Friday, December 18, 2009

Abortion advocates block prosecution for killing of born baby

In the state of Virginia, as long as the cord hasn't been cut yet, the mother can "shoot the baby, stab the baby", and she's just performing a late abortion on herself.

Virginia lawmakers refuse to protect fully-born infants whose cords aren't cut yet because to do so would get "too close" to the issue of abortion.

So much for the idea that abortion advocates are only concerned about women's rights to their own bodily integrity. The baby was BORN. And they still say she has a right to kill it.

HT: Parenting Freedom

Though really, couldn't this be prosecuted federally under the Born Alive Infants Protection Act?


Kathy said...

Sorry, but this is wrong *wrong* *WRONG*:

"Live birth defined [in Virginia], p65:
‘‘Live birth’’ means the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of a product of human
conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such expulsion or extraction, breathes
or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or
definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. (Section 32.1-249 (7) Code of Virginia)" [emphasis added]

GrannyGrump said...

That's live birth for the purpose of reporting. What does the criminal code say?

OperationCounterstrike said...

Here's an interesting case from the newsletter of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women:

"In South Carolina, a young pregnant woman attempts suicide by jumping out of a window. Caught by an awning as she fell, she survives, but loses the pregnancy. She is then arrested for homicide by child abuse, and held without bail."

These fetal-protection laws are out of control. I'd rather see ten women get away with killing newborns than see the above woman get convicted of murder for trying to committ suicide.

Kathy said...

I think the criminal code IS the "Code of Virginia". The links I found for "criminal code of Virginia" went to the same basic place as Section 32.1-249 (7) Code of Virginia.

And in fact, not only should this be charged as murder, but it should be a capital offense, since the victim was under 14 years of age, unless the mother was under 21.

GrannyGrump said...

Kathy, it defines capital murder as: "The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of a pregnant woman by one who knows that the woman is pregnant and has the intent to cause the termination of the woman's pregnancy without a live birth." What it boils down to is killing a pregnant woman to keep her from having the baby. It's not a penalty for killing the baby.

So calm down, OC. The mother wanted the baby dead, the baby's dead, it's a beautiful thing.

Wickle said...

To be honest, OC, these two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

The VA case wasn't a baby inside the mother.

Kathy said...


No, there are several definitions of capital murder, including killing someone during an abduction, murder-for-hire, killing during a robbery -- you quoted #11, but #12 states, "The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of a person under the age of fourteen by a person age twenty-one or older." I'd say that being just minutes old is certainly "under the age of 14."

GrannyGrump said...

Kathy, William Waddill got away with strangling a 32-week live born baby in front of a pediatrician and several NICU nurses because there was an obscure definition of "death" on the lawbooks in California. You can call the sheffif's office and ask where the law is that's blocking prosecution, but I'm betting it's something obscure some abortionist used to get away with killing a liveborn infant.

Kathy said...

True; but this doesn't seem to be obscure. What do I know, though -- I'm just a person who can read English! Sigh...

GrannyGrump said...

Lawyers don't speak the same kind of English the rest of us do. And JUDGES, who "interpret" the law, often seem to have a positively Martian grasp of the language.

Kathy said...

And to add another level to the insanity -- at the end of the story, they said that "the grandmother would not be charged" because she was asleep when the baby was born. But what would she have been charged with had she been awake? How could she be charged with anything less than what the murdering mother was charged with -- which is *nothing*?!