I note the governor used ‘infant’ here.  Not ‘fetus’ or ‘clump of cells’.  ‘Infant’.

Shoutout, too, to Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran, for owning her share.  As reported here, Delegate Tran’s bill would permit abortion even if the mother was dilating.

1. MDs help me here: if baby has entered birth canal, can some sort of D&C procedure still be performed, or would be medically safer to let the baby be delivered first?
2. If delivered does that make the baby a person?
3. I lost source of comment, but someone raised question that shouldn’t the 14th Amendment (‘equal protection under the law’) apply to the baby.
4. I hear ‘non-viable’ used as a cover word for ‘what we really mean’, but there is apparently no such restriction in proposed language. What conditions would be considered ‘non-viable’ and why not put such text in the bill?
5. Could ‘white male’ be considered a ‘non-viable’ condition by an aggressive feminist mother and concurring physician?  If not, then why not?

I give another year before ‘untermenschen’ becomes an acceptable term in Democratic Party discussions.

Old version per NRSV

14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs

¹⁵ And he laid his hands on them and went on his way.

New version Per Diocese of Covington, KY

but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs

And he investigated them.

The Diocese trashed the kids before the exculpatory videos came out.  Now the Diocese’s reputation is itself trash.  My guess is that the Diocese will ‘investigate’ until it can a new way to shame those poor 15-year-old boys.

Found on TheGatewayPundit.com.

 

Jack Morrisey has apologized for his disgraceful tweet about the Covington High School teenagers.  Good for him, except the apology is apparently based on getting caught, not on contrition or realization of wrongdoing.

Morrissey said he deleted the tweet as [sic] soon after noticing negative reactions to it online.

 

With her request for the President to postpone the State of the Union speech.  The AP follows up with supportive editorializing

Pelosi, who issued the customary invitation to Trump weeks ago, hit the president in a vulnerable place, as he delights in taking his message to the public and has been preparing for the address for weeks.

So why couldn’t the President deliver the SOTU from the White House, with text sent to Congress the next day?  Where is this ‘vulnerable place’?  I think that Trump could give a speech, call it the SOTU, and blast Congress for not passing the appropriations he is requesting.

PS  Bonus editorializing in same article

Trump could opt to deliver a speech somewhere else, like the Oval Office, but it would not have the same ritualistic heft.

Says who?  And why not?  Straight up insider talk, no supporting quotes.

From an article in lohud.com about about the so-called ‘generational’ biotech center in Westchester County.  Ordinary article, then the jarring switch to first person plural “We won’t know for some time whether the project is truly “generational,” but its promise is real. “.  The article is not listed as opinion or review.  I suspect cut-and-paste from press release.

I also rolled my eyes at ” . . . but its promise is real”.  That says nothing.  I promise to lose 15 pound this year.  The promise is ‘real’.  Based on my past performance, such an occurrence is highly unlikely.  But I am sincere in my promise.

Oh, yeah, another ‘we’.

 

“Ideally, jobs will be created for people with different levels of education and skills. We’re not talking only about researchers in lab coats, as central as they are. There should be plenty of “middle-skills” jobs for people who may not have a college degree, but have specialized training for key roles. “

My emphasis.  Same point: looks like PR text copied to article.  My guess is an overscheduled reporter.  Where is the editor?

This is from an AP story about the partial government shutdown.

WHAT ABOUT TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS?

About 1,900 air traffic controllers — nearly one in every five — are eligible to retire right now.

“I don’t know how long they’re going to stay on the job if they are not getting a paycheck,” said Paul Rinaldi, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.

There is an even larger group of recently hired trainees and apprentices, and Rinaldi said a long shutdown could cause some of them to take other jobs.

Emphasis mine.  I am sure Mr. Rinaldi represents the interests of the air traffic controllers getting paid.  Only speculation from him.  No counterquotes from anyone else.

Roll over the picture from this AP story about air traffic and the partial government shutdown.  A caption appears.  The 2nd sentence is “The partial government shutdown is starting to effect air travelers.”  The correct word is ‘affect’.

That is my impression of Senator Schumer’s and Representative Pelosi’s chosen visual presentation.  Page down here to find picture.  Stern look as if to say “Junior you have gone far enough and it is time to talk sense.”  I find it 100% consistent with the Democrats-as-the-adults-in-the-room thinking.

The weaknesses are (1) we citizens of the USA are not children to be guided in our daily lives (2) as such, when such a high-talking attitude as presented by Schumer and Pelosi is rejected, they have nowhere to go.  I would have thought, as experienced politicians, that they would know better.

The tweet does not fit the preferred Democratic narrative.  Quoting a federal employee (or so she says), “please don’t give into a wall”.  OK!  So President Trump can presumably ignore pleas to resume funding the government without a wall.  He can point to Rep AOC for support.  Not sure how this helps the federal workers in her district.