion of self-righteous outrage.

Oh, she just “handled it poorly”, which is LibSpeak for “she told the truth.” The vast majority of late term abortions are not to protect the mother: they are elective. Exactly what was the need to change the existing law on late term abortions if not to make it that much easier?

Michelle continues on for a bit, attempting to circle the wagons, ending with

Having extra doctors sign off on each late abortion safeguards against (mythical) cavalier terminations, but it means that women in anguished, urgent situations need to jump through extra hoops. Abortion opponents treat mental health exemptions as easily exploited loopholes, but one instance in which they’re invoked is when a woman learns that her fetus has little chance of surviving outside the womb, and can’t face the prospect of going through labor only to watch her baby die.

In other words, let the child die while it’s lying on a table.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

24 Responses to “NY Times Circles The Wagons Over Virginia’s Infanticide Bill”

  1. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    Oh my! This should be fun. Cheers!

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/northamblackface.jpg

    The governor’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday afternoon

  2. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    Coonman…
    https://bigleaguepolitics.com/ralph-northams-college-nickname-coonman/

    Coonman hates black cooties… refuses to shake hands with black man. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  3. formwiz says:

    We’re seeing the Left caught in its own traps. All the things they do to gain advantage are going to be used against them.

    Remember how so many people would say the Left destroys everything it touches?

    Looks like that includes them.

    • david7134 says:

      Look closely at the recent video made by Elizabeth Warren in her kitchen, downing a beer. On the upper shelf is academic of a big eye, fat lipped black man eating a watermellon.
      My wife and I have lived in the deep South for ever and never have seen anything as racist and belittling as that. Shows how racist these so called dogooders are.

  4. MSG Grumpy says:

    Dear NY Times, your statement “It is inconceivable that a doctor would certify a need for an abortion while a woman is in labor” is evidence that you have either chosen to ignore the real world or have chosen to lie with brazen fortitude in order to advance a cause. Have you never heard of the good Doctor Josef Mengele, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele. But,if you say that could never happen in a modern free society like the US, how about Doctor Kermit Gosnell, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell.

    If your morals allow you to kill the most innocent and defenseless among us, what exactly does your morals stop you from doing?

    Murdering six million inconvenient Jews,
    or six million inconvenient “counter-revolutionaries” in Cambodia?

    If government can legislate and make it lawful to kill the most innocent life among us just because that innocent is inconvenient for them, what makes you think that you are protected from the same type of consequence?

    MSG Grumpy

    • Jacob Noire says:

      Kermit Gosnell murdered babies, which is still against the law in all 50 states. The governments of PA or the US did not allow it.

      The Nazi murders of Jews, Poles, Roma, and the disabled is not related to legal abortion in the US. The atrocities of Mengele are also not related.

      We understand the reasons why anti-abortion activists wish to compare legal abortion in the US to the atrocities of Mengele, Gosnell and Pol Pot.

      Should the US enact laws forcing “ICU” or “intensive care” methods on dying patients with little or no hope of survival? Or should patients, doctors, parents, guardians have a say?

      Again, take the example of anencephalic babies (approx. 1 in 5000 births – most are spontaneously aborted before full term), born with no higher brain functions, no sight, insensate, with an expected natural life expectancy measured in days. Would you force by law that parents and hospitals hook the baby up to heart-lung machines and mechanical ventilators to keep the baby “alive” for weeks or even indefinitely? Or do you humanely treat the patient’s needs, providing hospice-type care to pass peacefully in the arms of a loving parent? These are difficult, heart-rending choices, and to my mind, not to be made by government.

      When god aborts a pre-term anencephalic fetus should government force the parents/doctors/hospitals to expend all means to try to keep the baby alive?

      If a woman in a second trimester pregnancy discovers her fetus is anencephalic, would you force her to carry to term (if possible) or would you allow her to obtain an abortion?

      As an aside, the incidence of babies born with severe neural defects, (e.g., anencephaly) has decreased due to improved pre-natal care and nutrition (folate in foods) among the poor.

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        Screech… screeeeech… snip, snip… https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • formwiz says:

        We’re talking healthy babies outside the womb, not 1 in 5000 births.

        And who are you, or the Commies of VA, to say their lives don’t have worth?

        Panna Jeffery would have been right alongside the SS murdering children with any manner of deformity back in the 30s.

        Scratch a Commie, you find a Nazi.

      • david7134 says:

        Jeff,
        I have delivered about 300 women as a medical student, in the old days. As a cardiologist I have had to make a judgement between who to save, mother or child and to determine if a woman needed an abortion to live. You on the other hand clearly have no idea of what you are talking about, as usual. I listened to the governor an was appalled at the measures being proposed and likewise the law pasted by New York. Certainly it is necessary to do the humane thing with badly deformed infants, but that is not what is coming across and what is clear is that Dems desire a system similar to exposing children in ancient times. I was ok with women having choses up to 6 months. By that time all deformities are apparent. But their trimester killing is pure murder. You are trying to make this seem to be less of a horror than what is the true nature of the ligislation. The more you comment, the more we can see how repulsive you are.

        • david7134 says:

          Jeff,
          One more thing that shows your ignorance and stupidity is when you say that a woman would not desire to carry a baby to term. Hate to tell you but that is the way things are. Women have to carry a dead child to term unless she is toxic. The reason is that it is far better for the woman to have her cervix dilated than to delivery via a closed cervix.

  5. […] The Pirate’s Cove – NY Times Circles The Wagons Over Virginia’s Infanticide Bill. […]

  6. formwiz says:

    You’re an ignorant vile f@ck. LOL.

    Most of what Con Men believe is untrue.

    That’s why Bathsheba gets her ass kicked so often. Because what we believe may nopt be true, but what we know is fact.

    dave also says you are wrong after watching the unedited video being circulated amongst the right-wingers.

    Is there any lie you won’t tell?

    He said nothing of the kind. I saw the actual vid.

    And you’re the one with all the lies. Now I know why they call you Jana, 2 faced all the time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6168 access attempts in the last 7 days.