Nothing screams “nasty woman” quite like Virginia lawmaker Kathy Tran’s cold-blooded and thankfully defeated bill that would have legalized de facto infanticide. When asked prior to the vote if her bill would allow the slaughter of a full-term baby during labor, she was forced to publicly admit that it would.

If it had passed, full-term healthy babies could have been slaughtered for any reason that a murderous doctor deemed a threat to a mother’s “mental health.” Just wondering, shouldn’t this be a hate crime? Wikipedia defines a hate crime as one in which a “perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group.” Doesn’t the premeditated, direct killing of humans based on their age fit that definition?

Tran’s morally transgressive and repugnant bill removed the requirement that abortion is permitted if “continuation of the pregnancy is likely to substantially and irremediably impair the mental… health of the woman.” She removed the words “substantially and irremediably.” This means that a mother could have her full-term child aborted if she says it would only insubstantially and remediably “impair” her “mental health.” And y’all know what that means. It means that Virginia would have followed Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont—where women can have their full-term babies killed for no reason—in legalizing de facto infanticide.

As I wrote several days ago, 24 other states permit the active, intentional killing of full-term babies for “mental health” reasons, which include “emotional, psychological, and familial” considerations. In other words, for any reason. What Tran’s removal of the words “substantially and irremediably” did was make it glaringly obvious that “mental health” is a deceitful rhetorical pretext to conceal that abortion of full-term, healthy humans is legal.

When asked about this barbaric law, Democratic governor and pediatric neurologist Dr. Ralph Northam employed some tricksy rhetoric to try to persuade listeners that de facto infanticide of full-term babies is justified if they are defective:

When we talk about third-trimester abortions…. it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus which is non-viable. So… if the 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 this is what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.

First, who calls a full-term baby a “fetus”? Interestingly, in the next sentence, he inadvertently acknowledged the truth that the full-term “fetus” is actually an infant.

Second, would an infant that may or may not be resuscitated be a dead infant—one whose breathing or heart has stopped? If so, this raises some questions. How did this fetus/infant in Northam’s sanitized hypothetical come to be dead? Was Northam alluding to the natural death of an infant born with a condition incompatible with life, or was he referring to an infant whose death was caused during labor by a Dr. Mengele-wannabe? If full-term babies can be killed because of severe deformities or terminal conditions one day prior to their birth day, why shouldn’t full-term babies with severe deformities or terminal conditions be killed post birth—also known euphemistically as “after-birth abortion.”

Tran and Northam seek to implement legislatively what philosopher Michael Tooley, Princeton University “bioethicist” Peter Singer, and eugenicists everywhere advocate. They advocate for the legal right of some humans—let’s call them Superhumans—to decide which humans have a right to live and which—because of their defects—have no such right. Let’s call the latter group the Expendables.

Tooley wrote this in 1972 in an article titled “Abortion and Infanticide”:

An organism possesses a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity…. If this view of the matter is roughly correct, there are two worries one is left with at the level of practical moral decisions, one of which may turn out to be deeply disturbing. The lesser worry is where the line is to be drawn in the case of infanticide…. The practical moral problem can thus be satisfactorily handled by choosing some period of time, such as a week after birth, as the interval during which infanticide will be permitted. This interval could then be modified once psychologists have established the point at which a human organism comes to believe that it is a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states.

Through some tortured reasoning about the ethics of torturing kittens, Tooley concludes that it is not membership in the species “homo sapiens” that determines the right to life but rather self-conceptualization as a “continuing subject of experiences and other mental states” and a belief that one is “such a continuing entity” that confers on humans a right to live. Therefore, neither newborns nor humans in the womb—or as Tooley calls them, “parasites”—enjoy that right.

As I have written, Peter Singer wants to extend killing “rights” 30 days post-natally to allow parents to ascertain the health status of their conditionally wanted children. After all, some imperfect humans may have escaped all the currently available tests for determining human perfection and, therefore, “wantedness.”

The infamous Singer himself acknowledges in his book Practical Ethics that we have already started down the unctuous slope:

I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show… this is not something to be regarded with horror…. [O]nce we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that… collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.

More recently, in 2011, two philosophers at the University of Melbourne, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, published a paper in which they advocated for “after-birth abortion”:

[W]e argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

In the “social justice” paradigm that divides society into oppressors and oppressed, who are the oppressors: the Superhumans or the Expendables?

We are fast returning to paganism, from pagan sexuality to child sacrifice. Is there a moral difference between sacrificing babies to imaginary gods and sacrificing babies to the god of self?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Virginia-Lawmaker-Wants-to-Make-Child-Sacrifice-Even-Easier_01.mp3

On February 22^nd, IFI is hosting a special forum with Dr. Erwin Lutzer as he teaches from his latest book, “The Church in Babylon,” answering the question, “How do we live faithfully in a culture that perceives our light as darkness?” This event is free and open to the public, and will be held at Jubilee Church in Medinah, Illinois.

Click HERE for more info…

(Caution: Not for younger readers.)

According to a lawsuit filed yesterday by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a high school boy in the city of Virginia, Minnesota (near Duluth) who is pretending to be a girl and whom school administrators allow to invade the privacy of girls has been accused of engaging in vulgar sexual gestures in a girls’ locker room.

A group of girls uncomfortable changing with this boy present had sought from the administration the privacy to which they are entitled. Rather than require the biological-sex-rejecting boy to move to a single-occupancy restroom to change, the school suggested the girls move to an unused boys’ basketball locker room in an elementary school basement—which they did. The biological-sex-rejecting boy soon followed them, and on one occasion lifted up his dress and “twerked” in front of girls who were wearing only their underwear.

Todd Starnes reports that the suit alleges the following:

• Student X commented on girls’ bodies while in the girls’ locker room, including asking Girl Plaintiff F about her bra size and asking her to “trade body parts” with him;

• Student X danced to loud music with sexually explicit lyrics while twerking, grinding and lifting up his skirt to reveal his underwear;

• Student X would dance in a sexually explicit manner “dancing like he was on a stripper pole” to songs with suggestive lyrics….

The lawsuit also alleges that “Student X walked into the…locker room while Girl Plaintiff A was in her underwear and removed his pants while he was near her and other girls who were also changing.”

So, while a troubled boy is allowed to use restrooms and locker rooms with only girls and designated for girls, actual girls are denied the right to use restrooms and locker rooms with only girls and designated for girls despite complaints from both the girls and their parents.

The lawsuit names as defendants “Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Independent School District Number 706 (the Virginia School District) and Secretary of Education John King, Jr.”

Psychiatrist Dr. Boris Vatel writing for Salvo Magazine makes clear some inconvenient truths about the “transgender” phenomenon of which school administrators seem ignorant:

The NYC Commission on Human Rights maintains that gender identity is “one’s internal deeply held sense of one’s gender, which may be the same or different from one’s sex assigned at birth.” This statement intentionally uses language to distort reality. Except in cases of rare medical conditions resulting in ambiguous genitalia, no one’s sex is “assigned” at birth any more than the fact of belonging to the human species is assigned at birth.

More significantly, this statement erroneously implies that a person’s beliefs about himself carry more legitimacy than the physical facts that contradict such beliefs. Using the Commission’s reasoning, can we declare an alternate “age identity” to be legitimately different from one’s true age? What about “race identity” or even “species identity”? If one accepts as legitimate the logic by which men may identify themselves as women and insist on being considered as such by others, there is no reason to reject as invalid any number of other idiosyncratic identities that have no basis in reality.

…To suggest that there is no such thing as objective reality, or that reality is less important than what one wishes it were, renders the entire concept of psychiatric disorder invalid. In fact, the only way to accept the transgender phenomenon as psychiatrically normal is to say that, as a measure of reality, physical evidence is subordinate to what a person believes about or wishes for himself. And on that logic, we have no basis for calling anyone delusional….

Reading through the APA’s position on the transgender phenomenon, one gets the impression that the only suffering and disability experienced by “gender nonconforming” individuals stem from prejudice and discrimination on the part of those who disapprove of them. In reality—that is, any reality apart from the current attempt to reframe this phenomenon as a civil rights issue—these individuals do experience a great deal of disability associated with being unable to function adequately in society, as do other patients whose delusions influence their appearance and behavior.

Although the public’s reaction to the appearance and behaviors of people who consider themselves transgender may, indeed, be negative, to say that the disability of transgender individuals consists of being the recipients of a negative public reaction means confusing the cause with the effect. The fact is that the disability originates in the abnormal mental experience of “transgender” individuals and not in having been born in the “wrong” body or of living in the “wrong” society. However, according to the inverted logic of those who support the LGBT agenda, when an external reality contradicts the internal experience, the solution lies in altering reality in such a way that it conforms to the internal experience. Hence, the advocated approach to addressing an idiosyncratic internal experience is to give the person a new external reality by means of a surgically altered body and a re-educated society.

Identifying the problem as ultimately external naturally leads to the kind of solutions proposed by the New York Commission on Human Rights: fines and sanctions against individuals and institutions that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of being transgender. Ironically, the fact that the Commission would force others to conform to the beliefs of transgender individuals speaks to just how much functional impairment the latter experience in their everyday lives as a result of their beliefs.

The response of organized medicine, and psychiatry in particular, to the transgender phenomenon has been intellectually dishonest and dangerous to the mental and physical health of affected individuals. The acceptance of transgender beliefs as psychiatrically normal has in many cases led to harmful medical interventions in which individuals undergo so-called “sex-reassignment” surgery. These operations cannot “reassign” sex; they can only disfigure normal anatomy.

And now schools are facilitating an intellectually dishonest and dangerous response to a psychiatric disorder—a response that harms both those students who suffer from gender dysphoria and all others.

Here’s an idea: How about parents of students in this district and all other Virginia, Minnesota community members organize a sit-in to protest this science-denying nonsense and moral outrage. They should sit in the superintendent’s office until the administration restores school policies and practices that prohibit students from accessing opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms, thereby fulfilling their obligation to protect the modesty and  privacy of girls and boys.

Oh, and maybe someone should send this story to School District U-46 CEO Tony Sanders.

“Laurie’s Chinwags”

Have you had a chance to checkout the latest special feature we are calling “Laurie’s Chinwags?” For the past few weeks, we’ve been adding audio recordings (aka podcasts) to articles written by Laurie. We hope this new feature will serve the needs and desires of IFI subscribers. We would appreciate any constructive feedback.