Video: Mother kills newborn, can’t be charged with crime
posted at 12:55 pm on December 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
This may be the worst story of the year, at least in reference to domestic policy and crime. How bad is it? When Matt of Creative Minority Report tipped me to it this morning, I had to track it down to make sure it was on the level. A woman in Campbell County, Virginia smothered her newborn infant, and police are powerless to do anything about it:
The caller said a woman in her early 20s was in labor. When deputies arrived, they discovered the baby had actually been born around 1:00a.m., about ten hours earlier. Investigators say the baby was already dead when deputies got there.
Investigators tell WSLS the baby’s airway was still blocked. They say the baby was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother. Investigators say because the mother and baby were still connected by the umbilical cord and placenta, state law does not consider the baby to be a separate life. Therefore, the mother cannot be charged.
“In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it.“, says Investigator Tracy Emerson. “She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.“
Law enforcement officials have repeatedly attempted to get the law changed, asking state legislators to do something about the gap in protection for newborns. Why have Virginia legislators failed to act? They’re afraid of running afoul of the abortion industry:
The Campbell County Sheriff’s Office and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office worked unsuccessfully to get the law changed after another baby died in the county in a similar case. Emerson says they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly. He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.
Er, what? I’m not aware of fourth-trimester abortions being legal anywhere in the US. In fact, I doubt that third-trimester abortions are legal in Virginia, either. Ironically, if the baby had been killed by someone else in an assault on the mother before its birth, that person would have been charged with murder, which sets up a really interesting double standard. Are legislators in Virginia so afraid of the abortion industry that they can’t take steps to protect full-term babies after their birth? Sounds like Virginians need a new class of lawmakers.
Update: Caleb Howe Tweets that one state legislator is now on the case:
State Senator Steve Newman announced today that the Division of Legislative Services has begun drafting legislation to ensure that a life cannot be legally taken after a child is born not withstanding its connection to the umbilical cord.
The bill will amend Section 18.2 of the Code of Virginia which is the criminal code. Newman stated, “It is difficult to believe that the current Code could have such a flaw that would allow anyone to take the life of a born child. While I will not comment at this time on the case in Campbell County, it is abundantly clear that Virginians will demand a legislative cure to this loophole. I have consulted with the Attorney General Elect, Ken Cuccinelli; Campbell County Commonwealth Attorney, Neil Vener; Campbell County Sheriff Terry Gaddy and the investigator in the case, Tracy Emerson. All have indicated their full support for this legislation.
We should keep an eye on this to make sure it gets signed into law.
Update II: A critic says that the report from WSLS is false, and that the law does cover this situation. But that critic doesn’t live in Virginia, and doesn’t explain how WSLS, the law enforcement agency, the state legislator, and the attorney general all got it wrong, too. After all, if the law covered the situation, the legislator wouldn’t have needed to introduce legislation to fix it and the AG, the county’s attorney, and the sheriff wouldn’t have endorsed it. At any rate, the facts to which I linked were reported by WSLS and confirmed by all of the above, all of whom are better sources than the critic in question.
Update III: Dave from Reno sends the following, emphases added by me:
1) The quote from the news story that talks about the problem being the exclusion of the mother:
“Emerson tells us there’s a double standard with the law. If someone other than the mother harms a baby still attached to the mother, that person can be charged.”
2) The statute in the Virginia code that Emerson is referring to:
18.2-32.2. Killing a fetus; penalty.
A. Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation kills the fetus of another is guilty of a Class 2 felony.
B. Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately and maliciously kills the fetus of another is guilty of a felony punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than five nor more than 40 years.
(2004, cc. 1023, 1026.)Note that it refers to “the fetus of another”, the use of the word “another” apparently allows the mother to kill her own fetus.
3) The article says that they tried to change the law, but the lawmakers wouldn’t take it up:
“The Campbell County Sheriff’s Office and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office worked unsuccessfully to get the law changed after another baby died in the county in a similar case. Emerson says they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly. He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.”
4) I believe I have found the proposed law. It was HB 1631, and was introduced in the 2007 session, but never made it to the House for a vote.
You can find the history of the bill at the link below, as well as a PDF of the bill itself, which is designed to change 18.2-32.2 to remove the words, “of another”.
Note this sentence in the summary:
“Currently the act of unlawfully killing a fetus as described in this statute is a crime only if the fetus is the fetus “of another.”
5) Finally, here is the Virginia House of Delegates legislative schedule for 2007, where you can find HB 1631 listed as being referred to the Committee for Courts of Justice, where, per the status page, it died.
Thanks, Dave!










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »
No. I cannot believe that. Someone HAS to be horribly misinformed.
MadisonConservative on December 18, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Just sickening.
SDnocoen on December 18, 2009 at 12:57 PM
EWW! How is that an abortion?!?
sammypants on December 18, 2009 at 12:57 PM
The ‘pro-choice’ worldview taken to its logical conclusion.
daesleeper on December 18, 2009 at 12:57 PM
So much for getting a ham sandwich indicted.
The Commonwealth of Virginia is a truly effed up place, on sooooo many levels.
And this isn’t even near the top of the list of reasons I’ve never looked back.
Wind Rider on December 18, 2009 at 12:58 PM
All she’s missing is a medical degree.
And I write that with utter disgust.
mankai on December 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM
I just got a chill up my spine and my personal doomsday clock for humanity ticked closer to midnight.
Elizabetty on December 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Words can’t describe how horrible this is.
WisCon on December 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Maybe the lawmakers in VA should be forced to watch a late term abortion.
belad on December 18, 2009 at 1:00 PM
HuffPost is saying that the GOP’s filibuster has been broken because of war funding.
Spathi on December 18, 2009 at 1:00 PM
It’s just logical. She was removing a parasitic clump of cells.
(sickening. I hope she’s insane or something, for her sake. How does one live with that?)
Techie on December 18, 2009 at 1:00 PM
democrat dream!!! Choice dontcha know?
winston on December 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Sickening
vcferlita on December 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM
This is the inevitable result when life is not protected.
….God have mercy on this
womancreature.I wouldn’t.
Hawkins1701 on December 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM
This is the sort of crap laws you get with career politicians. Trade off others’ lives for continued re-election.
We have arrived at the event horizon of the abyss.
platypus on December 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM
I N S A N E
WashJeff on December 18, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Ughh….. wretched.
So, the next murders that happen in Virginia are going to occur, then the perp is going to shove a tube into their gut and call it an umbilical cord so they can get off right….
wear it libs…. you reap what you sow
ted c on December 18, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Ok. Now we need on the record quotes from Dems in the state.
2010 ammo.
faraway on December 18, 2009 at 1:02 PM
No, the logical conclusion would be legalized ‘abortion’ of the fetus upto but not at 18 years of age.
Holger on December 18, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Typical Obama voter.
/Hangs head in shame as a resident of Virginia
BPD on December 18, 2009 at 1:05 PM
No, in a pro-choice world, a mother (paternity is never considered) would get to test drive the child for a couple of years and if there wasn’t any bonding they would be able to abort.
highhopes on December 18, 2009 at 1:05 PM
I’m pro-choice and I think this is sick. Something should be done here and fast.
taney71 on December 18, 2009 at 1:05 PM
I think this woman might be just a couple fries short of a happy meal. This kind of thing happens often enough that they should do some research on it.
rollthedice on December 18, 2009 at 1:05 PM
With this news getting out, I wonder how many other mothers will do this? This is just beyond horrible. Please God take this tiny body in Your arms.
L
letget on December 18, 2009 at 1:06 PM
I have to believe they researched the law but I find it difficult to believe that when the infant is outside the womb and breathing it isn’t a separate life.
Blake on December 18, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Satanic
TimTebowSavesAmerica on December 18, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Peter Singer said as much…it tends to begin in academia and spread outward. Not sure what idiots are running this “fine” state, but, the concept of reasonable infanticide is being floated out more and more frequently. This is sickening…beyond sickening…just not unheard of.
Savages.
Diane on December 18, 2009 at 1:08 PM
The mother shows no remorse, maybe not in this life.
fourdeucer on December 18, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Insane.
Shock the Monkey on December 18, 2009 at 1:09 PM
The very definition of horror, the very definition of injustice.
The people of Virginia had better wipe this sin, and all those responsible for it, come election day.
Rebar on December 18, 2009 at 1:09 PM
President Obortion response:
“I’m pleased. It’s been a tough day, and this bit of good news helps to brighten my spirits”
BobMbx on December 18, 2009 at 1:09 PM
NARAL: “No comment.”
Bishop on December 18, 2009 at 1:09 PM
I am nauseous.
Geochelone on December 18, 2009 at 1:09 PM
One day, Peter Singer will be a “useless eater” and there will be a dawning moment of clarity when his attendant reaches for the plug……
Techie on December 18, 2009 at 1:09 PM
May God have mercy on all of us. I fear He is terribly disappointed and heartbroken for our lost souls.
Spectreman on December 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM
I think we can all agree any amount of debate on ‘choice’ is insufficient to excuse this.
If the abort/no-abort line cannot be drawn when the child is OUTSIDE the mother’s body, and therefore no longer subject to even the ‘womb parasite’ argument, there will eventually be almost no limit to when the line can be drawn. Like the thought of legalized post-natal abortion, anybody? That’s where it’ll head.
Dark-Star on December 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Really a shame we no longer have public hangings. Also a shame ordinary citizens can no longer do the job their public officials won’t.
Thunderstorm129 on December 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Monstrosities like this, not Gitmo, are recruitment tools for jihadists.
Golden Boy on December 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM
I believe that the reason for the law being written like it is was to protect women. Seems that there were some issues round the turn of the last century (or somewhere there about) with women being accused of murder when their children were stillborn.
And I also believe that there is a motion for this to be taken up by the legislators in VA in January. I would have to search to find where I read this yesterday, most likely at my hometown paper Fredericksburg.com.
Will post sources when I find them.
donkichi on December 18, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Consequences of a slippery slope.
Badger40 on December 18, 2009 at 1:11 PM
What makes this “sick” and the left’s advocacy of late-term murders acceptable? Is it as I suspect that the child has to crawl out of the womb, cut its own umbilical cord, and graduate from a state university before the pro-choice crowd would consider it a life?
highhopes on December 18, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Unconscionable.
Midas on December 18, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Your shock and dismay is underwhelming. Perhaps you should think about what “pro-choice” really means. Let me give you a hint. The above story is what it really means.
SKYFOX on December 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM
And then immediately be forced to watch a live birth. Then force them to vote on abortion.
BobMbx on December 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Heard this story on the radio (WMAL) yesterday morning. At lot of local folks were upset.
I don’t understand why this loophole is here, in fact it makes no sense with VA’s abortion laws. In VA, if I understand the law correctly, third trimester abortions are only allowed if the mother’s life is in danger. So, ironically a women in her third may not abort, she can just wait until its delivered and then kill it??? stupid and sick.
Firefly_76 on December 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM
So, when the cops arrived 10 hours later was the placenta still in the mother?
I wouldn’t say the placenta was still attached to the mother. It may be inside the mother but it had to already separate from her womb. When she smothered the baby is only her word. If the placenta separated from the womb and had not yet been expelled, I don’t think it really qualifies as being attached to the mother. It’s not like the mother is still providing blood, oxygen, etc., to the infant.
Time for a good pathologist.
Blake on December 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Here is the end of that slippery slope that abortion advocates are always saying doesn\’t (or won\’t) exist.This is simply indefensible, and the entire state government should be held liable for aiding this evil.And yes, this is pure evil.
drocity on December 18, 2009 at 1:14 PM
It won’t be long before we’re allowing mothers to kill their children up to three years of age. Just watch. Rights for everyone but the child. Progressive!
amerpundit on December 18, 2009 at 1:15 PM
No kidding. Make every politician and abortion activist answer “yes” or “no” about whether they support this law. I guarantee you no one has the nutz to defend this position.
Doughboy on December 18, 2009 at 1:15 PM
What’s the problem? This is logically consistent.
The post-birth-fetus cannot live without serious care and concern from someone; it will be a drain on the mother, and force a lifestyle change she might not want. Removing this concern is allowable and the mother’s choice.
Nothing about the “abortion rights” argument is violated here, and if she’d waited a few weeks the entire argument would still be the same. If you accept the validity of the pro-choice contingent that this is sufficient to end the life of the fetus; why not shortly after birth?
The child still isn’t a fully-thinking human being with self-awareness and personality, and certainly isn’t independent… why would the pro-abortion crowd think this child is any more worthy of imposing its life and complications on the mother after birth?
I’m not surprised at this; I’m confused that anyone else is… this is where the pro-choice arguments lead, directly and without manipulation. If you simply replace “fetus” with “baby” or “child” in their arguments, there is no contradiction and the arguments can stand unchanged.
Of course they won’t pass laws against this; it’s too hard to try to separate the logic of why this is bad, but abortion is acceptable.
gekkobear on December 18, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Nope. Time to stop creating artificial justifications for murder.
BobMbx on December 18, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Ogabe voted against born-alive amendments, what, three times?
This is a natural consequence of the left’s stance, they now get to live with it.
Bishop on December 18, 2009 at 1:16 PM
And under Obama care, it can only get worse, can’t it?!?
capejasmine on December 18, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Ed, third trimester abortions are legal throughout the United States. They cannot be banned. The Supreme Court has said that it’s in the Constitution.
There can be some regulation of processes and methods, but abortion itself cannot be illegal at any stage of pregnancy.
JohnJ on December 18, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Yeah I don’t understand that part either. Virginia bans post-viability abortions. If they don’t charge her with murder (which they should), why wouldn’t they charge her at least with an illegal abortion?
Proud Rino on December 18, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Can anything get better with ObamaCare?
darwin on December 18, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Wrong
Proud Rino on December 18, 2009 at 1:19 PM
There are advocates for “infanticide” in the “choice” movement, the logical extension of unfettered abortion right up to birth.
If such choice ever extends to the teenage years, I predict a significant decline in the population.
Ironic again that the people who are so very, ah, libertarian in this regard (for the mother-not the baby) are 99% the same people who favor government mandated and enforced healthcare.
Drained Brain on December 18, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Another fine pro-choice American.
Flashback: But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.
gaius on December 18, 2009 at 1:20 PM
If I said what I really thought about this <expletive deleted>-up repugnant piece of <expletive deleted> <expletive deleted> masquerading as a mother, or the three <expletive deleted>s who refused to take up the cause of changing the law to make murdering a born-alive baby a crime, I’d be banned.
steveegg on December 18, 2009 at 1:21 PM
May God open his arms wide to receive this heavenly child.
And, may HIS wrath of anger and disgust be laid upon those who condoned and allowed this travesty to happen.
This is the epitome of a total breakdown in a civil society.
If this is America’s direction, I am truly ashamed.
Rovin on December 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM
A prosecutor with some cojones needs to step up and raise the bulls**t flag on this one.
In the meantime, I can only hope that this “mother” is haunted by her actions and that the scummy lawmakers who passed such a bill cannot sleep at night.
NavyMustang on December 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM
FIFY
johnsteele on December 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM
You’re wrong. The supreme court has mandated a health exception–which allows any justification for an abortion till I guess now even after the kid is out.
TimTebowSavesAmerica on December 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM
This is sick. I heard this last night. I can’t see how anybody can do that to a child. There are some sick people in this world.
Brat4life on December 18, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Wow, I literally felt sick reading that. So sad.
keepinitreal on December 18, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Since when is the constitution an artificial justification? They have to apply the statutes as they are written. I’m interested in seeking justice for this infant, not getting on a soap box and making pronouncements that are meaningless.
Blake on December 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Can we say abortion isn’t birth control now?
Speakup on December 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM
This is so far beyond sick, it is just frightening. What the hell is happening to people in this world? We are becoming uncivilized, and I am sometimes very glad I am in my sunset years, so I won’t see what is ahead of us. But I shudder for my grandchildren, The world is going to hell and we are told not to believe in God???……sigh
clinker46 on December 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Peter Singer’s already had that moment of clarity. His mother has Alzheimer’s (or some other degenerative disease), and yet he hasn’t killed her. Not that I’d want him to, mind you, but it just reveals the hypocrisy of the anti-life folks.
This is horrific. Beyond horrific. I’m not a fan of forced sterilization, but any woman who kills her newborn shouldn’t be allowed to have any more kids.
englishqueen01 on December 18, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Her choice /sarc
thebrokenrattle on December 18, 2009 at 1:25 PM
+1
Couldn’t have said it any better.
Consider yourself “virtually” banned, along with yours truly and many others.
Rovin on December 18, 2009 at 1:25 PM
If the “mother” is not a juvenile, let’s have her name.
RushBaby on December 18, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Infanticide has a strong, silent lobby.
Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 1:26 PM
How about not allowed to live? This was stone-cold murder, not killing in self defense; we used to execute murderers in this country.
Bishop on December 18, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Not even if it hadn’t been made into a bill that will have government subsidizing another industry…until it too is killed, taken over and monopolized.
Congress has once again bowed to their corporate lobbyist masters, and as usual it will be you and I who get stuck with the bill for their frivolities.
Dark-Star on December 18, 2009 at 1:27 PM
So far, in my opinion, nothing’s been, or gotten better with Obama. It saddens, and sickens me, to think that he, and his far left loons would be jumping for joy at this. I can’t remember his name, but one of the czars believes abortion should be legal up to the age of 2. Since a child up to that point, hasn’t been socialized yet. The future with this man as president scares the hell out of me, and sickens me. The elderly, and the young, are at so much risk right now. :(
capejasmine on December 18, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Well a “health exception” is not the same thing as “any justification,” IDX abortions are illegal in most cases federally thanks to the Partial Birth Abortion Act and upheld by SCOTUS in Gonzalez v. Carhart, and most states have restrictions, especially in third trimester.
Proud Rino on December 18, 2009 at 1:28 PM
But let’s not forget: executing criminals is wrong.
Nope, not when 1.2 million abortions were committed in 2005.
Track-A-'Crat on December 18, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Beyond evil.
ninnuh on December 18, 2009 at 1:29 PM
No it does not justify any abortion. The mother’s life must be in mortal danger from the pregnancy or something the pregnancy is preventing.
Holger on December 18, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Words have consequences.
Fletch54 on December 18, 2009 at 1:32 PM
§ 18.2-71.1. Partial birth infanticide; penalty.
A. Any person who knowingly performs partial birth infanticide and thereby kills a human infant is guilty of a Class 4 felony.
B. For the purposes of this section, “partial birth infanticide” means any deliberate act that (i) is intended to kill a human infant who has been born alive, but who has not been completely extracted or expelled from its mother, and that (ii) does kill such infant, regardless of whether death occurs before or after extraction or expulsion from its mother has been completed.
The term “partial birth infanticide” shall not under any circumstances be construed to include any of the following procedures: (i) the suction curettage abortion procedure, (ii) the suction aspiration abortion procedure, (iii) the dilation and evacuation abortion procedure involving dismemberment of the fetus prior to removal from the body of the mother, or (iv) completing delivery of a living human infant and severing the umbilical cord of any infant who has been completely delivered.
C. For the purposes of this section, “human infant who has been born alive” means a product of human conception that has been completely or substantially expelled or extracted from its mother, regardless of the duration of pregnancy, which after such expulsion or extraction breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.
D. For purposes of this section, “substantially expelled or extracted from its mother” means, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the infant’s entire head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the infant’s trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.
E. This section shall not prohibit the use by a physician of any procedure that, in reasonable medical judgment, is necessary to prevent the death of the mother, so long as the physician takes every medically reasonable step, consistent with such procedure, to preserve the life and health of the infant. A procedure shall not be deemed necessary to prevent the death of the mother if completing the delivery of the living infant would prevent the death of the mother.
F. The mother may not be prosecuted for any criminal offense based on the performance of any act or procedure by a physician in violation of this section.
Blake on December 18, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Next someone will try to make the same argument for a breastfed baby. Why not? The child still depends solely upon the mother for his well-being. Sure, you could argue that a breastfed baby could be given formula, but so could this murdered newborn if the umbilical cord were cut.
Send_Me on December 18, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Fixed.
BobMbx on December 18, 2009 at 1:33 PM
So… what if someone else came up and killed the baby? Is it murder then?
Scott P on December 18, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Taney71,
The first thing you should do is drop the Pro-Choice moniker. Pro-Choice in the state of Virgnia means what she did is just fine and dandy.
You may say that you think it’s sick but what did you expect, truly? The anti-abortion side has been predicting this forever and NOW you say it makes you sick and that something should be done?
Honestly, what did you expect? What do think the difference is between that dead child and another one a few months younger is?
So, stop calling yourself Pro-Choice and deal with the reality of what you really are: Pro-Abortion. Claim it and be proud… if you still can.
princetrumpet on December 18, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Actually Doe v Bolton states that the mother’s health includes physiological, psychological (ever know a pregnant woman free of stress?) and financial (ever known of a free baby?) well-being.
Upholding the IDX ban is not the same as banning any third trimester abortion, although I’m sure actually removing the baby and then killing it is much more “efficient”.
Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 1:34 PM
There is something wrong with this story. If the baby’s airway was still blocked (not cleared from amniotic fluid) then how could the baby have been suffocated by the mother? This story does not make medical sense.
bloggless on December 18, 2009 at 1:35 PM
PM
Very naive. They are one and the same.
bloggless on December 18, 2009 at 1:36 PM
On the contrary, this follows the liberal line to the only conclusion it can possibly have.
They excuse themselves from all discussions of “right” or “wrong”, and focus only on rhetoric. Once you DEFINE a life as not a life, then anything is possible.
They never once argued that any abortion was qualitatively different from any other. They just drew a purely arbitrary line, and said “On this side of the line is the most heinous crime imaginable, and one hair on the other side of that line is an unalienable right.”
That kind of thinking substitutes rhetoric for reason. Once you’ve done that, then EVERYTHING is a matter of definition. Killing is legal as long as a person is dependant on another person; and, as society becomes more collectivized, everyone is dependent on everyone else.
logis on December 18, 2009 at 1:37 PM
BobMbx on December 18, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Ouch – that hurts.
Unless you have the Left’s impenetrable shield of “CHOICE”, of course…
Track-A-'Crat on December 18, 2009 at 1:37 PM
New state slogan: Virginia is for killers.
Scott P on December 18, 2009 at 1:38 PM
It doesn’t say “financial,” so you’re wrong, and the opinion of the physician with regard to “health” include physiological and psychological health – as it should.
Lots of states have third trimester/post-viability bans. Federally, there is a partial birth abortion ban. Planned Parenthood v. Casey basically said you couldn’t ban abortion earlier than 21-22 weeks. Beyond that, states can regulate abortion quite a bit.
Virginia’s law had a loophole which prevented punishment of the mother – it’s an unfortunate situation, but you can’t have ex post facto laws passed – hopefully the general assembly will fix the law ASAP.
Proud Rino on December 18, 2009 at 1:40 PM
From conception.
Speakup on December 18, 2009 at 1:40 PM
There is some dispute over this and whether the sherriff/DA are correctly interpreting the law. While because of the umbilical cord issue she probably cannot be charged with murder, she can (if the autopsy finds cause of death to not be from natural causes) be charged with “partial birth infanticide” according to VA Code section 18.2-71.1. I would say that the DA has not looked hard enough for something to charge her with. This is not to say that legislators should not take a look at the law anyway. I will personally be mentioning it to several members of the House of Delegates and maybe even the new Governor and Attorney General given the opportunity.
Here is the link if you want to read the code for yourself. http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/18.2-71.1.HTM
Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 1:41 PM
No, they are not. You have to have, in most cases, multiple medical professionals signing off on your personal health being at risk in order to have an abortion in the third trimester in states where 3rd trimester abortions are banned.
Proud Rino on December 18, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »