Virginia Gov. Northam faces backlash for comments on 3rd-trimester abortion bill: 'Morally repugnant'

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Adam Shaw | Fox News


https://i.imgur.com/26q0PHul.jpg

Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam came under fire Wednesday after he waded into the fight over a controversial abortion bill that one sponsor said could allow women to terminate a pregnancy up until the moment before birth -- with critics saying Northam indicated a child could be killed after birth.

Northam, whose office is now pushing back on those claims, appeared on WTOP to discuss The Repeal Act, which seeks to repeal restrictions on third-trimester abortions. Virginia Democratic Del. Kathy Tran, one of the sponsors, sparked outrage from conservatives when she was asked at a hearing if a woman about to give birth and dilating could still request an abortion. The bill was tabled in committee this week.

“My bill would allow that, yes,” she said.

Northam, a former pediatric neurologist, was asked about those comments and said he couldn’t speak for Tran, but said that third-trimester abortions are done with “the consent of obviously the mother, with consent of the physician, multiple physicians by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities or there may be a fetus that’s not viable.”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkTopSKo1xs

“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.”

The intent of his comments was not clear. But some conservative commentators and lawmakers took his remarks to mean he was discussing the possibility of letting a newborn die -- even "infanticide."

“This is morally repugnant,” Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said in a statement to National Review. “In just a few years pro-abortion zealots went from ‘safe, legal, and rare’ to ‘keep the newborns comfortable while the doctor debates infanticide.’ I don’t care what party you’re from — if you can’t say that it’s wrong to leave babies to die after birth, get the hell out of public office.”

Wednesday evening, Northam tweeted: "I have devoted my life to caring for children and any insinuation otherwise is shameful and disgusting."
1090782184582000640
Northam Communications Director Ofirah Yheskel said GOP critics were "trying to play politics with women's health" -- and sought to clarify:

"No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor's comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor. Attempts to extrapolate these comments otherwise is in bad faith and underscores exactly why the governor believes physicians and women, not legislators, should make these difficult and deeply personal medical decisions."

Former Sen. Jim DeMint called Northam’s remark’s “evil.”
1090673337058111488
“VA Gov Northam is no moderate, this is one of the most vile, radical pro-abortion positions ever put forward. This is evil. He should recant or resign,” he said.

The effort in Virginia follows New York passing a bill last week loosening restrictions on abortion, as New Mexico, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington also pass new laws expanding abortion access or move to strip old laws from the books that limit abortions.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo last week directed the One World Trade Center and other landmarks to be lit in pink Tuesday to celebrate the passage of "Reproductive Health Act." Under that legislation, non-doctors are now allowed to conduct abortions and the procedure could be done until the mother's due date if the woman's health is endangered or if the fetus is not viable.

The previous law only allowed abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman's life was at risk.

[DemonGeminiX]

I agree with Jim Demint. This, and the new NY law, is really fucked up.

[Muddy]

I read the original transcript and from what I read, I don't disagree with him.. Once you remove the bullshit politi-religi-spin, this is what you have left.

"in cases where there may be severe deformities or there may be a fetus that’s not viable."

[RBP]

I read the original transcript and from what I read, I don't disagree with him.. Once you remove the bullshit politi-religi-spin, this is what you have left.

"in cases where there may be severe deformities or there may be a fetus that’s not viable."

But does the law preclude other circumstances, or does it just assume that would be no abuse of the law? Why would they have to discuss what should happen if a botched abortion results in a live birth?

"Life" of the mother devolved to "health" of the mother devolved to "mental health" of the mother, devolved to any "potential mental stress". That's already happened.

It's unseemly. They know, or can know, far before the third trimester if there's an issue.

[Muddy]

But does the law preclude other circumstances, or does it just assume that would be no abuse of the law? Why would they have to discuss what should happen if a botched abortion results in a live birth?

"Life" of the mother devolved to "health" of the mother devolved to "mental health" of the mother, devolved to any "potential mental stress". That's already happened.

It's unseemly. They know, or can know, far before the third trimester if there's an issue.

Im only speaking about the context of this.. "in cases where there may be severe deformities or there may be a fetus that’s not viable." This is really buried in a lot of articles on this and its definitely buried on the quotes of the people on insta and twitter trying to rally the troops.

[RBP]

Im only speaking about the context of this.. "in cases where there may be severe deformities or there may be a fetus that’s not viable." This is really buried in a lot of articles on this and its definitely buried on the quotes of the people on insta and twitter trying to rally the troops.

But that is as much conjecture as the other side, is it not? "No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances" is grossly inaccurate.

[DemonGeminiX]

Severe deformities does not necessarily imply not viable. What if the child has severe deformities yet can survive long term after birth. As RBP stated, doctors would know well in advance of the third trimester if something is wrong, so suppose for the sake of argument, that a woman is carrying and she finds out before the third trimester that the child will be born deformed but capable of surviving after birth, decides to follow through with the pregnancy, and then changes her mind right before birth? Sure, it's an extreme example, but with a law like this, it's entirely possible.

[RBP]

I am absolutely stunned with the number of times I have argued FOR Roe v Wade.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

I think you should be able to abort up until 18 years

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I think you should be able to abort up until 18 years

Exactly...kid's 15 and not turning out like you wanted? Abort them. :thumbsup:

I think it would give kids a reason to fucking behave and do what they're told by their parents :-k

[RBP]

I think you should be able to abort up until 18 years

You joke, but the argument that a child can be killed up to the point it can prove it is "sentient" is not that uncommon. They usually argue around 2 years old.

[RBP]

The other problem with this debate is procedures that kill the fetus but do not abort it. Technically, injecting the fetus to kill it and aborting after the death, is not a live abortion.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Whatever keeps them off the dole

[Hal-9000]

I find it interesting the difference an hour can make.

Talking about a late stage trimester abortion vs an immediate post birth abortion.

Touching on what Muddy and DGX said, I think there should be a proviso if the child is severely deformed. Viability is a prediction and doctors can only be so accurate.

Maybe potential quality of life is a better term?

Hardcore yes, but if the parents are going to spend additional thousands and the child will never know happiness, is this post birth type of action more sympathetic than heinous?

I believe the parents are the only ones who can make a choice along with an honest appraisal from a doctor.

[DemonGeminiX]

Honestly, it's not couples that are the issue here, it's irresponsible single women having unprotected sex, getting knocked up, and then getting abortions when they don't want to live with the consequences of their stupidity.

[Hal-9000]

I'd hate to be an obstetrician and know that the fetus is going to be deformed to the point where the parents will have to give it 24/7 care for life.

On the one hand you're a doctor, do no harm and all life is precious. On the other hand, the fetus may be a human by definition but have so many problems with survival and mere awareness, that every day is a sad trial for the parents trying to look after it and keep it alive.

[RBP]

"Life" of the mother devolved to "health" of the mother devolved to "mental health" of the mother, devolved to any "potential mental stress". That's already happened.

I confirmed that this provision is in the New York law. Health of the mother as defined by the abortion provider. To me, that means no restriction. And that's morally wrong.

[Godfather]

Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam came under fire Wednesday after he waded into the fight over a controversial abortion bill that one sponsor said could allow women to terminate a pregnancy up until the moment before birth -- with critics saying Northam indicated a child could be killed after birth.

Northam, whose office is now pushing back on those claims, appeared on WTOP to discuss The Repeal Act, which seeks to repeal restrictions on third-trimester abortions. Virginia Democratic Del. Kathy Tran, one of the sponsors, sparked outrage from conservatives when she was asked at a hearing if a woman about to give birth and dilating could still request an abortion. The bill was tabled in committee this week.

“My bill would allow that, yes,” she said.


I'm pro choice but this seems completely unreasonable.

I have some experience with friends who had first trimester abortions when their birth control and even the morning after pill failed. I'm in favor of their right. I have personal experience with pregnancies aborted due to deformities (close friend had an ectopic pregnancy for example) and support that right. And my wife and I personally plan to have the full range of tests and would likely abort ASAP if there was an issue like Downs.

But third trimester? That's way, way too far along IMO. A fetus can be viable as early as 23 weeks which is late second trimester. It's a slippery slope for a dummy like me (or most politicians for that matter) to pretend I have a clue what I'm talking about, but if you haven't had the tests and made a decision for personal reasons in the first trimester, and medical reasons in the second... I think you have to let nature take its course. My mind is fairly open on the timelines as I think doctors and patients should ultimately decide, but if this debate is now to the point of talking about someone who is dilated aborting that's a hell no from me.

[RBP]

I'm pro choice but this seems completely unreasonable.

I have some experience with friends who had first trimester abortions when their birth control and even the morning after pill failed. I'm in favor of their right. I have personal experience with pregnancies aborted due to deformities (close friend had an ectopic pregnancy for example) and support that right. And my wife and I personally plan to have the full range of tests and would likely abort ASAP if there was an issue like Downs.

But third trimester? That's way, way too far along IMO. A fetus can be viable as early as 23 weeks which is late second trimester. It's a slippery slope for a dummy like me (or most politicians for that matter) to pretend I have a clue what I'm talking about, but if you haven't had the tests and made a decision for personal reasons in the first trimester, and medical reasons in the second... I think you have to let nature take its course. My mind is fairly open on the timelines as I think doctors and patients should ultimately decide, but if this debate is now to the point of talking about someone who is dilated aborting that's a hell no from me.

I don't care to go down your rabbit hole, but I believe Canada has no restrictions on abortion.

[Hal-9000]

I'm pro choice but this seems completely unreasonable.

I have some experience with friends who had first trimester abortions when their birth control and even the morning after pill failed. I'm in favor of their right. I have personal experience with pregnancies aborted due to deformities (close friend had an ectopic pregnancy for example) and support that right. And my wife and I personally plan to have the full range of tests and would likely abort ASAP if there was an issue like Downs.

But third trimester? That's way, way too far along IMO. A fetus can be viable as early as 23 weeks which is late second trimester. It's a slippery slope for a dummy like me (or most politicians for that matter) to pretend I have a clue what I'm talking about, but if you haven't had the tests and made a decision for personal reasons in the first trimester, and medical reasons in the second... I think you have to let nature take its course. My mind is fairly open on the timelines as I think doctors and patients should ultimately decide, but if this debate is now to the point of talking about someone who is dilated aborting that's a hell no from me.

I'm not going to push on a subject like this because it's such a personal choice, but you said you would have tests to determine Down Syndrome and abort it if similar was found.

Doesn't that fall into the category of when is a baby a baby? Meaning if they can determine a fetus has a defect, isn't it already a fetus?

Don't get me wrong GF, despite my posts I believe there's two phases to the formation of an embryo...sperm attaching to egg pre-phase (globby) and then formation of embryo (baby). Those two phases aren't far apart in terms of hours/days/weeks and I don't know what that dividing line actually is.

Summary of jumbled thoughts - Is a third trimester baby any more viable than a 10 week baby, other than the fact it's more well developed? It's still a baby at both phases, no?

***I'm not a pro-lifer, I'm pro-choice. Just where I cut off that choice is still a mystery to me. Thank God I'm not a woman.

[RBP]

I'm not going to push on a subject like this because it's such a personal choice, but you said you would have tests to determine Down Syndrome and abort it if similar was found.

Doesn't that fall into the category of when is a baby a baby? Meaning if they can determine a fetus has a defect, isn't it already a fetus?

Don't get me wrong GF, despite my posts I believe there's two phases to the formation of an embryo...sperm attaching to egg pre-phase (globby) and then formation of embryo (baby). Those two phases aren't far apart in terms of hours/days/weeks and I don't know what that dividing line actually is.

Summary of jumbled thoughts - Is a third trimester baby any more viable than a 10 week baby, other than the fact it's more well developed? It's still a baby at both phases, no?

***I'm not a pro-lifer, I'm pro-choice. Just where I cut off that choice is still a mystery to me. Thank God I'm not a woman.

Fair question, and the one that people struggle with. I have settled on the Roe v Wade standard. If it can live outside the womb, you can't kill it.

Mind you, people who kill pregnant women get charged with 2 homicides. Not any more.

[Hal-9000]

Fair question, and the one that people struggle with. I have settled on the Roe v Wade standard. If it can live outside the womb, you can't kill it.

Mind you, people who kill pregnant women get charged with 2 homicides. Not any more.

Does Roe vs Wade have a week limit to getting the abortion? Why can I remember something about it being legal up to so many weeks, after that legit clinics won't do it :-k

[RBP]

Does Roe vs Wade have a week limit to getting the abortion? Why can I remember something about it being legal up to so many weeks, after than legit clinics won't do it :-k

The standard is viability. In 1973 that was assumed to be 24 weeks. Fair to say that technology has shortened that, but I don't know if there's a new viability standard.

[Hal-9000]

The standard is viability. In 1973 that was assumed to be 24 weeks. Fair to say that technology has shortened that, but I don't know if there's a new viability standard.

Yeah I don't think much of the term. Viable to me could apply at 2 weeks but then again I'm from a different galaxy.

so 24 weeks, thanks :thumbsup:

[RBP]

Yeah I don't think much of the term. Viable to me could apply at 2 weeks but then again I'm from a different galaxy.

so 24 weeks, thanks :thumbsup:

If there was current technology that could made a 2 week zygote survive outside the womb that would be the standard.

[Hal-9000]

If there was current technology that could made a 2 week zygote survive outside the womb that would be the standard.

So the definition of viable is that they can tear out a fetus at 24 weeks and keep it alive?

Geez that sounds like Mengele shit...and don't get me started on that! Just heard part 2 of that podcast outlining his experiments and the things he did to infants, children and pregnant mothers...damn.

[RBP]

So the definition of viable is that they can tear out a fetus at 24 weeks and keep it alive?

Geez that sounds like Mengele shit...and don't get me started on that! Just heard part 2 of that podcast outlining his experiments and the things he did to infants, children and pregnant mothers...damn.

There are premature births... and there are miscarriages. Viability is the difference between the two.

[Hal-9000]

We need a palate cleanser...

Did you guys know that I was banging a chick and pulled out, shooting jism all over her belly and I pointed to her belly-button full of splooge and exclaimed - Look, it's twins!

She tried to hit me from a supine position and I got out of the way no problemo :cheers:

[Hal-9000]

Nasssty jism covered harpies :lol:

[RBP]

I think we have different definitions of a "cleansed palate".

[Hal-9000]

Apologies...the seriousness of some subjects will get to me at times.

It's coincidences...over this week we briefly spoke of eugenics, Mengele, now late term abortions (real late)...the universe clicks along in mysterious phases.

[RBP]

Apologies...the seriousness of some subjects will get to me at times.

It's coincidences...over this week we briefly spoke of eugenics, Mengele, now late term abortions (real late)...the universe clicks along in mysterious phases.

We are racing to the bottom. :shrug: I'll be dead. Fuck it.

[Godfather]

I don't care to go down your rabbit hole, but I believe Canada has no restrictions on abortion.

I believe you're right. It's about 2% from my understanding that are aborted after 20 weeks which is coming awful close to viability, but it's a low figure if that's consolation to anyone... All in all, I'm not here to debate. My pro choice stance is more agnostic than anything. I don't feel it's the government's business to govern, or mine.

[Godfather]

Fair question, and the one that people struggle with. I have settled on the Roe v Wade standard. If it can live outside the womb, you can't kill it.

Mind you, people who kill pregnant women get charged with 2 homicides. Not any more.

I wouldn't take any issue with that. As I said, it's around 23 weeks that there's a chance of viability. If someone made a law that this was the limit (unless the mother was in danger perhaps?), I wouldn't have any issue at all.

[RBP]

I wouldn't take any issue with that. As I said, it's around 23 weeks that there's a chance of viability. If someone made a law that this was the limit (unless the mother was in danger perhaps?), I wouldn't have any issue at all.

There's the rub. Define danger. Frankly, it has to be eminent death. Otherwise it devolves to "feeling stressed".

Most of Europe is 12 weeks, I believe.

[RBP]

I believe you're right. It's about 2% from my understanding that are aborted after 20 weeks which is coming awful close to viability, but it's a low figure if that's consolation to anyone... All in all, I'm not here to debate. My pro choice stance is more agnostic than anything. I don't feel it's the government's business to govern, or mine.

C'mon man.

[Godfather]

:lol: Sorry, that came off as douchey on my part and rethinking it I'm not as passive as I was trying to sound, but this isn't a conversation I should've dipped my toe into. I don't spend enough time reading or thinking on it. I'll step out.

[RBP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMFzZ5I30dg

Edit: The more I consider the... aloof? casual?... manner in which they suggest that abortion rights are absolute from conception to birth (and beyond according to the governor) the more sickened and saddened I become. The no limits people are as lunatic fringe as the no abortion people.

Does nobody remember the early 90's and George Tiller?

[Muddy]

Hahahahaha.. maybe the moral superior are the real wolves in sheeps clothing.. Fuggin' deplorable mother clucker..

[Muddy]

Sorry.. im commenting on the blackface KKK controversy that just broke..

[RBP]

Sorry.. im commenting on the blackface KKK controversy that just broke..

https://i.imgur.com/8AvwHBd.jpg

[RBP]

:lol: Sorry, that came off as douchey on my part and rethinking it I'm not as passive as I was trying to sound, but this isn't a conversation I should've dipped my toe into. I don't spend enough time reading or thinking on it. I'll step out.

Why? Take a position. I am interested.

[DemonGeminiX]

My official position on the abortion issue: Science says that a single celled organism that interacts with its environment (e.g., an amoeba on a microscope slide) is alive. A zygote, right after conception, is a rabidly developing multicellular organism that is feeding off of the environment that it's in. Therefore a newly formed zygote is alive, by scientific standards. We criminalize the extinguishing of a life other than our own. We call it murder, by legal standards. Women like to claim that abortion has to do with their own bodies, but they're not the ones that are dying when the abortion is performed. This whole argument about viability is horseshit. Life begins at conception, period. The development inside the womb is just another stage of life... that didn't ask to be born. Abortion is abject cruelty. Abortion is murder. Screw Woe v. Wade.

[RBP]

My official position on the abortion issue: Science says that a single celled organism that interacts with its environment (e.g., an amoeba on a microscope slide) is alive. A zygote, right after conception, is a rabidly developing multicellular organism that is feeding off of the environment that it's in. Therefore a newly formed zygote is alive, by scientific standards. We criminalize the extinguishing of a life other than our own. We call it murder, by legal standards. Women like to claim that abortion has to do with their own bodies, but they're not the ones that are dying when the abortion is performed. This whole argument about viability is horseshit. Life begins at conception, period. The development inside the womb is just another stage of life... that didn't ask to be born. Abortion is abject cruelty. Abortion is murder. Screw Woe v. Wade.

Okay, thanks for your honesty. The problem with that is that the law is beyond you. Roe v Wade is codified by having been affirmed as the law for 45 years. As such, it won't be changed. One thing I appear to have been incorrect about was the ruling outside of 24 weeks (viability). It appears that the court gave the authority to the states. 41 states said no, 24 weeks is enough, and 9 said we won't restrict the rest. That's the battle ground. Keeping Roe intact.

[RBP]

My position. Science has improved viability, so 22 weeks is probably a good number. Beyond that requires medical proof of significant risk of death of the mother, death of the baby, or the likelihood of a lack of short term viability outside the womb. No you cannot abort because you forgot, didn't have the money, or the child will have downs.

[DemonGeminiX]

As having family in law and law enforcement, I know full well that the law is beyond me, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Now considering that I'm a guy and that I'm not a doctor, there's not a whole helluva lot I can do about it except state my opinion and/or hurt some SJWs' and feminists' feelings, but honestly, it's just not worth it on the second point. But I can be a disagreeable asshole here, and I think that's part of why you guys love me so much.

However, saying that established law can't or won't be changed based on longevity is slightly foolish. Congress has been wiping their collective asses with the U.S. Constitution for more than a century, and that's been the law of the land from sea to shining sea for over 200 years. Where there's a will, man, there's a way. Don't count anything or anyone out.