Our Infanticidal Moment

Our Infanticidal Moment

Senator Patty Murray (D, Wash.) is one of several Senate Democrats who appear set to oppose the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., July 12, 2017. (Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters)

Democrats are increasingly open in their support for abortion all the way through pregnancy. Legislation from Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) asks them whether they will draw a line even there.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which the Senate will consider on Monday, requires doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive in the course of attempted abortions and forbids killing them. Senator Sasse brought the legislation to the floor after Virginia’s Democratic governor Ralph Northam endorsed allowing mothers and physicians to determine whether newborns should be left to die, at least in some circumstances.

Democratic senators managed to avoid opining on Northam’s remarks, with help from reporters who chose to ignore or distort them. But Sasse’s bill forces the issue: Does increasing support among Democrats for abortion up until birth preclude them from supporting a bill that mandates medical care for newborns?

The answer appears to be yes. When Sasse requested unanimous consent to his legislation earlier this month, he was blocked by Democratic senator Patty Murray of Washington, who claimed that there are already laws against infanticide. In the context of abortion, this is false. No federal law enacts an explicit requirement that newborns be afforded “the same degree” of care that “any other child born alive at the same gestational age” would receive, as Sasse’s bill does. Only 33 states have a law like this in place, and those laws can, of course, be removed. New York’s recent abortion expansion affirmatively repealed the state’s born-alive protections.

Sounding eerily like Northam, opponents of the bill, including Planned Parenthood, claim that it will unduly restrict women’s health-care options. But this legislation places no restrictions on access to abortion or on the type of abortion a woman can receive. It creates criminal penalties for doctors who allow infants to die from lack of medical care and mandates that children delivered alive in abortion clinics be transported to a hospital. It requires reporting violations of the law, institutes penalties for directly killing a newborn, and grants the woman on whom an abortion is performed protection from prosecution and civil cause of action against the abortionist.

It is for obvious reasons that Democrats twist or disregard these facts to provide cover for their animosity toward this legislation. The born-alive bill might not limit abortion, but it uncovers the deep illogic of the pro-abortion-rights position. It compels politicians who defend abortion up to the moment of birth, but who remain sheepish about denying newborns a right to life, to confront their own irrationality.

If abortion-rights proponents concede that perhaps it is inhumane to permit an infant to perish the moment after birth, even if it was meant to have been aborted one minute earlier, they cannot explain why they would permit directly killing that same human being one minute earlier. If they admit that an infant, even an unwanted one, gains rights upon birth, they cannot explain why that same infant has no rights when it is inside his or her mother.

Democrats who oppose this bill will tacitly acknowledge that they believe an infant’s moral status stems not from its developmental stage or its location but from whether it is wanted by its mother. They will reveal that abortion is not a woman’s right to end her pregnancy but her right to end the life of her child.

In voting on this legislation, Democrats must choose between rejecting infanticide and arbitrary beliefs about who gets to live.

The Editors — The Editors comprise the senior editorial staff of the National Review magazine and website.


Will President Trump Be Kicked Off the 2020 New Jersey Presidential Ballot?

Will President Trump Be Kicked Off the 2020 New Jersey Presidential Ballot?

President Trump in MAGA Hat

The leftists never quit. Today, WFSB, channel 3, reports that the New Jersey State Senate has passed a bill requiring Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to disclose tax returns for the previous 5 years. From the article,

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — President Donald Trump could miss out on being on the 2020 ballot in New Jersey if he doesn’t disclose his tax returns under a bill now advancing.
The Democratic-led state Senate passed legislation Thursday inspired by the Republican president’s failure to disclose his tax returns.

The measure requires presidential and vice presidential candidates to release five years of federal tax returns in order to appear on the state’s Presidential & Vice Presidential ballots.

Trump broke with decades of tradition by refusing to release his income tax filings during his 2016 campaign. He said it was because he is being audited.

This is typical leftist noise that takes advantage of many folks’ who have little or no real financial expertise. Candidates for federal office, elected or appointed, are already required to file Federal Financial Disclosure documents. This also applies to certain senior military officers, mostly in senior command positions, or those involved with acquisition or contracting operations.

These documents are far more detailed than any personal tax return. I know. I’ve had to fill out a few Federal Financial Disclosure documents and definitely more than a few 1040’s. The FFD is much more of a pain in the 4th Point Of Contact than a 1040 ever was. I won’t show you my FFD, but you can see President Trump’s 2016 filing here.

Not noted by WSFB, but picked up by New Jersey Spotlight.com,

The measure would also prohibit Electoral College electors from voting for any candidate who did not comply with the disclosure requirement.

This is an interesting legal twist. New Jersey is likely on shaky legal ground by attempting to bar a constitutionally qualified president from the ballot. From the United States Constitution

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Pretty clear cut and also a pretty clear loser in court. Here’s where it gets interesting. Except as noted thusly,

no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector,

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President,

Other than as stated above, there are virtually no constitutional restrictions as to how the states may close their electors, nor are there any restrictions as to who the electors may or must vote for.

In short, keeping President Trump off the ballot because of a political jab masquerading as serious law, is probably unconstitutional. Directing state selected electors in who or who not to choose, I’m not so sure. I’d sure like to her from folks out there who actually have a JD.

Mike Ford is a retired Infantry Officer who writes on Military, Foreign Affairs and occasionally dabbles in Political and Economic matters.

Follow him on Twitter: @MikeFor10394583

You can find his other Red State work here.



NEW: Justin Fairfax Accusers Vanessa Tyson and Meredith Watson to Testify Before Virginia House Committee

NEW: Justin Fairfax Accusers Vanessa Tyson and Meredith Watson to Testify Before Virginia House Committee

NEW: Justin Fairfax Accusers Vanessa Tyson and Meredith Watson to Testify Before Virginia House Committee

Virginia Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax

A Virginia Republican announced Friday that two of Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax’s accusers will testify to the state’s judiciary committee in April when the legislature is back in session.

Dr. Vanessa Tyson, one of Justin Fairfax’s accusers, blasted the Virginia General Assembly in a statement Thursday for their failure to act regarding her allegations of sexual assault against the Lt. Governor.

While lawmakers in both parties have responded with words of concern, they have utterly failed to act and have stood idly by as Lt. Governor Fairfax has impugned Dr. Tyson’s actions as being politically motivated; verbally attacked Dr. Tyson and Ms. Watson; [and] threatened to file criminal charges against Dr. Tyson if she pursues criminal charges against him. … It now appears that the Virginia General Assembly lacks the political courage to establish a process by which Dr. Tyson and Ms. Watson’s serious allegations of sexual violence suffered at the hands of Lt. Governor Fairfax will be fully investigated. We ask the members of the Virginia General Assembly to consider what message such inaction sends to victims of sexual assault and rape, the statement from Dr. Tyson’s attorney said.

In response, Delegate Rob Bell, chairman of the House Courts of Justice Committee announced the panel will take action before the committee adjourns this weekend, reported Fox News.

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

“Today, the Courts of Justice Committee will schedule a meeting,” Bell said on the House floor. “We will invite Dr. Vanessa Tyson and Ms. Meredith Watson to testify. We will also be inviting Lt. Gov. Fairfax to testify to give all parties a chance to be heard.”


Dr. Vanessa Tyson was the first woman to come forward and claim Justin Fairfax sexually assaulted her at a DNC convention in Boston in 2004.

Dr. Tyson says after she was assaulted by Justin Fairfax, she “suffered from both deep humiliation and shame,” a common thing women experience after a traumatic sexual assault.

“I did not speak about it for years, and I (like most survivors) suppressed those memories and emotions as a necessary means to continue my studies, and to pursue my goal of building a successful career as an academic,” Dr. Tyson said in a statement.

A couple weeks ago, a second woman came forward and accused Virginia Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax of sexual assault.

The accuser, a woman named Meredith Watson, requested the resignation of Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax through her attorney Nancy Erika Smith, alleging Fairfax raped her in college in the year 2000.

According to the statement released by Nancy Erika Smith, Meredith Watson has contemporaneous witnesses, fellow classmates at Duke University, who provided statements corroborating Ms. Watson’s claims Fairfax raped her.

Justin Fairfax admitted to having encounters with both women, however, he maintains everything was consensual.


Former VP Spiro Agnew in 1980 asked Saudi leader for money to fight U.S. ‘Zionists’

Former VP Spiro Agnew in 1980 asked Saudi leader for money to fight U.S. ‘Zionists’

The late Vice President Spiro Agnew requested money in 1980 from Saudi Arabia to “continue to fight” against U.S. Zionists.

Agnew, who served for three years under Richard Nixon before resigning in 1973 in a corruption scandal from his time as the governor of Maryland in the 1960s, wrote to Fahd bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, then crown prince of Saudi Arabia, saying “I need desperately your financial support,” MSNBC  reported Thursday.

>> This excellent Watergate documentary is a guide to ousting a madman president

“You highness is already familiar with the unrelenting Zionist efforts to destroy me,” Agnew wrote, adding that Elliot Richardson, who was attorney general when Agnew was vice president, “attacked” him because Agnew “could not be trusted to act properly in the Middle East.”

The reason, he also wrote, “was that the Zionists in the United States knew that I would never agree to the continuance of the unfair and disastrous favoring of Israel and they had to get me out of office there so that I would not succeed Nixon.”

Since 1974, “The Zionists have orchestrated a well-organized attack on me” through lawsuits, Agnew said, “to bleed me of my resources to continue my effort to inform the American people of their control of the media and other influential sectors of American society.”

Agnew, who died in 1996, resigned amid revelations that he had engaged in corruption while governor and did not contest his conviction. But in his letter to the prince, he said the Zionists “framed” him.


Montana House Passes Preemption Bill

Montana House Passes Preemption Bill

The idea behind preemption, at least in part, is that preemption laws create a unified framework of gun laws so that those traveling in the state don’t find themselves breaking some gun law every time they stop for gas. The idea is to keep people from getting stupid with gun laws so that folks don’t become criminals by accident.

It’s pretty straightforward.

Right now, that idea is being put to the test in Pittsburgh, but the reasoning still stands.

Now, Montana is taking steps to make sure it has that same unified framework of gun laws. State legislators took the first big step by passing a bill in the House.

The Montana House on Thursday passed two bills seeking to prohibit local governments from passing strict gun ordinances.

Republican Rep. Matt Regier said his bills are a response to Missoula city ordinances that require background checks for private gun sales and ban weapons in certain public buildings, parks, places of public assembly and polling sites.

Regier argued Wednesday that local governments cannot regulate the concealed carrying of weapons and said his bills would prevent a patchwork of gun restrictions that could cause confusion.

“This bill will clarify our rights as Montana citizens and clarify the power of local authorities,” Regier said.

The first bill passed the House on a 57-42 vote and a second bill, a backup that calls for a referendum on the issue to be placed on the ballot, passed 56-43. The bills now go to the Senate.

The measure follows Missoula passing a background check bill. The state attorney general argued that the city didn’t have the authority, but a judge disagreed.

By passing a preemption law, that eradicates Missoula’s background check requirement.

Which is fine because only an idiot would believe such a thing would work.

Democrats argue that the bill would prevent localities from passing “common sense” gun control measures. Considering their idea of “common sense,” that’s probably a feature, not a bug.

The truth is, the Second Amendment’s text is clear. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

But I get that anti-gunners don’t buy that argument, so I’ll also point out that local background check ordinances are ridiculously easy to evade even if you want to comply with the letter of the law. A transaction a foot past the city limits doesn’t fall under their jurisdiction, for example. Couple that with the fact that criminals will still get guns and you can see how little such a law will accomplish.

More importantly, it means that someone traveling to Missoula to sell a gun to someone won’t find themselves arrested because they didn’t know it was illegal to do so.

That’s what preemption is meant to do and why it’s so important. The fact that Missoula did pass such a law is all the evidence in the world that it’s important.

Now it’s time for this bill to go to the Senate, get passed there and signed by the governor, and for Montanans to put this silly chapter in their history behind them.