Legislators propose abortion-at-birth as state-level fights continue

Richmond, Va., Jan 30, 2019 / 04:00 pm (CNA).- A controversial Virginia bill which would permit abortion during labor will not be moving out of the subcommittee, as the latest attempt to widely expand abortion access falls short.


HB 2491, was introduced by Del. Kathy Tran (D-Springfield) and would have removed all of Virginia’s existing pro-life safeguards, including ultrasound requirements and a 24-hour waiting period. The bill would have allowed for an abortion to take place throughout pregnancy in order to preserve the health of the mother.


When questioned by Virginia’s House majority leader Todd Gilbert (R) in a committee hearing, Tran admitted that there was nothing in her bill that would prevent an abortion from being performed while a woman was in active labor.


A video of the exchange was shared on social media, and Tran deleted her Twitter account after widespread outrage.


Lawyers have said that the phrase “health and well-being of the mother” is purposefully vague and includes criteria such as age and emotional state in addition to the mother’s physical health. It does not require a doctor to consider alternative treatments besides abortion.


Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) refused to condemn HB 2491 on radio show Wednesday morning and defended some of its central tenets.


Speaking on WTOP, Northam said that he believed the decision to terminate a late-term pregnancy should be left up to a doctor, and “mothers and fathers that are involved.”


“When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians–more than one physician, by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s non-viable,” said Northam.


Northam, who is a pediatric neurologist, said that if it were decided to terminate a pregnancy while a mother was in labor, that the infant would be delivered and then “kept comfortable.” Medical attention would be given to the infant “if that’s what the mother and the family desired,” he said, and “a discussion would ensue” between the woman and her doctor.


Northam said that he thought reaction to the bill was “really blown out of proportion.” He also said that he was in favor of maintaining a state law that requires three physicians approve of a third-trimester abortion. Tran’s bill would have stripped this requirement.


A statement from Northam’s spokesperson on Wednesday accused Republicans of “trying to play politics with women’s health,” and said that the governor was referring to cases of fetal abnormality or a nonviable pregnancy.


“The governor’s comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor,” said the statement. The statement did not clarify if “fetal abnormality” included entire classes of people, including those with Down Syndrome.


A 2013 Guttmacher study found that “most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment,” and instead were doing so because they had not realized they were pregnant or had previous trouble securing money or insurance coverage to pay for the abortion.


The debate over the proposal in Virginia comes amid a number of state-level measures aimed at bolstering abortion access.


Last week, New York passed an expansive new law removing previous limits and standards on abortions in the state.


Supreme Court is also expected to make a statement regarding abortion law in coming days. A Louisiana law set to go into effect on Monday would require that abortionists have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.


If the law were to go into effect, the state would have only a single legal abortionist. A group of physicians represented by the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights have requested a stay from the court that would block the law coming into effect. Five justices are needed to grant an emergency stay.


A similar law in Texas was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2016. Since that decision, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have replaced Justices Anthony Kennedy and the late Antonin Scalia.


Kennedy had been seen as a “swing vote” on the issue at the court. He voted in favor of overturning the Texas law in 2016.


Gorsuch has characterized abortion as the “death of a person.” Kavanaugh has not made public statements on the issue of abortion and his judicial record at the lower court level did not treat the issue extensively.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


  1. I love my Church but if our clergy do not speak up about the politicians that are continuing to push forward more ways to kill children then they will need to answer to God. I could not believe what I was hearing on the news listening to the Gov. of Kentucky discuss killing a baby that was just born as an ok option. The USA needs prayers desperately. I was worried about the Catholic Church with our current sex abuse crisis but now even mor so that we are ok to be silent against excommunicating politicians that are ok with killing newly born babies. Where is the moral compass of our leadership?

    • @Tanya Snodgrass…I felt that I should correct your statement about Kentucky’s Gov. Matt Bevin. You must have misunderstood what he said about abortion. Gov. Bevin is extremely pro-life. In fact, he has been attempting to get the last remaining abortion clinic in Louisville, Kentucky shut down.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.