In fact, the Disney Groomer News Network "moderators" lied themselves in claiming that current abortion protocols don't allow doctors to "have a discussion" about the fate of a born-alive abortion-surviving baby, as the former Virginia Democrat Governor admitted on the air.
Democrat lawmakers have repeatedly expressed support for laws that would allow abortionists to end the lives of babies who survive abortions -- and voted against laws that protect babies who survive abortions.
That's a fact that former President Donald Trump highlighted during Tuesday night's debate, drawing the annoyance of Vice President Kamala Harris and the admonishment of debate moderator Linsey Davis.
"There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it is born," Davis said Tuesday evening, as Trump argued that some Democrats support executing babies after birth.
Trump was referring to 2019 comments made by former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a Democrat, as he discussed Democrat Virginia state Rep. Kathy Tran's House Bill 2491.
"If a mother is in labor...the infant would be delivered," Northam explained. "The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated, if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother."
Advertisement
Northam did not specify what would happen next, after this discussion.
He continued then: "So I think this is really blown out of proportion. We want the government not to be involved in these decisions."
Tran's bill, which did not pass, would have eliminated "all the procedures and processes" that are "required to effect a woman's informed written consent to the performance of an abortion."
She herself admitted that under her bill, unborn babies could be aborted "through the third trimester," adding, "I don't think we have a limit in the bill."
"So...where it's obvious that a woman is about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could perform an abortion, if she was so certified?" asked Republican Virginia delegate Todd Gilbert. "She's dilating."
"My bill would allow that, yes," responded Tran.
When Trump accused Harris of an intent to take away people's guns, Harris called this "continuous lying." David Muir said nothing.
If he were really interested in fact-checking, rather than ideological enforcement, he could have pointed out that in 2019, Kamala Harris argued with Joe Biden at the Democrat primary debate. Harris argued that she didn't need Congress to take away people's "assault weapons." She claimed she would have this power, innately, as president.
Biden said she wouldn't, and urged her: "Let's be constitutional."
She literally laughed at him for this sentiment.
David Muir should have remembered this exchange.
She said she could. And would.
"Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody's guns away," Harris insisted in reply, adding, "Stop with the continuous lying about this stuff."
Tickets for "Am I Racist?" are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.
She had previously alluded to her personal firearm during her ill-fated presidential campaign in 2019, saying, "I am a gun owner, and I own a gun for probably the reason a lot of people do -- for personal safety. I was a career prosecutor."
Advertisement
But Harris did say that she favored mandatory gun buybacks, a position challenged during one of the 2019 primary debates by then-candidate Joe Biden and moderator David Muir.
During that debate, Biden argued that gun buybacks could not be enacted via executive order. Muir pressed Harris for a response, asking, "Does the Vice President have a point there?"
"I would say hey, Joe, instead of saying no we can't, let's say yes we can," she said, tossing her hair and laughing.
Advertisement
"Let's be constitutional," Biden shot back. "We got a constitution."
"Yes we can," Harris insisted, still laughing.