A great story last week regarding the addition of the midwife-assisted birthing option being offered by our own Fauquier Hospital!

I appreciate that the emphasis is on the safety of the pregnant woman and her baby. Everything is done in “collaboration with OB/GYN physicians.”

The midwife works closely with the woman before the birth, she can spend more time with the woman before the birth answering “all the little questions that come up.” Further, the pregnant woman can count on the “comfort of a midwife backed up with the safety and security of a hospital birth.” 

Strange, though, that down in Richmond, our legislators are making it more dangerous for women to get an abortion. In the bills passed by both house and senate, women could get an abortion performed by a nurse practitioner, the woman no longer gets a 24-hour waiting period to consider all the options provided her by counseling (because there won't be counseling), no ultrasound, and even worse, the facility in which the abortion is performed doesn't have to meet with regulations establishing minimum standards. 

Who can explain why we care so much about women who want to give birth to a living child, but we don't care about the women who want an abortion? 

Melanie Grandelli 


You must be logged in to react.
Click any reaction to login.

Recommended for you

(7) comments


Tax payers shouldn't be paying for this.


Melanie - because they are misguided morons .

Jim McCarthy

The writer has proposed a puzzle which I cannot fathom. Is her position opposed to safer births or less safe abortions. In either case, the argument is one of comparatives not absolutes.


Jim, I believe she is making a point with out actually taking sides. She is showing the hypocrisy that while hospitals are making it safer for a mother giving birth, but Richmond is only pushing their agenda without any real thought. (Which both sides have a tendency of doing). Really, what is the harm of waiting 24 hours and having them performed by a medical doctor, not a nurse practitioner and in a properly medical facility. Funny, they want a waiting period and background check before buying a gun, but can take a life of an unborn child with out any questions asked.


Quite the opposite; she is taking a very anti-abortion stance. Regardless of personal views on the procedure, it is a very safe procedure not requiring hospital admitting privileges or other burdensome regulations designed only to close down such facilities. An ultrasound is not necessary before an abortion unless you are trying to guilt the woman into not having one.


she's not taking a political stance, she's making a point about hippocracy. Abortion can be a very safe procedure unless done by someone like Kermit Gosnell. I mean, if it were my relative and i was taking them into a procedure that honestly could potentially kill them, maybe i might want the best coverage around them in case something does happen? you make it seem like getting an abortion is a minor medical procedure (it's not) so please stop trying to minimize this.


even with a medical doctor it's still a procedure with risks. Kermit Gosnell was a Dr. and he killed two patients. putting some regulatory burden around this type of procedure simply makes sense, irregardless of the feelings pro/con abortion

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.