4 paragraphs down. It says:-

"The idea that new legislation under consideration or that passed in several states would allow this to happen made headlines after a video of Virginia Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) went viral. In the 30-second clip, a Republican asked Tran whether a woman in labor would be allowed to have an abortion, and she answered yes. Tran later said she misspoke and that such a procedure would not be allowed: “Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.”"

“No, absolutely, no if she is in the middle of giving birth. That’s not how medical care works,” said Jenn Conti, an abortion provider in San Francisco and fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health. She called the idea “sensationalized fake news" and said she believes a lot of the confusion comes from the use of the term “late-term” abortions. It’s “intentionally vague,” she said, so even though later abortions typically take place at the end of the second trimester people may believe they are much later in pregnancy."

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

She was being pressured by loaded questions that sought to paint an evil face on benign intentions. The confusion is plain to see, even in a carefully chosen clip.

As the spokesperson said the definition of "late term" has deliberately been left ambiguous, but in almost all circumstances it means in the second-trimester. It would only be in the rarest of circumstances for anything later than that to even be considered, let alone performed. The ambiguity is immediately seen as a disguise for the kind of intentions the "pro-lifers" want to be behind it, but it is no such thing at all. The ambiguity is to protect the clinicians from aggressive actions mounted by zealots and to ensure they are free to make their clinical judgements without having to first study the lawbooks. Clinicians are already bound by ethical codes of conduct and can lose their jobs if they transgress.

This is all part of a campaign to wind people up and bombard them with misinformation. It's the politicisation of personal tragedies that often traumatise. This needs to be taken out of the current political circus and put back in the hands of those whose purpose is solely to care for those involved.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Yes, this leak is certainly not a positive thing and not the kind of first we need repeating. Hopefully they will figure out who is to blame.

I don't think anyone should view abortion lightly even if they are well within a time period that many of most would agree with. There are also though many concerning issues that come up when a near blanket ban is in place (raped women forced to give birth, women in medical jeopardy forced to give birth). You get depraved 'teams' types who just aren't happy unless they feel that one pushed extreme or another wins the day. By all means limit the period at which abortion is legal but beyond that, there is a certain autonomy of the individual that should be respected at some point as they are the ones in an often complex or concerning situation. It's very easy to have an opinion when it requires no work or effort. Though some are used to that of course.

I posted before about how I find it repugnant that Down Syndrome babies here (in the UK) can be terminated essentially right up to birth (many dont even realise that), so it's not like we have the right balance either by any means. Far from it. But as I say the moment these things turn completely 'my way or no way' in neither direction it never ends up being the right or even a workable approach.

Edited by BlueJay (05 May 2022 12.21am)

We are into some seriously unchartered waters here. But let's not forget this is a Democratic party machine that allowed entire districts to be destroyed. Ordered cops to stand down as businesses and homes were destroyed. Actively encouraged organisations such as BLM and Antifa to attack people. All in the name of taking power.

The culture war is about to go very, very hot. Forget abortion, what this battle is now ultimately about is Federal Governance v state. Abortion is not illegal, merely the power to define how it happens has, if this ruling goes through, reverting back to individual state control.

Essentially Lefites who bleat and moan about wanting more devolution and local democracy are now all on the side of central Government authority. The WH ain't going to investigate this leak. They were the ones who orchestrated it.

Edited by Matov (05 May 2022 7.59am)

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

We are beyond any notion of 'Presidential' now. From either side, sadly.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

I hadn't considered the possibility of there being two draft documents, for and against, although the Court acknowledging its authenticity seems to make that unlikely.

I am sure the WH is very concerned about it, but maybe decided not to throw fuel on a fire and bide their time before making any comment. This is already a crisis.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (05 May 2022 9.43am)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.