First off, via Breitbart:

Immigration activists are pushing for illegal immigrants to be granted the right to vote in New York City and say legislation to that effect could be introduced later this year.

The New York Postreports that a proposal to extend voting rights to illegal immigrants, allowing them to vote in elections for city-wide offices, was highlighted at a Black and Latino Legislative Caucus event.

“We want to expand the right to vote for everybody, not suppress the vote. What a radical idea,” Bertha Lewis, head of the Black Institute, said according to the Post. The Post notes she said they expect such legislation to be introduced in the spring.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has made extensive efforts on behalf of illegal immigrants, including offering a city identification card. According to the Post, Lewis said she sees the extension of voting rights as part of that effort.

It is a pretty radical idea to be expanding the right of sovereign franchise to determine one’s representatives and government to people who are not citizens of the country and not even in the country legally.

Of course it’s part of the plan.  Disenfranchise American citizens who’d vote against people who’d take their rights away and bring in more people who will vote how the leftist collectivists desire so they can finally get rid of the real problems in America – because the root cause of all those problems are Americans.

And from National Review:

I attended a hearing on Monday afternoon before District of Columbia federal district court Judge Richard J. Leon that was one of the most “extraordinary” federal court hearings I have ever attended, to use Judge Leon’s description of the case. The hearing was over the temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction (PI) being sought by the League of Women Voters and a host of other leftist groups to stop the recent decision of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to allow Kansas, Georgia, Alabama, and Arizona to enforce their proof-of-citizenship voter-registration requirement.

This morning, as I predicted would happen in an article on Sunday, the U.S. Justice Department took a dive and filed a pleading in which it not only failed to defend the actions of the EAC, but agreed with the plaintiffs and consented to both a TRO and a PI. Judge Leon called the pleading “unprecedented” and “extraordinary.” He said he had never seen such a document in his entire experience as a lawyer or a judge. He was obviously astonished that the Justice Department was not defending the agency, and it was soon clear he was not going to allow DOJ to just roll over.

The League of Women Voters, which has a wonderfully innocuous name, is pushing to oppose proof-of-citizenship as a voter registration requirement.  There’s no conceivable reason why they’d want to do this unless they want noncitizens to illegally vote.

The judge issued orders just before the hearing started granting the motions of both the State of Kansas and the Public Interest Legal Foundation to intervene in the case in order to defend the EAC’s position. So Kris Kobach, the Secretary of State of Kansas, was given time to argue against the TRO motion, as was Christian Adams of PILF. The judge opened the hearing by reading into the record an astonishing letter he had just received from the chair of the EAC, Christie McCormick. It informed the court that DOJ had told the EAC that it would not defend the agency, and that it would not allow the EAC to hire its own counsel. McCormick informed the judge that she believed DOJ was not fulfilling its duty and obligation to defend the EAC and had a potential conflict of interest.

It was clear that Judge Leon was shocked at what DOJ had done. While he gave the plaintiffs 20 minutes to argue their case, he gave the lawyer from the Federal Programs Branch of DOJ only five minutes because he said that DOJ was obviously on the same side as the plaintiffs. He also said almost immediately that he would not grant a PI without a complete briefing and arguments on the case — despite DOJ wanting to consent to the PI. Judge Leon made clear that there was “no chance at all — zero” that he would do what the plaintiffs and the Justice Department wanted him to do on that issue.

Let that sink in.  The DOJ, which is charged with enforcing the law, is on the same side of this as people actively trying to circumvent the law.

We’ve known the Obama DOJ has been a political organ dedicated to the ends of the hard left since they covered up Fast & Furious, but this is the DOJ outright defending voter fraud – the same voter fraud the left will try to tell you doesn’t really exist.

Judge Leon talked about all of the cases in which the Federal Programs Branch has been involved in his courtroom, and said he had never seen the type of incomplete brief that DOJ had filed in this case. He said that those briefs “usually cover the waterfront” in terms of raising every legal argument to defend an agency. Leon was very dismissive of the DOJ’s position, its behavior, and its failure to mount a defense consistent with its usual practice. Secretary of State Kobach did a much better job than the plaintiffs in explaining why the plaintiffs had not met the standards for the issuance of a TRO. Kobach pointed out the many errors and mistakes made by the plaintiffs’ lawyer. And he laid out the evidence of noncitizens registering and voting in Kansas — which is why this proof-of-citizenship law is needed.

There is a crystal clear example of why proof of citizenship laws are needed, because noncitizens are illegally voting in elections.  And to this, the DOJ responded:

It was clear that this hearing did not go the way the plaintiffs’ lawyers and DOJ had tried to arrange it to go. They thought the fix was in. In fact, it went so badly, particularly with DOJ being called on the carpet by Judge Leon, that at the end when the plaintiffs’ lawyer got up to try to repair all the holes that Kobach had knocked in their case, the lawyer tried to compare the EAC action to Nazi Germany. He waved the EAC opinion at issue in the air and said “this is what Nazis do behind closed doors!” You know a lawyer is desperate when he tries to equate a dispute over an election administration issue to Nazi Germany.

How bad is it exactly when asking that people who are eligible to vote be asked to prove they are eligible to vote since there are people illegally voting?

And how far have we fallen as a country when the Department of Justice is out saying that any state that wants to abide by elections law, when it has evidence of ongoing illegal voting and states demanding justice, will instead call them Nazis?

Preferences, Pluralities and Primary Elections

Posted: February 25, 2016 by ShortTimer in 2016 Elections

Part of the discussion about the 2016 Republican primaries recently has been about how Trump is “winning”.

Except he’s not really winning the party, he’s winning pluralities.

Right now a doom & gloom poll for Texas says Cruz and Trump are almost tied, with Rubio behind them a bit, and Kasich and Carson and the rest trailing in single digits.

Thing is, much like the last “wins” Trump has, they’re basically pluralities.  There was a piece I read a couple weeks back about the idea of getting a candidate that almost no one likes, and I think that’s what’s coming if we end up with Trump.

I’ve already said my piece on him, and I stand by it.  Beyond the superficial personality issues, politically he’s not conservative, libertarian, or anything but an East Coast NY leftist crony according to his own record.

What should be a clear indicator is that he made a business of running casinos… a business which by it’s very construct exists to swindle people out of their money while giving them fanciful promises.

Thing is, if losers like Kasich (who no one likes), and unfortunate losers like Carson (who everyone likes, but very few people think could be president anymore) stay in the race crowding the ballot, they dilute the vote.  With Cruz and Rubio running head to head, and often for the same voters, they lose because they split their own vote.

Consider the numbers listed in the HotAir link above concerning Oklahoma:

Trump 29%
Rubio 21%
Cruz 20%
Carson 6%
Kasich 5%

29% support… and that means 71% are opposed to Trump.  7 out of 10 do not want him.  He’s good at manipulating the media, and he has a lot of vocal supporters who either haven’t looked at his history, or simply have chosen not to care because they’re swept up in the moment of “winning”… at 30%.

Finally, from Mike V at Sipsey Street Irregulars:

An anonymous future Trump chump takes issue with my post Meanwhile, the Trump cult of personality claims the reputation of another unprincipled useful idiot, saying “Keep bitching about Trump and you better get ready to say hello to president Hilary.”

My reply:

Hillary will never make it past the indictments. The Obamanoids are already pimping without any subtlety the Biden-Warren “savior ticket.” This I predicted some time ago. Hillary will be a footnote to the history about to be manipulated. When that happens, look for Warren in particular to attack Trump’s vicious and shameful treatment of women. He makes Bill Clinton look positively saint-like in comparison. In addition, his appetites for other people’s property will be put on vivid display by the collectivist media machine — eminent domain here, his rapacious treatment of the Scots who sit in the way of his golf course across the Atlantic, his sucking up to various dictatorial regimes to build stuff — you name it. They will make him look like a cross between Simon Legree and the robber barons, which is uncomfortably close to the truth. (The moron actually let himself be videoed sitting out front of a Scottish home owned by a couple of pensioners telling the camera that he doesn’t give a shit about their distress — this is on a full length documentary that is being held until the moment he becomes the GOP candidate.)

The failed Trump run will in the end look like a set-up stalking horse for the Dems when that happens and YOU, not I (for I will be dead by then) will be stuck with the death of the Republic and civil war. I have endorsed no one, including Cruz, but that doesn’t mean I don’t see the future of this about-to-spectacularly-fail demagogue clearly. Believe in Trump’s so-called principles if you like, but you might as well throw in devotion to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the notion that unicorns shit golden skittles. Look in the mirror then and you will see a Trump chump staring back in regret.

There’s a little more at Sipsey Street, and while I’m not so sure about a Warren-Biden ticket, just consider a Sanders ticket versus Trump and how it would play out.

Sanders, an avowed socialist who basically never held a job in his life and honeymooned in the Soviet Union, is someone opposed to taking little old ladies’ houses, while Trump is on record as actively wanting to use cronies in government to take a little old lady’s house so he could tear it down and build a limo parking lot for his casino.

He’s like a poorly written Disney villain, or maybe a bad guy from a PG rated teen summer movie, where the evil developer wants to tear down the teen rec center/ski lodge/orphanage to build something gaudy, terrible, destructive to the community, and that would be objectively worse.

That’s not someone to celebrate, and that’s certainly not an embodiment of any kind of conservative/libertarian/American principles.  Well, unless you’re Sanders and wanting to point out the evils of capitalism (even though it’s really the evils of cronyism).

Update: Via National Review:

Surprise! Donald Trump is a rank hypocrite on immigration.

Per the New York Times: Donald J. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach describes itself as “one of the most highly regarded private clubs in the world,” and it is not just the very-well-to-do who want to get in. Since 2010, nearly 300 United States residents have applied or been referred for jobs as waiters, waitresses, cooks and housekeepers there. But according to federal records, only 17 have been hired.

Or, put another way, Trump has deliberately chosen to hire foreign workers to fill those jobs that “Americans just won’t do.” 17 out of 300? That’s 5.6 percent. 17 out of 500? That’s 3.4 percent. Bad!

So what’s Trump’s excuse? That’s he’s a businessman and that these are the realities on the ground? That, I’m afraid, won’t wash. When Disney behaved like this, there was a loud and sustained outcry from . . . well, no less than Donald Trump himself. In an interview with Breitbart, Trump argued that Disney should be forced to rehire any Americans it had overlooked or replaced.

…the good people of America should realize that they’re being duped by a bad man who doesn’t give a hoot about anybody other than himself.

I don’t like wasting electrons on Trump, but his actions are directly contrary to his words, and directly contrary to the wishes of the great majority of his supporters.

When somebody abuses immigrant visa programs to bring in cheap foreign labor while ignoring American workers, to still have supporters means there’s either ignorance (incidental or willful) or a willingness to overlook and ignore flaws that would be inexcusable in other candidates… and in fact their chosen candidate doesn’t excuse that in others.

This is why the numbers are running at 70% against within his own party (well, his party for the last year or so).  There are still people in the field diluting it and we the voters, both primary voters and national voters – for those who remain independent in closed primary states – end up with a candidate that no one really likes.

We used to end up with the worst establishment candidates because they’d garner a plurality while opposition would be split, now we might be ending up with the worst anti-establishment candidate because the anti-establishment vote is split.

It figures.

From the Washington Times:

President Obama called on Senate Republicans Tuesday to give his eventual Supreme Court nominee a fair hearing in his bid to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, as cracks emerged in the Republican leadership’s position of automatically blocking any nominee.

“I expect them to hold hearings. I expect them to hold a vote,” Mr. Obama said at a press conference. “There’s no unwritten law that says it can only be done on off years.”  …

“This is the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land,” the president said. “It’s the one court where we would expect elected officials to rise above day-to-day politics. I understand the stakes. I understand the pressure that Republican senators are undoubtedly under. This would be a deciding vote. But that’s not how the system is supposed to work.”

Unless Democrats were running it.  They did everything in their power to stop Bork from getting on the Supreme Court, and they succeeded.

Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form a “solid phalanx” to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace Powell, assuming that it would tilt the court rightward. Democrats warned Reagan there would be a fight over the nomination if Bork were to be the nominee.  …

Within 45 minutes of Bork’s nomination to the Court, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring,

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.[6]

On July 5th, NAACP executive director Benjamin Hooks described their position on the Bork nomination: “We will fight it all the way – until hell freezes over, and then we’ll skate across on the ice.”[7] A brief was prepared for Joe Biden, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the Biden Report. Bork later said in his book The Tempting of America that the report “so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility”.[8] TV ads produced by People For the American Way and narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist, and Kennedy’s speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork’s nomination. The rapid response of Kennedy’s “Robert Bork’s America” speech stunned the Reagan White House; though conservatives considered Kennedy’s accusations slanderous,[9] the attacks went unanswered for two and a half months

Democrats scream, lie, throw tantrums, and fabricate everything they can and stop at nothing to block a nomination.

But it looks like the GOP is going to give up on their constituents without a fight.  And they wonder why Trump and Cruz are popular?

SenateJudiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, didn’t rule out confirmation hearings and a vote by his panel on an Obama selection.

“I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decision,” Mr. Grassley said Tuesday in a conference call with Iowa radio reporters. “In other words, take it a step at a time.”

Dammit, Grassley, just hold the damn line.  Just say no.  Because if you let him appoint a replacement for Scalia, Ginsburg will finally retire and they’ll put in another justice immediately afterwards.  For the next 30 years we’ll have a hard left majority led by Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and they’ll push Roberts over every time and probably Kennedy until he retires.

It’ll be just as bad as when FDR tried packing the court with his justices.

HotAir points out that not only is Grassley wavering under Obama’s pressure, Obama was a hypocrite who filibustered Alito’s nomination.  And he still thinks it’s cool what he did… but they shouldn’t, because now it’s going to be his nominee they stop.

Of course he had to filibuster Alito’s nomination.  Obama’s a Democrat and Alito was a nomination by a Republican president.  And of course the Republicans should respect the polite process of confirming Democrat nominations, because Democrats are shameless hypocrites and Republicans are apparently gullible idiots.

You can contact your senator and tell them to grow a spine here: http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/

Also, we’re not even entirely sure Scalia’s death was of natural causes.

Veteran homicide investigators in New York and Washington, DC, on Monday questioned the way local and federal authorities in Texas handled the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

“It’s not unreasonable to ask for an autopsy in this case, particularly knowing who he is,” retired Brooklyn homicide Detective Patricia Tufo told The Post.

“He’s not at home. There are no witnesses to his death, and there was no reported explanation for why a pillow is over his head,” Tufo said. “So I think under the circumstances it’s not unreasonable to request an autopsy. Despite the fact that he has pre-existing ailments and the fact that he’s almost 80 years old, you want to be sure that it’s not something other than natural causes.”

Bill Ritchie, a retired deputy chief and former head of criminal investigations for the DC police, said he was dumbstruck when he learned that no autopsy would be performed.

Last night listening to the radio, I heard someone suggest that any really high-profile figure with massive implications for the nation should probably automatically have an autopsy done.

Seems quite reasonable, actually.

Finnish Anti-Rape Video PSA – Use the Force

Posted: February 14, 2016 by ShortTimer in Europe, Humor, Middle East
Tags:

Yesterday’s loss is going to be depressing for some time, even if looking at Scalia’s life as one to celebrate and his sharp arguments as ones to emulate.

So today, as something that’s slightly cheerier, some mocking the stupidity of the left – a Finnish Anti-Rape PSA via the Jawa Report:

Yes, that one’s real.  From its description:

As a response to the exponential increase of Rapes and Gang rapes of Finnish women with the influx of so-called “refugees”, The Finnish Police of Oulu have released a training video for women called “Say No!”. Possession of Pepper spray for women is, like in Sweden where you face up to 6 months in prison, illegal. Any citizen carrying any sort of efficient self defense faces huge fines. The government insists that disarming law abiding Finnish citizens will stop crime – in fact the opposite result has caused devastating effects with crime rate skyrocketing as foreign criminals aren’t particularly concerned with complying with weapon laws. Criminals are armed to the teeth, helpless single women will face prison over carrying pepper spray. In a recent case, a 17 year old girl in Denmark has been sentenced to a fine because she hurt the attacker with illegal pepper spray while he was trying to brutalize and rape her.

According to the Police of the city of over 200,000 inhabitants, the top methods for deterring a rapists is apparently saying “No, please go”, using “The Force” with your oven gloves, looking angry and hitting the rapist with your handbag. This is extraordinarily awful advice coming from the Police, as physical resistance of a disarmed woman usually has terrible consequences and usually amplifies the violence used by much stronger male attackers, especially of foreign origin.

And the parody:

Of course, in Europe light sabers are illegal.

RIP Antonin Scalia

Posted: February 13, 2016 by ShortTimer in Conservatism, US Supreme Court

Died out at a ranch in Marfa, TX last night.

The test is over the long run does it require the society to adhere to those principles contained in the Constitution or does it lead to a society that is essentially governed by nine justices’ version of what equal protection ought to mean?

He was an originalist, looking for what the Founders meant, and he stuck to the text.  The Constitution meant what it said, not what someone pretended they wanted it to say.

His importance couldn’t be understated as someone who understood that laws mean something, that they have to mean what they say.  There’s no subjective “interpretation”, there’s “what does it say?”  A strong basis of what the rules are, of lawfulness, allows for stability and certainty.  It’s the kind of things nations need, markets need, individuals need.

There will be others who eulogize him far better than I do in these few sentences, but he was someone who let you know what the rules were, and someone who sought to make them clear.  His rulings helped make for a nation closer to one where there’s no need for a law degree to understand the laws that you have to live within and follow, no need to worry that laws would be made unequal because someone wanted to make themselves “more equal”, and no need to worry someone would use laws you couldn’t understand and couldn’t follow against you.

He will be missed, and his passing marks a potentially terrifying shift further from liberty.

If it’s to be believed, Republicans in the Senate are going to try to hold the line against progressive leftist tyranny until such time as at least the next president can appoint a justice:

mcconnell senate scalia announcement 160213We the People have been let down by the likes of McConnell enough that we know that statement’s not worth the paper it’s printed on or the electrons that show it on a screen… but here’s hoping that the election year prompts, as Milton Friedman would advise us “to get the wrong people to do the right thing”.

Update: IA Senator Chuck Grassley is also saying no to any confirmation this year.

“The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year,” Grassley said.

“Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this president, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”…

In his remarks, Grassley called Scalia, who died Saturday at the age of 79, “an intellectual giant.”

“He had an unwavering dedication to the founding document that has guided our country for nearly 230 years,” he said of Scalia’s interpretation of the Constitution. “His humor, devotion to the Constitution and quick wit will be remembered for years to come.”

Everybody’s already read about the Oregon standoff with the Hammonds (and the Bundys), how the Hammonds were convicted of arson for burning some land clear, how they were sentenced and the judge said they didn’t deserve the mandatory minimum because it was clear they were doing a range burn with a purpose that wasn’t vandalism or destruction, and how things went to hell from there when another court said they had to serve mandatory minimums because that was the law, right or wrong.  Then the situation got worse, with federal law enforcement escalating things and with ranchers (many of whom were not originally involved) also escalating things.

Congressman Greg Walden’s speech is something that was lost in that discussion, because it was easy for people disinterested in the situation to write it off as some reactionary militia action or some ranchers whining about not getting more free land to graze on.

Its worth watching if you’d like backstory to the whole standoff, and why there are some folks who are still mad about it today.

Frankly, the congressman explaining how the administrators of federal land went back on agreements written into law is the kind of thing that should offend everyone, but it’s lost because the messengers were coopted by the Bundy clowns.

Doritos, NARAL, and Sci Fi

Posted: February 8, 2016 by ShortTimer in Culture, Philosophy, Science
Tags:

In the last few weeks, I keep piling up stories that will probably be strung together in a few Field Day posts, but this story from HotAir I didn’t want to leave on the back burner and get to later.

The title is “I suppose we should talk about that Doritos ad“.

This is the ad:

And this was the response from NARAL:

And a screenshot in case it disappears:

naral superbowl 50 tweet humanizing fetuses

So they’re opposed to humanizing human offspring, because it’s some tactic of the anti-choice movement.  Humanizing fetuses is… bad?

NARAL’s twitter feed sounds like the hard leftist craziness it is, but as they’re not the kind of people I follow on twitter – Twitchy does a fine job of keeping up on that sort of thing anyway.

Not sure why they use the statue of liberty as their twitter avatar, seeing as how she’s in favor of accepting those poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free, not yearning to crush the lives from people who will never breathe, but I guess irony escapes them.

I’m a sci fi fan (and I don’t care that it’s become SF or “speculative fiction” to clean up the image of bug-eyed monsters from the 50s), and from the perspective of most humanist sci fi, I can’t see any way that NARAL doesn’t come across as utter monsters.

I just spent part of this morning watching SFDebris Star Trek reviews – I enjoy seeing what someone else has thought of classic (and not so classic) episodes of the past – and even if I don’t always agree with the takes that he has on them, I usually gain some greater understanding of the episode and story.  This morning one episode review I watched was his review of Star Trek: Enterprise Similitude.

Enterprise was the prequel spinoff series that aired in the late 90s early 2000s and fared poorly.  Especially compared to The Next Generation and Deep Space 9 (which was highly underrated), Enterprise was weak.

The story Similitude involves the chief engineer getting seriously injured after an engine mishap, the ship getting stuck in some kind of anomaly that was decaying the hull, and the need to save the engineer.  So the highly unethical ship’s doctor decided to make a clone of the engineer by using some alien critter larva, then force-grow the clone, and basically strip it for parts.

Thing is, the clone is recognized as a person.  Even though it was grown for the specific purpose of being harvested for organs, the clone is a copy down to neurological pathways of the original, so it has his memories and knowledge (dubious science, I know), and is fully self-aware and more than a little opposed to being used for parts.  In the end the clone cares more for the comatose engineer and the memories of trying to make things right for his/their lost sister and family, especially knowing it’s force-grown and will age and die in a few days.

Even in this mediocrely written sci fi, there’s some understanding that something is being done with life – that life isn’t something to casually throw away, and that a human life (or near-human life) is a valuable life – and that virtue of life is acknowledged even if it’s a force-grown clone created with a specific purpose.

Plenty of folks on twitter smacked NARAL around by pointing out the definition of a fetus is “a developing human”, but the whole thing strikes me as something both telling and sinister.  It shows the character of people who are in NARAL and those who support it, and it’s really disturbing.

From an alien perspective, an alien may or may not care for the idea of terminating gestating offspring, but denying that a gestating offspring is still a member of the parent race is just nonsensical.

If aliens from Zeta Reticuli said, “yeah, we kill our offspring when it’s inconvenient for us because we value the agency of full-grown Reticulans over those of our larva”, you might well find them offensive, especially depending on their history and culture.

If they said, “yeah, we kill our gestating fetuses when it’s inconvenient for us because those things aren’t Reticulans”, you’d probably find them to be poorly written or a race in absurd denial in order to justify their actions.

The problem for NARAL might be that saying you should be able to kill offspring – which is their position – then makes it solely a question of timing.  The argument I remember hearing in college philosophy courses was the “future like ours” theory, that means you could kill off the weak, crippled, or handicapped, but that you shouldn’t kill off the strong in the womb.  The same argument also began to apply to “future like ours” as in what can be provided for the offspring, thus it’s was okay to kill the strong if you were poor and couldn’t afford an ideal future for that offspring.  There was also an argument that human offspring aren’t capable of independent life before a certain time period, and that makes it okay to kill them because they’re not individual beings yet – this is intended to be a trimester argument, but its logical conclusion would include newborns and children up to a few years of age who couldn’t survive in nature without assistance (an argument that has been made before).

Those last parts become unpalatable and monstrous to most of society right now.  Using sci fi/speculative fiction to explore the concepts, there’s not necessarily a reason they couldn’t become or be considered acceptable, given the proper framework.  Maybe a warrior group kills the weakest of its offspring, or an overpopulated planet exterminates them, but even then there’s a reason.  The warrior race wants to be stronger, the overpopulated planet is concerned with its stability – they understand the offspring are theirs, but deny them life for a reason (albeit ones we may not agree with).  I still couldn’t see a writer coming up with any kind of logic to a race that would deny its own offspring, unless it were an intentional flaw in the race – like some kind of adherence to an obsolete philosophy from when they were warlike or too numerous to survive that they now take as gospel.  It might work for an group with a strict collectivist mentality that’s harshly enforced, or for a group that steadfastly believes in some throwback idea that they don’t realize they’ve outgrown.

Human cultures in the past have engaged in practices like those, but concern for our species and enlightened concern for all humanity has moved us past that… except for the people who want to drag us back.  NARAL denies the humanity of a developing offspring that even infanticidal cultures of the past would not – because the infanticidal cultures of the past acknowledged it as a decision, either an ugly one or one they simply choose to be willfully apathetic about due to circumstance – while NARAL is afraid of the moral bankruptcy or perception of callousness that comes from acknowledging what they’re advocating.