Yes, Virginia Democrats Really Do Want Abortion Up to 40 Weeks (and Beyond)

by Shaun Kenney

This November in Ohio, a referendum measure will be on the ballot that will not only enshrine abortion as a state constitutional right — the measure will eliminate parental notification and parental consent on any and all decisions about sexuality and gender in language so broad that it encompasses not just abortion but transgenderism as a question of “reproductive rights” — and it is coming to Virginia.

The Ohio referendum is sponsored not only by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, but also by an organization called URGE, and is backed by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) — two groups whose interest in pushing transgenderism is upfront and clear.

Already, several Virginia Democrats running for public office have been open about their support for these referenda, many of which will be on the ballot in 2024 in the hopes that they will boost Democratic hopes in the presidential elections.

The good news in Virginia is that our reticence about referenda is a long-standing practice designed to allow cooler heads to prevail. The General Assembly must approve the referenda twice in concurrent sessions in order for such items to be on the ballot.

Yet in over 30 states nationwide, Ohio is proving to be the test case not just for abortion on demand, but a broader effort by Planned Parenthood to apply personal autonomy to something far more broadly defined than abortion.

Should such legislation pass? Imagine a student who, after watching too much TikTok, decides they want to undergo gender reassignment surgery, or be pressured to have an abortion. Under the language of the Ohio amendment, parents would not only not have the right to either be notified much less consent to such an act, but parents would be legally prohibited from interfering in such cases — interposing government bureaucrats between parents and their own children.

Just in case anyone is confused about where Virginia Democrats really stand on this question, let’s ask former Governor Ralph Northam:

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.

If you don’t believe Ralph Northam, then why not ask those who work for the abortion industry directly — specifically, Delegate Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax).

When Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) questioned Tran on the consequences of her Repeal Act — HR2491 — which specifically repealed restrictions on third trimester abortions — Tran was at first cautious (ashamed?) to state facts, but after a few minutes of questioning, Tran got right down to brass tacks about her intentions behind the bill:

Under questioning from a House subcommittee, Tran said third trimester abortions would face substantially fewer restrictions.

“How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman,” asked subcommittee chairman Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah).

“Through the third trimester,” responded Tran. “The third trimester goes all the way up to forty weeks.”

Tran also clarified that abortion procedures would be allowed up until the end of a woman’s pregnancy.

“I don’t think we have a limit in the bill,” added Tran.

Tran’s testimony is precisely the meat of the matter — the very thing Virginia Democrats don’t want to run upon, but which Planned Parenthood is forcing them to defend.

Or at least, say in November what they say in January.

Of course, the loyal opposition at Blue Virginia is trying to memory hole all of this as if Virginia Democrats never supported abortion up to the point of birth — and in Northam’s case, possibly beyond:

So again, these lies aren’t just being pushed by a lunatic fringe on the far right, but by leading Republicans from Trump on down…and including Youngkin, Sears, etc. here in Virginia. It’s truly disgusting, and should be rejected by every voter in every election.

There’s a good reason why they are trying to push back against Planned Parenthood’s desired endgame in Virginia, precisely because abortion on demand isn’t supported by most Americans by a mile — it’s barbaric.

Gallup shows that 64% of Americans support some form of restrictions on abortion, with only 34% supporting abortion on demand. When asked where the line ought to be drawn — 6 weeks? 15 weeks? 24 weeks? — most Americans draw that line at the first trimester or just about 12-15 weeks:

When asked about the legality of abortion at different stages of pregnancy, about two-thirds of Americans say it should be legal in the first trimester (69%), while support drops to 37% for the second trimester and 22% for the third. Majorities oppose abortion being legal in the second (55%) and third (70%) trimesters.

Yet when pressed to put a number on where they would accept restrictions? Virginia Democrats cannot give an answer beneath 40 weeks.

Why?

Because Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby won’t let them accept any restrictions on abortion. Not even a little bit.

Which means that Planned Parenthood doesn’t even accept the present 28-week open season on babies currently in place in Virginia.

Nor do they accept European-style restrictions such as a first trimester open season on babies (no bag limit).

Nor will they tolerate parental consent. Nor do they tolerate parental notification. They want it all.

Virginia Democrats want abortion on demand, and not just abortion on demand, but a repeal of parental notification and parental consent in all matters regarding reproductive freedom — including transgender reassignment surgeries for minors — because that is precisely what they are backing in Ohio. This is not a secret; this is not even disputed seriously by those reading what the Ohio referendum says (pace Politifact whose sole task is to parrot rather than perceive).

This is what they want. They aren’t hiding the football in Richmond, just back home where such extremism — consistent though it is — is far more politically unpopular.

Notice that Virginia Democrats are doing everything in their power to make folks forget about the agenda they wanted while they were in power?

Look no further than State Senator Monty Mason out towards Williamsburg. One might think that by the way he is running his campaign that he is the conservative in that race.

Not that a soul is fooled by this.

The heavy-handedness in Loudoun and Fairfax Counties, the open push for transgenderism, the interposition of government between parents and children, the efforts to Defund The Police (TM), the violence and lawlessness of the “mostly peaceful protests” during 2020 — none of this has been forgotten by suburban parents and independent voters.

If 2017 was they year of the suburban mom, 2023 is shaping up to be the year of the suburban dad — just ask around.

Folks are fed up.

Give Planned Parenthood this much, though. At least they are being honest about where they are coming from and what they want. Virginia Democrats are doing all they can to argue how most abortions don’t even occur after 15 weeks. When pro-life groups ask if the line can be drawn there, Virginia Democrats recoil in horror. So much for safe, legal, and rare….

Longtime readers of mine will know that when it comes to incrementalist legislation and half-measures, I am a staunch opponent — not merely because I am Catholic, but because I believe that the foundation of any just and moral society consists of its willingness to defend the most basic and natural of human rights: the basic and fundamental right to exist.

For myself, even Virginia Republicans are soft on abortion. I’ve been critical of Governor Youngkin for being too soft on this question.

Pro-lifers who truly believe in the dignity of human life have a great deal of work to do in the public square convincing others that every human life — not just in law, not just by policy — deserves the basic right to exist. Our biopolitics, to borrow a term from the late philosopher Michel Foucault, has to take precedence over power and profit before we can get there in any meaningful way.

Yet upon this basic right to exist is predicated every other right — yes, even the right to personal autonomy. Unless we are willing to defend and uphold the dignity of each and every human person from their earliest and most defenseless moments to their last and arguably most defenseless moments, we are not by definition good.

My friends to the left will point to a whole host of public functions such as health care, education, academia, living wages, and so forth and ask where pro-lifers are in providing these things. We answer with an ocean of pregnancy resource centers, food banks, job placement and training facilities, private and parochial schooling, scholarships, and family networks that provide this care right now. Just because it isn’t provided by government doesn’t mean that it isn’t provided at all.

Unless we defend the basic right to exist, everything else boils down to the adjudication of power for its own sake. Life no longer remains something sacred, but rather is reduced to something useful — and too often is discarded when life becomes an inconvenience, whether it is abortion or education or health care up to euthanizing the elderly and poor.

I don’t begrudge Planned Parenthood one iota for being honest about what they intend and hope to achieve through their state amendments. If the right of personal autonomy is the highest good, then their position is internally consistent — even if misplaced because we ourselves are not ends unto ourselves.

Rather, one should begrudge Virginia Democrats for talking one way in front of their donors and another way to the public.

If they lack the fire of their own conviction and are willing to lie to Virginians about what they intend on matters of life and death, what else are they willing to lie to us about in the pursuit of raw power and ideological fanaticism? Who else are they willing to harm for an abstraction? What other impositions will Virginians be asked to tolerate in the name of diversity and inclusion, which has every intention of knuckling down conservatives in the name of secular gods?

If Virginia Democrats intend to build social justice on a pile of dead babies, best of luck campaigning on it. They should not expect to get away with lying about it in a post-Northam era — and Republicans should take every moment to remind Virginians what parts of their soul they are willing to cash out for a few much-needed campaign solicitations.

Republished with permission from The Republican Standard. 

Shaun Kenney is the Senior Editor for The Republican Standard.

 

 


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

105 responses to “Yes, Virginia Democrats Really Do Want Abortion Up to 40 Weeks (and Beyond)”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    What a bunch of hogwash! If Democrats wanted to enact abortion on demand up through the end of pregnancy, they would have done it in 2020 or 2021 when they had the majority in both houses.

    As to Steve’s point about almost all (about 98 percent) of abortions being performed at 15 weeks or before, I have made that point repeatedly in my criticism of what I see as the hypocrisy of Republicans on this issue. It would be logical for Democrats to agree with the 15-week limit. That would take away a key Republican attack such as Kenney’s, while doing very little to limit access to abortion. But, politically, they can’t give an inch on this. It is a consequence of our highly polarized society and aversion to compromise.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Well I talked to my (liberal) wife and she wants freedom for women. She feels Repubs want women to die after 15 weeks if a problem comes up. I believe liberal women want liberal time limits, and freedom to extend the time limit if the doctor and woman so decide based on other health factors. Liberal women feel 15 weeks is completely unacceptable constraint when coupled with Repub desire to clamp down on exceptions, now or in future attempts to control womens lives.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Well put.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Anyone who believes if the GOP gets elected to a majority they won’t go for tighter and tighter restrictions is smoking some good stuff! Yeah, they have some “moderate” GOP but once they are a majority, the “moderate” GOP are mere annoyances…

        Many/most liberals were okay with Roe… and it was not unrestricted by any means. Late term abortions WERE RARE, not common at all!

        After SCOTUS dispensed with it … look at what the GOP states are doing AND talking about National restrictions!

        In their heart of heats, (without election consequences), most GOP would implement draconian restrictions with some GOP woman not agreeing but getting slap run over anyhow.

        So you ask a GOP candidate what their position is on abortion and what you get ain’t exactly a clear answer… and for good reason. And they will lose as they should in some districts…over this fan dancing.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          So, your position is that both parties are being disingenuous.

      3. Not Today Avatar
        Not Today

        Is it really shocking that most women, who know other women, and know the frequency and horror of forced conception, pregnancy complications, and the physical toll of carrying to term, would cherish the ability to make reproductive decisions with their family and caregivers, not legislators, not elected officials, and certainly not randos on the Internet?

      4. Not Today Avatar
        Not Today

        Is it really shocking that most women, who know other women, and know the frequency and horror of forced conception, pregnancy complications, and the physical toll of carrying to term, would cherish the ability to make reproductive decisions with their family and caregivers, not legislators, not elected officials, and certainly not randos on the Internet?

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      “It would be logical for Democrats to agree with the 15-week limit.” Yes, Dick, it would. Or even 20. Why don’t they? What are they FOR? A 15-week bill is what is called a “compromise,” a word you and I agree is not a dirty word.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Because if they agree with the 15 week limit there is no platform for debate with the Republicans and they lose their best GOTV point for the chardonnay class in the exurbs.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          So very true, they no longer have their boogeyman to stir up the vote. That is in essence why they didn’t enact any legislation codifying abortion in the 50+ years after Roe was decided.

        2. Not Today Avatar
          Not Today

          No. Because if they accept that restriction they are accepting that women are/should be second class citizens who lose control of their bodies the moment someone impregnates them. Any complication resulting from consensual or non-consensual sex would result in permanent physical, emotional, and financial consequences for the woman or girl and her family. I don’t know why it’s a surprise that people are not lining up to support that level of government interference in personal decision making. Maternal and fetal medicine, and women’s healthcare outcomes, are suffering as a result of this extremism.

    3. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Kathy Tran certainly supported abortion on demand.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        He’s trying to argue two different points, he wrote an entire article attacking Youngkin for going with the 15 week ban. Now, he’s call others hypocrites.

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        And there is a Republican candidate for the General Assembly that is supportive of prohibiting all abortions. So, do we attribute the most extreme views of some party members to the entirety of their parties?

        1. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
          Ronnie Chappell

          You’re trying to have it both ways. Democrats will run in the next election against any restrictions on abortion in Virginia and portray their opponents as knuckle-dragging troglodytes who want to restrict the rights of women — even though lots of women favor restrictions. You seem to be okay with that. At least they’re not in comedian Chris Rock’s camp. He jokes that women should have the right to murder their babies up until they’e 4 years old.

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            I have not heard of any Democrats proposing no restrictions on abortions. What I have heard is opposition to changing the existing law and shortening the period in which abortions are allowed. And, no, I am not OK with that. As I have said before, I oppose abortion, except in cases in which the woman’s life is at risk.

            As for having it both ways, it seems to me that Youngkin and his Republican colleagues are trying to do that. With a ban on abortions after 15 weeks, they get to sound anti-abortion without substantively affecting the access to abortion in Virginia.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            We haven’t heard that because it’s simply not true. It’s made up by the GOP as justification for more restrictions.

            Most Dems were happy with Roe… which was NOT “unrestricted” and, in fact, the vast majority of abortions were not late term.

            This is totally something the GOP itself wants and if they could get away with it without election consequences, they would.

            You can bet if Youngkin takes the House and Senate, they’re going to try to do restrictions on the scale of what other GOP states have done.

            If a GOP candidate told the actual truth about what restrictions they actually would support if they won the House/Senate, many would not get elected… in most urban and suburban districts…

        2. So, do we attribute the most extreme views of some party members to the entirety of their parties?

          Some of you do – a couple of them even post comments at this site.

  2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Any good lawyer, including Justice Bader Ginsburg, knew that Roe v. Wade was science fiction. What should have been done to protect the right to an abortion and to condition those rights was for Congress to have passed a law. Both Bill Clinton and, especially, Barack Obama could have seen this happen during the first two years of their first terms. Both had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. Indeed, Obama had 60 Ds in the Senate, plus a few pro-choice Rs.

    Of course, they would have needed to use the power of persuasion (ala LBJ) to get a consensus bill that they could sign. The law would have been challenged but it would have been reviewed by SCOTUS with a different makeup than the current court. There would not have been a decision holding that it was a state issue.

    Moreover, the law could not have been repealed even when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress because of the Democrats’ ability to filibuster in the Senate.

    But the Washington elite being the POS it is and most journalists functioning at the level of middle schoolers, this reality is never discussed.

    1. Not Today Avatar
      Not Today

      There is a consensus when voters are directly asked vs laundering their voice through gerrymandered legislative bodies. The voters are speaking loudly and clearly with resounding majorities.https://newrepublic.com/article/174956/voters-stomping-anti-abortion-movement

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        Apparently, you don’t get it. Had either Clinton or Obama followed up on their campaign promises, they would shepherded abortion legislation through Congress during the first two years of their first terms in office. Had either had done this, there would have been no Dobbs case. Roe would have been supplanted by federal legislation protecting and regulating abortion. You cannot deny this.

        The law would have been challenged and review by SCOTUS, which had a very different makeup in the 1990s and early to mid-2010s. It is most certain that the law would have been upheld. You cannot deny this.

        And the filibuster would have protected the law against repeal by the GOP, even when it controlled both houses of Congress. You cannot deny this either.

        Of course, the MSM, being a waste of DNA never discusses this. But as many have pointed out, the caliber of today’s journalists is far, far below their predecessors.

        But who dares to criticize Clinton or Obama from lying to their women supporters who favored protecting abortion rights?

        1. Not Today Avatar
          Not Today

          I get it completely. But thanks for more mansplaining? They traded away the rights of women to preserve the votes of white men. Maybe because the VAST majority of ‘them’, both R and D, are men who put power above all, and assumed SCOTUS would never call their bluff, jeopardizing the lives and health of women and girls. Women in leadership tend to have more nuanced views, even conservative women like those standing strong in the SC State Senate. When we all get an equal say, stuff changes quick, fast, and in a hurry. The zealotry espoused here is not a majority view. The voters keep proving that over, and over, and over, and over again. This meme is applicable here. Y’all are about to find out. AGAIN. https://www.tiktok.com/@mcmlxix_/video/7211108362757426474?lang=en

          1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            This response is so pathethic it doesn’t even deserve a reply. Address the arguments.

          2. Not Today Avatar
            Not Today

            Yea, let’s address the specific arguments in this ‘article’. You’re trying your best (and failing) to deflect using the past and not addressing the CURRENT state of play referenced in this ‘article’. Find the lie in what I said. Find the lie in (primarily men @/male legislators) choosing not to act to preserve the rights of women. Find the lie in women, mostly quietly, choosing NOT to argue with men and voting (silently) against the positions you’re espousing vociferously and confidently. Find the lie in your position being beyond the pale for 6/10 Americans. FIND THE LIE. The only pathetic part of this is clinging to the mistaken belief that most people agree with you. They don’t. The voters have spoken and are speaking. Why does that frighten you so?

    2. Lefty665 Avatar

      Obama campaigned on codifying Roe, but backed off it once in office. He then said he would sign legislation if Congress sent it to him, but left it to Congress to do the heavy lifting. Congress not surprisingly did not, and instead put all of its efforts, with Obama’s urging on health care. It was one of his many shortcomings.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        I don’t know why he would’ve thought that he didn’t have to push it in Congress. They had already only waited 37 years and done nothing.

        The truth is, they didn’t want to codify it. That would mean they wouldn’t have a talking point while running their campaigns.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar

          You may well be right. The issue is more valuable to the Dems than the cause. That should be enough to give women pause about supporting being cynically manipulated by the Party. It does not seem to have sunk in.

          That was just one of a bunch of issues that drove my wife and me out of the Dem Party. We felt good about helping to turn Va blue in ’08, but by ’11 we were done and outta there.

        2. Lefty665 Avatar

          You may well be right. The issue is more valuable to the Dems than the cause. That should be enough to give women pause about supporting being cynically manipulated by the Party. It does not seem to have sunk in.

          That was just one of a bunch of issues that drove my wife and me out of the Dem Party. We felt good about helping to turn Va blue in ’08, but by ’11 we were done and outta there.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I’m cynical, I suppose. I also see it as that if they voted to codify it, that codification would come with set parameters which may not play well. With Roe, they always found a way around the 24 week, if it were codified that would be a crime.

  3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “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.”

    Once again, he is discussing an end of life scenario for a child born but having no hope of survival due to birth defects – it happens. He was clear about this and the continued misrepresentation of this quote is wearing.

    1. Not true.

      Nowhere did Northam say that the fetus in that instance was not viable. It’s not there. Look.
      Listen.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6WD_3H0wKU&t=2325s

      Yet he said it would be resuscitated “if that’s what the mother and family desired…”.

      Additionally, he didn’t talk about the impact of Tran’s proposed legislation. The safeguards, like multiple doctors and danger to the mother would have been removed.

      Under the state’s current law it is legal to terminate a pregnancy after the second trimester when its continuation is “likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.”

      Virginia law also states the operation needs to be done in a hospital, that three physicians have to certify the operation and that “measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must be available and utilized if there is any clear evidence of viability.”

      As reported by the Washington Post, Tran’s bill “would have required only one doctor. It would also have removed language requiring that the danger to the mother be “substantial and irremediable.”

      https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-virginia-gov-abortion/fact-check-virginia-governors-2019-comments-about-abortion-bill-are-missing-context-idUSKBN27D2HL

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        From the article you referenced:

        “Northam was referring to “third-trimester abortions” that are done in cases “where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s non viable” he said.”

        1. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          ComPost doing clean up work for its “allies”…as usual.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Reuters… and they are directly quoting Northam…. 🤷‍♂️

          2. I chose the Reuters article deliberately, because even within that article which was written to refute Republicans, there’s sufficient evidence to make the case that Governor Northham’s comments were offensive, inaccurate as to existing Virginia law, and could be taken to describe infanticide.

            To be accurate, Governor Northam should have addressed the issue of viability, and what must happen if the baby is viable.

            Please see my response to Eric.

        2. You need to read that quote again, as it doesn’t say what you think it does.

          “where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s non viable” he said.”

          Yes, there “may” be deformities and there “may” be a fetus that’s not viable. There might also be a viable baby in need of medical care.

          If you take the time to read the entire article, you will notice that it also includes this:

          Under the state’s current law, it is legal to terminate a pregnancy after the second trimester when its continuation is “likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.”

          As demonstrated above, some late term pregnancies are terminated because carrying the baby to term would endanger the mother.
          In those instances, once the baby is on its own, the baby no longer represents a danger to the mother.

          Did you notice this within the article?

          Virginia law also states the operation needs to be done in a hospital, that three physicians have to certify the operation and that “measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must be available and utilized if there is any clear evidence of viability.”

          If the baby is viable, the doctor is duty bound, and required by law, to render medical care, regardless of anyone’s feelings or preferences.

          Abortion advocates on this forum often talk about the need to listen to women with respect to abortion issues. That’s true, but those conversations should also include women like abortion survivor Melissa Ohden.

          Will you listen to her story?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GavV6dGC3s

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            just curious. In situations where they DO discover late term that the fetus is not viable/has very severe deformities – what do we do?

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “If the baby is viable, the doctor is duty bound, and required by law, to render medical care, regardless of anyone’s feelings or preferences.”

            Exactly, Northam said no different.

          3. You are not only putting words in his mouth that he did not say, you are also ignoring what he actually said.

            According to Governor Northam, the baby would only be revived if the mother requested it. That’s not correct.

            “The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired…”

          4. You are not only putting words in his mouth that he did not say, you are also ignoring what he actually said.

            According to Governor Northam, the baby would only be revived if the mother requested it. That’s not correct.

            “The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired…”

          5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You realize what resuscitated means don’t you? It is clear what Northam was referring to. I recognize that there are those who want to make him out as a supporter of infanticide. He is not. He is discussing a horrible situation for any mother to be in – to try to score political points during an election season off that pain is really inexcusable.

          6. Absolutely not.

            It was brought up because a Democrat introduced a bill to dismantle existing safeguards, and thereby create the potential for many more “horrible situations.”

          7. “You realize what resuscitated means don’t you?”

            Once again, the question is, do you?

            Newborn Resuscitation and Birth Injuries

            This transition from intrauterine to extrauterine life is the final, critical stage of childbirth. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of newborns (over 90%) complete this transition to independent breathing on their own without any assistance. However, 10% of newborns require some form of assistance to start breathing on their own and 1% require extensive medical intervention known as neonatal resuscitation.

            https://www.birthinjuryhelpcenter.org/newborn-resuscitation-injuries.html#:~:text=Fortunately%2C%20the%20overwhelming%20majority%20of,intervention%20known%20as%20neonatal%20resuscitation.

          8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            And in the context of a non-viable fetus, those born but not breathing may not actually be resuscitated depending on the parent’s wishes. It is the same a not resuscitating a terminally ill child. You can argue he should have been more precise (although it is clear about which he is speaking) but it was not a published press release. It was a radio interview. Sometimes precision suffers.

          9. Look, if the governor hadn’t totally messed up, I would acknowledge that. But this was a major screwup. There’s no getting around that, and frankly there’s no excuse for it either.

            The issue was in his wheelhouse, and he should have been the perfect person to help everyone understand. He’s a pediatric neurologist for goodness sake!

            Additionally, it was already a firestorm from the previous day. He had a day’s advance warning, and should have known that delicacy and precision were absolutely essential. That’s also part of the job of a pediatric doctor.

            Instead, if you are honest, you should admit that much of what you now understand about the multiple potential reasons for late term abortions, viability, existing Virginia law, etc. has been explained by me, not Dr. Northam.

            That’s crazy! There’s no excuse for him not to have given everyone a thoughtful thorough explanation, as well as his thoughts about the specific legislation at issue.

            Had the legislation passed, would he have signed it? We don’t even know that. It sure sounds like he hadn’t even bothered to find out what it was.

            Or if he wasn’t ready, then he should have said so and put out something later.

          10. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            The point of my comment was… and is… that Northam clearly was not advocating for infanticide but was instead discussing a scenario where the child is stillborn because of birth defects. The context is clear. My issue is with the repeated contention of some activists on the Right to say the opposite as was done here. It is simply disingenuous and I am pretty sure they know it.

            I honestly don’t know what would have happened had Northam used more precise language. Very likely those words would have been misrepresented by the Right as well… it happens quite often after all. And yes activists on the Left often do the same thing.

          11. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You have the point. NO matter how “precise” Northam might have been, the same folks would have pounced and the essential point is that that it’s simply not true what they accuse Northam of… then once you nail them on that.. they want to talk “precision”.

            We can’t get to any kind of a reasonable place on this issue when this is how it is conducted.

    2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      Eric are you willing to take medical advice from a man that once dressed as the clown on the right or the dummy on the left?
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/591a52c2cde98816c4d4cf65c79d7d07d2c6edfd0344a1fa0e5abff8102ede6d.jpg

      1. Under the rules set by “progressives” if there was a statue of him anywhere on public property we would have take it down…

        1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
          James Wyatt Whitehead

          Maybe if we have another beer with Uncle Ralph he will tell us which one is really him.

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Come on. Everybody knows. He is Michael Jackson …and was gonna do the moonwalk for us. I think the Klans(woman) is future wife, which is why she stopped him from doing the moonwalk, and why he changed his story the nexr morning. He got back to the Gov House and she let him have it – you stupid SOB, etc, etc…

          2. Lefty665 Avatar

            That was funny, she did physically intervene to keep him from moonwalking. Someone in the family has a little political insight. It was not, nor may have it ever have been, Ralph.

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          To what “rules” specifically are you referring? Can you provide a citation?

          1. It was joke.

            You are far too young to behave in such a curmudgeonly manner.

            😉

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I actually am not… 😉

          3. Well them curmudgeon away, sir…

          4. It was a joke.

            Do you have to be so right all of the time that you simply cannot stop yourself from making pedantic comments about every little thing that someone writes that might criticize, or even possibly be perceived to criticize, one of your far-left idiot heroes?

        3. Not Today Avatar
          Not Today

          What do non-existent statues have to do with abortion referenda in OH, and potential voter turnout in VA?

          1. Nothing at all. Why do you ask?

          2. Not Today Avatar
            Not Today

            Because you mentioned both in your post attacking, so
            -called progressives.

          3. You consider what I wrote an attack?

            Okay. This is one I’m going to remember for later.

        4. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Those rules don’t apply to their agenda champion’s, a “rules for thee, not for me situation”. It gets very complicated, doesn’t it.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Not taking medical advice from him at all, James. Where did you get that idea?

        1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
          James Wyatt Whitehead

          From you.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Sadly, you are mistaken, James…

      3. Not Today Avatar
        Not Today

        What does this have to do with abortion laws and referenda in OH? Northam is no longer Gov. This seems off topic.

        1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
          James Wyatt Whitehead

          Where do you think this hail storm began? I think my bombsight is right over the target.

          1. Not Today Avatar

            What target? This whole subthread is off topic. The Ohio referendum is going to pass. Virginia voters are not going in support of more abortion restrictions. And if the dems are successful in tying republican abortion proposals around their candidate’s necks (and I suspect they will be), Virginia’s laws will not change.

          2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            With sadness and regret I hang these statistics around the neck of the Blue Team. You can fill up half of Arlington National Cemetery with your trail of tears.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a4dbce209907f0b56438ab4e2d15570c248ead494df1ed5068f8512d4ef6a7e3.jpg

          3. Not Today Avatar

            Just in case my reply with links (so passive readers can learn more about the issues affecting women) is censored, I offer this sanitized version.

            Way to miss the memo. Women and girls, those people primarily responsible for children, are much more sensitive to the WHOLE picture…that is to say, the conditions legislators (mostly men) create.

            WIDEN YOUR LENS.

            We are more cognizant of the fact that guns are the leading cause of child deaths in America SEARCH: GUNS. CHILDREN. DEATHS. TIME.

            The fact that maternal mortality in the U.S. is skyrocketing (it was abysmal before the end of Roe) and now women are being treated HORRIBLY by the GYNs/providers still willing to practice under restrictions. SHOCKER: No one wants to die in childbirth and abandon their already born kids. SEARCH: MATERNAL. FETAL. MORTALITY. TIME.

            Women are more cognizant of and sensitive to the cost of childcare and the ‘Mommy’ track at work. SEARCH: WOMEN. INCOME. MOTHERHOOD. TIME.

            They are also suffering as a result of a huge increase in intimate partner violence. SEARCH: INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE. SEX. TIME.

            You grieve for lost babies. I grieve for sentient women and girls placed in impossible positions, who might like to make other choices, but feel unable to as a result of Republicans’ misogynist and anti-child policies. These policies are cumulative, and create an oppressive regime that denies women and girls agency.

            I cannot conceive of why anyone is surprised that women and girls make the choice to terminate a pregnancy.

            If you want fewer abortions, raise better and more thoughtful MEN. Address these issues. I’m doing my part. Are you?

          4. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            My vote vs. your vote.
            My keyboard vs. your keyboard.
            Battle lines are drawn.
            Keep on rocking in the free world.

          5. Not Today Avatar

            Indeed. Fortunately, the voters keep showing up on my side of this issue. I am not alone. Better luck next time.

          6. Not Today Avatar

            Indeed. Facts are stubborn things. Fortunately, the voters keep showing up on my side of this issue. I am not alone. Better luck next time. Maybe try addressing the underlying reasons why women and girls are refusing to give birth and parent when given a choice? Did you know women and girls are increasingly choosing sterilization and LARCs these days? It’s true. They don’t want to birth or raise kids in the current environment, created largely by men. What I see, as a woman past childbearing, is a society intent on making sure that women and girls cannot decline to be parents and cannot choose when to become parents. What I see is men intent on forcing their will on women and girls who have little/no recourse to protect themselves or their offspring if inseminated. What I see is a concerted effort to make sure that if/when male hegemony is imposed, women and girls have limited capacity and resources to fight back. We are fighting NOT to become Gilead.
            https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/what-does-the-recent-literature-say-about-medicaid-expansion-impacts-on-sexual-and-reproductive-health/
            https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2019/06/05/abortion-teen-pregnancy-decline-colorado

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    The one thing no Republican has yet to do is provide a quote where a Democrat ever claimed wanting the right to abort during or even just prior to birth. It’s a complete fabrication.

    Worked with a guy who had 5 kids. Wife died birthing number 6. Pretty sad. There was all the usual cards, donations, and “How sad,” and “Can’t imagine what he’ll do”. Later, it comes out her OB-GYN told them after 5 if she got pregnant it could kill her. Even when she became ill during number 6, she wouldn’t abort.

    I saw Deer Hunter.

    1. Nancy Naive:
      “The one thing no Republican has yet to do is provide a quote where a Democrat ever claimed wanting the right to abort during or even just prior to birth. It’s a complete fabrication.”

      Tran clearly thought her legislation would permit an abortion when the woman was already dilating. She said so herself. Check it out. It was only later that she backed off, having been told that would be infanticide which is “not allowed in Virginia.”

      Gilbert, posing a hypothetical and rare scenario, asked whether a woman that “is about to give birth” and “dilating” could request an abortion and be certified by a physician “if he indicated it would impair the mental health of a woman.” After hesitation, Tran responded her bill “would allow that.”

      Tran later corrected herself and told the Washington Post she had misspoken: “I should have said: ‘Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.’ ”

      https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-virginia-gov-abortion/fact-check-virginia-governors-2019-comments-about-abortion-bill-are-missing-context-idUSKBN27D2HL

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Keyword: wanting.

        Besides, in that scenario that woman will have to find a doctor to perform the procedure.

        1. Nancy Naive:
          “Keyword: wanting.”

          Huh?

          You just can’t admit the obvious because you threw out that challenge, and I answered it.

          If it was unwanted, she would have been horrified at the thought, and possibly offered to amend it. That’s not at all what happened. When questioned, she replied that her bill “would allow that.”

          Even after the firestorm, her clarification wasn’t on moral grounds. It wouldn’t be allowed “because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia.”

          Nancy Naive:
          “Besides, in that scenario that woman will have to find a doctor to perform the procedure.”

          I supplied exactly what your challenge asked for, so now you want to move the goalpost.

          You’re in a hole. Stop digging.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Hyperbole much? A woman with a pup in the birth canal requesting an abortion?

            Well, if you ban abortion because it’s murder then are you going to prosecute a woman for murder if she has an abortion?

            Do we issue SocSec numbers to the fetus? Do we test women leaving the country for pregnancy and upon returning to assure they didn’t take an American fetus to another country to kill it?

            Hyperbole. It’s fun, but moronic.

          2. Let’s recap.

            Nancy Naive issues a challenge, and I answered it. Now we get foaming at the mouth about anything and everything, to avoid admitting what happened.

            Not a good look.

          3. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Remember Kermit Gosnell never happened!

          4. Remember Kermit Gosnell never happened!

            I’m glad I’m not the only one who remembers that psychopath.

          5. Remember Kermit Gosnell never happened!

            I’m glad I’m not the only one who remembers that psychopath.

          6. Not Today Avatar
            Not Today

            Kermit Gosnell is dead. He’s not robbing women and and girls of their futures, fertility, or mental health. Republicans are. Stay with me, sir, in the here and now, WHERE ACTIVE MOTHERS live.

          7. Okay. “Active mothers” it is:

            I have a couple of questions for you:
            Do you ever give a thought to the rights of anyone other than the pregnant woman? Do you think a fetus which is viable outside its mother’s womb is a human being?

          8. Not Today Avatar

            Pregnancy is, literally and statistically, the most dangerous time in a woman or girl’s life and, contrary to the facile talking points many use, everyone doesn’t get a choice in whether or not they become pregnant– not just through rape and incest, but intimate partner violence, contraceptive sabotage, and coercion. Whether or not they remain pregnant is a decision each woman and girl should weigh free from my input/thoughts about their choices.

            Being pregnant, giving birth, and parenting for 19+ years, is financially, emotionally, and physically taxing under the best of circumstances. I would never force that upon anyone. And before someone expresses the grotesque idea that women serve as involuntary handmaids as a valid solution, no. Just no. Refer back to paragraph 1. PREGNANCY IN AMERICA IS DANGEROUS.

            Ours is a society that values the rights of children only when they’re connected to a womb and thereafter insists on personal responsibility. Republicans repeatedly demonstrate what little value they have for women, girls, children and pregnant people by failing to do anything that actually makes choosing to give birth and successfully parent children more likely: improve healthcare, affordable childcare access, school quality, school safety, affordable housing, VAWA enforcement, etc. Their ‘thought’ for children is inversely related to the child’s time/distance from the womb. They have no credibility on the abortion issue.

            All of that to say, I have MANY thoughts about the rights of women, girls and children. Do you? If so, you might start with this:https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text-childrens-version

  5. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    It is also vital that Republicans make clear what they are FOR, and if that is the 15-week proposal, then stand up for it. Senator Siobahn Dunnavant is running an excellent television ad spelling out that position. She looks right into the camera, talks about her work as an obstetrician, and spells out the circumstances when an abortion should be allowed after 15 weeks.

    It is in stark contrast with the attack run running against her. Democrat VanValkenburg has somebody else do the attacking, without any full name or identification. The claim is that Dunnavant is lying in her own ad and really wants to ban abortion totally. But it falls flat if you’ve seen both. Spell out what you are FOR and the other side cannot define you.

    Ironically, Blue Virginia made the case for the 15 week bill by pointing out correctly that the vast majority of the procedures, 90%+, now occur before even 12 weeks. By 15 weeks it must be creeping close to 100%. What would be the problem if the line was drawn there instead of the current 28 weeks?

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      The Republicans do need to clarify their position on the matter.

      1. Not Today Avatar
        Not Today

        Republicans are lost in their extremist weeds on this issue, refusing to acknowledge and wrestle with the harm they’ve already caused. They’re transparent.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      So, if the bill will not stop any abortions, what is the purpose of putting another law in place regulating the private relationship and decisions which should be between a woman and her doctor. A start down a slippery slope? A culture war win? Delivery of red meat to the base? Are these good reasons to pass such legislation?

      1. Yes! If a proposed law will not fix what its proponents say it will fix then it should be rejected.

    3. Not Today Avatar
      Not Today

      Believe Republicans can sing a different tune with credibility if you want. They said what they will do if elected. Party over people. Do whatever you need to tell yourself that you’re on the right side of this issue. Voters, on the other hand, are seeing through the noise and voting to uphold personal freedom.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Keep it up guys. Nothing gets Democrats votes like old white Republican men discussing women’s reproductive rights and their bodies.

    1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      Isn’t it about time for you to offer a vigorous defense of Clinton’s and Obama’s failures to keep their campaign promises to address abortion rights as an initial legislative priority?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Nope. If they had wrapped the 3rd rail in insulation, then youse guys wouldn’t be kissing it.

        1. So it’s really all just about power and politics eh?

          The concern for women – fake
          The righteous indignation – fake

          Thanks. That’s good to know.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Yep, and back at ya.
            Concern for fetuses – fake.
            Righteousness – well, that ain’t fake. It’s imposing religion.
            Health of the woman — the new bans have already maimed and killed women.

  7. Turbocohen Avatar
    Turbocohen

    “Unless we defend the basic right to exist, everything else boils down to the adjudication of power for its own sake. Life no longer remains something sacred, but rather is reduced to something useful — and too often is discarded when life becomes an inconvenience, whether it is abortion or education or health care up to euthanizing the elderly and poor.” Well, VA Republicans are too scared of suburban leaning dems to campaign on this bullet point.

    1. Not Today Avatar
      Not Today

      They’re afraid of SUBURBAN WOMEN of childbearing age and those who love them, justifiably so. For whatever reason, women see their own lives and health as sacred and valuable and refuse to grant men control over it.

    2. Not Today Avatar
      Not Today

      They’re afraid of SUBURBAN WOMEN of childbearing age and those who love them, justifiably so. For whatever reason, women see their own lives and health as sacred and valuable and refuse to grant men control over it.

    3. Not Today Avatar
      Not Today

      They’re afraid of SUBURBAN WOMEN, left and right, of childbearing age and those who love them, justifiably so. For whatever reason, women see their own lives and health as sacred and valuable and refuse to grant men control over it.

  8. Not Today Avatar
    Not Today

    Virginia Republicans espouse policies that would ensure women in this state are maimed, traumatized, and nearly killed just like in TX and force local 10 yos to give birth like OH, the exemplar state for Shaun. Abortion restrictions create notably worse health outcomes for women and girls. There’s a reason this issue continues to animate voters and the referendum will pass. I’m not sure why my comments DIRECTLY related to the ‘article’, with reference links (so folks can be MORE informed), are not making it past the censors but check my facts and find the lies. Stay classy BR!

    1. Abortion restrictions create notably worse health outcomes for women and girls.

      Virginia has abortion restrictions right now. Do you want to do away with them?

      1. Not Today Avatar

        Thanks for asking. No, I do not. I think Virginia’s current laws are reasonable. I would not support any change to them to mimic what is occurring elsewhere in America with tragic consequences.

Leave a Reply