Because New York celebrated the euphemistically baptized Reproductive Health Act last month, the debate about abortion legislation has started again. The emphasis on abortion would probably have been wiped out by the news cycle if Virginia had not followed New York's Andrew Cuomo's recommendation that the New York law "shines a bright light for the rest of the nation to follow".

When Virginia considered a similar amendment to her abortion law – one that legalized abortion to the moment of birth on the basis of an unrestricted concept of the health of women – the plan failed in a subcommittee. Majority leader of Virginia House Todd Gilbert, a Republican, questioned the sponsor of the bill on the breadth of the law.

"What time in the third trimester could a doctor perform an abortion if he indicated that this would harm the mental health of the woman?" Gilbert asked to Virginia Del. Kathy Tran, a democrat. After Tran acknowledged that the bill allowed abortions to 40 weeks of gestation, Gilbert pushed further and asked Tran for a woman's scenario in active employment. & # 39; Where it is clear that a woman is giving birth – she has physical signs that she is about to give birth, would that be another point where she could ask for an abortion if she was so certified? # 39; Gilbert asked. "It is being enlarged." "My bill would allow that, yes," Tran acknowledged.

Virginia Gov Ralph Northam, a Democrat, succeeded a new shocker. Asked about the scenario of active work during a radio interview, Northam told the listeners: "If a mother is giving birth, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the child would be delivered, the child would be kept comfortable. The child would be resuscitated if the mother and family wanted it, and then there would be a discussion between the doctors and the mother. & # 39;

The Republican American Senate Ben Sasse tried to ensure that no baby born alive after a failed abortion attempt could be left to the death of the mother based on the mother's desire. The Nebraska Senator introduced the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act, which would require a physician to provide the care that is usually given to newborns to babies born after a failed abortion. Sasse's efforts failed, however, because he tried to find the way through an accelerated process that requires unanimous consent, and Democrat Senator Patty Murray objected to the law.

House republicans also insist on going through the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, but the Democrats held the measure against the ground. But America has the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act & # 39; not necessary: ​​every baby who survives an abortion and who qualifies for care according to the proposed Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act & # 39; must be out of reach of the scalpel and the forceps of the abortion.

What our country needs is the Deliver-Alive Human Being Protection Act: a law that unequivocally protects fetuses once they reach the gestational age at which they may be viable, currently 22 weeks. At that moment, when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, the premature delivery of the living baby is indicated – not the killing of the fetus, followed by the birth of a dead baby.

This is not the law in many states. Instead, healthy, viable fetuses can be broken down. Last week, Teen Vogue – yes, that's true, TEEN Vogue – exposed this reality in an article by Beth Vial with her abortion story & # 39 ;. The bottle was opened by noting that "New York and Virginia have made the headlines for their attempts to make the medically unnecessary prescriptions for subsequent abortions," before proclaiming "Fighters against abortion have deliberately misled the public about the policy and misrepresent what later abortion is and why people have it. I know because I had an abortion for 28 weeks. & # 39;

Vial then spent the next ten paragraphs in which she explained that she has polycystic ovary syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome, and that she simply did not want to continue with the pregnancy because I was too ill, was not ready and I just could not pay. "In the end, she traveled to New Mexico to have an abortion when her baby was 28 weeks old.

If Vial's medical condition really made her pregnancy unsafe, premature labor would be appropriate, not an abortion! But New Mexico's law allowed Vial to kill her healthy and viable unborn baby.

When abortion activists get their way, the extreme abortion regimes of New Mexico and New York will make their way to a state building in your area. We are already seeing expansive accounts presented in other liberal states.

In Rhode Island, two competing accounts try to remove the current restrictions on abortions, including a complete withdrawal of the ban on abortions at partial birth. If adopted, Rhode Island law would also allow abortions until birth to preserve the woman's health. Like Virginia's proposed law, this language is broad enough to allow for an abortion even if the woman is in active employment, but the version of Rhode Island would not even require a doctor's certificate of the alleged "health condition" .

Vermont's proposed House Bill 57 goes even further: this law stipulates that "a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus does not have independent rights under Vermont's law" and declares that "no state or local law enforcement may prosecute a person for induce, perform, or try to induce or execute the individual's abortion. "

There are no limits to gestational age, viability or abortion methods. In other words, this bill provides for abortion on demand, for whatever reason, at any time, without even requiring the woman to show a false status.

While the sisterhood of the east coast of states puts pressure on these extreme abortion laws, the Congress seems fixated on the few babies that survive the slaughter. But there is a better way: defend viable fetuses by passing a federal law for the protection of man.

President Trump and home and senate republicans have already announced support for such a law, although they are not framed. That is a mistake, because the intense repercussions on the remarks made by Tran and Northam show that the American public considers the abortion of viable fetuses – babies, if they survive the journey through the birth canal – as barbaric.

The legislation that protects viable fetuses is currently being sold as the Pain-Capable Unborn Protection Act. This bill forbids abortions after a gestation period of 22 weeks, the age at which a fetus may be viable outside the womb of its mother.

Although this legislation would allow abortions after 22 weeks in case of rape or to save the life of the mother, the statute makes clear that the doctor who terminates the pregnancy under these exceptions must do so in a way that "the best possibility for the unborn child to survive. "In other words, the end of the pregnancy takes place when the baby is born alive.

The Congress must repackage these provisions as the federal law for the protection of man. It is unfortunate that marketing plays some role in the debate about abortion, but after 40-year-olds of parenthood and NARAL who sell euphemisms and falsehoods, a large part of the public remains blind to the reality of abortion. Now that Tran and Northam have unknowingly exposed the festering facts, the congress must seize the moment.

Margot Cleveland makes a senior contribution to The Federalist. Cleveland served for almost 25 years as a permanent clerk at a federal appeals court and is a former full-time faculty member and current deputy instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.

The opinions expressed here are those of Cleveland in its personal capacity.