The Virginia Democrat Governor Ralph Northam supported a law that would allow a woman to kill her unborn baby up until his or her (not “its”) birth and thereafter if the result of that birth did not meet the personhood guidelines of the mother.

The Virginia government is now dominated by pro-abortion Democrats. They are good with snuffing out the most innocent of life. At the same time, they are passing laws that will leave the rest of Virginians defenseless from people who are hell-bent on killing people no matter what the law says.

Leftists have been trying to defend the third-trimester abortion laws as a woman’s fundamental right. The claim is being made that such abortions should be permitted if (1) the mother’s physical life is in danger, (2) the unborn baby has some physical abnormality, (3) the mother’s “mental health” is in jeopardy.

Considering number 1: There is almost no example of a woman’s physical health being in danger that would necessitate killing the unborn baby. The goal of the doctor and his or her medical staff should do everything to save both mother and child. A doctor should not kill one to save the other. Jeff and Candi Durbin’s daughter went through a difficult delivery. She needed a blood transfusion and the baby was not breathing. What did the doctors do? They did everything to save both of them, and they did.

Considering number 2: Where is the line drawn on physical abnormality? What if a debilitating physical abnormality occurs well after a child’s birth? Should parents have the right to kill the child? Will DNA testing of an unborn baby be used to determine if there is some physical or mental abnormality that could be used to permit a late-term abortion. Think of the film Gattaca. James Jordan writes:

Your name is Vincent [to conquer] Freeman [free from the genetic engineering of the State], [an invalid as determined by the State] and you are a God-child. The prophets of genetics say that you have a 99% probability of developing a heart condition, and so there is no way you’re ever going to be admitted to the space program. You’ll never go to heaven…. Religiously, the film begins with a quotation from Ecclesiastes [7:13] [“Consider what God has done. Who can straighten out what he made crooked?”] and asks the question whether the human spirit is encoded on genes or comes from something higher. The religious elements are in the background, yet they serve to fix the themes of the film. Vincent’s mother clutches a rosary, cross visibly displayed, as she gives birth to her “faith-child.” The symbol on the identity cards of the designer people is an infinity symbol, but on the cards of the normal people is a cross. When Vincent is accepted to go to Saturn, Jerome [genome] exclaims pregnantly: “They’re sending you up there, for Christ’s sake! You! Of all people!”

The spiral stairway in Jerome Morrow’s (played by Jude Law) house is formed as a double-helix model of DNA.

One reviewer considered genetic engineering a positive: “With genetic engineering, we could get rid of unwanted traits, such as baldness, obesity, and even genetic diseases.” We could also get rid of the children who have “unwanted traits” once they are born so they could not pass them on. It’s called eugenics (good genes). Who ultimately makes the determination?

Considering number 3: “mental health” as defined by whom? “A woman can currently terminate a third-trimester pregnancy in Virginia if three physicians certify that the procedure is necessary to prevent her death or to stave off ‘substantial and irremediable’ harm to her mental or physical health.” The new law “would have made the procedure legal with only one physician’s approval and without the need to prove that the damaging health effects of a pregnancy were ‘substantial and irremediable.’ (The physician would’ve still needed to confirm that the woman’s physical or mental health was at risk.)”

This is another slippery slope loophole in the legislation. What we now have in the legislation in Virginia, New York, and several other states, is abortion on demand, both pre- and post-birth. The original 1973 Roe v. Wade decision said that “a state only has an interest in protecting prenatal life after it is viable (which in 1973 was between twenty-four and twenty-eight weeks).” But as we know, “the viability line is being pushed back in pregnancy (now it is between twenty and twenty-four weeks)” because of technological advances.

What’s true at the beginning of life is true at the end. Once the State determines that you and I are not viable or “valid” in the case of Gattaca,  it means we’ll become Soylent Green:

The viability argument is no longer used or needed. The new standard, in order to make it seem that the choice is a medical decision, is a pregnancy that would impair the physical or mental health of the mother.

Consider the following:

The concept of “health,” as defined by the Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton, includes all medical, psychological, social, familial, and economic factors which might potentially inspire a decision to procure an abortion. As such, “health” abortion is indistinguishable from elective abortion. Thus, until a more narrow definition of “health” is obtained, it may not be possible to limit effectively the number of abortions performed.1

After viability the mother’s life or health (which presumably is to be defined very broadly indeed, so as to include what many might regard as the mother’s convenience…) must, as a matter of constitutional law, take precedence over … the fetus’s life…2

What happens if the State determines that you and I are impairing the health of the nation? It’s already happening. Conservatives are being shut out of the free expression of ideas that go against the Leftist status quo.

The following was written in 1991, which shows that these new pro-death abortion laws have been a long time in the making:

It is safe to say, therefore, that in the first six months of pregnancy a woman can have an abortion for no reason, but in the last three months she can have it for any reason. This is abortion-on-demand. Those who defend abortion rights do not deny this disturbing fact.3

Writing in 1986 in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Justice John Paul Stevens let the cat out of the bag when he declared that even “the nine-month-gestated, fully sentient fetus on the eve of birth” is not yet a human being. He doesn’t offer a basis for this claim. He’s a Supreme Court Justice. He doesn’t have to. Just by asserting it as true makes it law.

Given the redefinition of mental health today, a woman can get an abortion by claiming that being a mother is an invasion of her “safe space.”

Consider Vermont’s new abortion law H-0057 that “would remove all practical abortion regulations, establishing the ‘fundamental right’ to the procedure without restriction while completely eradicating any consideration for an unborn child’s viability. The bill declares:

• Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization.
• Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth to a child, or to have an abortion.
• A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law. (The Blaze)

Once an “any reason abortion law” is passed, an unborn baby does not exist. An unborn “thing” has no personhood rights. This means that a pregnant woman who is beaten and has a miscarriage cannot bring a suit against her perpetrator because her “product of conception” has no legal personhood standing.

What the lesson? The Left has always been about abortion of all kinds, including aborting all contrary opinions. Where has the GOP been on this issue? “We’re all about being fiscal conservatives, not social conservatives.” The chickens have come home to roost in their empty heads.

1. Victor G. Rosenblum and Thomas J. Marzen, “Strategies for Reversing Roe v. Wade through the Courts,” in Abortion and the Constitution: Reversing Roe v. Wade through the Courts, editors Dennis Horan, Edward R. Grant, and Paige C. Cunningham (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1987), 199-200. [↩]
2. John Hart Ely, “The Wages of Crying Wolf: A comment on Roe v. Wade,” Yale Law Journal 82 (1973), 921. [↩]
3. Francis J. Beckwith, “Abortion: What is Legal in the U.S. and Why?” Adapted from a series in Christian Research Journal (Spring 1991). [↩]