CLICK HERE, for China Tribunal. CLICK HERE, for China Tribunal, forced harvesting of organs from China’s political prisoners. CLICK HERE, from China Tribunal’s December 2018 findings. CLICK HERE, for firstthings.com, and then US Vice President Joe Biden’s attitude to what went on in China. CLICK HERE, for 2015 on China’s organ trafficking. CLICK HERE, for Lifesite article on China. CLICK HERE, for NBC article, China promises to phase out practice. CLICK HERE, for an NBC article on China’s practice.
2. China Tribunal’s Findings
From the December 2018 interim report:
“The Tribunal’s members are certain – unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt – that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”
That was part of the interim report. But now the final report goes on even further:
The Tribunal has considered evidence, in its many forms, and dealt with individual issues according to the evidence relating to each issue and nothing else and thereby reached a series of conclusions that are free of any influence caused by the PRC’s reputation or other potential causes of prejudice.
These were as follows;
• That there were extraordinarily short waiting times (promised by PRC doctors and hospitals) for organs to be available for transplantation;
• That there was torture of Falun Gong and Uyghurs;
• That there was accumulated numerical evidence (excluding spurious PRC data) which indicated:
o the number of transplant operations performed, and
o the impossibility of there being anything like sufficient ‘eligible donors’ under the recently formed PRC voluntary donor scheme for that number of transplant operations;
• That there was a massive infrastructure development of facilities and medical personnel for organ transplant operations, often started before any voluntary donor system was even planned; That there was direct and indirect evidence of forced organ harvesting.
And this led to the conclusion that:
forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one – and probably the main – source of organ supply. The concerted persecution and medical testing of the Uyghurs is more recent and it may be that evidence of forced organ harvesting of this group may emerge in due course. The Tribunal has had no evidence that the significant infrastructure associated with China’s transplantation industry has been dismantled and absent a satisfactory explanation as to the source of readily available organs concludes that forced organ harvesting continues till today.
However, on the topic of “genocide” China Tribunal pussyfoots around the issue and says they cannot conclude there is intent for genocide. This despite stating that the actions met the other elements.
The Tribunal considered whether this constituted a crime of Genocide; The Falun Gong and the Uyghurs in the PRC each qualify as a ‘group’ for purposes of the crime of Genocide. For the Falun Gong, the following elements of the crime of Genocide are clearly established:
• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
Thus, bar one element of the crime, Genocide is, on the basis of legal advice received, clearly proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. The remaining element required to prove the crime is the very specific intent for Genocide. Accepting legal advice about proving this intent, the Tribunal cannot be certain that the requisite intent is proved and thus cannot be certain that Genocide itself is proved.
That’s right. Due to legal advice, China Tribunal cannot actually conclude there is intent to commit genocide, despite the prolonged actions that would justify the claims.
China Tribunal then “appears” to condemn what happens to Falun Gong and the Uyghurs, but waters down the language to “criminality”, despite the included detail. The tribunal claims the “elements have been met for crimes against humanity”.
Commission of Crimes Against Humanity against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by proof of one or more of the following, legally required component acts:
• imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
• rape or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
• persecution on racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law ;
• enforced disappearance
in the course of a widespread and systematic attack or attacks against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs.
This seems to be splitting hairs. It meets the criteria for crimes against humanity. Yet China Tribunal, on advice from their lawyers, refuse to state there is intent to qualify as “genocide”.
The report ends with a very interesting comment about the power of media and citizen journalists.
Governments and international bodies must do their duty not only in regard to the possible charge of Genocide but also in regard to Crimes against Humanity, which the Tribunal does not allow to be any less heinous. Assuming they do not do their duty, the usually powerless citizen is, in the internet age, more powerful than s/he may recognise. Criminality of this order may allow individuals from around the world to act jointly in pressurising governments so that those governments and other international bodies are unable not to act.
The China Tribunal has no power to actually do anything. However, it seems to believe that by spreading word online it can put pressure on governments to act.
But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable. So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that.
In order to maintain the 1-child policy, China has had to result to extreme and inhuman measures:
sex-selective abortions against girls
Biden seemed critical that the declining birth rate would be able to sustain the retired population. However he seemed to have no concern over the mass aborting and sterilizations that went on.
In 2014, state media reported that China would phase out the practice of taking organs from executed prisoners and said it would rely instead on a national organ donation system.
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday was not immediately available to comment on the tribunal’s findings.
In a statement released alongside the final judgment, the tribunal said many of those affected were practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline that China banned in the 1990s and has called an “evil cult.” The tribunal added that it was possible that Uighur Muslims — an ethnic minority who are currently being detained in vast numbers in western China — were also being targeted.
China had been promising for years to end this practice, but it doesn’t seem to have happened.
5. Lifesite Take On The Situation
Still, there has been too much reporting for too long about this profound human-rights abuse to ethically continue to look the other way. The question thus becomes: Will the U.S. specifically outlaw traveling to China for the purpose of buying an organ — just as we do participating in pedophilia tourism overseas? (Spain, Israel, Italy, and Taiwan have passed such laws already.) I can’t think of one argument against pursuing such a course.
If we don’t at least do what we can, it seems to me that we make ourselves complicit in allowing the demand for black-market organs forcibly harvested from murdered prisoners to continue unimpeded — and the blood of the slaughtered victims will also be on us.
(Lifesite article here) This echoes what China Tribunal has been saying: that political pressure is needed to put a stop to this practice.
6. My Take On This Story
If the allegations are true, and they seem to be, then this is abhorrent.
At some level this is no different that what abortion industries like Planned Parenthood do: snuff out lives in order to obtain a commodity, their organs. If we subscribe to the idea that life is valuable, then this is little — though more heinous — than a common murder and robbery.
While donation of organs (for after death), should be encouraged, this is an entirely different matter. This is premeditated mass murder in order to steal those parts. The practice is barbaric.
Consider the flack Canada has taken over the Government’s genocide claims over Indigenous women and girls. Most of the deaths and disappearances (at least where it is known) were at the hands of Indigenous men they knew. That is apparently a “genocide”. Yet what is going on in China is not really worth the attention apparently.
CLICK HERE, for an article on Planned Parenthood. PP would stand to lose $50-$60 million a year from defunding.
CLICK HERE, for PP suing Idaho over new reporting requirements. CLICK HERE, for Idaho’s House Bill 638.
CLICK HERE, for a Politico article which covers ongoing cases CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood & Ohio. CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood challenging a ban on aborting fetuses with Down’s Syndrome. CLICK HERE, for Kentucky banning abortions based on race, sex or disability, which Planned Parenthood and ACLU plan to challenge. CLICK HERE, for Ohio Senate Bill 23 “Heartbeat Bill”. (Hearts beat 45 days into pregnancy). CLICK HERE, for Ohio Senate Bill 27, Medical Tissue Disposal Bill. CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood challenging Indiana law requiring the remains of aborted babies to be either cremated or buried. CLICK HERE, for an article on selling aborted baby parts. CLICK HERE, for David Daleiden fined $195,000. CLICK HERE, for Daleiden charged for illegal recordings.
2. Quotes From Ruling
In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Service Act (“Title X”) to create a limited grant program for certain types of pre-pregnancy family planning services. See Pub. L. No. 91-572, 84 Stat. 1504 (1970). Section 1008 of Title X, which has remained unchanged since its enactment, is titled “Prohibition of Abortion,” and provides: None of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.
Pretty straightforward. Title X was never meant to be a means which to funnel money to fund abortions.
In ruling on a stay motion, we are guided by four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although review of a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction is for abuse of discretion, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003), “[a] district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law,” Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996).
This is the 4 part test to decide on a motion to stay a ruling. Is the applicant likely to succeed? Is there public interest? What harm will come to the parties?
As a threshold matter, we note that the Final Rule is a reasonable interpretation of § 1008. Congress enacted § 1008 to ensure that “[n]one of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” 42 U.S.C. § 300a-6. If a program promotes, encourages, or advocates abortion as a method of family planning, or if the program refers patients to abortion providers for family planning purposes, then that program is logically one “where abortion is a method of family planning.” Accordingly, the Final Rule’s prohibitions on advocating, encouraging, or promoting abortion, as well as on referring patients for abortions, are reasonable and in accord with § 1008. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that § 1008 “plainly allows” such a construction of the statute. Rust, 500 U.S. at 184 (upholding as a reasonable interpretation of § 1008 regulations that (1) prohibited abortion referrals and counseling, (2) required referrals for prenatal care, (3) placed restrictions on referral lists, (4) prohibited promoting, encouraging, or advocating abortion, and (5) mandated financial and physical separation of Title X projects from abortion-related activities). The text of § 1008 has not changed.
This makes a great deal of sense. If abortion was never intended to be covered as “family planning” under Title X, then organizations that openly promote, encourage, or otherwise facilitate it shouldn’t be allowed to receive federal monies. It would do an end run around rules.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not promulgate any regulation that—
(1) creates any unreasonable barriers to the ability of individuals to obtain appropriate medical care;
(2) impedes timely access to health care services;
(3) interferes with communications regarding a full range of treatment options between the patient and the provider;
(4) restricts the ability of health care providers to provide full disclosure of all relevant information to patients making health care decisions;
(5) violates the principles of informed consent and the ethical standards of health care professionals; or
(6) limits the availability of health care treatment for the full duration of a patient’s medical needs.
Pub. L. No. 111-148, title I, § 1554 (42 U.S.C. § 18114) (“§ 1554”). These two provisions could render the Final Rule “not in accordance with law” only by impliedly repealing or amending § 1008, or by directly contravening the Final Rule’s regulatory provisions
So these limitations would not be violate, specifically because § 1008 would need to be repealed or amended. Or the “Final Rule’s” provisions would have to be violated.
Plaintiffs admit that there is no irreconcilable conflict between § 1008 and either the appropriations rider or § 1554 of the ACA. E.g., California State Opposition to Motion for Stay at p. 14; Essential Access Opposition to Motion for Stay at p.14. And we discern no “clear and manifest” intent by Congress to amend or repeal § 1008 via either of these laws—indeed, neither law even refers to § 1008. The appropriations rider mentions abortion only to prohibit appropriated funds from being expended for abortions; and § 1554 of the ACA does not even mention abortion.
The US Congress has no intent to rewrite or amend § 1008. And § 1554 of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) does not even mention abortion. It looks pretty weak to attempt an end run around what the law explicitly forbids.
Although the Final Rule does require the provision of referrals to non-abortion providers, id. at 7788–90, such referrals do not constitute “pregnancy counseling.” First, providing a referral is not “counseling.” HHS has defined “nondirective counseling” as “the meaningful presentation of options where the [medical professional] is not suggesting or advising one option over another,” 84 Fed. Reg. at 7716, whereas a “referral” involves linking a patient to another provider who can give further counseling or treatment, id. at 7748. The Final Rule treats referral and counseling as distinct terms, as has Congress and HHS under previous administrations. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 300z-10; 53 Fed. Reg. at 2923; 2928–38 (1988); 65 Fed. Reg. 41272–75 (2000). We therefore conclude that the Final Rule’s referral requirement is not contrary to the appropriations rider’s nondirective pregnancy counseling mandate.2
It is not “counselling” to refer a woman for abortion procedures. Counselling, as repeatedly held, is explaining options to a person.
Because HHS and the public interest would be irreparably harmed absent a stay, harms to Plaintiffs from a stay will be comparatively minor, and HHS is likely to prevail in its challenge of the preliminary injunction orders before a merits panel of this court (which is set to hear the cases on an expedited basis), we conclude that a stay of the district courts’ preliminary injunction orders pending appeal is proper. The motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED.
3. PP Sued Idaho Over Reporting Rules
Chapter 95: Abortions Complications Reporting Act
(f) Abortion and complication reporting do not impose undue burdens on a woman’s right to choose whether she terminates pregnancy. Specifically, the “collection of information” with respect to actual patients is a vital element of medical research, so it cannot be said that the requirements serve no purpose other than to make abortions more difficult.
This raises a valid point. If abortions, or any particular technique were leading to health complications later down the road, then it would be useful to know that information.
Here is Planned Parenthood’s response when filing suit.
This law require providers in the state to report on more than 37 new “complications,” ranging from medical conditions that have no link to abortion, like breast cancer, to the inability to come in for a follow-up appointment, which is not a medical condition. The reporting requirement doesn’t exist for any other medical procedure. The bill was signed into law by Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter in March.
Yet none of this actually prevents abortions from going on. It is a bit confusing. Does PP “not” want the patients (specifically), or the public (generally) to know what kinds of health and follow-up issues are going on?
4. PP Sued Ohio Over Heartbeat Bill
(1) At least twenty-four hours prior to the performance or inducement of the abortion, a physician meets with the pregnant woman in person in an individual, private setting and gives her an adequate opportunity to ask questions about the abortion that will be performed or induced. At this meeting, the physician shall inform the pregnant woman, verbally or, if she is hearing impaired, by other means of communication, of all of the following: (a) The nature and purpose of the particular abortion procedure to be used and the medical risks associated with that procedure; (b) The probable gestational age of the embryo or fetus; (c) The medical risks associated with the pregnant woman carrying the pregnancy to term. The meeting need not occur at the facility where the abortion is to be performed or induced, and the physician involved in the meeting need not be affiliated with that facility or with the physician who is scheduled to perform or induce the abortion.
(3) If it has been determined that the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying has a detectable fetal heartbeat, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion shall comply with the informed consent requirements in section 2919.192 2919.194 of the Revised Code in addition to complying with the informed consent requirements in divisions (B)(1), (2), (4), and (5) of this section
While “controversial”, this bill (and similar ones) make a very valid point. How is it not “alive” if there is an actual heart beating?
All of this talk about the right to an abortion, but no concern over the life of the unborn child. Why?
Perhaps Senate Bill 27 will explain it. Planned Parenthood not only sues to make abortion “more accessible”, but it opposes efforts to “force the disposal” of the bodies either by burial or by cremation. Those aborted babies are worth a lot of money, if you harvest the organs.
5. Real Reason PP Is So Pro-Abortion
Let’s connect the dots here
PP supports abortion with federal funds.
PP supports aborting babies with Down’s Syndrome.
PP supports abortion based on sex, race, or disability.
PP opposes laws mandating burial or cremation of fetus.
While all of these are troubling, it is the last point that explains it: Planned Parenthood doesn’t want States mandating the disposal of fetal tissue, because there is a lot of money to be made in that.
From the Washington Examiner:
When pro-life activist David Daleiden and his team at the Center for Medical Progress released the tapes in 2015, Planned Parenthood leaned heavily on the defense that the videos were unfairly doctored. This defense was parroted immediately by a servile press, despite that Planned Parenthood never explained what additional context would have exonerated its senior director of medical services saying on tape that the group was “doing a little better than” breaking even for donated organs (it is illegal to profit from the donation of fetal tissue. It is also illegal under federal law to perform partial birth abortions).
From the Christian Post article:
The undercover journalist who in 2015 exposed Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts selling operation is fighting a nearly $200,000 fine amid an ongoing court battle.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear an appeal from David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress last week, an appeal of a $195,000 imposed on him for using video footage which supposedly violated a gag order imposed by a lower court judge.
“The federal judge presiding over related civil lawsuits, District Judge William Orrick, had held that criminal defense counsel’s use of the videos violated a gag order he imposed in one of the federal civil actions. Daleiden and his defense counsel appealed, arguing that Orrick had improperly imposed a criminal contempt penalty without granting the accused due process and that the federal civil injunction should not apply to Daleiden’s state criminal proceeding,” according to a statement from the Thomas More Society, which is representing Daleiden.
While the court proceedings are likely not over, David Daleiden performed a much needed service by exposing what really goes on. Aborted (a.k.a. murdered) children are worth a lot of money dead, as their organs can be harvested and sold.
It also explains why Planned Parenthood has such an unwavering pro-abortion stance. These are not babies, but raw supplies. It further makes clear why PP doesn’t want aborted babies buried or cremated. Not much of a business model if you final products are required to be thrown out.
Aborted babies are essentially in a chop-shop for spare parts. Nothing humane or compassionate about it.
CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court of Appeals ruling, May 15, 2019. CLICK HERE, for the Ontario Divisional Court ruling, January 31, 2018. CLICK HERE, for R.v. Oakes (balancing test) CLICK HERE, for Carter v. Canada (struck down assisted suicide laws). CLICK HERE, for Ontario Human Rights Code. CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Charter. CLICK HERE, for some Charter cases. CLICK HERE, for Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 (standard for review)
Miscellaneous Articles CLICK HERE, for woman who tries to drown newborn gets only 1 year. CLICK HERE, for a Maclean’s article on “assault on women’s rights”. CLICK HERE, for Roe (as in Roe v Wade), becomes anti-abortion activist.
2. Brief Introduction
The case above is one of Ontario doctors refusing to provide certain “reproductive health services” (a.k.a. abortion), and “medical assistance in dying” MAiD (a.k.a. euthanasia). Not only did they refuse to provide these services, they refused to help with the referrals procedures to others who would.
The Appellants refused on religious grounds. They claimed that requiring them to participate in these “medical services” violated their consciences and religious convictions. To be fair, we are talking about killing unborn children, eldery, and terminal patients. The other extreme would be more disturbing.
Their regulatory body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, says if they won’t perform such “health care services”, then they must help the patients get referred to doctors who will.
The Ontario Divisional Court agreed that this was the case. And now the Ontario Court of Appeals has upheld that ruling. Will this go to the Supreme Court of Canada? We will see.
3. Court of Appeal Exerps
 The appeal raises the following issues:
(1) What is the applicable standard of review and is the Doré/Loyola framework or the Oakes framework applicable to this case?
(2) Do the effective referral requirements of the Policies infringe the appellants’ s. 2(a) freedom of conscience and religion?
(3) Do the effective referral requirements of the Policies infringe the appellants’ s. 15(1) equality rights?
(4) If there is an infringement of the appellants’ Charter rights and/or freedoms, is it justified under s. 1 of the Charter?
Standard Of Review
 The normal rules of appellate review of lower court decisions, articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII),  2 S.C.R. 235, apply on this appeal. Questions of law are reviewed on a correctness standard, and questions of fact and mixed fact and law are reviewed on a standard of palpable and overriding error: Housen, at paras. 8, 10, 36-37. The Divisional Court’s selection and application of the correctness standard to the Policies is a question of law and is accordingly reviewed by this court on a correctness standard.
If it is a question of fact, the standard is “overriding palpable error”. In essence, Appeals Courts tend to “give deference” to the Trial Judge since he/she is in a much better position to actually judge the case.
In questions of law, the standard is the correctness of the law itself.
In questions of mixed law and fact are viewed more towards “overriding palpable error”.
 In Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32 (CanLII),  2 S.C.R. 293, at para. 62, the Supreme Court adopted the definition of religious freedom expressed in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 336:
[T]he right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.
 At para. 63, the court set out the requirements of the test:
[F]irst, that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion; and second, that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief.
This was the test applied by the Divisional Court, referring to Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 (CanLII),  2 S.C.R. 551, at para. 56. See also Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37 (CanLII),  2 S.C.R. 567, at para. 32.
 The sincerity of belief and interference are conceded. But the College contends that the interference is trivial and insubstantial and does not contravene s. 2(a).
 I disagree. To explain my reasons, it is necessary to examine the appellants’ beliefs and their objections to performing or referring patients for the procedures at issue.
All parties agree the beliefs are sincere. The College says it is trivial, while the Panel disagrees.
Section 15 and Equality
 The Divisional Court referred to the two-part test for establishing a breach of s. 15(1) articulated in Taypotat, at paras. 19-20: (1) whether, on its face or in its impact, a law creates a distinction on the basis of an enumerated or analogous ground; and (2) whether the impugned law fails to respond to the actual capacities and needs of the members of the group and instead imposes burdens or denies benefits in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating their disadvantage.
 The focus of the inquiry is “whether a distinction has the effect of perpetuating arbitrary disadvantage on the claimant because of his or her membership in an enumerated or analogous group” such that it is a “discriminatory distinction”: Taypotat, at paras. 16, 18; and Quebec (Attorney General) v. A., 2013 SCC 5 (CanLII),  1 S.C.R. 61, at para. 331
 Applying this test, the Divisional Court dismissed the appellants’ claim that the Policies infringe their equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter. Without deciding whether the Policies create a distinction on the basis of religion, the Divisional Court held that the Policies do not have the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating a disadvantage or promoting prejudice against religious physicians. Nor do they restrict access to a fundamental social institution or impede full membership in Canadian society.
To put it mildly, the Courts have decided that not all “equality rights” are treated equally. In other words, it is okay to discriminate on the basis of “protected grounds” as long as it falls within certain guidelines.
Allowed Under Section 1?
 The onus at this stage is on the College to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the infringement of the appellants’ freedom of religion is a reasonable limit, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society: Multani, at para. 43.
 In Oakes, at pp. 135 and 138-39, Dickson C.J. articulated a framework for the s. 1 analysis, which can be summarized as follows:
(a) the Charter-infringing measure must be “prescribed by law”;
(b) the objective of the impugned measure must be of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom;
(c) the means chosen must be reasonable and demonstrably justified – this is a “form of proportionality test” which will vary in the circumstances, but requires a balancing of the interests of society with the interests of individuals and groups and has three components:
(i) the measure must be rationally connected to the objective – i.e., carefully designed to achieve the objective and not arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations;
(ii) the means chosen should impair the Charter right or freedom as little as possible; and
(iii)there must be proportionality between the salutary and deleterious effects of the measure.
This is a fairly lengthy section, but this lays out the groundwork for determining whether Charter violations can otherwise be “saved”. Are there justifiable public interests in the breaches that are affirmed? Ultimately, the Court of Appeals said yes. These violations were justified on other grounds.
 The Fact Sheet identifies options that are clearly acceptable to many objecting physicians. Those who do not find them acceptable may be able to find other practice structures that will insulate them from participation in actions to which they object. If they cannot do so, they will have to seek out other ways in which to use their skills, training and commitment to patient care. I do not underestimate the individual sacrifices this may require. The Divisional Court correctly found, however, that the burden of these sacrifices did not outweigh the harm to vulnerable patients that would be caused by any reasonable alternative. That conclusion is not undermined by the fresh evidence before this court. Even taking the burden imposed on physicians at its most onerous, as framed by the appellants, the salutary effects of the Policies still outweigh the deleterious effects.
 As the Divisional Court observed, the appellants have no common law, proprietary or constitutional right to practice medicine. As members of a regulated and publicly-funded profession, they are subject to requirements that focus on the public interest, rather than their interests. In fact, the fiduciary nature of the physician-patient relationship requires physicians to act at all times in their patients’ best interests, and to avoid conflicts between their own interests and their patients’ interests:
4. Closing Thoughts
This is the heart of the conclusion:
(A) Doctors have other options
(B) Doctors can alter their practice
(C) Public interest comes first
(D) Medicine is a publicly regulated profession.
One thing needs to be pointed out though: just because something is LEGAL, doesn’t make it MORAL. Abortion and euthanasia are killing. Period.
Although both abortion and assisted suicide have no criminal penalties against them, there are still huge scientific and moral arguments against both. This will be a topic for a coming piece.
If a person believes that carrying out just “health care services” amounts to murder, that is okay. But wouldn’t referrals of such procedures make a doctor an accessory to murder? Although one degree removed, the moral objection would be the same.
Bottom line: provide the service, or refer to someone else who will. You’re here to serve the public.
CLICK HERE, for Part 1, New York and Virginia. CLICK HERE, for Part 2, Kill The Survivors. CLICK HERE, for Part 3, UN Endorses Abortion As Human Right
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for Oregon allowing mentally ill people to starve to death. That is House Bill 4135. CLICK HERE, for a mother who gave birth, killed her child, and claimed it’s basically an abortion. CLICK HERE, for a NY man who killed his pregnant girlfriend, but will only face 1 murder charge. CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia’s “Heartbeat Bill” listings. CLICK HERE, for Florida’s SB 492, to make it a felony for a doctor to perform abortion if heartbeat detected. Also, CLICK HERE, for House Bill 235 in Florida. CLICK HERE, for Georgia Heartbeat Bill, House Bill 481. CLICK HERE, and also CLICK HERE, for Maryland. CLICK HERE, for Missouri, House Bill 126. CLICK HERE, for West Virginia, House Bill 2903. CLICK HERE, for the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. CLICK HERE, for Ohio Planned Parenthood being defunded by taxpayers.
3. Stabbing Baby Post-Birth is “Abortion”
From the Toresays.com article, a 17 year old Texas teenager apparently gave birth, then murdered her infant. Here is a quote:
The infant girl was delivered naturally and there were nine entry wound sites. The infant was stabbed 5 times in her back, once on her side and three times in the neck. This was determined by Dr. Diaz who performed the forensic examination. She also determined that the child was found 12 hours after birth and died to homicidal violence.
Many of them quoted the snippets of coverage by MSM who claimed killing a child up until the time of birth is a “right of women’s health”. All these young children believe they have the right to end the life of an infant because “My Body My Right”.
What this young lady did was murder. She stabbed an innocent young baby girl 9 times and abandoned her in a shed and went straight to back to bed. The rhetoric of the radical leftists MSM along with the educational system that purports radical grievances and ideologies has torn the fabric of basic morals and the sanctity of life. “
This is disgusting. How did we get to the point where not only abortion is legal, but then giving birth and then killing your child is considered “your right”?
Perhaps the rationale here is: “well, I saved the taxpayers some money by not having them pay for a doctor, so I did you a favour.”
But at least there is some good news. The recent surge in pro-death sentiments has led to some backlash, and people reaffirming that life really does matter.
“2. Article 6 recognizes and protects the right to life of all human beings. It is the supreme right from which no derogation is permitted1 even in situations of armed conflict and other public emergencies. The right to life has crucial importance both for individuals and for society as a whole. It is most precious for its own sake as a right that inheres in every human being, but it also constitutes a fundamental right, 2 whose effective protection is the prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights and whose content can be informed and infused by other human rights.
3. The right to life is a right which should not be interpreted narrowly. It concerns the entitlement of individuals to be free from acts and omissions intended or expected to cause their unnatural or premature death, as well as to enjoy a life with dignity. Article 6 guarantees this right for all human beings, without distinction of any kind, including for persons suspected or convicted of even the most serious crimes.
4. Paragraph 1 of article 6 of the Covenant provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life and that the right shall be protected by law. It lays the foundation for the obligation of States parties to respect and to ensure the right to life, to give effect to it through legislative and other measures, and to provide effective remedies and reparation to all victims of violations of the right to life.”
So far, this looks pretty good. The UN states very bluntly that it values life.
Individuals should not be subjected to acts or omissions which cause their premature death (a.k.a. murder), and that they should have dignity in their lives.
States of the UN are obligated to respect life. This applies even to people suspected or convicted of committing the most serious crimes. It seems we are going down the line of “serial killers are human too”.
“6. Deprivation of life involves a deliberate3 or otherwise foreseeable and preventable life-terminating harm or injury, caused by an act or omission. It goes beyond injury to bodily or mental integrity or threat thereto, which are prohibited by article 9, paragraph 1.4 “
Nothing in this statement I can disagree with.
“8. Enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts and omissions representing a grave threat to life and may thus result in a violation of the right to life.7 It also violates other rights recognized in the Covenant, in particular, article 9 (liberty and security of persons), article 7 (prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and article 16 (right to recognition of a person before the law). “
Nothing in this passage that is offensive either. Forced disappearances “do” cause an obvious threat to life and violate all sorts of regulations.
We will skip over 9, and come back to it.
“10. [While acknowledging the central importance to human dignity of personal autonomy, the Committee considers that States parties should recognize that individuals planning or attempting to commit suicide may be doing so because they are undergoing a momentary crisis which may affect their ability to make irreversible decisions, such as to terminate their life. Therefore,] States should take adequate measures, without violating their other Covenant obligations, to prevent suicides, especially among individuals in particularly vulnerable situations.”
I would agree with this. Taking the effort to engage in intervention to protect potentially suicidal people is definitely worthwhile.
“12. States parties engaged in the use of existing weapons and in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of new weapons, and means or methods of warfare must always consider their impact on the right to life. “
“14. States parties should monitor the impact on the right to life of less-lethal weapons which are designed for use by law-enforcement agents and soldiers charged with lawenforcement missions, including electro-muscular disruption devices (Tasers),29 rubbercoated metal bullets, and attenuating energy projectiles. The use of such weapons must be restricted only to law-enforcement agents who have undergone appropriate training, and must be strictly regulated in accordance with international protocols for their use.”
Try not to kill suspects? Sure, good idea.
“20. The Covenant does not provide an enumeration of permissible grounds for deprivation of life. Still, article 6, paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 implicitly recognize that countries which have not abolished the death penalty and that have not ratified the Second Optional Protocol may continue to apply the death penalty with regard to the most serious crimes subject to a number of strict conditions. Other procedures regulating activity that may result in deprivation of life, such as conditions for use of lethal weapons by the police or protocols for new drug treatment, must be established by law, accompanied by effective institutional safeguards designed to prevent arbitrary deprivations of life, and be compatible with other provisions of the Covenant.”
Limit the death penalty to the most serious crimes? Sure.
“28. Persons with disabilities, including psychosocial and intellectual disabilities, are entitled to special measures of protection so as to ensure their effective enjoyment of the right to life on equal basis with others. Such measures of protection shall include reasonable accommodation of public policies which are necessary to ensure the right to life, such as ensuring access of persons with disabilities to essential goods and services, and special measures designed to prevent excessive use of force by law enforcement agents against persons with disabilities.”
People with physical and intellectual disabilities are also entitled to life and dignity. Agreed.
“42. Under no circumstances can the death penalty be imposed as part of a policy of genocide against members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Article 6, paragraph 3 reminds all States parties who are also parties to the Genocide Convention of their obligations to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, which include the obligation to prevent and punish all deprivations of life, which constitute part of a crime of genocide.”
So, where does the problem exist?
See paragraph #9.
“9. Although States parties may adopt measures designed to regulate terminations of pregnancy, (1) such measures must not result in violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or her other rights under the Covenant, including the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Thus, (2) any legal restrictions on the ability of women to seek abortion must not, inter alia, jeopardize their lives or subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering which violates article 7. States (3) parties must provide safe access to abortion to protect the life and health of pregnant women, and in situations in which carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the woman (4) substantial pain or suffering, most notably where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or when the foetus suffers from fatal impairment. States parties may not regulate pregnancy or abortion in a manner that runs contrary to (5) their duty to ensure that women do not have to undertake unsafe abortions. [For example, they should not take measures such as (6) criminalizing pregnancies by unmarried women or applying criminal sanctions against women undergoing abortion or against physicians assisting them in doing so, when taking such measures is expected to significantly increase resort to unsafe abortions]. Nor should States parties (7) introduce humiliating or unreasonably burdensome requirements on women seeking to undergo abortion. The (8) duty to protect the lives of women against the health risks associated with unsafe abortions requires States parties to ensure access for women and men, and, in (9) particular, adolescents, to information and education about reproductive options, and to a wide range of contraceptive methods. States parties must also (10) ensure the availability of adequate prenatal and post-abortion health care for pregnant women.”
Now we get to the real problem,
UNBORN CHILDREN DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE
4. About The Bolded Comments
1/ States can “regulate” abortion, but not if it means violating her rights, or anything she may find cruel, inhumane or degrading. Screw the child.
2/ No legal restrictions if it jeopardises the “mental” health of the mother. Not the physical health or life, but the mental health, which can mean anything.
3/ States must provide access to abortion if it endangers health, and yes, that means mental health. I guess as long as the child in an inconvenience.
4/ Again, they consider “suffering” to be mental as well.
5/ States have to provide abortion to ensure that women won’t “unsafely” kill their children
6/ Remove any penalties for abortion, if it would lead to “unsafe” abortions.
7/ Unreasonably burdensome? Would a therapist or medical exam be considered burdensome? Would telling the mother to think it over be too much?
8/ Again, since women may engage in “unsafe” abortions, states are obligated to provide it.
9/ Why the hell are we giving children advice on reproductive options?
10/ Kill the child or birth it, we still have to give the same care to the mother?!?!
UN doesn’t seem to see how inconsistent this attitude is with other provisions of the same document.
22. The second sentence of paragraph 1 provides that the right to life “shall be protected by law”. This implies that States parties must establish a legal framework to ensure the full enjoyment of the right to life by all individuals. The duty to protect the right to life by law also includes an obligation for States parties to take appropriate legal measures in order to protect life from all foreseeable threats, including from threats emanating from private persons and entities.
24. States parties must enact a protective legal framework which includes effective criminal prohibitions on all forms of arbitrary deprivations of life by individuals, including intentional and negligent homicide, disproportionate use of firearms, infanticide, “honour” killings, lynching, violent hate crimes, blood feuds, death threats, terrorist attacks and other manifestations of violence or incitement to violence that are likely to result in a deprivation of life. The criminal sanctions attached to these crimes must be commensurate with their gravity, while remaining compatible with all provisions of the Covenant.
UN prohibits infanticide, unless it is being done by the mother.
Abortions for everyone.
Abortions for children.
CLICK HERE, for part 1: NY and Virginia legislation.
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (2019 version) CLICK HERE, for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (2018 version) CLICK HERE, for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, signed by George W. Bush. CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood’s “views” on Roe v. Wade. CLICK HERE, for Roe v. Wade (1973)
2. Born Alive Infants Protection Act
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.
(a) In General.–Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
“Sec. 8. `Person’, `human being’, `child’, and `individual’ as
including born-alive infant
“(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person’, `human
being’, `child’, and `individual’, shall include every infant member of
the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
“(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive’, with respect
to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or
extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of
development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a
beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of
voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a
result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced
“(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny,
expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any
member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born
alive’ as defined in this section.”.
(b) Clerical Amendment.–The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new item:
“8. `Person’, `human being’, `child’, and `individual’ as including
Seems harmless enough, right? If it 1/ breathes; 2/ has a heartbeat; and 3/ has muscles that move, it’s alive and needs protecting
Saving the life of infant children “should” be a priority for any civilized society. Unfortunately, as time goes on, we have to legislate further and further to make that point. In fact, pro-death activists have LONG passed the guidelines set out by Roe v. Wade (1973).
Sadly, this common sense legislation is not only needed, but apparently very controversial. This was passed in the House of Representatives last year.
Here is the 2019 Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
H. R. 4712
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 20, 2018
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”.
SEC. 2. Findings.
Congress finds as follows:
(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.
(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.
SEC. 3. Born-alive infants protection.
(a) Requirements pertaining to born-Alive abortion survivors.—Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1531 the following:
“§ 1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors
“(a) Requirements for health care practitioners.—In the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive (as defined in section 8 of title 1, United States Code (commonly known as the ‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act’)):
“(1) DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED; IMMEDIATE ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL.—Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall—
“(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; and
“(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.
“(2) MANDATORY REPORTING OF VIOLATIONS.—A health care practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician’s office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) shall immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or Federal law enforcement agency, or to both.
“(1) IN GENERAL.—Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
“(2) INTENTIONAL KILLING OF CHILD BORN ALIVE.—Whoever intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive described under subsection (a), shall be punished as under section 1111 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
“(c) Bar to prosecution.—The mother of a child born alive described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted under this section, for conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 3 or 4 of this title based on such a violation.
“(d) Civil remedies.—
“(1) CIVIL ACTION BY A WOMAN ON WHOM AN ABORTION IS PERFORMED.—If a child is born alive and there is a violation of subsection (a), the woman upon whom the abortion was performed or attempted may, in a civil action against any person who committed the violation, obtain appropriate relief.
“(2) APPROPRIATE RELIEF.—Appropriate relief in a civil action under this subsection includes—
“(A) objectively verifiable money damage for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of subsection (a);
“(B) statutory damages equal to 3 times the cost of the abortion or attempted abortion; and
“(C) punitive damages.
“(3) ATTORNEY’S FEE FOR PLAINTIFF.—The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action under this subsection.
“(4) ATTORNEY’S FEE FOR DEFENDANT.—If a defendant in a civil action under this subsection prevails and the court finds that the plaintiff’s suit was frivolous, the court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff.
“(e) Definitions.—In this section the following definitions apply:
“(1) ABORTION.—The term ‘abortion’ means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device—
“(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant; or
“(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than—
“(i) after viability, to produce a live birth and preserve the life and health of the child born alive; or
“(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.
“(2) ATTEMPT.—The term ‘attempt’, with respect to an abortion, means conduct that, under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in performing an abortion.”.
(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections for chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item pertaining to section 1531 the following:
“1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors.”.
(c) Chapter heading amendments.—
(1) CHAPTER HEADING IN CHAPTER.—The chapter heading for chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking “Partial-Birth Abortions” and inserting “Abortions”.
(2) TABLE OF CHAPTERS FOR PART I.—The item relating to chapter 74 in the table of chapters at the beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking “Partial-Birth Abortions” and inserting “Abortions”.
Passed the House of Representatives January 19, 2018
3. Abortionists Moving The Goalposts
How did we get to this point?
1/ Abortion used to limited to only medical necessity to save the mother’s life, or in such cases as incest.
(0, unless medically necessary)
2/ Roe v. Wade allowed abortions in 1st trimester, but still had some safeguards in place.
3/ Various state movements pushed abortion well into 2nd trimester
4/ New initiatives like NY Gov. Cuomo, see last article, want abortion up until birth
5/ Now efforts to keep survivors alive are being fought.
h3>4. So, What Happens Now</h3
What’s next? Debating how, many days, weeks or months your child can still be killed?
Will it become like fostering an animal with the SPCA? If it doesn’t work out, you can return the animal within a year. (Disclosure: I did foster an animal, and formally adopt him 2 months later)
Also, how did we get to the point where abortion is “celebrated”? Even if, for the sake of argument, a person decides they can’t become a parent or provide any sort of future, okay. This is a decision that should be taken very carefully, and is nothing to celebrate.
No rational human would celebrate having to put down a sick or dying dog or cat. To them, they are literally losing a family member. However, a flesh and blood child gets nowhere near the same consideration.
My body. My choice. Leave no survivors.
This is truly sick.
(NY Governor Andrew Cuomo signs the bill. See this review.)
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for Part 2, Kill The Survivors. CLICK HERE, for Part 3, UN Endorses Abortion As Human Right. CLICK HERE, for Part 4, Fallout and Pushback. CLICK HERE, for Part 5, ONCA ruling doctors “must” provide referrals if they are not willing to do the work themselves. CLICK HERE, for Part 6, 9th Circuit Rules Against Planned Parenthood Federal Funding CLICK HERE, for Part 7, China operating on political prisoners.
AN ACT to amend the public health law, in relation to enacting the
reproductive health act and revising existing provisions of law
regarding abortion; to amend the penal law, the criminal procedure
law, the county law and the judiciary law, in relation to abortion; to
repeal certain provisions of the public health law relating to
abortion; to repeal certain provisions of the education law relating
to the sale of contraceptives; and to repeal certain provisions of the
penal law relating to abortion
26 ARTICLE 25-A
27 REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT
28 Section 2599-aa. Policy and purpose.
29 2599-bb. Abortion.
30 § 2599-aa. Policy and purpose. The legislature finds that comprehen-
31 sive reproductive health care is a fundamental component of every indi-
32 vidual’s health, privacy and equality. Therefore, it is the policy of
33 the state that:
34 1. Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse
35 contraception or sterilization.
36 2. Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to
37 choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to
38 have an abortion, pursuant to this article.
39 3. The state shall not discriminate against, deny, or interfere with
40 the exercise of the rights set forth in this section in the regulation
41 or provision of benefits, facilities, services or information.
42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient’s life or health.
50 2. This article shall be construed and applied consistent with and
51 subject to applicable laws and applicable and authorized regulations
52 governing health care procedures.
1 § 5. Sections 125.40, 125.45, 125.50, 125.55 and 125.60 of the penal
2 law are REPEALED, and the article heading of article 125 of the penal
3 law is amended to read as follows:
4 HOMICIDE[, ABORTION] AND RELATED OFFENSES
5 § 6. Section 125.00 of the penal law is amended to read as follows:
6 § 125.00 Homicide defined.
7 Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person [or an
8 unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twen-
9 ty-four weeks] under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in
10 the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, or criminally
11 negligent homicide[, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in
12 the first degree].
13 § 7. The section heading, opening paragraph and subdivision 1 of
14 section 125.05 of the penal law are amended to read as follows:
15 Homicide[, abortion] and related offenses; [definitions of terms]
17 The following [definitions are] definition is applicable to this arti-
19 [1.] “Person,” when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a
20 human being who has been born and is alive.
That’s right: it is no longer murder to kill a child right up until the moment of birth
SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED:
Abortion; eliminate certain requirements. Eliminates the requirement that an abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester be performed in a hospital. The bill eliminates all the procedures and processes, including the performance of an ultrasound, required to effect a woman’s informed written consent to the performance of an abortion; however, the bill does not change the requirement that a woman’s informed written consent be first obtained. The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be substantial and irremediable. The bill also removes language classifying facilities that perform five or more first-trimester abortions per month as hospitals for the purpose of complying with regulations establishing minimum standards for hospitals.
§ 18.2-73. When abortion lawful during second trimester of pregnancy.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of § 18.2-72, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery, to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman during the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester of pregnancy provided such procedure is performed in a hospital licensed by the State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.
§ 18.2-74. When abortion or termination of pregnancy lawful after second trimester of pregnancy.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of §§ 18.2-72 and 18.2-73, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman in a stage of pregnancy subsequent to the second trimester, provided that the following conditions are met:
The following are actually REMOVED under this bill:
(a) 1. Said operation is performed in a hospital licensed by the Virginia State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.
(b) 2. The physician and two consulting physicians certify certifies and so enter enters in the hospital record of the woman, that in their the physician’s medical opinion, based upon their the physician’s best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.
(c) 3. Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.
§ 18.2-76. Informed written consent required.
A. Before performing any abortion or inducing any miscarriage or terminating a pregnancy as provided in § 18.2-72, 18.2-73, or 18.2-74, the physician shall obtain the informed written consent of the pregnant woman. However, if the woman has been adjudicated incapacitated by any court of competent jurisdiction or if the physician knows or has good reason to believe that such woman is incapacitated as adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, then only after permission is given in writing by a parent, guardian, committee, or other person standing in loco parentis to the woman, may the physician perform the abortion or otherwise terminate the pregnancy.
B. At least 24 hours before the performance of an abortion, a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal transabdominal ultrasound imaging on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age. If the pregnant woman lives at least 100 miles from the facility where the abortion is to be performed, the fetal ultrasound imaging shall be performed at least two hours before the abortion. The ultrasound image shall contain the dimensions of the fetus and accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable. Determination of gestational age shall be based upon measurement of the fetus in a manner consistent with standard medical practice in the community for determining gestational age. When only the gestational sac is visible during ultrasound imaging, gestational age may be based upon measurement of the gestational sac. If gestational age cannot be determined by a transabdominal ultrasound, then the patient undergoing the abortion shall be verbally offered other ultrasound imaging to determine gestational age, which she may refuse. A print of the ultrasound image shall be made to document the measurements that have been taken to determine the gestational age of the fetus.
The provisions of this subsection shall not apply if the woman seeking an abortion is the victim of rape or incest, if the incident was reported to law-enforcement authorities. Nothing herein shall preclude the physician from using any ultrasound imaging that he considers to be medically appropriate pursuant to the standard medical practice in the community.
C. The qualified medical professional performing fetal ultrasound imaging pursuant to subsection B shall verbally offer the woman an opportunity to view the ultrasound image, receive a printed copy of the ultrasound image and hear the fetal heart tones pursuant to standard medical practice in the community, and shall obtain from the woman written certification that this opportunity was offered and whether or not it was accepted and, if applicable, verification that the pregnant woman lives at least 100 miles from the facility where the abortion is to be performed. A printed copy of the ultrasound image shall be maintained in the woman’s medical record at the facility where the abortion is to be performed for the longer of (i) seven years or (ii) the extent required by applicable federal or state law.
D. For purposes of this section:
“Informed written consent” means the knowing and voluntary written consent to abortion by a pregnant woman of any age, without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, or other form of constraint or coercion by the physician who is to perform the abortion or his agent. The basic information to effect such consent, as required by this subsection, shall be provided by telephone or in person to the woman at least 24 hours before the abortion by the physician who is to perform the abortion, by a referring physician, or by a licensed professional or practical nurse working under the direct supervision of either the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician; however, the information in subdivision 5 may be provided instead by a licensed health-care professional working under the direct supervision of either the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician. This basic information shall include:
1. A full, reasonable and comprehensible medical explanation of the nature, benefits, and risks of and alternatives to the proposed procedures or protocols to be followed in her particular case;
2. An instruction that the woman may withdraw her consent at any time prior to the performance of the procedure;
3. An offer for the woman to speak with the physician who is to perform the abortion so that he may answer any questions that the woman may have and provide further information concerning the procedures and protocols;
4. A statement of the probable gestational age of the fetus at the time the abortion is to be performed and that fetal ultrasound imaging shall be performed prior to the abortion to confirm the gestational age; and
5. An offer to review the printed materials described in subsection F. If the woman chooses to review such materials, they shall be provided to her in a respectful and understandable manner, without prejudice and intended to give the woman the opportunity to make an informed choice and shall be provided to her at least 24 hours before the abortion or mailed to her at least 72 hours before the abortion by first-class mail or, if the woman requests, by certified mail, restricted delivery. This offer for the woman to review the material shall advise her of the following:
(i) the Department of Health publishes printed materials that describe the unborn child and list agencies that offer alternatives to abortion;
(ii) medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth and neonatal care, and that more detailed information on the availability of such assistance is contained in the printed materials published by the Department;
(iii) the father of the unborn child is liable to assist in the support of her child, even in instances where he has offered to pay for the abortion, that assistance in the collection of such support is available, and that more detailed information on the availability of such assistance is contained in the printed materials published by the Department;
(iv) she has the right to review the materials printed by the Department and that copies will be provided to her free of charge if she chooses to review them; and
(v) a statewide list of public and private agencies and services that provide ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services free of charge. Where the woman has advised that the pregnancy is the result of a rape, the information in clause (iii) may be omitted.
3. What Is This Exactly?
These are just so wrong.
Even those who are “pro-choice” should be shocked at the idea of killing an infant that within minutes or hours would have been born. Of course, even “clumps of cells” aborted don’t always die. See here.
Apparently it’s no longer an issue of “when” children can be aborted. Guess the new slippery slope is how long after birth can we kill them.
Just call it a 4th trimester abortion.
Remember kids: it’s not murder as long as your mother is complicit in it.