Northam on reconciliation tour

[BlindBoo]

So it's an impeachable offense to have worn Black Face when you were in college in the 80's now? Cupcake Country. I have no problem with them impeaching a convicted rapist.

.

If the people of Virginia believe Northam is a liar as well as a racist and have no confidence in him then I would say...yes. It is an impeachable offense, though I admit I know nothing about Virginia law on the matter.
And this doesn't even go into Northam's willingness to make infanticide legal in the state.

It's up to Virginia for sure. But there was nothing in that bill that made infanticide legal. That's a connived talking point made by the assuming that the conversation between the doctor and mother or family of the severely deformed infant, that the governor said would happen, could be only about "how to kill it".

That's nuts.

Ask any doctor what that conversation would be about. Intentionally ending it's life would not be on the list. Even if the law had passed. Even with a severely deformed infant whose prognosis is 100% fatal.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It's up to Virginia for sure. But there was nothing in that bill that made infanticide legal. That's a connived talking point made by the assuming that the conversation between the doctor and mother or family of the severely deformed infant, that the governor said would happen, could be only about "how to kill it".

That's nuts.

Is it? You need to actually read what the proposed bill does. Fury at US 'infanticide' abortion bill
Apparently the bill was killed, ironically, in committee but Northam leaves no doubt what was in store for a child under the law:
"So in this particular example, if a mother's in labour, I can tell you exactly what would happen," he told WTOP's Ask the Governor programme Wednesday.

"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."
That's infanticide, terminating a live baby who has been delivered. There is no arguing about that.

Ask any doctor what that conversation would be about. Intentionally ending it's life would not be on the list. Even if the law had passed. Even with a severely deformed infant whose prognosis is 100% fatal.

You can speculate all you like....the bill clearly allows for infanticide.

Now if the child is clearly deformed and has viability issues, that's one thing. But how does a baby spend nine months in the womb with profound abnormalities and wind up being delivered? It just doesn't happen.

The question is now moot, thankfully, but I can't help but believe Virginia was following the lead of New York with this new bill and I note Northam said nothing about the infant itself (abnormal or not) though I readily admit I don't have everything he''s ever said about that bill at hand.

What I do know is democrats wanted this: "Under current Virginia law, third-trimester abortions are only permitted if the risk to the mother's life is "substantial and irremediable" - language that Democrats wanted removed. "
Remove those qualifiers, with Northam/s blessings, and you have a law now in which
fully viable children, even post delivery, are subject to the death penalty.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Considering the fact that Northam attacked Mr. Gillespie as a racist, I'd call hiding the fact that one used to go in blackface and KKK robes to be Gross Hypocrisy. Mr. Northam should have been open about it, it was obstruction since he did not.

Yes. We call those people "liars" and "frauds". Amazingly Northam retains a thin approval rating of a few points to his advantage among Virginians so I wonder what he'd have to do to piss off his constituents?

Must be a lot of solid racists and Klan fans among those Virginia democrats.

 

[BlindBoo]

"So in this particular example, if a mother's in labour, I can tell you exactly what would happen," he told WTOP's Ask the Governor programme Wednesday.

"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."
That's infanticide, terminating a live baby who has been delivered. There is no arguing about that.

Here let me give you the part of the quote that you missed. Perhaps you can figure out why a propagandist would splice it up the way they did and make the false claim that he was talking about a normal birth that the mother decided to abort at the very last minute.

"This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved,” Northam said. “When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent, obviously, of the mother, with the consent of the physicians - more than one physician, by the way. It’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable.

“So, in this particular example,......"

What's wrong with sedating the infant if it is suffering from pain? Furthermore what makes you think the conversation between the doctor and family during such a terrible tragedy would be about how to kill the infant? There is nothing in that law that would have allowed the killing of the infant in the example, even if it was born with fatal deformities. He never said it. It is a made up talking point designed to create an emotional response (anger) in these SJWers.

Now if the child is clearly deformed and has viability issues, that's one thing. But how does a baby spend nine months in the womb with profound abnormalities and wind up being delivered? It just doesn't happen.

Yes, with today's technology they are exceptionally rare, like late term abortions. Not everybody has access to the latest technology and sometimes the technology fails.

 

[Polishprince]

"So in this particular example, if a mother's in labour, I can tell you exactly what would happen," he told WTOP's Ask the Governor programme Wednesday.

"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."
That's infanticide, terminating a live baby who has been delivered. There is no arguing about that.

Here let me give you the part of the quote that you missed. Perhaps you can figure out why a propagandist would splice it up the way they did and make the false claim that he was talking about a normal birth that the mother decided to abort at the very last minute.

"This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved,” Northam said. “When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent, obviously, of the mother, with the consent of the physicians - more than one physician, by the way. It’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable.

“So, in this particular example,......"

What's wrong with sedating the infant if it is suffering from pain? Furthermore what makes you think the conversation between the doctor and family during such a terrible tragedy would be about how to kill the infant? There is nothing in that law that would have allowed the killing of the infant in the example, even if it was born with fatal deformities. He never said it. It is a made up talking point designed to create an emotional response (anger) in these SJWers.

Now if the child is clearly deformed and has viability issues, that's one thing. But how does a baby spend nine months in the womb with profound abnormalities and wind up being delivered? It just doesn't happen.

Yes, with today's technology they are exceptionally rare, like late term abortions. Not everybody has access to the latest technology and sometimes the technology fails.

The discussion was about ANY infant that the mother wants to abort, not just those with fatal deformities. A child can be perfectly healthy, but if mum wants an abortion the proposed Virginia Law would say swell.

 

[BlindBoo]

The discussion was about ANY infant that the mother wants to abort,

Not in the discussion the Gov. was having, that was about the birth of a severely deformed infant.

A child can be perfectly healthy, but if mum wants an abortion the proposed Virginia Law would say swell

No it doesn't.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

"This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved,” Northam said. “When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent, obviously, of the mother, with the consent of the physicians - more than one physician, by the way. It’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable.

“So, in this particular example,......"

What's wrong with sedating the infant if it is suffering from pain? Furthermore what makes you think the conversation between the doctor and family during such a terrible tragedy would be about how to kill the infant? There is nothing in that law that would have allowed the killing of the infant in the example, even if it was born with fatal deformities. He never said it. It is a made up talking point designed to create an emotional response (anger) in these SJWers.

You are missing the entire point. Under this law not only would babies born with significant deformities be aborted upon birth but according to Kathy Tran, sponsor of the bill, babies born without abnormalities of any sort would also be candidates for death.

"Virginia Democratic Del. Kathy Tran, chief sponsor of the Repeal Act, sparked headlines this week after she said her bill, which seeks to repeal restrictions on third-trimester abortions, would allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy while she’s in labor.

“Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth,” Republican state Rep. Todd Gilbert asked Ms. Tran during a hearing Monday, “would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so-certified? She’s dilating.”

“My bill would allow that, yes,” Ms. Tran answered." Ralph Northam, Virginia governor, defends bill allowing abortion during labor
No distinction is made between profoundly deformed non viable children and healthy infants. None.

"Ms. Tran’s bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third-trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be “substantial and irremediable.”

Do you see anything there that specifies only in the case of profound defects in the infant will abortion during delivery be legalized? I don't.
If a woman confers with her doctor and states her mental health will be permanently impaired
by the birth of the child then that fulfills all the legal requirement needed to terminate that human being.

You need to argue what's in the law and not what you believe the law says. Disingenuous politician Ralph Northam
is presenting the law in a worst case scenario (what if the child is severely handicapped?). But like a politician he is ignoring that under this law it's not the only case scenario in which a child's life can be terminated.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The discussion was about ANY infant that the mother wants to abort, not just those with fatal deformities. A child can be perfectly healthy, but if mum wants an abortion the proposed Virginia Law would say swell.

It took you two sentences to say what I struggled to convey in five or six paragraphs. You have my respect and admiration. What you say is so true.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Not in the discussion the Gov. was having, that was about the birth of a severely deformed infant.

So please point out then where in Kathy Tran's legislation it specified that it applied ONLY to severely compromised infants.
Let's not get hung up on slick politician Ralph Northam's selective cherry picked defense of the law. Let's discuss the law itself. I will await your reply.

No it doesn't.

Then demonstrate what you say. That should be easy for you.

 

[Crixus]

Why doesn't this racist just quit, along with Accused Rapist Fairfax?

Why aren't the libs insisting on their immediate resignation?

Ralph Northam Cancels ‘Reconciliation Tour’ Stop at Historically Black College

Hope the bus crashes and burns. He would be better for VA dead.

 

[BlindBoo]

"This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved,” Northam said. “When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent, obviously, of the mother, with the consent of the physicians - more than one physician, by the way. It’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable.

“So, in this particular example,......"

What's wrong with sedating the infant if it is suffering from pain? Furthermore what makes you think the conversation between the doctor and family during such a terrible tragedy would be about how to kill the infant? There is nothing in that law that would have allowed the killing of the infant in the example, even if it was born with fatal deformities. He never said it. It is a made up talking point designed to create an emotional response (anger) in these SJWers.

You are missing the entire point. Under this law not only would babies born with significant deformities be aborted upon birth but according to Kathy Tran, sponsor of the bill, babies born without abnormalities of any sort would also be candidates for death.

"Virginia Democratic Del. Kathy Tran, chief sponsor of the Repeal Act, sparked headlines this week after she said her bill, which seeks to repeal restrictions on third-trimester abortions, would allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy while she’s in labor.

“Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth,” Republican state Rep. Todd Gilbert asked Ms. Tran during a hearing Monday, “would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so-certified? She’s dilating.”

“My bill would allow that, yes,” Ms. Tran answered." Ralph Northam, Virginia governor, defends bill allowing abortion during labor
No distinction is made between profoundly deformed non viable children and healthy infants. None.

"Ms. Tran’s bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third-trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be “substantial and irremediable.”

Do you see anything there that specifies only in the case of profound defects in the infant will abortion during delivery be legalized? I don't.
If a woman confers with her doctor and states her mental health will be permanently impaired
by the birth of the child then that fulfills all the legal requirement needed to terminate that human being.

You need to argue what's in the law and not what you believe the law says. Disingenuous politician Ralph Northam
is presenting the law in a worst case scenario (what if the child is severely handicapped?). But like a politician he is ignoring that under this law it's not the only case scenario in which a child's life can be terminated.

More poopaganda.

“My bill would allow that,” Tran said.

Tran later said that she “misspoke” in the committee hearing, and that “I should have said: ‘Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.’”

But the controversy had already begun....."

Trump’s misleading comments about Gov. Ralph Northam and infanticide, explained

I'm not missing anything. You're the one that is somehow convinced that what the Governor meant by a "discussion" between the physician and the unfortunate family in his example was infanticide. Why do you think that?

There is nothing in the bill that would allow any doctor or mother to kill an infant that has just been born.

 

[Polishprince]

"This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved,” Northam said. “When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent, obviously, of the mother, with the consent of the physicians - more than one physician, by the way. It’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable.

“So, in this particular example,......"

What's wrong with sedating the infant if it is suffering from pain? Furthermore what makes you think the conversation between the doctor and family during such a terrible tragedy would be about how to kill the infant? There is nothing in that law that would have allowed the killing of the infant in the example, even if it was born with fatal deformities. He never said it. It is a made up talking point designed to create an emotional response (anger) in these SJWers.

You are missing the entire point. Under this law not only would babies born with significant deformities be aborted upon birth but according to Kathy Tran, sponsor of the bill, babies born without abnormalities of any sort would also be candidates for death.

"Virginia Democratic Del. Kathy Tran, chief sponsor of the Repeal Act, sparked headlines this week after she said her bill, which seeks to repeal restrictions on third-trimester abortions, would allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy while she’s in labor.

“Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth,” Republican state Rep. Todd Gilbert asked Ms. Tran during a hearing Monday, “would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so-certified? She’s dilating.”

“My bill would allow that, yes,” Ms. Tran answered." Ralph Northam, Virginia governor, defends bill allowing abortion during labor
No distinction is made between profoundly deformed non viable children and healthy infants. None.

"Ms. Tran’s bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third-trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be “substantial and irremediable.”

Do you see anything there that specifies only in the case of profound defects in the infant will abortion during delivery be legalized? I don't.
If a woman confers with her doctor and states her mental health will be permanently impaired
by the birth of the child then that fulfills all the legal requirement needed to terminate that human being.

You need to argue what's in the law and not what you believe the law says. Disingenuous politician Ralph Northam
is presenting the law in a worst case scenario (what if the child is severely handicapped?). But like a politician he is ignoring that under this law it's not the only case scenario in which a child's life can be terminated.

More poopaganda.

“My bill would allow that,” Tran said.

Tran later said that she “misspoke” in the committee hearing, and that “I should have said: ‘Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.’”

But the controversy had already begun....."

Trump’s misleading comments about Gov. Ralph Northam and infanticide, explained

I'm not missing anything. You're the one that is somehow convinced that what the Governor meant by a "discussion" between the physician and the unfortunate family in his example was infanticide. Why do you think that?

There is nothing in the bill that would allow any doctor or mother to kill an infant that has just been born.

Fair enough, anyone can make a mistake and Gov. Northam should definitely have an opportunity to explain his Abortion Policy himself. He should go on Hannity's program to explain exactly when he is willing to outlaw abortion. So far all we've heard is whining "we didn't mean that" but nothing about what he did mean.

 

[BlindBoo]

Not in the discussion the Gov. was having, that was about the birth of a severely deformed infant.

So please point out then where in Kathy Tran's legislation it specified that it applied ONLY to severely compromised infants.
Let's not get hung up on slick politician Ralph Northam's selective cherry picked defense of the law. Let's discuss the law itself. I will await your reply.

No it doesn't.

Then demonstrate what you say. That should be easy for you.

Why? The Gov. was talking about a specific example. You said he was specifically advocating for infanticide by what he said. Not just you of course, the whole anti-choice SJWer gang has been repeating that talking point verbatim, which is contrary to known reality. He said no such thing nor did he imply it. That was made up by slick propagandist.

Why should I defend something I never claimed. I never claimed the legislation applied only to specific cases of deformation or anything of the sort. I just haven't found anyone that can truly argue the point without trying to change the subject or move the goal post.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

More poopaganda.

“My bill would allow that,” Tran said.

Tran later said that she “misspoke” in the committee hearing, and that “I should have said: ‘Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.’”

But the controversy had already begun....."

Trump’s misleading comments about Gov. Ralph Northam and infanticide, explained

I'm not missing anything. You're the one that is somehow convinced that what the Governor meant by a "discussion" between the physician and the unfortunate family in his example was infanticide. Why do you think that?

There is nothing in the bill that would allow any doctor or mother to kill an infant that has just been born.

It's not worth my time arguing this especially when Tran is so obviously going back and trying to erase the clear unambiguous message she made before the crap hit the fan.
By the way, a link from Vox isn't worth the time it takes me to click it away. They are perhaps the worst of all the left wing apologists and rationalizers.

A discussion is just that...a discussion. Not an action. The action comes at the end of the discussion.

There is nothing in Tran's bill that would prevent a baby simply being allowed to die (as Gov. Northam specified in his comment about that) and furthermore nothing in that bill
that would restrict allowing death to intervene in the case of children who weren't severely compromised.

Your weak equivocations haven't changed that at all.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Why should I defend something I never claimed. I never claimed the legislation applied only to specific cases of deformation or anything of the sort. I just haven't found anyone that can truly argue the point without trying to change the subject or move the goal post.

It sounds like you are kind of admitting this law doesn't apply only to cases where an infant is delivered with severe defects.
There is no reason to go on then. The issue is decided.

 

[BlindBoo]

More poopaganda.

“My bill would allow that,” Tran said.

Tran later said that she “misspoke” in the committee hearing, and that “I should have said: ‘Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.’”

But the controversy had already begun....."

Trump’s misleading comments about Gov. Ralph Northam and infanticide, explained

I'm not missing anything. You're the one that is somehow convinced that what the Governor meant by a "discussion" between the physician and the unfortunate family in his example was infanticide. Why do you think that?

There is nothing in the bill that would allow any doctor or mother to kill an infant that has just been born.

It's not worth my time arguing this especially when Tran is so obviously going back and trying to erase the clear unambiguous message she made before the crap hit the fan.
By the way, a link from Vox isn't worth the time it takes me to click it away. They are perhaps the worst of all the left wing apologists and rationalizers.

A discussion is just that...a discussion. Not an action. The action comes at the end of the discussion.

There is nothing in Tran's bill that would prevent a baby simply being allowed to die (as Gov. Northam specified in his comment about that) and furthermore nothing in that bill
that would restrict allowing death to intervene in the case of children who weren't severely compromised.

Your weak equivocations haven't changed that at all.

Tran made her correction almost immediately.

I like to source my quotes. They quoted Trans verbatim. Your opinion of them is unnecessary, however your attack of a source rather than the substance of the quote, is telling.

Nothing in the bill legalizes Child abandonment either. That argument made me laugh, so thanks for that.

 

[BlindBoo]

Why should I defend something I never claimed. I never claimed the legislation applied only to specific cases of deformation or anything of the sort. I just haven't found anyone that can truly argue the point without trying to change the subject or move the goal post.

It sounds like you are kind of admitting this law doesn't apply only to cases where an infant is delivered with severe defects.
There is no reason to go on then. The issue is decided.

Because the law doesn't apply after an infant is delivered. Nothing in the bill allows a doctor or a mother and family to legally kill the infant.

Wasn't it a hypothetical situation meant to illustrate the necessity of having late term abortions legally available?

But somebody saw an opportunity to splice a statement and dice up a nice juicy talking point to go with it to insinuate that the Democrats are trying to legalize infanticide.

 

[Polishprince]

Why should I defend something I never claimed. I never claimed the legislation applied only to specific cases of deformation or anything of the sort. I just haven't found anyone that can truly argue the point without trying to change the subject or move the goal post.

It sounds like you are kind of admitting this law doesn't apply only to cases where an infant is delivered with severe defects.
There is no reason to go on then. The issue is decided.

Because the law doesn't apply after an infant is delivered. Nothing in the bill allows a doctor or a mother and family to legally kill the infant.

Wasn't it a hypothetical situation meant to illustrate the necessity of having late term abortions legally available?

But somebody saw an opportunity to splice a statement and dice up a nice juicy talking point to go with it to insinuate that the Democrats are trying to legalize infanticide.

Like I said, let Gov Northam explain exactly what his policy is to the people on TV. Mr. Hannity would love to speak to him, get the dope straight from the horse's mouth. If Northam is against the right to choose in some circumstances, let's get him on the record exactly when.

 

[BlindBoo]

Why should I defend something I never claimed. I never claimed the legislation applied only to specific cases of deformation or anything of the sort. I just haven't found anyone that can truly argue the point without trying to change the subject or move the goal post.

It sounds like you are kind of admitting this law doesn't apply only to cases where an infant is delivered with severe defects.
There is no reason to go on then. The issue is decided.

Because the law doesn't apply after an infant is delivered. Nothing in the bill allows a doctor or a mother and family to legally kill the infant.

Wasn't it a hypothetical situation meant to illustrate the necessity of having late term abortions legally available?

But somebody saw an opportunity to splice a statement and dice up a nice juicy talking point to go with it to insinuate that the Democrats are trying to legalize infanticide.

Like I said, let Gov Northam explain exactly what his policy is to the people on TV. Mr. Hannity would love to speak to him, get the dope straight from the horse's mouth. If Northam is against the right to choose in some circumstances, let's get him on the record exactly when.

I'm sure the Gov. is welcome to explain his position on any of the prime time talking point shows on all the 24/7 opinion networks. They love to spin sound bites from those interviews. Even from other networks.