'Doesn't help him at all': Alleged lawyer's attempts to prove Ralph Northam's critics wrong go horribly awry

Now that Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s defense of infanticide has had a few hours to percolate, pro-abort lefties have had time to craft their defenses of Northam.

There are plenty of bad ones out there, but this one’s really special, because it’s being pushed by a trial lawyer who should really know better:

The Virginia bill anti-choice people are screaming about prohibits abortion in the third trimester unless (a) at a licensed hospital; (b) with a doctor certifying pregnancy is "likely" to cause harm to the mother; and, (c) life support's available and used if the fetus is viable.

— Max Kennerly (@MaxKennerly) January 30, 2019

Actually, what they’re “screaming about” is Virginia Democratic House Delegates and the sitting Virginia governor openly advocating for infanticide. But Max thinks he’s on the winning side of this argument:

Here's the relevant part of the bill directly from the Virginia legislature. Strikethrough shows language that would be removed from existing law, italics shows language to be added. Most of the criticism I've seen about this is just plain false. https://t.co/C0Lp2hPrpI pic.twitter.com/yvVBjWYzyR

— Max Kennerly (@MaxKennerly) January 30, 2019

Ralph Northam’s not the only one digging himself into a deeper hole. Does Max not realize that the language of the bill proves the bill’s critics correct?

1. Harm includes impairment of "mental health," which is relevant since the mental health exception swallows up any prohibition.

2. Part (c) is a misstatement. Life support is only required if the abortion is botched. https://t.co/qHlYKCuHwp

— Mo Mo (@molratty) January 30, 2019

i haven't seen anyone falsely describing this law whatsoever.

look at the language "impair the mental…health of the woman"

all you need is to find ONE doctor who thinks your "mental health" might be impacted by having a kid https://t.co/5wyxaxIDfx

— Joe Gabriel Simonson (@SaysSimonson) January 30, 2019

So the conservative outcry is correct: "harm" includes an ultrabroad scope of "mental harm" and the bill makes rendering heroic measures a simple matter of choice and at a reduced level of oversight (which defeats the "its so rare no one wants more!" rhetoric)

— Fasc (@FascBear) January 30, 2019

Third-trimester abortions if having the baby would “impair the … mental health of the woman.” Were removing “substantially and irredeemably”? Even a fleeting impairment is sufficient.

Hmm. Interesting.

— Josh (@EraserBud) January 30, 2019

It isn't that hard to read the proposed bill. It removes "substantially and irremediably" from the harm that must be demonstrated. So ANY harm. And life support is only available for "the product of such abortion." pic.twitter.com/GIk1ADO8Wc

— Mo Mo (@molratty) January 30, 2019

In addition, only one doctor needs to certify that there's harm pic.twitter.com/Ao9Hc8iK5p

— Mo Mo (@molratty) January 30, 2019

“The continuation of the pregnancy is likely to…impair the mental or physical health of the woman.” What’s the standard for impairing mental health? Because that seems mighty dubious. And this the reason for much of the anger. Because it has no definition or standard to be met.

— Just Some Guy (@jeremylatzke) January 30, 2019

This pleasant gloss on a bill that would apparently allow abortion *during labor* skirts around the fact that the legislation explicitly weakens the standard for what constitutes harm to maternal health — and removes the requirement that multiple doctors agree. https://t.co/ZuCI9Zl1kF

— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) January 30, 2019

I am reading the relevant part for the first time via your tweet. Astounding.

Then I re-read your tweet and realized that you think you’re helping the pro-choice side. And that’s even more astounding.

— Douglas Johnson (@ChicagoHound) January 30, 2019

sorry for giving you the actual language of the bill

— Max Kennerly (@MaxKennerly) January 30, 2019

Oh no, thank you. I had no idea it was THAT bad.

— Douglas Johnson (@ChicagoHound) January 30, 2019

Neither, apparently, did Max. Otherwise why the hell would he be using the bill’s language to try to prove Northam’s critics wrong? Clearly Kennerly doesn’t realize that he’s not doing Northam any favors:

I think @GovernorVA fumbled his words a bit, because he's discussing something else, i.e., when to terminate life support for neonates with terminal health conditions (he gives the example of "deformities"). That isn't addressed by VA House Bill No. 2491.

— Max Kennerly (@MaxKennerly) January 30, 2019

Oh, so now the defense is that Northam, a pediatric neurologist, doesn’t understand the topic of late-term abortions?

Gov. Northam flubbed a question routinely raised in every single bioethics class, but it's okay, you see, because he didn't know what he was talking about. ? https://t.co/pHHZIFA2QJ

— Friendly Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) January 30, 2019

Also Ralph Northam is a pediatrician.

I guess @MaxKennerly is fine with a guy who is supposed to know what he's talking about not knowing what he's talking about. https://t.co/ooUpK2aT9S

— RBe (@RBPundit) January 30, 2019

Now, if you want to say that the VA governor was misinformed about whether the bill would allow you to kill an infant once it's born, fine. That really doesn't help him at all since he's apparently fine with killing the infant once it's born.

— Mo Mo (@molratty) January 30, 2019

Max is really doing wonders for Northam’s reputation right now.

“Fumbled his words a bit”

Refreshing to see the desperate attempts to spin @GovernorVA’s words after leftists discover to their absolute shock that a majority of this nation still goes nuts after watching a governor advocating for the murder of babies after birth! https://t.co/a5KKtMFiNk

— The Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) January 30, 2019

But maybe we’re just overreacting: