J Big League Politics 

Não foi preciso muito para deitar por terra anos e anos de avanços dos Democratas no Estado da Virgínia. Bastou ao site de "extrema-direita" bigleaguepolitics.com publicar uma fotografia de cariz marcadamente racista e supremacista na qual figurava o Governador do Estado, nos seus tempos de faculdade, para a notícia correr toda a imprensa norte-americana e a generalidade das cadeias noticiosas internacionais. A reação em cadeia foi rápida e exponencial, os desmentidos frouxos e desajeitados, os pedidos de demissão cada vez mais insistentes mas, pior, alguns dos que pediram a cabeça do Governador, como os nº 2 e nº3 da governação estadual, foram imediatamente denunciados, também, por comportamento racista, sexista e por assédio, estando toda a cúpula Democrata da Virgínia à beira da demissão. Na origem de tudo, as propostas de Raph Northam, o Governador, relativas a Late Term Abortion, defendidas publicamente pelo próprio em termos equivalentes a infanticídio. De referir que os meios de comunicação internacionais e americanos, em geral, omitiram este facto, desligando o escândalo racista, largamente difundido, do resto.

 

https://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2019/02/09/5c5c81e3fc6c837f528b4587.html

Un escándalo racista en Estados Unidos hunde a los demócratas de Virginia

PABLO PARDO

9 feb. 2019

Hasta hace una semana, Virginia era el estado que el Partido Demócrata veía como un ejemplo de éxito. El territorio, conservador y rural, que alberga Richmond a la antigua capital de la Confederación, había dado en menos de una década un giro de 180 grados, al pasar de ser un bastión conservador a un estado en el que el nuevo Partido Demócratahabía copado la práctica totalidad de los puestos de poder con una agenda de centroizquierda. El candidato a la vicepresidencia con Hillary Clinton fue el senador por ese estado Tim Kaine. Y hasta hay un ex gobernador de Virginia -el amigo de Bill y Hillary Clinton, Terry McAuliffe- que no oculta su interés en entrar en la carrera presidencial.

Han bastado días para que todo ese edificio de triunfos políticos esté viniéndose abajo. La razón es el pasado de los tres cargos más altos del Partido Demócrata en Virginia: el gobernador, el vicegobernador, y el fiscal general. Los tres se han visto atrapados por una combinación letal, que incluye la controversia sobre la expansión de los límites legales al aborto en EEUU, las burlas del gobernador y del fiscal a los negros cuando eran jóvenes, y, en el caso del vicegobernador -que es, precisamente, afroamericano- un caso de presunto acoso sexual.

Todo empezó cuando la web de ultraderecha Big League Politics publicó una fotografía del gobernador, Ralph Northam, disfrazado de negro y junto a una persona con un traje del Ku Klux Klan. La imagen procedía del Anuario de la Facultad de Medicina en la que Northam había estudiado, y estaba fechada en 1984. Su impacto fue brutal. El gobernador no solo iba disfrazado de negro -algo que en EEUU es políticamente inaceptable, aunque no es ése el caso si alguien se disfraza de indígena o de asiático-, sino que, en realidad, iba de cara negra (Blackface). El Blackface es una tradición del vodevil estadounidense en la que un blanco se hace pasar por negro para caricaturizar y burlarse a las personas de esa raza. Ponerse así al lado de alguien con un traje del Ku Klux Klan equivale a ir con un traje que se mofa de los judíos y hacerse una foto junto a una persona con uniforme nazi.

Northam no dimitió. Y eso que se lo pidió el Partido Demócrata al completo, incluyendo la presidenta de la Cámara de Representantes, Nancy Pelosi y seis candidatos y precandidatos a la presidencia en 2020. Todos le dijeron que se fuera para dejar el cargo en manos del vicegobernador del Estado, Justin Fairfax. Que, además, es afroamericano. Todo un caso de justicia política y poética.

Pero no es que no dimitiera. Nordham empeoró las cosas con una delirante rueda de prensa en la que desmintió que él fuera la persona de la foto, a pesar de que, declaró, él se había vestido de blackface en aquellos años para bailar como Michael Jackson. El gobernador se explayó en todo lujo de detalles explicando cómo se ponía betún en la cara para imitar al cantante. Un cantante cuyo nombre fue incapaz de recordar hasta que se lo recordó su esposa.

Claro que los problemas de Northam no habían acabado. Ese mismo sábado la cadena de televisión CBS divulgó una foto del Anuario de Northam en el Instituto Militar de Virginia, donde había cursado estudios de Secundaria, en el que el futuro gobernador aparecía con el mote "Coonman", un epíteto en desuso pero que todavía se usa en áreas rurales de Estados Unidos y que podría traducirse, salvando las distancias, como "El antinegro". Una vez más, el gobernador alegó que él nunca supo la razón por la que sus compañeros de clase le habían puesto -y él había aceptado- tan entrañable apodo.

Así que todo parecía dispuesto para que Northman, por más numantina que fuera su defensa, acabara yéndose y dejara el cargo para Fairfax. De hecho, hasta Mark Herring, el fiscal general del estado -cargo equivalente al de secretario de Justicia- le pidió que la dimisión. Pero apareció la profesora universitaria Vanessa Tyson, para declarar que Fairfax la asaltado sexualmente en 2004. Tyson ya había planteado esa denuncia al diario Washington Post hace un año, pero el periódico se había negado a publicarla, según ha explicado, porque no pudo corroborarla. Ahora, Tyson lanzaba urbi et orbi su carga contra Fairfax, que ha negado los cargos. Cuando todos en Virginia, incluyendo al Partido Demócrata, piden su dimisión, una segunda mujer ha acusado a Fairfax de acoso sexual. Parece que el vicegobernador está dispuesto a dimitir en las próximas horas.

Y, entonces, llegó el fiscal general, Herring, el mismo que había pedido la cabeza de Northam, para hacer un anuncio: él también se había disfrazado de Blackface en 1980, cuando tenía 19 años, en una fiesta en la que se burlaba de los raperos.

Toda la sucesión de escándalos es un desastre para el Partido Demócrata que, tras enarbolar las banderas de la raza -especialmente cuando ésta afecta a los afroamericanos- y del género se ha encontrado con que tiene el problema en casa, al menos en su plana mayor en Virginia.

Pero no es un desastre por casualidad. La exhumación de la primera foto de Northam fue llevada a cabo por activistas conservadores que se oponen a que Virginia pruebe una ley similar a la que recientemente ha creado Nueva York, en la que se extiende de manera drástica el periodo en el que es legal realizar aborto. Para los grupos que se oponen a esa ley, se trata de una ley que aprueba "el infanticidio". Y así lo dio a entender Donald Trump en su Discurso del Estado de la Unión el pasado lunes. Entretanto, la sucesión de escándalos amenaza con decapitar al Partido Demócrata de uno de los estados en los que podía argüir que había ganado la partida a los republicanos.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/infanticide-craze-new-york-virginia-abortion-laws/

By Ramesh Ponnuru

Laws permitting abortion up to the point of birth follow naturally from the country’s expansive abortion regime.

Democrats are increasingly explicit in their support for killing unborn children at any stage of pregnancy — and sometimes even of denying normal medical care to born children.

In New York state, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law that makes abortion legal, even after the unborn child is viable, so long as the abortionist makes a “reasonable and good-faith judgment” that abortion will protect the pregnant woman’s health. In Rhode Island, Governor Gina Raimondo has pledged to sign legislation that also makes abortion legal after viability to “preserve . . . health.” In Virginia, state legislator Kathy Tran has introduced legislation that would, she has explained, make abortion legal even at term and in the middle of birth.

Governor Ralph Northam supports that legislation. Defending it, he suggested that abortions so late in pregnancy would be done only in cases where the unborn child was severely deformed or unviable and that in such cases parents should be able to withhold medical care if the infants are fully delivered.

Northam is wrong about the reasons for late-term abortions. A 2013 study of abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy indicated that “most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” (The number of such abortions has been estimated at around 12,000 a year. For a sense of scale, that’s more than the annual number of gun homicides in our country.) The legislation Northam backs does not limit late-term abortions to such circumstances, either.

Republicans have reacted to the New York law and the Virginia bill with justified horror. But it’s important to identify correctly what we should be horrified about. The central provisions of these laws and proposed laws do not liberalize abortion policy beyond the status quo. The Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence has for decades effectively forbidden any state from prohibiting abortion even late in pregnancy.

Roe v. Wade held that states could prohibit abortion late in pregnancy only if they made an exception for abortions meant to protect the pregnant woman’s health. Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion in that case mentioned several health harms that unwanted parenthood could cause. Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton — written by the same justice and handed down the same day — also suggested that health should be read broadly. As Blackmun put it, “the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient.” An exception this broad would of course swallow any prohibition: An abortionist will always be able to say that in his professional judgment, having the child would have adverse emotional or familial consequences.*

 

Many states have laws against late-term abortion on the books, usually with a health exception that tracks the Supreme Court’s rulings. It is a sign of how broad the Court’s rulings have been — and how much broader they have been than they have generally been described in the press — that almost no successful prosecutions of late-term abortions have ever been undertaken since Roe. (I am aware of only two cases, both of which involved additional charges.) In 2016, Hillary Clinton said, approvingly, that our law does not recognize any right to life for unborn children mere hours from delivery; her description of the law was quite correct.

The Democratic party has, with fewer and fewer exceptions, placed itself firmly behind the proposition that the Supreme Court should not retreat an inch from its protection of abortion. Democrats who take this stance are by implication supporting a policy of legal abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Only a small percentage of Americans — 14 percent of respondents in a 2012 Gallup/USA Today poll — takes that view. But most people are unaware of how expansive the Court’s rulings have been, which lowers the political cost for politicians who take this view. (For that matter, some of those politicians must be ignorant of this point as well.)

Supporters of the country’s expansive abortion regime now fear that the Supreme Court will retreat from it, either by declaring that the Constitution permits states to protect unborn children in general or by letting them offer more protection. That’s why they are pushing legislation in the states to codify that regime. It is an effort that is forcing supporters of abortion to be a little more candid about what they really want: an extreme regime that denies any meaningful protection to unborn children and threatens the protection for born ones.

There is a revisionist line of argument, sometimes advanced by pro-lifers seeking to get the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of the abortion right, that holds that Doe has been misunderstood on this point. That need not concern us, however, since even if Doe has been misunderstood, the Court has adopted this view of a health exception in subsequent cases. So, for example, the Court has (by a one-vote margin) allowed prohibitions on partial-birth abortion, so long as other methods of abortion remain available throughout pregnancy to protect health broadly understood.

Ramesh Ponnuru — Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. @rameshponnuru

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/02/infanticide-becomes-justifiable

Wesley J. Smith

2/6/2019

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus wrote that bioethicists “professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on the way to becoming the justifiable until it is finally established as unexceptionable.” After the events of the last few weeks, the same could be said of liberal politicians.

Infanticide was once “unthinkable.” But over the last few decades, some of the world’s foremost bioethicists have considered baby killing worthy of respectable debate.

Princeton University’s Peter Singer is the most famous such advocate. A crass utilitarian, he argues that “being human” doesn’t have any moral import. The question of value rather depends on whether an individual exhibits the cognitive traits of a “person” over time, such as self-awareness. In this view, some human beings are non-persons—an invidious category that includes the unborn, infants, the profoundly cognitively disabled, and those who have lost their personhood through illness or injury.

Non-persons do not possess the right to life. In Rethinking Life and Death, Singer explicitly compares human non-persons to mackerel: “Since neither a newborn infant nor a fish is a person, the wrongness of killing such beings is not as great as the wrongness of killing a person.” He opines in Practical Ethics:

When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of the happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.

Singer has repeatedly argued that since both late-term fetuses and newborn infants lack the cognition required to attain the status of “person,” infanticide should be permitted under the same circumstances in which society permits the abortion of viable fetuses.

Singer is far from alone in tying the morality of infanticide to the ethics of late-term abortion. Several years ago, the Journal of Medical Ethics published an infanticide advocacy piece asserting that whatever justifies abortion also supports the right of parents to have unwanted infants killed:

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice “after-birth abortion”, rather than “infanticide”, to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which “abortions” in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

The evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne has similarly written that as a matter of Darwinian logic, killing a newborn and aborting a late-term fetus should be viewed through the same moral lens:

If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born?

I see no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral. After all, newborn babies aren’t aware of death, aren’t nearly as sentient as an older child or adult, and have no rational faculties to make judgments (and if there’s severe mental disability, would never develop such faculties).

The events of the last few weeks have moved the “Neuhaus Gauge” on infanticide from “debatable” to “justifiable” because it is now being embraced within the political and cultural mainstream. New York recently legalized late-term abortion and repealed a law requiring doctors to care for babies who survive abortions. A similar Virginia proposal made huge news but failed in committee. Rhode Island has a similar bill pending, supported by its governor. Meanwhile a Vermont bill aims to make abortion an absolute right without any limitation as to time of gestation, purpose, or method. The bill has 91 co-sponsors.

Further evidence can be seen in the support Governor of Virginia Ralph Northam received after asserting that babies who survive late-term abortion can legally be left to die. Northam falsely (according to a study published by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute) states that late-term abortions are restricted to “cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable.” Northam later said:

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.

Northam, a physician, is a specialist in pediatric neurology. His statement, made with such clinical detachment, chilled many. But Northam was defended—notably by New York Times liberal columnist Michelle Goldberg. Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported the brouhaha as merely a “Republicans pounce” political story, not a question of significant moral import.

This isn’t just a question of advocacy. Dutch doctors openly commit infanticide on babies born with terminal conditions or serious disabilities. Indeed, infanticide has become so socially acceptable that a bureaucratic checklist called the Groningen Protocol exists to help doctors decide which babies can be killed. Despite allowing this blatant human rights violation, the country remains in good standing in the international community. Meanwhile in the United States Senate, Democrats blocked a bill that would require medical professionals to provide care and treatment for babies born alive after abortion attempts.

How is it that infanticide has become justifiable when it was unthinkable in the years following World War II (German doctors were hanged at Nuremberg for killing disabled babies)?

The answer involves an increasing clash between contesting first principles vying for societal dominance. Is human life sacred, or does our moral worth depend on relevant personhood characteristics? Is society's ultimate purpose to protect all innocent human life or to eliminate suffering—a category which both includes eliminating the sufferer, and, as with an unwanted fetus or newborn, the perceived cause of suffering? The answers we ultimately give to these questions will determine whether infanticide is finally established as unexceptional.

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. His latest book is Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

https://www.createdequal.org/new-york-legalizes-infanticide-virginia-and-vermont-race-to-do-the-same/

New York Legalizes Infanticide, Virginia and Vermont Race to Do the Same

February 1, 2019 - by Mark Harrington

“When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers; I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.” -Isaiah 1:15-17

Think about this verse as it relates to America. According to this verse, is God going to bless us? Is He going to spark the hearts of His people here aflame and bring revival to our country? Of course not. Further, Leviticus 20:1-5 teaches that entire nations are guilty when they turn a blind eye to child sacrifice. It’s very hard to make a case that that isn’t exactly what the vast majority of the American church has done for 46 years. Hopefully, that will change with the passing of infanticide legalization in New York.

The focal point of the new law is that it codifies Roe v Wade into state law. Abortion is legal for any reason in New York before “viability.” It is also legal after viability if the baby has a disability or if the purpose of the abortion is to preserve the mental or physical “health” of the mother. “Health,” in this case, could mean almost anything. The mother could say she’s stressed out at the thought of being a parent and that could qualify for the mental health exception. The law also legalizes abortions performed by non-doctors such as nurses and nurse practitioners and repeals section 4164 of New York’s Public Health Law which mandated medical assistance for babies born alive after botched abortion.

Since the passing of the New York bill, the same legislation has been introduced in Vermont and Virginia. Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo also asked the Rhode Island legislator to send her the same bill. This is all on top of the six other states (Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Oregon) that already have no limit on abortion.

Most notably, Virginia delegate Kathy Tran, while being questioned by delegate Todd Gilbert on Tuesday, admitted that the bill, of which she was a primary sponsor, would allow doctors to murder a baby at 40 weeks as the mother is going into labor.

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam defended Delegate Tran on Wednesday while on WTOP radio. Northam makes clear that the bill would allow physicians and families to murder babies by neglect even after the baby is born. “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he said. “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 physician and the mother.”

To be clear, abortion is murder even in the earliest stages. But the additional shamefulness of being willing to murder babies as old as the babies these barbarians are talking about murdering is difficult to fathom.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said of the bill, “The Reproductive Health Act is a historic victory for New Yorkers and our progressive values.” The fact that child sacrifice is Neolithic Era barbarity appears to be lost to Governor Cuomo.

The fortunate part of all this is that abortion supporting politicians have been smoked out of their holes. They aren’t hiding their true beliefs anymore. They’re openly endorsing infanticide, which has all along been the logical conclusion of the “pro-choice” position. They’re out in the open and will have to defend that position; something which they are unable, or perhaps unwilling, to do. Henry Rodgers, a reporter for the Daily Caller, tried to get statements from congressional democrats on what was happening in New York and Virginia. Without exception, they refused to address it, all claiming they didn’t know what Rodgers was talking about.

It’s no wonder “pro-choice” politicians nationwide are racing to the nearest sandbank and burying their head in it. Their position is indefensible. The outrage with these state legislators and governors has been enormous. Delegate Tran deleted her social media accounts for more than 24 hours after the video came out.

Again, murder is murder. The age of the victim, whether just conceived, six months from conception, an infant, a young adult, middle-aged, or elderly, is irrelevant. But pray the anger at these bills would transfer into action; into an awakening for the church. It’s time to, through repentance, wash our hands of the blood and, through direct action and protest, end the killing of innocent preborn children.

Watch the Mark Harrington Show here. The Mark Harrington show airs Saturdays in Cleveland (1220AM and 96.6FM The Word at 10:30 a.m.), Columbus, OH (880AM and 104.5FM The Word at 1:30 p.m.), and Detroit (1500AM and 92.7FM Faith Talk at 8:30 a.m.). You can also listen on Podbean and iTunes Learn more about the Mark Harrington Show at www.MarkHarrington.org.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------