The No Good Very Bad Week of Gov. Ralph Northam

[Aexodus]

Why would I have those numbers when late term abortions in the UK are strictly regulated?

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/abortion/

They can be carried out after 24 weeks in certain circumstances – for example, if the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability.

The problem with mental health clauses is that doctors claim the pregnancy itself will be a worse effect on the mental health of the mother than an abortion. Thus an abortion on mental health grounds is very easy to get, de facto, but not de jure, on demand. This is why 98% of our abortions are done on category C grounds: mental health.

[The spartan]

Why would I have those numbers when late term abortions in the UK are strictly regulated?

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/abortion/

So your concern isn't about late-term abortions? Or, what was the purpose of bringing up UK stats if they don't indicate anything about late term?

The problem with mental health clauses is that doctors claim the pregnancy itself will be a worse effect on the mental health of the mother than an abortion. Thus an abortion on mental health grounds is very easy to get, de facto, but not de jure, on demand. This is why 98% of our abortions are done on category C grounds: mental health.

It sounds like how you categorize it over there isn't really the same to how we do it over here. A woman here doesn't need to list a mental health reason to receive an abortion in the first trimester. But again, your contention seems to hinge on the idea that significant numbers of women will try to have an abortion in the late-term, because they changed their minds or something, by falsely claiming mental health issues, and that physicians (and insurance companies, they won't want to just pay for expensive procedures on whims) will just go along with this. That seems incredibly dubious in my mind, and if true, implies a lot of nefarious things about physicians.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I don't care if he resigns or not, despite the fact he is pro-infanticide. I just want this episode to demonstrate that the real race-obsessed is borne of and adopted by the democrat party, not the Republicans. It is the democrats that are obsessed by race, and the weaponization of race relations.

If the race-obsessed democrats are willing to give a pass to an infanticide-promoting governor, so be it. Good luck in 2020. Honestly how anyone can support this trainwreck of a party is beyond me, I think you'd have to be delusional.

I honestly don't understand why anyone could vote democrat any more.

[Aexodus]

So your concern isn't about late-term abortions? Or, what was the purpose of bringing up UK stats if they don't indicate anything about late term?

My comcern is the legitimacy of mental health as grounds for an abortion.

But again, your contention seems to hinge on the idea that significant numbers of women will try to have an abortion in the late-term, because they changed their minds or something,

No it doesn’t. It’s about tying up loose ends in the law. I think abortion on mental health harm grounds is bad, and it should be illegal. Permanent or lasting mental injury should be the requirement.

by falsely claiming mental health issues, and that physicians (and insurance companies, they won't want to just pay for expensive procedures on whims) will just go along with this. That seems incredibly dubious in my mind, and if true, implies a lot of nefarious things about physicians.

Wanting laws preventing physicians from doing terrible things assumes they are nefarious?

I mean it’s not like there haven’t been abusive doctors or outright murderous individuals - an extreme minority - in the past.

[The spartan]

My comcern is the legitimacy of mental health as grounds for an abortion.

No it doesn’t. It’s about tying up loose ends in the law. I think abortion on mental health harm grounds is bad, and it should be illegal. Permanent or lasting mental injury should be the requirement.

Well you are losing me. In America, I am presuming much of Europe as well, you don't need to provide mental health reason for getting an abortion in the first trimester. An abortion for the sake of the health of the mother (including mental health) is handled on an individual basis by overseeing physicians and the patient. It isn't like if any mental health issue presents whatsoever, physicians are going to recommend abortions, it would only be recommended in cases where the mental health had a medical impact on the pregnancy. Again, what is the exact scenario you are fearful of here? A woman in a late term pregnancy decides she doesn't want the baby anymore so goes to her physician to "make up an excuse" for a late term abortion? Or is it you just don't want a patient and physician to have the option of abortion if they both believe it is medically necessary? What are you trying to prevent here?

Wanting laws preventing physicians from doing terrible things assumes they are nefarious?

I mean it’s not like there haven’t been abusive doctors or outright murderous individuals - an extreme minority - in the past.

If you believe that a significantly large number of them are operating in malpractice, yeah, that seems like an assumption they are nefarious. Your whole point was that they would approve late term abortions where not medically necessary, was it not?

[Aexodus]

What are you trying to prevent here?

That abortions could be given under what I consider to be shaky grounds at best. Again, 98% of UK abortions are under category C, why do you think this is? Which category do you think a teenage pregnancy would be most likely to get an abortion under? Teenage pregnancies are aborted almost 3 times as at the rate as pregnancies in general, does this mean teenage pregnancies (in fairness below the age of 15/16 it definitely can be dangerous, but that’s a minority of teen pregnancies) are more harmful to the mother’s health by such a ratio?

If you believe that a significantly large number of them are operating in malpractice, yeah, that seems like an assumption they are nefarious

I actually said they are an ‘extreme minority’ and I want laws that can impound such doctors. New York removing abortion from the criminal code entirely is a step backwards of medieval proportions. Why? Because a doctor can’t be criminalised for an unlawful abortion. There are zero protections whatsoever for the unborn. Zilch.

[The spartan]

That abortions could be given under what I consider to be shaky grounds at best. Again, 98% of UK abortions are under category C, why do you think this is? Which category do you think a teenage pregnancy would be most likely to get an abortion under? Teenage pregnancies are aborted almost 3 times as at the rate as pregnancies in general, does this mean teenage pregnancies (in fairness below the age of 15/16 it definitely can be dangerous, but that’s a minority of teen pregnancies) are more harmful to the mother’s health by such a ratio?

Well no, I find your demands for a medical reason for a first trimester abortion to be ridiculous. We don't do that here in the States.

I actually said they are an ‘extreme minority’ and I want laws that can impound such doctors. New York removing abortion from the criminal code entirely is a step backwards of medieval proportions. Why? Because a doctor can’t be criminalised for an unlawful abortion. There are zero protections whatsoever for the unborn. Zilch.

So then, it isn't actually that much of a problem? Because I don't know what you want to do about it. It is possible to audit a physicians work to look for malpractice, that is already a thing. And what do you mean doctors can't get in trouble for abortion? It isn't usually a home procedure, especially if a physician is involved. Are you saying there are clinics or hospitals providing unlawful abortions? Because there are tons of ways to shut that down quick, provided you have evidence for it.

These accusations seem vague and scattered, which really makes it come across as a "general attack" on abortion by exploiting a misinterpretation of a news story. Like, you don't seemed concerned about a particular aspect of this specific bill, with the one in Virginia clearly going no where, you just wanted to talk about all the "bad ways" abortion currently exists.

[mongrel]

it would set another precedent for politicians resigning over spurious "sensitive" happenings of youthful indiscretions.

Putting that aside, I'm more concerned that the school was so backward that it would happily be associated with such obviously racist imagery.

I never understood the American frenzy surrounding blackface. I understand the need to spread the word in places that don't particularly share American sensitivities about (the black)race even less. Unfortunately even here for some reason it has turned into a terrible, terrible thing and has made a big deal out of rather innocuous traditions. I also love how revisionist America can be, continuously judging the past using the lens of the present. Well except for Washington I guess, he is cool.

It might be down to the US having a large black population who are now able to complain without risk of a lynching.

Humour’s subjective. .

Would you share this 'humour' with Samuel L Jackson or Mike Tyson?

Nazi dog man is a criminal is he not? As another poster says the equivalent would be Prince Harry. Now he's grown up, he is obviously decided that white supremacy isn't for him.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Are you talking about the New York bill, or the Virginia one? Those are two different bills (and don't forget, absolutely anybody can write a bill). The only argument I have heard against the New York bill is that "it allows doctors to lie about the reason for abortion and grant one late term anyway", which seems like a dumb argument as they could do the exact same thing right now without the bill. The Virginia bill was just proposed by Kathy Tran, and obviously has no chance whatsoever of passing a Republican held house and senate, nor have I seen evidence of congressional support for it even by her constituency. Now, I don't know if you know this, but crazy bills get proposed to state legislatures all the time. I remember when North Carolina proposed having an official State religion, and it had a lot more support than Kathy Tran's proposal. The reason is that state legislatures can act rather schizoid and so these bills can kinda just be brought to the floor to talk about, but they almost never have a chance of actually passing and, even if they do, they will almost certainly be challenged on the National level by the Feds.

Both. As for the New York one, it reads as follows: " the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."
Look at that, it's our good friend, "health". Unlike Virginia, no one admitted that it also means mental health, but who's to say that it doesn't mean that upon reading the actual text? "To protect the patients health" is simply too ambiguous.

Thanks for all the unrelated "whatabouts", some of which don't actually include real people (there aren't "pro-abortionists", buddy). If you think Kathy Tran throwing a random bill no one likes on the Virginia state floor is like a National government shut down, or the complexities around climate change, well, I guess it just shows how dishonest you are?

My bad, should have said "pro-choice". And those weren't whataboutisms, that was me saying that who cares if this hasn't passed yet? that's no reason to ignore it.
You're right, it's much worse than the shutdown, that didn't kill anyone. This, if it passes, will.
To be able to call anyone pro-life dishonest for thinking that this is a major issue you have to be completely ignorant of why people are against it. If it passes, it will lead to, eventually, the murder of millions. If someone were to introduce a bill for, say, the execution of everyone who belongs to a specific racial group, would you not be horrified and go against it? Because that's pretty much how I see this, people being killed because they might be an inconvenience.

Which I assume you also define as an abortion within the first trimester? It always weirds me out; you do know that the large majority of Europeans (now including Ireland since their relatively recent vote on it) don't consider abortion in the allotted time to be baby killing. Do they all support killing babies, in your mind? Does most of the West just in favor of killing babies? Or perhaps they don't see it that way, huh?

In my honest opinion, yes. But that isn't the current topic.
While you could make the argument during the first trimester that it isn't a life but just "a bundle of cells" (as opposed to humans, who are also bundles of cells), you can't make this argument for abortions on the day of birth, for example.

It was an anecdote to demonstrate people who have familiarity with actual Democrats know they don't want to kill babies. Do you know many Democrats who talk about how much better it would be if more babies were dead, or something?

I don't think anyone here thinks that all democrats want to kill babies, it is however the direction that the party is heading towards.
As for wanting babies dead, perhaps not quite that, but there are articles calling on people to have fewer children, such as these:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...top-ncna820781
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-...obal-warming-1
They do believe that it would be better if there were fewer babies.

Would you share this 'humour' with Samuel L Jackson or Mike Tyson?

Great, you understand the meaning of "subjective".

Nazi dog man is a criminal is he not?

Only because your system is broken.

[Aexodus]

So the guy who would have been Northam’s replacement is now facing rape allegations. The woman has hired the same people that represented Blasey Ford.

Where’s the Believe Survivors crowd now?

[mongrel]

Great, you understand the meaning of "subjective".

The more direct and simplest answer is no.

Only because your system is broken.

The had a fair trial.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Turns out Washington Post had been approached by the victim over a year ago, but did not publish the story due to lack of corroborating evidence, something that did not stop media outlets from running the Kavanaugh story.

The more direct and simplest answer is no.

Oh, so you don't understand what subjective means? I'll explain, it means that some might find it funny, while others may not.
Case in point: You pointed out 2 individuals who might not find it funny. Someone out there, like whoever made the joke, probably does find it funny.

The had a fair trial.

Sure, witch trials were also in accordance with the law.

[Barry Goldwater]

Much has already been said about Ralph Northam's atrocious conduct, whether it be his advocacy for infanticide or his racist med-school yearbook photo where he either wore blackface or a Klan hood or his incredibly cringeworthy press conference in response to said photo - where he not only failed to convincingly persuade any viewer with half a brain that he was not in fact either of the guys in said photo shortly after admitting to being one of the two pictured & apologizing for it, but incredibly admitted to having worn blackface before and that he was indeed nicknamed 'Coonman'; went on a tangent to describe how to best apply blackface to oneself using shoe polish like only someone who's done this enough times to be a pro could; and almost moonwalked until his wife, clearly the brains of their relationship, reminded him that that would be inappropriate (to say the least) - so instead of going over all that again, I'll just say that as a Virginian, these past few days have embarrassed my state more than having Corey Stewart as our Senator would have. And that if anyone actually believes the multiple lines of bull Northam's trying to sell now, I've got a dozen bridges in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

Compounding the embarrassment, Northam had spent the entirety of the 2017 gubernatorial campaign trying to paint his opponent, Ed Gillespie - who, it should be noted, was an establishment Republican rather than the alt-right option (that would be the aforementioned Corey Stewart, an unapologetic birther, neo-Confederate and Pizzagater) - as some sort of demonic white nationalist, even running an ad suggesting his supporters as the kind of people who'd try to run over children. That garbage was laughable to begin with coming from a man who refused to shake his black opponent's hand back in 2013, but now that we know he goes by the moniker 'Coonman' & loves dressing in blackface, Klan hoods or both? It's downright hilarious. And by hilarious I mean memorably so, because I hope Virginia remembers and delivers the Democrats a landslide defeat if they dare pull this outrageously hypocritical race-baiting tripe ever again.
And yes, as some of the above posters have referenced, as if this storm couldn't get any worse, Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax now faces allegations of sexual assault. The man who would have replaced Northam if he had a sufficient sense of shame to resign and who was already preparing to take over his boss's seat when the photo leaked, only to be sorely disappointed when Northam insisted he'd stay has been accused by Vanessa Tyson, a professor at Scripps College, of sexually assaulting her in a Boston hotel during the 2004 Democratic National Convention and has retained the same legal team that represented Christine Blasey Ford. He denies raping her, maintaining that they had sex but it was consensual, and has insinuated that Northam's crew revved this case up to get at him (conversely, given how ready he was to take over the Executive Mansion, I'd say there's a non-zero chance that he in turn may have leaked the yearbook photo to accelerate the succession, not that it particularly matters now). So even if Northam does resign tomorrow, all that will accomplish is replacing the hypocritical racist currently sitting in the Executive Mansion with someone who's under suspicion of being a hypocritical sex offender.

It tickles me pink that the Washington Post took care to actually look into the story and then decide not to run it because of a lack of corroboration, which in no way stopped them from going all-out against Kavanaugh previously (or any number of other cases, including Gillespie's), and that the same voices that were calling for the Covington kids to be doxxed, hounded or butchered with a sadistic fervor and imagination to match any NKVD interrogator have been utterly silent or at best tepidly called for resignations (followed with no action) in both of these cases - certainly, there's been no push among the Virginia Dems to impeach either. Nevermind that, respectively, the accusation against Fairfax has a specified time and place (unlike the less substantial accusations against Kavanaugh) and Northam's photo was taken when he was in his 20s and not under any duress, unlike the Covington MAGA teenager. The irony here is so sharp that an emo could slit their wrists with it.

Now, for some good news. Elections for both houses of our General Assembly are due this November, and the Democrats have helpfully decided to implode nine months early. All the Republicans have to do is bring up the yearbook photo, the infanticidal statement, the sex abuse allegations and the raging hypocrisy of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and their party whenever people start to forget. I know I'll be doing my part to keep the memories alive and help run these sanctimonious, race-baiting, two-faced clowns out of office when the time comes. Nevertheless: I share OP's belief that Northam (and now also Fairfax) should not resign for two reasons, firstly because age-old embarrassing yearbook photos from when we were young and stupid shouldn't destroy our lives & because the presumption of innocence still exists (though the Democrats certainly don't seem to believe either of these things as of late, Northam and Fairfax themselves among the least of all), but secondly so that they'll linger long enough to weigh the Democrats down even further in the November elections and make a sweeping GOP victory there & in 2021 that much more likely. No doubt the Virginia GOP has made similar political calculations already, on top of having deduced that although Northam & Fairfax's conduct was decidedly less than stellar, they aren't breaking the state constitution and thus meeting the threshold for impeachment either. This entire week has been nothing short of an utter disgrace and the Virginia Democrats have comprehensively demonstrated that they are in dire need of a stiff rebuke at the hands of the voters.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Much has already been said about Ralph Northam's atrocious conduct, whether it be his advocacy for infanticide

And now, ironically, he is fighting to try and survive full term.

[Barry Goldwater]

And now, ironically, he is fighting to try and survive full term.

I'm sure he can be kept comfortable, and that his career can be resuscitated if that's what the Democrats desire

[mongrel]

Oh, so you don't understand what subjective means? I'll explain, it means that some might find it funny, while others may not..

Do you know what a racist is? Someone who argues that the photo is funny. I don't care if such people find it amusing.

Sure, witch trials were also in accordance with the law.

He was able to defend himself. His argument was found wanting.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Do you know what a racist is? Someone who argues that the photo is funny. I don't care if such people find it amusing.

I don't find it particularly tasteful either, but declaring people who find something to be amusing to be racist is a step too far.

He was able to defend himself. His argument was found wanting.

Yeah, because context was wilfully ignored, and regardless such an authoritarian law should not be a law at all. However, we are going off topic.

[Barry Goldwater]

Incredibly, the situation has managed to find a way to get even worse for the VA Dems. Now in addition to everything I said and linked to in my previous post here, it turns out that the Attorney General, Mark Herring, who is second in the line of succession, has ALSO worn blackface before. This means that, even if Northam were to resign/get impeached for his blackface controversy tomorrow, and Fairfax in turn resigned/got impeached over his sex abuse allegations, we'd be back to square one with Herring anyway.

[mongrel]

I don't find it particularly tasteful either, but declaring people who find something to be amusing to be racist is a step too far.

I don't think anyone who is not racist would fail be mindful of the thousands of innocent people killed by those bedsheeted terrorists.My comment is a fair one. Such a picture should not have been produced in a yearbook . Let us humour you though and presume there is a scintilla of an argument., go tell us in what way is white supremacist murder or any other form of terrorism can be found funny?

Yeah, because context was wilfully ignored, and regardless such an authoritarian law should not be a law at all. However, we are going off topic.

He was tried in a court which applied the law as willed by a sovereign parliament.. If the had a lawful excuse for his conduct he was free to offer one, after all with all that foreign money backing his defence fund he could hire the best available. He lost his case. The UK lost nothing.

Incredibly, the situation has managed to find a way to get even worse for the VA Dems. Now in addition to everything I said and linked to in my previous post here, it turns out that the Attorney General, Mark Herring, who is second in the line of succession, has ALSO worn blackface before. This means that, even if Northam were to resign/get impeached for his blackface controversy tomorrow, and Fairfax in turn resigned/got impeached over his sex abuse allegations, we'd be back to square one with Herring anyway.

Damn.

I can imagine the next Democrat convention looking like this...

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I don't think anyone who is not racist would fail be mindful of the thousands of innocent people killed by those bedsheeted terrorists.My comment is a fair one. Such a picture should not have been produced in a yearbook . Let us humour you though and presume there is a scintilla of an argument., go tell us in what way is white supremacist murder or any other form of terrorism can be found funny?

How about holocaust jokes? A good one will crack me up, even though I myself would have been killed had I been alive during it. Does it make me an anti-Semite for laughing?

He was tried in a court which applied the law as willed by a sovereign parliament.. If the had a lawful excuse for his conduct he was free to offer one, after all with all that foreign money backing his defence fund he could hire the best available. He lost his case. The UK lost nothing.

Since when do you need a lawful excuse to tell a fing joke?! "Oi mate, you got a license for that joke?!"