Quote:
The NY law repealed Section 4164 of the NY public health law. 4164 explicitly guaranteed that a child born alive had certain rights, such as the right to medical care from a separate doctor, that medical records of all attempts to save the baby had to be maintained, etc. Eliminating those guarantees allows babies who survive abortions to be allowed to die by withholding medical care. That's infanticide.
No it isn't. There is a reasonable debate to be had about whether the safeguards should be removed, but removing the safeguards does not make infanticide legal. Infanticide is murder or manslaughter. If you look at the criminal statute on burglary, it doesn't say, "and once you break into the house, if you kill someone it is murder". It is covered by the murder statute. Not mentioning killing someone in every law doesn't legalize it. Eliminating those guarantees in the law does not allow babies who survive abortions to be allowed to die unless those involved want to risk prosecution under murder or manslaughter statutes or at minimum medical malpractice charges and loss of license.
Rightly or wrongly, the concern among those that wish to change the laws in this fashion is that lawyers and politicians become involved in a medical decision. It is not that they wish to allow infanticide. More on this below.
Quote:
Virginia...I don't have time to look it up - and I don't remember the exact language - but the bill's sponsor was caught on film effectively saying the bill would allow born alive babies to be terminated. (that's my admittedly very loose summary). The governor subsequently choose words that most people understood to say would allow the mother and doctor to decide what to do with a baby that survived an abortion (i.e., terminate it). That's infanticide.
I told you the language. Feel free to look it up when you have time. The bill's sponsor was not "caught on film effectively saying the bill would allow born alive babies to be terminated". That is more than a "loose" summary. It is a completely incorrect summary. First of all, she wasn't "caught on film". She was testifying in legislative committee. A legislator was questioning her about the impacts of her bill. The question was not whether a born alive baby could be terminated. The legislator (in my opinion correctly) was questioning the impact of the change in the standard adding the mental safety language and reducing the number of doctors to one from three. What he got her to say was that because the existing law and the bill allow for an abortion in the third trimester, and neither defined an end point to the third trimester, that a woman who is dilated and starting labor is still in the third trimester so one doctor could authorize an abortion on a woman starting labor for mental risk. It was never said that a baby born alive could be left to die. You can easily find the video. And to that point, I'm not sure she is correct about that. It seems to me a defect in the law that the end of the trimester is not defined. So it is a matter of interpretation whether a woman in labor is still in the third trimester or if the third trimester ends once labor starts. But, by the way, that is a defect existing in the law, not the proposed bill. It still exists. If you were to ask the same question of the existing law, the answer would be the same. You just need 3 doctors to do it and there is no mental risk standard that could be applied.
As for Northam, no that is not what "most people" understood. That is what "most people" predisposed to that position thought. I can tell you that most people predisposed to my position do not understand it that way. The question and answer are below:
Reporter: There was a very contentious committee hearing yesterday when Fairfax County Delegate Kathy Tran made her case for lifting restrictions on third-trimester abortions, as well as other restrictions now in place. And she was pressed by a Republican delegate about whether her bill would permit an abortion even as a woman is, essentially, dilating, ready to give birth. And she answered that it would permit an abortion at that stage of labor. Do you support her measure? And explain her answer.
Ralph Northam: You know, I wasn't there, Julie, and I certainly can't speak for Delegate Tran, but I would tell you one, the first thing I would say is this is why decisions such as this should be made by [healthcare] providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable. 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 that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion
Firstly, Northam is an idiot and should know to assume nothing and be very precise in his language when he talks about a charged issue like abortion. But I would argue that those arguing that he meant committing infanticide are reading it in a vacuum and not reading it in the context of circumstances he is referring to. Actually, I don't think they are reading it in a vacuum. I think they are reading it in light of a belief that some people just love abortions and baby killing. Northam is a doctor. In the real world, no one carries a baby to term, goes into labor, and then says, hey Doc, I want an abortion. Every single time this happens, you have a mother who like an hour before thought and hoped she was delivering a healthy baby. Tragedy has struck. Either the fetus is dying or the mother is in serious jeopardy or both. Those parents want that baby to survive. Northam references severe deformities and non-viability. He talks about it being done with the consent of the mother AND more than one physician. What is going on in that room is not a mother and father deciding whether they feel like taking care of a baby and if they decide no, let it die. What is going on is two parents who wanted a healthy baby have been presented the tragic circumstance of having to decide what to do about a dying baby that will never live. Do they resuscitate if the baby expires? Do they hook it up to life support? All the questions you have to face when a loved one is in the hospital dying. Only no one takes interest in it if it is a regular adult. I do have to say in Northam's defense, you kind of don't think people are going to think you are openly talking about murdering a human, so you don't usually think you have to be clear about that.
There is a reason why people predisposed to being more concerned about the mother propose laws like these two. They do not want politics to interfere with a medical decision that is being made by a couple and their doctors under tragic circumstances. I can tell you from my family there is right to be concerned. My mother had three children in her life. She also had miscarriages. Between her second and third child, she had a medical emergency. My father was told by the doctor "the baby is already gone. We could lose the mother also if we don't abort. What do you want to do?" My father and mother made the only reasonable decision available. In California at that time, the doctor had to go to the hospital board. The lawyers said no. The doctor was incensed. As an added complication, my mother had delivered twice by C-section already. At that time, the standard practice was on 3rd c-section, they tied the mother's tubes because they believed any more would be dangerous. So in addition to her life being in jeopardy, my mother was faced with not being able to have any more children because she was required to take a dead fetus to term. The decision was taken completely out of the hands of my parents and the doctors for political and legal reasons. The "good news" is that my mother miscarried early enough in pregnancy that a c-section was not necessary. She went on to have a third child that would annoy people on sports boards with longwinded and prolific posting. However, I will tell you that decades after that, I heard her crying over that baby having seen it while she miscarried. Something that never needed to have happened.
It is people like my parents that these laws are proposed for. People who experience tragedy and who have that tragedy made worse by outsiders who interfere for their own political, legal or moral reasons. Absolutely there are two sides to that issue. I understand the desire to balance protecting the almost fully formed fetus or the new born. That being said, for the most part that is mainly "necessary" because of the demonization of doctors and pro choice people that allows pro-life people to think that parents and doctors actually want to terminate late term fetuses or even worse let live babies die. This is not a first trimester abortion done by someone who doesn't want the baby. People are not having late term abortions because they want them.
The arguments about these laws being infanticide have been debunked over and over. Literally no one wants to legalize infanticide. If they did, how do you think that would play politically to the 99%+ that would be horrified. I'm sorry, but when someone accuses the other side of something not only so horrible, but so stupid, you should seriously question it. Frankly, it is a sign that all perspective has been lost that anyone actually believes that infanticide is part of the debate.
