Matt at Creative Minority Report tells us of a woman in Virginia who gave birth and then suffocated her baby immediately afterward and what she did was completely legal. The police can't charge her with a crime because the state of Virginia has a loophole that allows women who have just given birth to kill their babies if the placenta is still in the them and the umbilical cord is still attached to the baby. She is guilty as sin of infanticide but free as a bird. This is what an investigator said about this case:
"In the state of Virginia, as long as the umbilical cord is attached and [the] placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive, the mother can do whatever she wants to that baby to kill it," Emerson reports. "She can shoot the baby, stab the baby or anything as long as it is still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something, and it's no crime in the state of Virginia."
That woman could have blown that poor baby away with a shot gun and the police couldn't do anything. The people who call themselves legislators in Virginia need to get their priorities straight and fix this. If they can ban partial-birth abortions, they sure as hell can ban post-birth abortions, too.



Comments (13)
Just another case where the... (Below threshold)1. Posted by GarandFan | December 18, 2009 2:50 PM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Just another case where the law and common sense part.
1. Posted by GarandFan | December 18, 2009 2:50 PM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on December 18, 2009 14:50
2. Posted by Clancy | December 18, 2009 3:22 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
This is the most disgusting thing that I have ever read. If this loophole was "known" (and surely it was), the the legislators in Virgina - EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. THEM. - have blood on their hands.
2. Posted by Clancy | December 18, 2009 3:22 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on December 18, 2009 15:22
3. Posted by Dr Carlo Lombardi | December 18, 2009 4:20 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Hey. As our brilliant Precedent has said: "You want her punished with a baby?"
3. Posted by Dr Carlo Lombardi | December 18, 2009 4:20 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on December 18, 2009 16:20
4. Posted by OregonMuse | December 18, 2009 4:22 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I suspect that this loophole is going to be closed by the Virginia state legislature very quickly.
I hope.
4. Posted by OregonMuse | December 18, 2009 4:22 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on December 18, 2009 16:22
5. Posted by Lisa | December 18, 2009 4:44 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Oh my gawd, what a sick, sick, sick woman.
5. Posted by Lisa | December 18, 2009 4:44 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on December 18, 2009 16:44
6. Posted by Burt | December 18, 2009 5:05 PM | Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
Since a father to a child can be required to pay child support until the child reaches eighteeen years of age, he should have the right to end the child's life at any time in that period. If you choose to disagree with me, you are a sexist. Abortion rights should apply to both parents equally!
6. Posted by Burt | December 18, 2009 5:05 PM |
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
Posted on December 18, 2009 17:05
7. Posted by astonerii | December 18, 2009 5:12 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
If the baby does not look like the daddy, the woman can save her marriage.
I am sure that if they wanted to, there would be some other law that she violated.
I bet the people who hate cruelty to animals, I am not one of them, totally support this woman's choice...
7. Posted by astonerii | December 18, 2009 5:12 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on December 18, 2009 17:12
8. Posted by Flu-Bird | December 18, 2009 5:19 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
But if you accedently blow up a endangred lizard you get 20 years in prison and a fine of 250:000 pasaquas
8. Posted by Flu-Bird | December 18, 2009 5:19 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on December 18, 2009 17:19
9. Posted by Mike | December 18, 2009 6:13 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
So I'm really interested in the pro-abortion perspective on this. Not from the standpoint of a gotcha question, but really what kind of thought process goes on in their head with this. Are they OK with it from the mother's choice even if they may find it revolting personally? How does the abortion argument, and privacy, and choice work for them in this case? Personally I'm appalled beyond anything that this could actually be allowed to happen without consequence.
9. Posted by Mike | December 18, 2009 6:13 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on December 18, 2009 18:13
10. Posted by Staylor | December 18, 2009 9:42 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Little interested in what sick bastard decided that infantacide was ok as long as the baby still had an umbilical cord. Someone had to right in that crazy loop hole.
Who would have thought that life begins when the umbilical cord is cut or the placenta is passed?
10. Posted by Staylor | December 18, 2009 9:42 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on December 18, 2009 21:42
11. Posted by 914 | December 19, 2009 12:20 AM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Murder 1
11. Posted by 914 | December 19, 2009 12:20 AM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on December 19, 2009 00:20
12. Posted by Flu-Bird | December 19, 2009 12:08 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Some call it ABORTION in reality its MURDER
12. Posted by Flu-Bird | December 19, 2009 12:08 PM |
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on December 19, 2009 12:08
13. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | December 21, 2009 10:00 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So I'm really interested in the pro-abortion perspective on this.
I'm not pro-abortion and it is difficult for me to comprehend the mindset. However, this is my thought. The pro-abortionist sees the child as property -- nothing more or less. As mere property, the owner is free to dispose of it as she wishes. This should sound familiar. The self-righteous ones want us to believe they would have opposed slavery. Right.
13. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | December 21, 2009 10:00 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on December 21, 2009 10:00