Will Someone Please Explain To Anti-Choice Idiots That Nobody's Killing Born Babies?

Will Someone Please Explain To Anti-Choice Idiots That Nobody's Killing Born Babies?
Robyn Pennacchia
January 31, 2019 10:43 AM

Yesterday morning, Governor Ralph Northam of Virginia went on a radio show and announced his unequivocal support for a bill that would allow doctors to just straight up murder the perfectly healthy babies of selfish, uncaring, slutty women right after those babies are born. Or, at least, that is what the stupidest people on the entire planet are accusing him of doing.
In reality, Northam -- who is actually a pediatric neurologist, mind you -- was asked whether or not he supported a bill from state Rep. Kathy Tran seeking to loosen some restrictions on third-trimester abortions, including requiring only one physician to sign off on the procedure and allowing them to be performed at a clinic rather than a hospital. He was also asked about the fact that Tran has been accused of advocating for post-birth abortions on perfectly healthy babies -- which, you know, she's not.

In fact, the bill explicitly states:

"measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability."

Taking issue with the part of the bill that would require only one physician to sign off on the procedure, Northam explained what would happen if a mother were to go into labor and give birth to a nonviable infant.
"I wasn't there, Julie, and I certainly can't speak for delegate Tran. But I will tell you that, one, the first thing I would say, this is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians and the mothers and fathers that are involved.
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 the 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. But again we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers. And this is why, Julie, legislators, most of whom are men, by the way, shouldn't be telling a woman what she should or shouldn't be doing with her body."

What he's describing is not an abortion. It is what happens when someone gives birth and the child is not going to survive. This is something that happens all the time in hospitals -- loved ones trying to make a tough decision on whether or not to continue treatment if a patient is not going to live, or is brain dead. But rather than considering, for a moment, the circumstances under which deciding to continue with life-preserving efforts when there is no question that the child cannot survive, people like Curtis Houck of Newsbusters are pretending they don't know what the term "nonviable" means.

.. . . .

https://www.wonkette.com/will-someone-please-explain-to-anti-choice-idiots-what-nonviable-means .