Instapundit bounces the rubble with this:
UPDATE [GRIM]:
Some more rubble gets bounced.
UPDATE [GRIM]:
Comfort
Some kind of tipping point has been reached, evidently. Virginia Governor's bizarre chat about keeping newborn infants comfortable while we arrange to snuff them was a bridge too far, especially in the same week someone dug up yearbook photos in which he was either in blackface or wearing a KKK hood. As "the greatest chyron ever" points out, the Governor's heartfelt apology doesn't make it clear which.
Instapundit bounces the rubble with this:
UPDATE [GRIM]:
Some more rubble gets bounced.
UPDATE [GRIM]:
Instapundit bounces the rubble with this:
UPDATE [GRIM]:
Some more rubble gets bounced.
UPDATE [GRIM]:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
My brother-in-law was telling me during the Kavanaugh hearings about a similar story when he was at Providence College in the 70s. He was in a KKK hood and his black friend was in a noose when they went to a Hallowe'en party. He reflected that it was considered over-the-top but more outrageous-funny than offensive at the time. Maybe so. I was in school in Virginia, where feelings were still raw, so I couldn't imagine it.
Even so, Northam's in more trouble for tasteless humor - there's no indication he was pro-KKK - than he is for being an infanticide apologist. Ah the newborn might have many disabilities. So presumably, might not.
I grew up where the KKK came out in their real robes, and passed their literature out on the courthouse square. When I was a boy, we'd run into them from time to time. Dad used to tell me that he respected that they didn't wear their hoods, and would at least show you their faces to go along with their words. But later I found out the law forbade the hoods, and Dad just didn't know it.
I don't like them at all, and I never thought they were funny. But I guess some people did.
By Monday they say the Lt. Gov. will be Gov., AG will be Lt. Gov., and Brian Moron (Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security) will be AG.
Today's take: Yesterday I apologized for the being the photo, but today I deny I was in the photo, and no, I'm not resigning.
Maybe he was in another photo, and has just realized this isn't the one. That could happen to anyone.
Maybe he'll claim he took the photo. Then he doesn't have to choose between the dilemma's horns.
But it doesn't matter. Clinton knew that the only thing that is permanent is resigning. The rest of it can be washed away, as long as you're a Democratic leader.
Based on what I've read, I don't think Northam was advocating infanticide. It's possible I've missed something but what I got out of what he said was that when a child is born with such severe disabilities that the child is non-viable what happens is that the child is resuscitated if the parents want that and then the doctor talks to them about what can and cannot be done for the child; about what the child will suffer if treatment is attempted; what the chances are that the child will survive the treatments; and about what would happen if no treatment is attempted and nature is allowed to take its course.
It took me a while to get around to thinking that. I couldn't believe that someone was actually, openly advocating infanticide (yes, I know about what's-his-name but he's just an academic show-off) but I could certainly read Northam's comments that way. I finally imagined a couple who did not want to abort their child, knew there were developmental problems, had the child, discovered the problems were terribly severe (mal- or non-formed internal organs, e.g.), and had to decide whether to put the child through painful and almost certainly futile treatments or to simply allow him or her to receive palliative care and slip away. Maybe Northam is truly a monster who is casually discussing suffocating a newborn infant in the delivery room but I find that hard to believe.
Unfortunately, by conflating Northam's comments with Tran's comment about "abortion during delivery", I suspect there has been something of an inoculation effect with regard to how horrible Tran's comments (and bill) really are. Now a response to criticism of Tran's bill and comments can be met with, "Yeah, there are some idiots out there who said it allows infanticide. They'll say anything to deprive women of reproductive health care."
Oops. "Now a response to criticism" should be "Now criticism".
It's possible I've missed something but what I got out of what he said was that when a child is born with such severe disabilities....
I think what we've all missed is that Northam's remarks in the radio interview are cut off after then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother[], at least in all the excerpts I've been able to find. We're left to speculate and to jump to conclusions about what that discussion would entail and what would/could be done as a result of that discussion.
I don't agree, though, that it's so hard to believe that Northam would advocate 4th semester abortion (as one commentator--Continetti?--put it). This is, after all, the party that advocates for killing unborn babies for any reason, including inconvenience, at any time, and that gladly accepts political donations from an abortion clinic chain that does its work in such a way as to preserve the parts for resale.
It's also...interesting...to hear all the virtue signallers in the State legislature bleating about how Northam must resign. All while lifting nary a finger toward impeachment and conviction.
Eric Hines
Elise, I agree that he could easily have meant that, but there are reasonable interpretations that would suggest he's ok with what we consider infanticide. You'd think something so close to something so heinous would urge one to be crystal clear on the issue. He seemed, perhaps, to be obfuscating the issue of the bill permitting infanticide with a slightly more plausible circumstance. At best, he was trying to provide cover for a bill that absolutely allowed for infanticide- as I'm sure most reasonable people would admit killing a moments from birth baby for vague reasons of 'the mother's mental health' would agree is the case.
I'm with Elise, I took him to be talking about passively withholding treatment from a severely disabled infant. I'm also with Douglas and Eric: he was so cavalier, he didn't even try to make that clear. He has issued one or two statements since then that seem to be making the point.
I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the "sorry I was in that picture, wait, I think I was in that costume on some other occasion, not in that picture" message. I was interested to see that the local take on FB today was "oh, we're tired of reading about youthful indiscretions about silly costumes." He might actually have tried that approach instead of the "I'm not sure if I ever wore that costume or not" approach.
He should have, but that would have gotten his base all up against him, so that was out.
Honestly, he should be able to do that, but they wanted these rules, they should be made to live up to their own 'standards'.
It's the hypocrisy that galls me.
Honestly, I'm not sure Northam actually knew what was in the bill - you know, kind of like that co-sponsor who claims she didn't read it that closely. Northam talked about wanting more than one doctor involved in decision-making on late-term abortions and yet that's something the bill specifically gets rid of. I believe Northam was dismissing the very idea that someone would abort a baby so close to term - that's why he says that what would happen is that the baby would be delivered.
Now, why hasn't he cleaned up his mess? Well, maybe he is trying to not anger the base or maybe he is trying to muddy the waters. Or maybe his yearbook picture caught up with him and the abortion issue is the least of his worries. Or maybe he figured he'd let the Right run with the infanticide argument and pull them up short at some point. (Why, yes, I am someone who thinks the reason Obama never released his birth certificate is because the birther controversy was to his advantage.)
The Q&A is here and it looks like right after Northam's comments the show takes call-ins. It would be interesting to see if anyone on the phone asks him for clarification. Maybe the whole show is up somewhere:
http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/30/virginia-gov-ralph-northam-implies-babies-can-terminated-birth/
Elise - I think you are right that maybe Northam knew little about the bill. According to Jim Gerghaty's Morning Jolt, Northam also claimed the bill required multiple physicians to approve the actions taken even though that is the current VA standard, and the bill actually reduces it to just the opinion of the attending physician and mother.
I still find it hard to square his comments with any thing other than partial birth abortion. He has to know the purpose of the bill is legalizing abortion at any stage of pregnancy so why is he making comments regarding the birth, not abortion, of extremely ill babies?
I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the "sorry I was in that picture, wait, I think I was in that costume on some other occasion, not in that picture" message.
I'd do this:
Question from reporter: Governor, first you apologized for the blackface/KKK picture, then you said you weren’t in it? That just doesn’t make sense to most people.
Answer: I was kind of reeling from giving a standard medical answer to a question about babies born with such severe birth defects that they’re not viable and suddenly being accused of infanticide. I kind of felt like the whole world had gone crazy. Then I hear from [my wife/an aide/a reporter/a supporter] that there’s a picture of me in blackface. My immediate response was, “No, there’s not. It’s not possible. I’ve never worn blackface in my life and never would.” Well, the person said, it’s your yearbook picture. I said s/he was crazy - at my high school, all the boys had to wear suit and tie for their pictures or they didn’t get a picture. Not your high school yearbook, s/he said - your med school yearbook.
Okay, wow. I must have gotten a copy of my med school yearbook but I sure never looked through it. Why would I? I wasn’t an 18-year-old wondering where I and my friends would end up. I was a grown man who graduated from med school and started my internship, a job that left me no time for anything else but eating and sleeping - and not much of that. So I’m pretty clueless and then I realize, oh, right - Michael Jackson. Remember this was the 80s and Michael Jackson was just the best performer anyone had ever seen. So for a talent show, I tried to look like him and do his act. At the time, I made up my skin to look like his out of respect and admiration but now I realize - all decent people realize - that doing that smacks too much of the old, hateful blackface routines. So I figured the yearbook had used a picture of me as Michael Jackson and I apologized for that and figured I was done.
Then I start hearing talk about hoods and I realize I’m not talking about what everyone else is talking about. So I finally look at the picture everyone’s passing around and there’s no way either of the people in that picture is me - no way. I would never dress up like either of those jerks. So if you want to know why that particular picture is on my med school yearbook page, you’ll have to ask the people who put the yearbook together.
I still find it hard to square his comments with any thing other than partial birth abortion.
Northam appears to support third-term abortions if there are extremely severe birth defects. I don't know enough about medicine to know if that necessarily means partial-birth abortions.
What is happening in the video I linked to is the host(ess) asks Northam about Tran's comment that abortion will be legal even when a woman is "dilating, ready to give birth". Northam says explicitly that he wasn't there and can't speak for Tran and goes on to say:
When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way. And it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable. [The accounts I've seen don't do a paragraph break here. I think there should be one because that's the end of what he has to say about third-trimester abortions.]
So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. 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. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.
What I get out of that is that Northam believes no doctor is going to do an abortion if a woman is in labor ("in this particular example, if a mother is in labor"). Instead, the baby would be delivered. So the "blown out of proportion" comment is about Northam's belief that abortion once labor has begun is simply never going to happen so the whole question and answer is irrelevant. (Obviously, this is naive on Northam's part. Whether it's willfully naive or he honestly can't see that this is inevitable if Tran's bill passes, I do not know.)
I get what you're saying, but here's the thing- maybe that's exactly where he's at but he then suffers because I've run into many, many abortion apologists on twitter and elsewhere who will straight up lie to cover the realities of what they're endorsing. They're constantly trying to cover the marginal cases with the extreme borderline examples that happen 1 out of 100,000 times. They're trying to tell you the bill isn't exactly what Tran said it was *on video*. So his credibility is hurt because it looks exactly like those tactics we see all the time. This is first a warning to be careful who your allies are and police them lest they create problems for you, and also that the Democrats have an enduring record of telling you everything but the truth, and have little to no credibility to lean on when they need it. It didn't help that three Democrats on the committee where that video of Tran was shot voted in favor of sending the bill forward out of committee (it was apparently a 5-3 party line vote to table it).
I agree, there's a strong tendency to support an unrestricted right of abortion through the 40th week plus x days postpartum by pointing to the vanishingly rare situation of an infant basically born without a head to everyone's completely unprepared shock. Even then, they can't quite admit that what they're discussing isn't abortion, it's euthanasia. If it's euthanasia and the baby is already breathing air, it becomes much harder to say that we have no right to interfere in a woman's decision about "her own" body.
You can make principled arguments for euthanasia, even if I don't agree with them, but you can't do it by lying.
I agree with both douglas and Tex. I was doing some reading on the Gosnell case over the last few days and found a reference from 2013 to a Ms. Snow from Planned Parenthood who said that when a baby survives an abortion it's up to the mother, the family, and her doctor to decide what happens to the baby. And there's Peter Singer (neonaticide for newborn's who will suffer unbearably) and, in 2012, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, two philosophers who argue for after-birth abortion. (I did not read the entire original piece but the Slate/Saletan report of what it says seems accurate based on a brief skimming.) So, yes, there are people who think abortion shading into euthanasia if hunky-dory and absolutely yes, the Democrats do tell you everything but the truth.
My problem with the way Northam's comments are being characterized is threefold. First, if/when people realize he didn't call for infanticide, the credibility of Tran-opponents who said he did is damaged.
Second, I just think it's nice if we don't all misrepresent each other, even when "each other" is on the other side. Going even further, I think it's nice if we try to believe the best of each other. I'm all for making sure the Democrats don't get away with the bad behavior they often pull but I try to be willing to at least start with the assumption that they aren't actual monsters, regardless of whether they're Democrats I personally know and like or Democrats I've never met and/or don't like. It's not always easy but I figure doing so is, as my mother used to say, another star in my crown.
Third - and perhaps most important to me - the focus on the horror of infanticide lessens the focus on the horror of abortion up to and including delivery. The latter is horrible in its own right. What if Tran re-introduces her bill and simply adds a line saying, "Nothing in here shall be construed to make infanticide legal"? How many people, enraged over infanticide, are then going to say, "Oh, okay. Much better"?
"When one has been threatened with a great injustice, one accepts a smaller as a favour." - Jane Welsh Carlyle
Agreed. Voters in general seem horrified by two things: (1) throwing women in jail if they do something most people don't think of as "true" abortion, like drug-induced extremely early abortion or even very early surgical abortion, and (2) late-term abortion that's hard to think of as anything but infanticide. That leaves a huge middle ground that can't even be discussed rationally, because any position you take will lead a solid group of opponents to characterize you as favoring either (1) or (2), and therefore stop listening to you. So it's a bad idea practically as well or morally to misrepresent anyone's views on this, even to stir up healthy public outrage.
At the same time, if someone like Northam can't bear to clarify his views for fear that his base will throw him under the bus, I can't sympathize with his dilemma. He has a responsibility not to dance around this. Legislators have a responsibility to write clear laws and read them before they vote for them, let alone sponsor them.
Look up Herod and Moses baby killings.
The Deep State laughs at all you mortals and Americans being distracted by this abortion issue. It's not really a privacy or rights issue.
Post a Comment