Virginia governor Ralph Northam Discusses Current Virginia Abortion Law

[HurleyBird]

Thread title edited for accuracy.

Perknose
Forum Director

I actually err towards the pro choice end of the spectrum (for pragmatic rather than moral reasons. Eg. legal abortion is a necessary evil), but this is plain disgusting and indefensible.

“If a mother is in labor...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."

Edit:

The event being discussed by the governor:

The most charitable interpretation of Northam's position that I can think of is that, despite the discussion centring on the exchange between Tran and Gilbert's exchange, he's both straw manning Gilbert's argument while also being incredibly inept with his wording. Even giving him that allowance, he appears to be advocating that at least in cases of extreme deformities they can either not resuscitate if that's what the mother/family wants, or err on the safe side and resuscitate and then potentially euthanize at some later time if the mother/family makes that decision.

 

[nickqt]

I actually err towards the pro choice end of the spectrum (for pragmatic rather than moral reasons. Eg. legal abortion is a necessary evil), but this is plain disgusting and indefensible.

“If a mother is in labor...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."

Which plan?

The one he actually discussed, or the OUTRAGE BABY KILLER OMG BABY KILLER BENGHAZI plan that right-wing authoritarians are currently clutching pearls over, while they, smilingly, discuss watering the tree of liberty with blood, or murdering the families of suspected terrorists?

Here's a quote, not out of context:

“done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s not viable. So in this particular example, if a mother’s 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.”

 

[HurleyBird]

“done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s not viable. So in this particular example, if a mother’s 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.”

Either separate statements, or a big non-sequitur. Not viable != fine after resuscitation. And the claim that it should be up to the mother/family whether or not to resuscitate an infant that has been physically born is problematic in and of itself. I'm willing to grant some benefit of the doubt as far as interpreting "and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother," but the resuscitation thing doesn't seem to leave room for interpretation. Lastly, the particular example being discussed is that the proposed law allows for extremely late term abortions for mental health reasons. Now, I think that' a completely unlikely scenario, but the law theoretically allowing for it is the context within which this is being discussed.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Which plan?

The one he actually discussed, or the OUTRAGE BABY KILLER OMG BABY KILLER BENGHAZI plan that right-wing authoritarians are currently clutching pearls over, while they, smilingly, discuss watering the tree of liberty with blood, or murdering the families of suspected terrorists?

Here's a quote, not out of context:

“done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s not viable. So in this particular example, if a mother’s 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 horror, the horror.

Make that kid die in agony (or in a drugged coma) after as long a period of time that you can keep it alive. It's god's will.

 

[HomerJS]

Clearly these righties don't remember the Terry Schivo case. It's the families business not legislators.

 

[glenn1]

Either separate statements, or a big non-sequitur. Not viable != fine after resuscitation. And the claim that it should be up to the mother/family whether or not to resuscitate an infant that has been physically born is problematic in and of itself. I'm willing to grant some benefit of the doubt as far as interpreting "and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother," but the resuscitation thing doesn't seem to leave room for interpretation. Lastly, the particular example being discussed is that the proposed law allows for extremely late term abortions for mental health reasons. Now, I think that' a completely unlikely scenario, but the law theoretically allowing for it is the context within which this is being discussed.

LOL, "mental health" reasons, there's a high threshold, might as well say something equally vague and untestable as "lower back pain." Seems like if your mental health condition was bad enough to call for an abortion it's bad enough that you would be institutionalized and not judged of sound mind to consent to a medical procedure like an abortion.

 

[Paratus]

The horror, the horror.

Make that kid die in agony (or in a drugged coma) after as long a period of time that you can keep it alive. It's god's will.

We already know prolifers don’t care if 9 year olds risk dying in childbirth to bring their step-father rapists twins to term or forcing brain dead women to remain on life support to bring their dying deformed fetus to term. So that hardly moves the needle.

 

[HurleyBird]

The event being discussed by the governor:

The most charitable interpretation of Northam's position that I can think of is that, despite the discussion centring on the exchange between Tran and Gilbert's exchange, he's both straw manning Gilbert's argument while also being incredibly inept with his wording. Even giving him that allowance, he appears to be advocating that at least in cases of extreme deformities they can either not resuscitate if that's what the mother/family wants, or err on the safe side and resuscitate and then potentially euthanize at some later time if the mother/family makes that decision.

 

[glenn1]

The event being discussed by the governor:

The most charitable interpretation of Northam's position that I can think of is that, despite the discussion centring on the exchange between Tran and Gilbert's exchange, he's both straw manning Gilbert's argument and while also being incredibly inept with his wording. Even giving him that allowance, he appears to be advocating that at least in cases of extreme deformities they can either not resuscitate if that's what the mother/family wants, or err on the safe side and resuscitate and then potentially euthanize at some later time if the mother/family makes that decision.

He's a politician, do you expect him to say the truth?

 

[Vic]

The horror, the horror.

Make that kid die in agony (or in a drugged coma) after as long a period of time that you can keep it alive. It's god's will.

If only it were also God's will that the OP and his ilk had to be the ones to pay for the medical bills they would force on the families just to keep a non-viable fetus alive through heroic measures.

 

[nickqt]

Either separate statements, or a big non-sequitur. Not viable != fine after resuscitation. And the claim that it should be up to the mother/family whether or not to resuscitate an infant that has been physically born is problematic in and of itself. I'm willing to grant some benefit of the doubt as far as interpreting "and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother," but the resuscitation thing doesn't seem to leave room for interpretation. Lastly, the particular example being discussed is that the proposed law allows for extremely late term abortions for mental health reasons. Now, I think that' a completely unlikely scenario, but the law theoretically allowing for it is the context within which this is being discussed.

First off, it's up to the parents if a non-viable child, born DEAD (requiring resuscitation, in case you weren't sure what that word implies) gets revived. Just like it's up to an adult patient if they want to declare themselves a DNR, or family who have power of attorney, or a parent, when a patient who cannot advocate for themselves, is DEAD. In this case, clearly, the parents have the right to decide, since a DEAD newborn is mostly unable to make those kinds of decisions.

No interpretation here required. It. Is. The. Parent's. Decision. To. Revive. An. UNVIABLE, DEAD newborn.

Second, he states that it's up to the parents and the doctor afterwards.

Who else, exactly, should be involved, do you think? You? a boardroom full of suits? Mikhail Gorbechav's cousin's niece?

Thirdly, I'd like to offer my thanks and sincere pleasure in seeing right-wing auhtoritarians chiming in to scream about something that isn't actually happening, in any way shape or form, yet again. It's literally hysterical!

 

[IronWing]

There’s money to be made keeping brain dead people alive. Can’t let basic decency get in the way of medical profits.

 

[Vic]

We already know prolifers don’t care if 9 year olds risk dying in childbirth to bring their step-father rapists twins to term or forcing brain dead women to remain on life support to bring their dying deformed fetus to term. So that hardly moves the needle.

Their fear of death is beyond obscene. This particular discussion reminds of the assisted suicide debate of a few years ago, where they argued that anything less than the most heroic medical measures to give a 95 year old cancer patient one more minute of precious life was seen as simultaneously both suicide and murder.

 

[HurleyBird]

First off, it's up to the parents if a non-viable child, born DEAD (requiring resuscitation, in case you weren't sure what that word implies) gets revived. Just like it's up to an adult patient if they want to declare themselves a DNR, or family who have power of attorney, or a parent, when a patient who cannot advocate for themselves, is DEAD. In this case, clearly, the parents have the right to decide, since a DEAD newborn is mostly unable to make those kinds of decisions.

If there's no brain function, then of course you don't need to keep the body alive. It's the brain that's important, not the heart. Even given the most favourable interpretation, the governor's statement is significantly more broad than that. Newborns by and large can't make any decisions but that doesn't mean that they lack rights.

 

[abj13]

Either separate statements, or a big non-sequitur. Not viable != fine after resuscitation. And the claim that it should be up to the mother/family whether or not to resuscitate an infant that has been physically born is problematic in and of itself. I'm willing to grant some benefit of the doubt as far as interpreting "and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother," but the resuscitation thing doesn't seem to leave room for interpretation. Lastly, the particular example being discussed is that the proposed law allows for extremely late term abortions for mental health reasons. Now, I think that' a completely unlikely scenario, but the law theoretically allowing for it is the context within which this is being discussed.

The Governor is correct. Resuscitation is in reference to actions to initially stabilize a neonate, primarily through supporting the respiratory and circulatory systems through actions like oxygen or positive pressure ventilation. Resuscitation usually does not refer to invasive procedures (breathing tube, intravenous fluids, cardiac support). Many healthy term neonates even require some level of resuscitation at birth.

Quite often in these cases of non-viable neonates, the medical team and family make a decision. They will provide basic resuscitation, but if the neonate demonstrates a need for escalated care, they transition to comfort care and allow the family to spend the final moments together. Sometimes the neonate will not require immediate invasive interventions, and then it becomes a larger question of the next steps. In some cases the medical team and the family agree that no resuscitation should be performed.

 

[HurleyBird]

Their fear of death is beyond obscene. This particular discussion reminds of the assisted suicide debate of a few years ago, where they argued that anything less than the most heroic medical measures to give a 95 year old cancer patient one more minute of precious life was seen as simultaneously both suicide and murder.

I'm all for voluntary euthanasia granted that there are specific safeguards (eg. a waiting period of at least one month between declaration of intent to die and carrying out the procedure to guard against acute but transient depressive episodes). I'd go even further and say that it should be an individual right, not just for 95 year old terminal patients. The key word here is voluntary. Babies can't volunteer. What gives you or anyone the right to say "This baby is too deformed so I'm going to end its life?"

 

[brycejones]

Since this a very serious thread not involving lots of distortion and straw I have a very serious question.

Are these the babies we use for pizza toppings?

 

[brycejones]

I'm all for voluntary euthanasia granted that there are specific safeguards (eg. a waiting period of at least one month between declaration of intent to die and carrying out the procedure to guard against acute but transient depressive episodes). I'd go even further and say that it should be an individual right, not just for 95 year old terminal patients. The key word here is voluntary. Babies can't volunteer. What gives you or anyone the right to say "This baby is too deformed so I'm going to end its life?"

The fucking parents who are in an incrediblely difficult situation that you want to Monday morning quarterback. Until you’ve actually been in their shoes and can understand what is going on butt the fuck out.

 

[abj13]

What gives you or anyone the right to say "This baby is too deformed so I'm going to end its life?"

If a neonate is born with obvious severe prematurity, structural defects, defined syndrome, or genetic abnormality, why should we subjugate this neonate to daily needle sticks, shoving a breathing tube down their throat, and treatment with various sedatives and other medications? You act as if raising a neonate in the NICU is without risk and without discomfort/pain.

 

[HurleyBird]

The Governor is correct... ...Sometimes the neonate will not require immediate invasive interventions, and then it becomes a larger question of the next steps. In some cases the medical team and the family agree that no resuscitation should be performed.

Hence why I said "or a big non-sequitur," earlier, since that interpretation would be answering a question completely unrelated to the one that was asked of him. But even that requires several consecutive favourable interpretations to not be seen as advocating for euthanasia which is illegal -- note the usage of language "would" throughout as in "here's what we would do if the bill passes." and "In this particular example" (of the discussion between the representatives.

So, we would need to give Northam the benefit of the doubt that he's simply straw manning his political opponent, that all those statements are connected and not individual thoughts. That "in this particular example" is not referring to the example brought up in the legislature which the source of the question, but is referring to a non-viable fetus, and excuse the odd use of "would" in place of something like "here's what happens in the real world." I guess it's possible, but I dunno.

 

[glenn1]

Since this a very serious thread not involving lots of distortion and straw I have a very serious question.

Are these the babies we use for pizza toppings?

Now you're talking. Make the parents carry out the act with a knife they way they did in the olden days and present the still-beating heart to Kali-Ma. They're "non-viable" anyway so it's not like the kid will miss it.

 

[Vic]

The fucking parents who are in an incrediblely difficult situation that you want to Monday morning quarterback. Until you’ve actually been in their shoes and can understand what is going on butt the fuck out.

Butting the fuck out is the last thing these assholes can do.

 

[HurleyBird]

If a neonate is born with obvious severe prematurity, structural defects, defined syndrome, or genetic abnormality, why should we subjugate this neonate to daily needle sticks, shoving a breathing tube down their throat, and treatment with various sedatives and other medications? You act as if raising a neonate in the NICU is without risk and without discomfort/pain.

If the situation in terms of viability appears futile and continued treatment is merely delaying the inevitable, then of course not. Otherwise, absent the ability to obtain consent from the patient I'd advocate erring on the side of life.

 

[Paratus]

I'm all for voluntary euthanasia granted that there are specific safeguards (eg. a waiting period of at least one month between declaration of intent to die and carrying out the procedure to guard against acute but transient depressive episodes). I'd go even further and say that it should be an individual right, not just for 95 year old terminal patients. The key word here is voluntary. Babies can't volunteer. What gives you or anyone the right to say "This baby is too deformed so I'm going to end its life?"

You need to understand this. Each case is unique and absolutely no one should have to spend obscene amounts of time, effort and emotions to try and keep a fetus alive with deformities incompatible with life just so you can feel self-righteous.

How much hubris does it take to think that you who know nothing of each individual case knows the one correct answer in each case better than the parents and doctor who’s responsibility it is to determine what is best.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Calling it abortion at that point doesn’t really seem apt. If it truly is a brain dead baby then it’s just a matter of the parents choosing not to keep it on life support, that decision is currently being made by people every day. And I’d go further saying doctors need a way to humanely speed up the process instead of letting them suffocate/starve/whatever.

But if the child is viable then it starts so quickly cross over into a sanctioned murder. And I’m 100% pro choice but at some point ethics should dictate we take pause.