At wingnut site Hot Air, Ed Morrissey is promoting yet another anti-abortion story, citing a “local investigator” in Virginia who claims that a woman who smothered a newborn infant cannot be charged with a crime because of a statute that says as long as the umbilical cord is still attached to a baby, the mother can do anything she wants with it — even kill it: Video: Mother kills newborn, can’t be charged with crime.

“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 with that baby to kill it.“, says Investigator Tracy Emerson. “She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.”

A State Senator immediately jumped on the story to make some political capital with the far right: Statement from State Senator Newman on killing of newborn.

(Lynchburg, VA) State Senator Steve Newman announced today that the Division of Legislative Services has begun drafting legislation to ensure that a life cannot be legally taken after a child is born not withstanding its connection to the umbilical cord.

The bill will amend Section 18.2 of the Code of Virginia which is the criminal code. Newman stated, “It is difficult to believe that the current Code could have such a flaw that would allow anyone to take the life of a born child.”

You know, that is kind of “difficult to believe,” isn’t it?

That’s because it’s not even close to being true.

Here’s Section 18.2 of the Code of Virginia: LIS - Code of Virginia - 18.2-71.1:

18.2-71.1. Partial birth infanticide; penalty.

A. Any person who knowingly performs partial birth infanticide and thereby kills a human infant is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

B. For the purposes of this section, “partial birth infanticide” means any deliberate act that (i) is intended to kill a human infant who has been born alive, but who has not been completely extracted or expelled from its mother, and that (ii) does kill such infant, regardless of whether death occurs before or after extraction or expulsion from its mother has been completed.

The term “partial birth infanticide” shall not under any circumstances be construed to include any of the following procedures: (i) the suction curettage abortion procedure, (ii) the suction aspiration abortion procedure, (iii) the dilation and evacuation abortion procedure involving dismemberment of the fetus prior to removal from the body of the mother, or (iv) completing delivery of a living human infant and severing the umbilical cord of any infant who has been completely delivered.

C. For the purposes of this section, “human infant who has been born alive” means a product of human conception that has been completely or substantially expelled or extracted from its mother, regardless 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.

Oops!

Just another day in the right wing blogosphere, promoting false stories without even bothering to check the facts. This is becoming quite a trend.

(Hat tip: KT.)

UPDATE at 12/18/09 12:39:35 pm:

Meanwhile, a Hot Air commenter is threatening to hunt down and kill this woman.

Just send me “Moms” name and address I’ll happily mete out the appropriate punishment to this piece o crap.

Viper1 on December 18, 2009 at 3:32 PM

UPDATE at 12/18/09 3:37:34 pm:

More comments from the lovely people at Hot Air:

What color is the mother?

pabarge on December 18, 2009 at 6:18 PM

[…]

May she get raped by an AIDS case and die a VERY slow painful death ! C**t!

cableguy615 on December 18, 2009 at 6:30 PM

UPDATE at 12/18/09 9:46:27 pm:

Ed Morrissey responds to my post, but can’t even bring himself to write my name, because it will get cooties on him:

Update II: A critic says that the report from WSLS is false, and that the law does cover this situation. But that critic doesn’t live in Virginia, and doesn’t explain how WSLS, the law enforcement agency, the state legislator, and the attorney general all got it wrong, too. After all, if the law covered the situation, the legislator wouldn’t have needed to introduce legislation to fix it and the AG, the county’s attorney, and the sheriff wouldn’t have endorsed it. At any rate, the facts to which I linked were reported by WSLS and confirmed by all of the above, all of whom are better sources than the critic in question.

And then he quotes an entirely different statue that does not apply to this case, to try to justify his mistake:

Virginia Code § 18.2-32.2 - Killing a fetus; penalty - Virginia Virginia Code § 18.2-32.2 - Killing a fetus; penalty - Virginia Code :: Justia

18.2-32.2. Killing a fetus; penalty.

A. Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation kills the fetus of another is guilty of a Class 2 felony.

Two simple points that Ed Morrissey is apparently too simple to understand:

1) A newborn baby is not a “fetus.”

2) The statute he dug up specifically says “the fetus of another.” The woman in question is accused of killing her own newborn baby — not “the fetus of another.”

So Ed Morrissey (look, I can write his name!) isn’t just wrong, he’s doubly wrong. And a dishonest coward to boot.

UPDATE at 12/18/09 9:51:34 pm:

Meanwhile, the comments threatening the life of the woman, and wishing for her to be raped by someone with AIDS, remain posted at Hot Air.