The Abortion Hypocrisy of Glenn Youngkin
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
82 responses to “The Abortion Hypocrisy of Glenn Youngkin”
-
“If Youngkin is willing to sacrifice more than 15,000 lives without a fight, then it is clear that his main concern is not aborted babies. It is all about politics. He wants to be able to tout his ability to get an abortion limits bill out of a divided General Assembly (even if it accomplishes little substantively), thereby raising his national profile in his little concealed ambition for national office.
If Virginia Democrats are smart strategically, which they don’t seem to be lately, they will take Youngkin’s offer and support a bill prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. That way, they would undercut one of the Republicans’ main talking points for the next election, the Governor would get a boost in national recognition and he would get distracted and spend a lot of time next year out of state chasing the siren song of the Presidency, and abortions could continue at virtually the same level as before.”
What would it undercut? Despite your belief ( I can only assume that you’ve not spoken to anyone on the subject, or ignored the article on here where your belief was disproven) those who are completely against abortion for all matters is not a position held by most people even on the Conservative side of the aisle.
Furthermore, your comment smacks of partisan wording. Comprise isn’t a bad word and attitudes otherwise are what has driven our political discourse to the depths it’s at today.
Clearly you were and are part of the problem and not the solution.
-
“…(even if it accomplishes little substantively)…”
What is will “accomplish” is it will drive pregnant women who need to terminate their pregnancy after 15-20 weeks to the abortion pill… this is a very dangerous practice but it will happen readily and women will be harmed greatly due to Youngkin’s abortion ban.
-
The only reason a woman would “need” to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks would be a medical one, in which her life is seriously at risk. Although Youngkin’s proposal is not yet available, I assume that a medical exception will be allowed.
-
You and I need not worry why a woman would “need” to terminate her pregnancy after 20 weeks. The “why” does not change the outcome.
-
-
-
A few things can be said about Youngkin. He is not a caretaker Governor! He does have fire in his belly and he is very aware of political issues and he is clearly Conservative and not afraid to advocate for changes that are political. Time will tell on how his tenure plays out. Comparing him to DeSantis might also be interesting. The abortion thing? I think the SCOTUS decision created some “room” for more restrictive abortion policies and he’s going to go there a little if he can. I think he IS paying attention to how Virginians – all Virginians feel about it. I doubt he’s going to try to impose something that most Virginians do not support. Maybe famous “last words”.
-
Related: Will Youngkin also support Thomas More Society drafted legislation designed to stop women from crossing state lines to seek a legal abortion in… say… DC…??
Please don’t say it can’t happen here… this is their stated goal. A theocratic state where neighbors report on neighbors… The following is an example of how Religious Conservatives think…
““Just because you jump across a state line doesn’t mean your home state doesn’t have jurisdiction,” said Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society.”
-
If he does that, he will lose a significant number of Virginians, I predict and will have crossed the Rubicon.
-
The core that voted “Big Sexy” into power want him to do this. They are the ones who turned out for him. They are the trans- and homophobic base. They firmly believe supposed in white male victimhood and that Christian persecution is sn existential threat. They also are essential to his future political life. He is constantly playing to them. He will not explicitly state his support for their theocracy but he doesn’t need to… as long as he signs their Thomas More Society legislation… and he must as they must turn out for him… or his is lost… he knows it and they know he knows it…
-
Don’t be daft. I’ve lived in Virginia since I was born and, after a few moves when my father (a career Navy officer) was transferred) full time since 1973. I have no idea who the Thomas More Society is and neither do 99% of Virginians.
Nobody cares about splinter groups on the right or the left.
-
I think Eric’s point is valid. The base that voted for Youngkin are different than the swing votes that ended up getting him elected.
IOW, could Youngkin win with only his Conservative base?
-
Thomas More Society, named for a historic Catholic figure, was a prominent player in the 2020 election challenges, hardly a splinter group.
-
They took in just over $9m in donations in 2019 … https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/364270023
Meanwhile, Soros’ Open Society Foundation spent $1.4B in 2020.
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/
Just another leftist swing and a miss at a random splinter group.
-
So what?
-
-
-
You don’t need to know the people writing the legislation for them to be writing the legislation… they are… and they will…
The legislation they are writing, btw, is based on the Texas abortion law so don’t say it can’t happen here.
-
-
Once again, BR ignores the fact that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama could have obtained protection for abortion access had they worked harder for passage of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). But both are heroes to the Democratic Party and, as such, are above criticism. I guess it’s easier to believe in emanations and their offspring, penumbras.
How many other nations address abortion without a comprehensive statute? They don’t, and the U.S. didn’t need to do it either.
-
You’re advocating a national law, TMT?
-
If he’s not, I am. How does the question of when life begins possibly vary state by state?
-
Ssssshhh… quiet part out loud … was never about “state’s rights”…
-
It’s about states’ rights when the federal government is too cowardly to act – which it was under Clinton and Obama.
-
Perhaps Clinton and Obama recognized something about the difficulties of trying to impose one solution that the pro-lifers themselves either don’t recognize or don’t really care.
Youngkin realizes it. His ‘compromise” is not at all satisfying to the pro-life folks who say it’s life at conception not 15 weeks, right?
-
-
-
Well, according to SCOTUS, it’s that way because it’s not addressed in the Constitution. Right?
-
Fallacy… Clinton did not have a filibuster-proof majority ever and Obama only briefly… he judged healthcare a bigger threat to the lives and livelihoods of Americans mainly because Roe was in place. He lost his supermajority in the Senate even before ACA could be fully adopted. Abortion protection was never a possibility due to Christian Conservatives in the Senate.
-
Yep. POTUS have some finite amount of political capital and they have to judge what they probably can succeed at versus what will eat up much of their capital and still fail.
Worked that way until Trump who actually could have done something about immigration but the GOP itself could not find a unified position to go forward on AND at the same time decided they would “repeal & replace” by pulling out root and branch… and they STILL would if they could and “replace” with “free market insurance” – like the free market would provide health insurance to everyone no matter their status.
-
If you do some research, you will note that there was bipartisan support for protecting and regulating abortion when Clinton was President. He wouldn’t stand up to those who would not accept any restrictions, such as requiring parental consent or a court order for minors. Had Clinton acted and pushed back, FOCA would have passed in a form that would have been acceptable to the majority of the public.
And who was elected to succeed Paul Kirk in the Ted Kennedy Senate seat? Pro-choice Republican Scott Brown.
Passing FOCA was very doable during both the first years of the Clinton and Obama administrations. And if protecting abortion access was so damn important, why didn’t both Presidents do the job? Democratic arguments on this point are in a class with Trump’s arguments that he won the 2020 election.
We have today’s mess because of Clinton and Obama.
-
Right. Neither Clinton nor Obama were ideologues on abortion. Both of them knew it was a tar baby and a heavy lift and they had other fish to fry that they though they could achieve. They both were good at making political calculations.
This is called politics and it don’t matter if you are an R or a D – it’s how it works when you represent people. You seldom can please all sides and it becomes an issue of who you can please versus who will oppose and the pro-life folks were not going to support abortion rights – period.
If Clinton/Obama had done what you say they should have, it would have ended up the way it is right now – just on the opposite side – but the pro-life folks in the streets and in the courts… and crying states rights!
truth!
-
Larry, in fall of 2008, then Senator Obama running for President made a campaign speech to Planned Parenthood where he called passing the Freedom of Choice Act to be one his key priorities if elected. What does that suggest? That he would work with Democrats in Congress and pro-choice Republicans like Snowe and Collins to pass FOCA. He didn’t. He stood on the sidelines as Speaker Pelosi refused to allow any amendments to the bill, such as permitting parental notification and consent or a court order with respect to minors seeking an abortion. There was plenty of support for FOCA with those limits. But Obama did nothing.
What would have happened to LBJ’s agenda had he sat on the sidelines?
Of course, there would have been both legislative and court efforts to undo FOCA. But as I’ve written many times and never contradicted with facts (as opposed to empty denials from some of the left bloggers), all congressional challenges to change or repeal FOCA could have been filibustered in the Senate. And court challenges to FOCA would have occurred at least 10 years ago with a very different membership on the Supreme Court.
It’s a lot harder to challenge a specific statute in court than it is to challenge executive orders, expansive regulations or unsupported court opinions.
Had either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama made a full-court press for FOCA, it would be law today. But in the minds of the left, no Democrat can ever be at fault. Just ask the Post and the rest of the MSM.
-
All politicians make promises even GOP but after elected they have to make choices about how to use their pollical capital.
Neither Clinton nor Obama could have passed any legislation without Congress and they did decide that it would be a long slog and likely a fail.
Both of them deemed health care a more important priority to serve more people .
Even LBJ had to give up things in order to get other passed.
I often wonder if the GOP could actually agree among themselves on an immigration bill, if it would not pass with some or all Dem support – no matter the POTUS.
Clinton and Obama, unlike Conservatives – know when to not push something that is largely one-sided.
-
Those amendments were poison pulled designed to drive off liberals which Obama could not lose. I will remind you that Roe was fully intact at the time as well and Republicans had not stolen SCOTUS seats yet either.
-
One of Obama’s weaknesses was his tendency to approach governing from the prospective of a college professor, rather than as a politician. He was not willing to jump in like LBJ, making deals and twisting arms.
-
-
No way. Liberals have been talking about he possibility of SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade for decades. As for Obama “only briefly having a super-majority – was “only briefly” two years?
-
Not even close… at least try being honest. But thank God Obama was able to do what he did with the ACA… The GOP meanwhile did what they do… obstruct…
Obama did have a filibuster proof majority. He chose not to use it. He campaigned in the primary on codifying Roe if he was nominated and elected. Once in office he begged off saying it was a legislative issue beyond his control. He is so articulate, swoon
The Dems had the opportunity to resolve the issue and chose not to use it. That was one of several failures that drove some of us out of the party.
Obama’s CHANGE=SAME squandered the mandate his election and the election of huge majorities in Congress gave the Dems. Use it or lose it. They lost the House in ’10 and it has been a downhill slide since then.
-
“Obama did have a filibuster proof majority. He chose not to use it.”
He did indeed chose to use it… for the ACA.
-
Clinton did not have a filibuster-proof majority ever and Obama only briefly
My comment was in response to your dismissal of Obama’s filibuster proof majority as brief which was misleading at best.
Curious that you now note that he used it for ACA which passed more than a year into his term. You have a very elastic definition of “brief”.
-
I said: “He lost his supermajority in the Senate even before ACA could be fully adopted.”
It is really quite well documented history.
-
He lost his supermajority in the Senate even before ACA could be fully adopted. More revisionist history nonsense.
February 2009 Obama cut his deal with PHRMA, no competitive bidding or reimportation of drugs.
March 2009 Obama cut his deal with providers to ensure their prosperity.
April 2009 Obama cut his deal with for profit insurers giving them 35 million more lives to manage and profit from.
The next year was spent beating back multiple proposals for Medicare for all or even a Public Option and defeating competitive bidding or reimportation of drugs to keep the insurers and PHRMA happy.
Obama squandered his super majority and opportunities in many ways. The Obamacare debacle was just one of them, although the most prominent. In the end it was better than Hillary’s destruction of public health care for a generation, but that is a very low bar.
Appreciate your thoughts Mr. Dick. I suppose saving 500 is a start. I agree with you that Mr. Youngkin seems to be strategically placing himself for further advancement in politics. It is too bad we are being used as his steppingstone. It seems to me that the 20-week law that Youngkin seeks will be strategically blocked. Amazing how unforeseen events shape a governor’s tenure. The last 3 governors know this all too well.
-
He’s negotiating for when life begins?
“If Youngkin is willing to sacrifice more than 15,000 lives without a fight, then it is clear that his main concern is not aborted babies. It is all about politics. He wants to be able to tout his ability to get an abortion limits bill out of a divided General Assembly (even if it accomplishes little substantively), thereby raising his national profile in his little concealed ambition for national office.
If Virginia Democrats are smart strategically, which they don’t seem to be lately, they will take Youngkin’s offer and support a bill prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. That way, they would undercut one of the Republicans’ main talking points for the next election, the Governor would get a boost in national recognition and he would get distracted and spend a lot of time next year out of state chasing the siren song of the Presidency, and abortions could continue at virtually the same level as before.”
What would it undercut? Despite your belief ( I can only assume that you’ve not spoken to anyone on the subject, or ignored the article on here where your belief was disproven) those who are completely against abortion for all matters is not a position held by most people even on the Conservative side of the aisle.
Furthermore, your comment smacks of partisan wording. Compromise isn’t a bad word and attitudes otherwise are what has driven our political discourse to the depths it’s at today.
Clearly you were and are part of the problem and not the solution.
-
Like you can’t tell that from the # of posts, the tone of the posts, the loud & constant commenting from the progressive/left side of the house? Notice how when their political person was in charge, you didn’t see a lot going on, now that its changed *every little* item is a cause for grievance, complaining, panty wadding, tearful wah wah time. Its like people are trying to take over without all the actual college level fact based articles we see here from thoughtful journalists, retired political folks, voices across the spectrum. The tone is dragged down from the hand wringing. This is why I have several on here (at least a couple are noted wah wah’ers across the board) blocked, not least of which is the courage to add a real name and stand up for the drivel written.
-
While the author is partisan in his approach, he’s not wrong.
Allowing unlimited access to abortion at 20 weeks, (between 4 and 5 months of pregnancy, halfway to full term–the last 5 weeks of which are primarily growth–and only 3-4 weeks before viability), is not a pro-life position.
-
That’s because Governor Youngkin does not represent a strongly pro-lifer state.
-
“VaPragamtist Matt Adams • 9 minutes ago
While the author is partisan in his approach, he’s not wrong.Allowing unlimited access to abortion at 20 weeks, (between 4 and 5 months of pregnancy, halfway to full term–the last 5 weeks of which are primarily growth–and only 3-4 weeks before viability), is not a pro-life position.”
One can be pro-life and pragmatic about it. Roe established up unto viability which is around 24 weeks. That is rather late in the game compared to the rest of the civilized world (std is 15 weeks).
Being completely unwavering is again the anthesis of our system of Government. The gridlock that many complain about is of design and it requires compromise to function as intended.
The extremes on either side of the aisle now have less power than before Dobbs. Their votes now have meanings and their constituents can inform them of their displeasure.
-
“Being completely unwavering is again the anthesis of our system of Government. The gridlock that many complain about is of design and it requires compromise to function as intended.”
Sure. But I would hypothesize that the majority of those on the pro-life side who are willing to compromise on this issue do so based on reason rather than timeframe For example, they oppose abortion, but understand the necessity in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother. To them, the act is still wrong, but has stronger justification.
But to compromise based on a somewhat arbitrary timeframe belies the core pro-life premise that life (or the potential for life) begins at conception. For Youngkin to be so willing to abandon that premise for a point apparently relatively late (if the std is 15 weeks, or a full month beforehand) in his opening offer is concerning for the pro-life side.
Compromise. Negotiate. But don’t give away the farm.
-
The timeframe isn’t arbitrary though and the title of the article was “hypocritical”.
You’ll never get the 15 week cutoff in the United States. It was at the center of Dobbs, the Mississippi Law was 15 weeks.
Gov. Youngkin can believe that life begins at conception, but the extreme belief’s are not a majority in this state or others.
IOT establish regulations that are meaningful on abortion one must consider what a majority will agree to pass.
This doesn’t come close to giving away the farm, there is individuals on this site that advocate for the right to abort right up to delivery. They are equally in the minority with their opinions.
-
“Gov. Youngkin can believe that life begins at conception, but the extreme belief’s are not a majority in this state or others.”
Are you saying that the belief that life (or the potential for life) begins at conception is an extreme belief?
“This doesn’t come close to giving away the farm”
When his opening offer belies the core pro-life premise that life begins at conception, he is giving away the farm. Because the logical follow-up is “why 20 weeks? why not (35/30/25/21/20 + 1 day) weeks?” Any response to that is just as arbitrary and void of the corse premise as 20-weeks. So a timeframe compromise versus (as opposed to a reasoning/justification compromise), gives away the farm.
So either:
1. Youngkin doesn’t really believe that life begins at conception;
2. Youngkin believes life begins at conception but is willing to negotiate which lives are worth fighting for based on gestational development and political expediency. Can’t save ’em all.Dick rightfully points out that, for someone “pro-life”, Option 2 is hypocritical.
-
Please reread my comment and do so with an open mind.
“So either:
1. Youngkin doesn’t really believe that life begins at conception;
2. Youngkin believes life begins at conception but is willing to negotiate which lives are worth fighting for based on gestational development and political expediency. Can’t save ’em all.Craft a false dilemma somewhere else, as it illustrates you’re not arguing in good faith.
No, DHS was not correct. He’s a partisan who makes partisan complaints and attempts to pass them off as rational.
-
If you believe its a false dilemma, than what is the alternative I’m missing with regard to Youngkin’s belief that life begins at conception and his policy?
-
The false dilemma is the following:
1) He believes in life a conception
2) He is willing to negotiate for political expediency.There is more than those two options. He’s clearly stated he believes in life a conception and I have to reason to think otherwise, however he’s has to govern all Virginia and some don’t share his views. So he cannot be completely dogmatic in his approach, as neither can the polar opposite because the are also in the minority.
A pragmatic view and lesson in governing.
-
“There is more than those two options”
Such as. . .?
Also, to be clear, to options I mentioned are:
1. Youngkin doesn’t really believe that life begins at conception;
2. Youngkin believes life begins at conception but is willing to negotiate which lives are worth fighting for based on gestational development and political expediency. Can’t save ’em all.
There’s more couched within Option 2 than just political expediency.
-
Again, you aren’t interested in honest or truthful debate. That’s is evident by your statement and usage of a false dilemma.
-
Its only a “false” dilemma if you can demonstrate at least one alternative to the dilemma I presented. So give me an alternative and show me that it’s false.
-
“VaPragamtist 13 minutes ago
Its only a “false” dilemma if you can demonstrate at least one alternative to the dilemma I presented. So give me an alternative and show me that it’s false.”They were given, you just failed to recognize them as they didn’t fit your narrative.
-
“They were given, you just failed to recognize them”
Ok, so repeat it and explain it for me.
-
-
-
Maybe he believes that his is but one opinion and he was elected to represent all Virginians.
no question. If he REALLY believes that life begins at conception – then what he is proposing is really quite cynical.
He’s not supporting his decision at all.
He basically hand waving and coming up with “presto” as his position.
in terms of “extreme”, I offer the following which I presume Youngkin is aware of;
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
The caveat is that it matters a lot how the question is asked AND some indications that people are not fixed on their views – they might be shifting.
Liberals hate Youngkin more than they want compromise or want to heal the division in America.
-
“DJRippert 6 minutes ago
Liberals hate Youngkin more than they want compromise or want to heal the division in America.”The continued polarization isn’t going to win anyone “new” over. Gov. Youngkin can be of a “life a conception mind” but not “force” his beliefs on others. Isn’t that want people have continually said they want? To be free to hold their belief’s and not have others foisted upon them, it sounds like some individuals want people to adhere to their beliefs and there is no other manner in which to believe.
-
Exactly right.
-
That life begins at conception is one theological interpretation. Legislated, that view contravenes the religious creed of others, opening a First Amendment conflict. A recent poll indicated that 67% of Catholic laity believed Roe should stand. Life at conception served as a cultural and theological measure to affirm religion, not promote the welfare of the society.
-
“A recent poll indicated that 67% of Catholic laity believed Roe should stand.”
Perhaps because 67% of Catholic laity think that the overturn of Roe v Wade means that abortion is now illegal.
That 67% is perfectly free to vote for political candidates who will legislate the question of abortion – which is what should have happened from the start.
-
Whatever you think that laity believes is your opinion. The data point was offered to demonstrate that the doctrinal view of life at conception is not universally shared.
-
“Governor Youngkin recently told a forum organized by The Family Foundation that life begins at conception. I agree with that statement.”
But you supported Ralph Northam who supported Kathy Tran’s proposed legislation making abortion legal in Virginia right up to the time of birth.
And you call Youngkin a hypocrite?
-
I never said I supported Kathy Tran’s bill.
Dick, this strikes me as damned-if-he-does, damned-if-he-doesn’t logic. If Youngkin had started out with a proposal to ban all abortions, he would have been depicted as an abortion extremist out of touch with the vast majority of Virginians. But when he proposes a incremental restriction to abortions, he’s accused of selling out his principles!
I have no special insight into Youngkin’s thinking, but I suspect he has made a rational political calculation that a modest tightening of the abortion law is politically achievable, whereas starting with an extreme position would doom his initiative from the outset — and he would be correct in thinking so.
The fact is, there are very few people on the pro-life or pro-women’s rights extreme. The overwhelming majority of Virginians believe that some exemptions are needed (rape, incest, mother’s life in danger), and the overwhelming majority are uncomfortable with the idea of aborting a nine-month-old foetus days short of birth. Most people fall somewhere in between. The debate is where to draw the line — at what point is the foetus developed enough to be granted “personhood” and trump the woman’s right to choose?
I don’t know if I agree with Youngkin’s proposal or not — I’d like to see it debated. But there is nothing inherently hypocritical about it.
-
Is it a political thing or a moral thing? What are Youngkin’s principals on abortion?
The states – and their leaders that banned it say it’s a moral position not a political one. Where is Youngkin on that?
-
As JAB recognizes this is an “incremental” approach … they are boiling frogs… again, quiet part out loud…
-
Both. Lots of things are both. Abortion. Capital punishment. Affirmative action.
-
Yep. but on abortion – is it moral for a politician or political?
Does Youngkin believe that life is created at conception? if he does, then what is he doing politically?
-
-
-
“…whereas starting with an extreme position would doom his initiative from the outset — and he would be correct in thinking so…”
That is not an extremist position but a platform position of the GOP. The fact that you recognize Youngkin’s stated legislative goals as politically calculated only reinforces Dick’s characterization of Youngkin.
-
You posed the critical question about personhood. Lines drawn as weeks to save lives misses the point. The best science has to offer as parameters are the concepts of brain death and brain life. There exits acceptable medical and ethical practice to terminate live saving measures upon accepting brain death. Increasingly, laws are emerging to favor assisted suicide. Fetal development research indicates brain life occurs about the sixth month or 24 weeks.
-
For years Republicans have advocated ending abortion. Now that there is an opportunity to do so, you say there is a debate over where to draw the line. It is life or not. Any line dividing life at conception and “personhood” is arbitrary. Instead of standing on the principle of “life begins at conception” and then compromising if he could not get the bill through the Senate even with Joe Morrissey’s support, Youngkin chose to give up the farm at the beginning.
-
That is not the question. The appropriate question is at what point does an embryo become a person, I.e., when rights attach. Science has not concluded this event. Brain death, when the life at stake can no longer sustain essential functions, has been accepted as a determination of the end of personhood allowing for the termination of the individual. Nor does life at conception equate with the notion of the presence of a soul, another marker of being a person. Fetal development indicates brain life at six months or about 24 weeks. The dividing line to accept abortion is indeed arbitrary but reasonable parameters exist upon which public policy and law may be based.
-
SCOTUS could “fix” this in a heartbeat by ruling that a fetus is an American citizen.
End of discussion.
-
-
How does one compromise with that? Are you going to concede to murder at 15 weeks? 6 weeks? Just a little murder?
How are those of us on the pro-choice side supposed to compromise with that?
-
Youngkin’s reasonable position (15-weeks) is most refreshing. Until now Right and Left both want to pursue extreme positions on all matters with complete disrespect of those Americans/Virginian’s that do not agree with the extremes. Now if we could only apply this middle-road approach to Climate Change and Guns, maybe we start to achieve less divisiveness in our society.
-
If someone believes that life begins at conception and it’s killing no matter when – I don’t see potential compromises. Wrong?
Are you saying that those with that position are small in number and “extreme”?
If you are Youngkin , will your proposal for 15 weeks be acceptable to the pro-life folks in general?
I truly don’t know but would be surprised that pro-life folks in general really like it. I don’t see them stepping up and embracing it.
-
Indeed, there can be no compromise with an extreme religious doctrine. Arguing that the establishment of a number of weeks as a limit saves lives undercuts the present extreme view that there should be no limits on possession of firearms.
-
Youngkin must get the Democrat-controlled Senate to vote for the bill. The Senate would never pass a bill forbidding abortion from the moment of conception. The 20-week limit is a major improvement over the current limit, which permits killing the baby at any time, including those that come too fast to kill before birth, the product of a “botched abortion.”
-
Virginia law does not allow “killing the baby” at any
time. Abortions are authorized during the first trimester of pregnancy (about 12 weeks). During the second trimester (up to 24 weeks), they are authorized, but must be performed in a hospital. In the third trimester, they are authorized under the following conditions: 1. In a hospital setting 2. The attending doctor and two consulting physicians certify that continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially impair her mental or physical health and 3. Measures for support of the baby must be available and utilized if there are any signs of viability. In summary, because Virginia authorizes abortions up to about the 24th weej of pregnancy, Youngkin’s proposal of
prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks is not much of a change, especially when one realizes that over 99 percent of abortions are currently done before the 21st
week.-
DNA science shows that what is aborted is a human being, a baby. It is not part of the mother. It has its own distinctive DNA. Abortion kills a human being.
-
A politician does something political?
Wow. Never happened before.
I think he is a bit squishy, but he managed to get elected.
He finally got a budget done over mindless (?) intransigence from the zealots in the Senate. So maybe he is going for a laydown, and the zealots – oops – Dems – would be wise to take it, and the battle can resume later as to what is the proper line.
Seriously, if you favor baby-killing, and I am intentionally being provocative because the innocent human life is the issue and it is 50 years delayed by a horrible judicial act that has totally corrupted our politics and judiciary, then you (the Dems) would voluntarily go down as far as possible in the hope of putting the issue to rest and hoping it is not pressed to the end on the 14th Amendment and life (where I think you have to lose). I would say go to 6 weeks. You might be able to put it to rest. Still wouldn’t make it right…
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.