First - You guys not believing or calling BS is a little tiresome, but whatever.
Second - Thurs. was a 12 hour day and Friday was a 13 hour day and once I got home I did not watch one minute of news.
Third - I looked and this is what I found.
"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," Northam said. "And it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion."
Fourth - Seems to be exclusive to a mother's life being in critical eminent danger, there being sever deformities to the fetus, or the fetus being non viable. If an elderly person has a right to "do not resuscitate" or to the refusal of artificial life support measures based on quality of life considerations, I'm not sure that the mother/family/doctors/ of a fetus/newborn/infant shouldn't have those same rights. If a newborn with severe deformities can only survive through artificial support and has no prospects of future quality of life, what should happen, how much should be spent to extend the life and for how long, and who should make those decisions?
This is all the Virginia law and Northam were referencing. I think they are legitimate issues and concerns.
Lastly - This is the wrong thread.